Support NeoGAF

[Kazerei]

Some would argue that there's nothing you can add to the scenario to give any responsibility to the rape victim. That's fine. Others would argue the exact same, but as soon as scenario #2 reads like this: "#2: A child molester goes to prison and gets raped" then they start celebrating "justice." I personally hate logical inconsistencies like that, but most people fail to think about the issues and would rather just parrot whatever's popular.

If you can point to a specific user being logically inconsistent, go ahead. But from what I've seen, none of the users who responded to you actually celebrate prison rape.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

These ads are very powerful, but the one I hate is the ad where the guy is abusing his girlfriend and you can see his inner self trying to stop him.
Sorry, but if you're a nut job that likes abusing girls I dont believe you have this conscience in your head trying to guide you away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzDr18UYO18

The guys a psychopath....and he's just about to rape her at the end. Such a crap message.

 

[Vermillion]

Agreed. Both girls and guys should be careful. That was the point about my friend that got mugged. Still doesn't excuse the mugger or rapist, but people shouldn't make it easy for them.

Even still, you're asking for people to go down a checklist before they can have any fun. Making it easy or not, people shouldn't have to do that. That said, terrible analogy time!

So I watched Batman: Year One a while back, and to get at Commissioner Gordon, the bad guys took his kid. Said "a man is never free when he becomes a father" or something like that. For anyone who's had their child kidnapped so as to coerce them into something, they would have been better off had they never had the child, really. And you can apply that to millions of things that we take for granted until we're locked in safe houses paranoid about the world.

We've had many school shootings recently - are people showing less responsibility for not wearing bulletproof vests around? At some point, you've got to stop and say "these are the criminals, this is the innocent victim, and that's that." You can probably make an argument as to otherwise if you're a spy or something, but for us civilians, why should we have to worsen our lives because there's the chance that someone doesn't know better?

And hence the ad.

 

[ivysaur12]

hmmmmm so you feel less sorry for a girl who was raped because she was drunk. Do you feel more forgiving to the rapist? What if the rapist was drunk?

And who gives a shit on how you feel! A crime was committed, and possibly a life ruined. No matter what is the scenario, rape is rape.

Gotta lock your cars!

No, we shouldn't admonish women for wearing a short skirt at a party as a dumb idea. That's their prerogative. And if a man takes advantage of her, that's his fault. Entirely. There are some issues where there is black and white. This is not one of them.

 

[Karkador]

Rape is like abortion. People get firmly defensive about their position as soon as they hear the topic. I'd rather not get banned for a controversial topic that I've just been thinking about.

I'd like to encourage people to think about the issue, whichever way they choose.

Of course it's the rapist's fault. Who ever said it wasn't?

The way I was raised, even things that weren't my fault ended up being my fault. Perfection was key. Obviously perfection is impossible and obviously not everything is your fault. However, I'm also in a relationship with someone who (as one example) thinks it's hilarious to pretend to hit me and when she does she's like "it's not my fault! It was an accident!" The way I was raised, personal responsibility is key above all else. If I punch you, it's my fault. If I punched the person who killed my mom, well I guess it's still 100% my fault, but does that shift any responsibility to the murderer?

I'm not trying to blame the victim here, I'm just encouraging people to actually consider why they hold the positions that they do. If I shoot at someone and he shoots and kills me, is that the same as if he just shot me for no reason? That's obviously not the exact same scenario as the rape scenarios I outlined, but the whole point is this: I don't like seeing people being close minded and having their minds made up BEFORE they're sure that their beliefs are consistent.

These analogies are INCREDIBLY off. Rape is not like abortion in any way. The debate about abortion does not resemble the discussion about rape in any way. Women aren't provoking others to rape them in any way. "Obviously not the same exact scenario?" It's not anywhere close. Why did you even think it was worth saying?

You can be on whichever side of the line you want to be on, that's fine. However, if the SOLE reason that you hold your position is because it's rape, then that's where I think things need to change.

You sound like you're saying rape shouldn't be seen as a severe crime, one that currently gets little justice its way in part because of people who downplay the severity of it...

Give both parties the benefit of a doubt.

Ah, I guess you are saying that.

"#2: A child molester goes to prison and gets raped" then they start celebrating "justice." I personally hate logical inconsistencies like that, but most people fail to think about the issues and would rather just parrot whatever's popular.

Nobody you're arguing with is saying prison rape is "justice".

I'm not sure how everyone's missed this point. The rapist is 100% accountable for his or her actions. I have never denied that and I will never deny that. They should be held fully accountable under the law and punished appropriately. The point isn't to blame the victim, it's to encourage personal responsibility. This isn't specific to girls either. I'm a feminist. I have no problems with girls wearing skimpy clothes or flirting with every guy at the bar. I don't want people to always make decisions because they're afraid of being raped either. I just think that there are some decisions that should be common sense that could be made incorrectly if we discourage personal responsibility.

Personal responsiblity on the rapists. One more time,
Personal responsiblity on the rapists.

Your "I'm a feminist and I think the rapist is 100% accountable, BUT..." thing isn't cutting it. Stop blaming the victim. Stop. blaming. the. victim. Tell people to stop raping.

 

[terribletwo]

These ads are very powerful, but the one I hate is the ad where the guy is abusing his girlfriend and you can see his inner self trying to stop him.
Sorry, but if you're a nut job that likes abusing girls I dont believe you have this conscience in your head trying to guide you away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzDr18UYO18

The guys a psychopath....and he's just about to rape her at the end. Such a crap message.

One of the ideas behind "rape culture" is that your average rapist is not a "psychopath" or "sociopath". They are people who don't understand what consent means, or don't take no for answer. Raping one person could be the only crime they commit in their entire life. Part of rape culture is the idea that "no really means yes", for example, and so a guy doesn't stop because he thinks she's going to be into it eventually.

The watching from the outside part is trying to show that if you saw two random people in the same situation, the perp would probably be able to identify it as rape

 

[akira28]

ok so now the woman is locked in a prison full of brain damaged rapists? With zero impulse control? Are we trying to create Freddy Krueger here Smoke, or what? Is she also chained down to a table and they are all very resolute about the raping thing? How many variables do you want to add to edge this thing to where you want to go?

The way I was raised, even things that weren't my fault ended up being my fault.

....I'm making a very weird face right now. You keep trying to take blame away from the actor, and place it on the victim dude. You're doing it.

 

[Kazerei]

I just think that there are some decisions that should be common sense that could be made incorrectly if we discourage personal responsibility.

