Actually, yes, false insurance claims are one thing on a investigators mind. Fairly common.
Yep.
I would assume Brock Turner is no different than the other boys.
Why wouldn’t the following messages work against these kind of guys? Imagine this coming from a no-nonsense football coach type.
“Know what rape and sexual assault are before you even think about sex. If you make the wrong move, thinking it’s all just fun and games, you might just wreck your future and hurt someone badly.
Rape isn’t just about having sex with a person who has rebuffed your advances. If you are trying to have sex with a girl too drunk to consent to sex, then stop. This is rape and you could go to jail for it. It ain’t worth it, man.
Don’t drink if you’re a teenager and trying to grow up to be somebody. No, seriously. Because teenagers even when sober do stupid and dangerous shit. When drunk, teenagers are animals. It becomes that much easier to cross the line into unethical and illegal sexual behavior when you are drunk. It’s just not worth it.
Real men aren’t afraid to step in and stop something that looks like sexual assault. If you see a guy pawing on a girl so drunk she can’t even walk? Don’t just stand there gawking. If you can prevent rape from occurring, then do it.”
The goal should be to create a culture where men are more mindful of how they act, so it’s harder for rapists to blend in and rationalize their conduct. If we can socialize our kids to not steal, not lie, and not react to things violently, we can certainly do this for rape.
I find it puzzling why this doesn’t seem obvious to you.
All that is good stuff and I agree with it all. If that was the typical culture in the football locker room, then there would be much fewer occurrences of those kinds of incidents since I agree that fewer boys would grow up thinking it was okay. My point was that I don’t know if it would be effective with a person who has already crossed that mental line. The intervention point in the Stubenville boys needed to be way back when they were kids.
So then in theStubenville case, how would that kind of change be implemented? The football coaches often care more about how the accusations are going to affect the playoffs rather than what happened to the victim. The same with many parents. What can be done to change their mindset so that they give the kind of speech you mention?
So the presentation needs to be a presentation of lies, so that that will fit into the preconceptions of the boys?
I thought we were trying to fight ignorance, here; not to deliberately perpetuate it.
The boys may be statistically – not individually – at lesser or greater risk for different possible negative outcomes. Teaching them that they’re not at risk is lying to them.
Cites were presented in that thread that the “revealing” outfit does not add risk.
It was also pointed out that walking without looking where one’s going presents risk to people of all genders, for multiple possible negative outcomes having nothing to do with rape; as well as ways in which the headphones and cell phone might be a defense against being accosted.
If you mean that you think women don’t know that a high percentage of men think about sex and may at any given moment be thinking about them sexually, you’re massively ignorant. No, we are not all a bunch of naive three year olds. (Not that all three year olds, even, get to be that naive.)
If you mean that you think that thinking about sex is the same thing as wanting to rape, that’s been addressed exhaustively here and elsewhere on these boards. I don’t think it’s the women disagreeing with you who are the ones being naive, here.
A lot of rapists rely on that sort of assumption. ‘But they’re a chess player/ respected banker / girl scout troop leader / Pillar of the Community! Of course they’re not dangerous!’
Both boys and girls should be warned about hanging out with people who post stuff like that.
And the parents, school counselors, etc. of boys who post such things should be paying attention. Interesting that in situations in which lots of people are saying 'what were the girl(s)‘s parents thinking?’ so few ever seem to come in to say ‘what were the boy(s)’ parents thinking?
Yes, exactly.
If women started using that device, I expect the result would be that those of the rapists who are out watching the streets for vulnerable people would attack people they perceived to be old.
And I agree with those saying that it would make a whole lot more sense to make oneself appear tall and muscular than to make oneself appear old and “unattractive”.
I remember – and have taken – the advice I was given, when I was around 20, by a female friend of mine who was living in a “bad” neighborhood.
She said, if walking in a situation you thought was dangerous, to never move as if you were afraid. Walk, instead, exuding the attitude that of course nobody would dare to touch you, because they know, or ought to know, who you are; and who you are is somebody too dangerous to attack, sexually or otherwise.
That, I think, is good advice for anybody of any gender. Not guaranteed to work, of course; but puts off the people looking for vulnerability.
ETA: yikes, should have refreshed the thread before posting. Have not yet read intervening posts.
The issue isn’t only ‘what percentage of men commit at least one rape’? It’s also ‘what percentage of rapes are committed by serial rapists?’ If, say (not actual statistics) 5% of men commit at least one rape, but 20% of them (1% of all men) commit 95% of the rapes, then the chances of being raped by one of the serial rapists are a whole lot greater than the chances of being raped by a one-timer. And attempts to prevent rape need to be aimed at least in large part at the serial rapists.
