terribletwo
Member
This doesn't support what you said. In fact it further complicates matters. You said:
How would a person even decide this outside of a courtroom?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is this the best anti-rape campaign ever?
- Thread starter MemoryHumanity
- Start date
- Status
By assuming that if there's any doubt then it's probably a bad idea.
terribletwo
Member
agreed
Dude Abides
Banned
Actually, you were claiming that one drink means no consent. I pointed out that that's wrong, that you have to be drunker than that, and the link supports me.
One way you can tell if someone is too drunk to consent outside a courtroom is if they're incoherent.
Women do take reasonable precautions and almost no one objects to that. You have to contextualize these objections within the larger context of these conversations: There is always something more a woman could have done in service of avoiding a rape. When the conversation is almost always and almost exclusively about women's responsibility not to get raped, it creates a framing that implicitly blames women when they are raped. This framing then leads to the discussion being, "What did she do wrong that got her raped?" This is then followed by a discussion that centers around advice of what women can do to not get raped. At no point do we end up discussing the rapist, or men's ability to prevent rape, or educating men who are, for lack of a better word, raping without knowing that what they are doing is rape.
And the "I guess all women should lock themselves in their houses!" is not being presented as an argument; it is more of an expression of exasperation with the way that this framing rape discussions erases men's presence from the discussion. This occurs all the time in the way that sexual assault is reported and discussed:
Katz explains the way we structure language allows men to slip out of view. For instance, the sentence "Mary is a battered woman" emphasizes a woman's condition and diverts attention from male violence. This lets men and our society collectively off the hook from taking a cold hard look at gendered violence. In his book The Macho Paradox: How Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help, Katz cites linguist Julia Penelope's work in tracing the transition from male accountability to passive invisibility: 1) John beat Mary. 2) Mary was beaten by John. 3) Mary was beaten. 4) Mary was battered. 5) Mary is a battered woman. By the end not only has "John" disappeared from the equation, but "Mary's" identity is sealed by the status of her victimization.
This linguistic shape-shifting matters because the media frequently use passive descriptions when they report on male violence against women. This passive style reinforces ideas that domestic violence and sexual assault are "women's issues," and men are left out of the picture. "John left the conversation long ago, while Mary evolves into the active victim," Katz explains. "Victim blaming is very pervasive in our society, because this is how our whole power structure is set up. We start asking why Mary put herself into a position to be beaten by John. If we really want to work on preventing sexual assault and male violence against women, we need to start asking questions about John, not Mary," Katz says.
In "The Grammar of Male Violence," Jennie Ruby also describes how language focuses on women as victims but not on the role of men as perpetrators. Crime reports are written in the passive voice. "The result is that the the gender of the victim is clearly stated," Ruby writes, "but the gender of the perpetrator is completely hidden: 'A woman was raped' rather than 'A man raped a woman' or 'A man raped someone' or even 'An unknown male assailant raped a person.'" These passive oversights of language are at the core of masculine privilege: the privilege not to have to notice privilege, and the privilege of disappearing from accountability. What results is that men can collectively stay in the same place and the cultural systems of masculine privilege remain unexamined. This limits society's ability to effectively address important issues of power and privilege, safety and liberty. The focus remains on helping women escape violence rather than on reducing violent behavior in men.
This linguistic shape-shifting matters because the media frequently use passive descriptions when they report on male violence against women. This passive style reinforces ideas that domestic violence and sexual assault are "women's issues," and men are left out of the picture. "John left the conversation long ago, while Mary evolves into the active victim," Katz explains. "Victim blaming is very pervasive in our society, because this is how our whole power structure is set up. We start asking why Mary put herself into a position to be beaten by John. If we really want to work on preventing sexual assault and male violence against women, we need to start asking questions about John, not Mary," Katz says.