That's not the point. It doesn't matter if the specific example matches. The point is this- is there any grey area when it comes to personal responsibility in this type of situation or is it all 100% black and white? Is it always 0%? If someone runs in front of a train and gets killed, then are they 0% responsible? Now, I already know the counter-argument "but the train is incapable of stopping" or something like that. Take the original scenario #2 and have the woman walk into a prison full of rapists that each have absolutely zero impulse control (i.e. they are incapable of controlling their actions) due to brain damage (and yes these people ARE out there). I don't see how that's different that running in front of a train.

The message you're trying to send is "common sense" but your scenario is fuck-all to do with reality. OK.

 

[Surreal]

Your "I'm a feminist and I think the rapist is 100% accountable, BUT..." thing isn't cutting it. Stop blaming the victim. Stop. blaming. the. victim. Tell people to stop raping.

The problem is some rapists, like murderers, don't give two shits about the law. And if the ultimate goal is to stop rape, then we should include what someone can do to help prevent rape if the attacker is going to attack regardless of what you tell them.

 

[Vermillion]

These ads are very powerful, but the one I hate is the ad where the guy is abusing his girlfriend and you can see his inner self trying to stop him.
Sorry, but if you're a nut job that likes abusing girls I dont believe you have this conscience in your head trying to guide you away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzDr18UYO18

The guys a psychopath....and he's just about to rape her at the end. Such a crap message.

It's not necessarily your inner self, it's you looking at yourself from the outside. People often perceive things differently in different positions, so that ad is trying to say "step back and look at what you're doing." To be fair, when I first saw this sort of ad, I thought that it was the guy in prison looking back on the situation.

But - forgive me for saying, I mean nothing by it - I imagine that some of these people aren't evil per-se... it's that they lack perspective and they haven't been educated as to what rape actually is. We're targeting the women instead, which is misguided. Of course, some of them are simply batshit insane, too.

 

[Vermillion]

The problem is some rapists, like murderers, don't give two shits about the law. And if the ultimate goal is to stop rape, then we should include what someone can do to help prevent rape if the attacker is going to attack regardless of what you tell them.

Where does it end? As others expressed, if you don't want to get raped, you really shouldn't bother talking to men - most rape victims were raped by someone they know. That's where the personal responsibility line takes us.

'Sides, most (too much) of our effort is spent on telling women how not to get raped in the first place, instead of telling men not to rape.

 

[Mumei]

The problem with that argument with regard to rape: Women get raped wearing all sorts of clothing. Women get raped at home, at work, at parties, at friends houses, at bars. Basically, if you start with 'well, women should do everything they can to prevent being raped!' you are telling them to lock themselves in their houses and never see anyone.

The same rationale you're referring to is what leads to purity culture:

Since Susan Brownmiller first wrote Against Our Will—the landmark feminist reconceptualization of rape—feminists have worked on clarifying the fact that rape is less about sex than it is about rage and power. Too many people still conceive of rape as a man’s overwhelming urge to enjoy the body of a woman who has provoked him by being attractive and within reach. As is true in many “traditional” cultures, much of India still imagines that the violation was one against her chastity, as Aswini Anburajan writes at Buzzfeed. But conceiving it as primarily a sexual violation places the burden on women to protect their bodies’ purity. It means that the question that gets asked is this one: Why was she out so late at night, provoking men into rage by being openly female?

But seen from a woman's own point of view, rape is quite different: It's punishment for daring to exist as an independent being, for one's own purposes, not for others' use. Sexual assault is a form of brutalization based, quite simply, on the idea that women have no place in the world except the place that a man assigns them—and that men should be free to patrol women’s lives, threatening them if they dare step into view. It is fully in keeping with bride-burnings, acid attacks, street harassment, and sex-selective abortions that delete women before they are born.

I’ve now read a number of commentaries exposing India’s, particularly New Delhi’s, culture of street violence against women. The most memorable, by Sonia Faleiro in The New York Times, talks about the fear that was instilled in her during her 24 years living in Delhi:

As a teenager, I learned to protect myself. I never stood alone if I could help it, and I walked quickly, crossing my arms over my chest, refusing to make eye contact or smile. I cleaved through crowds shoulder-first, and avoided leaving the house after dark except in a private car. …

Things didn’t change when I became an adult. Pepper spray wasn’t available, and my friends, all of them middle- or upper-middle-class like me, carried safety pins or other makeshift weapons to and from their universities and jobs. One carried a knife, and insisted I do the same. I refused; some days I was so full of anger I would have used it — or, worse, had it used on me.

The steady thrum of whistles, catcalls, hisses, sexual innuendos and open threats continued. Packs of men dawdled on the street ... To make their demands clear, they would thrust their pelvises at female passers-by.​

Such endemic street harassment is not about sex; it’s about threatening women for daring to leave the private sphere. It’s a form of control over women’s ambitions and lives. And when such a culture is widespread, it gives men permission to use women as the target for any excess anger they might have.

“Rape culture,” as young feminists now call this, isn’t limited to India. It lives anywhere that has a “traditional” vision of women’s sexuality. A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture. In that vision, women’s bodies are for use primarily for procreation or male pleasure. They must be kept pure. While cultural conservatives would disagree, this attitude gives men license to patrol—in some cases with violence—women's hopes for controlling their lives and bodies. In October, responding to Richard Mourdock's incredible comment about rape, I mentioned an absolutely essential piece by The Nation's Jessica Valenti in a way I want to reprise here, if you'll excuse the self-quotation:

As Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry said in 2008, “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse.”​

In other words, only virgins can be raped—sweetly white-gloved, white-skinned virgins. Any woman who ever wanted sex—yes, that includes married women who unconditionally give permission when they put on that ring—deserves what she gets. Valenti’s piece is a brilliant and absolutely essential manifesto on what still has to change to get from “What about 'no' don’t you understand?” to the more advanced concept that women have a right to enjoy and control our own bodies. In this "traditional" vision of sexuality, it's not rape if you've already had sex, ever—except if you're married and another man violates his property. Your only role is to protect your purity for its future owner. If you don't do, you're fair game.

Of course, the United States (or Scotland, for that matter) aren't as bad as India is right now. But modesty and prevention, if taken to its logical conclusion, entails women not leaving their homes, not being alone with non-familial male acquaintances, being under male supervision, etc. This is, of course, ridiculous. Sexual violence against women has to be understood as a men's issue as much as a women's issue, and anti-rape education has to be targeted towards men as much as women.

It's not about stopping rape as much as it's about informing men about their rape culture and their shitty opinions.

I disagree. I mean, it is about educating shitty opinions but ... the point of educating shitty opinions is to prevent rape in the future.

And there are indications that boys and men don't know what rape is.
For instance:

A survey for Amnesty found 37% of respondents thought a woman was responsible for being raped if she didn't say "no" clearly enough. With attitudes like this, is it any surprise young people may be dangerously confused?

