# "Dont Rape" training...



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Marc MacYoung has an interesting post up on his blog:

http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html



> Second, the most predictable of all is the knee-jerk accusation: "You're blaming the victim."
> 
> This is the default attack strategy of rape awareness programs. You will hear it if you question their doctrine or if you say anything that does not conform to their 'educational' curriculum. Most of all, you'll hear it if you dare mention any pre-assault behavior on the part of the victim.
> In concession, I will admit protecting the emotional comfort of the  victim is paramount to rape crisis programs following sexual assault. That is a good and necessary service.
> ...





> But this is something you will not hear from the rape awareness camps. But notice, there's something the awareness group's letter doesn't mention. They intentionally skip over it to get to the extreme of self-defense and why it is an unreasonable expectation. It is not only the elephant in the room, but they cannot teach it (or even talk about it) without directly contradicting their own rhetoric about blaming the victim.
> 
> And that is 'risk reduction.'
> 
> ...



...as usual, its blunt and controversial but contains a core of truth. The current climate surrounding "rape education" does seem to focus on trying to "train men" not to rape vs teaching women risk reduction behaviors. Attempts to do so commonly seem to result in accusations of "blaming victims" who have already been raped. Personally I find that reaction odd when compared to self defense training of any other sort. If one were to teach "robbery prevention" I don't think there would be a huge uproar that you were blaming robbery victims for being victims.


----------



## sopraisso (Aug 30, 2013)

As an analogy, it is absurd to ask someone who doesn't want to be robbed to walk around carelessly just because the robber is not supposed to be robbing. People shouldn't be criminals, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful and understand the reality that THERE ARE criminals nonetheless. We don't live in a fairy tale.
Violence and danger will always exist by the way and this is a reason enough to make it wise for us to be careful (I didn't mean paranoid). If I'm walking down the street carelessly and a hole in the pavement can make me fall down should I remain walking carelessly only because the hole wasn't supposed to be there? It's impressive how sometimes people just can't be reasonable.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 4


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Marc MacYoung has an interesting post up on his blog:
> 
> http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html
> 
> ...


I think we need both.  For example, men need to be "trained" that a woman who is unconscious or close to it, whether drunk or whatever, cannot consent to sex.  And women need to be advised not to input themselves into that situation.

There was a woman, a BJJ student, in New York a little over a year ago.  She was out by herself on new years eve (IIRC) and ran into a couple of her training partners.  She trusted them, and she ended up getting hammered.  They told her they were taking her home to sleep it off and ended up raping her multiple times in a nearby parking garage and leaving her there.  Who's at fault?  Clearly the guys, but she wouldn't have put herself at risk had she not had so much to drink.  Had they not been caught on camera, they might have gotten away with it.

How often do we read articles about a young woman who alleges she was raped, and within the first couple sentences of the article, we get a complete description of her outfit?  "Jane Doe, 21 of Laurelhurst, alleges she was raped by two men while walking home from a nearby club.  Jane, who was wearing a short skirt and sleeveless blouse...."  

Right now, I think that the issue is that we have a rape culture that we are struggling to even acknowledge exists.  And so, some people push harder to the other extreme than would otherwise be necessary.  I think it will normalize at some point, as we acknowledge both sides of the issue.  

Interesting article.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> How often do we read articles about a young woman who alleges she was raped, and within the first couple sentences of the article, we get a complete description of her outfit?  "Jane Doe, 21 of Laurelhurst, alleges she was raped by two men while walking home from a nearby club.  Jane, who was wearing a short skirt and sleeveless blouse...."



ummm...I never have.


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> ummm...I never have.


Happens all the time.  I've even seen it in the headline.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think we need both.  For example, men need to be "trained" that a woman who is unconscious or close to it, whether drunk or whatever, cannot consent to sex.  And women need to be advised not to input themselves into that situation.




Like this case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...256a1e-10d3-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

In a nutshell...the victim states she went to a party and got intoxicated. Had consensual sex with one guy that evening and a different guy when she awoke the following morning. She found out later that she had sex/was raped (depending on unknown facts) by three midshipmen in between those contacts. 

At issue is her condition at the time and if it was consensual. The common understanding (what most people assume) is that if she didn't remember it than she must have been unconscious and these guys took advantage of an unconscious victim. However....its also possible that she was "conscious"...speaking...and giving these guys the impression this contact was indeed consensual. Alcoholic "blackouts" don't equate to unconsciousness. 

What would the legal issues be if both male and female parties were intoxicated enough to not recall the previous nights happenings? Is the male party still guilty of rape? 

This is not to condone (by ANY means) those situations where men do indeed know the female is too intoxicated to consent...charge em and convict em. But if a guy is the type of person to do that I highly doubt that a class telling them that was wrong would be much more than a PC waste of time. Women need to protect themselves from people and situations like that. I don't want any of my daughters to be at the mercy of assuming a guy has been "properly trained" not to rape. If he needs that type of explanation in the first place I wouldn't want them associating with him.

I want women to be safe. I don't think that shutting down discussion of personal safety issues by screaming "YOU ARE BLAMING THE VICTIM" advances the issue at all. We ALL make mistakes..thats why in the LE/MIL world we have after action reviews (AAR's) we point out where we made mistakes and hope to learn from it so that we don't repeat them. It's not a matter of assigning blame...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Happens all the time.  I've even seen it in the headline.



Have an example? That would raise holy hell where I live....


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Like this case?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...256a1e-10d3-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html
> 
> ...


Whoa.  Back up for a second.  I'm not arguing against the original point you were making.  I agree.  We need both.  While I do think we need to "train men" to not rape, we ALSO need to teach women to be accountable and stay safe.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> ...as usual, its blunt and controversial but contains a core of truth. The current climate surrounding "rape education" does seem to focus on trying to "train men" not to rape vs teaching women risk reduction behaviors. Attempts to do so commonly seem to result in accusations of "blaming victims" who have already been raped. Personally I find that reaction odd when compared to self defense training of any other sort. If one were to teach "robbery prevention" I don't think there would be a huge uproar that you were blaming robbery victims for being victims.


As usual, he's over-stating his case.

Most rape-prevention training includes such nuggets as, "most rapes are Acquaintance/Date Rape" and then offers a variety of advice to modify or mold behavior of the potential victim to not put her (him?) self in that position.



Plan your date for a public place
Don't have your date drive you, meet your date there
Double-date
Don't leave your drink unattended or with your date
Do not drink to excess
If you're going partying, go with a group of others you know and trust
Make a pre-agreement with your group/double-date wing to watch your behavior and to warn you if you appear to be becoming too intoxicated or may be drugged
&tc.

These are all classic staples of rape-prevention training and tacitly acknowledge that a potential victim's behavior and choices can either contribute to their safety or contribute to making them more vulnerable to a crime.

Mr. MacYoung is over-stating his case.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> we ALSO need to teach women to be accountable and stay safe.


Rape prevention classes usually try to do this but you have a three hour class trying to contradict to the woman a lifetime of cultural messages telling her to be a Party Girl, drink to excess, act provocatively (and often more), and that "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun."

It is the equivalent of a 3 hour martial arts "Self Defense" seminar.  It ain't gonna train you to fight.

