If a considerable percentage of rapes are committed by decent men who simply make mistakes in judgment, etc. (and that’s a rather big if at this point), wouldn’t it make sense, along with the education efforts for the male end of the equation as to what qualifies as consent, to also encourage women to always make sure they communicate their consent in unequivocal fashion?
Okay, but where’s the evidence that the offender of the clueless variety is more common than the non-clueless variety? And is there any real reason why we should be focusing so much attention on clueless guys in this discussion, when anecdotally, it is encounters with the decidedly non-clueless that women most often speak of when they talk about sexual abuse? Either way we slice it, I see no justification for it.
I don’t think rapists are all evil incarnate monsters like others have implied, but I think its equally problematic to portray them as regular guys who just think a little differently than the average bro. The risk with over-emphasizing the “ignorance” aspect is that it can lead us to minimize the pathology that often drives rape behavior.
Right, but this mentality doesn’t fit the mold of the rapist who doesn’t know what consent look like. This isn’t the guy who thinks “no” means “playing hard to get”, and it isn’t even the guy who thinks a sexy skirt is invitation for sex. It doesn’t take a degree to know that sex against someone’s will = nonconsensual sex (even it’s not tagged as “rape”), so if someone is acting in this manner, it’s unreasonable to put them in the same category of guy who can be schooled out of thinking the absence of no is synonymous to yes.
I wasn’t clear. My example in the second half was intended to illustrate a dividing line - that even if I knew I had had sex without consent, I still could have truthfully answered no. Every encounter below that line, i.e. every time there was some ambiguity about whether consent did or did not exist, also wouldn’t be self-reported.
I don’t mean to suggest I have demonstrable proof that for every willful, malevolent rapist there are three reckless, five negligent and nine totally clueless sexual assaulters, or anything like that. My anecdotal experience is also anecdotal. But it seems plausible to me that if you had a way to chart every sexual experience by clarity of consent, with an emphatic no on one end and an emphatic yes on the other, you would find that there were more instances near the middle than at either pole. That being the case, there would be more instances of individuals driving sexual encounters under ambiguous circumstances than under circumstances clearly indicating a lack of consent. The question then is just how many of those encounters in the middle we’re including within the parameters of what we call sexual assault. If it’s true that “women most often speak of” the more extreme instances, I’m not certain that suggests anything about frequency so much as tolerance.
Xema, this is the quote that sounds a lot like ‘your vagina will be considered public property when you get drunk’ to me. Of course the poster started backpedaling on this as soon as s/he was called on it. Comparing my or anyone else’s vagina to a purseful of cash is pretty disgusting, in my book.
As mentioned before, I am Straight Edge and have been for years. I am about the last person likely to be blackout drunk. And I STILL got attacked. Y’all can keep harping on this advice all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re putting all the responsibility on women to prevent our own rapes, not on men to, y’know, not rape us to start with. And frankly, a lot of the picking does sound to me like “Well, did you deserve to get raped? How drunk were you? Who was the guy you were talking to? If you were a good girl, this wouldn’t have happened. You must’ve done something to make him do this to you. Maybe you lied about being roofied. Lots of girls do, you know. You’re probably another lying whore.”
Absolutely, women should be encouraged to communicate consent in a clear manner. That’s not my problem. My problem is the general reluctance to teach men what rape is, what consent means, and that women aren’t commodities. The onus is being put on women to change their behaviors, and that is bullshit.
That is NOT my point. I am not against risk-minimization, I am against the faux-concern I see radiating off people when this topic comes up, and how their solutions and advice always seem to boil down to ‘if you wouldn’t be a slut, you wouldn’t get raped’: Stay at home. Never drink alcohol. Don’t associate with men. Live in fear. Meanwhile, next to no pressure is put on MEN to curb their drinking and to stop raping people.
There is no magical thing I or any other woman can do to prevent our rapes. Not drinking into a stupor or going to a guy’s room alone probably lowers your chances, but I was attacked on the street, while sober, by a crowbar-wielding stranger. An 80-year-old woman in my hometown was raped in her home. My mother was dragged out on her front lawn and raped in the middle of the night. My aunt was date-raped. My friend was roofied and was likely headed for nothing good before the bartender intervened. Okay, maybe my friend shouldn’t have taken her eyes off her beer for 30 seconds to smile and clap at some dancers. Humans make mistakes. But someone deliberately spiked her drink – that’s not a mistake, that’s a malicious act.
I didn’t backpedal as soon as I was called on it; I pedaled right there in the very quote you copy-and-pasted.
You maybe missed the part where you quote me saying “Of course not; you don’t deserve that; indeed, you have the right…” If you’re having trouble finding it, it comes shortly before the part where I follow up a crucial “wouldn’t justify” with a quick “you deserve”. I can’t possibly backpedal away from that, since it’s already the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
I look forward to seeing how things sound to you in threads yet to come; I’ll say “John Glenn wasn’t the first man to walk on the moon,” and you’ll say “Sounds to me like you said John Glenn was the first man to walk on the moon,” and I’ll say “No, reverse that,” and you’ll say “Backpedaling again, eh?” And then in some other thread I’ll say “As it happens, I’m not a Texan,” and you’ll say “Hang on; you’re a Texan?” – and I’ll say “No, you’re completely incorrect,” and you’ll say “Changing his story as ever.”
Or you could, y’know, read what you quote, instead of inferring the polar opposite; your call all the way, I guess; as it stands, I’m backpedal-free: my lips have been saying ‘no’ from the start, but you claim to keep sensing a ‘yes’.
