NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/11/band.director.charged.ap/index.html

story kinda speaks for itself

No one thinks guys can't get raped... but guys can only get raped by other guys...

but guys can only get raped by other guys...

Nope.

No one thinks guys can't get raped... but guys can only get raped by other guys...

not true I have known of women who have raped guys

Okay, okay... only a phallic object can rape a guy, alright?

jeezus

Okay, okay... only a phallic object can rape a guy, alright?

jeezus

Guys can have an unwilling erection (hell, I get one just about every morning...too much information?) and an erection is not consent.

Okay, okay... only a phallic object can rape a guy, alright?

jeezus

not true either rape is engaging in sexual relations with a nonconsenting person. most sexual responses are not conciously controlled so if a woman was to overpower a man and stimulate him it is possible, and has happened its just not as common or as widely publicised as a man raping a woman. note I currently work as a detention officer.

not true either rape is engaging in sexual relations with a nonconsenting person. most sexual responses are not conciously controlled so if a woman was to overpower a man and stimulate him it is possible, and has happened its just not as common or as widely publicised as a man raping a woman. note I currently work as a detention officer.

Okay... I think most guys would just bite the bullet and have sex... unless there was some STD involved...

Okay... I think most guys would just bite the bullet and have sex... unless there was some STD involved...

thats true though there currently is a lady in my unit that is charged with raping a gay man I wont say which unit or who the person not only becasue I could loose my job for breach of confidentiality, but also for respect of the guys privacy.

Okay... I think most guys would just bite the bullet and have sex... unless there was some STD involved...

Unless that's your 'thing' having it taken from you is not the same as giving it. There's a reality outside the locker room logic of 'a hole is a hole' and 'sex at any cost' mentality. I wouldn't want to be forced into sex no matter what that does to my man myth.

Guys can have an unwilling erection (hell, I get one just about every morning...too much information?)
no too much information goes like

"my husband gets one every morning too, it's the most beautifulist thing ever"



and an erection is not consent.
damn skippy.

Okay, okay... only a phallic object can rape a guy, alright?

jeezus

Do you consider the vagina to be a phallic object?

Unless that's your 'thing' having it taken from you is not the same as giving it. There's a reality outside the locker room logic of 'a hole is a hole' and 'sex at any cost' mentality. I wouldn't want to be forced into sex no matter what that does to my man myth.
Queer. :p
Do you consider the vagina to be a phallic object?

Yes.

no too much information goes like

"my husband gets one every morning too, it's the most beautifulist thing ever"
actually, it would be far worse if you said: "my husband gets one every morning too, but it doesn't end up lasting very long... :p "
not that i intednt to speak for you in that situation...

actually, it would be far worse if you said: "my husband gets one every morning too, but it doesn't end up lasting very long... :p "
not that i intednt to speak for you in that situation...

my husband has woken up a few times to me just staring at it

"what the hell are you doing?"
"look at it, it's soo cool"
"it's a dick, go to sleep"

:p

my husband has woken up a few times to me just staring at it

"what the hell are you doing?"
"look at it, it's soo cool"
"it's a dick, go to sleep"

:p

See thats to much information:p

my husband has woken up a few times to me just staring at it

"what the hell are you doing?"
"look at it, it's soo cool"
"it's a dick, go to sleep"

:p

Best. Wake up. Ever.

Ah, memories. Distant, long ago, memories...

my husband has woken up a few times to me just staring at it

"what the hell are you doing?"
"look at it, it's soo cool"
"it's a dick, go to sleep"

:p
well, now i know what to send you for your birthday :D
wait... does that even make sense?

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this group make jokes about someone being raped. I honestly don't know what to say about that.

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this group make jokes about someone being raped. I honestly don't know what to say about that.

you should see the other male rape thred, I had to leave the discussion, people make me sick...

Let's just say the subject hits close to home. Yes, as was said, men can be raped by women. It's also true, as was said, an erection is not consent. And yes, it's traumatic. I've seen it firsthand.

you should see the other male rape thred, I had to leave the discussion, people make me sick...

Link? (Yes, I am morbid and fringe.)

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this group make jokes about someone being raped. I honestly don't know what to say about that.

I don't know that we where making jokes about being raped but rather about the patented Smunkee Alarm Clock, only one (1) available, sold out.

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this group make jokes about someone being raped. I honestly don't know what to say about that.
actually, i can't really see that much here that was a joke, or at least, not directly on the thread topic. the only post that i can see that could be considered that is mine. oops, i think i just gave a reason to lynch me...

My apologies then. I'm probably just interpreting it differently than intended because it's a sensitive subject. (shake)

my husband has woken up a few times to me just staring at it

"what the hell are you doing?"
"look at it, it's soo cool"
"it's a dick, go to sleep"

:p

......:eek: ......:confused: .......What, was it wearing sunglasses and a leather jacket or something?

No one thinks guys can't get raped... but guys can only get raped by other guys...



like you raped me on gabbly?

......:eek: ......:confused: .......What, was it wearing sunglasses and a leather jacket or something?
i dare someone, anyone, to do that and post a pic. that would be hilarious.

ok this topic so died like 30 min ago quit making smart remarks and let it go.

No one thinks guys can't get raped... but guys can only get raped by other guys...
Unture!
Happened in Sweden!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/11/band.director.charged.ap/index.html

story kinda speaks for itself

From the other thread, it would seem that a great deal of people wouldn't consider this story rape at all:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498556

In fact, he should probably be grateful for it. :rolleyes:

..ok?

rape is unconsentual sex.

it doesn't have to be at gunpoint:

"have sex with me or I fire you" is just as much rape as "have sex with me or I kill you"

http://www.mitchclem.com/rockcity/index.php?comic=43

Men cannot be raped.

I won't ignore the possibility of surprise-sex unto men, however.

Men cannot be raped.

Explain why.

no too much information goes like

"my husband gets one every morning too, it's the most beautifulist thing ever"



bah, we all get an involuntary one every morning. TMI would be "i've got an errection right now! :)"

*nods*

there is a turkish ancestor word: times are bad protect your ass.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/11/band.director.charged.ap/index.html

story kinda speaks for itself

I certainly don't think men can't get raped. In fact, it happens more often than people think. Men are far less omfortable reporting these things than women. And considering how many women don't report them, that's pretty scary. *nod*

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this group make jokes about someone being raped. I honestly don't know what to say about that.

It's male rape. If movies have taught me anything, it is that you can only joke about male rape. *nod*

Brian ... last night .... Lois was .... the *man* ... *sobs*

Brian ... last night .... Lois was .... the *man* ... *sobs*

One of the best episodes ever. Like when she grabs his scrotum in the dojo and shouts, "These are mine! This is where my babies come from!"

I rarely laugh so thoroughly. :)

Men cannot be raped.

I won't ignore the possibility of surprise-sex unto men, however.

actually men are get raped more offten than women.

prison, priests usually prefere boys. men just complain less.

also it is posible for women to rape men, using viagra.

actually men are get raped more offten than women.

prison, priests usually prefere boys. men just complain less.

You have official numbers for that?

also it is posible for women to rape men, using viagra.

A woman must be really ugly if she has to force a man to have sex with her. If you think of how many women get paid for sex...

Rape isn't about sex its about power ( or something like that) haven't you heard that before?

One of the best episodes ever. Like when she grabs his scrotum in the dojo and shouts, "These are mine! This is where my babies come from!"


Hehe ... yeah.

This recent one where he thinks the doctor violates him bring about one of the funniest little monologues ever.

"I will not turn a brown eye to this!"

Hilarity!

Guys can have an unwilling erection (hell, I get one just about every morning...too much information?) and an erection is not consent.

It kind of is.

It kind of is.
That's like saying raping a chick is okay if you can make her come or her nipples get hard. It's just not true.

http://www.mitchclem.com/rockcity/index.php?comic=43

I used to read 'nothing nice to say' all the time, it made me laugh much, but I haven't checked out Mitch Clem's work in ages. Thanks for reminding me of this talented webcomicist.

No one thinks guys can't get raped... but guys can only get raped by other guys...
Wrong.

Remember, a lot of women are raped using foreign objects. Men can be raped this way just as easily as women. Men can also be fondled against their wishes, or forced to perform sex acts against their wishes.

I'm sure somebody has already said it, but it needs to be repeated: men can experience erections even when they do NOT want to have sex. Women will often lubricate during rape, or show physical signs of "arrousal" even if they do NOT want what is happening to them. The fact that a person's body responds a certain way does NOT mean that they really want the sex or that they consent.

Also, remember that sex is not simply the insertion of a penis into a vagina until the man climaxes. If that were the definition, then it probably would be very difficult to ever force "sex" on a man...but that's not the definition. This discussion is a great example of why male-centered definitions of sex hurt men as well as women; such definitions make it harder for people to believe that men can be forced into sex, and make life worse for male victims of rape.

actually men are get raped more offten than women.

That is untrue. Even when prison rapes are included in the picture, no official estimates put male rape rates anywhere close to the rates experienced by women and girls.

A male who is past puberty can pretty much be certain he will never be raped, as long as he stays out of prison. Even if he goes to prision, he is less likely to be raped than the average woman in society.


prison, priests usually prefere boys. men just complain less.

The most common form of pedophilia is an adult male assaulting a female child. I do not say this to in any way diminish the horror of sexual abuse of boys, but it is important to remember that the media tends to sensationalize "homosexual" child molestation far more than "heterosexual" child rapes. This is because people still assume that pedophiles who assault boys are gay, and gay people are targets.


also it is posible for women to rape men, using viagra.
For the love of cookies, PLEASE let's get over this stupid idea that a hard penis is required for sex. Sorry fellas, but your dicks aren't as important as you seem to think. Believe it or not, it's possible for a MAN to perform oral sex! Even on somebody who isn't male! It's possible for there to be sex acts that don't even involve a single penis! SHOCK!

It's just how things are looked at in our society.

All violence against women is condemnable and the man who commits it should be put to death. A man is not allowed to strike a woman even in self-defense. He just has to sit there and take it. If a woman reaches up to hit him and he blocks it, he's a common criminal. Granted, man-on-man and woman-on-woman violence is reasonably acceptable.

If a woman hits a man, it's not only acceptable, but he deserved it. Bettered husbands are wimps who should take it like a man. Or worse, it's like a male rape victim; it doesn't exist. Hell, a woman can beat the hell out of her husband, make a nick on her body, claim he hit her, and he goes to jail. And heaven forbid he try to leave her; the courts take his salary and send it over her way. Along with all their possessions.

Those of you who would justify this by saying "it's not common" or "it really doesn't exist" or "men are far worse about it" - men are far more likely to get their comeuppance. I understand that women who are raped are not too likely to report it. That's not my problem; it's law enfocement's. And of those who are raped, the presumption is not of innocence. He could have an air-tight alibi, and he's still guilty in the court of public opinion. Just look at the Duke lacrosse scandal. Some lacrosse players act rowdy at a party, and a couple of them maybe-maybe-not rape an exotic dancer, and all of a sudden, the whole team is guilty and so is the entire community. For that matter, all men, especially white men with money, committed this crime. That's how some rape victims see it - their assailant was not the criminal. All men are the criminal.

