If we're going to discuss this horrific crime, even if we frame it as a women's issue, it should be about more than "blame the victim" blog comments. As other posters have already pointed out, blog comments are no more representative of public opinion as complaint letters sent to the FCC.

I hate reading blame the victim pieces as, more often than not, the articles and "discussions" that follow are more about establishing/claiming intellectual high ground, rather than reducing rape.

The most egregious examples would be condemning safety tips as nothing more than victim blaming. Are these efforts at reducing the number of future victims so damaging to current victims that their benefit isn't worth it? Even when one considers how difficult it is to get victims of rape to come forward, let alone get a conviction?

We're not going to eradicate evil from this world anytime soon. In the interest of prevention, we should be able to encourage certain types of behavior (call them risk reducing) and look for teachable moments without being labeled insensitive or misogynist. As far as this specific case is concerned, hopefully the truth will come out and every last perpetrator will meet justice....but, if along the way, we learn that the victim was guilty (for lack of a better word) of one or more serious lapses in judgment? The only takeaway can't be that the guilty parties (onlookers, etc) are evil, can it?

Rape is wrong. Prison rape, where the victim has no protection and will receive minimal if any counseling, is wrong. And no, rapists don't deserve to be raped. They deserve to be imprisoned. Nobody deserves to be raped.

I know two ways of defending myself. Either would leave the attacker blind or maimed. I have no problem with that. Not all women are squeamish (although I will admit that I don't find the idea of having eyeball tissue under my fingernails appealing).

But the instructor who taught me how to defend myself emphasized that there were two things more important than knowing how to disable an attacker. First, don't be where you are going to be attacked. Think ahead. Plan to not be alone on a dark street. Don't drink too much. Second, if you are in a bad situation, turn and run. Just run. Kick off your shoes and get the hell out of there.

He emphasized that you should never need to defend yourself.

Blaming the victim takes place overtly when it happens, say, in a commenting thread, and someone comments that this and other victims were transgressing social boundaries, or acting recklessly, and thus put themselves at undue risk.

it happens much more subtly when it is executed by, say, CNN, or MSNBC. I have read articles about rape wherein the word "rape" is not mentioned once. The headline and article will contain sentences like, "she accused him of continuing to have sex with her even after she said no", or "the perp is accused of forcing a woman to have sex with him even though he knew she was unwilling."

one could say that this is, perhaps, out of fairness to the accused, who are not guilty until they stand trial and are convicted. however, i cannot imagine CNN or MSNBC or even FOX reporting on a victim of a robbery as "accusing the perpetrator of forcing her to give him a loan even though she knew he was unwilling."

the "blame" on the pages of newspapers and on CNN takes place in terms of denying the existence of the word "rape", and of discussing gender-based violence without ever discussing gender or acknowledging the existance of such a problem.

we even speak of rape as though there is no perpetrator. "one in six women are raped" we can all recite duly, but who is raping them? are one in six men rapists? and we speak of women being raped, as if this is a misfortune that befalls them alone and is theirs alone to claim. headlines do not say, "man rapes los angeles woman", they say "los angeles woman is raped".

the blame is there; it's just so subtle that it's difficult to see unless you look.

"Nobody who's anybody still believes that victims of sexual assault ought to be blamed"

really? what about the long list of celebrities, columnists, and pundits who felt that Roman Polanski did not, in fact, rape and sodomize a 13 year old? or that he did but that it's ok, for some reason? if we aren't overtly blaming the rapist we succeed in tacitly blaming the victim.

I agree that most of these offensive messages are probably unfortunate examples of people who believe it's funny to bait others with ridiculous posts. Sadly, some few are also probably from people that really hold such odious views on rape. The internet's anonymity does not seem to have raised the level of discourse on many issues, while affording others an opportunity for hurtful remarks and arguments ad hominen with any who hold different views. SALON's letter pages are also filled with such posts every day.

> “the Richmond High School gang rape case.”

Like the Duke lacrosse team rape case?

Or the “ALLEGED” Richmond High School gang rape?

Hmmm. What has the feminist Star Chamber decreed the verdict should be BEFORE the case is heard?

Consider:

“Your Honor, I’m a white guy. I got totally wasted last night in a poor black neighborhood. I fell asleep covered with credit cards and $100 bills to keep my body warm. Damn the luck, though. When I awoke I found some minority scoundrels had robbed me! IT’S ALL THEIR FAULT, donchaknow? No need for a trial. Feminists know I’m the victim. So hang ‘em high!"

Adult humans are expected to be responsible. Not so, angelic-from-on-high women. They can act like maroons (a step down from morons), all their foibles excused because, well, they know the universe revolves around them. They are clueless kids DEMANDING that we make them heads of corporations.

Thank modern feminism for making women the biggest victims in the world. Steinem told the ladies they didn't have to grow up. Instead, they could sue in court.

Ergo, if you’re a vaginate, why bother protecting yourself against rape when you can have your “case” championed by irresponsible NOW cows?

> “She didn't deserve to be raped, but she was raped because she made some stupid mistakes. “

Tah-DAH!

so, what part of the above don’t feminists get?

> “every single day women do all sorts of things that seem reckless”

Reckless? Like asking normal men, in the normal course of daily events, out on dates?

Nopers. Easier, if you're a female, to stay passive and sue if “a-holes” approach.

Of course, you must never ask why you attract a-holes.

> “We wear clothing that doesn't hide our breasts and hips.”

Is that the same as wearing clothes (shilled in women's magazines) that EMPHASIZE breasts and hips (the better to attract men while being passive)? That way you can sue guys for having despicable thoughts...if they’re not hunky.

The ultimate taboo question:

Was the woman killed? Was she beaten within an inch of her life? What was the total PHYSICAL damage to her vayjay? Was her poonani intact, just temporarily occupied without permission?? If so, was her subsequent angst worse than a male whose pate was crushed? Is her sex organ worth more than a man’s life? Are female feelings worth more than males’? Does a Muslim man forced to kiss a shoe sole experience less humiliation than a woman who has sex after being promised a lobster dinner, but getting “maliciously maneuvered” into a scant few sliders?

> “Make a donation to the victim…”

You mean one of the maligned males on the Duke University lacrosse team?

So-called egalitarian feminists seem sexistly only concerned about women.

Whodathunk!