[BigV]

I'm sorry you don't think it's an apt analogy. I heard it over and over this weekend. The idea that the VICTIM was complicit in anyway in the crime is what I'm trying to draw your attention to here. Time and time again I heard stories of women who heard from authorities, prosecutors, police, bystanders, bloviators, whomever, that said, implied, *decided* that the woman's actions, or dress, or state of intoxication, or location or presence.... that the woman was in some way responsible for what happened.

You can't really be telling me you've never heard "She was asking for it" or "Look at how she was dressed--what was she thinking?" For fuck's sake, the woman's clothing is considered EVIDENCE. It's treated as an integral part of what happened.

Look, there IS NO CORRELATION. Except in the minds of people. When you hear a news story about a gang rape, it always goes woman was gang raped. No talk about "Fourteen men assaulted a woman". The focus is on the victim, and not on the perpetrators.

You tell me. What culpability does a woman have in the case of rape?

I'm sure (I fucking hope and pray) your answer is a simple and unequivocal "None.". But there are a lot of people who offer a lot of answers to such a question. Every other answer is wrong.

I don't want to derail this talk "defending" my analogy. My point is that the victims of such crimes bear no responsibility for the criminal actions of the rapist. Just like the owner of a nice car isn't responsible for the actions of the car thief.