For starters, I doubt that your wife’s tone suggested grim satisfaction.
What I’m trying to say is we have a notion of acceptable risk. We accept the risk of terrorism in exchange for not having cameras monitering us everywhere we go. We accept the risk of infedelity in exchange for letting our SO’s go outside. We accept the risk of violence in exchange for not having police posted at every corner.
But the acceptable risk levels for females are set way too low. Men face violence, but you guys can’t really believe anybody would raise an eyebrow at a man going on a solo vacation or taking a night shift job, do you? The restrictions that women take and we consider acceptable really do limit their lives in signifigant ways. How can we live in an equal world when we can’t even walk home?
Part of this problem is that the threat of stranger-rape is way overblown. Thats how terrorism works- it only takes a few random violent acts to create a culture of fear that restrict a whole population’s lives. Women live and make their decisions every day based on this small but frightening possibility. And these decisions just happen to be ones that keep them in traditional roles at home in the arms of a husband. It all seems kind of convienent to me.
Anyway, we shouldn’t accept these risks. We should fight against this culture of fear. not just go along with it. When a few women were assaulted here, the police issued a statement that women should seek male accompaniment outside and avoid being out after dark. That is not a reasonable response. If we had some black people having crosses burned on their lawn after trying to join the school board, the police wouldn’t respond by saying that black people should avoid politics and perhaps move to an all-black neighborhood. If some of those Iraqui polls in America got bombed, nobody would issue a statement that Iraquis should avoid the polls. We need to treat rapes like we would gay-bashing incidents, and I know here that would involve extra police everywhere, protests, vigils, city-wide huntdowns and generally big to-dos. What that wouldn’t involve would be telling the targets of these crimes to stop living their lives.
And yeah, I don’t worry in Santa Cruz. I’m meaner than anyone this town has to offer. It was the most amazing moment the day I realized that I didn’t have to be scared, that i didn’t have to live my life around what time the sun sets or where the route home takes me. I only hope one day that my mother and my daughters and my friends can live the same full lives I am.
What I’m trying to say is we have a notion of acceptable risk. We accept the risk of terrorism in exchange for not having cameras monitering us everywhere we go. We accept the risk of infedelity in exchange for letting our SO’s go outside. We accept the risk of violence in exchange for not having police posted at every corner.
But the acceptable risk levels for females are set way too low. Men face violence, but you guys can’t really believe anybody would raise an eyebrow at a man going on a solo vacation or taking a night shift job, do you? The restrictions that women take and we consider acceptable really do limit their lives in signifigant ways. How can we live in an equal world when we can’t even walk home?
Part of this problem is that the threat of stranger-rape is way overblown. Thats how terrorism works- it only takes a few random violent acts to create a culture of fear that restrict a whole population’s lives. Women live and make their decisions every day based on this small but frightening possibility. And these decisions just happen to be ones that keep them in traditional roles at home in the arms of a husband. It all seems kind of convienent to me.
Anyway, we shouldn’t accept these risks. We should fight against this culture of fear. not just go along with it. When a few women were assaulted here, the police issued a statement that women should seek male accompaniment outside and avoid being out after dark. That is not a reasonable response. If we had some black people having crosses burned on their lawn after trying to join the school board, the police wouldn’t respond by saying that black people should avoid politics and perhaps move to an all-black neighborhood. If some of those Iraqui polls in America got bombed, nobody would issue a statement that Iraquis should avoid the polls. We need to treat rapes like we would gay-bashing incidents, and I know here that would involve extra police everywhere, protests, vigils, city-wide huntdowns and generally big to-dos. What that wouldn’t involve would be telling the targets of these crimes to stop living their lives.
And yeah, I don’t worry in Santa Cruz. I’m meaner than anyone this town has to offer. It was the most amazing moment the day I realized that I didn’t have to be scared, that i didn’t have to live my life around what time the sun sets or where the route home takes me. I only hope one day that my mother and my daughters and my friends can live the same full lives I am.
Very true.
No, they don’t. Which is indeed strange, because most statistics show that the person most likely to face random violence/mugging/beating is a white middle class, middle aged man, walking home from a bar or restaurants late at night on a weekend. The reason? He’s perceived as having money and being an easy target.
I totally agree that women should walk around with this fear, but the answer is not staying indoors, hiding, it’s going out in numbers and showing no fear. This is not a problem only in the US. I have enough female friends who say the same thing about my own country - they don’t feel comfortable walking home alone in the dark, but prefer to take a cab.
