Consent Has No Double-Standard

Back in 2011, a feminist blogger named Sasha made an interesting observation about our legal system: murder victims' consent is treated differently from rape victims' consent. In murder cases, our starting assumption is that the alleged victim did not consent to the act (until proven otherwise), whereas in cases of sexual encounters, our starting assumption is that the alleged victim did consent to the act (until proven otherwise). Why is that? Why are our starting assumptions (or null hypotheses) exact opposites in cases of rape and murder? This sounds like an absolutely disgusting double-standard. Sasha describes this state of affairs by saying that women are presumed to exist in a perpetual state of consent.

“But what if women weren't presumed to exist in a state of perpetual consent?” – Sasha Said
http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/

Now, do I think there is a double-standard at play here? No, I think there is one, single, underlying standard which explains the apparent difference between how we treat consent in murder cases, and how we treat consent in rape cases.

Before I explain what I think this underlying standard is, I’d like to see if I can get you, the reader, to figure it out. I’m going to offer you a hypothetical situation, and then I’m going to ask you to explain what is wrong with this state of affairs. If you come to a different conclusion than I do, let me know.

Imagine that I propose a law, and this law dictates that in cases of murder, where it has already been established that the accused person did indeed kill the victim, the accused person is still innocent until it is proven that the victim did not consent to being killed (assuming, of course, that this would vindicate the accused person). In other words, unless the prosecution can prove that the dead person clearly stated that they didn’t want to die, the default assumption of the court is that the dead person agreed to being killed, and the murderer would go free.

Now, obviously this is ridiculous, but why is it ridiculous? Why don’t we assume that murder victims agreed to be murdered until proven otherwise?

Here is my answer; I think this law would be ridiculous because the vast majority of murders are non-consensual, and understandably so: do you look forward to death? Therefore, it doesn't make sense to assume, as a starting point, that any one particular murder victim did consent, and to require the prosecution to prove otherwise. It would be ridiculous to think this way given what we know of murder and of peoples’ strong aversion to dying.

However, what if people didn't have a strong aversion to dying? What if being murdered was an enjoyable experience? How would that affect this thought experiment?

Let's return to our thought experiment, but now let's imagine that all humans are in constant pain, and murdering another person was seen as a great act of altruism. In this world, that the vast majority of murders are consensual, and understandably so. I think that in this world, the law I proposed would be reasonable, since the vast majority of murders are consensual, so it makes sense for our null hypothesis, our starting assumption, to be that any one instance of murder is consensual unless proven otherwise.

Similarly, in the real world, I think that because the vast majority of sexual encounters are consensual, it makes sense to assume that any one particular sexual encounter is consensual unless proven otherwise, thus placing the burden of proving otherwise on the accuser.

In other words, and this is my key point: if you are claiming that this particular incident (of rape, murder, etc.) is different from other events like it, then it is your job to prove that this incident is, in fact, different. This is how the burden of proof works in all crimes, and this, I think, is why people are assumed to be in a perpetual state of consent when it comes to sex, and a perpetual state of non-consent when it comes to being killed: people usually enjoy sex, and people usually don't enjoy dying. It would be disastrous to confuse these two very different acts, as illustrated by the first version of our thought experiment, as well as by the image below.

This is a false analogy because "kidnapping" implies non-consent, whereas "having sex" does not.
A proper analogy would be between having sex and carpooling.

To reiterate: the reason why people are assumed to be in a “perpetual state of consent” with regard to sex, but not with regard to murder, is because normally, having sex is consensual, and being murdered is not, so it's reasonable to assume that any one particular murder victim did not consent, and that any one particular sexual participant did consent. If, however, you are claiming that this particular incident was different (e.g. I did not consent to sex, or the man did consent to being killed), then it’s on you to prove it.

People are also presumed to be in a state of “perpetual consent” when they carpool with someone they know (I mean, “kidnapped”), or when they are hugged by a family member (I mean, “assaulted”). This is because these things are normal, everyday events that people normally consent to. If you want to claim that your friend kidnapped you, or that your family member assaulted you, then it’s your job to prove that this incident was different from the other times you've carpooled with that friend or been hugged by that family member.

