This so-called Public Service Announcement is atrocious, misogynistic and unacceptable. (Trigger Warning)
Right, Don’t Kid Yourself. Parents, don’t kid yourselves into thinking that if your daughter is raped, the government will actually hold her anonymous and faceless rapist accountable. Instead, they’re going to wag their finger at your poor parenting skills that didn’t teach your daughter how to not get herself raped. Oh, and girls, we know that we’ve told you this before . . . but don’t kid yourselves into thinking you have the right to exist as a social being without being blamed in the event that someone assaults you.
And what do you mean boys are more like to commit rape when they have been drinking? Don’t kid yourself; airing that ad would suggest that rapists are ordinary people who are responsible for their own actions! No one wants to hear that their son could potentially rape someone . . . let’s keep talking about slutty drunk girls, so that no one has to sit down and have uncomfortable conversations about sex, power, violence, or icky old consent.
Dear Queensland Government: fuck you and your victim-blaming.
[Via Hoyden About Town — click over for a text description of the ad.]
The Curvature 
That is truly shocking.
I watched that and then just sat here looking at the screen for a couple of minutes – I mean What the fuck was that? It’s the parent’s fault and the victim’s fault that she was being raped? WHAT? And it shows the group of girls drinking, but not the guys…I am speechless.
I’ve largely come round to the view that these supposed precautions against rape are just there to provide a stock of excuses for rapists.
That’s absolutely sickening. My first thought was, “this is a joke, right?” My second thought was, “oh yeah, I forgot – this is a patriarchy – it’s those stupid, slutty girls’ fault. Duh.”
Too bad they couldn’t throw in any “those poor boys’ lives will be ruined if those drunk girls don’t control themselves and prevent themselves from being raped” rhetoric, too, to complete the shittiness.
I used to think that ads like this insulted men by treating rape as an essentially autonomic response to seeing a woman in a vulnerable position. Now I think I was being too generous – instead, they treat rape as an environmental hazard that happens to the rapist as well as the victim.
And women have the “duty” of protecting men from the danger of rape happening.
I’ll never forget what one of the feministing commenters said, when discussing a rape apologist – (paraphrased) “he must live in a world in which disembodied penises fly randomly through the air, and everyone has to constantly stay on alert in order to dodge them.”
Yeah. Disembodied penises. It’s just an environmental hazard!
No idea what to say. Or where to begin. Who made this thing???? Its just beyond God awful. Wow. Well at least they are not hiding their victim blaming, very well. Its easy to see. No no positives this is just shocking, terrible verging on rediculous.
Maybe I’m wrong (since I watched the video without sound), but isn’t part of the message saying basically to be safe? Drinking around groups of potentially drunk men IS not exactly the wisest course of action, even for a man.
Really, what can you say to stop a rapist from raping? Please don’t rape women? OR is it wiser to help people keep themselves from being potential victims?
Drinking around groups of potentially drunk men IS not exactly the wisest course of action, even for a man.
Mhm, and notice how you never see ads about that? No one ever tells men to not go to parties or bars because someone might assault them when they’re drunk — even though physical assaults on men also go up when drinking is involved.
What can you say to stop a rapist from raping? Well I’d argue that the first step is to point out that what they’re doing is rape and that it’s not just some shit that happened, or that’s really the woman’s fault because she engaged in something that was “not exactly the wisest course of action.” People seem to be under the impression that rapists’ thought processes go: “I’m going to go out and find me someone to rape.” In the vast majority of cases, that’s not the case and rapists do not see themselves as rapists. No, they think “I’m going to go out and find me a drunk girl to fuck” and “well hey she came on to me so it’s okay,” and “she was drinking and walking around in that skirt so it’s okay,” and “she didn’t try to fight me, so it’s okay,” and “it’s my girlfriend and she’s had sex with me before, so it’s okay.” Etc. Pretending otherwise doesn’t help anyone.