The difference is not in how often it gets reported - well, the big difference isn't. The big difference is that all a woman has to do is throw out an accusation and the man is a criminal instantly. No man has that kind of recourse. For that matter, trying to accuse a woman of rape or spousal abuse will earn a man, at best, a Pyrrhic victory.

See thats to much information:p

lol, agreed. :P

It's just how things are looked at in our society.

All violence against women is condemnable and the man who commits it should be put to death. A man is not allowed to strike a woman even in self-defense. He just has to sit there and take it. If a woman reaches up to hit him and he blocks it, he's a common criminal. Granted, man-on-man and woman-on-woman violence is reasonably acceptable.

Which is why domestic violence is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, and why one in three American women will be beaten by a male partner at some time during her life. It's also why beating your wife carries far lower penalties than beating a stranger, and why it was legal to rape your wife until very recently. It's why the most common reason for an American woman to be in the ER is because her male partner put her there. It's why we have more animal shelters than we have domestic abuse shelters. Because violence against women is so very very unacceptable in our culture.

And women are totally encouraged to be violent against men without repercussions, which is why roughly half of the women serving time in our country are in prison for killing their abusers. It's why only about 7% of all male homicide victims are killed by women. It's why fewer than 1 in 10 assaults are committed by women. Because we encourage WOMEN to be violent, while discouraging male violence. Of course.


I understand that women who are raped are not too likely to report it. That's not my problem; it's law enfocement's.

It's everybody's problem.


And of those who are raped, the presumption is not of innocence.

We should probably not assume the guilt of rape victims when they come forward, should we?


He could have an air-tight alibi, and he's still guilty in the court of public opinion.

The victim is as likely to be judged "guilty" by the public, since she was a slut who brought it on herself.

Indeed, if you search headlines about rape, you most often find women being told to change how they dress or where they go in order to prevent rape...you rarely find articles that actually hold men responsible for not raping women. If a woman is raped on her way home from the bar, the message is that she shouldn't have been walking home alone, and other women are warned not to walk around late at night. We don't hear people telling MEN to stop going to bars in order to prevent them from raping female pub-goers, we just blame the victims for getting themselves raped.


Just look at the Duke lacrosse scandal. Some lacrosse players act rowdy at a party, and a couple of them maybe-maybe-not rape an exotic dancer, and all of a sudden, the whole team is guilty and so is the entire community. For that matter, all men, especially white men with money, committed this crime. That's how some rape victims see it - their assailant was not the criminal. All men are the criminal.

Straw man, big time. This is the same tired "Won't somebody think of the rapists?!" refrain that gets dragged out whenever there is outcry against sexual assault. Yes, there are a few very crazy and very silly people who blame all of mankind for each individual rape, but it's as stupid to generalize based on this minority as it is to generalize the behavior of the minority of men who rape to say that all men are rapists. In other words, you are doing exactly what you're whining about: you're making a gross an inaccurate generalization based on the lousy actions of a few jackasses.

Some lacross players unequivocally harassed two hired dancers (this is not disputed even by the players themselves) and pretty likely raped one of them. The team is held responsible because virtually every member of the team either participated or failed to act to stop their teammates...they SHOULD be held responsible if they stood by while their mates harassed and/or raped somebody!


The difference is not in how often it gets reported - well, the big difference isn't. The big difference is that all a woman has to do is throw out an accusation and the man is a criminal instantly. No man has that kind of recourse.

The very fact that words like "slut" and "whore" apply exclusively to women shows what bunk this claim is. Men have plenty of "recourse" if they want to throw out random accusations that can ruin a woman's life. All they have to do is imply that the woman in question enjoys having sex, and she becomes a filthy slut who can't be raped because obviously she deserves it.


For that matter, trying to accuse a woman of rape or spousal abuse will earn a man, at best, a Pyrrhic victory.
It is a sad fact that women almost never rape men, while 25% of American women will be raped by a man. Rather than whining about how men don't get to accuse women of rape often enough, why don't we try to reduce the rape rates for EVERYBODY?

rape is unconsentual sex.

it doesn't have to be at gunpoint:

"have sex with me or I fire you" is just as much rape as "have sex with me or I kill you"

While I personally agree with your definition, apparently there are some regulars who have issues with it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489731&page=58

Apparently, according to them, it's not rape unless there's violence or the threat thereof. Threats of economic ruin and social ostracisation don't count.

That is untrue. Even when prison rapes are included in the picture, no official estimates put male rape rates anywhere close to the rates experienced by women and girls.

A male who is past puberty can pretty much be certain he will never be raped, as long as he stays out of prison. Even if he goes to prision, he is less likely to be raped than the average woman in society.

I see no reason to doubt those statistcs, but you must agknowledge that, however rare it may be, men are raped.

The most common form of pedophilia is an adult male assaulting a female child. I do not say this to in any way diminish the horror of sexual abuse of boys, but it is important to remember that the media tends to sensationalize "homosexual" child molestation far more than "heterosexual" child rapes. This is because people still assume that pedophiles who assault boys are gay, and gay people are targets.

After hundreds of pages of discussion. After so many topics that the moderators were afraid it would clog the forum and shut out other discussions, you STILL CAN'T TELL TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEDOPHILES AND CHILD MOLESTERS!!!

90% of molesters aren't pedophiles. They are modivated by things other than sexual attraction like power. Please don't use pedophile as a synonym for child molester or pedophilia as a synonym for child molestation again.

I'd rather not drag this threat off topic, but I can't leave things like that unanswered.

For the love of cookies, PLEASE let's get over this stupid idea that a hard penis is required for sex. Sorry fellas, but your dicks aren't as important as you seem to think. Believe it or not, it's possible for a MAN to perform oral sex! Even on somebody who isn't male! It's possible for there to be sex acts that don't even involve a single penis! SHOCK!
Indeed. This sort of thing leads to all sorts of idiotic misconceptions. Like "men can't be raped".
Which is why domestic violence is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, and why one in three American women will be beaten by a male partner at some time during her life. It's also why beating your wife carries far lower penalties than beating a stranger, and why it was legal to rape your wife until very recently. It's why the most common reason for an American woman to be in the ER is because her male partner put her there. It's why we have more animal shelters than we have domestic abuse shelters. Because violence against women is so very very unacceptable in our culture.

Which is why no one ever speaks out about how horrible violence against women is? Which is why TV is filled with examples of men beating their wives because "they had it coming"?

And women are totally encouraged to be violent against men without repercussions, which is why roughly half of the women serving time in our country are in prison for killing their abusers. It's why only about 7% of all male homicide victims are killed by women. It's why fewer than 1 in 10 assaults are committed by women. Because we encourage WOMEN to be violent, while discouraging male violence. Of course.

When a man is slapped in public, or has a drink thrown in his face, or is kicked in the crotch by a woman, one common question is "What did you do to deserve that?"

It's everybody's problem.

While true, the fact of the matter is that the only ones who can do anything about the reporting are the victums themselves. The rest of society can only try to ensure as best it can that the guilty are punished and the innocent protected from false charges once the victum comes forward.

We should probably not assume the guilt of rape victims when they come forward, should we?

I thought that was a typo.

The victim is as likely to be judged "guilty" by the public, since she was a slut who brought it on herself.

The public is stupid and prejudiced. This isn't the only example of that.

Indeed, if you search headlines about rape, you most often find women being told to change how they dress or where they go in order to prevent rape...you rarely find articles that actually hold men responsible for not raping women. If a woman is raped on her way home from the bar, the message is that she shouldn't have been walking home alone, and other women are warned not to walk around late at night. We don't hear people telling MEN to stop going to bars in order to prevent them from raping female pub-goers, we just blame the victims for getting themselves raped.

To be fair, rapists aren't going to listen to advice geared toward the prevention of rapes. All following your advice is going to do is discourage men who have no intention of raping anyone from going to clubs, thus increasing the proportion of rapists in them and making them more dangerous places. You can only get people with an interest in preventing rape to help with anti-rape efforts.

Straw man, big time. This is the same tired "Won't somebody think of the rapists?!" refrain that gets dragged out whenever there is outcry against sexual assault. Yes, there are a few very crazy and very silly people who blame all of mankind for each individual rape, but it's as stupid to generalize based on this minority as it is to generalize the behavior of the minority of men who rape to say that all men are rapists. In other words, you are doing exactly what you're whining about: you're making a gross an inaccurate generalization based on the lousy actions of a few jackasses.

As I understand it, trust issues are common among rape victums. The people I've spoken with who have been raped have, almost universally, spoken about having trouble trusting people as a result of their experiences. That betrayal of trust isn't easy to get over, and colors their relationships from that moment on. Let's face it, men in general look a lot more potentially threatening once one of them rapes you.

Some lacross players unequivocally harassed two hired dancers (this is not disputed even by the players themselves) and pretty likely raped one of them. The team is held responsible because virtually every member of the team either participated or failed to act to stop their teammates...they SHOULD be held responsible if they stood by while their mates harassed and/or raped somebody!

Never followed the case. Still, if everything is as you've painted it, would you be so quick to blame a bystander who didn't confront a rapist with a gun to a woman's head in a back alley?

Still, if they covered for their teammates (which you never mentioned one way or the other) they are at least guilty of being accompanesses after the fact.

The very fact that words like "slut" and "whore" apply exclusively to women shows what bunk this claim is. Men have plenty of "recourse" if they want to throw out random accusations that can ruin a woman's life. All they have to do is imply that the woman in question enjoys having sex, and she becomes a filthy slut who can't be raped because obviously she deserves it.

I'm afraid not. Not true at all. Maybe back in high school being accused of being a "slut" is enough to "ruin a woman's life", but once you get out of that overly dramatic world, and out in the real world, such things mean rather little. By contrast, men being accused of RAPE actually do have their lives ruined. Innocent until proven guilty is a fairy tale. Did you read about the Ohio civil registry? You don't even need to be convicted (or formally accused) of a crime to be treated as a sex offender, have the places where you can live restricted, and have your name and home address publicly displayed.

I'm sorry if I seem unsympathetic to women called "sluts", but the comparison is patently offensive.

It is a sad fact that women almost never rape men, while 25% of American women will be raped by a man. Rather than whining about how men don't get to accuse women of rape often enough, why don't we try to reduce the rape rates for EVERYBODY?

I know you didn't mean it that way, but this sounds absolutely horrible. It's like you're suggesting that more women should rape men as a kind of twisted revenge. (At least if you just read the first sentence.)

Do people actually read shredded posts? :confused:

While I personally agree with your definition, apparently there are some regulars who have issues with it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489731&page=58

Apparently, according to them, it's not rape unless there's violence or the threat thereof. Threats of economic ruin and social ostracisation don't count.

What a beautiful strawman. The argument in that thread was that some forms of "coercion" are not rape. For instance, a woman reminding her husband that they have not had sex in 3 months and thus convincing him to sleep with her isn't rape.

It was made very clear by pretty much everyone in that thread that threats like, "Fuck me or I fire you," absolutely are rape.

While true, the fact of the matter is that the only ones who can do anything about the reporting are the victums themselves.

Not completely true. If we remove the stigma that goes along with being a victim... If we stop looking at a victim's past sex life as if having consensual sex somehow means that it is impossible for you to be raped... If we ensure that victims receive adequate support....

All of these things will increase the number of people who feel comfortable reporting in the first place.

