"Did you lock it?"

There is a vast difference in how compassionately this advice comes across precisely because bike theft is not something that people engage in very much actual victim-blaming about. 

If I have had my bike stolen, I basically expect that people will be sympathetic about it. People will suggest making a police report, while also commiserating with me about the very low likelihood of the thief being caught and punished. Housemates might lend me a bike if I need to go places. If I'm late to class because I had to walk, I expect my professor will say something like, "Oh, that sucks, I'm sorry your bike was stolen." Fundamentally this means that when I tell someone that my bike was stolen, I may be feeling upset but not particularly vulnerable, and that means it's a perfectly good time to give me practical advice about which kind of lock to buy. Though if the bike was expensive or had sentimental value, I might still hope that people asked "are you okay?" before launching into advice about locks. 

I have never heard anyone claim "oh, so-and-so's bike wasn't really stolen, they just made that up for attention" or "you shouldn't prosecute bike thieves because false bike-theft allegations can really hurt people" or "if you've ever had your bike stolen then some people just won't want to date you anymore" or anything else that would make me scared to tell someone that my bike had been stolen. We do not have a culture of victim-blaming or victim-disbelieving around bike theft. 

If someone has been raped, they are frequently not optimistic about getting a sympathetic response. They may be too embarrassed to tell anyone. If the rapist is in their social circle, they may be worried that they'll be painted as a liar or ostracised from their social circle, because the rapist will loudly tell everyone that they're lying. They may be urged not to report anything to the police, or not to say anything in public at all, because they might "ruin the life" of their rapist. If the trauma impacts their performance at school or work, they might be worried that they'll be told it's "all in their head" and get no accommodations. This is all part of a wider abusive pattern of victim-blaming, in which victims of rape are scared to talk about what happened because of the numerous different negative responses they might get. When a victim of rape talks about their experiences, they are often in an extremely vulnerable state of mind and often anxious about whether they'll be believed. If your response is to immediately ask "what were you wearing?" or "were you drunk?" then you are, in fact, being a gigantic asshole. That is not an appropriate time to offer advice. Offering advice after the assault has already happened can come across as scary because of the fear that you'll follow up with "well it's your fault for wearing that" or "well if you were drunk then I don't believe you because you might have misremembered something". 

Generally, people don't say that you're a misogynist victim-blaming monster if you give well-intentioned advice when that advice is appropriate (ie. usually before an assault could happen), like offering to call someone a taxi so they'll get home safely, or passing on what you've heard about a certain man's misconduct so people can decide whether to stay away from him, or suggesting that someone write down where they'll be and when they expect to return before they set out on a blind date. It's victim-blaming when you make yourself part of a wider pattern that terrifies victims into not wanting to speak at all about what's happened to them. 

Hello ymeskhout,

If you look at the Sexual Assault Statistics, you see that 51% of rapes happen in intimate relationships, and 41% by an acquaintance. 
As such, the reasonable thing to assume in your case, if we are to draw parallels, is that the one doing the stealing, was another person highly interested in bikes, wheels and adjustments... In other words, one of your in-group friends. Or, someone in your family. Both with easier "legitimate" access to things like your key, your habits or your number-code.
You say there was nothing sadistic about the inquiry, but since one of you "were" stealing the bikes, and having a blast "Yeah, someone stole your bike? Well, did you lock your bike? (Victim blaming)", I would still call that quite insidious. Maybe one of you were even aiding the thief, to easier create more Smokes and mirrors to confuse and misdirect.
I mean, are you completely sure you weren't part of the "insidious" compassionate victim blaming yourself? If you are comparing these two, then you failed to notice. 

If your point is to just make sure that rape doesn't happen, the obvious choice seems to be to select for friends, acquaintances and partners that are guaranteed not to rape you... Which of course is similar to "best of luck with completely overhauling the nature of man", so why are you arguing against this in your post? 


Caerulea-Lawrence

I'm reading Unwanted Advances by feminist scholar Laura Kipnis, and coincidentally just finished the chapter Sexual Miseducation.  She makes a compelling case along the same lines as the Kathleen Stock quote.
"In short, harm reductionists want to aim educational efforts at women; preventionists want to aim them at men." (Referring to educational programs intended to mitigate incidence of campus sexual assault.)