Preventing individual people from being victims doesn’t help, in the long run. If, as you say, there’s nothing you can do to stop rapists, it’s just changing the person who the rapist is going to assault. One might prefer that someone other than them be raped, but I’d personally prefer that the rapist doesn’t rape anyone. And I think that we could avoid a large number of rapes if we started actually talking about consent, treating women as equal beings with sexual rights, accepting that rapists have control over their own actions, and stop putting out bullshit like this that implies the only way to “stop” rape is for those stupid women to be more careful.
Well Cara, I see your point to a degree, if you are talking about stoping the social component of not educating boys from the earliest years that basic human respect should be extended to women, and that no means no, sure, that should be from the jump. HOWEVER, stoping the garden variety sociopath from doing what he or she wants to do, is a different matter entirely.
Sure, I believe any man (or woman) is capable of rape, but as you know I think any human is capable of anything. I think instances would go down if there were a definate and defined sociological change in American society about the equality of men and women and a concious change in the destorted views of who or what women and men are and what healthy and respectful sexuality is.
However, there are some people who are just sociopaths, who rape, steal and kill because they belive they can get away with it, and who look for victims, I believe that we should always teach people how to not be victims along with anything else.
For example, women and girls should be taught not to get drunk to a point where they are helpless in public situations…at the SAME TIME men and boys need to be taught to NOT engage in sexual intecourse with a person who is not able to legally consent to the sale of a car (not to mention consenting to sexual intercourse) because it isn’t the right thing to do.
That would stop some rapes. None of that stops monsters who just don’t care no matter what you teach them, to protect ourselves against them we have to tech people safer habits and to be more aware of their surroundings.
My first problem with this is, do you really imagine that women aren’t way ahead of you when it comes to monitoring their surroundings for risk? Second, and in large part a reason for the first, is that these precautions always come with a side-order of excuse for a man who rapes a woman who doesn’t follow every part of them, together with slut-shaming for the woman herself (and with a garnish of bitch-shaming if she does manage to follow them all – because let’s face it, any woman who does act the way PSA’s tell her will be told to be nicer – and if she’s raped anyway, she’ll have had it coming for being so nasty).
Sure plenty of men start with “There’s no excuse for rape…” – but the next word is always “but” – and the words that follow always blame victims. And if some of the blame is put on victims, then the rapist no longer has all of it – and that is excusing.
It’s not like I – or any posters here – think it’s a bad idea to be careful, against rape or any other crime. But rape is the only crime where a perceived lack of carefulness will inevitably be brought up in court, the media, and public discourse as a reason to acquit. And that’s one reason why ads like this cause so much anger.
“My first problem with this is, do you really imagine that women aren’t way ahead of you when it comes to monitoring their surroundings for risk?”
Not ahead of ME personally no, I doubt the average person is male or female, not to sound arrogant, but I have made a point not to underestimate human nature for any reason.
Outside of myself, I have served in the military and been to college, and in BOTH environments, all too often I see young women and men doing the dumbest things, unsafe things, and I think we have a responsibility to reinforce safety, simple as that.
You continue with:
” Second, and in large part a reason for the first, is that these precautions always come with a side-order of excuse for a man who rapes a woman who doesn’t follow every part of them, together with slut-shaming for the woman herself”
You present a false dichotomy, I say “safety” you hear “excuse” which is neither expressed, implied or infered.
There is no excuse for raping someone, and I don’t believe by stressing safety for potential victims, that excuses a perp from the act of the crime.
You continue with: “But rape is the only crime where a perceived lack of carefulness will inevitably be brought up in court,”
I can’t speak for flaws in the criminal justice system, they are there, however, I don’t think that being careful or stressing that someone does is somehow fueling the defense for the perp. For example, I tell parents to be careful with their children in parks or other areas, I tell my own children to watch out for certain things, that does not excuse someone who would commit a crime against them.
I see your point, but, I find the point irrelevent to my point, that point being BE SAFE.