In "The Grammar of Male Violence," Jennie Ruby also describes how language focuses on women as victims but not on the role of men as perpetrators. Crime reports are written in the passive voice. "The result is that the the gender of the victim is clearly stated," Ruby writes, "but the gender of the perpetrator is completely hidden: 'A woman was raped' rather than 'A man raped a woman' or 'A man raped someone' or even 'An unknown male assailant raped a person.'" These passive oversights of language are at the core of masculine privilege: the privilege not to have to notice privilege, and the privilege of disappearing from accountability. What results is that men can collectively stay in the same place and the cultural systems of masculine privilege remain unexamined. This limits society's ability to effectively address important issues of power and privilege, safety and liberty. The focus remains on helping women escape violence rather than on reducing violent behavior in men.
Neither of the bolded are attempts at explaining what rape is. And this line: "how clearly the consent or lack thereof was communicated is a huge part of determining whether or not it was rape at all" is a part of the problem. Rapists depend upon this understanding in order to have social license to operate:
The overwhelming prevalence of acquaintance over stranger rapes and of intoxication over overt force, and the relative rarity of weapon use and physical injuries, is easily explained. Rapists know what works. They like to rape, they want to keep doing it, they want not to be caught. It is in their interest to be very sensitive to which accounts of rape are believed and which are attacked and to know which targets and methods are lowest-risk for them.
What they do is what works. They rape their drunk acquaintances because it works. They rape their drunk acquaintances because we let them.
We need to revoke the rapists’ social license to operate. We need to stop asking, “why do we think he didn’t know she wasn’t consenting,” which is the first question now, really. First as a cultural matter — leaving the legal matter aside — we need to adopt the stance that sexual interaction ought to always be had in a state of affirmative consent by all participants; that anything else is aberrant. If someone says, “I was sexually assaulted,” the first question should be, “why was a person continuing with sexual activity when zir partner did not want to?”
This is what it is: real rape happens when the attacker is drunk and the target is drunker and alone and isolated. That’s rape-rape. If he gets away with it, it will be, on average, rape-rape-rape-rape-rape-rape. If we refuse to listen, he can continue to pretend that the rapist is some guy in the parking lot late at night, when it’s actually him, in our friends’ bedrooms half an hour after last call. If we let that happen, we’re part of the problem.
What they do is what works. They rape their drunk acquaintances because it works. They rape their drunk acquaintances because we let them.
We need to revoke the rapists’ social license to operate. We need to stop asking, “why do we think he didn’t know she wasn’t consenting,” which is the first question now, really. First as a cultural matter — leaving the legal matter aside — we need to adopt the stance that sexual interaction ought to always be had in a state of affirmative consent by all participants; that anything else is aberrant. If someone says, “I was sexually assaulted,” the first question should be, “why was a person continuing with sexual activity when zir partner did not want to?”
This is what it is: real rape happens when the attacker is drunk and the target is drunker and alone and isolated. That’s rape-rape. If he gets away with it, it will be, on average, rape-rape-rape-rape-rape-rape. If we refuse to listen, he can continue to pretend that the rapist is some guy in the parking lot late at night, when it’s actually him, in our friends’ bedrooms half an hour after last call. If we let that happen, we’re part of the problem.
And this is also of interest on the subject of miscommunication.
[Y]oung women responding to unwanted sexual pressure are using absolutely normal conversational patterns for refusals: that is, according to the research literature (and our own data) on young women and sexual communication, they are communicating their refusals indirectly; their refusals rarely refer to their own lack of desire for sex and more often to external circumstances which make sex impossible; their refusals are often qualified (‘maybe later’
, and are accompanied by compliments (‘I really like you, but . . .’ or by appreciations of the invitation (‘it’s very flattering of you to ask, but . . .’ and sometimes they refuse sex with the kind of ‘yes’s which are normatively understood as communicating refusal. These features are all part of what are commonly understood to be refusals.
