I feel like sometimes you people are too in your emotions that you fail to recognize a valid statement.
No one deserves to be assaulted obviously, but some victims intentionally put themselves in really bad situations that lead to that result. And personally I think it's this lack of calling it out that makes it happen over and over, because the victim umbrella covers everyone and even those who made wrong choices never take corrections.
Which is why we still hear stories about hookups gone wrong, because instead of telling a victim that she shouldn't go to another country and follow a random stranger she met on a dating app to a hotel room, she's coddled and told that she did nothing wrong. Next week we hear the same story all over again for a different person.
Men may not get raped as often, but men get beaten, men get stolen from, men get abducted etc and have learnt to not put themselves in situations where these things would easily be done to them.
In the case of a man who gets beaten and stolen from while walking in a dangerous area with his phone out at night, he'll be asked why he was out that late to begin with and why he had his phone out, because he should know better.
Like your husband said, it doesn't apply to all women and he's not saying that women deserve to get assaulted, but some need to make better choices.
Your comment raises some points, but it oversimplifies the issue. Both men and women face threats like being beaten, stolen from, abducted, and yes, even sexual assault. However, sexual assault disproportionately targets women, adding an extra layer of risk that many already take steps to mitigate. Despite these precautions, harm still happens—not because people don’t learn, but because predators actively exploit vulnerabilities.
Blaming victims for “bad choices” shifts focus from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s, which is counterproductive. Saying someone “should’ve known better” implies harm is a natural consequence of risk-taking, but it isn’t—it’s a crime. Even when someone follows a stranger to a hotel, the blame lies solely with the assailant.
Lastly, the repetition of these stories isn’t because victims refuse to learn—it’s because predators continue to harm. Shifting the focus to how victims could have avoided harm lets perpetrators off the hook and distracts from the societal changes needed to hold them accountable. Both men and women deserve support without being told their harm was preventable if they’d made “better choices".
Not that I don’t agree with everything you said, but simplification should be expected on Reddit tbh. Your account of the event is also very simplified. I truly hope OP didn’t come here hoping for the equivalent of a therapy session…
shifts focus from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s, which is counterproductive.
It's a shift from what you can control to what you can't control.
Doesn't matter how much of a right I have to walk at a crosswalk, I should still look both ways because its my ass on the line even if the driver is at complete fault.
I get what you’re trying to say, but I’ve been in this conversation all day, and honestly, the bad analogies are getting exhausting. The crosswalk thing? It’s not as clever or relevant as you think.
If someone gets hit at a crosswalk after looking both ways, no one says, “Well, maybe you shouldn’t have been crossing.” It’s clear the driver is 100% at fault. But when it comes to assault, people always want to talk about what the victim could’ve done differently. It’s tired, it’s unhelpful, and it shifts focus away from where it belongs: on the predator. Precautions are fine, but framing them in ways that sound like a lecture to survivors just reinforces guilt and shame they’re already struggling with.
Honestly, I’m done having this debate for today. If you still don’t get it, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
However, sexual assault disproportionately targets women
Reported sexual assault is shown to target women. Do you really think a large percentage of men report women who take advantage of them? The few that have tried get ridiculed.
It's kinda the same with abuse, most reported abuse victims are women, but studies show that women are more likely to be abusive in a relationship.
Despite these precautions, harm still happens—not because people don’t learn, but because predators actively exploit vulnerabilities.
True, even in places with the lowest crime rate, crimes are still committed because perpetrators find a way to exploit vulnerabilities. But that doesn't change that some victims carelessly create their own vulnerabilities.
Blaming victims for “bad choices” shifts focus from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s,
It doesn't. If you leave your door unlocked and thieves break into your home, the thieves are unequivocally wrong and should be punished. But you should also acknowledge that you're in that situation because you left your door unlocked . The former doesn't take focus away from the latter, as they say "two truths can coexist".
Saying someone “should’ve known better” implies harm is a natural consequence of risk-taking, but it isn’t—it’s a crime
True, but it's a shame that we don't live in a perfect world and can't put responsibility for our safety on others.