I've been asked several times to teach a Women's Self Defense seminar and I've always answered yes but that, before I did, here is a list of some of the things I'll be teaching.  Weapons (knives, guns, bludgeons), personal responsibility, knives/guns/bludgeons, warning signs, knives/guns/bludgeons, the "I'm worth fighting for myself" mindset, weapons, simple tricks don't work ( as in "if you know that a man's groin is a sensitive area, don't you think he knows it too and has an entire lifetime of learning to protect it?"), oh, and did I mention weapons?  This is how a smaller, less massive, less strong, person is going to be able to overcome a stronger, heavier, more aggressive person when you only have a few hours of training.

Surprisingly, no one has ever gone ahead and said, "yes, teach us."  Shocking, I know.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Back up for a second.  I'm not arguing against the original point you were making.  I agree.  We need both.  While I do think we need to "train men" to not rape, we ALSO need to teach women to be accountable and stay safe.



Didn't mean to sound confrontational Steve..I was sort of continuing a train of thought vs contradicting anything you said there. All's well.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2013)

This topic is roaring through social media right now...

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.html


----------



## chrispillertkd (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think we need both.  For example, men need to be "trained" that a woman who is unconscious or close to it, whether drunk or whatever, cannot consent to sex.  And women need to be advised not to input themselves into that situation.



I'm sorry, and this isn't intended as a personal dig or anything, but this is the most bizarre thing I have read in a long time. We have to train men to realize that when a person is comatose they're incapable of consenting to sexual congress? Sorry, but if that's the case we've lost any hope that this will, in fact, work or that the people receiving the "training" are anything other than rutting animals in the first place. We might as well admit that we have no idea what the actual problem we're dealing with is or how to address it.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm sorry, and this isn't intended as a personal dig or anything, but this is the most bizarre thing I have read in a long time. We have to train men to realize that when a person is comatose they're incapable of consenting to sexual congress? Sorry, but if that's the case we've lost any hope that this will, in fact, work or that the people receiving the "training" are anything other than rutting animals in the first place. We might as well admit that we have no idea what the actual problem we're dealing with is or how to address it.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Not taken as any kind of dig, Chris.  I wonder why you think it's bizarre, though.  Where do you think we get our ideas about sex, sexuality and what is considered appropriate behavior?  I believe that it is taught.  

Getting women drunk so that they can be "taken advantage of" is now considered a reasonable tactic among some young men.  Where do they learn this?  Why do they think it's okay? And, why would it be bizarre to teach them otherwise?

As I said before, women need to mitigate risk, as well, and should know that getting drunk isn't a great idea unless you're around people you know and trust.  

My opinion is that morality is learned and that we are competing with unrestricted access to hardcore videos for free, on demand, and viewable on everything from phones to tablets to computers from anyplace with 3g or wifi.  We're also competing with sitcoms and movies and popular culture in which kids are being taught that binge drinking of concoctions called, among other things, "panty droppers" is normal.  

So, yeah.  I think young men should be re-trained.  Call it what you want.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> Not taken as any kind of dig, Chris.  I wonder why you think it's bizarre, though.  Where do you think we get our ideas about sex, sexuality and what is considered appropriate behavior?  I believe that it is taught.
> 
> Getting women drunk so that they can be "taken advantage of" is now considered a reasonable tactic among some young men.  Where do they learn this?  Why do they think it's okay? And, why would it be bizarre to teach them otherwise?
> 
> ...



We don't get it in an hour long class given by a dorm RA that's for damn sure....the idea that a public service announcement level of "dont rape guys" is going to accomplish anything is pie in the sky reasoning. If it's not common sense that a passed out girl is not a target for sex then that person has more issues going on than "poor training".


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

No disagreement from me here, tgace.  What we're really talking about is changing culture and it won't happen in a 2 hour (or whatever) training class.  Training a guy on this isn't going to do any more good than teaching a woman anti-rape "self defense" at a 2 hour seminar.   

But, there is a place for an institution formally saying, "This is okay.  This is not okay."  It can help with accountability and is one step out of many needed to change the culture around a particular subject.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve said:


> Not taken as any kind of dig, Chris.  I wonder why you think it's bizarre, though.  Where do you think we get our ideas about sex, sexuality and what is considered appropriate behavior?  I believe that it is taught.



I think it's bizarre for the same reason I thought it was bizarre the first time I encountered this idea about 20 years ago when I was in college: it signals a fundamental moral (and intellectual) bankruptcy that is, apparently widespread through society.  

 I won't argue that _some_ morality is taught. It is. But much of it is derived from general principles that have already been taught. In other words, a parent teaches a child "Don't steal." As the child grows up he is able to reason out from that principle that fraud is wrong. A parent teaches a child "Always keep your word." As the child grows they know that keeping marital vows is of paramount importance. Etc.

My point is, if we have to specifically teach men that a woman who is passed out drunk cannot give consent and that any sexual behavior taken on their part is rape is indicative of a *much* larger problem. I would also argue that, if such training is necessary in the first place it will itself be a futile endeavor. What is needed is much more fundamental.



> Getting women drunk so that they can be "taken advantage of" is now considered a reasonable tactic among some young men.  Where do they learn this?  Why do they think it's okay? And, why would it be bizarre to teach them otherwise?



It has always been considered a "reasonable tactic" by some people, of course. But if you're saying it's now much more widespread, I agree. As for where they learned it, that depends on the person. The dreaded amorphous "society" is certainly to blame to some extent. But society is made up of people and families. If there is a fundamental problem with men not realizing raping someone is bad the fault at least partially lies with their parents. Of course, they themselves are guilty, too, since we all have the ability to use our reason to arrive at the truth about things. (I won't get into ridiculous exceptions that would mitigate moral culpability because that's not the point. And making an exception into a norm is absurd.)

We don't need to train men that getting a girl drunk and then raping her is bad. We need something much more basic than that. Because if a man has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not so bad to rape a woman when she's passed out you're going to have to start at rock bottom in your moral reasoning with him. (Unless one would want to simply concentrate on the possibility if prosecution and jail time which would stand as a deterrent only for some, I think.)



> As I said before, women need to mitigate risk, as well, and should know that getting drunk isn't a great idea unless you're around people you know and trust.



I totally agree here. The three most important rules for self-defense, which I think takes care of not all but an awful lot of problems, are: Don't go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things.    



> My opinion is that morality is learned and that we are competing with unrestricted access to hardcore videos for free, on demand, and viewable on everything from phones to tablets to computers from anyplace with 3g or wifi.  We're also competing with sitcoms and movies and popular culture in which kids are being taught that binge drinking of concoctions called, among other things, "panty droppers" is normal.
> 
> So, yeah.  I think young men should be re-trained.  Call it what you want.



I get what you're saying, I think. But my thinking is that such a re-training will not be successful for many people unless it consists not just of "hey don't do this one behavior" (because, you know, why shouldn't I if all those influences you just named are out there?). It's going to necessitate a rebuilding from the ground up for a lot of people. And, as things stand now, that simply isn't going to happen.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> I think it's bizarre for the same reason I thought it was bizarre the first time I encountered this idea about 20 years ago when I was in college: it signals a fundamental moral (and intellectual) bankruptcy that is, apparently widespread through society.


bankruptcy?  I don't know about that.  Certainly I'd go as far as to say that there is a genuine moral deficiency where sexuality is concerned.  And I'm not talking about it in the Victorian sense of, "Oh, I do declare!  Those kids are having SEX!"  





