Comment by faitswulff
4 years ago
Yes, you are victim blaming. Men aren’t wild bears, they’re human beings who should be held accountable for their actions. How drunk someone is around another human being has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s culpability.
I don't think that's what the parent meant.
If someone is intoxicated, I agree that it seems weird to disregard their consent when drugs+alcohols are the social lubricant of society (and very interwined with sex).
Also, of course you are responsible for your actions even when under the influence (drive and kill someone? no excuse because you were intoxicated - it's your fault). It's crazy to me that people call that "victim blaming". Although I understand how someone can take advantage of others, I don't think the distinction is intoxicated = taken advantage of.
Someone being assaulted when they’re intoxicated is not equivalent to someone knowingly driving a car when they’re drunk. The sexual predator consciously chooses to assault their victim; the car doesn’t choose to crash.
EDIT - a lot of you seem to think that this is equivalent to a DUI. It is not. If you are driving under the influence, then you are the perpetrator of the accident. If you are drunk and somebody else sexually assaults you, then the other person is the perpetrator.
Cars don't choose, the driver does. The driver is always responsible, regardless of state of inebriation.
There's a very big distinction to be made here between an assault and if the person gives consent - or sometimes could even be the initiator. Again, to be very clear, I'm not saying that was the case here.
If you get drunk downtown, does it make getting your pockets picked and your smartphone stolen your fault?
You’re stupid if you get drunk downtown with an expensive smartphone where it can be easily stolen. Still, does it mean that you have somehow to share jail time with your thief, or does it mean that the thief has to serve less time, or that your thief may go with your smartphone because it’s your fault to get drunk downtown in the first place?
Explain please.
>If you get drunk downtown, does it make getting your pockets picked and your smartphone stolen your fault?
Even if you are not drunk those are still not your fault in the way its argued here. A better (similar) analogy would be: if you are drunk and someone downtown asks you for 60$ and you give them, but tomorrow realize your mistake, is it your fault?
3 replies →
> Yes, you are victim blaming. Men aren’t wild bears.
They're also not harmless. And I chose the word person for a reason - this could happen between a straight man and a gay man, or a woman could take advantage of a drunk man (although he's not likely to regret it, unless maybe he's married or something - or she gets pregnant)
The thing is I think you have some responsibility for your own decisions, drunk or not.
I don't think it's right to take advantage of someone who's drunk - but it's tough to prove that after the fact and many a young man has had their lives ruined by a woman who they thought consented and then later accused them of rape.
On the other hand I can really empathize with the woman's POV here, and think that it's terrible that there are men out there who take advantage of them when they're under the influence - and I'm sure that's more common.
This just doesn't seem cut and dried.
Victim blaming or not, I think most parents wisely caution their children about alcohol, intoxication, and making good decisions about their own personal safety, when they reach the appropriate age. What parent doesn’t have that conversation with their teenage kid?
I don't think eloff is Yifan's parent.
> I think most parents wisely caution their daughters about alcohol, intoxication, and making good decisions about their own personal safety
> What parent doesn’t have that conversation with their teenage daughter?
Sorry, α-reduced your comment. Force of habit. Also, the pattern matching checker complained your examples only apply to a subset of possible genders.
Without being too flippant, I'd like to point out that we do actually hold wild bears accountable for their actions. There was a news report last week about a bear shot somewhere in the US because it had attacked someone (it seemed to have been trying to guard a particularly valuable food stash).
The point is that many comments here are assuming that men lack the agency to keep themselves from assaulting people. That lets the men off the hook. To your example, if we blame the bear, we should blame the man, as well.
Absolutely. We do blame wild bears for their actions (we shoot them). We should blame men for their actions (shooting them is likely considered less appropriate in most cases).
Some men decide to behave like wild bears, it seems. So while it indeed doesn't change anything about the responsibility, it is still a good idea to take steps that could prevent becoming a victim in the first place.
Speak up HN, don't let voices like this dominate and represent you. Of course what the OP said was not victim blaming. How ridiculous! Several times the commenter expressed doubt and kept asking if he/she is wrong and how would like to be corrected if that is the case.
You come in here with the high moral ground and make such wild indignant proclamation that "men are not bears." Please take this to another community.
> How drunk someone is around another human being has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s culpability.
This is just stupid on its face. DUI exists for a reason and DUI tests are given not because police assumes the drivers, of course would, "take responsibility" and not drink, but because the police exercises common sense if an idiot driver is unable to walk a straight line.