, and are accompanied by compliments (‘I really like you, but . . .’ or by appreciations of the invitation (‘it’s very flattering of you to ask, but . . .’ and sometimes they refuse sex with the kind of ‘yes’s which are normatively understood as communicating refusal. These features are all part of what are commonly understood to be refusals.[p.309, emphasis mine.]. That means that they are “communicating in ways which are usually understood to mean refusal in other contexts and it is not the adequacy of their communication that should be questioned, but rather their male partners’ claims not to understand[.]” [pp. 309-310, emphasis mine.] In support of this proposition, they cite to some things men and boys have said in from other papers [TRIGGER WARNING for the blockquote -- pro-rape exhortations]:
responded with posters of their own including slogans such as ‘no means kick her in the teeth’, ‘no means on your knees bitch’, ‘no means tie her up’, ‘no means more beer’ and ‘no means she’s a dyke’ (cf. Mahood and Littlewood, 1997). Similar evidence comes from a recent study of 16-year-old boys who were asked ‘if you wanted to have sex and your partner did not, would you try to persuade them to have sex? How?’: the researchers comment that there was ‘clear evidence of aggression towards girls who were not prepared to be sexually accommodating’ and quote interview extracts in which boys say that in such situations they would ‘root the fucking bitch in the fucking arse’, ‘give her a stern talking to’, or just ‘shove it in’ (Moore and Rosenthal, 1992, cited in Moore and Rosenthal, 1993: 179). The problem of sexual coercion cannot be fixed by changing the way women talk.
And from another study a decade later:
In a discussion of how they themselves would refuse unwanted sex (Extract 1) it is apparent that the participants are well aware that— despite the emphasis placed on it by the majority of ‘rape prevention’ programmes— effective sexual refusals need not contain the word ‘no’. Indeed it is evident that these young men share the understanding that explicit verbal refusals of sex per se are unnecessary to effectively communicate the withholding of consent to sex.
[p. 175, emphasis mine.] The authors review more conversation excerpts, and conclude:
It seems clear then that young men, in these focus groups at least, are capable of displaying not only that they are competent at the offering of refusals, but also of hearing forms of female conduct (e.g. ‘body language’, l. 263, 268; the ‘shortness’, l. 270 or ‘abruptness’ of conversation, l. 272) as ways in which women may clearly communicate their disinterest in sex. It is also clear that the men can hear both ‘little hints’ (l. 278) and ‘softened’ refusals as refusals—thus statements like ‘it’s getting late’ (l. 273) or ‘I’m working early in the morning’ (l. 276) are not taken at face value as comments by women on the time or their employment schedule—but rather as indicators that, in the moderator’s words, ‘sex is not on the cards’. Of note here is that in none of the examples given do the men indicate that the explicit use of the word ‘no’ is necessary for a woman’s refusal of a sexual invitation to be understood as such.
I don't believe that anything more than a vanishingly small number of rapes are the result of unclear communication. I think that they are the result of ignoring clear communication and having insufficient respect and empathy for another person's agency and bodily integrity, and knowing that if she says she was raped, you can always say that you thought it was consensual knowing full well that there will be people who will back you up.
And this is what social license to rape looks like:
terribletwo
Member
Since, as the article states, there "is no bright line" it can become difficult to tell. Especially as you have people who can black out but still behave normally. I clarified on the previous page, I agree that a person who has a few drinks could still give consent. My point was that its a dangerous line to walk, especially when the other person is also drinking. Then you're relying on a drinking person's ability to judge the mental state of another drinking person.
For example: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/supportingresearch/journal/abbey.aspx
So yes I agree that it takes more than a few drinks to eliminate ability to give consent, for purposes of this thread, that is a grey area that can be dangerous
It's out of exasperation, and it's also to show that a lot of times the advice isn't reasonable. I've been told by a friend to not come crying to them if I ever get raped because it's my fault for taking public transportation home late by myself. I had late classes. What was I supposed to do, not go to class? (Oh, and by the way: the one time I've been harassed on public transportation I was with two other girls and the two guys separated me from them by blocking me off from anyway of getting out of the small entrance. It didn't escalate because luckily they let me go. The only advice that would have stopped this from happening on my end is: don't use the subway because of some random shits.) Most advice is in this vain, and it doesn't do nearly as much to "prevent" rape as those who give the advice think.
