But a desire to protect men, or homes, or children, or cities, would have us reeling off the other statements from that list just as regularly. Are you suggesting that there is a stronger desire to protect women than men, children, homes or cities?
Okay; I think I see why we can’t agree on this. You’re talking about laws, while I’m talking about society and attitudes.
I’ll be signing off soon, so if you respond to this, I’ll get back to you sometime in the afternoon, Pacific time.
Dang it; that last post was for Finn.
Children are advised of risk factors, to death. “Don’t take candy from strangers!” “Let me check all of your halloween candy before you eat it!” “Don’t ever talk to strangers!”
There is also a huge home security market in which people are told about risk factors. Same with other safety aspect, you’ve seen The Club commercials I’m sure? “If he had had The Club, his car would be fine.” “I used lojack, and so I got my truck back.” Etc, etc, etc…
But yes, when you get down to it, society does place a premium on the protection of women and children. And while, yes, some people are assholes and try to rub womens’ faces in the horror of being attacked, others want our nation’s women to be as safe as possible and do our best to help them.
YMMV.
Rilchiam I was suspecting that was the difference in our points as well. As long as you don’t propose any legal measures, chances are you won’t hear much disagreement out of me.
I think it is an enforcement technique. I think that a portion of the population wants to curb women’s freedom. I think that some rapists may even be voluntarily taking up the role of enforcer. I don’t think this is the typical rapist. What I don’t think is that it is only men who want women’s freedom restircted.
Let’s contrast two sites that concern themselves with rape prevention.
The first site’s stranger rape prevention page and
the same organization’s Date Rape prevention page both pages talk about what women can do to protect themselves and the date rape page even has advice to men about avoiding becoming a rapist. The same organization has other crime prevention pages. The overall tone is matter of fact. I especially like that the tips for preventing aquaintance rape includes, “Don’t be drawn into gang rapes.” and the tips for general rape
This other site seems much more menacing. More emphasis is placed on submitting and suggest far more freedom curtailing. It does not speak to men at all, but then it is from an organization that deals with women vitims of violence. “Keep one hand and arm free” WTF? This site scares the bejeezus out of me. The message I get is that all women should accept that unless they greatly curtail their freedoms and keep rape in mind at all times they are increasing the chances of being raped. It almost seems like magical thinking. If someone takes this site to heart, the litany of questions rape victims face makes a little more sense. The inquirers want to know if she failed in the magic rape prevention ritual.
Both sites have advice to prevent rape. Only one seems designed to inspire terror.
It’s pretty much all over the thread, but a good example might be found in post #265 on page 6.
The gist of it being that we couldn’t come to any accord on what the words “responsible” and “responsibility” mean. Some people (namely me) were saying “Women should take responsiblity for their safety”, by which I meant that if there were reasonable steps one could take to mitigate risk, then one would be wise to take those steps. But people were reading it as “Women who don’t take certain steps are responsible for getting raped”, meaning that they should be blamed.
It was essentially a failure to communicate. There was also the attitude that if steps could be taken, the mere fact of those steps automatically put victims to accusations that there must have been something they could have done. Ergo, they deserve blame. And I don’t see that as an unreasonable attitude – I’m quite sure there’s some truth to it.
There’s one other thing which hasn’t been pointed out yet. We all agree that not all men are rapists, right? In fact, the vast majority of men are not rapists.
Here’s what hasn’t been said yet: Not all women will be raped. Indeed, the vast majority women will not be raped, at least according to the statistics I’ve seen bandied about during the past week. FinnAgain believes it is unfair to restrict the actions all of men because a small fraction of them commit rape. I believe it is just as unfair to restrict the actions of women because a small fraction of them will be raped.
Also, by focusing on steps to prevent being raped by the proverbial “stranger in the bushes”, we overlook the greater danger women face, that of being raped by someone they should be able to trust.