> I won't argue that _some_ morality is taught. It is. But much of it is derived from general principles that have already been taught. In other words, a parent teaches a child "Don't steal." As the child grows up he is able to reason out from that principle that fraud is wrong. A parent teaches a child "Always keep your word." As the child grows they know that keeping marital vows is of paramount importance. Etc.


Right.  Parents are teaching morality that is aligned with society.  In this case, parents teach their kids (generally) to respect other people, that rape is wrong and that for a man to take advantage of a woman is considered rape.  Society teaches them otherwise, and the contrary messages are pervasive.  I was just watching a brand new sitcom the other night (Trophy Wife) and two women were drinking "Panty Droppers."   


> My point is, if we have to specifically teach men that a woman who is passed out drunk cannot give consent and that any sexual behavior taken on their part is rape is indicative of a *much* larger problem. I would also argue that, if such training is necessary in the first place it will itself be a futile endeavor. What is needed is much more fundamental.


I don't think we're disagreeing here.  There IS a larger problem.  As I said to Tgace, the training will likely not change many individuals behavior, but the training will help in other ways.  At the very least, the training sets a clear expectation.  What we're both saying, I think, is that what is needed is a fundamental shift in culture.  Starting there, setting clear expectations, such as through training or whatever, will help hold people accountable.  

I really think we're saying the same thing, which is why I wonder why you keep using the term "bizarre."  


> It has always been considered a "reasonable tactic" by some people, of course. But if you're saying it's now much more widespread, I agree. As for where they learned it, that depends on the person. The dreaded amorphous "society" is certainly to blame to some extent. But society is made up of people and families.


And the internet and peer groups and schools and clubs and the media and churches and work.





> If there is a fundamental problem with men not realizing raping someone is bad the fault at least partially lies with their parents. Of course, they themselves are guilty, too, since we all have the ability to use our reason to arrive at the truth about things. (I won't get into ridiculous exceptions that would mitigate moral culpability because that's not the point. And making an exception into a norm is absurd.)


once again, we agree. I would only add that you might be forgetting the significant influences on a person from outside the family.  In fact, while parents are the singular authority on most things early in a child's development, as schools, clubs, peer groups and other external activities start entering the mix, children receive significant influences (both good and bad) from outside the home.  





> We don't need to train men that getting a girl drunk and then raping her is bad. We need something much more basic than that. Because if a man has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not so bad to rape a woman when she's passed out you're going to have to start at rock bottom in your moral reasoning with him. (Unless one would want to simply concentrate on the possibility if prosecution and jail time which would stand as a deterrent only for some, I think.)


When I first said it, I put "train" in quotes, because the term was being used by others.  What you're saying is that we don't need (or shouldn't need) to tell a guy that raping her when she's drunk or passed out is bad.  I think we do.  Not that raping is bad.  Most young men would agree that raping anyone is bad. 

The training is, "Hey, if she's drunk or passed out... that's rape."  It's, "This is rape.  This is not rape."  Because the issue is muddied in popular culture from scenes from TV Shows and Movies as recently as last week, to as far back as I can remember (Anyone remember the devil/angel scene in Animal House).


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 21, 2013)

Im absolutely shocked some times at how sloppy drunk people get in public.  We have a nice waterfront downtown bar district and every weekend we find woman passed out unconscious on park benches or store steps.  All alone and passed out cold or so drunk they can barley talk.  When I worked undercover I would regularly go down town on the weekends and just walk around.  Now  I was fully bearded wearing biker clothes looked nothing like a cop.  I would find woman almost every weekend passed out on park benches ask them where they were staying and offer to walk them back to their hotels and 90% of the time they would just go with me no questions asked.  We would cut through back ally ways and down empty streets and they would never question me.  I would almost never say I was a cop or if I did I never had badge or ID on me.  
Im also kinda surprised how men tend to stay together even when drunk Its rare to find a Guy alone when hes that drunk.  We find woman like that far more often.  I dont know why woman tend to either leave friends behind or what happens


----------



## arnisador (Oct 21, 2013)

I've never seen stats. on the value of this training. Surely some are scared away by being informed of the legal penalties, whether they're morally straight or not?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2013)

I'm not "against" this training per se...what the hell try it. 

I'm against the mindset that this "training" is the solution to rape and that telling women to avoid binge drinking because it increases the odds of sexual assault is "victim blaming".


----------



## arnisador (Oct 21, 2013)

Eh. No one should be stabbing me but I still practice knife defenses. Self-defense is about being prepared for bad actors.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Eh. No one should be stabbing me but I still practice knife defenses. Self-defense is about being prepared for bad actors.



And prevention of being a victim in the first place....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 22, 2013)

lklawson said:


> As usual, he's over-stating his case.
> 
> Most *rape-prevention *training includes such nuggets as, "most rapes are Acquaintance/Date Rape" and then offers a variety of advice to modify or mold behavior of the potential victim to not put her (him?) self in that position.
> 
> ...



It should be noted that near the beginning of the blog that MacYoung differentiates between rape PREVENTION and rape AWARENESS.  You are correct that most rape prevention classes/courses do include all of those things.  He is targeting the groups that only do "awareness" and focus on educating men and thinking that it will solve the problem.

I have given a couple talks to high school girls getting ready to leave for college and some of them were appalled that what they wore in public to show off their assets at the club could draw the wrong kind of attention.  They seriously thought that only "hot guys" should be checking them out and would get mad if other guys were checking them out as well.  I don't believe in the mindset of "she had it coming" just because of the clothes/actions she took.  I had to give them another example sometimes to make it sink in.  I asked them would they feel safe if they were carrying lots of money on them, and had hundred dollar bills hanging out of their pockets and clothes.  They all agreed that they would want the money hidden.  Hmmmmmm

I don't even know how to categorize it, but there is a belief that some people have that they can do whatever they want because "it is their right" to do so.  So, they should be able to cut down a dark alley alone to save time.  They should be able to walk through the group of young people on the street corner yelling/taunting passerbys, etc. etc.   Then they are shocked when they are a victim of crime.  I don't know how many times I have come across this in my career.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> bankruptcy?



Absolutely. If people have to be informed that having sex with a woman when she is unconscious is rape there is nothing there, morally or intellectually speaking, in the first place. Both for the person in question and, perhaps, for a good portion of wider society, which help form his moral behavior in the first place. Again, that's not to mitigate the rapist's culpability, it's just to point out the fact that he, apparently, missed even the most basic moral formation (or it was eventually overcome by other influences which is, again, damning). 



> The training is, "Hey, if she's drunk or passed out... that's rape."  It's, "This is rape.  This is not rape."  Because the issue is muddied in popular culture from scenes from TV Shows and Movies as recently as last week, to as far back as I can remember (Anyone remember the devil/angel scene in Animal House).



Yes, and I'm saying that if _this_ most basic of information needs to be passed out as if it's some sort of newsflash for men of college age then there is nothing but a huge black hole in their consciences. Utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy. We could have a lively debate about why it is that we find ourselves at this juncture, I'm sure, but IMNSHO, the fact that we're having this conversation in the first place amply illustrates the dire straits we're in. We might as well inform them that picking someone's pocket is theft if they need that kind of remedial moral formation.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 22, 2013)

I don't think most men need to be told that rape is wrong.  And the ones who do won't get the message from a speech or presentation.  For the handful that need some sort of clarification that if she's drunk, she can't consent -- but, honestly, many aren't going to get the message that way, either.  