They certainly seem to be. Only 69% of young men would not try to have sex with someone who did not want to, and one in 20 said they would try to have sex with someone who was asleep, according to a shocking 2010 survey of young people aged between 18 and 25 by the Havens, the specialist London-based sexual assault referral centres. A significant proportion also seemed confused about what constitutes rape: only 77% of young men agreed that having sex with someone who has said no was rape.

Or this (which does reference an older study and isn't something I'd generalize, but):

What's wrong with the date-rape debate is that until recently men were not included in the discussion. This changed when UCLA psychologist Neil Malamuth surveyed male students' "attraction to sexual aggression." In his research, between 16 and 20 percent of the male respondents said they would commit rape if they could be certain of getting away with it. That's one in six. When Malamuth changed the word "rape" to "force a woman to have sex," between 36 percent and 44 percent said they would - as long as they could be certain they wouldn't be caught. In another study, 15 percent of college men said they actually had used force at least once to obtain intercourse - a rate which does seem to corroborate the statistics provided by women.

The question for us, then, is why? Why would nearly two of every five college males in this study commit sexual assault if they believed they could get away with it? For one thing, it has to do with some distorted ideas about women and sex. As we have seen, many men subscribe to what sexual assault counselors call "date rape myths" - that women want sex just as much as men do but are socialized to say no even if they mean yes; that women like to be forced to have sex; that drunk women are "fair game". In some interesting research in Germany, psychologists have found that "as long as rape myths are not openly challenged in social interactions, men who endorse rape myths may assume that their own beliefs are shared by many others." These distortions can lead men to think that a sexual assault is simply a sort of after-the-fact change of mind by a girl who really did want to, but then thought better of it.

As we have also seen, for many guys the drive to score is a male-male competitive drive, a sort of "keeping up with the Joneses" around sex. Guys' incessant predation turns out to be a form of compensation - a way for guys to keep up with impossibly high, but imagined, rates of sexual activity.​

And yes, there are certainly people who know that they are raping, and do not care. These campaigns aren't going to make a difference for those people, except insofar as changing the culture changes the calculus on their social license to operate. But our failure to educate people about rape myths and about consent is why we have nonsense like this. But at the same time, making an effort to reach out and educate can have positive results:

To the Editor:

For the last few months, the feminist movement has appealed to the entire campus, stirring debate among all. Yet, one demographic above all seems underrepresented and less welcomed: male athletes. Perhaps athletes feel like they cannot bring as much to the discussion. Perhaps it is easier to sweep this issue under the rug. Today, we, as Senior male athletes, think it’s time to speak out.

To us, this is as much an endorsement of feminism as it is a necessary action. Some of us are a part of the current movement on campus. Others are not. But the discussions of gender have caused us to realize our athlete culture has a problem.

Male athlete culture plays a leading role in Andover’s imbalanced hook-up culture, classroom dynamics and even in defining the gender roles of females on campus that younger students emulate and eventually internalize. As we look back on our times on varsity sports here at Andover, it is easy to find highlight reels of our best moments, whether it was a winning goal or touchdown. Despite these athletic feats, our collective character has been tainted by the objectification and sexism that pervade athlete culture.

From preseason to team dinners, from the locker room to the playing field, every team has its traditions. Within each team exists a social hierarchy led by Seniors with the ability to positively influence the opinions of their underclassmen teammates. Sadly, this structure has frequently been used to perpetuate a cycle of sexism that is often times unintentional, but always destructive.

In more egregious examples of this problem, teams have turned relationships into games, people into prizes. Athletes have bonded over actions that marginalized and objectified women. Yet, the fault of this doesn’t land on the team’s shoulders, but on the culture as a whole that has structuralized and normalized these destructive behaviors from years past. The blame lies not on one captain or class of Seniors, but on the culture teams inherit from decades of captains and Senior leaders.

This culture may not be our fault, but it is our problem to fix. It is time for Andover’s athletes to find new, constructive ways to bond and develop team camaraderie—not ones based on conquering dances and competitively targeting females, not by prodding teammates to “hook-up” and teasing those who don’t. The definition of “cool” doesn’t have to be a traditionally masculine figure who objectifies their sexual partners or who climbs their respective social ladders through hook-ups.

Clearly teams are meant to compete and bring pride to the school. Athletic events are what shape the Andover/Exeter rivalry, they are why we have the Blue Key Head cheers that become anthems of our time here. The teams provide entertainment, but more than that they play a central role in our school pride. But teams also make up the community we all share with one another. Senior athletes are role models. We are looked up to, whether we realize it or not. With seniority, popularity and respect comes a platform that must be used to improve our community.

Unfortunately for us, we are taking advantage of this platform with only a week left in our Andover careers. However, a new Senior class of athletes will take our places next fall. As we look back on our athletic careers, we see a lot of accomplishments we are proud of. But we also see a lot of things we regret—times when we should have spoken up and times when we perpetuated the destructive athlete culture on campus.

As we leave, the responsibility to change this destructive culture falls on the shoulders of next year’s leaders. The athlete culture on campus stands on years of history that we cannot change. But next year’s captains and Seniors have the power, dare we say the responsibility, to change athlete culture for the future.

We have a choice: we can silently perpetuate the culture we inherited, or we can choose the culture our teams and community deserve.

Tyler Olkowski ’13

Co-signed and edited by:

Babatunde Bello ’13, Track Captain
David Crane ’13, Volleyball Co-Captain
Alex Demeulenaere ’13, Squash Captain
Eddie Ellis ’13, Hockey Captain
Stephen Fehnel ’13, Lacrosse Captain
Connor Fraser ’13, Cross Country Captain
Henry Kennelly ’13, Water Polo, Crew Captain
Shin-Jae Lee ’13, Golf Captain
Haonan Li ’13, Volleyball Co-Captain
Jack McGeachie ’13, Soccer Captain
Brendan O’Connell ’13, Basketball Captain
Seamus O'Neill '13, Baseball Captain
Demetrios Papageorgiou ’13, Track Captain
Jack Ward ’13, Football Captain
Ross Bendetson ’13, Hockey
Gabe Freund ’13, Soccer, Ultimate
Topher Hedley ’13, Track
Jack Katkavich ’13, Soccer, Lacrosse
James McLeod ’13, Soccer
Nickhil Nabar ’13, Track, Cross Country
Justin Wang ’13, Swimming

 

[ZaCH3000]

I think this one's more effective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gEftWCG5Ow

This one is scary. Its how most rapes probably go down.

