Since people on here have a major problem differentiating between curious interrogative statements about a situation and actual victim blaming I made a thing.
But don’t a lot of these questions imply that the victim is at least partially to blame for the rape? Because why else would it be relevant what they were wearing? Who cares what someone’s reason for being out at a certain time was? Assault happens during they day too, and also regardless of what people are wearing. I don’t see the relevance of the answers to these particular questions.
Think with logic, not feels.
These interrogative questions are all questions that the police would ask you when filing a report. Do you know why? No, not because “patriarchy”. It’s because investigators and detectives are obligated to attempt to find out both sides of the story and if they add up. “But who would lie about rape?” one might ask. Unfortunately, many, many people. And so as a precaution, and to gather more accurate details, the “victim” and “accused” are both asked similar questions in hopes of getting two completely matching stories that line up with the evidence found.
No, the questions dont imply the victim is to blame. For example:
"Alright, now I’m going to ask you a few questions about the events of that particular day. I want you to try and remember as best you can what happened. Do you understand?"
"Did you consume alcohol before the sexual assault?"
"No, I didn’t."
(This is many times a question to make sure the victim would be able to have an accurate recollection of what happened. The same would be asked to the accused.)
"What were you wearing at the time of the assault?"
"A thick black sweater, blue jeans and an overcoat. It was cold that day."
(Usually questions about details are asked, like I stated previously, to make sure details line up. This means what both parties wore and what they looked like. They’ll usually ask you waht the accused wore too. And ask the accused both questions. We all want to make sure some innocent person wasn’t dragged arrested.)
"Why were you out alone so late at night?"
"I was walking to a friend’s house. She lives a block away so I thought I’d be fine if I hurried."
(Obviously they have to ask backstory. They want the whole story so in court there’s no weird wild-card pulled. Casually forgetting to tell investigators important details is never seen in a good light.)
"You were well aquainted with the man who sexually assaulted you?"
"Not really. He went to my high school but we weren’t friends or anything then."
(Again, more details. Many women get raped by men they know, and its terrible. But some falsely accuse to try and trap men they know and that’s terrible also. Its good to gather all the details.)
And of course the last question would be to tell in detail what happened.
Most times you’ll be repeating this story again and again and again and again and someone will be noting what you say. A consistant story is often reguarded as trustwothy, especially if it matches up with the evidence. But most people can not keep a straight story if they’re asked multiple invasive detailed questions and they’re lying.
People lie to the police all the time. About murder. About drugs. About rape. About everything. So please dont try to make it seem like they’re accusing the victim of lying right off the bat. Because they ask the same questions to the accused.