What do you think is a reasonable precaution?
My english is to bad to participate deeper into this interesting discussion but i just want to add that such "ads" or informecials need to be more drastic like some existing spots about driving drunk or drinking to much alcohol. It has to stuck in your head. Some witty slogan wont cut it. The second link (guy behind glass) was better but still not drastic/shocking enough.
Although it wont help much when brainless guys are drunk and horny.
Although it wont help much when brainless guys are drunk and horny.
Dude Abides
Banned
I agree with most of this, and there is a grey area, but I don't think people need to be worried about having sex after a few drinks.
cubicle47b
Member
Advertisements are a pretty terrible way to get this message out. It hits a broad range of people but does so ineffectively. From early high school to early college there should be discussions about consent and coercion.
User 100115
Banned
I was referring to the fact that most of the people in that thread said that she shouldn't have palmed her drink and she was basically calling you a rapist for doing it. And that we really can't win for losing.
Fairly Rational
Banned
Carry a weapon. Mace (spray or medieval kind, doesn't matter), baton, knife, whatever you feel comfortable with using in defense of your person. It would also help to know how to use said weapon if you plan on carrying it. Whether that's training or reading up on wikipedia doesn't matter, just know what you're carrying and how much damage it can do.
It sucks that people need to take precautions like this just to avoid sexual assault. However this is the world we live in, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest people know how to defend themselves in case of an attack.
It depends on the context and the individual's situation, and where their personal values lie. But I was not aiming to promote my own placement of the "reasonableness" line, nor establish a universal measurement of reasonableness. My goal was to point out the logical fallacies that people were using against those who were promoting a reasonableness line placement. The logical fallacy was using an extreme example that no one would argue is a reasonable preventative measure to show that other preventative measures were not reasonable. You basically repeated the same fallacy that Mumai claimed people weren't committing: "...it's also to show that a lot of times the advice isn't reasonable." To be fair, using the extreme example is fair game to show that there do exist preventative measures that are unreasonable; however, this extreme claim was used as a direct response to people proposing other preventative measures which many women are willing to take, as they've weighed them as reasonable. You cannot argue that hot-tub water is too hot for babies because "we might as well stick you in 500 degree water!" The revelation of extremes is not a revelation. Everyone knows about them. Extremes are useful to illustrate either a) the existence of exceptions to widely-held assumptions, or b) to illustrate a general principle. You could argue that the extreme in this example is illustrating the principle of safety-gone-too-far, but once again, it has no logical bearing on the claim at hand. It merely expresses how you feel about the opposing claim, which I believe is the point Mumai was getting at.
Before I dig in, great post. I'll highlight and address things that stuck out to me:
Very true, and I agree. Like I've acknowledged many times, victim-blaming does exist. I was mostly addressing the baseless expansion of victim-blaming allegations to encompass all preventative safety tips, which many in this thread have done.
I don't agree that this is happening for the majority of people. Yet, this is the premise from which many of the accusations of victim-blaming are flung. This brings us to your next point:
(Fair point, but as Pau shows us, some are using it as an argument rather than merely an expression of exasperation, as I discussed above)...
I not only disagree with the claimed trend, but also the implication were it true. This is not scientific by any means, but I googled my local news station and the word "rape." This is the entirety of the results on the first page:
- Director, supervisor of youth center arrested for rape, assault
- Riverton High teacher arrested, charged with rape of student
- SUU rugby player charged with rape
- Rape survivor tells story to empower others
- Rape victim calls attacker 'pathetic'
- Man returns...to face charges of child rape
- Rape Recovery Center looks for volunteers, victims to help
- GOP activist facing 23 charges of kidnapping, rape
- Door-to-door salesman accused of rape
- Man won't get death penalty in rape, killing of 7-year-old girl
Even if I were to find more stories focusing on the victims than the perpetrators, the explanation is far more likely to be that journalists are trained to focus on the emotional aspects of every story to draw in the viewer. Combine that with the fact that they've gotta figure out who the rapist is before the media can report on him, while the victim is known the moment they report the attack to the police, and you've got a recipe for victims being in the headlines more than the perpetrators. Yet, with my limited Google search, even that still did not yield any invisibility for the rapists. They were front and center, demonized; victims were strengthened and sympathized.