Rape is about the only crime where it's taboo to admit that the victim's actions contribute to the potential of it occurring.  Leaving your house or car unlocked isn't an excuse for the criminal to steal stuff from it -- but we recognize that doing so makes you vulnerable to larceny.  Walk through Anacostia in a coat of $100 bills, and people will be surprised if you're not robbed.  But if you point out that getting wasted around a bunch of college guys who aren't known for judgement or impulse control makes you more vulnerable to being raped, or that wearing clothes that leave nothing to the imagination is likely to attract undesired attention, and suddenly we're blaming the victim.  If I was called to do a home security survey, and I walked around and noted that there were a lot of valuables on display from the windows, and that the locks are substandard and ineffective, especially since the homeowner leaves the door unlocked most of the time, and provide some advice on hardening the target and reducing the visibility of those valuables -- I'm providing good advice.  Make comparable advice to women about avoiding rape, and it's blaming the victim.  And often, discouraged from even pointing that out because it might trigger memories in victims in the audience.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Absolutely. If people have to be informed that having sex with a woman when she is unconscious is rape there is nothing there, morally or intellectually speaking, in the first place. Both for the person in question and, perhaps, for a good portion of wider society, which help form his moral behavior in the first place. Again, that's not to mitigate the rapist's culpability, it's just to point out the fact that he, apparently, missed even the most basic moral formation (or it was eventually overcome by other influences which is, again, damning).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay.  I'm just going to cut and paste what I've already said, because it really seems like you're missing it:

To Tgace:
"No disagreement from me here, tgace. What we're really talking about is changing culture and it won't happen in a 2 hour (or whatever) training class. Training a guy on this isn't going to do any more good than teaching a woman anti-rape "self defense" at a 2 hour seminar. 

But, there is a place for an institution formally saying, "This is okay. This is not okay." It can help with accountability and is one step out of many needed to change the culture around a particular subject."

And in direct response to you:
"I don't think we're disagreeing here. There IS a larger problem. As I said to Tgace, the training will likely not change many individuals behavior, but the training will help in other ways. At the very least, the training sets a clear expectation. What we're both saying, I think, is that what is needed is a fundamental shift in culture. Starting there, setting clear expectations, such as through training or whatever, will help hold people accountable."

I genuinely don't understand what you're disagreeing with here.  You are saying pretty much the exact same thing, just using stronger and more judgmental language.  If you're acknowledging that we have a culture that sends mixed messages to kids regarding rape, condemning and simultaneously excusing it, which has brought us to a point where we need to do something about it, I agree.  Call it moral bankruptcy, rape culture or whatever language you choose.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I don't think most men need to be told that rape is wrong.  And the ones who do won't get the message from a speech or presentation.  For the handful that need some sort of clarification that if she's drunk, she can't consent -- but, honestly, many aren't going to get the message that way, either.


I agree.  It's the cognitive dissonance at work, similar to kids who steal movies or music off of Usenet or a torrents site.  Most know that stealing is illegal and would never steal from a store.  The issue isn't whether or not they understand that stealing is wrong.  They just don't see downloading music from a website as stealing.  It's a disconnect that has resulted because society at large has sent mixed signals.  Same thing in a frat house.  The culture of the Greek System is, in my experience, broken and dysfunctional, where excessive drinking as a means of "getting laid" is presented as something other than rape.  The culture of the group creates a disconnect where the behavior is excused and understood to be something other than the behavior that is considered immoral.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> I genuinely don't understand what you're disagreeing with here.  You are saying pretty much the exact same thing, just using stronger and more judgmental language.  If you're acknowledging that we have a culture that sends mixed messages to kids regarding rape, condemning and simultaneously excusing it, which has brought us to a point where we need to do something about it, I agree.  Call it moral bankruptcy, rape culture or whatever language you choose.



I was disagreeing with two things. First, your seeming disagreement that such a requirement for "training" men not to rape unconscious women would be an indication of moral bankruptcy (when you said: "bankruptcy?  I don't know about that."). If such education is, in fact, a necessity then yes it's a sign of moral bankruptcy. Secondly, I would very much disagree with the idea that such a "training" would have any substantive effect in the first place, for the reasons I stated above. If it is the case that a person's parents haven't inculcated a moral sense in them that would prohibit such behavior in the first place, nor their church, for that matter, and that the other societal influences that you cited have formed them in such a manner as to see that behavior as acceptable then I see little hope that having some remedial training would make any positive impact. Yes, we need a "fundamental shift in culture." But I see no such movement on the horizon, and little if any interest in actualizing such a development. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> I was disagreeing with two things. First, your seeming disagreement that such a requirement for "training" men not to rape unconscious women would be an indication of moral bankruptcy (when you said: "bankruptcy?  I don't know about that."). If such education is, in fact, a necessity then yes it's a sign of moral bankruptcy.


Okay.  Thanks.  This makes some sense now.  I think we're arguing over a matter of degrees here.  I agree with you to a point.  I just think you're overstating things.  





> Secondly, I would very much disagree with the idea that such a "training" would have any substantive effect in the first place, for the reasons I stated above. If it is the case that a person's parents haven't inculcated a moral sense in them that would prohibit such behavior in the first place, nor their church, for that matter, and that the other societal influences that you cited have formed them in such a manner as to see that behavior as acceptable then I see little hope that having some remedial training would make any positive impact. Yes, we need a "fundamental shift in culture." But I see no such movement on the horizon, and little if any interest in actualizing such a development.


This is where I get really confused.  Where have I said that this kind of training would have any substantive effect?  In fact, I'm pretty sure I have said that it will likely not have any noticeable affect.  

If we disagree at all, it's that you seem to be saying that all hope is lost, and I think that's why I wonder at the use of more absolute language like "bankrupt."  I don't believe that to be true.  We've seen pervasive changes in the way that society deals with many different issues.  For example, when I was a kid, it was unheard of to wear a seat belt.  Now, most people I know put one on out of habit and would never consider allowing a child to ride unbelted.  Drinking and driving is a huge one.  Twenty or 30 years ago, it was common for someone to hit the happy hour on the way home from work, and if pulled over, the cop would call him a cab or let him go with a warning.  

There's no reason to believe that we can't create a necessary shift in our culture.  We've seen it in many areas of our lives, from interracial and gay marriage to drinking and driving to workplace harassment and discrimination and many, many other examples.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> I agree.  It's the cognitive dissonance at work, similar to kids who steal movies or music off of Usenet or a torrents site.  Most know that stealing is illegal and would never steal from a store.  The issue isn't whether or not they understand that stealing is wrong.  They just don't see downloading music from a website as stealing.  It's a disconnect that has resulted because society at large has sent mixed signals.  Same thing in a frat house.  The culture of the Greek System is, in my experience, broken and dysfunctional, where excessive drinking as a means of "getting laid" is presented as something other than rape.  The culture of the group creates a disconnect where the behavior is excused and understood to be something other than the behavior that is considered immoral.



