I didn’t miss a thing. Thread titles are short and the OP makes it clear what he (?) is saying. Why be offended by the title alone?
There is a different between knowing what the rules are, and having internalized them as apart of your personal code of contact. If rules are not internalized at all, then the only thing stopping people from violating the rules is fear of getting caught, which is an unreliable deterrent. If the rules are only partially internalized, you open up space for rationalizations, excuses, and violated them in periods of lowered inhibition (such as intoxication or mob behavior). What you want is to have enough reinforcement that people know the rules, habitually follow the rules, and breaking them doesn’t even enter their minds as a valid option. When the rules are internalized, you don’t have to think about following them-- they are just an automatic part of your moral compass.
Drunk driving does have some good parallels. Thanks to strong messaging and constant reinforcement, people have now largely internalized that drunk driving is not something that is okay to do.
Can men be “taught not to rape”?
No, because most men already don’t rape.
Can rapists be “taught not to rape”?
Yes, if by “taught” you mean “have their genitals removed”.
When I had mine, it was even stronger than that. “If you need a break, and are going to loose control, put your child in their crib or a safe place and LEAVE. Your baby will be fine for half an hour by themselves while you get yourself under control and decompress.”
(It gets a little harder when toddlers can get out of cribs, but even then women are told “baby gate those suckers and get yourself OUT of there before you do anything you regret.” )
Next time there’s a poll about rape make it gender neutral , because women rape as well. But around here that’s probably called having sex.
Rapists can use other parts of their body, and/or objects.
The thread title isn’t neutral, but the poll says “Can rapists be taught not to rape?”
No. If a man is prepared to rape, no amount of PC wishy washy “education” is going to change that.
AND, as a man that would never rape, I would be EXTREMELY irate if I was subject to compulsory anti rape classes.
If I was so stupid as to walk down a high risk area waving wads of cash around and got mugged, it would be idiotic to call for everyone to be taught not to steal.
It’s already happening at some campuses. Hamilton College Women are exempt.
It will render them physically incapable of reoffending. Even the most unrepentant serial killer will stop murdering people if he’s dead.
And yet…everyone is taught not to steal. First by our parents, and then in kindergarten, and then in workplace regulation training.
Introducing rape prevention in kindergarten is too soon. That’s why it usually comes up in college, when people have a great deal of new freedom and a lot of alcohol for the first time.
Want to take a stab at explaining why? even sven is right that there are cultural differences in sex offenses and we know that people’s ideas about rape and sex have changed over the years.
Good luck defending that one.
Well, except theft. And assault, when it comes up in cases of sadomasochistic experimentation (use a safe word, people). And probably fraud, that tends to be all about communication. And in occasional cases of other crimes too, with the possible exception of murder. I did read about a German cannibal who used the internet to recruit a consenting victim, then ate him. Still went to prison, I think. Which seems unjust to me. But that was probably an outlier.
But there are other crimes that are all about, and could be sometimes cleared up by, clear communication. Then, there’s raping children. You and I know children can’t consent to sex. Paedophiles seem to think otherwise. There we have people who need some serious education about consent, albeit a need possibly resulting from a mental defect.
And that brings me to this:
I disagree completely. Most (convicted) rapists are known to have been molested when they were youths. Most molested youths don’t go on to commit rape, but most rapists do seem to have been molested. Those male rapists who were molested by women overwhelmingly rape women as adults, while those who were molested by men tend to rape indiscriminately.
So I would agree that rape is about power, but not about some mythical patriarch asserting his dominance and entitlement, but about a victim trying to assert some power because of the lack of control of himself he has experienced. Violent crime is generally a sign of weakness, or a reaction against a disadvantageous position. Poverty or victimisation or a sense of powerlessness, all of which we see in those who were molested as children.
Perhaps we should teach women not to rape their children. Except child molestors also tend to have been victimised as children themselves.
And all that exacerbates this:
I would say exactly the opposite. Women are sexually overvalued. Men aren’t taught that they are entitled to the affections of women, but rather that they must work hard for it. The predator/prey thing someone was complaining about earlier, which results in men being expected to pursue women, to pay for women, to fork oout compliments and flowers and chocolates, and for that matter to always obtain consent, because sex is conceived of as something men obtain from women. Put a man raped by a woman as a child in this situation, you have a man in a very unpleasant psychological situation and prone to violently lashing out at women.
I actually saw someone walking down the street a week or so ago with a wad of cash hanging out his pocket, leaving a trail of £20 notes in his wake. I alerted him to the situation and handed him the money he had dropped. He was not, as far as I know, robbed on that street.
Similarly, I don’t expect a naked woman would have been raped. I fundamentally don’t believe there are people out there commiting rape accidentally. Therefore education won’t help. If you’re having sex with a woman who is objecting or who is incapable of objecting, that’s not accidently. If you’re not, you’re not a rapist.
Firstly, the existence of shaken baby syndrome is controversial.
Secondly, that would be manslaughter if conducted on an adult, rather than murder, and the campaign you mention is presumably to stop women accidentally killing their children.
Thirdly, that would be more convincing if it weren’t for the existence of the law of infanticide (the UK, but similar laws exist in many parts of the western world), specifically designed to give women vastly reduced sentences when they murder their own children.
Keep moving those goalposts.
Known? Known how? From interviews with convicted rapists? If so (and how else would you get the information?) I challenge the veracity of your statement. Prisoners will say ANYTHING they think a questioner wants to hear, because their primary motivation in submitting to interviews is to get some brownie points that might translate into a reduction of their time served. If they think the interviewer wants them to say they were compelled to rape by the influence of the Hypnotoad, they will say that. And they’re pretty good at picking up on cues that let them know what the interviewer wants. Ask Frederick Wertham.
I’m not saying that some or all rapists were molested by women as children, I’m saying it’s not a good idea to make that assumption based on interviews with prisoners.
Some men are serial rapists, it would be very hard, if not impossible, to each them not to rape. A lot of men, like fraternity jerks, our wonderful heroes (i.e., members of the armed forces) and football players, are in cultures where rape is enabled. THESE men may well benefit from some education. Even more valuable, utterly destroy the rape culture that exists in those groups.
Probably an outlier? Yes, a situation that has come up once or twice in modern history is an outlier. So is the BDSM example (unless you think that’s how most assaults happen). I am not sure if you’re changing the subject or missing the point here, but the point is that sexual activity involved consent on both sides and we’re talking about how both sides can know that consent is being freely given. That’s not what happens with theft - nevermind the inexact comparison of raping a person and stealing from a person - because usually the thief intends to steal. It’s different from fraud because the fraudster obtains consent through deceit. The concern here is that some people think it’s only rape if it’s an attack on a stranger in a dark alley, not if one person forces him/herself on another during a date. Or it’s only rape if there’s major violence, not if the person is wasted or unconscious. I think that probably ought to be obvious to anybody, but since it evidently is not, I think you can teach some people.
A cite, please. I don’t think this is true.
This sounds so familiar.
Makes logical sense, to me, especially when you’re looking at numbers which range in the exceptionally high percentage, for male perpetrators. There’s no real way around that, unless you’re trying to offload accountability.
“it will just punish those found guilty”. Execution = punishment. To note, that’s not correction, so you’re not unlearning them.