Hmm, does anyone have a link to that one study that showed that college students (fratboys) think that sex without her consent is okay, and rape slightly less okay - when they are both the same thing and the only things that is different are the connotations of these terms.
I think that a lot of people are more okay with rape becaues they do not consider it to be "rape" - which has unfortunately been characterized as something that only ugly rapists do by dragging a poor white woman into an alleyway/bush and using a weapon to force her to have sex with him.
So yeah, I don't think it's unfair to call said nation "rape illiterate".
If you are talking about the Neil Malamuth UCLA studies, I posted the quote on the first page.
I remember reading on this site that there are evolutionary reasons for the social stigmas regarding men and women. I have no idea if its bullshit pseudo-science so I wonder if there was more info about it. It was basically men sleep around to spread their offspring in the most places. They try for less promiscuous partners so that they know it is their seed being spread, and not someone else's. Women on the other need to be most attractive for these men, needing to find the best partner.
Recommended reading on Evolutionary Psychology.
Indeed, the guilty secret of psychology and of behavioral economics is that their experiments and surveys are conducted almost entirely with people from Western, industrialized countries, mostly of college age, and very often students of psychology at colleges in the United States. This is particularly unfortunate for evolutionary psychologists, who are trying to find universal features of our species. American college kids, whatever their charms, are a laughable proxy for Homo sapiens. The relatively few experiments conducted in non-Western cultures suggest that the minds of American students are highly unusual in many respects, including their spatial cognition, responses to optical illusions, styles of reasoning, coöperative behavior, ideas of fairness, and risk-taking strategies. Joseph Henrich and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia concluded recently that U.S. college kids are one of the worst subpopulations one could study when it comes to generalizing about human psychology. Their main appeal to evolutionary psychologists is that theyre readily available. Mans closest relatives are all long extinct; breeding experiments on humans arent allowed (they would take far too long, anyway); and the mental life of our ancestors left few fossils.
The whole thing is good.
Male concern around false rape claims doesn't really stem from the likelihood of conviction, but that the simple act of being accused can be enough to ruin reputations and lives. It hardly matters of the prosecutors eventually withdraw the charge before the falsely accuse perpetrator ends up in court - the damage has already been done.
What about the likelihood of a false claim in the first place? Reliable statistics place it anywhere from sub-2% to 8% (and 8% isn't for "false" rape reports but for "unfounded" reports which includes may be true but were not able to be prosecuted).
I guess I just feel like if you are sleeping with someone, you ought to be able to trust them. If you don't trust your partner enough not to lie and say she was raped, perhaps sleeping with her isn't the best idea.
They're not talking about a woman being unconscious during sex, but someone who, by the legal definition of rape under certain jurisdictions, could qualify as been raped. If there is no victim, how can there be a perpetrator? It seems to be saying that the most important thing it to increase rape reporting, so woman should always be on the look out for times that can play the victim, even when it goes against their own views on the matter.
I think this is twisting things; men are not the only ones who have problems with rape illiteracy. The point here is that sometimes women are unaware that something that has happened to them - e.g. manipulated into having sex while drunk or high - is rape.
You are right that if there is no complainant then there is axiomatically no one to prosecute; part of educating about rape and consent includes educating women about consent as well.
I've not seen any empirical studies that show this to be the case. How many women honestly know other women who have been through the judicial system as a rape victim?
I don't personally know women who have been through the judicial system (nor am I woman, but
anyway), but I'm certainly aware of it from reading the news and being aware of things, and I suspect most women are aware that they would have to discuss their rape repeatedly, go through invasive and humiliating physical examinations, have their life torn through, admit this publicly, and so on and so forth.
It is merely speculative that this causes women to subconsciously not want to place themselves in that category, however. I can see how I would find it discouraging because I can empathize with not wanting to let the whole community know I was raped, but that's about all I can say on the matter.
I see nothing that reconciles the finding of this study with the ideas behind affirmative consent. How can you confirm affirmative consent when almost half the time you'll be told no (meaning yes).
Why do you think they would say, "No" if they were actually willing to? And do you think that addressing issues of sexual shaming, and hang-ups about female sexual desire and debunking myths about male sexual aggressiveness (e.g. that men must always be the initiator) might help?
I think it's disturbing that in all rape threads the discussion centers around how to better protect men.
Quite.
It is rather nicely demonstrative.