That's a different issue, I think.  I agree with you that putting the standards out in a clear and distinct manner is a good thing; it's easy to hold people to a standard, if it's published.  If it's just assumed that they know -- there's every chance they don't.  I can't say what the college Greek culture is like; I was never a part of it.  I think that anyone presenting a mindset that tolerates "if I get her drunk enough, I'll get 'lucky'" is already starting from a bad base.  I honestly think that a lot of the people who make a statement like that are already wrong, and you're only going to put a written rule in their face; they'll find a way to justify it.  It might be the outcome of decades of moral relativism...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Oct 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> If we disagree at all, it's that you seem to be saying that all hope is lost, and I think that's why I wonder at the use of more absolute language like "bankrupt."  I don't believe that to be true.



I wouldn't say all _hope_ is lost. But I am certainly not an optimist about putting the breaks on things and reversing course. 



> There's no reason to believe that we can't create a necessary shift in our culture.  We've seen it in many areas of our lives, from interracial and gay marriage to drinking and driving to workplace harassment and discrimination and many, many other examples.



Sure we've seen changes in behavior over time, but I seriously doubt people have the interest or wherewithal to change this one. I could certainly be wrong.

FWIW, I don't see your example of interracial marriage as really applying since it was a temporary and localized aberration from pretty much the entire Common Law tradition. In India, for example, it was estimated that upwards of a third of English men had married an Indian wife. The interracial marriage ban was, in effect, an invention of American slave owners. I don't know that rape falls into that same category (localized and temporary). 

You seem to be saying that we can somehow educate people into moral goodness. You can certainly educate them as to what the good is. But I don't think that knowledge is itself going to make them choose it. Hasn't worked with theft, murder, lying, etc. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> I wouldn't say all _hope_ is lost. But I am certainly not an optimist about putting the breaks on things and reversing course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aren't we talking about America?  What would the history of marriage in India have to do with the topic at hand?  Of course I'm speaking to the history of interracial marriage in the USA.  

Regarding the teaching of morality, yes, I think its taught.  There are two sides to it, though.  While we have an obligation to teach it, there is also a obligation of the individual to learn and apply the teachings.  Some won't.    

While society has largely moved toward ostracizing those who drive intoxicated, some still do so.  While America has largely accepted interracial marriage as normal, there are still some who believe it to be unacceptable.   

Regarding rape, how it's understood and accepted does depend upon the culture in which one is raised. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 7, 2021)

Sorry to necro-post ... a little.  I tried to stomach my way through this thread - all posts of which have been made by men, the statistically larger group that rapes people - and I just can't help but sigh.

There's a lot of (frankly) useless discussion here. Marc McYoung's repeated barking about victim-blaming and cry-bullies has always left me dry and on guard. 

Generally, people of all walks of life can be cavalier about their surroundings, their associations, their practices, their lifestyles, yet the three top sectors of the population to be victims of violent crimes such as rape are all females and 3 out of 4 rapes are committed by someone known by the victim.

We're not stupid here. Self-defense is necessary because of bad people who act badly. Risk reduction is necessary BECAUSE of those bad actors. 

The apologetics touted by bloggers who make money off of controversial positions are hardly viable and a flaccid (though desirous of a more purchased) attempt at offloading the responsibility of men to start calling out men for bad behavior, for acting in the greater good. I seriously think McYoung couldn't support the victimhood of women if someone PAID him to.

It's simple, really - tell me what elderly women in loaded diapers and infants who can't walk can do to reduce their victim ratio? Or are mumus and bibs just that sexy?

Rape is not about sex - it is about control - dominance - power-over. Sex is the weapon.

Get a grip, fellas ... literally.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 7, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> I don't believe in the mindset of "she had it coming" just because of the clothes/actions she took.


The reality is that sometimes how we dress and act does create a "had it coming to you" reality.

They way that I tip toe around this is to focus on the Types of Attention we attract and not the criminal acts that are done. 

The truth of the matter is that Women already understand that the way they dress may attract some negative and even dangerous people.  They understand that because if you ask women if they think a little girls should wear the same revealing clothing many of them would give the same answers and reasons that men like to give.  I think they are probably more fed up with a man telling them that, when they probably know better than men, how what they wear affect men.

I think self-defense for women should focus on.  "If a pearson wants to wear a clothing that may increase safety risk..."
1. What is the best way to protect yourself while in that clothing
2. What are some of the things that I should look for
3. How do I decide that the risk out way the benefits.

The reality is that we could wear a sports jersey in the wrong place and be in more danger than a woman dressed nicely.  I look at my own self-defense efforts as "Risk Management" and not "Prevention."   The only thing I truly want to prevent, is to prevent a bad situation from becoming the worst situation.


----------



## Steve (Nov 7, 2021)

shesulsa said:


> Sorry to necro-post ... a little.  I tried to stomach my way through this thread - all posts of which have been made by men, the statistically larger group that rapes people - and I just can't help but sigh.
> 
> There's a lot of (frankly) useless discussion here. Marc McYoung's repeated barking about victim-blaming and cry-bullies has always left me dry and on guard.
> 
> ...


I’ve learned a lot over the years.  Wish I’d been a little less worried about getting along and more direct in my posts. It’s interesting how much has changed since 2013 and sad how much has not.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 8, 2021)

shesulsa said:


> Sorry to necro-post ... a little.  I tried to stomach my way through this thread - all posts of which have been made by men, the statistically larger group that rapes people - and I just can't help but sigh.


So you're upset that men are discussing a crime that other men are statistically more likely to commit than women?  Should men therefore not discuss bank robbery, murder, or muggings because those are crimes typically committed by other men?  If men are barred from discussing prevention, defense, and mitigation strategies for crimes statistically more often committed by men, what crimes *can* men comment on?




shesulsa said:


> There's a lot of (frankly) useless discussion here.


Umm... You're not new to the forum.  Why should this thread be any different?




shesulsa said:


> Marc McYoung's repeated barking about victim-blaming and cry-bullies has always left me dry and on guard.


He often has that affect on people, regardless of gender.




shesulsa said:


> Generally, people of all walks of life can be cavalier about their surroundings, their associations, their practices, their lifestyles, yet the three top sectors of the population to be victims of violent crimes such as rape are all females and 3 out of 4 rapes are committed by someone known by the victim.


And?  Where are you going with this?




shesulsa said:


> We're not stupid here. Self-defense is necessary because of bad people who act badly. Risk reduction is necessary BECAUSE of those bad actors.


I re-read the thread and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.




shesulsa said:


> The apologetics touted by bloggers who make money off of controversial positions are hardly viable and a flaccid (though desirous of a more purchased) attempt at offloading the responsibility of men to start calling out men for bad behavior, for acting in the greater good. I seriously think McYoung couldn't support the victimhood of women if someone PAID him to.


Could you go over that again?  Because it sounds a little bit like you're saying that all men bear a responsibility for some other person's behavior and choices.  If all men do not instantly decry every instance of "bad behavior" they're somehow "offloading responsibility?"  What else does this apply to? If one man tells a lie are all men required to immediately denounce or bear responsibility for another's lie? Does this rule apply only to men or are women also on the hook for other women's misdeeds?  If one woman lies, steals money, or assaults another person, are all women required be immediately denounce the action or share in the responsibility of the misdeed?

