The thing is, there are a subset of rapists that don’t believe their actions constitute rape. Those are the men who have the biggest potential to change. If you can make them aware of what they are doing, then they will potentially show empathy for women and perhaps not rape them.
To compare rapists to murderers or thieves is a bad analogy because nearly all murderers/theives know they are committing a crime- they are trying to get away with it. In comparison, many rapists don’t believe what they are doing is rape. Therefore educating men on rape prevention is going to be different than telling them not to kill people.
Yeah I agree with this. There is always going to be a population that rapes because they just aren’t empathetic, because they are sociopaths, or whatever. But the vast majority of average shmucks can be taught not to rape, can be taught that they don’t have a right to sex with whatever woman they choose, can be taught that “no means no,” etc.
I know of at least one crime that has been drastically reduced through cultural changes: drunk driving. It started out not being a crime at all, and then became a minor crime that generally involved a slap on the wrist. A combination of harsher laws and punishments, and changing societal standards changed it from “everyone does it once in a while” to something that has a severe social stigma. Since 1980, drunk driving fatalities are down over 50%, even while the number of drivers/miles driven continues to rise.
Of course there are still drunk drivers. For various reasons, some people will never learn, or never be able to control their behavior. But I see no reason why a similar approach wouldn’t work with rapists. We’ve gone a long way toward stigmatizing rape and spreading the idea that no means no. Just as with drunk drivers, some men will never get it. But reducing rapes by 50% would be a worthwhile goal and a significant victory.
The obvious problem here is that there are really two concerns here. Intellectual understanding of the rules and a desire to follow them.
Do most rapists happen because the rapists genuinely do not understand the rules of consent and they end up making embarrassing and stupid mistakes, similar to people who accidentally drive the wrong way on one-way streets or forget to add Schedule Q-553 to their tax return because they didn’t know that their deduction for sillywalking was subject to the Sillywalking Deduction Reform Act of 2010 and thus required a signed certification form with counterstamps from at least two registered organ donors? E.g. Ronny Rapist remembers sitting on his father’s lap when he was 10 listening to his father talk about the rules of consent and that he thinks he remembers dad saying that skirts shorter than knee-length constitute consent, or at least they did when dad was a kid. Then, Ronny Rapist is told by a stern-looking cop that this is wrong, Ronny goes to the library to look up the actual rape statutes, and goes, “Golly, I didn’t know that, better adjust my behavior! Thanks, copper, definitely don’t want to go to jail!”
Is it a matter that rapists misunderstand the rules of consent but are literally incapable of learning the truth due to intellectual disabilities? E.g.
Cop: “You can’t have sex with her, she didn’t consent.”
Guy: “But she’s wearing a really short skirt.”
Cop: “That doesn’t constitute consent, you have to ask her first.”
Guy: “I don’t understand, I’m not a rocket scientist. Can you explain it in a way I can understand?”
Or is it that rapists generally do understand the rules, but they just don’t want to follow them? That’s a whole other kettle of fish and won’t get fixed by just explaining the rules again in simpler language.
Not only do we teach children to not steal as such, we progressively also instill in them a sense that various means of acquiring other benefits through anything other than honest means are wrong.
Similarly there needs to be a conditioning that acquiring sex through anything other than the other person’s own active, conscient collaboration is wrong. That getting it otherwise does not make you clever or wily or slick and that you can wait for someone else who’s willing.
Even so a large number of people who’d never boost a bag of jerky at the gas station will still finagle their tax form or pad out their expense reports, yet consider themselves fine citizens just because they are not Bernie Madoff; a similar POV can arise about the sex side that it’s no biggie as long as you stay this side of Roman Polanski. But violating another human is different from gaming the system for a week’s pay worth, so boys have to have it drilled into them to never even risk getting into a situation where it could happen (and to recognize the situation when they see it). But even then there will be those who will or can not get it. Or who get it but don’t care.
I’ve had kids in my class who think that if they find a toy on the floor, by rights it’s theirs: “Finder’s keepers,” they think , is the law of the land. Sometimes I’ve talked with parents and learned that they actually abide by that rule at home. You find some money in the couch, it’s yours. When these kids steal from their classmates, they genuinely don’t think it’s stealing.
So as a teacher, my job is clear: I need to discuss the expectations with the kids before they have a chance to mess up, to make it perfectly clear that “finder’s keepers” isn’t a thing, that if they find something on the floor that’s not theirs, it’s still not theirs, and they may not take it.
Education is useful in establishing right and wrong, and it’s also useful in scaring the bejebus out of people. I became religious about buckling my seatbelt after seeing all the graphic images of car accidents in high school health class. My parents weren’t lectured to in the same way. Maybe that’s why they don’t use seatbelts.
Perhaps if boys learned that having sex with an unwilling partner is not only morally wrong, but it can result in serious jailtime (plus being known in your community as a sex offender), you’ll make them more cautious. Someone should make a documentary in the same style as that anti-texting-while-driving film that just came out. A teenage kid may ignore their health teacher’s warnings, but listening to a convicted rapist who looks just like him may reasonate.
First of all, I didn’t get the memo that I was supposed to be out there raping. Were there some kind of classes I was supposed to attend?
I suppose the response is “can women be taught not to rape?” It’s an absurd and disgusting question either way. Childish in it’s blaming and victim mongering. I expect anyone over the age of 10 to do better.
Can we at least agree that sex is involved? This is another moronic slogan that dehumanizes the victims of sexual assault and pretends they were somehow too close to some kind of power grab. It’s rape and sexual assault, and it is definitely a very personal violation and sexual in nature to the victim.
Of course you can educate people about rape and reduce its incidence.
However, I’d point out to the OP that there are female rapists. We aren’t suggesting that these women just missed the wrong day of class at school, are we?
There are some people who will commit these crimes, regardless of what you teach them.
You mean to say that not all students are taught this in sex ed class? Why not? I certainly was, when I was 13 or 14. Even then, it was pretty damned intuitive.
Nobody is being blamed for the rapes other than the rapists, and men at large. There is a lot of aspersion going on about nomenclature too. There is a rich tapestry of finger pointing and whining going on here. Get with the program.
I don’t understand the objection here. That’s where the blame belongs.
No. The issue here is not - as I think somebody else suggested - that all guys are potential rapists. I don’t think that’s implied at all by this discussion; I’m not the least bit insulted by the idea that we can use sex education to reduce rape (and that yes, the main target is going to be men). I think the core issue here is that people need to understand why consent is important, what it is and is not, and the right and wrong ways to get and ensure your partner consents to sex.
I might understand the program if you took a stab an explaining what you are objecting to. Want to give it a shot?
I am objecting to the OP lumping men in as rapists. If you didn’t pick that up from the nasty poll and OP, then you are missing the meaning of the words and the casual bigotry against men. There is a word for it in English. It is misanthrope.
He doesn’t. It’s pretty clear he’s talking about men who rape, not guys in general as potential rapists. The poll, for example, uses the gender neutral wording “Can rapists be taught not to rape?” Even if he did that, there is much more to the discussion than the OP of the thread.