This, I think, explains the apparent double-standard between court cases of rape and murder, and demonstrates that, in fact, the same standard is used in both.

Anita Sarkesian vs. Real-Life Women

What follows is not meant to tie into a larger criticism of Anita Sarkesian's work (or at least, I hope it doesn't lead me down that rabbit hole): it is simply meant to demonstrate that there are valid things to criticize about her work and the arguments she makes, and to add to the pool of calm, reasonable critiques of her ideas.

----------------------------------------

One of the issues that Anita has with many video games is the fact that when game designers need to draw a female character, they simply take a male character and add "feminizing gender signifiers" to it, thus creating a "female" character. This, she says, reinforces the gender binary, stereotypes women, and reinforces the idea of "male" as the default.

An example of a how a male character is transformed into
a female character  by adding feminizing gender signifiers.

However, the reason video game creators do this in video games is because that's how women look in real life: if you look at an average-looking man and an average looking woman, you notice that while they both have the same basic face, the woman has usually added additional visual features that most men don't typically have, including:

> Long, dark eyelashes (mascara)
> Makeup (blush, eyeliner, lipstick)
> Jewelry (earrings, pendants, rings)
> Long hair, which sticks out from the skull, unlike male hair which usually hugs the skull (or is absent altogether).

The reason why game designers create female characters by adding visual features to male characters is because that's how women create the "female appearance" in real life: women take the same basic face that men have, and then they add visual features to it. If most women didn't grow their hair out, or wear makeup, or wear jewelry, then video game females wouldn't have those feminizing gender signifiers: it would make no sense. It would be just as irrelevant and unclear as giving all male characters a tattoo of a fish on their faces "just to show that they're male."

A prime example of why video game designers use gender signifiers.

If Anita really wants feminizing gender signifiers to go away, and if she doesn't want the "male appearance" to be the basic, default appearance, then she should be fighting against feminizing gender signifiers at their source: real-life women. If real-life women didn't use gender signifiers, then video game women wouldn't use them either.

If women didn't accessorize this appearance, then video game
designers wouldn't do it either. Pictured: Emilia Clarke

But, of course, even if Anita agreed with this line of reasoning, she would never tell real-life women what they can and can't wear, so she'd be stuck. All she could do is petition video game creators to have no genders in video games, which would never happen, and which is why I think this argument of hers is silly.


UPDATE [3/21/2015] - I was wrong: Anita Sarkesion would tell real-life women what they can and can't do (or wear): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHDbZ2hHtlg

"Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface, but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women with a very narrow individual notion of empowerment. 

It erases the reality that some choices women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives. So it’s not enough to feel personally empowered or personally successful within the oppressive framework of the current system. Even if an individual woman can make patriarchy work for her, it’s still a losing game for the rest of the women on the planet. 

The fact of the matter is that some choices have ramifications beyond ourselves and reinforce harmful patriarchal ideas about women as a group and about women’s bodies in our wider shared culture."

Well, at least she's consistent with her ideology, although you give that same "compliment" to Christians who go around killing gay people.


UPDATE [4/3/2015] - It turns out that Anita, in fact, doesn't want gender to exist in video games, as I predicted. According to Anita, a proper, feminist-approved female character is one with no back story, a vague motivation, almost no personality, and no appearance of being female... oh, but the developers call it a "she". I feel comfortable saying that I called it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ

If Blacks had acted like Feminists

History is full of examples of drastic social and political changes which were brought about by civil rights and social justice movements (Ghandi, gay rights, women's suffrage, etc.), but from what I've seen of popular modern feminism, it does not appear to resemble any of these successful social movements.

To illustrate this point, I have photoshopped some images from the American civil rights movement of the 1960's to display phrases used by these modern feminists. I've done this in order to illustrate how first world these statements are, how insulting they are, and how irrelevant they are to a so-called social justice movement. Click on the images if you need to enlarge them.