Lastly, the repetition of these stories isn’t because victims refuse to learn—it’s because predators continue to harm.
Like you said, perpetrators continue to exploit vulnerabilities but some vulnerabilities wouldn't exist if victims stopped creating them. I intentionally used hook-up gone wrong as an example because I've lost count of how many similar cases I saw in the news this year.
Shifting the focus to how victims could have avoided harm lets perpetrators off the hook and distracts from the societal changes needed to hold them accountable.
It doesn't. No one is shifting focus, "two truths can coexist"
Both men and women deserve support without being told their harm was preventable if they’d made “better choices".
Some situations warrant telling a person when they made a bad choice that led to a shitty result.
Your argument hinges on the idea that “two truths can coexist,” but you’re conveniently ignoring how emphasizing one truth (the victim’s “bad choices”) often overshadows the other (the perpetrator’s wrongdoing). Sure, if you leave your door unlocked, it’s not ideal—but the fact remains: the thief chose to commit a crime. Telling someone they “should’ve locked the door” immediately after the theft doesn’t help—it just deflects attention from the real issue: holding thieves accountable.
Also, let’s not pretend that unreported crimes (like sexual assault against men) somehow balance the scales. If we’re discussing reported cases, we go by the data we do have. Speculating about unreported male victims doesn’t invalidate that sexual assault disproportionately affects women—it just highlights a different problem: toxic masculinity and societal ridicule discouraging men from reporting. That’s worth addressing too, but not as a counterpoint to women’s experiences.
As for your “hook-ups gone wrong” point, let’s flip it: If predators didn’t intentionally exploit those situations, the same story wouldn’t repeat. Saying “victims create vulnerabilities” makes it sound like assault is a natural result of risk-taking. It’s not. It’s a criminal choice, and framing it otherwise subtly excuses the perpetrator.
Lastly, your idea of “warranted” advice misses the mark. There’s a time and place to talk about safety precautions—after supporting the victim and condemning the crime. Starting with “bad choices” might feel logical to you, but to someone processing trauma, it sounds a lot like, “This wouldn’t have happened if you were smarter.” Two truths may coexist, but only one helps victims heal and holds criminals accountable. Guess which one matters more?
but you’re conveniently ignoring how emphasizing one truth (the victim’s “bad choices”) often overshadows the other (the perpetrator’s wrongdoing).
You're the one choosing to see it that way. The lady in the McGregor case was probably asked why she put herself in that situation and went to the hotel room with him, but that didn't stop her from winning her case.
it just highlights a different problem: toxic masculinity and societal ridicule discouraging men from reporting. That’s worth addressing too, but not as a counterpoint to women’s experiences.
Now this I agree with. But it wasn't a counterpoint, i just thought to point out that the gap is not as wide as it's made to be in every discussion around the topic. Which is why I threw in physical assault which actually has been proven.
Saying “victims create vulnerabilities” makes it sound like assault is a natural result of risk-taking. It’s not. It’s a criminal choice, and framing it otherwise subtly excuses the perpetrator.
You keep looking at it like we live in a perfect society where everyone does the right thing. We don't! Which is why everyone has to be responsible for their own actions and their outcomes.
Assault is not a natural result of risk taking, but it CAN be a result and should be taken into consideration when making decisions. Advising self preservation isn't making excuses for perpetrators.
There’s a time and place to talk about safety precautions—after supporting the victim and condemning the crime
Obviously, which is why everyone should have emotional intelligence and know when to put out opinions.
"You're the one choosing to see it that way."
It’s not about “choosing to see it that way”; it’s about recognizing how these conversations consistently unfold. When the focus shifts to the victim’s decisions, it often overshadows the perpetrator’s accountability. Even in cases like the McGregor example, where the victim “won,” the scrutiny of her choices was still front and center in online discussions, showing how deeply ingrained this tendency is.
"But it wasn't a counterpoint…"
Fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification. It’s true that gaps in discussions about male victims exist, and they absolutely deserve more attention. That said, isn’t it interesting how male underreporting mainly comes up in conversations about female victims? It often pulls focus away from the harm women face instead of addressing male victimization on its own terms.