On Twitter, my (admittedly cursory) search for "rape" yielded zero victim-blaming tweets, and plenty talking about how awful it [EDIT: it=rape] is, with one dude saying they [EDIT: they=rapists] should get the gas chamber.
Perhaps victim-blaming is more common in the real world than in the media or Twitter; I can't say, as I've never seen it done, but I also live in an extremely low crime rate area. I will make no pretenses that I know what happens in high-rape areas with regards to personal interactions. But this book's assertion that there's a systematic removal and hiding of the rapist and a focus on blaming the victim just does not hold up to my rudimentary, hasty checks, nor to any of my 28 years of anecdotal evidence. The only way to reach the book's conclusion, as far as I can tell, is to begin with the assumption that the rape-culture model is accurate in both scope and magnitude, then search out datapoints that support the model and disregard the ones that don't. In a country of 300 million people, I can find plenty of people who believe BigFoot is real, if I look for it. But that does not mean we live in a BigFootBelievers culture. I'm not trying to minimize the issue of rape, as rape itself occurs far too often, disturbingly so. But I do think a few Twitter examples picked out from two weeks' worth of a major national issue is not strong evidence of a culture of victim-blaming.
I hate to use a cliche, but the survey's use of rape is similar to that old weighted question, "How often do you beat your wife?" If the message conveyed suggested consent to the reasonable person, then it's not rape, as per the legal definition. I still think it's both unwise and wrong to engage in intercourse on such ambiguous terms, as I find intercourse to be something special worth preserving. But from a legal standpoint, that survey called it rape without even allowing for the ambiguity to preclude that it's rape. It's similar to saying, "If you had a carton of spoiled milk, how likely would you be to drink it if it looked, smelled and tasted fresh?" Then the survey says, "67% of people say they would drink spoiled milk if it looked, smelled and tasted fresh." Wait, so how is it spoiled again? Why should we think these people are okay with drinking spoiled milk? That is what I mean by they're defining rape by calling it rape. Same thing with the "rape is rape." I can't emphasize enough how important I think it is to get clear consent. But considering the "reasonable" standard imbedded within the rape definition, rape is not clear-cut. It is not self-evident.
I agree it's a problem. But in a giant auditorium of law students, none of us could come up with a definition of rape that was not difficult to prove and would also not imprison large amounts of innocent people based on false accusations. Your quote is very similar to what I talked about in part of my post that you clipped. Rape reform has wisely shifted the focus from "did she do enough to convey lack of consent" to "what messages did he receive?" Juries can infer from the facts of the case whether or not he actually believed he had consent, and they do use her actions along with the context to make that inference. But the burden is no longer upon her to make sure she does enough. There is no standard for her to meet. And perpetrators can attempt to play dumb, but if the jury finds out she said, "Maybe tomorrow" and he penetrates anyway, it doesn't matter what he claims he believed if the jury finds it unreasonable for him to assume he had consent. These subtle cues that your quote says everyone picks up on, the jury can pick up on those, too. So that quote seems to be fighting a battle that is mostly over, on that front. Personally, I don't know how the standard should be altered from where it is, although I'd be interested in hearing ideas.
I agree with this fully. As a quick aside, I do not think making courtship robotic and computer-perfect in fully verbal request-approval-request-approval-request-approval is appropriate. But body language is extremely clear in most cases. Particularly if you are with a new partner for the first time, you will know from the body language whether you have consent or not. After a long-term relationship, sometimes she isn't into it, but you have consent anyway, because she loves you and knows you'll like it. But ideally at that point, she's comfortable enough with you that she can make a strong "No" if she means no. As for new relationships, assume "No" until her voice or body clearly says otherwise. When in doubt, check and make sure you've got consent. Even if it kills the mood.