That’s not my equivalence (which is the word I think you’re looking for); it’s one that is played out in our society over and over: you say safety, fine; but any safety precaution that a woman is perceived or imagined not to take will be offered up as an excuse. You don’t express it, but our culture does – because of that, you imply it whether you want to or not – and because of that, I infer it whether you personally deserve it or not.
And the only way to prevent all that is for rape to be taken seriously as a crime. Which right now it isn’t, either legally or culturally.
And at least a start in that direction might be PSA ads that don’t disappear the fact that every single rape has one cause in common: that somebody chose to commit rape. Which is all Cara was asking for.
DJ Black Adam — I never touched alcohol in my entire life until 5 years after I was raped.
My point? That there is no true way to “be safe” from rape. You can try to mitigate the chances of being raped. But the only way you can truly avoid it is to not come into contact with rapists — and you don’t know who the rapists are, and there are more of them than most people seem to think.
You say “safety,” I hear “women should be preventing their own rapes.” That may not be what you intend, and I’ll take it in good faith that it’s not what you intend because I’ve got a pretty thick skin at this point. But I doubt that I’m the only rape survivor or woman who hears it that way. And so it might be best at this point for you to spend more time listening than defending.
Cara:
You wrote:
“You say “safety,” I hear “women should be preventing their own rapes.”
Again, neither expressed or implied or inferred. I say safety because I mean safety. I do not see how that is offensive.
You also wrote:
“but I doubt that I’m the only rape survivor or woman who hears it that way. And so it might be best at this point for you to spend more time listening than defending.”
So because you all “hear” me saying something I am not saying I shouldn’t say what I am saying? Fascinating logic…Let’s look at this another way, and maybe we can separate emotional response from reasoning if we talk about a different crime.
People get robbed everyday in New York City. So, if I am talking to someone who is about to go to NYC here are something’s I would tell them:
Try NOT to go to the Boogie Down if you don’t know the area.
Try NOT to walk threw Central park at 3am.
Try NOT to keep your wallet in your back pocket or it might get lifted.
Or DON’T GET DRUNK AROUND PEOPLE YOU DON’T KNOW, because you could end up robbed.
Sure, after saying all that, and if they do all that, they could STILL get robbed. And if they did, it would still be the fault of the Robber. Hell, even if they went to the boogie down drunk as hell with 100 dollar bills taped on themselves, if someone robbed them it would STILL be the fault of the robber not the victim.
Unlike what you are positing, in my opinion, legally and morally, taking advantage of a person who is not in their full capacity for any reason is indefensible by definition, anyone who sees it otherwise is a moron.
NOW, if later, the person who was robbed was sitting in a law enforcement seminar for citizens or talking to a self defense teacher, and they said: Lock your doors to avoid being robbed or keep your wallets in your front pockets when on the streets, and someone who had been robbed before hears that as “Your blaming the victims by telling them to practice safe habits” IS that logical?
I know and am related to women that were raped who were NOT drunk, I have met rapist that raped women who were in their immediate families, so I know NOTHING can prevent something from happening in 100% of the situations. BUT, the PSA was addressing drinking large quantities of alcohol, and that is something I think should be addressed as a safety issue for men and women for help in the prevention of a MULTITUDE of Crimes, if one less person becomes a victim of a crime for that reason, it should walways be said.
Anyway, Cara, I enjoy your blog, I added it to my blogroll so I could easily find it and others who visit my blog could glean from your wisdom. I like your content and think you are doing a great service; however, it is obvious that I have a rather…extreme or very different viewpoint of humanity in general, I don’t see US as black and white, male and female, straight and gay, liberal and conservative, Pepsi and Coke (etc., etc.), I see humanity past those superficial differences to see our base nature, that has suited me well in all things where “people” are concerned. If that is offensive to you or you find me intolerable because of that, I apologize, and I can go back to reading your blog and not commenting if that suits you, I definitely don’t comment to offend you or your readers.
So because you all “hear” me saying something I am not saying I shouldn’t say what I am saying? Fascinating logic…Let’s look at this another way, and maybe we can separate emotional response from reasoning if we talk about a different crime.