In my experience, (as illustrated by these images) most issues raised by these feminists are either trivial and not requiring a social movement (such as manspreading or long lines at bathrooms), or, when the issues are genuine, the approach many feminists would have us take to solve them is downright silly, such as affirmative consent laws.

Feminist Ideas vs Fieldwork

The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN) is the largest anti-abuse network in the United States, and this organization does real "field work" helping victims of rape, abuse, and incest. If there is an expert on these problems, RAINN is certainly on the list of candidates; these people are out in the field doing real work helping real victims.

I mention this because earlier this year (2014), RAINN released a report to the White House with specific recommendations for how to reduce the number of rapes on college campuses. This is important because it provides us with an opportunity to perform an experiment: if the mainstream feminist perspective on rape is correct, then we should expect RAINN's recommendations to emphasize things like combating rape culture and reworking masculinity, which many feminists have insisted are the major underlying causes of rape.

However, not only does the RAINN report not recommend addressing rape culture and masculinity, it specifically denounces focusing on these topics as tactics to reduce the number of rapes on campus.

"In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime. 

While that may seem an obvious point, it has tended to get lost in recent debates. This has led to an inclination to focus on particular segments of the student population (e.g., athletes), particular aspects of campus culture (e.g., the Greek system), or traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., “masculinity”), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape. This trend has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions."

Source: https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

And just like creationists who are confronted with biologists who actually work in the field, many feminist bloggers dismissed these experts, claiming that RAINN just doesn't understand feminism, or isn't looking at the problem correctly.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/18/rainn_attacks_the_phrase_
rape_culture_in_its_recommendations_to_the_white.html

https://storify.com/EqualityEd/jessicavalenti-meltdown-over-rainn-denouncing-rape

A similar situation arose when Erin Pizzey opened the first battered women's shelter in the UK in 1971. She soon discovered that many of the women at her shelter were just as violent as their husbands, and that a lot of domestic violence was reciprocal, and some feminists at the time reacted violently and hatefully when she voiced those observations. Again, feminists were at odds with a field worker.

This is what I mean when I say that I disagree with feminist ideas: while I support the goal of gender equality, I disagree with their models of reality (e.g. rape culture) and with the solutions these models present, as, it seems, RAINN also does.

Subverting the Presumption of Innocence

There is a very common political tactic that many different groups of people use to get around laws they don't like, and that tactic is to introduce a new law, which is related to the law they don't like and wish to subvert, which uses terms that, while they sound perfectly reasonable on their face, are so broad and vague that they can be (and are intended to be) interpreted in ways that undermine the law these people don't like. I will call this tactic "political subversion". And yes, I am aware that "subversion" is already a political term which means something different, but bear with me here.

Examples of Political Subversion

As many astute American secularists and atheists may know, the intelligent design movement, having been denied the right to inject their pseudo-scientific ideas into science classrooms in 2005, has since changed tactics to writing bills that simply wish to keep science "open" and to "encourage critical thinking". Taken at face value, this sounds very reasonable and downright obvious, but the problem is that it opens the door for teachers to, as the saying goes, "teach the controversy" and introduce non-science into science classrooms... all in the interest of doing good science, of course.

For example, there was a bill in Tennessee back in 2012 that claimed to want to protect science and ensure that students develop critical thinking skills. However, if you read the bill's text, and if you follow the Intelligent Design movement, it's obvious that this is simply an attempt to wedge anti-science into science classrooms by using broad terms that, again, sound great, but will be interpreted beyond what most people think they mean. Back in 2012, I made a video criticizing this bill.

Bill text: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf

For more examples of these kinds of subversive science-related legislation, visit the National Center for Science Education's website; they heavily report and document these kinds of bills that seek to broaden and subvert science education.

You must first get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.

But this tactic doesn't only happen with regard to science education; it also shows up when talking about the right to an abortion, freedom of (and from) religion, and increasingly commonly, when certain feminists talk about rape victims in a court setting. As with science subversion, they use vaguely-worded legislation to undermine laws they don't like.