No one in this thread has stated or implied anything of the sort.
No one in this thread has advised women to stay at home, or never to drink alcohol. Nor does the article in the OP.
Maybe that’s the problem. This board posts in English. If you cannot understand that language, you may run into difficulties.
Regards,
Shodan
How do you know?
Okay, but it doesn’t come across that way to me. It really sounds as if TOWP is saying that although engaging in behavior that has proved to be risky doesn’t mean you deserve maltreatment, it’s a sound policy to understand known risks and take steps to avoid them.
And it probably is accurate to say that, unfortunately, there exists a small but non-zero number of lowlifes who have the attitude you characterize, and these scumbags are likely to be attracted to scenes where incapacitated women might be found.
All of these rapes (with the possible exception of that of the aunt) were committed by men who very specifically knew what they were doing and often committed violence as well. I don’t understand what you are advocating here. None of these rapists would be the sort that would be impacted in the slightest by any sort of ‘consent-education’ or pressure campaign.
As you say, spiking a drink is a malicious act. How do you educate away malice? In previous posts you encourage teaching men what consent means, what rape is, that women aren’t treated as commodities, etc. But how would any such efforts ever impact/reduce the type of rapes that you have detailed here? I don’t think you were attacked with a crowbar, or your friend got roofied, or your mom got dragged out to the front lawn because there was a misunderstanding of what “consent” really meant.
Step back from the issue of rape, detach your emotions, and realize that it is cold, logical advice to suggest that women avoid drinking heavily to avoid being raped.
It’s simply common sense; no one is absolving rapists of their unconscienable act. We can’t have an honest discussion on rape prevention if any advice directed towards women is immediately derided as “blaming the victim.”
Anyone know how common deliberate, non-alcoholic drugging is? We all know that most people who claimed they were drugged **who were tested **were either just drunk or had some other medical issue come up, at least according to the tests. However, I wonder if these tests screen for all potential date rape drugs; I’m not very well versed in the range of possible substances. I also wonder how many people are tested.
Drugging can occur with alcohol, of course. Even if someone knows they are drinking, they may be tricked into consuming a stronger drink than they expect. There are always stories about frats that deliberately serve up very strong drinks (e.g. everclear + just a touch of gatorade), but I don’t know how much of that is fact.
Yes, but I don’t get why you downplay this truth: while there’s no magical thing you can do to prevent being raped, there are plenty of strategies you can use to reduce your risk.
And that’s the same type of calculus that applies to so many things in our lives. There is no magical thing I can do to prevent injury in a collision with a drunk driver, but I can wear my seatbelt, which might help. Obviously I could still be injured or killed, but wearing the seatbelt improves my odds of surviving and sustaining a lesser injury.
And it seems to me that if I say that about car crashes, it’s uncontroversial. No one replies by saying that he blames the driver that chose to drive drunk, and he doesn’t think the seatbelt advice sends the right message about not tolerating drunk drivers.
And I do see plenty of pressure on men – the legal system punishes rapists, and in fact has special evidentiary rules that don’t exist in other contexts in order to facilitate a rape prosecution. And those are good things, as a general rule, and they represent society’s firmest message that rape is anathema.
So can you explain it to me like I’m a fifth grader?
According to the National Violence Against Women Survey (PDF), out of 8,000 women surveyed 25.5% were victims of rape, physical assault, or stalking by intimate partners. Out of 8,000 men surveyed, 7.9% were victims of rape, physical assault, or stalking by intimate partners (p. 26).
That’s not 25.5% of women victims. It’s 25.5% of women. Where is the controversy?
FWIW, out of the same samples of 8,000, 55.9% of women and 66.8% of men were victims of rape, physical assault, or stalking by any offender (p. 14).
I would focus on advice on how to recognize and prevent a sexual assault in progress (or in its early stages), instead of advice on how not to become a target for sexual assault. That means when you recognize warning signs of sexual abuse, bail.
E.g. Assailant will pressure you to drink and is more likely to be someone you know rather than a stranger. If you say you don’t want to drink, but the guy continues to pressure you, then stay away from him.
This doesn’t mean to be eternally vigilant against loved ones, but to be more vigilant when choosing loved ones.
Getting “roofied” is very uncommon, but it is commonly used as a go to explanation by people who got blotto and wound up in a precarious situation. A lot of (not all obviously) women, even larger ladies, cannot tolerate much alcohol if taken quickly or on an empty stomach.
Reactions to alcohol are also odd individually. I don’t drink often, but in the past if I drunk to excess I would recall every single thing that happened even if I was highly intoxicated, almost more so than if I was not intoxicated, and my adult daughter shares this physiological trait with me. Other people like my mother, who was a hardcore alcoholic would effectively “black out” re not remembering her behavior while drunk.
Back in my drinking days, I too could get very drunk, but would be totally aware of what was happening.
I have to wonder if claims of blackout drinking are just an excuse because of embarrasment?
There are also many medications that do not go well with booze. If a person on certain anti-depressants, mood stabilizers or what ever does not follow all the warnings on the label, bad things can happen including blackouts and being much more drunk than you realized.
Are you suggesting that the existence of rape shield laws demonstrates society’s tendency not to blame victims?
In a sense, yes. More accurately, they represent society’s determination to codify not blaming victims – to say, unequivocally, that as a matter of law a rape victim’s prior sexual history is not relevant.