“If you owned a bank and left the door wide open with no security overnight and you got robbed in th

It's a phrase most women have heard before, too many times to count on their fingers - probably. Its a question I have been asked time and time again by so many different kinds of people whilst having the same conversation I have been trying to have for years.

Out of context it might seem like a bit of a strange question to be asking a 15 year old, in context its unfortunately not much better because the conversation is about rape and precisely who’s fault it is when someone gets raped.

From time to time the analogy evolves, rather than a bank its a shop and a shopkeeper who leaves the till open and the door unlocked, rather than a shopkeeper its a white van man who leaves his vehicle unattended and unlocked, keys on the drivers seat. The storyline remains the same and the same question is asked. Does their carelessness take away from the severity of the robbers crime?

Is it their fault?

When asked this question within the context of a discussion about rape I am always a little taken back - disappointed, not surprised - its difficult not to roll my eyes.

The idea is that if a person goes out, late at night, dressed “provocatively” in a short skirt, a lacy thong, a low cut top, if they are wearing makeup, if they look like “a bit of a slut.” If they get drunk, if they go to the bathroom alone, if they’ve been having a conversation with their rapist prior to their assault, if they’ve been flirting with someone all night, if they’ve been “sitting quite close” to someone. If they haven’t taken every precaution to avoid being raped, then their “no,” means less and not only is their rape inevitable, it is their responsibility when it happens.

In the week #ThisIsNotConsent trended on social media after a 27-year-old man was acquitted of rape during a trial in which his lawyer cited the lacy underwear worn by his 17-year-old accuser, I am reminded of this peculiar analogy once again.

The problem with this analogy is that its weak, with such loose connections to the context we’re expected to understand it in, that it seems insultingly irrelevant to the conversation.

The first is to ask the question, “Well who did the robbing?” Essentially, the robber chose to walk into that bank knowing that they were committing a crime. The robber chose to steal from the store, the robber chose to drive off with somebody else's white van and for that they must take full responsibility. Perhaps the victims carelessness simplified their process - there was no need to worry about an alarm, no need to break a window, no need to hot-wire the van. They made their possessions easier to steal and therefore more appealing, however the robber still chose to rob them, and since it is stealing which is a crime and not carelessness, the robber is responsible.

Furthermore there are many people who get burgled despite the precautions they take, many people who don’t despite their carelessness.

Leaving your door unlocked only really means you won’t be covered by your insurance when you are robbed.

Wearing certain clothes may make someone more appealing, wearing a skirt or a dress might make it easier for somebody else to rape them, but if they are raped whilst wearing these clothes, it is still the fault of the person who chose to rape them.

If someone is drunk, vulnerable and walking home alone, their risk of rape may be higher, but if they are raped, if somebody else chooses to rape them, rather than to leave them alone (it really is as simple as leaving them alone) it is the rapists fault because they chose to rape rather than not to.

Yes, we all have a responsibility to look after ourselves, but if somebody else chooses to harm us that is not our fault, it is theirs. When you focus more attention on what a victim was wearing, or what a victim had to drink than you do the choice made by a rapist to rape, you fail to hold them accountable for their crimes. You contribute to a culture in which people are able to get away with attacking and harming others by simply blaming the very people they have hurt.

The second argument is quite simply, that a person is not a bank, or a shop, or a white van. They’re a human being and they deserve to be treated with respect regardless of the clothes they’re wearing, regardless of whether they’re walking home alone, or smiling at a stranger across the room.

When you ask somebody the question, “If you owned a bank and left the door wide open with no security overnight and then you got robbed in the middle of the night would it be your fault or the robbers?” you imply that their body is the bank, the shop, the white van and that just isn’t a fair comparison.

Banks, shops and white vans are inanimate objects, and human beings are not.

A drunk girl in her short skirt and her low-cut top, walking home alone at night is not a white van with the keys left on the front seat, doors unlocked. She isn’t a bank with no alarm system or a shop with no security cameras. She’s a vulnerable person with emotions, the potential to be traumatised, to feel pain, and in any other context her life, her emotions would be seen as far more valuable than a bank, a shop or a white van. She is not an object, there for the taking, she isn’t there for your pleasure, she isn’t there for the taking and no matter how many times I am asked about a bank or a shop or a white van, I will never change my mind.

Nobody deserves to be raped, and it is never the victim’s fault.

#Feminism #Equality #Thisisnotconsent #WomensRights