 

[Kazerei]

The problem is some rapists, like murderers, don't give two shits about the law. And if the ultimate goal is to stop rape, then we should include what someone can do to help prevent rape if the attacker is going to attack regardless of what you tell them.

Women are already constantly told what they should do to prevent rape. To the point it's actually annoying that whenever rape gets discussed, someone inevitably harps on the same old talking points: "don't get drunk" and so on. Women know that stuff already. We need to work on new strategies to reduce rape.

Also, you mentioned some rapists don't give two shits about the law. But certainly other rapists need to be taught about enthusiastic consent.

 

[Karkador]

The problem is some rapists, like murderers, don't give two shits about the law. And if the ultimate goal is to stop rape, then we should include what someone can do to help prevent rape if the attacker is going to attack regardless of what you tell them.

So the problem with this is that it takes the view that rapists are wild dogs in the street, bogeymen without identities that come out of nowhere and assault women and disappear, and that nothing before that assault could have been taught to them, no amount of therapy, nothing to prevent them from going down the path they did to assault others.

It completely ignores that the rapists are people who do have lives, are part of communities, know the victim more often than not, and aren't just a "given". Why is rape prevention never about reaching to the community of men and teaching them not to rape? Why do we spend all of our time warning women not to do this and that to avoid danger, when that danger doesn't look like a train speeding at you, nor does it wear a "rapist" sign on its forehead. Are women supposed to just be completely suspicious of anyone and everyone as a potential rapist? Just for it to happen, more often than not, with someone they trust?

The "wild dog" is a myth. The majority of people who will rape are not faceless rape-ghosts or serial killers wandering the streets looking for prey. The effort needs to be on reaching out to those ignorant of what rape is, and people who need to be seeing a therapist.

 

[Surreal]

Where does it end? As others expressed, if you don't want to get raped, you really shouldn't bother talking to men - most rape victims were raped by someone they know. That's where the personal responsibility line takes us.

'Sides, most (too much) of our effort is spent on telling women how not to get raped in the first place, instead of telling men not to rape.

I dunno man, it doesn't have to be so extreme. If I don't want to get in a car accident, it doesn't mean I shouldn't bother driving. I should take reasonable precautions while driving to minimize the risk.

What it comes down to is that if my sister is going out to a party or something, I'd much rather someone tell her, "Listen, don't drink too much. Stay in a group. Stay alert." rather than "Educate everyone there what rape is, then you can get wasted out of your mind because in a perfect world you should be able to." Some people are just malicious and to prevent them from getting to you, you simply have to try hard to shut them out. Is it fair? Not really. Should it be this way? Nope. But for right now it is and unfortunately women have to deal with it until more people are educated to the point where women can rest easier. And even then some people still disregard the law! So it's important to always be reasonably ready.

The "wild dog" is a myth. The majority of people who will rape are not faceless rape-ghosts or serial killers wandering the streets looking for prey. The effort needs to be on reaching out to those ignorant of what rape is, and people who need to be seeing a therapist.

I understand, but why not take a two-pronged approach? Try to rehabilitate and educate those who aren't absolutely deviants and also teach people how to protect themselves against those who are?

 

[SmokeMaxX]

If you can point to a specific user being logically inconsistent, go ahead. But from what I've seen, none of the users who responded to you actually celebrate prison rape.

Wow, can you guys please read my posts? I'm saying a lot of people in general do that. And I'm bringing up the issue to encourage people to think about why they have the positions that they have. I didn't say any user in particular was guilty of that. However, let's be honest. Go into a thread about a child rapist and people will be talking about how they should go to jail and be raped. I've seen it numerous times in Neogaf threads and I'm sure you can think of somebody who would say that. Do you really think they would tell you women deserve to be raped if you asked? That's logical inconsistency.

These analogies are INCREDIBLY off. Rape is not like abortion in any way. The debate about abortion does not resemble the discussion about rape in any way. Women aren't provoking others to rape them in any way. "Obviously not the same exact scenario?" It's not anywhere close. Why did you even think it was worth saying?

You sound like you're saying rape shouldn't be seen as a severe crime, one that currently gets little justice its way in part because of people who downplay the severity of it...

Ah, I guess you are saying that.

Nobody you're arguing with is saying prison rape is "justice".

Personal responsiblity on the rapists. One more time,
Personal responsiblity on the rapists.

Your "I'm a feminist and I think the rapist is 100% accountable, BUT..." thing isn't cutting it. Stop blaming the victim. Stop. blaming. the. victim. Tell people to stop raping.

Wow you guys cannot read at all. The similarities between the abortion debate and the "rape debate" (it's not really much of a debate, since I already agreed with everyone saying it's the fault of the rapist) is that people have already made their decisions based on their emotions. Person raped = bad. And that clouds their thinking on the entire issue.

The second point you raised (it was part of the same paragraph or whatever, but I'm assuming you went on to the next point of my post)- Let me ask you a question. Would it even matter if the victim provoked the rapist? I don't even understand your point. From your point of view, it should never matter right? So why even bring up whether or not they provoke the rapist? If it doesn't matter since it's never the rape victim's responsibility, then how is it any different? Unless you're saying that if the rape victim DID provoke the rapist, that changes everything...?

As for "downplaying rape" point- are you copy and pasting your posts from some website or something? That point is so stupid. Read my posts. I already said they're fully responsible and should be fully punished under the law. Another poster proving my point. You want to attack my arguments, attack them. Don't strawman me. It's obvious that rape is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean we can't think about it from a hypothetical standpoint. Funny how you completely misrepresent my point with "give both parties the benefit of a doubt." Read the sentence again. I said to change the fucking scenario, not to give the rapist the benefit of a doubt after he's raped someone.

Again, never stated that anyone in particular blah blah blah prison justice. Go ahead show me where I did.

Again, I agree. Personal responsibility on the rapists. Can you guys not read? I've posted it in just about every post I've made.

The message you're trying to send is "common sense" but your scenario is fuck-all to do with reality. OK.

The message I'm trying to send is think about your positions and stop getting so defensive. You didn't even address my scenarios, but thanks for proving my point. Maybe you should explore the world. There are people out there that are incapable of stopping themselves from doing bad things. That's a fact.

 

[Mumei]

This one is scary. Its how most rapes probably go down.