The rest of society can only try to ensure as best it can that the guilty are punished and the innocent protected from false charges once the victum comes forward.

This, as well as all of what I said above, will do something about the rate of reports.

To be fair, rapists aren't going to listen to advice geared toward the prevention of rapes. All following your advice is going to do is discourage men who have no intention of raping anyone from going to clubs, thus increasing the proportion of rapists in them and making them more dangerous places.

I think Bottle's point was that we shouldn't be telling anyone, "Don't go to bars," or "Don't dress like that," or, "Don't walk home," or any number of things to prevent rapes. We should be holding the rapist responsible for the crime, not the victim.

Anything and anyone with penises and vaginas or other sexual orifice can get raped. Hell I know a few guys that's been gropped.

I see no reason to doubt those statistcs, but you must agknowledge that, however rare it may be, men are raped.

My very first post did precisely that.


Indeed. This sort of thing leads to all sorts of idiotic misconceptions. Like "men can't be raped".

Another example of how patriarchy can hurt men, too! :(


Which is why no one ever speaks out about how horrible violence against women is? Which is why TV is filled with examples of men beating their wives because "they had it coming"?

Violence perpetuated by men, whether against women or other men, is commonly portrayed in a sympathetic manner. However, I never claimed that this was universally true. I simply pointed out that it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that our society encourages female violence while discouraging male violence, when the opposite is so obviously the case.

I don't think anybody can debate the fact that males are encouraged to be violent and aggressive more than females are in our culture. We have taken great strides in discouraging domestic violence and making it nominally unacceptable in society, and that is to be praised, but the fact remains that a third of American women will be battered by a male partner. We're making progress, but we've got a long way to go.


When a man is slapped in public, or has a drink thrown in his face, or is kicked in the crotch by a woman, one common question is "What did you do to deserve that?"

I've seen it go either way. In my experience, it's just as likely that the woman will be labeled a "crazy bitch."


While true, the fact of the matter is that the only ones who can do anything about the reporting are the victums themselves.

Absolutely false. If you witness a rape, you can report it yourself. Remember, a criminal case is actually the STATE versus the accused. Murder victims can't report their own homicide, yet the state will still pursue the cases. Assault victims may be in such serious condition that they cannot report what has happened, but police still investigate and charges are still brought. Rape is no different; if you witness a rape, or are party to a confession by a rapist, you can and should report it.


To be fair, rapists aren't going to listen to advice geared toward the prevention of rapes.

On the contrary, studies have found that a huge percentage of people hold dangerous misconceptions about sex and rape. They believe you can't rape your wife. They believe it's not rape if you bought her dinner first. They believe it's not rape if she was willing to make out with you, but then says "Stop" when you try to go further.

Education can make a difference. A lot of men don't know, or don't acknowledge, that what they are doing is rape. If they are confronted with this information, it can get through to some of them.

It's also important for other men to stand up against rape culture. If you're at a party and your buddy tells you about getting it on with a girl who passed out up stairs, tell him he is a rapist. If another guy makes comments about how a girl "owes him" after he buys dinner, call him on his bullshit. Too few guys are willing to stand up to this crap when they are with other guys.


All following your advice is going to do is discourage men who have no intention of raping anyone from going to clubs, thus increasing the proportion of rapists in them and making them more dangerous places. You can only get people with an interest in preventing rape to help with anti-rape efforts.

I think you underestimate the number of people who are well-meaning but clueless. The number of rapists who are really just deranged fuckers is very small. The overwhelming majority of rapists are guys who have been taught that women are obligated to service them if certain conditions are met, regardless of how the women in question feel about it. They don't think what they are doing to their girlfriend is rape, because "rape" is when a stranger grabs a girl in a dark alley.

Honestly, I've worked with people in this area for a while. You'd be surprised how many people have a little lightbulb flash over their heads when you start explaining this stuff to them.


I'm afraid not. Not true at all. Maybe back in high school being accused of being a "slut" is enough to "ruin a woman's life", but once you get out of that overly dramatic world, and out in the real world, such things mean rather little.

And I'm afraid that most women will tell you otherwise. I've personally known women who had their professional lives ruined by slut-shaming, not to mention their personal lives and romantic lives. It still happens in the "real world," I'm afraid, and it's all too common.


By contrast, men being accused of RAPE actually do have their lives ruined. Innocent until proven guilty is a fairy tale.

And women who bring rape allegations are subject to constant smears and personal attacks, and have every element of their sexual history dragged into the public square as evidence that they're a slut.

Look, rape trials suck for EVERYBODY. I don't think the victims have any better time than the accused.


Did you read about the Ohio civil registry? You don't even need to be convicted (or formally accused) of a crime to be treated as a sex offender, have the places where you can live restricted, and have your name and home address publicly displayed.

Now THAT is a deeply shitty law, and one that I expect will be tossed out right quick. As it should be.


I'm sorry if I seem unsympathetic to women called "sluts", but the comparison is patently offensive.

Meh. I find it offensive that anybody would presume to compare the trauma of BEING raped to the "trauma" of being accused of rape. So we can both have a big tall class of Chill The Fuck Out. :)


I know you didn't mean it that way, but this sounds absolutely horrible. It's like you're suggesting that more women should rape men as a kind of twisted revenge. (At least if you just read the first sentence.)
It was a badly placed comma, and I apologize for that. My intent (as I'm sure you've guessed) was to express sadness at the fact that 25% of women will be raped. Life ain't fair; women get raped by men, but men ALMOST never get raped by women. That sucks. It would be lovely if nobody got raped by anybody.

I think Bottle's point was that we shouldn't be telling anyone, "Don't go to bars," or "Don't dress like that," or, "Don't walk home," or any number of things to prevent rapes. We should be holding the rapist responsible for the crime, not the victim.
Exactly. When a woman is raped, the first thing you see is a horde of people lining up to analyze what she did wrong, and seeking to use her experience as a way to instill fear in other women.

Don't get drunk, girls!

Don't wear that short skirt!

Don't go out alone!

Women are the victims of assaults, and society responds by making THEM responsible for the actions of rapists. Women are the victims of violence, so society responds by trying to impose restrictions on the freedoms of the VICTIMS, as opposed to entertaining the crazy notion that maybe the perps should be the ones who need to be addressed.

Can you imagine if we said, instead:

Don't get drunk, fellas, because your lowered inhibitions will make you more likely to rape or assault a woman!

Don't go to bars frequented by women in revealing clothing, because you may end up harassing them!

Always go out in groups, so that you can watch out for each other and make sure none of you rapes anybody!

Do people actually read shredded posts?Yep! :confused: ;)

And of those who are raped, the presumption is not of innocence. He could have an air-tight alibi, and he's still guilty in the court of public opinion. Just look at the Duke lacrosse scandal. Some lacrosse players act rowdy at a party, and a couple of them maybe-maybe-not rape an exotic dancer, and all of a sudden, the whole team is guilty and so is the entire community. For that matter, all men, especially white men with money, committed this crime. That's how some rape victims see it - their assailant was not the criminal. All men are the criminal.

The big difference is that all a woman has to do is throw out an accusation and the man is a criminal instantly.
People have already replied to your whole post fantastically.... but do you seriously believe this? Do you have any idea of how low rape conviction rates are, and how biased the court system is against rape victims (assuming the crime is actually written down, and followed up to court and then to a trial)?

With a quick search, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4296433.stm) bbc article says that about 5.6% of reported rapes lead to convictions, with just under half coming from a guilty plea. Only 14% of reported rapes managed to simply make it to trial.

Some more stats (http://www.cwasu.org/page_display.asp?pageid=STATS&pagekey=35&itemkey=39) with similar findings about the pathetic way of dealing with rape cases.

I would go through them, or find more information, but it's pretty much common knowledge that a rape victim winning a court case is very unlikely. The conviction rates for rape are the lowest out of all violent crime.

The idea that any man accused of rape is immediatly assumed guilty is simply rubbish.

The ideas that women are "asking for it", that women can't be raped by husbands or boyfriends, that women lie and are manipulative and use rape as revenge on guys.... they are incredibly prevalent.

Exactly. When a woman is raped, the first thing you see is a horde of people lining up to analyze what she did wrong, and seeking to use her experience as a way to instill fear in other women.

Don't go out late, ladies!

Don't get drunk, girls!

Don't wear that short skirt!

Don't invite a man home with you!

I do tend to give that sort of advice, excluding the short skirt part. I just don't want my female relatives and friends to be in the sort of situations that will likely lead to them being abused or feeling degraded.

Women are the victims of assaults, and society responds by making THEM responsible for the actions of rapists. Women are the victims of violence, so society responds by trying to impose restrictions on the freedoms of the VICTIMS, as opposed to entertaining the crazy notion that maybe the perps should be the ones who need to be addressed.

While there is definitely some "blame the victim" nonsense going on, there's also some "it's always the man's fault" nonsense going on. A lot of nonsense on both sides, has been my experience.

Can you imagine if, instead of all this bullshit, we used all that energy to say:

If you can't control your penis, stay home!

Don't get drunk, fellas, because your lowered inhibitions will make you more likely to rape or assault a woman!

She gets to say "No" whenever the hell she wants, and if you choose not to listen you're a rapist!

No, it doesn't matter if you payed for the movie tickets first!

I give that sort of advice too. Often...emphatically, shall we say. Men abusing women is something I tend to express my disgust for very clearly. And until that abuse is no longer a fairly common event, I'll continue to advise the women in my life to avoid drunken parties with men they don't trust to act like gentlemen.

my husband has woken up a few times to me just staring at it

"what the hell are you doing?"
"look at it, it's soo cool"
"it's a dick, go to sleep"

:p



I'll take "Things I really didn't need to know about Smunkee" for $500.

While there is definitely some "blame the victim" nonsense going on, there's also some "it's always the man's fault" nonsense going on. A lot of nonsense on both sides, has been my experience.

If "the man" is the rapist, then it is his fault - plain and simple. To suggest that rape is the fault of anyone other than the rapist is ludicrous.

If "the man" is the rapist, then it is his fault - plain and simple. To suggest that rape is the fault of anyone other than the rapist is ludicrous.

That's true. But I was talking about people spouting nonsense, not who's fault it is that rape occurred. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Okay... I think most guys would just bite the bullet and have sex... unless there was some STD involved...

Yes - because men can obviously not love their wives enough to honestly wish to stay loyal. Right ?

I do tend to give that sort of advice, excluding the short skirt part. I just don't want my female relatives and friends to be in the sort of situations that will likely lead to them being abused or feeling degraded.

Neither do I. My response is, therefore, to deal with the people who would abuse or degrade women. I think it is ass-backwards for me to suggest that women should give up their freedoms in order to accomodate the behavior of jackasses.

It's like how my family dealt with a bad neighborhood we used to live in. We didn't go around telling everybody to stay inside after dark, we worked to take back our community and get rid of the assholes who tried to make our streets unsafe. Our community kicked the drug dealers out of our park, because we were unwilling to tell our kids they had to give up their freedom and fun to accomodate junkies and gangs.

While there is definitely some "blame the victim" nonsense going on, there's also some "it's always the man's fault" nonsense going on. A lot of nonsense on both sides, has been my experience.

Meh. This is the same kind of bitching I hear from racists who whine that everybody blames the white man first.