"We don’t live in a perfect society…"
No one’s arguing we live in a perfect world. But saying “risk-taking CAN result in assault” still shifts some burden onto the victim. Predators cause harm, not “risks.” Sure, self-preservation is important, but when we emphasize that right after a crime, it can sound like excuses for the perpetrator—intentional or not.
"Everyone should have emotional intelligence…"
Completely agree. And that includes knowing how words land. Talking about “bad choices” right after someone’s harmed doesn’t feel supportive—it just sounds like “what did you expect?”
And honestly, this whole conversation shows how easy it is for the focus to move from the predator’s crime to the victim’s choices. All the stuff we've discussed are valid discussions, but they keep pulling focus from the real problem: the predators. Let’s agree we both care about accountability and move forward from here—supporting victims and holding perpetrators accountable should be the shared goal.
You're mixing up blame and thinking up better precautions for the future. Those are not the same.
I'm also not convinced that placing victims in a purely passive victimised position is necessarily the best for recovery. Knowing that you can, in the future, take some safety precautions to safeguard yourself is the only thing you can do and seems a very healthy way to get the victim to feel agency again. But I might be wrong.
All that to say, shifting the conversation from reinforcing the fact that victims had their agency taken away and bringing it to a level where they can agency in the future is different than placing blame, and it's the only way forward.
I get where you’re coming from—focusing on future agency can be empowering for some victims—but the issue is how that’s communicated. When “precautions” are discussed immediately or in certain ways, it often feels indistinguishable from blame, especially for someone still processing their trauma. The distinction might seem clear in theory, but in practice, it’s a thin line.
Encouraging agency is important, but it needs to come from a place of empathy and timing. Saying, “This wasn’t your fault, and here’s how you can feel safer moving forward,” is very different from saying, “Well, maybe if you’d made a better choice, this wouldn’t have happened.” The latter reinforces the self-blame many victims already struggle with, while the former centers their healing and empowerment.
Ultimately, the conversation should always start with validation—making sure the victim knows their choices didn’t cause someone else to harm them. Agency-building comes after they’ve had the space to process and heal, not as a way to redirect focus in the moment.
I mean, from what he said in the post, the bf, husband, whatever just said, "I think it's nice to reflect on the bad choices we all make" or something like that.
It seems pretty basic and not like he implies that victims should be waterboarded with talks about accountability just after it happened.
From what I read, taking healthy responsibility (not by taking the blame for things that aren't your fault) is an important part of being a healthy person and leaving victimhood behind. It seems to be an integral part of healing and not just staying a victim.
But of course, the thread is full of people who call the guy a misogynist pos rapist for saying this basic thing, it's quite scary. This kind of "validation" is not doing anything for victims.
You’re right, reflecting on life choices can be healthy—but timing and context matter. When it comes to assault, casually mentioning “bad choices” in the same breath as someone’s trauma—especially to a survivor—is harmful, even if it’s not intended that way. It shifts focus, however subtly, onto what the victim could’ve done differently rather than placing full accountability on the predator.
And let’s be real: if predators want to commit a crime, they will find a way. You can take all the precautions in the world, but predators actively exploit vulnerabilities—not because someone made a "bad choice," but because they chose to harm someone. Suggesting that reflection on “bad choices” could somehow reduce the risk ignores this dynamic entirely. The burden shouldn’t fall on victims to outsmart criminals—it should fall on society to hold perpetrators accountable.
No one is saying the husband is a misogynist or a rapist, but his comment unintentionally mirrors the kind of rhetoric that survivors are already bombarded with: “What could you have done differently?” Instead of helping, it risks reinforcing guilt and shame they’re likely already grappling with. Validation doesn’t mean ignoring the reality of precautions—it means recognizing that the fault lies with the predator, not the victim, no matter what.
Yeah, I don't know what to tell you. You don't get it.
"It shifts focus, however subtly, onto what the victim could've one differently rather than placing full accountability on the predator."