As I mentioned above, this seems very cherry-picked (not with malicious intent, but unintentionally due to confirmation bias) to fit the model of victim-blaming culture you subscribe to. I can't claim that's what it is for sure, considering how cursory my search of the media and Twitter was, but that's what it seems to me at this time. These people are crazy, and not representative of the culture as a whole. That is not to say our culture doesn't objectify women to gross amounts, which I don't doubt helps contribute to some depraved minds, but I just really do not see a whole lot of victim blaming. Apparently it was much bigger a couple decades ago, though. So maybe it's just in hiding. Either way, I don't buy that book's assertion about a media-driven systematic hiding of the rapist and shifting of the blame onto the victim. Nearly all victim talk is emotional and empowering, and most stories focus on the abhorrent rapist.
I agree, though I also think it can begin even earlier than that. The discussions don't have to be about "consent" in a sexual sense; they can begin simply with explicitly teaching empathy. This sounds appealing to me:
[...] I would start by looking at three countries in Europe that have some of the best sexual health statistics in the world. Not coincidentally, these countries use an approach that makes the United States look like some sort of fiendish bizarro-world where faux morality is allowed to trample reasoned, useful approaches.
The Netherlands, France, and Germany all use a similar model of sexual health promotion, and Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C., based nonprofit, compiled the elements that have allowed these countries to be so effective. Among these keys to success are:
The Netherlands, France, and Germany all use a similar model of sexual health promotion, and Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C., based nonprofit, compiled the elements that have allowed these countries to be so effective. Among these keys to success are:
- Governments support massive, consistent, long-term public educations [that are] far more direct and humorous than in the U.S. and focus on safety and pleasure.
- Sexuality education is not necessarily a separate curriculum and may be integrated across school subjects and at all grade levels. Educators provide accurate and complete information in response to students' questions.
- Families have open, honest, consistent discussions with teens about sexuality and support the role of educators and health care providers in making sexual health information and services available for teens
- The morality of sexual behavior is weighed through an individual ethic that includes the values of responsibility, respect, tolerance, and equity
- [All programs] work to address issues around cultural diversity in regard to immigrant populations and their values that differ from those of the majority culture
- Research is the basis for public policies... political and religious interest groups have little influence on public health policy."
I can't see this happening overnight, but the sooner we are able to begin moving towards comprehensive sex education that includes education and discussions about consent the better. There are other essays in the book make the point that the way that sex is taught in the United States is one of the obstacles to people understanding consent. One of the more interesting arguments made is that the abstinence-only model of sex education implicitly treats sex as a commodity - see the ubiquitous talk in abstinence-only education about being "ruined" and "saving yourself" and weird metaphors like tape being passed pressed against everyone's arm (because you'll be like that tape when you try to get married; no one will stick around) around and so forth that present sexuality (or at least, female sexuality) as finite, exhaustible and possessing value only when it is unsullied - which then causes sexual interactions to be seen as inherently adversarial. They offer instead a performance model (or process model) of sexual consent where sex is understood as ideally enthusiastic and collaborative. Of course, this requires that people be comfortable with discussing sexual desires frankly and openly.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Completely agreed. I'm a huge believer that teaching empathy is a much more effective way to solve most problems than social restructuring. Big on the empathy.
I don't know about the weapon thing. Lots of women do carry around weapons for this purpose but personally, I know how I get in situations where a guy has started harassing/following me/touching me without permission. My gut reaction isn't: "how can I fend off this guy or make him stop." It's: "what can I do to make sure this situation doesn't escalate." I'd be far too afraid of pulling out a weapon (if I can even get to that point) that they could turn the weapon against me or of doing something that would make them even angrier.