Women don't want to live in a rape culture, and it's a wonderful thing when men realize that they don't want to live in a rape culture either. If men find themselves uncomfortable because of the rape culture that has been created by our (patriarchal) society, then perhaps they will be motivated to actually do something about it.

It's like how white people often don't like how we are made to feel guilty for the undeserved perks we enjoy by virtue of our race. "I didn't own slaves!" we say. "I'm not racist!" That's great, have a cookie. But by virtue of being white, you enjoy privileges that are denied to non-whites, and you're just going to have to deal with the fact that there are a few downsides to being the privileged class.

Same goes for being male. You don't rape women, and you don't harass women, but you live in a culture where some of your fellow men do these things with frightening frequency. By virtue of being male, you enjoy perks (such as having a very comparably low chance of being raped) that women do not enjoy. The trade-off is that you belong to the gender that is more often doing the victimizing, so you are going to be viewed with more suspicion.

Frankly, if I had to choose to be on one side or the other, I'd rather be at greater risk of being suspected of raping somebody than at greater risk for getting raped.


I give that sort of advice too. Often...emphatically, shall we say. Men abusing women is something I tend to express my disgust for very clearly. And until that abuse is no longer a fairly common event, I'll continue to advise the women in my life to avoid drunken parties with men they don't trust to act like gentlemen.
You'd do better to help those women feel that they are entitled to throw the bums out on their asses. Encourage them to stand up to bullies, both drunken and otherwise, and encourage them to hold men accountable.

But, more importantly, STOP MAKING MEN'S BEHAVIOR INTO A WOMEN'S PROBLEM. Instead of talking to the women in your life about "staying safe," use that time to talk to the men in your life, and teach them how to be decent and respectful fellows. Instead of "advising" women to avoid going where they want to go, use that energy to advise men to act like bloody grownups.

Which is why domestic violence is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, and why one in three American women will be beaten by a male partner at some time during her life. It's also why beating your wife carries far lower penalties than beating a stranger, and why it was legal to rape your wife until very recently. It's why the most common reason for an American woman to be in the ER is because her male partner put her there. It's why we have more animal shelters than we have domestic abuse shelters. Because violence against women is so very very unacceptable in our culture.

And women are totally encouraged to be violent against men without repercussions, which is why roughly half of the women serving time in our country are in prison for killing their abusers. It's why only about 7% of all male homicide victims are killed by women. It's why fewer than 1 in 10 assaults are committed by women. Because we encourage WOMEN to be violent, while discouraging male violence. Of course.

OK, where do I start with this one. Until recently, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife. No argument here. The pendulum started swinging very gradually in the opposite direction. It went from the police not getting involved to the police coming over and walking the guy around the block to the police locking the huy up and sending him home the next day to...whatever the hell they do now. The question isn't whether it's considered "acceptable." I don't think anyone's here to make that claim. The claim I am here to make is this - tell someone about a man beating his wife. You will get a few responses ranging from, "Wow, that guy's an asshole" to "Is he a drunk?" to "Why doesn't she just leave?" Now, rewind. Tell the same person about a woman beating her husband. The question is, "What did he do to deserve it?" Violence against women is always seen as wrong. We have reached that point.

And one last thing - don't go telling me that women should go free for killing abusive husbands. At best, their crime should be reduced to manslaughter. Last time I checked, that still carries a sentence. it also invokes a potential rant about the prison system, which is another rant for another day entirely.

It's everybody's problem.

Don't go feminist on me. I do my part to limit the number of rapes and assaults by not committing them. It's one of the few cases where I will tell you that everyone should do the same. The only thing that's everyone's problem is to keep oneself from committing them. Encouraging victims to come forward and expedite the prosecution? I'll leave that to the professionals. I'd like to think that, at the very least, it's going in the right direction. The situation's not where it should be, but it's getting better on some level.

We should probably not assume the guilt of rape victims when they come forward, should we?

An entirely separate issue. Frankly, I imagine a lot of people would assume a rape victim is just as guilty, but once again, that's just a more, shall we say, hard-hitting "blame the victim" issue. It's no different from blaming someone for having their car stolen because they parked it in a busy area. That problem is a subset of a greater mindset.

The victim is as likely to be judged "guilty" by the public, since she was a slut who brought it on herself.

Indeed, if you search headlines about rape, you most often find women being told to change how they dress or where they go in order to prevent rape...you rarely find articles that actually hold men responsible for not raping women. If a woman is raped on her way home from the bar, the message is that she shouldn't have been walking home alone, and other women are warned not to walk around late at night. We don't hear people telling MEN to stop going to bars in order to prevent them from raping female pub-goers, we just blame the victims for getting themselves raped.

As I said above, being a rape victim is only different from being, say, a theft victim in that it's far more traumatic, barring a threat on one's life. People are told to take all kinds of preventative measures to avoid having their cars or their car stereos stolen. People are told to carry belonging close to them in public, especially in a crowded area. Ask anyone who travels to New York City about the fear of pickpockets. The view of crime is that it's not going anywhere and that it's the possible victims' job to prevent it.

In no way am I trying to equate the trauma of rape to car theft. However, I am trying to equate the "blame the victim" mindset and explain why it doesn't just extend to female rape victims. I got my car stereo stolen out of my car last December. I assure you that a number of people would say it's my fault for having a nice car stereo in an area with some measure of crime, not to mention the fact that I didn't keep an eye on my car, don't carry a gun, and the stereo didn't have a detachable faceplate. Why do we trot those excuses out? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to pass the responsibility on to individuals and blame the victim than it is to root out crime and the causes for it. Therefore, if we start trying to root out the "blame the victim" culture for rape, we will start to root it out for any other crime as well.

Straw man, big time. This is the same tired "Won't somebody think of the rapists?!" refrain that gets dragged out whenever there is outcry against sexual assault. Yes, there are a few very crazy and very silly people who blame all of mankind for each individual rape, but it's as stupid to generalize based on this minority as it is to generalize the behavior of the minority of men who rape to say that all men are rapists. In other words, you are doing exactly what you're whining about: you're making a gross an inaccurate generalization based on the lousy actions of a few jackasses.

Some lacross players unequivocally harassed two hired dancers (this is not disputed even by the players themselves) and pretty likely raped one of them. The team is held responsible because virtually every member of the team either participated or failed to act to stop their teammates...they SHOULD be held responsible if they stood by while their mates harassed and/or raped somebody!

This is...monumental for me...the first time anyone's accused me of a logical fallacy. Allow me to bask in this for a minute.

OK, basking over. Not all rape victims believe that every man (or as one put it, every heterosexual man) raped her when it was one assmonkey who did it. But some do. Some will ask, "I was raped before by a heterosexual man...this person here is a heterosexual man. Will he rape me, too? Better not take the chance." I trot out the comparison to Moe, a cat my brother and I inadvertently rescued when we were young. Some neighborhood kids were throwing him around like a rag doll, and we put a stop to it. We ended up giving the cat to our great-grandmother. Despite the fact that my brother and I rescued Moe, he didn't seem to like us. Why? We were children. Children had abused him. Would we abuse him, too? He wasn't about to take the chance. I'm sure there's a more well-known example to trot out, but I used what I had.

Here's what we know. The lacrosse players hired dancers. They verbally harassed at least one, and the story goes that a handful of them raped her. Here's what we don't know. How many were aware, at the time, that she was being raped? There's a big difference between shouting the N-word at a woman and sexually assaulting her. Anyone who can't tell the difference should be hosed down with ice-cold water and re-educated stat. Maybe we do know this and I missed it; the case hasn't been much in the news lately. What I do know is this: The university immediately cancelled the Duke lacrosse season, and the defense has been doing serious damage control in order to make sure that the players are actually presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The wrinkle in this is race and economic class. I would hazard a guess that the poorer sections of Durham would be joyed in ruining these players' lives for this, not because they are guilty but because they are white and rich, and to see one of them suffer is OK with them. It's the same as when people see a broken-down Mercedes on the side of the road and sneer at the driver or when a millionaire athlete or actor gets his identity stolen. Even if they didn't do anything to deserve it, they still deserve it. The rich sneer at the poor and the poor sneer at the rich. Oh, I'm sorry, I got off-topic here. Never mind. Another rant for another day.

The very fact that words like "slut" and "whore" apply exclusively to women shows what bunk this claim is. Men have plenty of "recourse" if they want to throw out random accusations that can ruin a woman's life. All they have to do is imply that the woman in question enjoys having sex, and she becomes a filthy slut who can't be raped because obviously she deserves it.

Somehow I can't really picture this scenario taking place without another variable I'm surprised neither of us has brought up - that's right, alcoholic beverages, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems. Women were among the biggest proponents of Prohibition because alcohol makes people do stupid things, like become violent. I can't really say I blame them. Now granted, if a man thinks a woman's easy and deserves to be raped, he's far more likely to keep that opinion to himself or between close friends when he's sober. That's not to say that men only do these things when they're drunk, but why are we ignoring this? It makes me wonder if alcohol should be taken off college campuses entirely throughout the country. Frankly, if people knew what was good for them, they would never touch it at all. I don't give a shit how good for your heart people say wine is. It's a small price to pay to get rid of it all.

It is a sad fact that women almost never rape men, while 25% of American women will be raped by a man. Rather than whining about how men don't get to accuse women of rape often enough, why don't we try to reduce the rape rates for EVERYBODY?

Right, because if we reduce the rape rates for everyone, no one will get raped. At this point, reducing rape rates means reducing rape rates for women, and it describes doing what i just described above - far less alcohol and a culture that doesn't blame the victim. Sadly, I don't see either of those happening within my lifetime. It's worth working for, but it's a lot more of a work in progress than people are willing to admit. Reducing the rape rates for men means that it can no longer be acceptable to laugh at victims and claim they really wanted it. And I don't just mean the assholish blame-the-victim or sticking up for the assailant. I mean doing away with that attitude that all men think about or care about is sex and don't care how they get it.

Yes - because men can obviously not love their wives enough to honestly wish to stay loyal. Right ?

Also, if it's truly rape, the man wouldn't have the option of refusing, even if there was STD involved. That's the whole idea of rape; the victim doesn't have a choice.

Okay, okay... only a phallic object can rape a guy, alright?

jeezus

My dad was in college. He was in a fraternity. He was talking to a girl on the phone for a while. He invited her to a frat party. When she showed up she was really fat. My dad had his friends get rid of her. They threw potatos at her and yelled, "Sui, sui!" A few days later, my dad was walking down a street in Westwood. A van pulled up and two guys with shotguns forced him into the van. They took him to an apartment. The girl was there. They would not let him leave until he had sex with her. He had sex with her and then he left.

My dad was in college. He was in a fraternity. He was talking to a girl on the phone for a while. He invited her to a frat party. When she showed up she was really fat. My dad had his friends get rid of her. They threw potatos at her and yelled, "Sui, sui!" A few days later, my dad was walking down a street in Westwood. A van pulled up and two guys with shotguns forced him into the van. They took him to an apartment. The girl was there. They would not let him leave until he had sex with her. He had sex with her and then he left.

Hmm. In the girls place I would have preferred to humiliate your dad in another way than by having sex. Nevertheless, this is indeed rape.

And one last thing - don't go telling me that women should go free for killing abusive husbands. At best, their crime should be reduced to manslaughter.