In real life though, a woman should be wary of men in her everyday life, not predators in dark alleys. And I think this is one of the reasons, so many rapes go unreported. A women who’s raped in a parking lot will not hesitate as much in reporting it, as she will if it’s actually someone she knows.
Put the blame where it belongs and put a spotlight on men who in one form or another betrays trust and abuses women, i.e. men they know.
I sympathize, and agree without reservation on this point. However, I don’t think there are many that would disagree, barring some real misogynists. I think that we’re all pretty much on the same page until we get into the ‘gray area’ of acquaintance rape. And I’m not referring to molestation, etc. but rape that occurs in the course of romantic socialization (dates, parties, etc.)
That’s a much fuzzier area, and I think that the frustration that occurs between men and women is that we can’t agree on what certain signals mean. And while we can educate men that x doesn’t mean sex, when it actually does mean sex a lot of the time, then it’s really difficult to make that lesson stick.
I think that ‘No means No’ is a good starting place, but women also need to be educated that a whimpered no while still allowing contact is just as likely to be interpreted as coyness as unwillingness to have sex.
Rapists are 100% responsible for their raping; but women have an obligation to let men know that an action is, in fact, rape.
I know, I know…it’s like pistachios. I succumbed and here we are. Part of me thinks I should have let the dead horse lie there…
I don’t either–that’s taking my statement to the extreme. The sense of entitlement that pervades so much of date rape is fostered–either thru socialization or poor parenting.
ITA and I’ll leave it at that (until I read the rest of the thread, of course! 
).
But, but…how is that sexist? If a woman is at risk for rape from a stranger (decreasing in frequency) AND at risk for rape from a party escort/date/cousin/someone she knows, and if rape is largely unreported d/t the character assasinations that go on–how is one feel that she is safe from rape.
That is a huge problem–how to ID the perps? By no means do I believe that all men are rapists (we’ve had this convo!). I do believe, because it has happened to me, that falling asleep, “drunk” in a guy’s dorm room can often lead to absolutely nothing but a hangover. In no way is visiting a guy’s dorm room, in any state of inebriation or stone cold sobriety an automatic, 'you’re asking for it".
But now I am not answering you–I am responding to other posts here.
God, NO. NO. NO.
IMO, Abstinence-only is the worst thing, possible. I am thinking along the lines of open dialogue and actual rape surviviors etc coming to talk to students, community groups.
More ignorance about the sex act, all it’s surrounding issues and gender etc is NOT what we need.
Most definetly NOT compatible with the “ignore this whole aspect of humankind and it will go away” school of thought…
Sticking your head in the sand to fight a ‘culture of fear’ ain’t gonna help anything. Just follow a few simple rules:
(1) Don’t walk alone at night.
(2) Don’t walk through bad neighborhoods late at night
(3) Carry mace or something similiar
Thats it. Will some women still get raped? Yes. Will less women get raped? Yes. Is the rapist completely responsible? Yes. Are women responsible for reasonably protecting themselves? Yes.
I’ve hade some choice words for some of my female friends when they come back alone from an off-campus party becuase I don’t want them to get hurt. I have offered to come to wherever they may be at to walk them home. They can call the campus security patrol whos sole job is to escort people home. I don’t do the same for men becuase money and material things can be replaced. Black eyes and bloody noses heal. The pain from rape does not heal.
All I am saying is that there are easy steps that every female should take to protect themselves.
When you admitted to painting men with the same brush – which is sexist in itself – by saying that men can’t put their hormones on hold unless women desexualize themselves – which is probably not what you meant.
ITA.
I think one of the disconnects here is that the “remedy” for rape is to change the behavior of the possible victims–which includes some common sense advice–but it is geared toward the stranger/back alley rape.
The problem is NOT so much that kind of rape (I am not saying it shouldn’t be impacted on)–it is how to handle the date rape/misunderstood signals stuff.
So, the mediciine prescribed does not fit the illness, for lack of a better analogy.
and the title phrase of “rape and responsibility” does not assign resposiblity to any one party. That was a bit of a leap.
Here.
I linked you to page 5, but you might want to back up by a page or two.
It’s ugly and brutal, but it ends with a group hug.
You have been warned.
Agreed, everyone needs to use good sense in their lives.
But please note the OP. Women have been and are urged to restrict themselves by everything in sven’s post, and a lot more.