I use the "extreme" example because what a lot of guys ask for (like my situation with my friend) are unreasonable and extreme although they might not think it. And it was originally in response to someone who made the ridiculous example of a woman walking naked through a prison filled with rapists. The person was arguing that in some cases, victims of rape have personal responsibility for what happened to them. So they certainly meant to impose some sort of "reasonableness" line, even if that isn't your intent.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Yeah, I thought this too. I mean, there is something to be said for waiting for her to make the first move, but come on!
Fairly Rational
Banned
The thing about using a weapon is that things have already escalated. I'm not talking about stabbing a fool who is cat calling you, I'm talking about defending yourself from someone who is attacking you. Once someone has committed to doing bodily harm (rape or otherwise) you shouldn't be worrying about escalation, only protecting yourself.
As far as fear of using force, that's why I suggested taking some form of training/self defense class. I'm not saying fear isn't a paralyzing agent, only that it can be overcome through reflex. If you really want to protect yourself, that's one option.
Asking for sex and asking to be raped are two different things.
You think men don't dress up to increase up their chances of getting sex?
Regardless of whether or not you believe that, the pushy behavior that leads to unwanted sex, rape shouldn't be excused. Visual cues like wearing more attractive clothing doesn't mean you shouldn't be more aware of how receptive a person is nor that you can take advantage of someone who isn't fully cognizant of their actions. Men should be more in the habit of asking are you up this after initiating sexual touching.
That is a powerful vid. However, I *seriously* doubt there are men that genuinely think that she's "asking for it" by wearing a short skirt or whatever.
Any guy that says she was asking for it or whatever it just full of **** and I don't believe for one second they don't know better.
Seriously, I'm sure there were even cavemen that didn't rape.
Any guy that says she was asking for it or whatever it just full of **** and I don't believe for one second they don't know better.
Seriously, I'm sure there were even cavemen that didn't rape.
wrong
even more wrong
actually, most when making themselves pretty when going out aren't doing it because they're wanting sex from a man. you're generalizing and have been trained to assume everything a woman does with her image is usually with the intent of having sex with a man. completely untrue *see post bellow*
right. she's not "obligated" to have sex with anyone regardless of it being against her will or not.
---
EDIT:
I just edited my post explaining it a bit better for him. thanks for the input
User 100115
Banned
I would like to add to this. I am a married woman, and my husband never goes with me when I go hang out and karaoke or something with my brother or nieces. Even so, I dress nicely and want to look good. Not because I am looking for sex or looking to attract someone. But because I want to feel good.
That's a solid video. The other one in the OP is good too. Even if it is flawed it cuts more directly into the faulty way rape apologists discuss sex.
How in the world are these even remotely reasonable assumptions? What you're saying is guys are justified for thinking that every girl wearing a skirt/whatever fits your definition of "revealing" at a bar are single, available and looking for "intimate relations"? I have plenty of friends that just like looking nice and aren't some kind of submissive shut-ins whose only reason for being in a bar would be looking for sex.
SMH.
Maybe I'm not communicating this well, or maybe I'm just completely off. I really don't mean to be offensive, I'm just trying to hash this out.
What I'm trying to say is:
As a single man, when I want to attract women, I try to look nice. This doesn't mean that every time I dress nice I'm looking to attract women. It's just when I do, outside of a professional setting and especially in a setting like a bar or a club, it's likely I am looking to attract women. I think this is a pretty common human behavior.
So by extension, since I assume women aren't aliens and I don't think what I do is really that weird... I think that, again, generally, when single women dress up nice, they want to attract guys because I exhibit similar behavior when I'm trying to attract women. Is this sexist?
No, just uninformed.
Please inform?
Carnby
Member
The arguing in here is revolting.
There are rape survivors on GAF, including myself. I didn't ask for it, and now I have to live with what happened for the rest of my life. And now here I sit, reading debates over semantics and what-if scenarios, from people in the safety of their bubbles. Rape is real. It's not niiiiiice, it's not hnnng, and it's not our fault.