I’ve never been raped. On the other hand, back when I was working in Waikiki, as I was leaving work one night, the security guard who ran the elevators in the evening saw me as he was coming to work, and, after we exchanged "Hello"s, pulled me towards him and kissed me on the cheek. I know this must sound ridiculously mild to some of you, but there were two things which were unnerving. One, this was contact which he initiated, and which I resisted. Second, this man was directly responsible for my safety. The alternative to taking the elevator on nights when I worked a late shift was to walk down 5 flights of stairs, through 3 stories of parking garage. I never had to find out which was safer. I called my supervisor. She called his supervisor. He refused to explain what he did or apologize for it, although he did admit to it, and was fired as a result. The parking garage may well have been safer than sharing an elevator with a man who, in theory, was paid to protect me.
CJ
I’m right there with you, but I’m fresh out of ideas for how to do this, sad to say. As we discussed earlier, education would probably be a good idea, but I question if that’s enough. Certainly it’s not going to solve the problem anywhere near 100%.
Suggestions?
I’ve been lurking along so far, but I’d like to point out one thing that seems to be missing, as far as what to do about it and how to change it.
As I see it, the problem is not that people think rape is “alright.” Everyone knows it isn’t. No one disagrees that it’s wrong. It’s much more subtle than that. It would take a shift in the way we (men and women) view each other. Some of our attitudes are so ingrained and reinforced that it seems only natural to accept them as correct.
“Women shouldn’t be out alone late at night.” But women get raped in broad daylight.
“Women shouldn’t go walking in bad neighborhoods.” Women aren’t necessarily raped in bad neighborhoods. Rape happens everywhere, location has very little to do with it, other than being the location the rapist has chosen.
“She shouldn’t dress/act so slutty, it’s an open invitation.” No. It isn’t. It may be sexually flirtatious, but it’s not an invitation to rape. Rape is an act of violence. And as several people have pointed out, a woman could be wrapped head to toe, showing nothing but hands and face, and be a target for rape.
One of the main perceptions we need to change is that rape is about sex. We’ve already seen this is a difficult thing to agree on. Still, if we are going to reduce the number of rapes committed, this is what needs to happen. Rape is not about sex. Until we change that belief, rape will continue to happen.
Excellent point. Keep in mind, however, I don’t think anyone on this board seriously suggested that such restrictions be mandatory. (Yes, out in meat world, some asshats have instituted curfews and such, but that’s what asshats do. That’s why we call them asshats.) What has been mostly suggested here is that women take risk factors into account and make informed choices accordingly. Not an unreasonable suggestion, and something most women probably do already.
Stranger rape is not too difficult mitigate in this way, at least in small part. Aquaintence rape is a different animal, and I admit to being at a loss as to how to approach that.
I agree with everything in your post except for this bit. Not that I want to rehash all of those old arguments (Please! No! Make it stop!), but I maintain that for the rapist, it often is about sex (as well as other issues). One way to solve the problem might be to educate young men on what the difference is between sex (which should be consentual at all times) and rape. Make it crystal clear in their minds that the instant a woman says “no” it’s no longer about getting your rocks off, it’s about a crime that some say is worse than murder.
I don’t have any statistics on hand, but I would venture that a huge number of instances of date or aquaintence rape occur precisely because the culprit doesn’t understand the distinction.
(Warning: what follows assumes a completely hetero world. Adjust as necessary.)
Another facet to that is that many men simply don’t understand just how serious rape is. We can’t relate. Most of us would love to have our bones jumped by the Swedish Women’s Volleyball Team. (In these fantasies, it’s never the East German Women’s Shotput Team. Would never even occur to us.) We often can’t understand why anybody would be so unwilling.
If men could be made to imagine being forced into sex by big hairy guy named Bubba, then maybe that would engender a bit more empathy.
Hmm, empathy and education. Who’da thunk it?
Heh. But see, again, that is your perception. You have not (to my knowledge) ever raped anyone. The second it stops being about sex is when the woman says “no.” Then it starts being about force, manipulation, control. Because the man says “yes.” To him, it’s possible to still rationalize it by saying he wanted sex. And it’s very easy to accept that. But it is about force and control.