Correct. And as surveys show that significant numbers of teens and young adults think that that isn't rape, education on that point should go a long way. And this has to start young, because the discrepancy in how boys and girls experience even sexual harassment starts very young:

Another study of third to fifth grade students found that the majority of both boys and girls had equally experienced sexual harassment. After viewing twelve different vignettes, the girls were more likely to perceive some of the sexual harassment in the vignettes as frightening, yet fewer than 20 percent of the boys indicated they felt the victim in the vignette would be afraid. Girls' self-esteem lowered in response to watching the vignettes - but boys' did not. Though none of the vignettes included explicit verbal or physical threats, the girls tacitly understood that the boys in the vignette were more powerful and might harm the girls. Even at this young age, girls recognized the power differential due to gender.​

And posting that reminds me of the point charlequin built off of it:

This and, based off of mumei's post, we need to educate people more about what situations are rape. Because it seems that some people don't understand what constitutes rape.

So part of the problem with the way discussion of this point has gone, I think, is that "education" has such a neutral, passive quality to it, like the problem is that men just need someon to factually explain to them what rape is.

In reality, it's not merely that men need to be given more factual information about what constitutes rape (although that too must happen), but men must have the morality of the situation more aggressively conveyed to them, and an empathic viewpoint of women built up. Mumei's study quoted above is deeply relevant here -- if men, on balance, don't view women with empathy at a young age, then the greatest factor that might prevent them from committing rape is missing.

There's a big difference, essentially, between someone knowing intellectually that rape is "wrong," and actually having a deep-seated moral abhorrence at the idea of forcing someone to have sex. Achieving the latter is what's needed to prevent more men from raping, as well as to ensure that more other men refuse to assist or go along with those who do.

 

[Vermillion]

I dunno man, it doesn't have to be so extreme. If I don't want to get in a car accident, it doesn't mean I shouldn't bother driving. I should take reasonable precautions while driving to minimize the risk.

What it comes down to is that if my sister is going out to a party or something, I'd much rather someone tell her, "Listen, don't drink too much. Stay in a group. Stay alert." rather than "Educate everyone there what rape is, then you can get wasted out of your mind because in a perfect world you should be able to." Some people are just malicious and to prevent them from getting to you, you simply have to try hard to shut them out. Is it fair? Not really. Should it be this way? Nope. But for right now it is and unfortunately women have to deal with it until more people are educated to the point where women can rest easier. And even then some people still disregard the law! So it's important to always be reasonably ready.

Well again, it's the people that they know who are more likely to rape them. The driving analogy doesn't link up for that reason - the most direct thing a woman can do is to stop trusting the men around her, if she's not to outright cut communication. It seems that you're still operating from the angle that a rapist is an unknown - hence the car analogy, where yes, you shouldn't trust the drivers around you. The same thing doesn't work if you're interacting with other people.

And your sister shouldn't have to educate the people around her what rape is. They should know, and she should be able to have fun without having to watch every man in the room. That defeats the whole point of drinking, yeah?

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Correct. And as surveys show that significant numbers of teens and young adults think that that isn't rape, education on that point should go a long way. And this has to start young, because the discrepancy in how boys and girls experience even sexual harassment starts very young:

Another study of third to fifth grade students found that the majority of both boys and girls had equally experienced sexual harassment. After viewing twelve different vignettes, the girls were more likely to perceive some of the sexual harassment in the vignettes as frightening, yet fewer than 20 percent of the boys indicated they felt the victim in the vignette would be afraid. Girls' self-esteem lowered in response to watching the vignettes - but boys' did not. Though none of the vignettes included explicit verbal or physical threats, the girls tacitly understood that the boys in the vignette were more powerful and might harm the girls. Even at this young age, girls recognized the power differential due to gender.​

And posting that reminds me of the point charlequin built off of it:

Are you actually implying that that we should force children to think a specific way?

 

[jaxword]

Are you actually implying that that we should force children to think a specific way?

We already do that anyways, so that's hardly new.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Are you actually implying that that we should force children to think a specific way?

When it comes to something as basic as "Rape is bad - and this is what rape is?"

Why not?

It's not like it's a subject that should be left to personal interpretation and opinion. It's not like "Should I wear white after labor day." It's a pretty basic concept. Rape is wrong, and you should never do it.

You can call it "Forcing" a child to think a specific way. I call it basic fucking education.

 

[KarmaCow]

Are you actually implying that that we should force children to think a specific way?

The children weren't plucked out of some test chamber isolated from society. There is probably fair share of innate behaviour as well but we already mold children to what we want through parenting and education.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

ok so now the woman is locked in a prison full of brain damaged rapists? With zero impulse control? Are we trying to create Freddy Krueger here Smoke, or what? Is she also chained down to a table and they are all very resolute about the raping thing? How many variables do you want to add to edge this thing to where you want to go?

....I'm making a very weird face right now. You keep trying to take blame away from the actor, and place it on the victim dude. You're doing it.

What are you talking about? Can someone please stop strawmanning me? What difference does it make if she gets impaled by a unicorn? Obviously none of these situations are real. The point is to see if there's any situation where someone bears some responsibility for what happened. Not in the sense that she's asking for it or she deserved to be raped or whatever strawman the next poster wants to throw at me. No, just in the sense that there might be a scenario where someone made a bad decision. What occurred shouldn't have happened, but should we retcon history and say that person didn't make a bad decision? I've already seen, from personal experience, that people have different standards depending on the scenario. Someone gets mugged, oh they shouldn't have been in the bad part of town. Someone gets raped; well they're not consistent with the last scenario. And they don't even think about it. It's just natural that in the first scenario, the mugger is at fault but the victim shouldn't have been walking in the bad part of town and in the second scenario, well there's nothing the rape victim could have done to prevent it. Whatever happens, happens.

BTW, since I keep getting strawmanned on this too: There's not some magical pie of responsibility that exists where if I give some responsibility to one person, it takes away responsibility from someone else.

I dunno man, it doesn't have to be so extreme. If I don't want to get in a car accident, it doesn't mean I shouldn't bother driving. I should take reasonable precautions while driving to minimize the risk.

What it comes down to is that if my sister is going out to a party or something, I'd much rather someone tell her, "Listen, don't drink too much. Stay in a group. Stay alert." rather than "Educate everyone there what rape is, then you can get wasted out of your mind because in a perfect world you should be able to." Some people are just malicious and to prevent them from getting to you, you simply have to try hard to shut them out. Is it fair? Not really. Should it be this way? Nope. But for right now it is and unfortunately women have to deal with it until more people are educated to the point where women can rest easier. And even then some people still disregard the law! So it's important to always be reasonably ready.

I understand, but why not take a two-pronged approach? Try to rehabilitate and educate those who aren't absolutely deviants and also teach people how to protect themselves against those who are?

I like the realism vs. ideal point. I agree with this. Maybe that's some of what I was trying to get at as well. The world isn't perfect.

 

[Kazerei]

Wow, can you guys please read my posts?

We're reading them just fine. The problem is nothing you're not being as meaningful or thought-provoking as you think you are.