Dear DJ Black Adam,
You do not get to go around telling rape survivors that they need to stop being so damn emotional about the fact that most of society blames them for one of the most horrible things that ever happened to them, or claim that because they talk about their own rapes and point something out that you don’t want to hear, they therefore can’t be rape survivors and logical at the same time.
Okay, you just crossed a line. I am a very logical person, thank you very much, and my emotions are in fact very often logical. This whole idea that emotions cannot be logical is a sham, and the whole emotional vs. logical thing is a sexist fallacy anyway. Oh, and it’s one of the most common things said to discredit rape survivors when they talk about sexual violence. So yeah, I’m thrilled that you like the blog, but you can go back to not commenting.
@SunlessNick:
A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.
You posited by inference and implication (if not outright expression) that safety and liberty are somehow mutually exclusive or non overlapping.
At either rate Sunless Nick, if you wish to superimpose societiy’s lack of insight onto me because you willfully choose to ignore what I am ACTUALLY saying in favor of that, I can’t help that.
I have known too many people that have been victems of a multitude of crimes while drunk to stop stressing concerns about over consumption of alcohol.
Like I said to Cara, Unlike what you are positing, in my opinion, legally and morally, taking advantage of a person who is not in their full capacity for any reason is indefensible by definition, anyone who sees it otherwise is a moron.
If society doesn’t see it the way I do, I am not surprised, I don’t think society sees a lot of things they way that I do, nonetheless, as I told Cara, I think I will go back to being a spectator here to avoid people telling me I am saying something I am not, or people putting the ills of society as my personal burden. Hell, to some because I am Black and Male I’m already responsible for every Black person, Black Man, and Man by definition, do I have to take on being responsible for a whole society that I am part of as a whole as well? lol, Next thing I’ll be held responsible for global warming too…
Cara:
“You do not get to go around telling rape survivors that they need to stop being so damn emotional about the fact that most of society blames them for one of the most horrible things that ever happened to them”
I am not society, I am one person talking to another person. Nor am I telling you or anyone else to “stop being emotional”, I am saying that people who have a trauma of any kind sometimes can’t or will not try to see things outside of that personal experience, even for sake of actually hearing what someone is saying.
I know “society” blames the victims of these types of crimes, “I” however, do NOT blame the victims. I blame criminals for crimes, simple as that.
If you know that is what I am saying, then why act as if I am “blaming the victim”? when I would not or have not? If I keep telling you that you were doing something that you were not doing, and I admit I know you aren’t doing it, but because other people have done it, I will just believe that you are too and act as if you are, is that logic predicated on reason or rationality?
You wrote:
“Okay, you just crossed a line. I am a very logical person, thank you very much, and my emotions are in fact very often logical.”
I didn’t say you were an illogical person, unless you are a Vulcan, no one is ruled by either or only logic or emotion ANYONE can be illogical, irrational, emotional, or emotionless.
How is it ever logical to WILLFULLY assign a motive to a person who YOU KNOW does not have that motive?
This is the reason why race can never be truly discussed in America (and I say this as a Black man) because people hear what they WANT to hear as opposed to many times what is being said.
You conclude with:
“I’m thrilled that you like the blog, but you can go back to not commenting.”
I expected nothing less, every time I ignore Zehuti, this happens…as the Grand Verbalizer Funkin Lesson brother J said: “…I Dwell amongst the mortals, my time is in the verse, positive nature, mortals call it curse…”
If my body-in-public is never again referred to as an unlocked door, it will be too soon.
If I keep telling you that you were doing something that you were not doing, and I admit I know you aren’t doing it, but because other people have done it, I will just believe that you are too and act as if you are, is that logic predicated on reason or rationality?
I didn’t say that you weren’t doing it, I said that I’d take it in good faith that you didn’t intend it that way and hoped that once it was pointed out to you, you’d stop it. Clearly my good faith was misplaced, though I can’t say that it’s wholly unexpected.