These restrictions are recommended to prevent rape. But they don’t prevent rape.
So some are objecting to these recommendations. Considering the costs, and the (lack of) benefits, how can anyone say that they should not object?
What’s ITA?
The medicine fits one aspect of the illness, but certainly not the whole thing. Still, any bit of added safety is worth something, right? But you’re right, taking cabs past Central Park is not going to remedy the vast numbers of rapes. A far different strategy is needed.
even sven, I liked your cross-burning analogy. Makes me rethink everything I’ve said on the subject previously.
If it seems crazy to you, perhaps it’s because you’re thinking that rape is only committed by irredeemable thugs. As eleanorigby said, rapists do not have identifying physical marks. A lot of defendants in rape trials had fine, outstanding reputations before they were accused. Their parents, their friends, their teachers, all thought they were good people. And for the most part, a lot of them are. But a lot of men are able to compartmentalize their attitudes towards sex and women, and commit acts that are wildly inconsistent with their behavior in other situations.
If everyone thought that way, we wouldn’t still be having these problems. Unfortunately, everyone doesn’t, and we do.
How doesn’t it? If a girl is conditioned, for whatever reason, to be passive, and a goy, for whatever reason, to be agressive, what do you think is going to happen when they’re at cross-purposes?
No, I meant what I said. Can’t help how you reacted. When parents, teachers, friends of the family, articles in teen magazines, talk to girls about sex, it always includes advice on how to say no. It is taken for granted that females will be menaced sexually, one way or another. It is also generally accepted that Nice Girls Don’t. And they are taught that no means no, as in “You weren’t leading him on; you were clear about what you wanted, or didn’t want.”
Whereas, boys often don’t get similar instruction. In fact, a lot of people are reluctant to talk to boys about sex at all. And I don’t think enough of them are told that no means no, as in “When she says no, you stop.” It’s often taken for granted that “when the time comes, they’ll know what to do. Oh, and here’s a condom.” Not enough effort is made to make sure that boys know how to communicate with a partner, or to control their urges. Sure, teenage guys are horny, but that doesn’t mean they have to be slaves to their hormones.
I was talking about popular culture as well as how children are raised.
Doesn’t it? Take two teenagers, “Jack” and “Jill”, alone with no witnesses. Each finds the other attractive. They know each other, or think they do.
Jack’s dilemma: If the other guys find out that he was alone with Jill and didn’t score, he’ll never hear the end of it. If he does score, well, he’s the man! So why did she go on a date with him/accept a ride from him/go with him into the laundry room at the party if she doesn’t want to have sex with him? Why does she keep saying no? Maybe he just needs to try harder. Anyway, he’s bigger and stronger than she is, so if she doesn’t stop teasing him…well, she should have known what she was getting into.
Jill’s dilemma: She doesn’t want to have sex with Jack. Why? Because she doesn’t: what does it matter why? Or, she does, but she can’t risk getting pregnant. Or even if she doesn’t get pregnant, her parents will kill her if they find out: their little princess has been defiled. And he’ll tell everyone, and then everyone will think she’s a slut. She would have liked to get to know him better before being faced with this decision. Why doesn’t he listen when she says no? Of course, she could scream, or hit him in a vulnerable spot…but that would cause a scene, and nice girls don’t make scenes. Why is he doing this? He’s supposed to be a nice guy!
In this case, I am talking about parents. And the attitude I described can very well lead to boys not feeling they have to be accountable for their actions.
However, see the quote from BubbaDog below.
Now, you know I didn’t mean deliberately raising them to be rapists. I meant that not enough people are raising their sons to have sensible attitudes towards sex. Somebody commits all these rapes, and it’s not always violent ex-cons or psychopaths.
Well, let me ask you this. What do you think society (not just parents) should do to condition boys away from rape?
Bubba, I’m glad to hear that you think my post was outlandish. Seriously; no sarcasm. If more people thought like you, this thread wouldn’t exist. But not enough do.
After reading your reply I can see your point. Its a battle to help your kids become human against all of the societal influences that seem to oppose you.
We agree on that. I’ve witnessed a lot of parents who seem to be letting everyone else raise their kids for them and the results aren’t too promising.