 

[Mark L]

Negligence plays a part in determining whether certain actions can be brought in civil court. It does not play a part in crime. This is because we judge crimes on the actions and mental state of the perpetrator. The victim's negligence is not relevant. Actually "negligence" is a bit of a misnomer, since it implies culpability. In a criminal issue, they would not use the term "negligence". Let's go with "poor judgement".

Don't look at things in terms of the actions of the victim. Look at things in terms of the actions of the perpetrator. If you violently assault someone who is acting wisely, you are actually doing just as bad a thing as if you violently assault someone who is acting unwisely. The victim's wisdom or lack thereof does not affect the wickedness of your actions.

Let's test our sense of justice by putting together some examples below.

Person A does violence to a person acting intelligently. That person has done him no harm.

Person B does violence to a person acting unwisely. That person has done him no harm.

Person C does violence to a person in self-defense, to save his life.

Why is C different? His mental state is different- his actions are similar, but their purpose is to protect his life.

If you think A and B are morally different, what you are saying is "Criminals who prey on fools should be punished less than those who prey on smart people."

Isn't that an odd conclusion to come to? Criminal law is supposed to be about justice. Does that seem just?

You end up arguing that what you are trying to do is to make a world where there are less fools, by disincentivizing foolish behavior. Well, the world could do with less fools, that much is true. But is criminal law the right forum to try to improve peoples' wisdom? Surely that falls under the purview of stuff like education, parenting, etc. Using criminal law this way leads us to the strange and disgusting idea that in fact the victim owes the perpetrator a debt of sorts- they have learned a hard lesson, and will be wiser from it. Is a society where wisdom is imparted in that manner one in which you would like to live?

And we are of course here assuming the victim was even unwise at all. The perpetrator would of course lie about the victim's actions to try to make them seem as foolish as possible. Who do you believe?

I've said enough.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

When it comes to something as basic as "Rape is bad - and this is what rape is?"

Why not?

It's not like it's a subject that should be left to personal interpretation and opinion. It's not like "Should I wear white after labor day." It's a pretty basic concept. Rape is wrong, and you should never do it.

You can call it "Forcing" a child to think a specific way. I call it basic fucking education.

it's not nearly as basic as that.

It's clearly being suggested that boys (and only boys) should be forced to take the worldview of sex and sexuality, and what constitutes abusive sexual behaviour from a purely female perspective. (which btw happens a lot already, and why forced to penetrate crimes are poorly reported and domestic abuse stats are so skewed)

 

[SmokeMaxX]

We're reading them just fine. The problem is nothing you're not being as meaningful or thought-provoking as you think you are.

If you're reading them just fine, please show that when you reply to my posts, okay? Thanks. I'd appreciate that very much. Your last few attempts didn't showcase that very well.

 

[Surreal]

Well again, it's the people that they know who are more likely to rape them. The driving analogy doesn't link up for that reason - the most direct thing a woman can do is to stop trusting the men around her, if she's not to outright cut communication. It seems that you're still operating from the angle that a rapist is an unknown - hence the car analogy, where yes, you shouldn't trust the drivers around you. The same thing doesn't work if you're interacting with other people.

And your sister shouldn't have to educate the people around her what rape is. They should know, and she should be able to have fun without having to watch every man in the room. That defeats the whole point of drinking, yeah?

Hm, yeah the driving analogy wouldn't work if rape is committed by people they know. I wonder if there are any situational trends that could be useful in helping people though. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that instead of taking precautionary measure we should eliminate the threat, mostly because in my mind the threat can never be completely eliminated. So for me, a mix of both strategies seems sound.

I think the crux of it is that personally, to the best of my ability, I wouldn't open myself up to the possibility of being attacked. That means drinking less, travelling in groups, and understanding my environment. To me this means sacrificing some fun for my own safety. And yeah, it's really rough, but I've never been mugged or attacked in part because I was so careful. Maybe that's something unfair to teach others to do, and maybe it is a better approach to attack the problem from the other end as you suggest.

 

[Karkador]

Wow, can you guys please read my posts? I'm saying a lot of people in general do that. And I'm bringing up the issue to encourage people to think about why they have the positions that they have. I didn't say any user in particular was guilty of that. However, let's be honest. Go into a thread about a child rapist and people will be talking about how they should go to jail and be raped. I've seen it numerous times in Neogaf threads and I'm sure you can think of somebody who would say that. Do you really think they would tell you women deserve to be raped if you asked? That's logical inconsistency.

And as we've said, the people who call for child rapists to get raped in prison are wrong and contributing to rape culture. They have those positions because they have been culturally conditioned to minimize the seriousness of rape, and/or they're being ignorant and stupid. Both of the scenarios posted are not the woman's fault. Does that satisfy your exploration of the hypothetical? Because I can't think of anywhere else you'd like to go that isn't going to lead us back here.

Wow you guys cannot read at all. The similarities between the abortion debate and the "rape debate" (it's not really much of a debate, since I already agreed with everyone saying it's the fault of the rapist) is that people have already made their decisions based on their emotions. Person raped = bad. And that clouds their thinking on the entire issue.

I'm sorry, I didn't know "rape=bad" was something we didn't all agree on.

Abortion is a debate because some people don't think abortion (or some abortion) is wrong. Rape is not a debate.

The second point you raised (it was part of the same paragraph or whatever, but I'm assuming you went on to the next point of my post)- Let me ask you a question. Would it even matter if the victim provoked the rapist? I don't even understand your point. From your point of view, it should never matter right? So why even bring up whether or not they provoke the rapist? If it doesn't matter since it's never the rape victim's responsibility, then how is it any different? Unless you're saying that if the rape victim DID provoke the rapist, that changes everything...?

Please tell us more about how this victim "provokes" the rapist first.

The message I'm trying to send is think about your positions and stop getting so defensive. You didn't even address my scenarios, but thanks for proving my point. Maybe you should explore the world. There are people out there that are incapable of stopping themselves from doing bad things. That's a fact.

Think about yours, please.

 

[threetri333]

This is fucking dumb. She drags him into her room, all kissing and touching.

He gets intimate. Tries to get her in the mood. "oh no! rape!!!". The girl showed no resistance. If someone tries to get in my pants without me wanting so, I will definitely not settle with protesting "I don't want to."

Your choice of words are disturbing.

The second video in this thread makes me cringe. I don't ever want that to happen.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

it's not nearly as basic as that.

Fuck yes it is. there's no need to introduce any grey area into this. Rape is bad. You shouldn't do it.

Don't rape people.