I am saying that people who have a trauma of any kind sometimes can’t or will not try to see things outside of that personal experience, even for sake of actually hearing what someone is saying.
Perhaps, then, you should stop being so arrogant as to think that people care what you think about their experiences and then have the gall to argue with them about it. Guess what? If you don’t care about the fact that you are triggering me, and if I’ve told you as much and you keep doing it anyway because you think you’re so fucking right, I don’t give a shit what you are or are not saying. It is in fact my opinion that this is why we can’t talk about race, because people are more insistent on being seen for their “intentions” to actually give a shit when they’re perpetuating racial stereotypes/prejudices, and instead of listening and/or apologizing, just enjoy talking over the person who is very nicely and generously trying to explain why what they said is offensive and upsetting.
Goodbye, DJ.
Pingback: Noble Savage » Blog Archive » Rape roundup
I’m not. I’m saying that society imposes a context onto what you’re saying, which you may not want there, but you can’t just deactivate it because you don’t want it to count in your case.
No I didn’t.
Which unfortunately, you are demonstrating quite well.
I’m sorry, but this…
“”Don’t kid yourself; airing that ad would suggest that rapists are ordinary people who are responsible for their own actions!””
RAPISTS ARE NOT NORMAL PEOPLE. Rapists are:
1) Psychopaths
2) Violent Criminals
Here’s something that everyone seems to forget… Virtually a 100% of rapists… have one thing in common. They all have this one thing in common. What is it?
They are psychopaths.
And guess what. Psychopathy (more on the narcissistic disorder side) is a very clearly defined disorder that is easy to recognize.
So the facts are like this:
-Women are raped mostly by boyfriends, acquaintances, family, male friends (not strangers)
-Psychopaths have the most “social success” with women (befriending women, getting dates with women, forming relationships with women )
*Even though psychopaths are a small percentage of the population (maybe 1 in 25) they represent most of female’s friends or short-term partners.
The chances of a non-psychopath committing rape are almost non-existent. Obviously this doesn’t solve family rape (uncles etc…), but it automatically gets rid of a huge chunk of the problem.
There is a very huge problem in society… where women are unable to recognize and resist psychopaths (ussually charming, cunning, charismatic and socially manipulative, easy to befriend people).
1) Rape is committed by psychopaths (not men or boys, but psychopaths, a disorder)
2) Alcohol increases the chances of you falling a victim to a psychopat (conned, raped, financially cheated, etc…)
I realize that feminists have had to battle with conservative ignorant a-holes for years! You had to battle with these patriarchs who victim blame and tell girls that if they dress a certain way “its their fault”.
And I realize how that can make you watch anything that’s not “rapist punishment” as “one of those victim-blamers”. Its only natural for the human brain. We automate things we have to do a lot (fight off aholes), but we automate it by generalizing things into simple black and white categories. Its either victim blaming, or its rapist punishing… We’ve automated it so much, we can’t even perceive anything else.
To inform people of risk-minimization, does NOT mean, that its giving up on criminal punishment.
When we inform tourists to be wary of people who touch them a lot while asking for the time… We’re not blaming the tourists for being robbed. It does not mean we’re telling tourists not to leave the hotel!
p.s.
Again… “boys” do not rape. Psychopaths do. To say “parents should stop their sons from raping” is just as ignorant as “parents should stop their daughters from dressing nice”.
Boys do not rape. Rapists do. Its not an issue of “man”. Its an issue of “aggressive criminal”.
You’re wrong on so many counts Alek. Some rapists certainly are psychopaths. I personally believe that mine was (and who knows, I could be wrong). I do not believe that 4% of the population is a psychopath. Where’s your evidence? All it takes in order to commit rape (as one of the options) is a rationalization that what you’re doing doesn’t count as rape. Seemingly, half of society is able to come up with that sort of rationalization every time a new rape case comes to light.
And are you saying that psychopaths can’t be boys? Does that mean that my 15-year-old rapist was a man, or not a psychopath and therefore not a rapist by your definition? Really, I’m curious.