I'd say that all depends on the situation. Many of these killings occur in pure self-defense. A woman is getting beaten for the third time that week. Out of pure frustration and rage, she grabs the heaviest thing within reach and hits back. At this point, she has enraged him even further. If she stops now, she knows he will kill her this time. So she keeps hitting and keeps hitting, until he stops moving and can't hit her anymore. Should she really go to jail for saving her own life?

Don't go feminist on me. I do my part to limit the number of rapes and assaults by not committing them. It's one of the few cases where I will tell you that everyone should do the same. The only thing that's everyone's problem is to keep oneself from committing them. Encouraging victims to come forward and expedite the prosecution? I'll leave that to the professionals. I'd like to think that, at the very least, it's going in the right direction. The situation's not where it should be, but it's getting better on some level.

It has nothing to do with feminism. This is basic human empathy. If everyone who gave a shit did nothing but sit around and say, "Well, I'm not going to rape anyone. Everyone else should be like me," and left it at that, things would never get better - for anyone.

The view of crime is that it's not going anywhere and that it's the possible victims' job to prevent it.

...which is an idiotic viewpoint. It doesn't matter if I leave my car doors wide open and the keys in the ignition. It is not in any way my fault if someone jumps in the car and steals it. It is totally and completely the fault of the person committing the crime. Now, because I know there are assholes out there who will steal my car, I take measures to make it more difficult for them to do so. However, it is not "my job" to do so.

Somehow I can't really picture this scenario taking place without another variable I'm surprised neither of us has brought up - that's right, alcoholic beverages, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.

Let me tell you a little story. A young girl (17) has been dating a college guy (~23 at this point) for several years. They are engaged and when the girl starts college the next year, they intend to move in together. Her family adores him (as does she, obviously). She discovers that, despite their precautions, she is pregnant and goes to tell him. He is so shocked by the news that he says he "doesn't think they should tell people they're dating anymore," because he has been cheating on her for the past several months. She breaks off the engagement and rethinks her options, deciding to have an abortion - something her parents already don't agree with.

In an act of petty revenge for her decision - pure and simple - the man writes a long letter to her mother. He claims that she cheated on him numerous times (a claim which is completely fabricated), that she is just a slut and that he doesn't even think the baby was his to begin with. The mother believes the contents of the letter and ostracizes her own daughter, forcing her to move out of the house. Their relationship is ruined for years, and, even years later, is nothing like what it once was.

This story happened to a friend of mine. While I can't tell you for certain that the guy wasn't drunk at the time he wrote the letter, the action seems a bit more premeditated than simply blurting things out to drinking buddies.

Right, because if we reduce the rape rates for everyone, no one will get raped.

No, less people will get raped. I don't think any of us are idealistic enough to believe we can reduce the rates to zero.

At this point, reducing rape rates means reducing rape rates for women,

Why is that? Is it impossible to work to reduce the incidence of all rapes?

and it describes doing what i just described above - far less alcohol and a culture that doesn't blame the victim. Sadly, I don't see either of those happening within my lifetime. It's worth working for, but it's a lot more of a work in progress than people are willing to admit.

And it's especially unlikely to happen when someone says, "My only part is to not rape anyone. Everyone should be like me, but I'm not going to actually take action to try and encourage that."

Reducing the rape rates for men means that it can no longer be acceptable to laugh at victims and claim they really wanted it. And I don't just mean the assholish blame-the-victim or sticking up for the assailant. I mean doing away with that attitude that all men think about or care about is sex and don't care how they get it.

Indeed.

Neither do I. My response is, therefore, to deal with the people who would abuse or degrade women. I think it is ass-backwards for me to suggest that women should give up their freedoms in order to accomodate the behavior of jackasses.

Should give up their freedoms? Certainly not. Recognize that the situation is not ideal and take steps to deal with it? Yes.

It's like how my family dealt with a bad neighborhood we used to live in. We didn't go around telling everybody to stay inside after dark, we worked to take back our community and get rid of the assholes who tried to make our streets unsafe. Our community kicked the drug dealers out of our park, because we were unwilling to tell our kids they had to give up their freedom and fun to accomodate junkies and gangs.

Amen to that. There was a guy who tried to rape a friend of mine. We ostracized him from the community and made sure that law enforcement got involved.

Meh. This is the same kind of bitching I hear from racists who whine that everybody blames the white man first.

There was no bitching.

Women don't want to live in a rape culture, and it's a wonderful thing when men realize that they don't want to live in a rape culture either. If men find themselves uncomfortable because of the rape culture that has been created by our (patriarchal) society, then perhaps they will be motivated to actually do something about it.

I certainly hope other men are so motivated.

It's like how white people often don't like how we are made to feel guilty for the undeserved perks we enjoy by virtue of our race. "I didn't own slaves!" we say. "I'm not racist!" That's great, have a cookie. But by virtue of being white, you enjoy privileges that are denied to non-whites, and you're just going to have to deal with the fact that there are a few downsides to being the privileged class. Same goes for being male.

You've recognized that there are privileged people and groups in our society. That's great. Have a cookie yourself. Maybe two or three. I'll join you, because it's not as if I'm unaware of our society's problems.

You'd do better to help those women feel that they are entitled to throw the bums out on their asses. Encourage them to stand up to bullies, both drunken and otherwise, and encourage them to hold men accountable.

I do, actually. I've taught several of my female friends how to punch effectively, and always keep my offer to teach them other self-defense methods available to them and encourage them to take advantage of it. I encourage my little sister to defend herself when a guy gets fresh with her, and she does, and I'm proud of her for that.

But, more importantly, STOP MAKING MEN'S BEHAVIOR INTO A WOMEN'S PROBLEM. Instead of talking to the women in your life about "staying safe," use that time to talk to the men in your life, and teach them how to be decent and respectful fellows. Instead of "advising" women to avoid going where they want to go, use that energy to advise men to act like bloody grownups.

I ain't making men's behavior into a women's problem. The fact is, when men rape women, they just made their behavior into a problem for the women involved. Which is horrendously unfair, yes. And it pisses me off just thinking about it. :mad:

That said, that sort of behavior is everybody's problem, because it affects us all. It affects the criminals, the victims, and their families. I think we've all probably known, or will at some point in our lives, a rape victim or someone who committed a rape, and it affects us, often deeply. It's hurting us all, so let's all deal with it, preferably in cooperation, rather than misdirecting our anger at the men who aren't out there raping, and telling them to get the other men to stop it. As a practical matter, that's not enough, any more than it would be enough to simply tell non-murderers to get the murderers to stop murdering. We also need to tell women to defend themselves and take reasonable measures to prevent some idiot from raping them, which may include *gasp* not putting yourself in a situation where there are likely to be horny, uninhibited males who choose not to control themselves.

Note: The quality of your response was a fine example of the nonsense I was talking about. Naturally, if I disagree on some level with your points, I must be blaming the victim and misunderstanding the problem, or not doing enough to stop it.

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen this group make jokes about someone being raped. I honestly don't know what to say about that.

Hell, I've seen it. We can joke about anything.

Yes, I know a guy can be raped by a man or woman and it doesn't have to be a phallic object, it just means without consent. And it's not true that any man would do it anyway unless an STD was involved. That's like the "prostitutes can't be raped" fallacy. Human beings are human beings, and we have the right to give it as we please and to refuse if we want. When that is finally understood, we'll be one step closer to having a truly humanitarian society (and government).

Hell, I've seen it. We can joke about anything.

Yes, I know a guy can be raped by a man or woman and it doesn't have to be a phallic object, it just means without consent. And it's not true that any man would do it anyway unless an STD was involved. That's like the "prostitutes can't be raped" fallacy. Human beings are human beings, and we have the right to give it as we please and to refuse if we want. When that is finally understood, we'll be one step closer to having a truly humanitarian society (and government).

Very much agreed. :)

Though I don't like rape jokes, in general.

That's what I call it when a person's post is separated into numerous quotes and each part commented on individually. It's a pet peeve of mine. But once someone replies to such a post by taking each reply from the previous, quoting each separately and responding to each separate response that I just smile, nod and move on to something my simple brain can follow. :)

The trick is to read over the whole of the person's statements, to get a sense of their viewpoint, and then take the statements individually once you have that context. Otherwise it tends to go off on tangents and ends up with heavily beating many straw men.

I like the shredded posts label, LG. They call it ping-pong debating in the UN forum, but shredded posts fits just as well, I think.

Very much agreed. :)

Though I don't like rape jokes, in general.

I am of two minds about that:

1) It's true, laughing about a serious topic like that, one that is still a major social problem, makes it seem less important. Minimizing a social problem means it's not getting effectively addressed, making it even more difficult to wipe out.

2) If we can't laugh about a scary, painful situation, we can't allow ourselves to get past the pain in order to think logically about it. One of the first guidelines of survival in any crisis is to maintain a positive mental attitude, and often that means finding something to laugh about. Otherwise you just panic, your outdated survival instincts run amok, and you end up dying because of confusion, fatigue, and the consequences of the bad choices you end up making.

Ever notice that Jews make the most jokes about the Holocaust? (I'm a Jew, so I can say that.) :D

I am of two minds about that:

1) It's true, laughing about a serious topic like that, one that is still a major social problem, makes it seem less important. Minimizing a social problem means it's not getting effectively addressed, making it even more difficult to wipe out.

That was one of my thoughts on it as well.

2) If we can't laugh about a scary, painful situation, we can't allow ourselves to get past the pain in order to think logically about it. One of the first guidelines of survival in any crisis is to maintain a positive mental attitude, and often that means finding something to laugh about. Otherwise you just panic, your outdated survival instincts run amok, and you end up dying because of confusion, fatigue, and the consequences of the bad choices you end up making.

Ever notice that Jews make the most jokes about the Holocaust? (I'm a Jew, so I can say that.) :D

I can see how it would help, but I generally prefer to vent in a journal or hit a punching bag to deal with those feelings, when it comes to serious issues.

I can see how it would help, but I generally prefer to vent in a journal or hit a punching bag to deal with those feelings, when it comes to serious issues.

Can't argue with that! Keep up the good work.

What a beautiful strawman. The argument in that thread was that some forms of "coercion" are not rape. For instance, a woman reminding her husband that they have not had sex in 3 months and thus convincing him to sleep with her isn't rape.

It was made very clear by pretty much everyone in that thread that threats like, "Fuck me or I fire you," absolutely are rape.

First off, that wasn't a straw man. At worst it was a red hearing, since it was a tad off topic. Just something I felt the need to point out.

Secondly, did you read the thread? It wasn't made clear at all that these things "absolutely are rape". Instead, they made it quite clear that only physical threats of bodily injury, imprisonment, or the same to a family member count as cohersive rape. All other methods of coersion fall under the dubious heading of "sexual harrassment". They made it clear that such things were NOT rape in their viewpoint. Dispicable, but not rape. I took serious issue with that, which was the whole point of me pointing it out here.

Not completely true. If we remove the stigma that goes along with being a victim... If we stop looking at a victim's past sex life as if having consensual sex somehow means that it is impossible for you to be raped... If we ensure that victims receive adequate support....

All of these things will increase the number of people who feel comfortable reporting in the first place.