Yup.
And to all the people concerned about “revealing” clothing: if rape were caused by men seeing female skin, why are modern beaches – let alone topless and nude beaches, common some places in the world – not swarming with uncontrolled rapists?
Lots of other crimes are this way.
People give away, and willingly spend, money all the time. People also steal money – often without reliable witnesses. The insurance company may indeed investigate a claim that something valuable was actually stolen – but hordes of people don’t come out of the woodwork to say ‘are you sure you didn’t give the accused thief that money on purpose? are you sure you didn’t do anything to indicate that you might want to give it to him? did you consider getting an escort every time you leave work after dark? have you considered dressing like a bum all the time?’
I will grant that ‘avoid people who post on social media (and/or are known to otherwise say) that they want to commit rape’ is a good one; but I think that advice should be given to those of all genders.
Ditto advice to not get shitface drunk; which advice should be given to all genders, and focus more on dangers of car accidents, alcohol poisoning, and falling down the stairs or off balconies than on rape.
Other than that, I’m having trouble thinking of anything other than ‘don’t go on dates’. That probably would prevent one from being date raped (though not of course from being otherwise raped); but I hope you’d agree that it’s excessively limiting.
And I disagree that date rape is essentially a different thing from other rapes. Rape that occurs on a date may have been planned by one of the people on the date, whether planning specifically to rape or planning to get laid no matter what; the fact that they’re on a date doesn’t make it something else. Agreeing to go on a date with somebody, and/or agreeing to make out with them, is not the same thing as consenting to sex; and everyone needs to be taught that.
There are some people who nothing is going to be effective on; other than locking them up in jail, and once there keeping them supervised enough so they can’t rape other prisoners. But not being able to prevent all rapists is no reason to not prevent some of them.
A whole lot of negative publicity, combined with an occasional jail sentence in cases of active cover ups, might well have some impact on the bulk of football coaches.
That, plus a culture in which nearly everybody they know calls them on it, might well have some impact on most of the parents.
Getting to that culture requires calling people on it: not only in cases of actual confirmed rape, but also in cases of talking about it as if the way to fix it is by limiting girls and women.
These two things are mutually exclusive. If I know I am not going to be believed, if I know I am going to be accused of ruining someone’s reputation because I am attention-seeking or whatever, then what motive do I have to report, to go through the humiliation of a rape kit, only to have it never tested, because my case wasn’t worth bringing to trial?
On this board, I was told it was inappropriate to accuse someone of rape if it couldn’t be proven in a court of law–that it was unfair to tell my friends that so-and-so raped me if I couldn’t prove it–because I would ruin his reputation.
Tell me about it! My house got broken into and the pictures I got of that ******** were so good the cops showed them at roll call. I asked around, got a first name and a hang out location for this dickwad-----turns out he’d been terrorizing the whole frickin’ neighborhood-----and the detective said, “What’s his last name?” Dude,if I do your bloody job, I better get part of your paycheck, too.
He broke in again a month later. This time the cops got DNA and fingerprints. Have they caught him? He must have robbed dozens of houses, cars, and garages by now. They gave his name, picture, DNA, and fingerprints.
No, I’m not bitter, why do you ask?
AIUI, the forensic difference is usually that in date rape, there is no doubt whatsoever that the two people had sex, the only issue is whether it was consensual or not. So a test kit to prove that there is semen, DNA, etc. in a date-rape case is pointless since there is no doubt that sex indeed happened, one way or another.
Whereas in stranger-who-jumps-out-of-bushes cases, the defendant’s defense is going to be to claim that no sex whatsoever ever happened - and so the presence of DNA and semen in a test kit would destroy his defense.
Do you have a link to the post where a poster told you this?
As pointed out before, date rapists are sometimes also alley rapists. Dismissing cases as unprosecutable before investigation creates a lot more rapes than booty shorts do.
I can’t find it. It was several years ago. Monstro, I think you and dangerosa were active in the thread, but I don’t remember when it was.
The thread started out about sexual harassment and how it wasn’t fair that a man’s reputation could be “ruined” by an allegation. It was really bizarre, but as I remember it the consensus of the thread was that it was okay to go to the cops if your got groped, but not your boss, because if you couldn’t prove it, it was like it didn’t happen.
