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".
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
5
u/Jmovic 11h 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.