Victims and Political Subversion

I bring this up because an amendment to the Illinois Constitution (Article I, section 8.1) called "Crime Victims' Rights" recently passed, which appears to be an attempt at political subversion: it reaffirms things that people already agree with (the rights of the accuser), but it uses broad and undefined terms to do so, which leaves room to go above and beyond what most people think this bill is saying. I implicate feminism in this post because the bill's text is reminiscent of some current feminist talking points.

This Illinois amendment includes, among other things, the following addition to the first stated right of victims. The addition is underlined below.

(1) The right to be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy and to be free from harassment, intimidation, and abuse throughout the criminal justice process. 

While this seems like a good idea that any reasonable person should support, the words, "harassment", "intimidation", and "abuse" are never actually defined in this amendment, which means that a wide variety of things may be banned from the criminal justice process as being "harassing" or "intimidating" to the victim, and that is where my concern begins. Specifically, my concern is that the necessary process of checking the victim's story will be labeled as "harassment" and "intimidating to the victim", and this process may be performed less rigorously or even eliminated altogether.

This would leave the courts no choice but to always believe the alleged victim (because remember, checking their story is abusive and intimidating), and the courts would be de facto forced to operate by "guilty until proven innocent", stripping the defendant of their right to the presumption of innocence. And what do you know, it turns out that many influential feminists have written in favor of exactly this in cases of rape and sexual assault, as I noted in this past blog post. On top of that, Sweden is actually considering adopting such a policy as law.

This, I think, is a compelling reason to oppose this amendment to the Illinois constitution. especially when you consider that victims are already entitled to "fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy".

That being said, if there is evidence that victims of crimes face serious problems that are require more than "fairness and respect", I might change my mind about this proposed amendment. Furthermore, if the words "harassment", "intimidation", and "abuse" were strictly defined such that they did not interfere with the necessary criminal justice process, again, I might change my mind about this amendment.

However, as this amendment is written, it raises a red flag that strongly suggests an ulterior motive to undermine the rights of the accused, much like the red flags for subverting science education, abortion rights, and freedom of religion in other bills.

Feminism vs. Responsibility

I’ve noticed a common, underlying theme of many feminist ideas and publications, and it’s a theme that I wasn’t convinced existed, despite the assurance of a few anti-feminists here and there. However, after spending more time in the midst of feminists (both online and in real life), this theme has become more and more pronounced, and I see it very clearly now.

This theme within many feminist ideas and publications is an appeal to pity in order to reject women’s personal responsibility…. which means what, exactly?

An appeal to pity is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer attempts to convince you that her conclusion is correct by appealing to your sense of pity (for her, for the people in question, etc.), and in the case of feminists’ use of this fallacy, the conclusion they want you to accept is that women are powerless to fix whatever is causing their suffering: women don’t need to do anything, rather, men (or the society they control (patriarchy)) need to make the change, and we are supposed to just agree with the women who make this argument because they are suffering (appeal to pity). The story basically goes, “If women are suffering, then it's not their fault at all, and thus, there’s nothing they can do to fix their situation. Instead, other people (men) are the ones who need to do something about it.”

To illustrate how appeal to pity is used to reject personal responsibility in a general case, here is an analogous situation. Imagine I get into a car crash, and as a result, I become paralyzed from the neck down. As I'm lying in the hospital, I tell you that the car crash wasn’t my fault, and I beg you to believe me because I’ve been horribly maimed. Are you really going to look at me, as I lie in a hospital bed with tubes down my throat, and tell me that this is my fault? Of course not! But does that mean it wasn't my fault? Of course not!

While you may be extremely sympathetic to my current situation, your feelings of pity are irrelevant as to whether or not the car crash was my fault. However, it is very tempting to succumb to your feelings of pity and to simply agree with me.

"Broken collar bone? Awesome! Now it's not my fault!"

You can also see how this fallacy arises in a formal argument structure.

1. I was involved in a car crash.
2. The car crash left me permanently disabled.
3. Therefore, the car crash was not my fault. 