What possesses someone to stick their foot in a closing door and build a doorstop out of extenuating circumstances when it comes to that particular worldview? Why would you argue for that? What is gained by arguing for that, besides fostering an atmosphere where the potential for rape apology is high?

What possible benefit are you attempting to realize by saying this particular issue is more nuanced than "Don't fucking rape people, ever."

 

[Vermillion]

Hm, yeah the driving analogy wouldn't work if rape is committed by people they know. I wonder if there are any situational trends that could be useful in helping people though. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that instead of taking precautionary measure we should eliminate the threat, mostly because in my mind the threat can never be completely eliminated. So for me, a mix of both strategies seems sound.

I think the crux of it is that personally, to the best of my ability, I wouldn't open myself up to the possibility of being attacked. That means drinking less, travelling in groups, and understanding my environment. To me this means sacrificing some fun for my own safety. And yeah, it's really rough, but I've never been mugged or attacked in part because I was so careful. Maybe that's something unfair to teach others to do, and maybe it is a better approach to attack the problem from the other end as you suggest.

It is pretty unfair, because the levels of danger for women and men are different. As such, we'd end up allowing one person to do more than the other based on their gender, and everyone just wants to have an equal amount of fun. Then we come into the rights vs. safety argument, which is always interesting. If there were a way that - while focusing our attention on the rapists and would-be rapists - we could have people be safe from rape without giving up any of their rights or comfort, I would be all for it. But there isn't (to my knowledge), so this is a "best defense is a good offense" scenario.

 

[Kazerei]

.

Well said.

Hm, yeah the driving analogy wouldn't work if rape is committed by people they know. I wonder if there are any situational trends that could be useful in helping people though. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that instead of taking precautionary measure we should eliminate the threat, mostly because in my mind the threat can never be completely eliminated. So for me, a mix of both strategies seems sound.

I think the crux of it is that personally, to the best of my ability, I wouldn't open myself up to the possibility of being attacked. That means drinking less, travelling in groups, and understanding my environment. To me this means sacrificing some fun for my own safety. And yeah, it's really rough, but I've never been mugged or attacked in part because I was so careful. Maybe that's something unfair to teach others to do, and maybe it is a better approach to attack the problem from the other end as you suggest.

We still need some level of precautionary measures. But taking precautionary measures doesn't actually work to eliminate the threat; it doesn't make any progress towards a better, safer community. In order to move forward on reducing rape, we need to stop people from being rapists. Telling people to restrict what they do, that doesn't move us forward.

 

[gotoadgo]

This is fucking dumb. She drags him into her room, all kissing and touching.

He gets intimate. Tries to get her in the mood. "oh no! rape!!!". The girl showed no resistance. If someone tries to get in my pants without me wanting so, I will definitely not settle with protesting "I don't want to."

Jesus Christ.

 

[Karkador]

I understand, but why not take a two-pronged approach? Try to rehabilitate and educate those who aren't absolutely deviants and also teach people how to protect themselves against those who are?

It's easier to continue falling on the short-term solution of telling women to live their lives a certain restrictive way (when they've done nothing wrong), than to wait for the more long-term solution of having the education, the therapy, and the societal correction of the factors that lead to rape (and rape culture in general), which would help people not do wrong things. I see it like quick fix vs hard work.

I don't think I necessarily see something wrong with the two-prong approach, but it seems like one prong needs to be much longer than the other, and that one is mostly missing.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Fuck yes it is. there's no need to introduce any grey area into this. Rape is bad. You shouldn't do it.

Don't rape people.

What possesses someone to stick their foot in a closing door and build a doorstop out of extenuating circumstances when it comes to that particular worldview? Why would you argue for that? What is gained by arguing for that, besides fostering an atmosphere where the potential for rape apology is high?

What possible benefit are you attempting to realize by saying this particular issue is more nuanced than "Don't fucking rape people, ever."

Okay. Take for example this scenario. A young girl is raped, she is then forced through her cultural or social situation into believing that she was somehow at fault for the actions which occured. This happens all the time, I think everyone can agree that this is not a positive position to be in.

Now, imagine the same scenario, except from a boys position when they're taught before they have done anything that they're perpetrators of a crime before that crime has ever occured, or worse when it occurs to them. Is that fair for the boy? Is it fair for a child to be taught that he is an agressive sexual animal and a potential rapist? What happens when he gets raped? how does he reconcile with those issues? You're just moving the issue, not solving it.

The reality is that men and women interpret sex and sexual encounters in different ways. hell, the term "few"/"couple"/"some" is interpreted differently, let alone trying to define what's the boundry of rape to a couple teenagers while they're intoxicated. Teach both boys and girls to repsect the boundries of eachother (a genderless dialog), the boundries of people, and you'll get a lot further, then trying to make boys accept the world view of women and vice versa.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Okay. Take for example this scenario. A young girl is raped, she is then forced through her cultural or social situation into believing that she was somehow at fault for the actions which occured. This happens all the time, I think everyone can agree that this is not a positive position to be in.

Now, imagine the same scenario, except from a boys position when they're taught before they have done anything that they're perpetrators of a crime before that crime has ever occured, or worse when it occurs to them. Is that fair for the boy? Is it fair for a child to be taught that he is an agressive sexual animal and a potential rapist? What happens when he gets raped? how does he reconcile with those issues? You're just moving the issue, not solving it.

The reality is that men and women interpret sex and sexual encounters in different ways. Teach both boys and girls to repsect the boundries of eachother, the boundries of people, and you'll get a lot further.

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Dude didn't answer a single one of my questions.

 

[Vermillion]

Okay. Take for example this scenario. A young girl is raped, she is then forced through her cultural or social situation into believing that she was somehow at fault for the actions which occured. This happens all the time, I think everyone can agree that this is not a positive position to be in.

Now, imagine the same scenario, except from a boys position when they're taught before they have done anything that they're perpetrators of a crime before that crime has ever occured, or worse when it occurs to them. Is that fair for the boy? Is it fair for a child to be taught that he is an agressive sexual animal and a potential rapist? What happens when he gets raped? how does he reconcile with those issues? You're just moving the issue, not solving it.

The reality is that men and women interpret sex and sexual encounters in different ways. hell, the term "few"/"couple"/"some" is interpreted differently, let alone trying to define what's the boundry of rape to a couple teenagers while they're intoxicated. Teach both boys and girls to repsect the boundries of eachother (a genderless dialog), the boundries of people, and you'll get a lot further, then trying to make boys accept the world view of women and vice versa.

The guy isn't being taught that he's a potential rapist - he's being taught about scenarios that would be considered rape. Though yes - there is a genderless part of it, which was quoted a while back - empathy for other people - for the other sex - is important as well. Besides that specific part, though, the lesson cannot be genderless because the real world situation isn't genderless. Not because guys are rapists, or because they will rape, but because some of us just don't understand what it is.