Maybe I missed your actual position because none of that sounds reasonable at all.




shesulsa said:


> It's simple, really - tell me what elderly women in loaded diapers and infants who can't walk can do to reduce their victim ratio? Or are mumus and bibs just that sexy?


Elderly women?   Well, that was, in fact discussed in the thread.  But you admitted that you didn't actually read the thread so you probably missed it.  It involves various mitigation strategies and I particularly mentioned weapons several times.




shesulsa said:


> Rape is not about sex


Except for when  it is.

Peace favor you sword,
Kirk


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 8, 2021)

> So you're upset that men are discussing a crime that other men are statistically more likely to commit than women? Should men therefore not discuss bank robbery, murder, or muggings because those are crimes typically committed by other men? If men are barred from discussing prevention, defense, and mitigation strategies for crimes statistically more often committed by men, what crimes *can* men comment on?



Aren't you cute.  Did I say I was upset THAT men were discussing this matter? No. I did not.



> And? Where are you going with this?



That most of the discussion had tends to slant towards the assumption that a woman is out-and-about engaging in risky behavior wearing clothing that men think invites them or is meant to attract their attention when the truth is the majority of women who are raped are wearing things like pajamas, mumus, casual clothing doing nothing but going about their daily business.



> Could you go over that again? Because it sounds a little bit like you're saying that all men bear a responsibility for some other person's behavior and choices. If all men do not instantly decry every instance of "bad behavior" they're somehow "offloading responsibility?" What else does this apply to? If one man tells a lie are all men required to immediately denounce or bear responsibility for another's lie? Does this rule apply only to men or are women also on the hook for other women's misdeeds? If one woman lies, steals money, or assaults another person, are all women required be immediately denounce the action or share in the responsibility of the misdeed?
> 
> Maybe I missed your actual position because none of that sounds reasonable at all.



Reach much?  

Ironically, most women have been sexually assaulted yet few men claim to know any man who has assaulted someone. Some of the discussion in this thread intimates the responsibility of sexual assault on female victims based on what they wear and where they go and what they do - NOT ON THE ACTIONS OF BAD ACTORS. To respond to your strawman fallacy, yes - women DO call out other women on bad actions ... theft, robbery, spousal abuse, paternal manipulation, etcetera. Most men miss it because they infantilize this type of social responsibility taken on mostly by women as bickering or cat-fighting, transform it into something sexually arousing, and reassign its meaning to suit their desires instead of recognizing the usefulness. So it would be GREAT if MEN could say - "hey, just because a woman dresses up and puts makeup on doesn't mean she's trying to attract someone. Shut that **** down." It is a GENERAL, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - just as many martial artists purport to possess, that of protecting themselves, their loved ones, and someone in genuine need if logically feasible and sensible.



> Elderly women? Well, that was, in fact discussed in the thread. But you admitted that you didn't actually read the thread so you probably missed it. It involves various mitigation strategies and I particularly mentioned weapons several times.



I'll grab some tums and circle back for your recommendation, but the last I checked when visiting elderly relatives, weapons weren't allowed to be possessed by the nursing home residents.



> Except for when it is.



Virtually EVERY expert on rape completely disagrees with this. When do YOU think it's about sex?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2021)

shesulsa said:


> So it would be GREAT if MEN could say - "hey, just because a woman dresses up and puts makeup on doesn't mean she's trying to attract someone. Shut that **** down." It is a GENERAL, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - just as many martial artists purport to possess, that of protecting themselves, their loved ones, and someone in genuine need if logically feasible and sensible.



Yeah. The clothing thing was unexpected for me. I would have thought it was more about actions that place women in a vulnerable position with people they don't know. Rather than just dressing how they want. 

Yes men should not rape women. But women' don't go for those free drinks back at the biker club either. 

(Sorry unless you are holidaying in some weird backwards country that has legitimate issues with that kind of thing. Like Afghanistan or Texas)


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2021)

shesulsa said:


> Virtually EVERY expert on rape completely disagrees with this. When do YOU think it's about sex?



And here is a controversial idea that tacks on to this idea. 

Guys bash other guys for pretty much the same reason that guys rape girls. And this means men are the same victims from the same people for the same reasons. 

And then we get in to a big argument as to whether getting your head kicked in or raped is the greater crime.


----------



## Steve (Nov 8, 2021)

Steve said:


> I agree.  It's the cognitive dissonance at work, similar to kids who steal movies or music off of Usenet or a torrents site.  Most know that stealing is illegal and would never steal from a store.  The issue isn't whether or not they understand that stealing is wrong.  They just don't see downloading music from a website as stealing.  It's a disconnect that has resulted because society at large has sent mixed signals.  Same thing in a frat house.  The culture of the Greek System is, in my experience, broken and dysfunctional, where excessive drinking as a means of "getting laid" is presented as something other than rape.  The culture of the group creates a disconnect where the behavior is excused and understood to be something other than the behavior that is considered immoral.


While my views on this subject have evolved over time, I do still think the above is true.  In my opinion, some kind of societal reset is needed because while men generally agree that sexual assault is bad, I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding that many things men think are fine and dandy are, in fact, sexual assault.  It's that disconnect between the big concept of what is wrong, and the details of what that thing actually is.  So, in the post above, stealing is wrong, but downloading music somehow doesn't count as stealing.  

For example, there has been since this thread was started 9 years ago, a concerted effort to train young men that a woman who is unconscious is not fair game.  What do you do when a young lady passes out at a party?  You make sure she's safe and that she gets home safely.  That's what.  And I really believe that efforts to make this clear have made a difference, at least in some areas.

Guys like Brett Kavanaugh... there's no question in my mind that he did the things he was accused of doing.  I also think, in his mind, those things he and his friends did weren't wrong.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 8, 2021)

shesulsa said:


> Aren't you cute.


Yes.  Being this attractive, however, can be a burden.




shesulsa said:


> Did I say I was upset THAT men were discussing this matter? No. I did not.


Your entire post is complaining about the fact that it's men engaging in most of the discussion,  starting with "I just can't help but sigh" and ending with "Get a grip, fellas ... literally."  If you didn't intend to come across as upset then you might have set on the post for a while then gone back and re-read it, re-writing it to change the tone.

For that matter, aren't you assuming gender here?  How do you know these posters are all men other than you don't like what they wrote?  Not with me, of course.  I'm a guy and I admit it.  




shesulsa said:


> That most of the discussion had tends to slant towards the assumption that a woman is out-and-about engaging in risky behavior wearing clothing that men think invites them or is meant to attract their attention when the truth is the majority of women who are raped are wearing things like pajamas, mumus, casual clothing doing nothing but going about their daily business.


Most of the discussion in this thread, made by men (we assume) specifically didn't not say that what a person is wearing "invites" the attack, though, yes, how a person presents themselves can draw attention.  These are two different things and they shouldn't be conflated, though apparently some people mistakenly do.




shesulsa said:


> Reach much?


All the time.  I'm kinda short (despite being this attractive).  Sometimes I even have to stand on my tippy-toes to get stuff of the top shelf.  I'm a little jealous of those really tall people.  But it's good-natured jealousy.

Are you sure you're not upset?  It sure sounds like it again.




shesulsa said:


> Ironically, most women have been sexually assaulted yet few men claim to know any man who has assaulted someone.