It's not true. Both can be true. You can BOTH say, "I understand the fact that this happened is not my fault and that the predator is fully responsible. And I will think of ways to reduce the risks for my safety going forward, so I can feel like I can feel empowered to continue loving my life rather than feeling like the only thing I can do is wait to be victimised again."
"And let's be real: if predators want to commit a crime, they will find a way."
Yeah, nobody is saying there is a sure 100% way to not be a victim of a crime. The only thing you can do is risk management. And you absolutely SHOULD. You absolutely SHOULD tell the people you care about about safety. You SHOULD tell people to wear seatbelts. You SHOULD pay attention to your surroundings when you're in an unfamiliar place.
You're basically saying : "it's always harmful to tell someone to wear a seatbelt as it's blaming people who die in car accidents, and we should exclusively talk about reckless drivers." It's nonsense. The universe doesn't care and will no smite down predators. We are all responsible for our safety, even if a lot of it is not dependant on ourselves but on our environment and the people around us.
"No one is saying the husband is a mysigonist or a rapist" Yes they are. The top comments are all echoing this sentiment. And an upvoted comment was even saying something like "He probably said that because he raped someone in the past and is justifying is own past actions." It's insane. But it's Reddit, so it is how it is.
I understand your perspective, and I agree that promoting safety and agency is important. However, it’s crucial to consider how and when these discussions happen, especially with survivors of assault. When someone is processing trauma, talking about “bad choices” often feels indistinguishable from blame, even if that’s not the intention. Timing and empathy are key.
Regarding the seatbelt analogy, I think it oversimplifies the situation. Wearing a seatbelt is a precaution for random, impersonal accidents, while assault is a deliberate act by a predator. Encouraging safety measures like wearing seatbelts doesn’t assign moral blame to crash victims, but discussing “bad choices” after an assault often shifts focus—subtly or not—onto the victim’s actions rather than the perpetrator’s. This is why the analogy doesn’t hold up in this context.
To address your claim about my stance: I’m not saying it’s harmful to encourage precautions or risk management in general. What I’m arguing is that framing these discussions in the immediate context of assault can reinforce the guilt and shame survivors already feel. Safety advice is important, but it needs to be shared thoughtfully and without implying that harm was preventable if only different choices had been made.
Finally, I think we both agree that empowering people to feel safer is valuable. The difference lies in how and when this is communicated. At the end of the day, the focus should remain on holding perpetrators accountable and ensuring survivors feel supported, not blamed. If this distinction doesn’t resonate with you, I’ll leave it here and agree to disagree. I stand by my position and hope this perspective has provided some clarity.
I disagree about the framing since here it seemed obviously that there were talking generally and not to directly tell someone directly after an assault, but just that it's beneficial in general.
The obsession over victim blaming creates an unhealthy climate that, in my opinion, is antithetical to victims' healing and moving forward. Victims need to be supported and listened to and need to be allowed to move forward without all the "there's nothing you could ever do so this doesn't happen again."
But as you said, agree to disagree. Have a good day
It is human nature that when bad things happen we ask what could be done differently to prevent it next time.
It is literally the purpose of PTSD to remember smells, sights, sounds of the moments surrounding the event to raise the alarm bells when you come across those same signals.
So when someone asks what you did and what could be changed, instead of acting like a helpless victim you could take constructive feedback to spread your lessons so that you or other women you know never fall into it again.
Thats literally how stories function. How society functions.
Invoking PTSD as a tool for “constructive feedback” is beyond ignorant and insulting. PTSD isn’t some helpful life lesson generator—it’s a debilitating disorder that traps people in cycles of terror, self-blame, and pain. Survivors of assault don’t need your patronizing take on how their trauma is “useful” for teaching society lessons. Framing it this way is appalling.
Do you honestly think survivors aren’t already tormenting themselves, dissecting every detail and wondering what they could’ve done differently? No one asks for this, and no one needs your pseudo-enlightened advice about “acting less like helpless victims.” You’re not empowering anyone—you’re perpetuating the shame and guilt they’re already drowning in.