I've been looking for a way to remove stygmas for a long time. If you've got a reasonably reliable method of doing it, I'm all ears. Until you have one, I'll contend that the best we can do is personally behave in a compassionate just fassion once we hear about something like this.

This, as well as all of what I said above, will do something about the rate of reports.

And that's all well and good, but the fact remains that only the people who know about a crime can report said crime, and usually that means the perpetrator and the victum. (And we all know how often the perpetrator reports his own crimes.)

I think Bottle's point was that we shouldn't be telling anyone, "Don't go to bars," or "Don't dress like that," or, "Don't walk home," or any number of things to prevent rapes. We should be holding the rapist responsible for the crime, not the victim.
And what that means, essentially, is not agknowledging that there are criminals who are willing to hurt people in the world, and thus not giving people advice on how best to avoid said criminals or defend themselves against their predations. Bottle's advice was essentially quit telling people what they should do. Don't tell people not to leave their keys in their cars because that would be "blaming them" for getting their cars stolen.
My very first post did precisely that.

Indeed. I just wanted to reemphasise the point.

Another example of how patriarchy can hurt men, too! :(

Steriotyping and dividing into gender camps hurts everyone. Even the "privledged" gender. Trouble is, neither gender is going to help their cause by lashing out at the other (and words like "patriarchy" do precisely that). All that accomplishes is forcing further divides and segregations as people who are otherwise sympathetic to issues of equality start falling into defensive postures as they percieve themselves being attacked. I've fallen into that trap myself far too often, and for my part in it, I appologise.

Violence perpetuated by men, whether against women or other men, is commonly portrayed in a sympathetic manner. However, I never claimed that this was universally true. I simply pointed out that it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that our society encourages female violence while discouraging male violence, when the opposite is so obviously the case.

Ever hear the phrase, "never hit a woman"? As a male I've been given that piece of sage advice and the related one about girls back when I was younger since my earliest memories, but I've yet to hear it's analog. Are you women given similar instructions to never hit men?

I'd like to see an example of this sympathetic portrayal of violence against women. Honestly I would. Maybe I'd feel the same as you about the state of our culture and it's "obvious" victums if I'd ever seen that.

I don't think anybody can debate the fact that males are encouraged to be violent and aggressive more than females are in our culture. We have taken great strides in discouraging domestic violence and making it nominally unacceptable in society, and that is to be praised, but the fact remains that a third of American women will be battered by a male partner. We're making progress, but we've got a long way to go.

I'll agree that pidgen holing men into violent steriotypes is a serious concern that is probably contributing to greater domestic violence. Still, in this instance, the message is mixed at best. While men are encouraged to "communicate with their fists" and "prove their manhood" through violence, every example I've ever seen of that has involved other men as the proverbial punching bags. Every time women enter the picture, that violence that is so glorified is suddenly completely unacceptable and worthy of the most severe censure. Mixed signals are a problem for just about everyone to understand, and I should think one of the avenues to diminishing domestic violence would be to quit glorifying violence in general and to quit tying it up with being male. Not that I think you should need a "women's rights" justification for dealing with this issue.

I've seen it go either way. In my experience, it's just as likely that the woman will be labeled a "crazy bitch."

Never seen that happen before (except when the guy is using it as a direct attempt to slander her or diminish the "natural" assumption of his culpability). I've especially never seen the bystanders with no information about hte situation ever come to the conclusion that the man didn't deserve it somehow.

Absolutely false. If you witness a rape, you can report it yourself. Remember, a criminal case is actually the STATE versus the accused. Murder victims can't report their own homicide, yet the state will still pursue the cases. Assault victims may be in such serious condition that they cannot report what has happened, but police still investigate and charges are still brought. Rape is no different; if you witness a rape, or are party to a confession by a rapist, you can and should report it.

Well obviously, and completely beside the point. Was it somehow unclear that I was saying only the victums can bring forward the charges if no one else knows? (Which I presumed was what happens the majority of the time, since I'd think that if someone saw it happening they'd try to intervene as it was happening, rather than watch then report it later.)

On the contrary, studies have found that a huge percentage of people hold dangerous misconceptions about sex and rape. They believe you can't rape your wife. They believe it's not rape if you bought her dinner first. They believe it's not rape if she was willing to make out with you, but then says "Stop" when you try to go further.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to believe the things you're suggesting are the majority view. Still, you've refferenced "studies", and hard to believe as it is for me, I'll believe there really are idiots who don't understand it's rape.

Education can make a difference. A lot of men don't know, or don't acknowledge, that what they are doing is rape. If they are confronted with this information, it can get through to some of them.

Still, it seems to me that the problem isn't knowing the basic definition of rape (which I still maintain too few people do) but rather a failure on a basic level to agknowledge the worth of the feelings of other human beings. Education can't teach people to be compassionate. (Incidentally, my experiences with public school seemed to suggest the oposite.) Either a person is concerned about the damage they're doing or they aren't.

It's also important for other men to stand up against rape culture. If you're at a party and your buddy tells you about getting it on with a girl who passed out up stairs, tell him he is a rapist. If another guy makes comments about how a girl "owes him" after he buys dinner, call him on his bullshit. Too few guys are willing to stand up to this crap when they are with other guys.

I don't know if you realise this, but I don't go to those kinds of parties in the first place. Hard for me to intervene if I don't put myself in those situations. Further, I don't associate with that kind of jackass, so I seldom get the chance to do what you're suggesting. Seems to me, that the only way to follow your advice about standing up againt "rape culture" is to actively participate in "rape culture".

I think you underestimate the number of people who are well-meaning but clueless. The number of rapists who are really just deranged fuckers is very small. The overwhelming majority of rapists are guys who have been taught that women are obligated to service them if certain conditions are met, regardless of how the women in question feel about it. They don't think what they are doing to their girlfriend is rape, because "rape" is when a stranger grabs a girl in a dark alley.

Honestly, I've worked with people in this area for a while. You'd be surprised how many people have a little lightbulb flash over their heads when you start explaining this stuff to them.

I guess you might be right. It's still hard to comprehend that there are people who genuinely can't figure out that when a woman is screaming "NO" "STOP IT" "GET AWAY FROM ME" that what they're doing is wrong.

And I'm afraid that most women will tell you otherwise. I've personally known women who had their professional lives ruined by slut-shaming, not to mention their personal lives and romantic lives. It still happens in the "real world," I'm afraid, and it's all too common.

Why do women put up with it? Why let that sort of thing bother them so much? Or are you suggesting that they are suddenly treated differently by everyone once it's revealed they aren't "a pure flower"? If it's the later, I think your problem isn't so much the "slut-shaming" but rather a situation where too many other women are commiting a kind of fraud, presenting themselves as something they're not, so that those women who are "outed" are seen as somehow abnormal.

And women who bring rape allegations are subject to constant smears and personal attacks, and have every element of their sexual history dragged into the public square as evidence that they're a slut.

Look, rape trials suck for EVERYBODY. I don't think the victims have any better time than the accused.

Shall we go with "alleged victums" please? After all, it isn't until the end of a trial when anything is proven.

And isn't it also acceptable in such trials to drag the accused's sexual history out? Isn't it acceptable to drag in his disgruntled ex-girlfriends to testify to him being aggressive and violent? How is it different?

Now THAT is a deeply shitty law, and one that I expect will be tossed out right quick. As it should be.

I'm too much of a pecimist to believe it'll be struck down. It'll probably stand on the "think of the children" defense. One more reason to be mysanthropic.

Meh. I find it offensive that anybody would presume to compare the trauma of BEING raped to the "trauma" of being accused of rape. So we can both have a big tall class of Chill The Fuck Out. :)

Yo seem to have missed the line of conversation. The comparison was not of being raped to being accused of rape. It was of being called a "slut" to being accused of rape.

It was a badly placed comma, and I apologize for that. My intent (as I'm sure you've guessed) was to express sadness at the fact that 25% of women will be raped. Life ain't fair; women get raped by men, but men ALMOST never get raped by women. That sucks. It would be lovely if nobody got raped by anybody.
Just felt it would benefit your writing by making sure you didn't come across as too much of a "feminazi" declaring more women should rape men. We both want rapes to stop happening, but deriding the gender inequities of the situation seems like a call to get the figures more even, which is far easier to accomplish with more female rapists than with less male rapists.
Exactly. When a woman is raped, the first thing you see is a horde of people lining up to analyze what she did wrong, and seeking to use her experience as a way to instill fear in other women.

It's almost as if people don't think they have any control over potential rapists. Like they're somehow outside the sphere where they'll listen to regular people's advice, so they're treated like a natural disaster, something to prepare for and try to avoid.

Don't get drunk, girls!

I honestly fail to see the appeal of getting drunk in the first place. Why anyone would want to deliberately poison themselves and shut down the parts of their brain responsible for impulse control and good judgement is beyond me. Still, if they want to do it, that's their buisiness, and their problem if they do something stupid while it happens.

Don't wear that short skirt!

This one isn't about women at all. It's about men being percieved as sexual predators, and rapists being defined as men who can't control themselves. Under that (incredibly flawed) paradigm, there does exist such a thing as provocation to rape, since obviously men can't be expected to control themselves as they're just base, primitive creatures. I should think removing the inherent expectation that men are inherently sexual predators to be held at bay will do quite a bit to emphasise how abnormal and wrong rapists are.

Don't go out alone!

This is the same advice given to people who don't want to be robbed or assaulted. It's basic advice given to the potential victum of any crime because the potential criminals aren't going to listen to your crime prevention advice. If they did, you could just tell everyone "don't commit crimes" and the world would be completely safe.

Women are the victims of assaults, and society responds by making THEM responsible for the actions of rapists. Women are the victims of violence, so society responds by trying to impose restrictions on the freedoms of the VICTIMS, as opposed to entertaining the crazy notion that maybe the perps should be the ones who need to be addressed.

Do you know why women are held responsible for the actions of the rapists? Do you want to know? It's because society refuses to hold the rapist responsible. It's because society is wired to think of men as vicious, self-interested brutes, so how should it be surprising when one of these savages slips his leash? After all, it's the responsibility of women to "civilise" us slopeing browed men.

Can you imagine if we said, instead:

Don't get drunk, fellas, because your lowered inhibitions will make you more likely to rape or assault a woman!

How about we just say, "don't get drunk anyone because your lowered inhibitions can make you do something stupid that you'll regret and you might hurt someone or yourself." Now we don't have to blame anyone, and the same "don't get drunk" advice can be just as ignored as it ever was.

Don't go to bars frequented by women in revealing clothing, because you may end up harassing them!

Can you please explain to me the point of women wearing revealing clothing? Is it because they want to attract men? Is it because they want men who are thinking about sex to be interested in them? Am I completely off base here?

Now, this isn't to say that this somehow justifies rape, and anyone who thinks that's what it means is an idiot, but it does suggest that getting offended when someone makes sexual advances when you're actively prowling for them is hypocritical.

Always go out in groups, so that you can watch out for each other and make sure none of you rapes anybody!
Didn't you know that all men are potential rapists? :rolleyes: I mean if they go out in groups, all that'll happen is that a single rape will turn into a gang rape. Seriously. Rapists are going to have friends with similar views to themselves. Everyone else choses their friends that way.
Neither do I. My response is, therefore, to deal with the people who would abuse or degrade women. I think it is ass-backwards for me to suggest that women should give up their freedoms in order to accomodate the behavior of jackasses.