Two reasons (at least).  First, the best statistics we have tend to indicate that the *VAST* majority of men aren't actually rapists, meaning that the set of rapist men is much smaller than the general pool of men.  Second, it turns out that a lot of people who engage is a crime often don't brag about it.  So while some may, apparently many don't, thus, again, reducing the likelihood that any person would knowingly know a rapist.




shesulsa said:


> Some of the discussion in this thread intimates the responsibility of sexual assault on female victims based on what they wear and where they go and what they do - NOT ON THE ACTIONS OF BAD ACTORS.


No.  Some discussion in this thread suggests that some people engage in behavior which increases their odds of being targeted by predators.  This does not excuse the predator.  But if you're going to give advice about personal safety, that should include not putting oneself in higher-risk situations.




shesulsa said:


> To respond to your strawman fallacy, yes - women DO call out other women on bad actions ... theft, robbery, spousal abuse, paternal manipulation, etcetera.


And most men have no problem saying that criminal actions are criminal actions.  Nevertheless, the criminal bears the responsibility for their own actions.  Wasn't that one of your points?




shesulsa said:


> Most men miss it


How do you know most men miss it?




shesulsa said:


> because they infantilize this type of social responsibility taken on mostly by women as bickering or cat-fighting, transform it into something sexually arousing, and reassign its meaning to suit their desires instead of recognizing the usefulness.


I'm not sure where you get your ideas of how "most men" think.  At best it's a caricature and wildly inaccurate.  At worst, it's a stereotype and lazy thinking.




shesulsa said:


> So it would be GREAT if MEN could say - "hey, just because a woman dresses up and puts makeup on doesn't mean she's trying to attract someone.


That's kinda irrelevant to the discussion and I see lots of people frequently make the mistake.  The advice is about managing risk.  If a person wants to dress up attractively, that's their right and, in a perfect world, nothing would happen to them that they don't want.  But a lot of actions, not just clothing choices, can draw the attention of a predator.  The person needs to be aware that they're making choices which could affect their risk profile.  If you want to reduce your risk profile as much as possible, do these things.  If you're willing to accept a different risk profile, at least understand what it is.  




shesulsa said:


> Shut that **** down." It is a GENERAL, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - just as many martial artists purport to possess, that of protecting themselves, their loved ones, and someone in genuine need if logically feasible and sensible.


You seem to be assuming that the "men" in this thread, when suggesting risk mitigation strategies, are somehow absolving the criminal of guilt.  This is not the case.  Learning how to manage and mitigate risk is a part of the picture.  Heck it's a long-standing crime-prevention strategy and is present in all manner of programs and strategies such as CPTED (as one example).  You don't put CPTED strategies in place because the criminal bears no responsibility for their actions, you put them in place to reduce your risk.




shesulsa said:


> I'll grab some tums and circle back for your recommendation, but the last I checked when visiting elderly relatives, weapons weren't allowed to be possessed by the nursing home residents.


When did nursing homes come into it?  That's the first time the "nursing home" restriction has appeared in this thread.  You wrote "old women."   I know a lot of old women (I'm related to several).  Most of them aren't in nursing homes.   You're moving the goal-posts.




shesulsa said:


> Virtually EVERY expert on rape completely disagrees with this. When do YOU think it's about sex?


No they don't.  That's just what most focus on; the violent attacks.  Other rapes, particularly those which feature inability to consent, frequently are about sex much much more than asserting power and authority.  To use the stereotype, when a guy gets a chick blackout drunk so that he can have sex with her, it's both sex and is rape (because she cannot consent).  Sometime back there was a nutter who was breaking into houses and performing cunnilingus on women.  That was all about his personal sexual bent and not about power and control.

The problem is that humans want simple answers so they can have simple solutions.  It's weirdly comforting, somehow, for humans to think that all rapes are about violence and power and sex is just the vehicle because it makes it simple.

So yes, some rapes are about power and control and not about sex.  But some are.

As usual, the subject is just a lot more complex than the caricature being presented.


----------



## Blue Lotus (Nov 8, 2021)

Every time I hear the argument that a woman should not dress in such a way or drink or go to parties, I think about our sisters in Muslim countries that dress extremely modestly, it is illegal to drink, and they have to have a male guardian with them in public (in some places) - and yet they are still raped. Sometimes with the consent of that male guardian. Or the woman in England that was raped and murdered by a policeman after following all the recommended protocols, like wearing running shoes, sticking to well lit places, and phoning in to friends before leaving. She wasn't drunk or dressed provocatively and she most likely trusted her attacker.

This tells me that there is much more to rape than the woman looking a certain way or being in a specific place. Telling them to just avoid those situations? It is telling them all can be fixed if you just do these things this certain way. Don't make yourself a target. Why is it that a certain kind of man can't possibly control himself if a woman does or doesn't do certain things?

Robbery/muggings, sure, usually the perpetrator is desperate for some kind of need and flashing a wad of bills around a shady area probably isn't the best of ideas. But a party with friends? And I am not sure I've heard of a mugger getting off because the victim was a target. And certainly not getting off for being a promising young man (not talking juveniles), like that Brock guy from a few years back.

Imagine those parties/clubs if women followed these rules. I don't think they would exist at all.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 8, 2021)

Nicole said:


> Every time I hear the argument that a woman should not dress in such a way or drink or go to parties,


You didn't hear that argument in this thread.


----------



## Blue Lotus (Nov 8, 2021)

lklawson said:


> You didn't hear that argument in this thread.


The blog in the original post did.


----------



## Steve (Nov 8, 2021)

Nicole said:


> The blog in the original post did.


Agreed.  While there were some good points, the original blog post was grounded in a couple of highly questionable premises.  

One is that women can't learn practical self defense skills without victim blaming; Women have created for themselves some very effective training programs, and they've managed to do so without victim blaming.   I included links to one in another thread.

Another is that increasing awareness around issues is ineffective.  The article suggests without evidence that cancer awareness is a waste of money.  However, we can see all over the world that cancer awareness saves lives.  There have even been some scientific studies on the subject on the impact of cancer awareness, like this one:  Impact of Cancer Awareness Drive on Generating Understanding and Improving Screening Practices for Breast Cancer: a Study on College Teachers in India


----------



## Blue Lotus (Nov 8, 2021)

Steve said:


> Women have created for themselves some very effective training programs, and they've managed to do so without victim blaming. I included links to one in another thread.


I read them and was very encouraged by their results.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 8, 2021)

Steve said:


> It's that disconnect between the big concept of what is wrong, and the details of what that thing actually is. So, in the post above, stealing is wrong, but downloading music somehow doesn't count as stealing.


There is a certain population of people in the world who believe that nothing is wrong until it happens to them or someone they know personally.  Other than that they just don't care.


----------



## Steve (Nov 8, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> There is a certain population of people in the world who believe that nothing is wrong until it happens to them or someone they know personally.  Other than that they just don't care.


That’s true.  I’m not talking about that though.  Have you ever seen Revenge of the Nerds?  Or Animal House?   Porkys?  All were very popular comedies when I was a kid.  We thought they were hilarious and I didn’t realize until I was much older that some of the scenes I thought were hilarious were actually depictions of rape.  And I was not alone.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 8, 2021)

Steve said:


> That’s true.  I’m not talking about that though.  Have you ever seen Revenge of the Nerds?  Or Animal House?   Porkys?  All were very popular comedies when I was a kid.  We thought they were hilarious and I didn’t realize until I was much older that some of the scenes I thought were hilarious were actually depictions of rape.  And I was not alone.