Among other things, she points out that there is no evidence that preventionist programs work; and evidence that risk-reduction programs decrease the likelihood of female students being assaulted by as much as 50%. 
In addition to efficacy, there are other reasons to believe harm reduction is a better way to go.
This was something I already believed based on various life experiences, so it was nice to have my hunch confirmed by actual research.

I appreciate the effort to explain Stock's position to those who accuse her of victim blaming, via the bike lock metaphor. I agree with the gist of it, but I fear there are enough differences it will not be persuasive.  There is a fundamentally ideological argument going on here.  Stock must be wrong, no matter how illogical that may seem, because the unquestionable premise of her detractors' faction is that a) men are presumed responsible/culpable for all sexual interactions and b) women lack agency.  Yes, the latter is regressive, from a feminist point of view. Therefore, to suggest women have some agency in protecting themselves from dangerous or regrettable situations runs counter to ideological precepts and must be forcefully rejected.

Logic and clever metaphors aren't going to persuade—or deter—the ones accusing Stock of victim blaming.
This is a thornier problem.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to mention the book Unwanted Advances because I'm really enjoying it.  It's wry, sardonic, well researched and referenced—and explores this subject in a way that others may find of interest.

I think the whole victim blaming thing, or the bike theft QA in the post, really miss the target. ALL that advise is of zero value at the time it is offered. The cows have left the barn. Water passed under the bridge. The milk was spilled and the eggs broken. The type of advice one need ex post is how to deal with the repercussion.

Once you offer that type of advice or, if you really cannot/should not if you lack experience with the situation, you've offered you sympathies and moral support that they can come through okay and the person is in recovery mode -- be it ready to buy a new bike or whatever -- then you can start offering advice about how to prevent a recurrence of the violation.

While I agree that such advice an be very useful how, and particularly when, it is offered with matter a lot in terms of how it sounds and how it is received.

Being faster than the slowest one does not apply in the context of sexual violence

It wasn’t possible to reach full immunity but you never need to be the fastest gazelle to escape the cheetah, just faster than the slowest one.

and 

intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number 1 group of perpetrators

The "faster than the slowest one" doesn't apply in the context of sexual violence. You might not care about someone else's bike being stolen but you will never drink less hoping your friends or others are assaulted instead of you.

Risk reduction advice in the context of sexual violence are often against the person's intent.

This has been discussed in the comment already but most advice given to prevent bike theft is agreed upon. The only argument I can see against locking your bike is someone saying "It's taking too much time" for example. And locking your bike doesn't prevent you from enjoying your bike so there is almost no reason not to do it.

However many risk reduction advice regarding sexual assault go directly against what the person wants to do. Advice such as "don't wear such revealing clothes" or "don't get wasted" often go directly against the person's intention when going out to party. I agree that not all advice are like this. For example, an event that provides glass covers to prevent drugging doesn't prevent your enjoyment of the night.

I think the parallel between bike theft and rape falls short in many ways discussed here and in the comment already. I think it makes the problem appear "simpler" than it is and should not be used as an argument for encouraging risk reduction advice.

Hello again ymeskhout,

looking at the answers you have given to people, and the comments I have got on my own reply to this post, I was wondering if I read your post in a specific light, and went through it more in-depth.

You write in your comment that "[...]My post was strictly about "giving advice to victims" and the pushback you're giving invokes all these collateral issues I never argued in favor of." [LW(p) · GW(p)]

and in a later comment 
"The parallels between bike theft and rape are obviously not going to perfectly match, nor should we expect them to. My point here was to start with something small ("giving advice to victims on how to reduce risk") and then start extrapolating to see if we can reach a consensus on what precisely is bad about that. [LW(p) · GW(p)]"

Reading your post again with this in mind, I notice that I am really confused by some issues.

Here they are:

Our questions were problem-solving endeavors saturated with sympathy; we wanted to know what went wrong precisely to help others avoid the same fate.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence, but if you ask someone 'what went wrong' to help alleviate further victimization - isn't that gathering information on what advice to give, and not about giving advice? This might be a small thing, but it is something I noticed.

Kathleen Stock charges right into deconstructing the surprisingly enduring ritual of affixing the “victim-blaming” reprimand to any advice aimed at reducing the risk of sexual assault.