There are rape survivors on GAF, including myself. I didn't ask for it, and now I have to live with what happened for the rest of my life. And now here I sit, reading debates over semantics and what-if scenarios, from people in the safety of their bubbles. Rape is real. It's not niiiiiice, it's not hnnng, and it's not our fault.
Those tweets just made me angry. How can people be so fucking dumb? Even worse, lot's of those were by women....ugh.
I just want to say I'm sorry that happened to you. It really is pathetic how people try to shift the blame onto the victims.
I just want to say I'm sorry that happened to you. It really is pathetic how people try to shift the blame onto the victims.
out0v0rder
Member
if two drunk people have sex with each other shouldn't they both go to jail since they technically raped each other?
True. It took me to like my early 20s to realise that women don,g go to nightclubs solely or even most,y to impress men, they do it for themselves and to impress other women. Shit blew my fricking mind cos as a guy that shit's illogical. I couldn't give a fuck what another dude wears 9/10.
Maybe I'm not communicating this well, or maybe I'm just completely off. I really don't mean to be offensive, I'm just trying to hash this out.
What I'm trying to say is:
As a single man, when I want to attract women, I try to look nice. This doesn't mean that every time I dress nice I'm looking to attract women. It's just when I do, outside of a professional setting and especially in a setting like a bar or a club, it's likely I am looking to attract women. I think this is a pretty common human behavior.
So by extension, since I assume women aren't aliens and I don't think what I do is really that weird... I think that, again, generally, when single women dress up nice, they want to attract guys because I exhibit similar behavior when I'm trying to attract women. Is this sexist?
It's not sexist, but it's still an incredibly absurd assumption, IMHO. Just because you dress nicely and go to bars when trying to attract women doesn't mean "most" women who dress nicely in a social setting are looking for anything more than having a good time or that you or anyone else should be forgiven for assuming it. How anyone chooses to dress is too little information for you to make any guess as to what their intent is. That's the whole point of the video in the OP.
Looking nice is common behavior when trying to attract people, sure, but last time I checked, women don't stop trying to look nice when they are in a relationship, nor they stop going to bars altogether. People just like looking like whatever makes them feel good, and no one has any right to tell a girl she should stop dressing like she does because it "sends the wrong message" if that's what makes her feel good, because it's not her fault some stupid societal misconceptions say she's "obviously" trying to get laid in that outfit.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Oh man...
It would be an amazing feat if every single post in one of these threads would be about how to prevent and educate RAPISTS about their crime against a living human being.
As a side note, I wish the FDA would approve Rape-axe condoms.
It would be an amazing feat if every single post in one of these threads would be about how to prevent and educate RAPISTS about their crime against a living human being.
As a side note, I wish the FDA would approve Rape-axe condoms.
Lord Ghirahim
Member
Wouldn't education make rapists more efficient at raping?
Omegasquash
Member
I think he means educating people in general (but let's be real...we ARE talking about men). Enforcing the message that no means no, that being capable of consent means that you shouldn't be half a fifth of vodka deep, etc.
But most men don't go to nightclubs solely or even mostly to impress women, they do it for themselves - to have a good time with friends, have a few drinks and things like that. What was so unbelievable in that other people do it too? When I go out I try to look nice, not to impress but because I have some sense of social norms and don't want to look (and smell) like shit while in public.
- They may be more comfortable in less clothing or it may be her fashion which she uses to express her image.
- It may boost her self-esteem knowing she looks nice. That doesn't mean she is looking for direct attention from men nor is she looking to "attract" them like she is performing some mating call.
- They may be wanting to attract women or trans people. Not everything a woman does with her image is for men.
- It may have been laundry day and she had nothing else to wear.
You're assuming everything a woman does with her body is for men. Although it isn't intentional on your part it is still ignorant. I hope this gives you some perspective on things.
Eighty Deuce
Banned
.....my brain...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked