This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/twoxchromosomes by /u/WelcomeToLadyHell on 2023-09-20 15:02:01.

In light of the Russell Brand saga I wanted to raise a point about victim blaming.

For those out of the loop, Russell Brand is a British comedian who has recently been accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse. A number of high-profile people have rushed to his defence and he has received support across social media from sections of the general public.

Those in his defence are questioning the victims. Why are they only speaking up now? Why have they changed their mind about consent? Why did they put themselves in that position?

My question to them is why are you questioning the survivors? Believing survivors says nothing about a perpetrator’s innocence or guilt, but it says everything about how we view sexual assault as a society. When we refuse to believe a survivor we are belittling the seriousness of sexual abuse and reducing the chance of others coming forward.

What I’d love for Brand’s supporters to understand is it’s possible to believe and support a survivor without immediately implying guilt upon the perpetrator. But instead we seem to be normalising the questioning of sexual abuse survivors in a way that doesn’t exist for other crimes.

If someone comes forward we should always start by believing them, supporting them and helping them. This should be the default starting position. It’s exactly what you’d do if someone had been robbed, stabbed or defrauded, so why should it be any different for sexual abuse?