Again, I realize these perceptions are so ingrained that they are automatically accepted as true. Once we change that perception, and change the way we look at sexuality, I believe the number of date rapes would change dramatically.
As for those rapists who use violence, pain and humiliation… obviously there are psychological disconnects there. In that case, all the education in the world isn’t going to change their problem.
I understand that it’s unfair that a curfew applies only to women. It’s restricting the potential victims instead of the actual criminal. A curfew on men would theoretically be better - the guilty person would be punsihed among the innocent.
But that’s only a theory. In reality, no curfew will have 100% compliance. Assume 90% of men or women will obey a curfew. If the curfew is imposed on women this will reduce the potential victims by 90%. The remaining 10% presumedly accept the increased risk rather than comply. But if the curfew is placed on men and 90% comply and 10% don’t, which group do you think the rapist will be in? Does anyone believe that a rapist will be prevented from committing his crimes because he is asked to modify his behavior? The rapist has no interest in avoiding rape; it’s the victims who want to avoid it, so they are the ones who have an interest in modifying their behavior. So again, it’s not a case about what’s fair. It’s a case about what’s effective.
Nobody wants to be a rape victim. But a rapist wants to be a rapist. So telling people how to avoid being a rape victim works. Telling people how to avoid being a rapist does not.
No.
You figure it out. You’re the one who claims there is a disproportionate frequency.
Just how in the hell is that a mixed message? Take out the word ‘but’. It falsely supposes that we should’ve expected all men are rapists and is insulting to half of the world population. You’ve got two statements of fact there, not a mixed message.
Criminals.
Because they’ve said that everyone’s personal safety is his or her own responsibility, and the risks that one takes are up to him or her entirely?
That sounds like professional victimhood to me.
Something I’ve heard far more often from feminists than I have from those who’d loathe that label.
And what you, and apparently several others, fail to understand is that those of us who aren’t in your camp are fully aware that it is impossible to remove all risk of rape from life, unless of course you lock up all the men and never let them see women. The injustice of depriving billions of innocent men of their civil rights as human beings, however, far outweighs the risk of not locking up every man because he might be a potential rapist.
We’re talking about women doing the same thing. Calculating the level of risk acceptable to them, and allowing that calculation to guide their actions. Some women feel that means not going out at night alone, such as Guinastasia who did not want to take a night job because she’d have to ride the bus alone at night. Some women feel that going out at night alone is fine, that going out and getting drunk at night alone is fine. I happen to be in the ‘going out and getting drunk alone at night is fine’ group. That is the level of risk I am willing to live my life with. There are less risky ways, and there are more risky ways, but one thing is certain: there is no way to live an entirely risk free life.
Yes, even if you mitigate the risk, you could still be the victim of a crime, any crime, including rape. What level of risk is acceptable to you?
If we change that attitude, it becomes just another violent assault, after all those are about power (and sometimes money) also. What then makes it worse than being beaten into a coma, or stabbed, or shot?
If it really wasn’t about sex, why is it treated so differently?
Because in the very end, the difference between the rapist who uses violence, pain and humiliation and the mugger who beats and stabs his victims for monetary again is that one of them is after sexual gratification, and the other isn’t.
I appreciate the vote of confidence. 
Perception is the key here. “Rape is not about sex, it’s about violence” has reached the status of truism. It’s trite and simplistic, and it does little to address any real problems, or offer any real solutions.
What rape is “about” may be two very different things to the two people involved. Unless, of course, they sit down before hand and hash out the details and have a meeting of the minds on the subject. Which happens – well, pretty much never. I think it’s quite possible that in the victim’s mind, it’s an act of violence, while in the rapist’s mind it’s an act of sex. The claim that it’s always about control and/or humiliation seems to me to be disengenuous. There’s a saying, “Never attribute to malice that which could be attributed to stupidity.” I think we could adjust that a bit to say “Never attribute to feelings of control and humiliation that which could be attributed to out-of-control hormones, general stupidity, and occasional frat-boy quantities of alcohol.”