As you can see, P1 and P2 have nothing to do with the conclusion, except that P2 makes you feel pity, which kind of does make you want to agree with the arguer’s conclusion. Hence, the fallacy is called “appeal to pity”.

Many feminists do the same thing in order to remove women’s personal responsibility when talking about the following topics, and they often place the responsibility on men instead. Their justification? Women are victims, therefore, there's nothing they can/should do about it. In fact, if you listen to these feminists, it seems like there is absolutely nothing that women can do to improve their situation, and yet they persist that their brand of feminism is empowering to women.

BODY IMAGE

This is one of the most popular talking points of many feminists right now: the pressure girls feel to conform to the standard of beauty, the criticism girls get for how they look, etc. Now, why does this happen? Well, anyone who’s been through school, or better yet, studied this occurrence, will tell you that the primary perpetrators of slut-shaming and of criticizing women based on how they look and act are, in fact, other women. And, as the linked article explains, not because society hates women. 

If a girl puts on different makeup, wears new shoes, and gets her hair done, it’s other girls who notice and critique her, not men. In fact, boyfriends (stereo)typically get scolded for exactly that: not noticing that their girlfriends altered their appearance in some subtle way. But guess who gets blamed for making girls feel bad about their appearances? Men; men get blamed for what women do to each other. 

And of course there are all those fashion magazines that tell women to lose weight and which make women feel bad by putting photoshopped women on the cover. But who writes these magazines? Not men, women. And who are these magazines written for? Not men, women. The people who have the power to make this change are women: women can stop buying them, and women can stop writing them. But once again, it's easier to blame men for being attracted to healthy-looking women with phenotypes that indicate good genes.

Men hate women's bodies, but is it men, or women?

Source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/05/30/men-hate-womans-body/

Open this image in a new tab to see it more clearly.

“But you don’t understand: women are the victims! Are you really going to tell me that women are victims because of other women?”

Yes, yes I am. Maybe these feminists could organize a workshop on “healthy femininity” to work out what’s wrong with women, rather than telling men to rethink their masculinity, or shaming them for something they are not guilty of doing.

Now I'm not saying that these issues of body image are not problems "because it's just in-fighting among women", I'm just saying that you cannot reasonably blame men for these issues. Unless, of course, you wish to blame men for being attracted to phenotypes that indicate good genes, good health, and high estrogen levels.


DRUNKEN HOOKUPS

I’ve heard enough feminists talk about this that I’ve decided to talk about it here. This is the idea that if two people have sex, even when they are equally drunk, then the woman is a rape victim, and the man is a rapist, and it usually goes like this:

Not, "too drunk to consent," just, "drunk".

It’s funny how, when two equally drunk people have sex, these feminists declare the woman to be free from responsibility for it, saying that the man should have known she was too drunk. However, if someone decided to drive drunk after her equally drunk friends told her to, everyone would say (as our courts do) that the driver is at fault, despite the presence of her equally drunk friends "who should have known that she was too drunk to consent drive." It is understood that when you are drunk, and you choose to do something, even at the pressure of your drunk peers, you are responsible for you.

Once again, these feminists reject women’s personal responsibility. 

RAPE PREVENTION

Even the simplest and most brain-dead obvious ways of reducing your risk of being sexually assaulted are decried by many feminists. There’s nothing more offensive than telling a woman not to walk through the bad part of town alone at night to reduce her risk of being raped… buuuut if you tell her not to wear a solid red t-shirt in the bad parts of LA, well, that’s just obvious and you should already know that. Idiot. 

Now, as I explained in a past blog post, I understand that most rapes happen between people who know each other, and the perpetrators are normally people who you should be able to trust. Furthermore, most of the time it is not the “dark alley”, “stranger in the bushes” scenario, and thus, in most cases of rape, there really is nothing the rape victim did that was as obviously dangerous; it is usually not comparable to wearing a solid red t-shirt in LA.