Gaspode, it is odd that you should argue so heatedly for rape being on a decline when your very own town has just released statistics that show the kind of assault rape you are talking about is on a steady increase and now stand at an all time high.
http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10106613
This together with the recent case of the young 15 year old Swedish girl napped off the street of Malmø, imprisoned and raped for hours until finally dumped in some other town. And the ridiculous sentencing of the four Kurdish immigrants who held a young 13 year old Swedish girl trapped for hours while raping and intoxicating her and taping it all for future enjoyment. Taxed at 18 months.
http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10106012
Wonder if those girls though they were assailed by a swarm of “proverbial” men?
I think it was in the prisoner pitting thread that I commented that the major thing that I did to “cause” getting sexually assaulted was to believe the people who told me that I would have to say “Yes” for sex to happen.
One of the major issues from my point of view is that there is active discouragement for the notion that one can think rationally and clearly about sex – I know I, as a girl, got no effort spent on making sure I knew how to communicate with a partner. The limit of it was essentially “Just say no.” This is worse for teens, but persists into adulthood – people justifying their actions or affairs or whatever with “I got caught up in the moment” and the like.
Thinking rationally about sex is a skill. And it can be difficult to learn it when the only times it’s acceptable to think about sex at all, rationally or otherwise, are when the hormones are going. My experience was that there’s so much “You’re not supposed to want any of this” out there that it’s bloody difficult to work through what one does want – and most of the “do I want this?” decisions had to get made under pressure as a result.
Bump that brainlock up by an order of magnitude if Jill’s like me and responds to pressure situations that haven’t been thought through in advance with some version of “How can this be happening?” and can’t break that loop.
I process new experiences very slowly in general; under pressure I lock up completely. This is not a good combination with a pushy boyfriend who takes silence to mean consent.
I think it would depend on the circumstances. It’s clearly coercion; I’m not sure how bad it would have to be to be considered “forced” sex. A woman who would be without money/shelter if she broke up would be considerably more forced than someone who had someplace to go.
Of course, anyone who didn’t feel “forced” in that case would probably tell the guy not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. So, probably, yes.
Considering how unlikely it is that a stranger is going to grab you and rape you, I wouldn’t think so. No more so than a man should think that because men are far more frequently the victims of crimes such as assaults and muggings that he shouldn’t take the job.
Might be different if it were a walk through known gang territory.
Friend or total stranger?
There’s caution and then there’s going off the deep end of paranoia. Would you really want to get extremely drunk in a neighborhood you don’t know well enough to remember your way home? I wouldn’t, and it’s not for fear of being raped.
Most of the people I’ve heard say that are feminists who believe every man is out to attack them. The kind that shout ‘NO!’ at any man who dares to make eye contact with them as they walk down the sidewalk.
Entirely up to you, and of course those friends who have every right to decide how their time is spent also. Again, differences exist between caution and batshit paranoia.
Whatever you can afford.
Who said that?
Seems to me your post is one gigantic strawman of you going off the deep end because people have said that your personal safety is your responsibility and any risks you take are entirely up to you.
Was Officer Sandy Verbisch being a misandrist and calling men stupid and careless when she told my freshman studies class that it’s their responsibility to be aware of their surroundings so that they don’t get mugged? I doubt it. She was reminding them that a lot of people walk around with their heads up their asses in regards to personal safety. Everyone’s personal safety is his or her own responsibility, because nobody else can look out for you all day and night.
If I knew a guy got mugged because he was flashing cash in a shady neighborhood in the middle of the night, I’d probably think he was an idiot for taking an unnecessary risk. Is that so wrong?
Only a misandrist would say something like this. Rapists keep raping women. To throw in the general term men is horrid and sexist.
You don’t think leaving a door unlocked all night is a rather unintelligent thing to do? It’s not smart to leave the doors unlocked. Does that mean she deserved to get raped? No, of course not. It does mean it wasn’t smart to leave the door unlocked.
Well in that case, I can assure you I’m quite fair. When I knew someone who stupidly walked around in Wilkinsburg with the gold flashing in the middle of the night and he got mugged, I called him an idiot for putting himself in such a risky position. It’s equal opportunity that way.
So you’re wrong. I absolutely would suggest he had some fault in what happened to him. He knew it was a crime ridden area and still behaved in a risky manner.
Considering the criteria used to determine ‘rape’ in that survey, I don’t believe for a second that 1 in 5 college women are raped. Any sex with an intoxicated woman was considered rape, whether there was consent or not. If that’s the case, then every ex boyfriend of mine would be a rapist. Unadulterated horse shit, that.