I was clear that I didn’t want to tell the unwise woman that it was her fault she was raped on compassionate, not philosophical, grounds.

Clarice – Firstly, my post was not about rape except as an example, and when it was about rape, it was only about those rapes where the woman has put herself at serious risk through her behaviour. So you’re quite right that similar reasoning would apply to other crimes (e.g people who leave their cars unlocked.)

I’ll tell you why I mentioned it. I heard on the radio the other morning a discussion about teenage girls who are raped after getting incredibly drunk with a bunch of boys they don’t know very well. A man who worked as a health-care worker in night-clubs was trying to make the point that through this behaviour they are (perhaps unwittingly) taking a great personal risk. His purpose was not to blame the victims, let alone make excuses for the rapists, but simply to help make the public aware of the reality of what is going on. It struck me as a useful public service.

But he was shouted down by another guest, who accused him of making excuses for rapists, and all the rest of it. My point – and the whole point of this post – is that he was doing no such thing.

See I think there’s a disconnection between you, who are talking about what women (or people generally) *should* be able to do in an *ideal* world, and the health-care bloke who was giving out advice (not orders, by the way, no infringements of anyone’s liberty) on what’s *sensible* behaviour in this *very imperfect* world.

But there is no contradiction: of course women should be able to do whatever they like without getting raped, and everyone should be in favour of working towards a world where that’s true. But in the mean time, it’s also important to give good advice to people trying to make their way in the world as it currently is.

In order to purchase heroin, the user has make a conscious decision to break the law, whereas cigs are readily available.

Anyone attempting to argue these days that they aren’t aware of the carcinogenic properties of tobacco would have to be either illiterate, blind or possibly both. Not being allowed to smoke in places like cafes and pubs, should even tip the learning disabled off that there might be something nasty about the habit worth looking into.

Great post Larry. I was actually agreeing.

I went off on a bit of a tangent – but I took your point.

The “she made me do it” defense is bs

Yes, I agree. That’s why I said “But is any of this to diminish, even slightly, the responsibility of any man who commits this horrible crime? No, not for a second.”

Clarice, thanks for your comments – I’ll get back to you at greater length when I have more time, but…

“I do fear that my fundamental liberties are being encroached in an unacceptable way”

By whom? What have I said in my post which suggests the curtailment of your right to do anything you want?

Tobacco is very well-known to be addictive, whereas McDonalds is not. Although I did hear Billy Connolly say that he reckons they put something addictive in their burgers.

I don’t think that many people actually *intend* or choose to become addicted to cigarettes, any more than heroine addicts do.

I take your general point though.

I preferred the old … take your chances/shit happens era.

There is so much angst these sensitive days around who-did-what-to-who and a compulsive need to off-load blame rather be seen as … God forbid … a failure or worse yet a rapist.

The “she made me do it” defense is bs because even if a woman is lying stark naked and spread, the decision to jump her is – difficult though this may be for some people to grasp – a choice. It’s like people suing McDonalds because they’re fat, or suing Rothmans because they have lung cancer. They took their chances and came up on the losing end – tough.

There is more honor in battling your demons, than suing some former nanny or teacher who you believe touched you up after being nudged in that direction by a shrink eager to milk you for a few dollars more.

The reason it’s almost always bollocks is because 9 times out of 10 the demons have more to do with being shafted by the boss, or some other real life reverse. Suddenly though there have to be profound and enigmatic “reasons” other than the truth that you simply cocked up.

It’s the poor old me syndrome – and I’m tired of the endless refrain.

“Responsibility”, as you seem to define it, is based upon the causal power of people’s actions, or omissions (not all of which causality is accessible to our knowledge). It is not controversial (though it is necessary, it would seem), to acknowledge multiple causality, and even indirect causality in attributing responsibility for events. Crucially though, it is a moot point I guess as to how far you want to take this – if I murder someone, is my great-grandmother responsible, for giving birth to my grandmother, who gave birth to my mother, without all of whom, I would not have been around to commit the crime?

In attributing causality to events, a certain amount of counter-factual reasoning is involved. To take this to an extreme, when a woman is raped, it may well be true to say that she probably wouldn’t have been raped had she not got drunk, had she stayed at home, had she not gone to that person’s house, and so on. This kind of thinking is exactly the reason why many people, as you say, feel (and apportion) guilt or blame for things which actually were beyond the person’s control and for which they therefore cannot be held even partially or indirectly responsible, and even if they could, their actions were perfectly justifiable in the broader context (maybe by avoiding an even worse outcome, or by simply carrying out their fundamental liberties as citizens). In theory, you could apply your point about rapees to the victims of any crime, even victims of the 7/7 bombings. In the latter case, that would be, to my mind, abominable and ridiculous.

So the point I’m making, which I feel applies beyond the rape scenario, but is particularly apropos in that case, is that if going about my private business, or seeking solitude, or walking down the street, or being blind drunk, or wearing underwear, or trusting a man not to rape you constitute “wreckless risks” (sic), then I do fear that my fundamental liberties are being encroached in an unacceptable way, by everyone who follows the “reckless risk” line of thought.

Then again, just to be “topical”, there is also the question of prostitutes in suffolk continuing to work when there’s a serial prostitiute-killer at large…