However, even in those few cases where the victim did do something stupid (like go to a party at a well-known rape frat), many feminists still insist that the victim had absolutely no power to reduce her chances of being raped, and advising women (or rather, everyone) to avoid bad neighborhoods is offensive…. even though this advice would actually reduce the number of rape victims.

This creates an interesting paradox: these feminists claim they want to see fewer women raped, but it sounds like they’re actually willing to see MORE women raped, just so long as those women don’t get blamed for it at all. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to not be raped. Please don’t force women to become rape martyrs in exchange for freedom from any responsibility.

STREET HARASSMENT 

This follows a similar vein as the previous topic, and although the sentiment expressed below is less common in feminist circles than those presented above, the level of blatant disregard for women’s agency in this instance was too astounding for me to ignore.

Now, the underlying idea is one that I can appreciate and agree with: you should be free to dress yourself how you want. However, these women then go on to pretend that we already live in this ideal world, and they act shocked that dressing provocatively... well, provokes people. 

“I know the way I dress is kind of provocative, 

but it doesn't mean I should have to deal with it.”

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVc1mDxMik#t=163

In a perfect world, appearances wouldn't matter, but failing to acknowledge even a basic level of self-awareness in the real world is simply childish and it ignores your own agency. A comparable situation might be if a man went into a business interview wearing a polo shirt and slacks, and then complained about being seen as "unprofessional".

In fact, my barber has told stories of men who have gotten their long hair cut and their beards trimmed, and then these men are amazed by how differently people treat them. Suddenly, people address them as "sir", hold the door for them, and take them seriously. It's quite amazing, and it illustrates the fact that this is something that everyone has to deal with.

Ideally, it wouldn't matter what you wear (or how you keep your hair and beard), but quite frankly, you're an idiot if you ignore the reality that it does matter to at least a basic extent. 

Once again, we have a case of, "I'm a victim, therefore, it's not my fault."

CONCLUSION

During the civil rights movement in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr. got people organized for change; he didn't sit around complaining about the "white culture", demonizing white people, and assuring his supporters that black people were helpless victims.

Women have agency and responsibility, but many feminists are trying to take away women’s agency and turn them into victim objects with no power at all. Women are stronger and smarter than these feminists think. Women can improve their situation, they can think for themselves, and they can do it without blaming the men around them or asking men to be strong and independent for women. 

In the old days, it was believed that women couldn't make rational choices without the guidance of men. Nowadays, it is believed that women can't make rational choices without the guidance of feminists. I maintain that women are rational, they can make their own choices, they can deal with real-world problems in a rational way, and they can empower themselves. 

Victim Blaming

The term "victim blaming" is tossed around a lot, but it's rare that you hear more about it other than assertions that it's bad thing, without much of an explanation as to what exactly is meant by "victim blaming", or what is meant by the word "victim", or what in what contexts this phrase applies. As such, this post will be my analysis of the phrase's meaning, as well as where it can be applied.

First, let's define the word "victim". I am well aware that often times, two people are harming each other reciprocally, and in those situations it is nearly impossible to say that one person is “THE victim” and the other person is “THE perpetrator”, so for the sake of simplicity, I will talk about “the victim” as a person who was wronged, but who was minding their own business and not messing with other people. This will keep the analysis relatively simple, and this appears to be what many people mean when they say that someone is a "victim" of another person, although the degree to which there might have been reciprocity should be always be questioned, as it does change things quite a bit.

Now we can begin the analysis. I'd like to start by first clarifying what I'm NOT saying: I'm not saying that a criminal’s guilt is dependent on how easy it was to commit the crime. In other words, I'm not saying that a perpetrator's moral responsibility is at all mitigated by how easy their victim made their job. E.g. just because you left your car unlocked in a big city, that doesn't make a carjacker any less of a carjacker.

However, in hard, practical terms, the fact remains that it is a good idea to lock your car in a big city; in general, it is a good idea to take simple precautions against what other people might do to you or your property. Once again, in the event that you don’t take these precautions, the perpetrator isn't any less of a scumbag. However, it is very reasonable to say that you, as a reasonable person, should have known that this could happen, and it will benefit you to behave differently in the future. As an extreme example: you should know better than to leave all your money in an open box in your front yard.