There seems to be no doubt that many people blame some rape victims for what happens to them, irrationally. In one 2010 survey, more than half of respondents thought that “drinking to excess” or “dressing provocatively” made rape victims more responsible for the outcome. Yet it is rapists who are responsible for their crimes.[...]
From the paragraph before the one you quoted.

Maybe there is some statistics on this, with regard to bike theft too. I would imagine the things that have been mentioned in the comments already, like having an expensive bike/what lock(s) you used to where you parked it - would be something people would be prone to blame the victims for.

Still, isn't there a clear distinction between the explicit goal of your OP and the text by Kathleen Stock? She is talking about giving advice to women (and her sons) that are 'pre-victimized', and you saying that the goal is to give advice to 'post-victimized' people.
She isn't saying you should talk to victims like that, the title is "Telling women how to cut the risk of rape is anything but sexist." not telling Victims. 
So there seems to be a sort of conflating of the two in your text, and I would really prefer it if you made it extensively clear which one you are talking about, as they are extremely different issues. There is a difference between "any advice aimed at reducing the risk of sexual assault" and "any advice aimed at reducing the risk of a repeat of sexual assault." Two different situations, best not get them conflated. 

Imparting wisdom on the implacable chain of consequences is about the most compassionate thing you could do.

This goes back to the conflation. If you are talking about pre-victimization, I would say that it could be helpful information - but not a compassionate thing in itself. If we are talking about post-victimization, there are many issues you are dealing with, not to mention problematic physical/emotional issues - neither of which learning about the 'implacable chain of consequences' will help you with. 

They can choose to accept that advice, and if it is sound then they’ll be met with the disastrous outcome of…not having their bike stolen.

This hearkens back to the point from before: Is this text about talking to people 'pre-' victimhood, or 'post-'? Moreover, neither accepting nor following the advice saves you from being raped or having your bike stolen - You only reduce the chances. As is talked about in the text you quote, but as also mentioned by @liamk [LW · GW];  Among other things, she points out that there is no evidence that preventionist programs work; and evidence that risk-reduction programs decrease the likelihood of female students being assaulted by as much as 50%. [LW(p) · GW(p)]- There is no guarantee it won't still happen. Which doesn't defeat the purpose of prevention - but shouldn't be conflated with 'safety'. 

That was all I was confused about when it came to your post. 

Your post seems to align more with 'Preventing' victimization from happening, so wouldn't it be better to build on that, as that seems more coherent with the source you use.
 

If we are to focus only on the goal you mentioned earlier, and answer that using your experiences, 
"giving advice to victims on how to reduce risk") and then start extrapolating to see if we can reach a consensus on what precisely is bad about that. [LW(p) · GW(p)]" to me it breaks down the second when you go outside your in-group of similar-minded people. I wouldn't like to get advice if I lost a bike, I would like empathic support, care, understanding and a friendly hug. 

As such, I must admit that it is very hard to read a post like this, that even if indirectly, compares Bike Theft and Rape. If you are either a survivor or secondary survivor, the after effects of trauma goes from terrible to hellish. There are also secondary issues like pregnancy, transmission of diseases, PTSD symptoms and stigma, to name a few. 


Caerulea-Lawrence

Sidenote:
Thanks to @Firinn [LW · GW] and to @Said Achmiz [LW · GW] for making this comment a reality. The former for their empathic listening, which was essential for me to regain my clarity and groundedness. The latter for their willingness to interact with me, and do what I would describe as "throwing wrenches into my mental faculty", which irks me in such a way that it helps me with my fundamental rationality work. I would have not been able to write this without either of you. Thank you.

I have found this older post and read the comments, one pointing me to actual advice to prevent being raped, which a police department wrote up: https://police.charlotte.edu/safety/sexual-assault-prevention/reduce-risk-becoming-sexual-assault-victim

Some of it easy to follow, but some would be difficult or very inconvenient to obey.

"If you live in an apartment, avoid being in the laundry room or garage by yourself, especially at night."

"Exercise extra caution when using underground and enclosed parking garages. Try not to go alone."

Ultimately, we sometimes make tradeofs in favor of living normal life without a need to be paranoid or babysitted all the time.