I was too young when I first saw those movies.  I didn't understand much of what went on in them.  All 3 were movies that I had to sneak to watch.  But I do understand what you mean.  I go back and watch some of the old movies and think "ewwww. That was popular?"  I think that's part of growing up as an individual and as a society.   

I think it's good to say.  "There's a lot of things that were ok then, but now I see that it's wrong."  That should be the norm.  That way things will always get better.  People should evolve into something better than the previous generation.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 2, 2021)

Steve said:


> That’s true.  I’m not talking about that though.  Have you ever seen Revenge of the Nerds?  Or Animal House?   Porkys?  All were very popular comedies when I was a kid.  We thought they were hilarious and I didn’t realize until I was much older that some of the scenes I thought were hilarious were actually depictions of rape.  And I was not alone.


Very true.

Think of how many "Hollywood love scenes" depict the male making some type of advancement on the female and the female slapping him (or something similar) and then he grabs her, pulls her in and kisses her as she struggles and then she suddenly relents to the stereotypical sex scene.  Hollywood reinforces a "no doesn't really mean no" attitude and that the female is just "playing hard to get".

A good starting point would be there because most people say that they are against rape, but support shows/movies that show this as a good thing.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 2, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> Very true.
> 
> Think of how many "Hollywood love scenes" depict the male making some type of advancement on the female and the female slapping him (or something similar) and then he grabs her, pulls her in and kisses her as she struggles and then she suddenly relents to the stereotypical sex scene.  Hollywood reinforces a "no doesn't really mean no" attitude and that the female is just "playing hard to get".
> 
> A good starting point would be there because most people say that they are against rape, but support shows/movies that show this as a good thing.


It surprised me when I saw that in on the waterfront. Vaguely remembered it as romantic as a kid, rewatched it last year and realized it's essentially sexual assault.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 2, 2021)

shesulsa said:


> It's simple, really - tell me what elderly women in loaded diapers and infants who can't walk can do to reduce their victim ratio? Or are mumus and bibs just that sexy?
> 
> Rape is not about sex - it is about control - dominance - power-over. Sex is the weapon.
> 
> Get a grip, fellas ... literally.


Sometimes it's about both power and sex.  At my current job, we look into massive amounts of Child Rape,  Child Pornography (Over 20 million reports a year), and Child Sex Trafficking.  In my current position, I have had the unfortunate task of watching interviews and actually interviewing convicted child rapists as well as victims (who we actually call survivors not victims at work per their request).  With an emphasis on rapists of young kids under the age of 3.  Most of them are not actually attracted to the 1, 2, and 3-year-olds their preference is older children 6-12ish.  But that age group can talk and tell and they risk being caught.  So they rape younger or in some cases much older (the elderly in diapers) for a sexual release but it's not really their preferred target.  
Finding ways to reduce the likely hood of victimization in this age group is what my day-to-day job basically is.  It starts with educating adults on what to look for, how to report it, who to report it to.  Because as you said those age groups are targeted because they can't defend themselves.  I also teach law Enforcement, Prosecutors, and Judges what to do once it is reported.  Pre-covid I literally flew around the country doing this.  Now it's mostly on zoom but hopefully, in 2022 I can get back on the road.  

I think telling the fellas to "get a grip" isn't a great way to restart a conversation on this very important topic because there are several fellas here who have a really good grip on the issues.


----------



## Steve (Dec 2, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I was too young when I first saw those movies.  I didn't understand much of what went on in them.  All 3 were movies that I had to sneak to watch.  But I do understand what you mean.  I go back and watch some of the old movies and think "ewwww. That was popular?"  I think that's part of growing up as an individual and as a society.
> 
> I think it's good to say.  "There's a lot of things that were ok then, but now I see that it's wrong."  That should be the norm.  That way things will always get better.  People should evolve into something better than the previous generation.


Agreed. I would only rephrase it a little to say, “There are a lot of things we didn’t understand were wrong then, but now we can see it was always wrong.”   Because, to be sure, the victims knew it was wrong then.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 2, 2021)

Steve said:


> Agreed. I would only rephrase it a little to say, “There are a lot of things we didn’t understand were wrong then, but now we can see it was always wrong.”   Because, to be sure, the victims knew it was wrong then.



The same guy who also murders about 20 people a movie?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 5, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The same guy who also murders about 20 people a movie?


Agree. I feel there is Much more wrong with regards to the violence in movies now a days versus a few decades ago.

Sex and sexualism is a strange creature. Folks can get on their high horse all they want and say "we are above that" but much of what we do in real life and see in movies is modeled after what we see in nature.

This is as much do to with the cancel culture mentality than anything else.  Next week dominos will be racist and chess will be offensive.


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The same guy who also murders about 20 people a movie?


I don't get the question.  Can you elaborate?

Edit:  I don't know if I get the question, but if it's simply that people are murdered in movies, I agree that could be an issue.  But the point I'm making is more nuanced than that.  Murder is illegal, and most of us would agree that it's immoral.  Rape is illegal, and most of us (I hope) would agree that it's also immoral.  While we all have a pretty good handle on what murder is, I think some (many) folks don't understand that many of the things portrayed in movies is actually rape and not just harmless hijinks.    

On one hand, consider that some movies have scenes which portray rape and they are often troubling to watch.  The scene in Animal House when a guy is seriously trying to decide whether to have sex with a coed who is passed out drunk... that isn't intended to be one of them.  That was supposed to be funny.

So, the point isn't that rape should never be depicted in movies, nor is it that people generally don't agree that rape (like murder) is wrong.  It's more about how movies have the societal influence.  If the question is, "Do we need to train kids that rape is wrong?" The answer is, "Well, no, but we could be more intentional and mindful of distinguishing between rape and harmless behaviors." 

The last thing I'll say is that it's not one or the other.  If you think violence is an issue, you might be on to something.  But to use that as an excuse for failing to act in another area is a cop out.  Seems like, if anything, we could talk about doing better in both areas.  Like saying, "Well, Frank burps in church, so I guess I'll just go ahead and fart."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 6, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The same guy who also murders about 20 people a movie?


I missed something catching up here. Which guy are we talking about?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 6, 2021)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I missed something catching up here. Which guy are we talking about?



1970s rapey James bond.


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2021)

drop bear said:


> 1970s rapey James bond.


I completely missed that... did I bring up James Bond?  Either way, he's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.  License to kill is in the promo tagline... but license to rape or sexually assault?  The manner in which women were portrayed in pretty much all of those movies is problematic, but by no means exclusive to James Bond. 

Watched a documentary on Netflix recently that was really interesting that touches on some of these issues. 

This Changes Everything Documentary


----------



## mograph (Dec 6, 2021)

Steve said:


> The manner in which women were portrayed in pretty much all of those movies is problematic, but by no means exclusive to James Bond.


One example would be Harrison Ford as Deckard in _Blade Runner. _
"Questionable Consent" is even a trope.









						Questionable Consent - TV Tropes
					

The line between acceptable and unacceptable is often drawn at consent. However, human emotions and relationships are complex and multifaceted, meaning that consent can sometimes be questionable. How consensual was it, really? The issue of …




					tvtropes.org


----------