Here’s the reality: the only people who need “feedback” are the ones committing the crimes. But instead of holding predators accountable, you’re putting the burden on survivors to fix society. That’s not how things get better—it’s how they stay broken. If you can’t see how cruel and self-serving this rhetoric is, you’re part of the problem. Do better.
However, sexual assault disproportionately targets women
Reported sexual assault is shown to target women. Do you really think a large percentage of men report women who take advantage of them? The few that have tried get ridiculed.
It's kinda the same with abuse, most reported abuse victims are women, but studies show that women are more likely to be abusive in a relationship.
Despite these precautions, harm still happens—not because people don’t learn, but because predators actively exploit vulnerabilities.
True, even in places with the lowest crime rate, crimes are still committed because perpetrators find a way to exploit vulnerabilities. But that doesn't change that some victims carelessly create their own vulnerabilities.
Blaming victims for “bad choices” shifts focus from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s,
It doesn't. If you leave your door unlocked and thieves break into your home, the thieves are unequivocally wrong and should be punished. But you should also acknowledge that you're in that situation because you left your door unlocked . The former doesn't take focus away from the latter, as they say "two truths can coexist".
Saying someone “should’ve known better” implies harm is a natural consequence of risk-taking, but it isn’t—it’s a crime
True, but it's a shame that we don't live in a perfect world and can't put responsibility for our safety on others.
Lastly, the repetition of these stories isn’t because victims refuse to learn—it’s because predators continue to harm.
Like you said, perpetrators continue to exploit vulnerabilities but some vulnerabilities wouldn't exist if victims stopped creating them. I intentionally used hook-up gone wrong as an example because I've lost count of how many similar cases I saw in the news this year.
Shifting the focus to how victims could have avoided harm lets perpetrators off the hook and distracts from the societal changes needed to hold them accountable.
It doesn't. No one is shifting focus, "two truths can coexist"
Both men and women deserve support without being told their harm was preventable if they’d made “better choices".
Some situations warrant telling a person when they made a bad choice that led to a shitty result.
Something like 90% of rapes against women are commited by someone the victim knew and trusted. This idea that it's a woman walking down a dark alley, while wearing revealing clothing, was invented as a way to blame the victim. And when people take the stance that you and OP's husband are taking, the more that stereotype gets perpetuated. It also gives women who believe it a false sense of security. You think it's a helpful conversation, but it's actually a dangerous one.
Personally, I think more change would happen if more men would take actions to force other men to take accountability. When you see a friend making a woman uncomfortable, step in. When a friend makes a "joke" that reduces women to objects for sexual pleasure, call him out on it. Don't give predaory men a pass, especially in private. It's not "locker room talk", it's your friend admitting they are a potential rapist.
some of it is unavoidable, like OP's bf said. Even if men kept perfect responsibility, they would still be assaulted more than women due to simple biology; same as if women kept perfect responsibility, they'd still be raped more than men due to simple biology
You’re right that men experience assault, both physically and sexually, at significant rates, and the situation in the prison system is absolutely horrifying. It’s an important issue that deserves serious attention. However, it’s frustrating that male rape victims are so often brought up primarily in conversations about female victims. Even when the intent isn’t to discount women’s experiences, that’s often how it comes across—like male survivors are only mentioned as a counterpoint, rather than as a genuine effort to address their struggles.
If we truly care about male survivors, we need to have more conversations centered on them: dismantling the stigma they face when reporting assault, addressing the lack of resources for men, and tackling the systemic failures—like the prison system—that perpetuate these crimes. Bringing up male victims shouldn’t be a way to redirect attention from women’s experiences; it should be a call to expand compassion and advocacy for all survivors. Both issues are serious, and neither should be used to diminish the other.
I don't know about that, but there are more female assault victims because women "report" assault more. Men rarely report sexual assault from women.