Upon further thought, you can have guys and girls in a classroom and teach what rape is, though... perhaps this is what you were getting at?

 

[Ventilaator]

Guys rape is bad and you shouldn't do it

/Best anti-rape campaign ever

 

[Nether!]

...I've said enough.

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading it and I have taken something away.

 

[Lord Error]

The only thing that bugs me about these kinds of situations is that it is somehow acceptable to blame the victim, (or I guess a potential victim) in the case of not wearing a seatbelt in the car. You're in fact bound by law to maximize your safety in that case, "to not be foolish", as put by Mark L. above - even if you can't possibly be at any kind of fault (such as if you're a co-driver)

 

[Surreal]

We still need some level of precautionary measures. But taking precautionary measures doesn't actually work to eliminate the threat; it doesn't make any progress towards a better, safer community. In order to move forward on reducing rape, we need to stop people from being rapists. Telling people to restrict what they do, that doesn't move us forward.

You make a lot of sense, the methods you describe do help us progress towards a safer community while precautionary measures do not. But I believe until we get to that point and even after that point, since no community is completely safe, I think there is value in empowering the individual too. Whether it is through teaching best practices, self-defense classes, or other methods, I believe these types of precautionary measures are effective in protecting people even if they may be a bit restrictive.

Obviously, we shouldn't JUST teach precautionary measures because then we'd never make progress, but I think it is a valuable tool in tandem with stopping people from being rapists.

My fear is that when (and I could be totally off) we say that the victim is never to blame we aren't encouraging safe practices.

If we are telling someone that they are never at fault, we are telling them they have no power over the situations they find themselves in. How so?

Because if they had any power over the situation then the outcome would be somewhat a result of their actions. If the outcome is somewhat a result of their actions then they are partially responsible for what happens to them.

So the only way someone is blameless is if they had no power in the situation. We're kind of telling people that the bad things that happen to you are out of your control. Which is a really weird angle to take.

This seems to encourage an external locus of control, the idea that outcomes of events are attributed to external circumstances. It's not good to get people thinking that way because, "[externals] are more prone to depression, learned helplessness, and anxiety than [internals]." Source.

I don't want to blame victims for being attacked, but at the same time I think it's important to teach people that they can make a difference. They can control the outcome of events and that they're not helpless.

 

[Snapshot King]

I'm not sure why, I can't quite pin it down, but the idea that a 30 second advertisement is enough to change a rapists mind makes me see red. It's infuriating. The implication that someone willing to commit a heinous and illegal act would simply change their mind because they saw a commercial earlier that day is so god damn stupid it makes my head spin. It's implying that a rapist is just like you or me, cept whoops, they made a bad decision. It's equating it with something like drunk driving, which while certainly vile, is a crime of idiocy and pride rather than malice. Ugh.

 

[Vermillion]

You make a lot of sense, the methods you describe do help us progress towards a safer community while precautionary measures do not. But I believe until we get to that point and even after that point, since no community is completely safe, I think there is value in empowering the individual too. Whether it is through teaching best practices, self-defense classes, or other methods, I believe these types of precautionary measures are effective in protecting people even if they may be a bit restrictive.

Obviously, we shouldn't JUST teach precautionary measures because then we'd never make progress, but I think it is a valuable tool in tandem with stopping people from being rapists.

My fear is that when (and I could be totally off) we say that the victim is never to blame we aren't encouraging safe practices.

If we are telling someone that they are never at fault, we are telling them they have no power over the situations they find themselves in. How so?

Because if they had any power over the situation then the outcome would be somewhat a result of their actions. If the outcome is somewhat a result of their actions then they are partially responsible for what happens to them.

So the only way someone is blameless is if they had no power in the situation. We're kind of telling people that the bad things that happen to you are out of your control. Which is a really weird angle to take.

This seems to encourage an external locus of control, the idea that outcomes of events are attributed to external circumstances. It's not good to get people thinking that way because, "[externals] are more prone to depression, learned helplessness, and anxiety than [internals]." Source.

I don't want to blame victims for being attacked, but at the same time I think it's important to teach people that they can make a difference. They can control the outcome of events and that they're not helpless.

Huh. I would have assumed that internal attributions lead to depression, but you certainly bring up interesting points that I'll have to think about.

EDIT: It's sort of like saying get under your desk if the alarm sounded during the Cold War. Security theater...

 

[derdriu]

Quote:
A survey for Amnesty found 37% of respondents thought a woman was responsible for being raped if she didn't say "no" clearly enough. With attitudes like this, is it any surprise young people may be dangerously confused?

They certainly seem to be. Only 69% of young men would not try to have sex with someone who did not want to, and one in 20 said they would try to have sex with someone who was asleep, according to a shocking 2010 survey of young people aged between 18 and 25 by the Havens, the specialist London-based sexual assault referral centres. A significant proportion also seemed confused about what constitutes rape: only 77% of young men agreed that having sex with someone who has said no was rape.

Thanks for posting, I found everything very informative. The "date rape myth" and these numbers shocked me, also the first sentence explains some of the comments in this thread.

 

[Surreal]

I'm not sure why, I can't quite pin it down, but the idea that a 30 second advertisement is enough to change a rapists mind makes me see red. It's infuriating. The implication that someone willing to commit a heinous and illegal act would simply change their mind because they saw a commercial earlier that day is so god damn stupid it makes my head spin. It's implying that a rapist is just like you or me, cept whoops, they made a bad decision. It's equating it with something like drunk driving, which while certainly vile, is a crime of idiocy and pride rather than malice. Ugh.

I think the idea is that the majority of rapes that occur are due to a lack of communication and a mismatch of expectations not malicious intent. The theory is that most people are good and don't want to rape people, they just don't really understand that what they're doing is rape when they do it.

Huh. I would have assumed that internal attributions lead to depression, but you certainly bring up interesting points that I'll have to think about.

I think external attributions lead to depression because they don't believe they are in control of their own fate. So no matter how they try, external circumstances rule their lives so they feel stuck and powerless.

 

[SpectreFire]

I think the idea is that the majority of rapes that occur are due to a lack of communication and a mismatch of expectations not malicious intent. The theory is that most people are good and don't want to rape people, they just don't really understand that what they're doing is rape when they do it.

That seems to really insult the general public's ability to consent to sex though. What you're saying, is that people don't understand what no means in terms of consensual sex, so they need a 30 second commercial to remind them that no means... no?

 

[MIMIC]

Nice ad.

I like how the guy is the one doing the voice-over at the end (or are they different people? I can't tell, lol)