I have absolutely no idea what point you’re trying to prove here. The question being discussed (well, in this little segment of this thread) is whether all/most stranger rapes are committed by serial rapists (who presumably left the house deliberately intending to commit a rape, with a plan, logistics, etc), or by men who committed the rape due to a confluence of the situation (ie, went to a bar hoping to meet a girl and have a consensual hookup, got shot down several times, got too drunk, then walking home full of anger and horniness saw a woman who just pressed all the wrong buttons, and…). (Ann Hedonia points out that men discussing the issue might over-estimate the likelihood of the latter occurring, as if we try to envision ourselves in a situation where we might commit violent rape, it would most likely be something like that.)
But nothing about the second hypothetical requires that men be so overcome with lust that they abandon all situational awareness and commit a crime two feet away from a police officer. You would still expect rapes of that sort to occur at night, away from witnesses, etc.
Do we have good evidence about the ratio of the two different types, if in fact I’m making a meaningful distinction at all? I’m not sure, but again, I’m not sure what you think your arguments prove one way or the other.
Manda JO, I think it was this thread.
From that thread:
I once worked as a kennel attendant. One of my coworkers was a thuggish guy who no one really liked. One day as I was washing a dog, he reached into the pocket of the apron I was wearing in a playful way. Because I was a very naive 19-year-old and I was distracted by the dog, I didn’t say anything when it happened. But about five minutes later I realized he had taken my money. It couldn’t have been more than a few dollars, but still.
I went to my boss and told her what happened. The guy gave me back my money and was then fired.
Fast forward eight years later. I’m working in a lab where I am sexually harrassed by a coworker. I tell my boss about it. I show him the weird-ass letter the coworker left for me on my desk. He tells me he doesn’t get why I’m so creeped out, and he hands me back the letter…as if the letter isn’t evidence that he should be filing away for HR purposes. He ends the meeting by telling me not to report to work the next day. The next day, he interviews everyone in the lab one-on-one to see if they can corroborate my story. Which they do. Including the harrasser. When I return to work, I have to move all of my stuff out of the lab and into an office on another floor…far away from people I considered my friends. I’m told that I’m not being punished…and yet that’s how it feels. I’m told that these things sometimes happen and we just have to deal with it, awkwardness and all. Because we’re a family, right?
The harrasser fucks up again a month later and is fired.
So yeah, I get wound up about this topic. I was in a situation where I was afraid and had perfectly valid reasons to be afraid, but my fear was belittled by the one guy who was in the position to do something about it. I was in a situation where I could have witnessed a dude facing some consequences for being unable to control himself–consequences that might have taught him why self-control is important. But instead I was the one who was expected to deal with consequences. I was the one who learned some lessons about just how protected women really are in this world, despite all the lip service about how “fragile” and “vulnerable” we are. When my lunch money was stolen, swift action was taken. A guy who would steal from an employer is clearly a Bad Guy. But a guy who won’t control his libidinal energies is treated with sympathy and understanding (“He just has a harmless crush on you, monstro! Forget that he outweighs you by 100 lbs! There’s no need to be afraid!”), while the woman who is the target of all that is expected to modify her behavior. My boss questioned me so hard about my role in my own harrassment that I had to come out to him as an asexual, at a time when I hadn’t shared that with anyone on the face of this earth. I only did this because he kept suggesting that I must have done something to lead my coworker on. But I shouldn’t have had to do this, especially with a whole bunch of folks backing my story up. And yet that’s how it went down. That’s how it always seems to go down.
If that guy had been just a little more violent and he had physically attacked me, of course my boss would have felt awful. He along with everyone else in that lab would have been traumatized if that guy had flipped out violently. But I would have totally “victim blamed” my boss for ignoring the warning signs. If anyone needs any lecturing about warning signs, it’s not the potential rape victims. It’s the people who are in power to do something about it, but choose not to because “We’re a family, right?”
I’m trying to decouple various discussions of so-called-common-sense-rape-reduction-advice (from here on abbreviated SCCSRRA):
-Would SCCSRA ever actually reduce your risk of being raped? How much?
-Is the impact that adopting SCCRSSA has on a woman’s life so great as to more-than-compensate for any possible benefits it might have?
-When is it appropriate for people to advise other people to follow SCCSRA? When is it victim blaming, whatever that might mean?
-Why is there no equivalent of SCCRSSA for other crimes, particularly crimes that men are likely to be victims of? Or is there?
All interesting topics quite worth of discussion… but I’ve been trying to drill down into the first, because I’m genuinely curious about the idea that very few if any rapes are crimes of passion committed by not-already-rapists, and that therefore superficial safety cues like dress are basically irrelevant. Which certain seems counterintuitive to me… but of course all I have is my intuition, not any hard facts or data or anything, which is what makes it an interesting discussion.