It's like how my family dealt with a bad neighborhood we used to live in. We didn't go around telling everybody to stay inside after dark, we worked to take back our community and get rid of the assholes who tried to make our streets unsafe. Our community kicked the drug dealers out of our park, because we were unwilling to tell our kids they had to give up their freedom and fun to accomodate junkies and gangs.

So you managed to wipe out crime in your old neighborhood? Congradulations. No wonder you're so optimistic about your ability to make the world into a place where you can walk home after dark without consequences, leave your keys in the ignition and not have your car stolen, and all the other things suggested by your "stop blaming the victums" speeches. Personally, I'm not nearly so inclined to believe I can turn a culture of hate into something more benign quickly enough that I should stop advising people to take precautions in the forseeable future.

Meh. This is the same kind of bitching I hear from racists who whine that everybody blames the white man first.

And this is the sort of bitching I hear from racists who think you can't be racist against white people.

Women don't want to live in a rape culture, and it's a wonderful thing when men realize that they don't want to live in a rape culture either. If men find themselves uncomfortable because of the rape culture that has been created by our (patriarchal) society, then perhaps they will be motivated to actually do something about it.

And what exactly should men do about this "rape culture"? After all, I'm not fond of it. I don't like people getting violated, and I especially don't like being guilty by association with the sociopaths who hurt people. If you've got anything more constructive to offer than "do something about it", I'd love to hear it.

It's like how white people often don't like how we are made to feel guilty for the undeserved perks we enjoy by virtue of our race. "I didn't own slaves!" we say. "I'm not racist!" That's great, have a cookie. But by virtue of being white, you enjoy privileges that are denied to non-whites, and you're just going to have to deal with the fact that there are a few downsides to being the privileged class.

Tell me, what privledges am I enjoying because of my race? What has the color of my skin helped me with (besides improving my ability to process vitamin C)?

Same goes for being male. You don't rape women, and you don't harass women, but you live in a culture where some of your fellow men do these things with frightening frequency. By virtue of being male, you enjoy perks (such as having a very comparably low chance of being raped) that women do not enjoy. The trade-off is that you belong to the gender that is more often doing the victimizing, so you are going to be viewed with more suspicion.

Frankly, if I had to choose to be on one side or the other, I'd rather be at greater risk of being suspected of raping somebody than at greater risk for getting raped.

In what way is not getting raped a "perk". To use words I've seen you use again and again, that constatutes a "minimum standard".

You'd do better to help those women feel that they are entitled to throw the bums out on their asses. Encourage them to stand up to bullies, both drunken and otherwise, and encourage them to hold men accountable.

I don't do this? News to me.

But, more importantly, STOP MAKING MEN'S BEHAVIOR INTO A WOMEN'S PROBLEM. Instead of talking to the women in your life about "staying safe," use that time to talk to the men in your life, and teach them how to be decent and respectful fellows. Instead of "advising" women to avoid going where they want to go, use that energy to advise men to act like bloody grownups.
And you should stop equivocating men with rapists. And a rapist's behavior, assuming the rapist targets women, is a women's problem. I'm not making it a women's problem, the rapist is.
I'd say that all depends on the situation. Many of these killings occur in pure self-defense. A woman is getting beaten for the third time that week. Out of pure frustration and rage, she grabs the heaviest thing within reach and hits back. At this point, she has enraged him even further. If she stops now, she knows he will kill her this time. So she keeps hitting and keeps hitting, until he stops moving and can't hit her anymore. Should she really go to jail for saving her own life?

Self-defense is a viable criminal defense, isn't it? Is there some legal framework I don't understand that makes it impractical to use in such trials?

It has nothing to do with feminism. This is basic human empathy. If everyone who gave a shit did nothing but sit around and say, "Well, I'm not going to rape anyone. Everyone else should be like me," and left it at that, things would never get better - for anyone.

Yep, it's about as helpful as bitching that everyone else won't get off their asses to help. Now, I'm sold on the idea of doing something proactive to bring about major cultural changes. Let's get down to the nuts and bolts. How?

...which is an idiotic viewpoint. It doesn't matter if I leave my car doors wide open and the keys in the ignition. It is not in any way my fault if someone jumps in the car and steals it. It is totally and completely the fault of the person committing the crime. Now, because I know there are assholes out there who will steal my car, I take measures to make it more difficult for them to do so. However, it is not "my job" to do so.

So do you get as offended when someone reminds you to lock your car door as you do when they remind you not to leave your drink unattended at a bar? Seems to me they're in exactly the same category of advice, yet you seem to understand that people don't mean to blame you when they warn you about your car keys, but you don't get that when they remind you to keep an eye on your drink.

Let me tell you a little story. A young girl (17) has been dating a college guy (~23 at this point) for several years. They are engaged and when the girl starts college the next year, they intend to move in together. Her family adores him (as does she, obviously). She discovers that, despite their precautions, she is pregnant and goes to tell him. He is so shocked by the news that he says he "doesn't think they should tell people they're dating anymore," because he has been cheating on her for the past several months. She breaks off the engagement and rethinks her options, deciding to have an abortion - something her parents already don't agree with.

In an act of petty revenge for her decision - pure and simple - the man writes a long letter to her mother. He claims that she cheated on him numerous times (a claim which is completely fabricated), that she is just a slut and that he doesn't even think the baby was his to begin with. The mother believes the contents of the letter and ostracizes her own daughter, forcing her to move out of the house. Their relationship is ruined for years, and, even years later, is nothing like what it once was.

This story happened to a friend of mine. While I can't tell you for certain that the guy wasn't drunk at the time he wrote the letter, the action seems a bit more premeditated than simply blurting things out to drinking buddies.

Honestly, what's wrong with some people. It was her own daughter. How could someone be that callous with their own child? This seems to me to have little to do with "slut slamming" and a hell of a lot to do with a fragile parent child relationship in the first place. It isn't the boyfriend cheating on her and trying to cover his ass that caused the real damage, but the extended support network that she should've had to help her deal with it crumbling at the slightest provocation. While the guy in your story was no saint by a long shot, even I can see that he wasn't the one who caused the real damage here.

No, less people will get raped. I don't think any of us are idealistic enough to believe we can reduce the rates to zero.

The criticism discussed was the inequality between rapes of men and women. The only way they can be equalized through mere reduction practices is to get them to the level you all keep claiming male rapes are at or near (dispite saying that isn't your claim). Zero.

Why is that? Is it impossible to work to reduce the incidence of all rapes?

It is if you keep treating one gender as the victum and the other gender as the rapist.

And it's especially unlikely to happen when someone says, "My only part is to not rape anyone. Everyone should be like me, but I'm not going to actually take action to try and encourage that."

Any action to encourage that? So, I suppose refusing to associate positively with people with their steriotypical entitlement complexes is doing nothing? Warning the women in our lives about those people whenever we notice them is doing nothing? What exactly am I supposed to do according to you?

Indeed.
Incidentally, that will also reduce the rape rates for women.

First off, that wasn't a straw man. At worst it was a red hearing, since it was a tad off topic. Just something I felt the need to point out.

You completely misrepresented the conversation, making it something easy to refute. That *is* a strawman.

Secondly, did you read the thread?

Indeed. I even participated in it.

It wasn't made clear at all that these things "absolutely are rape". Instead, they made it quite clear that only physical threats of bodily injury, imprisonment, or the same to a family member count as cohersive rape.[/quote]

Economic threats (I'll fire you if you don't) were also included. Social threats - in a strict society - were also included.

The things that were not included were, "I won't love you any more if you don't," or, "But honey, it's been 3 months. Couldn't we?"

I've been looking for a way to remove stygmas for a long time. If you've got a reasonably reliable method of doing it, I'm all ears. Until you have one, I'll contend that the best we can do is personally behave in a compassionate just fassion once we hear about something like this.

The way to get rid of stigmas is simply to spread the word that they are bullshit. To make it very clear to people that they are bullshit. Eventually, you weed out the people who don't listen to reason. Ever notice how little acceptance racists get these days?

And what that means, essentially, is not agknowledging that there are criminals who are willing to hurt people in the world, and thus not giving people advice on how best to avoid said criminals or defend themselves against their predations. Bottle's advice was essentially quit telling people what they should do. Don't tell people not to leave their keys in their cars because that would be "blaming them" for getting their cars stolen.

No, it doesn't. Bottle is saying that we should stop blaming the victim by telling her that she simply "Should have worn that," or, "Shouldn't have gone to that bar," or any other number of things. The actions we take to try and prevent assholes from committing crimes against us are our own actions, but not taking them does not, in any way, make any crime committed against us "our fault."

And isn't it also acceptable in such trials to drag the accused's sexual history out? Isn't it acceptable to drag in his disgruntled ex-girlfriends to testify to him being aggressive and violent? How is it different?

The difference is that one actually has bearing to the trial, and the other does not. A victim may be incredibly promiscuous - maybe even be a prostitute - and that will not in any way change what happened between in the case of a rape.

However, if the accused has a history of violence, that is relevant to the case. If the accused has been overly aggressive or even raped before, that is relevant, because it sets up a pattern of behavior.

Self-defense is a viable criminal defense, isn't it? Is there some legal framework I don't understand that makes it impractical to use in such trials?

If self-defence is, in fact, the case, there is really no reason to prosecute. If all evidence points in that direction, why would we prosecute at all?

Yep, it's about as helpful as bitching that everyone else won't get off their asses to help. Now, I'm sold on the idea of doing something proactive to bring about major cultural changes. Let's get down to the nuts and bolts. How?

The same ways we have already been discussing. By making it clear to others that the bullshit stereotypes they pull out are just that - bullshit. By encouraging victims to speak out, and not victimizing them further. Any number of things beyond, "Not personally raping someone."

So do you get as offended when someone reminds you to lock your car door as you do when they remind you not to leave your drink unattended at a bar?

I don't get offended at all if someone suggests that I not leave my drink unattended at a bar. I have actually participated in "mock cocktail parties" where we went around dropping candies into unattended drinks to show just how easy it would be for someone to slip in something less noticeable.

I *do* get offended when someone is drugged and raped, and the response is, "Why didn't she watch her drink?"

The criticism discussed was the inequality between rapes of men and women. The only way they can be equalized through mere reduction practices is to get them to the level you all keep claiming male rapes are at or near (dispite saying that isn't your claim). Zero.

No one is trying to "equalize" the number of rapes, however. The goal is to reduce them *for everyone* to as close to zero as possible.

It is if you keep treating one gender as the victum and the other gender as the rapist.

Good thing I don't do that then, huh?

Any action to encourage that? So, I suppose refusing to associate positively with people with their steriotypical entitlement complexes is doing nothing? Warning the women in our lives about those people whenever we notice them is doing nothing? What exactly am I supposed to do according to you?

All of this goes above and beyond your original, "I'm doing my part by not raping anyone," comment.

Incidentally, that will also reduce the rape rates for women.

Indeed. And exactly my point.

You completely misrepresented the conversation, making it something easy to refute. That *is* a strawman.

Afraid not. Nothing was misrepresented. You may have known what you meant when you were saying what was and wasn't "rape" in those conversations, but what was said was essentially, that the only thing that counts as "rape" was violence or the threat thereof.