And this gets into my central idea, which I will call, “reasonable prediction”. Reasonable prediction is the ability, which all adults can be expected to have, to make general predictions about your safety in future situations. That is, people can be expected to understand basic safety precautions like not cutting toward yourself, not driving drunk, locking up your bike, and not leaving all your money in an open box in your front yard. Should people be morally required to do these things? No, but is it a good idea that is in your best interest? Absolutely.

In order to further iron out exactly what is a "reasonable prediction", here are some scenarios where each successive instance of victimization is more reasonable to predict and avoid.

1. You are walking outside, you get struck by a small meteor, and you are either injured or killed.
- Your victimization was not a reasonable thing to have predicted. Who could possibly have predicted that? How could you have possibly "known better"?

2. You leave your bike locked with an uncuttable U-lock through its frame on a bike rack, but it gets stolen anyway somehow.
- Your victimization was not a reasonable thing to have predicted: if you were told that your U-lock needed to be plasma cut to be broken (as many of these U-locks claim), then it is very reasonable to expect your bike to not get stolen.

3. You are walking down the train tracks, and you get hit by a train.
- Your victimization was, I would say, more unpredictable than predictable, but it comes very close to sitting on the fence. It is fairly reasonable to assume that you would hear or see the train coming, even if that's not how it turned out. Maybe you should know better than to walk down the train tracks, but surely you would hear the train if it were coming.

4. You leave your bike unlocked on a city bike rack, and it gets stolen.
- Your victimization was a fairly reasonable thing to predict: it happens all the time to unlocked bikes; you see it everywhere, and it's not much of a burden to lock it up.

5. You are walking down the train tracks with earphones blasting, and you get hit by a train (this did actually happen to someone).
- Your victimization was a very reasonable thing to predict: you should know that trains run on train tracks, you should know there is a 50% chance the train will be behind you, and you should know that loud earphones block the only sensory input that would alert you to the train if it were behind you. Granted, most people wouldn’t lay it out in such bare terms in their minds, but everyone can be expected to understand why it's a bad idea to walk down the train tracks with your music turned way up. That is a very reasonable prediction, and thus, I claim that it is very reasonable to expect someone to not do this; call this "victim blaming" if you want, but I think this type of "victim blaming" is reasonable.

Now that we understand the model of "reasonable prediction", let's apply this idea to the case of rape. As it turns out, most rapes occur between people who know each other, where the victim would say something like, “I thought I could trust them”, and thus, it was not reasonable to predict your rape. Hence, for most instances of rape, it appears that it is not a case where “you should have known better”, and thus, reprimanding rape victims appears to be only rarely warranted.

However, this conclusion in the case of rape (i.e. that the victim is completely innocent) seems to have been greatly over-generalized to all kinds of victim-perpetrator situations, and it has generated a kind of knee-jerk reaction where people automatically declare that, “victims are completely innocent!”, which I think is misguided. A person can be morally innocent but still contribute to their victimization by failing to think about their future: these are two different dimensions to a victim-perpetrator situation. This is not a zero-sum game, but two dimensions of what each person should have done: a moral dimension, and a practical dimension.

Clearly, if you leave all your money in an open box in your front yard, you're an idiot. While you may be the victim of theft, and while you are not morally responsible like the thief is, you are by no means "innocent": you should have known better, and I think it is very fair to, in some sense, "blame" you for losing all your money.

One final note: I am fully aware that if someone tells you they have been victimized (by rape, theft, assault, etc.) it is completely counterproductive to say, “Well, did you do anything stupid?” That doesn't help very much, and it will probably make the person feel even worse. However, individuals should be self-aware and understand that their actions have consequences, and if someone leaves their money in an open box in front of their house, they should have the wherewithal to introspect and say, “Could I have prevented this with a reasonable precaution?” Maybe the answer is no, maybe the answer is yes. Either way, we should all be rational enough to ask ourselves this question, and not simply declare that because we are victims, we are therefore powerless.