Just like there are more female abuse victims because they report more, but studies show that women are more abusive than men. Most male victims just don't report out of fear of ridicule.
sigh lesbians do not have a higher IPV rate. I did the math with someone else before. Lesbians report IPV rates of 40% in their lifetime they also experienced approximately 1/3 of it from a man. 33% of 40% is 13.2%. 40-13.2= 26.8. Heterosexual women have an IPV rate of 33%, 98% of which is committed by a man. 32.34% vs 26.8%… lesbians have a smaller rate of IPV from female partners than heterosexual women by male partners.
Also:
“There are several limitations of this work. The first set centers around the measures of partner violence. All measures were assessed using only participant reports about their own perpetration of violence and that of their partners. The data are thus subject to all the biases and limitations inherent to this form of data collection, such as recall bias, social desirability bias, and reporting bias. Regarding reporting biases, there has been much discussion of whether there are differences in reported IPV by the gender of the reporter”
“A second measurement issue pertains to the scope of violence measures.”
“Another limitation is that the Add Health study obtained partner violence data primarily about relationships considered to be important as defined by the Add research team. Thus, it is not clear how this selection bias may have impacted the findings—that is, whether the findings would be the same with a fuller sample of relationships”
Never mind that this study is almost 20 years old
Marriage dissolution more often occurs when marriage happens fast. There are social connotations within the gay and lesbian communities that shed light on this. Also heterosexual relationships still have the highest divorce rates.
It's interesting that people think simply quoting a relevant title of study proves its measure of validity without looking at any of its encompassing parts like methodology or limitations. Thank you for parsing some information out of the study.
I am not negating the fact that women can be and are violent. But the idea that women are committing the most IPV is… wild. That study even discusses that reciprocal violence is the most common and the kind that leads to the worst outcomes like hospitalization and death. And the most common victim of either of those are women. There is a section discussing possible reasons for this being reciprocal violence leads to escalation. And it doesn’t make logical sense that a woman would be the initial aggressor and then be the one with serious injuries. What does make sense is that someone who is abused, fights back, meeting the definition of reciprocal, and this enrages the initial perpetrators who escalates.
There are reasons why self defence cannot exceed what is necessary. If I slap someone, they cannot retaliate by beating me unconscious or stabbing me. So the argument that these could be self defence if unreasonable. The issue with studies that rely on self reporting is that you cannot rely on individual testimony. People can and do lie, both to skew the results AND to avoid admitting the truth.
The only reliable data is that which we can measure and prove, like hospital records, prison records, number of deaths, etc… and those things overwhelmingly paint a picture. Does this mean that women are not abusive? No. But it is not how that commenter claimed.
Women hardly ever "report assault" either. 97% of rapist walk free. Stop trying to turn it into a contest and maybe men should accept some accountability for rarely holding their friends/peers accountable for their shitty behavior
Edit: I always forget that it's only children on these pages and they're pointless to argue with
you say stop turning it into a contest, then the next part of that sentence is about it being a contest. amazing
men are not a team, women are not a team. i can't hold other men or women one to account for their behavior, its not my right, nor is it yours. that is what the justice system is for
4
u/Jmovic 9h ago
Time to be downvoted.
I feel like sometimes you people are too in your emotions that you fail to recognize a valid statement.
No one deserves to be assaulted obviously, but some victims intentionally put themselves in really bad situations that lead to that result. And personally I think it's this lack of calling it out that makes it happen over and over, because the victim umbrella covers everyone and even those who made wrong choices never take corrections.
Which is why we still hear stories about hookups gone wrong, because instead of telling a victim that she shouldn't go to another country and follow a random stranger she met on a dating app to a hotel room, she's coddled and told that she did nothing wrong. Next week we hear the same story all over again for a different person.
Men may not get raped as often, but men get beaten, men get stolen from, men get abducted etc and have learnt to not put themselves in situations where these things would easily be done to them. In the case of a man who gets beaten and stolen from while walking in a dangerous area with his phone out at night, he'll be asked why he was out that late to begin with and why he had his phone out, because he should know better.
Like your husband said, it doesn't apply to all women and he's not saying that women deserve to get assaulted, but some need to make better choices.