Indeed. I even participated in it.

Really? I only reread the first couple of pages after that post, so as far as I'd read it was Jocabia making those arguements. Oh well. If you weren't the one making the rediculus claims, obviously you shouldn't be offended by me pointing out the other people making them.

Economic threats (I'll fire you if you don't) were also included. Social threats - in a strict society - were also included.

While those were included in the discussion, it was agreed only that they were bad things to do, and that they shouldn't take place. Plenty of people did indeed argue that those weren't "rape". They put them in the lesser heading of "sexual harassment".

The things that were not included were, "I won't love you any more if you don't," or, "But honey, it's been 3 months. Couldn't we?"

No need to get back into that grey area, since you still seem to think of a lot of seriously dispicable things should be acceptable.

The way to get rid of stigmas is simply to spread the word that they are bullshit. To make it very clear to people that they are bullshit. Eventually, you weed out the people who don't listen to reason. Ever notice how little acceptance racists get these days?

I was hoping you'd have something a little quicker and more reliable. Oh well, I guess it's back to the old tactics.

No, it doesn't. Bottle is saying that we should stop blaming the victim by telling her that she simply "Should have worn that," or, "Shouldn't have gone to that bar," or any other number of things. The actions we take to try and prevent assholes from committing crimes against us are our own actions, but not taking them does not, in any way, make any crime committed against us "our fault."

So, hypothetical: You leave your car running as you run into the store for something. You come back and someone's stolen your car. It's unacceptable to point out that a very simple precaution could've prevented that robbery?

The difference is that one actually has bearing to the trial, and the other does not. A victim may be incredibly promiscuous - maybe even be a prostitute - and that will not in any way change what happened between in the case of a rape.

However, if the accused has a history of violence, that is relevant to the case. If the accused has been overly aggressive or even raped before, that is relevant, because it sets up a pattern of behavior.

Relavence, eh? Is a history of cheating on partners relavent? Is a history of getting involved with abusive partners relavent? Who's it relavent to? The accused or the accusor? If you're going to include things beyond the facts of the case, in this case sexual history, there's plenty of relavence for plenty of things the accusor might have done, and patterns of behavior that might shine reasonable doubt. Has the person made false accusations of rape during bad breakups before? That's just one very obvious example, but relavence can be drawn from such things as cheating, being abusive herself in relationships, a preference for rape fantasies and simulation.

If self-defence is, in fact, the case, there is really no reason to prosecute. If all evidence points in that direction, why would we prosecute at all?

If not all evidence points in that direction, why would you decry prosecution and eventual conviction based on perponderence of the evidence?

The same ways we have already been discussing. By making it clear to others that the bullshit stereotypes they pull out are just that - bullshit. By encouraging victims to speak out, and not victimizing them further. Any number of things beyond, "Not personally raping someone."

So, in other words, nothing more than what I'm already doing. That's depressing. If that's all I can do, how can I expect improvement in the situation?

I don't get offended at all if someone suggests that I not leave my drink unattended at a bar. I have actually participated in "mock cocktail parties" where we went around dropping candies into unattended drinks to show just how easy it would be for someone to slip in something less noticeable.

I *do* get offended when someone is drugged and raped, and the response is, "Why didn't she watch her drink?"

You seriously get that response from people? When the victum is in earshot? Some people lack tact and compassion. In fact, some of them consider that a virtue. (*grumble*)

Point is that giving basic advice seems to have been what Bottle was taking issue with, not out and out being a jackass to people who've been through too much all ready.

No one is trying to "equalize" the number of rapes, however. The goal is to reduce them *for everyone* to as close to zero as possible.

It just seems that pointing out that "disparity" is a call for "evening things out". A more productive choice might be asking oneself, "Why is it so few men report being raped? Is it the perception that men are strong enough to fight off a rapist discouraging rapists, or does is it just discouraging victums to come forward? If it is the former, can the same theory be applied to reduce rapes of women?"

Does this seem a reasonable way to think about the "disparity"? Or is it just me being chauvenist again?

Good thing I don't do that then, huh?

Was that Jocabia, then, who mixed up her hypothetical "rape" story in that thread I linked earlier? You know, the one that started with a woman pressuring a man for sex, and in a slip, changed it back to the steriotypical roles. That's an example of what I'm talking about.

All of this goes above and beyond your original, "I'm doing my part by not raping anyone," comment.

For the record, that wasn't my comment in the first place. I didn't join this thread until much later.

Indeed. And exactly my point.
Not as far as was made clear by your post.

No need to get back into that grey area, since you still seem to think of a lot of seriously dispicable things should be acceptable.

Strawmen yet again. If I say that something doesn't qualify as rape, that doesn't mean I think it "should be acceptable." Any asshole who tries to use the "I won't love you any more if you don't have sex with me," line is just that, an asshole. That type of behavior is *not* acceptable. However, it also doesn't put someone in a situation in which the only way out is rape. The appropriate response to something like that is, "Fine, asshole. I'm leaving," and there is nothing preventing such a response. If, on the other hand, we are looking at something like, "I'll fire you if you don't," that puts a person in a situation in which sex may very well be their only out. It doesn't necessitate violence, but losing one's job is losing one's livelihood - how can you choose between being raped and starving?

So, hypothetical: You leave your car running as you run into the store for something. You come back and someone's stolen your car. It's unacceptable to point out that a very simple precaution could've prevented that robbery?

Yes, actually. If someone's first response is, "Wow, you left your keys in your car? How dumb!" they are blaming the victim, and letting the perpetrator of the crime off the hook. The first response to that situation should be, "Someone stole your car? What an asshole!" Meanwhile, taking the keys out of the car would not necessarily have prevented the robbery. If someone really wanted to steal my car, they would - and could - no matter what precautions I take.

Relavence, eh?

Yes.

Is a history of cheating on partners relavent?

No. Cheating doesn't excuse rape.

Is a history of getting involved with abusive partners relavent?

No. Being involved with abusive people doesn't excuse the actions of an abusive person.

Now, a history of being abusive, on the part of the accused, would absolutely be relevant, just as a history of theft would be relavent in a case against an accused theif.

If you're going to include things beyond the facts of the case, in this case sexual history, there's plenty of relavence for plenty of things the accusor might have done, and patterns of behavior that might shine reasonable doubt.

It doesn't matter what the accuser's history is. If the accuser is promiscuous, that doesn't mean consent was involved in this case.

Has the person made false accusations of rape during bad breakups before?

This sort of thing absolutely would be relevant - but isn't the type of issue that is generally brought up when the accuser's sexual history is dragged into the courtroom.

So, in other words, nothing more than what I'm already doing. That's depressing. If that's all I can do, how can I expect improvement in the situation?

How have we gotten improvement in society at all? How did it become unacceptable to be a racist? Do you think any other tactics were used?

You seriously get that response from people? When the victum is in earshot? Some people lack tact and compassion. In fact, some of them consider that a virtue. (*grumble*)

Point is that giving basic advice seems to have been what Bottle was taking issue with, not out and out being a jackass to people who've been through too much all ready.

No, Bottle was pretty clear when she referred to people immediately jumping up to tell you what a victim did wrong to get raped. The minute someone is attacked, she said, people are chomping at the bit to try and analyze what the victim should have done differently.

Earshot or not, if someone's first response to a person getting drugged and raped is, "ZOMG! He left his drink unattended?" rather than, "What kind of sick fuck would do that?" the victim is being blamed, rather than the attacker.

It just seems that pointing out that "disparity" is a call for "evening things out".

I think pointing out the disparity is more along the lines of an analyzation of what social attitudes make rape more likely. If a woman or female child is more likely to be sexually assaulted than a man or young boy, that likely says something about the societal attitudes towards sex, rape, power, etc. - and gives us an idea of where to start to combat these attitudes.

A more productive choice might be asking oneself, "Why is it so few men report being raped? Is it the perception that men are strong enough to fight off a rapist discouraging rapists, or does is it just discouraging victums to come forward? If it is the former, can the same theory be applied to reduce rapes of women?"

There are probably all sorts of factors. In truth, I think the latter is probably a big problem. There is even more of stigma applied to a man that has been raped than a woman - and a man is generally expected to "suck it up" more when he goes through emotional trauma. These are attitudes that are problematic, and need to be combatted.

Was that Jocabia, then, who mixed up her hypothetical "rape" story in that thread I linked earlier? You know, the one that started with a woman pressuring a man for sex, and in a slip, changed it back to the steriotypical roles. That's an example of what I'm talking about.

Jocabia is a guy, but yes, that was him.

For the record, that wasn't my comment in the first place. I didn't join this thread until much later.

Indeed. I apologize. But you did seem to be arguing with my response to it.

Not as far as was made clear by your post.

Of course it was. I was quite clear that I think we can reduce the number of rapes in total by changing these attitudes. I made it quite clear that my goal is not to reduce the number of women who are raped, but the number of people in general who are raped, as well as decreasing the number that don't come forward, report it, and get the help they need - and that much of this would be accomplished by changing attitudes towards rape, towards sex, towards gender roles, etc.

It's just how things are looked at in our society.

All violence against women is condemnable and the man who commits it should be put to death. A man is not allowed to strike a woman even in self-defense. He just has to sit there and take it. If a woman reaches up to hit him and he blocks it, he's a common criminal. Granted, man-on-man and woman-on-woman violence is reasonably acceptable.

If a woman hits a man, it's not only acceptable, but he deserved it. Bettered husbands are wimps who should take it like a man. Or worse, it's like a male rape victim; it doesn't exist. Hell, a woman can beat the hell out of her husband, make a nick on her body, claim he hit her, and he goes to jail. And heaven forbid he try to leave her; the courts take his salary and send it over her way. Along with all their possessions.

Those of you who would justify this by saying "it's not common" or "it really doesn't exist" or "men are far worse about it" - men are far more likely to get their comeuppance. I understand that women who are raped are not too likely to report it. That's not my problem; it's law enfocement's. And of those who are raped, the presumption is not of innocence. He could have an air-tight alibi, and he's still guilty in the court of public opinion. Just look at the Duke lacrosse scandal. Some lacrosse players act rowdy at a party, and a couple of them maybe-maybe-not rape an exotic dancer, and all of a sudden, the whole team is guilty and so is the entire community. For that matter, all men, especially white men with money, committed this crime. That's how some rape victims see it - their assailant was not the criminal. All men are the criminal.

The difference is not in how often it gets reported - well, the big difference isn't. The big difference is that all a woman has to do is throw out an accusation and the man is a criminal instantly. No man has that kind of recourse. For that matter, trying to accuse a woman of rape or spousal abuse will earn a man, at best, a Pyrrhic victory.

Thats the problem in society these days, if a woman so much as says she was raped, all men are guilty.

Why is it, when women are raped, it's a big deal, and when men are raped, it's nothing? Plus, the instances in books (that I know of) when rape has been forgiven are written by women.

Why is it, when women are raped, it's a big deal, and when men are raped, it's nothing? Plus, the instances in books (that I know of) when rape has been forgiven are written by women.

Didn't you know? Men are supposed to want and enjoy sex, no matter how it comes to them. You can't force a man to have sex, since he always wants it. Women are supposed to hate sex, so forcing it on them is bad. :rolleyes: