Debate:Alcohol, Sexual Victimization, and Victim Blaming

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by HailSinfonia.


This debate is not about whether rape victims are responsible for their own victimization by rapists. Before engaging in debate please acknowledge that a victim of rape, whether or not intoxicated, is never responsible for their victimization. Attitudes that blame victims of rape excuse perpetrators and reduce the likelihood of the prosecution of rapists. Such attitudes thus increase everyone's vulnerability to rape. If you disagree with the previous statements (especially as a result of a knee-jerk reaction), then this debate is probably not for you.

The Motion: Advising someone to drink responsibly (or not at all) in order to avoid being sexually victimized always equates to victim-blaming because it implicitly (or, sometimes explicitly) places the blame for the rape, assault, or other unwanted sexual contact on the victim, either partially or wholly.

For The Motion[edit]

My opinion is that the advice "Drink sensibly" or "Don't drink" is not victim blamey (It's reasonable advice) BUT the advice "Drink sensibly or Don't Drink To stop you sexually assaulted or raped is. My reasons. First of all, paraphrase Anita Sarkeesian, these things are not said in a vacuum. We as a culture say to women "To avoid being raped do x, y, z." One of the most prominent of these is "don't drink" and when a drunk woman is raped, we often say "she shouldn't have been drunk" or worse. This obviously excuses the rapist. When we say "Don't drink to stop you being sexually assaulted" we (unintentionally) reinforce this narrative. So it is always victim blamey. Bazer63 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Against The Motion[edit]

Advising someone to drink responsibly in order to minimize their risk of sexual victimization does not necessarily imply fault on the part of the victim. Some people may be of the opinion that if a woman gets drunk and then gets raped, then she is partially responsible for what happened. But, rape is always necessarily the result of the rapist's decision to actually commit rape. It is possible for the person giving the cautionary advice to realize this and to acknowledge that, even if the advisee decides to follow that advice, they are never fully in control of whether someone chooses to victimize them because they cannot control the will and intentions of any potential perpetrator. Thus, it is possible to advise someone to drink carefully to minimize their risk of sexual victimization - not because failing to do so would put them at fault if they do become a victim, but because doing so would reduce their statistical odds of being victimized. Therefore, it is possible to advise someone to drink responsibly without blaming them for the actions of others which negatively affect them, should the fail to comply; it is not necessarily the case that such cautionary advice equates to victim-blaming. --HailSinfonia (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this mean that advising someone to not use certain clothes when going out is also valid and not blaming the victim? Like with alcohol, it would just be an advice based on lowering the likelihood of being raped, not actually blaming the victim if it did happen. ~epixSay What? 03:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say the difference is that alcohol physically affects the brain and can lead one to make choices or decisions that one would not make sober; clothes do not have this effect, unless we go to the extremes of hypothermia/hyperthermia. Thanos6 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
True. Now that I think of it, in the case of the clothing advice, the person giving the advice is also implying that there actually is a higher chance of getting raped based on how you dress. As far as I know, that's at least unconfirmed and at most plain bullshit.~epixSay What? 21:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Who's to blame[edit]

OK, so two people get drunk (both above the age of consent, to cover that base) and have sex. Afterwards, who's the victim and who's perp, if there are any to begin with?--Arisboch (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends on if any of them planned to get the other drunk and if either of them wouldn't have agreed to sex if they hadn't been inebriated. (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And if they're both drunk as hell and wouldn't have shagged each-other, when sober?--Arisboch (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"Having sex" doesn't involve one person being a "victim" and the other one a "perp". If you actually meant that two people got drunk & one raped the other, the rapist is the perp & the other is the victim. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)