Or, as I suggested in the other thread, it may be a combination of those things. And of course, in some instances it is about violence and humiliation. At any rate I think it would be a mistake to assume that the motivation in every single case is identical.
But I may be dead wrong about all of this. As you said, I’m not a rapist, so maybe it’s impossible for me to even imagine what the motivation could be. And that puts us all in the same boat.
Actually, I still don’t. I know of a few instances (personal and/or in the news) of women molesting small children of either sex. But I’ve never, not once, heard of a woman raping another woman except in partnership with a man. Maybe it happens inside jails, where the violence level is unnaturally high, but I’ve simply never heard of it. There’s no stalking woman with a dildo or other invasive object, waiting to assault other women. Or if there is, it’s sure kept quiet.
You might say ‘monsters rape women’. But those monsters must be almost predominantly male. And as someone else already pointed out, these males - when identified - frequently bewilder their families and friends, who never had any idea that the person they knew would or could perpetrate such an act. And so the description of ‘monster’ isn’t really very accurate either.
No, I’m sorry. I’m going to agree with the phrase ‘men rape women’ and then add, '…but the time it nearly happened to me, thank god, the man in question actually comprehended that no meant no, and he stopped. But it still was an awful trauma that affected my perception of all men for a great many years."
See, tdn, I think that once again, it’s falling to motivation. And, as you said in the other thread, nobody wants to believe that there could be any other motivation, because that’s just monstrous. And you were right. It is monstrous. As a man who has not and will not rape, you see that the driving compulsion behind intercourse is sex.
Again, as we agreed before, there are different types of rape. In one of the types we discussed, date rape, you mentioned at one point a woman saying no, and the guy continuing. I told you it’s still rape. Because at that point, she has said no. He knows continuing is wrong. And yet he still goes ahead. That means “yes.” And that means, sex is no longer what this is about. It’s about the man imposing his will on the woman. Period.
If “rape is not about sex, it’s about violence,” had actually reached truism, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Obviously, there are many people who do not believe that.
Where did I say that? I think you’re reading a bit much into my post. I am agreeing with tdn that education is absolutely necessary, but also saying that we need to change the way we view the act of rape.
However. As stated in the other thread, I’m also capable of reading the cite provided to see that the majority of rapes occur either in the victim’s home or very close to it. Perhaps you should read that thread. It may help enlighten a bit.
Nothing. It makes it equal. What, in your mind, makes it less so?
Pardon me. Bull. Fucking. Shit. As I’ve said before (and provided a cite), many serial rapists do not enjoy the actual sexual act. In fact, many serial rapists are married and have a sexual outlet, and admit that sex is not the driving factor for what they do. Either back up your silly assed assumptions with a couple cites or quit making them.
And I think this has a lot to do with it. Men feel defensive, because they’re being lumped in with rapists. Clearly, that’s not right, but it’s a natural reaction for rape victims. I am not lumping all men together as rapists, and I don’t believe the assertion that all men can be pushed to rape. And yet, men who do not rape feel guilty and demonized when confronted with rape. Why is that?
Agreed. And if there are many types of rape, then I posit that there are many types of motivation. No doubt in the case of back alley rapists the motivation most likely is one of power or control. No argument from me on that. It’s date rape where I start to question that. And I really question it in (some) cases of statutory rape.
No question of it. But what it is and what the rapist thinks it is may be two different things. I’ll also entertain the notion that the motivation started out as sex, then mutated to control.
Bolding mine.
In the story that Chotii mentioned, as I understand it, the man’s primary motivation was about sex. Although it went way too far, at least he had the good sense to stop when he finally comprehended what the situation was turning into. Had his primary motivation been control, it’s far less likely he would have stopped when he did.
Didn’t see this last time through, so sorry.
YES!! That is it exactly. That distinction needs to be made clear. I knew we were both working toward the same conclusion, I was just wondering how to go about getting us there.