The fact that you think dress is “superficial” is frustrating, dude. We had a poster here who said he thinks women should dress modestly when they go to a gym. What does “modest” gym attire look to you? Because when I think of modest gym attire, I think of a get-up that will make me dread working-out because it will either make me overheat (baggy sweat pants instead of shorts) or feel ugly (a boxy oversized t-shirt instead of a tank top). Dreading a work-out is not trivial. It is not “superficial”.
Clothing is a huge part of people’s identity. Clothing can do wonders for someone’s self-esteem. Like, I always get compliments on the sun hats I wear. If someone were to tell me to wear uglier hats so as to not catch the eye of a rapist, I would feel like the person giving me that advice doesn’t give a fuck about my own feelings and agency. They don’t care that I love my sun hats and don’t view them as “superficial”. They not only serve a practical function, but I also like the way I feel in them. Only someone who is really clueless would say that’s “superficial”.
Let’s say we had statistics showing that cat burglars are fifty times more likely to break into a house painted in neutral tones (white, beige, gray, brown, pale yellow, gray, etc.) than fluorescent colors (hot pink, neon yellow). That statistic makes sense to me because if I were a burglar, I would assume that a crazy-looking house has nothing but crazy, worthless junk. Are you going to rush out and re-paint your house now? Would you want your neighbors to re-paint their houses? If everyone re-painted their houses, do you think cat burglars would retire from the theft business and go straight? Or do you think that, being people with brains, they would just start breaking into all the houses?
Rapists probably rape women with a BMI less than or equal to the 75 percentile at a higher rate than women at and above the 95th percentile. Should women use such a finding to inform them of how much weight they should gain? I’m guessing you would say no because no one considers body size to be superficial. Well, neither is dress. Neither are the other behaviors that guys seem to have no trouble recommending women “rein” in. If they were superficial, women wouldn’t be doing them.
Based on the sexual predators I’ve encountered, it wouldn’t do anything. When they attacked it was because they were “having an attack day”, not because the targets themselves were or did anything differently from any other day.
Yup, this is what needs to be asked.
If women suddenly stopped doing all these so-called risky things, like going out after midnight on their own, do yall really think rapists would just say “gosh darnit, guess I now can finish up that sewing project I’ve been putting off.” Let’s not be foolish. Instead of waiting until the magical hour of midnight to pounce on someone in the alley, now maybe Operation Rape starts at 10p. Or maybe they decide taking women off the street is not worth the effort anymore, but breaking into their homes is a good strategy. Or abduction by carjacking.
We’re discussing this topic at the same time Joseph McCannis in the news. Now ask yourself how effective common sensical advice would have been in stopping him. One of his victims was a 25 year-old woman whom he abducted as she walked home from work, after midnight. It’s tempting to accuse the victim of acting unwisely by being out so late, right? But what do we make of the fact that the very next day, McCann abducted another young woman (who wasn’t alone) off the street in broad daylight?
And McCann also tricked his way into a woman’s home he’d met at a bar. He also attacked an elderly woman as she was loading groceries into her car. He coerced a couple of teenagers into his car too. All of this illustrates that a rapist determined to rape will find a way to rape, even if it means defying “common sense” to normal, non-rapey people.
I see the point you’re making with these examples, but it’s difficult to relate because the severity and long-lasting effects of that kind of crime are relatively minor when compared to rape. It’s generally not worth it to go to extreme lengths to avoid things like property crime because it’s relatively easy to move past. It’s easier to move past the crime than try to totally eliminate your risk to it. If Kavanaugh had only stolen Ford’s backpack, it likely would have just had a very minor impact on her life.
When I think of crimes where I would say “I wish I was raped instead of ____”, I think of things like having my child kidnapped, relative killed, and things like that. Those I think are more comparable. Those kinds of things are emotionally devastating events and people deal with their effects for the rest of their life. So if child kidnappers were 50x more likely to take kids from red houses, I would repaint my house.
The difference here is that repainting your house doesn’t curtail your freedom. It’s more like not letting your child go to the movies, just in case. Children need to take risks and solve things for themselves to grow. Keeping them close by might be theoretically safer, but it’s stunting.
Sure, women doing things that have some theoretical risk may be technically safer, but it curtails a normal and rich life for little gain. And we ask women to curtail a normal and rich life more than we ask men to, and society normalizes that disparity as a reasonable price for a sense of safety.