Are you involved in the anti-sexual violence movement Alek? Because while you seem like someone who intend well, I get the distinct impression that you’re not. And to me, that says that you should either leave it to or get involved with those are and stop marching in and acting like you know better, because you clearly don’t. The world would be much more digestible if only the most evil, insane and horrible creatures imaginable are capable of rape. And I personally could not think less of someone who does rape and do in fact think they’re the scum of the earth. But saying that everyone who rapes is therefore a psychopath and therefore nothing can be done to stop rapists from raping is ignoring the fact that a.) rape is known to not exist in some cultures and b.) the facts prove otherwise. It’s also throwing up our hands at the problem, and throwing open the door for the usual “he’s not a rapist! I know him! He’s not a psychopath! He’s a good person! He once gave money to a charity!” kind of arguments. You can’t spot a rapist. And telling women that they can just puts them at more risk and also sets them up for blaming themselves more when they failed to spot that rapist that certain people think they should have been able to spot.
— I’m a sociologist who studies gender issues and is involved with the anti-rape movement here (i’m based in Europe).
— I know that activists in the usa are used to having to deal a-hole conservatives. So they are used to making this thumb of rule “if it doesn’t say things in the exact same way as me, then it must be one of those pro-rape people”. So I understand why you made that assumption.
I’d be grateful if you give me the benefit of the doubt and don’t stereotype me but read my opinions on their own merit.
— The point: I am trying to *add* to the current frame. Not subtract from it. Everything that the movement in the usa already does about rape I AGREE with. I’m just trying to inform you of one additional weapon we have. Not try to convince you that you are wrong.
— Here’s the psychopath references, the most thorough literature on rape and link to biology and disorders (psychopathy):
http://tinyurl.com/67pz2p
==”All it takes in order to commit rape (as one of the options) is a rationalization that what you’re doing doesn’t count as rape.”== – The only person capable to *act* on that rationalization is a psychopath. (in general)
There’s a difference between making a joke about murder and actually committing it.
“And are you saying that psychopaths can’t be boys? Does that mean that my 15-year-old rapist was a man, or not a psychopath and therefore not a rapist by your definition? Really, I’m curious.”—> I was referring to the unqualified statement “boys”. The notion is “teach your boys not to rape” instead of “stop psychopathic boys from raping”
Men (boys) should stop raping = sexist statement, since we’re linking an entire gender to a specific crime act.
You might ask: “So, what’s wrong with teaching boys not to rape Alek?” The answer is easy. There is nothing wrong with it. It just doesn’t work. Psychopaths are by definition resistant to socialization and moral pressure. The only thing that effectively works on psychopaths is punishment.
Here’s the problem. A punishment comes “after the fact”. When the crime has already been committed.
=====But saying that everyone who rapes is therefore a psychopath and therefore nothing can be done to stop rapists from raping====
I never said that. You’re confusing me with the conservative “she asked for it” types that you have over there. That’s normal though so no offense taken, even though otherwise i’d fall in a coma if somehow people believed that I say rape can not be prevented. But again, no offense taken.
The information is not my attempt at drawing a correlation. (if x, then they must be psychopaths) Its actually based on actual on info about actual rapists. They are almost all diagnosed psychopaths.
======
The world would be much more digestible if only the most evil, insane and horrible creatures imaginable are capable of rape.
======
Psychopaths are never ever perceived as horrible, evil or insane. That’s a sociopath. Psychopaths are people who are perceived as charming, funny, friendly, charismatic and even sometimes kind. That’s one of the huge misconceptions. And that’s what i’m actually proposing! Education.
Before feminism, people actually believed in the myth that rape is done by strangers (and most who haven’t studied feminism still do).
In the same way, most of the people alive, are completely clueless on what psychopathy is and entertain all kinds of myths (imagining evil, foaming at the mouth serial killers). Which is why women are actually ending up befriend and dating psychopaths in an extraordinary ratio. Due to this misconception.
*Did you see the study on dating and psychopaths?
— I’m trying to add a weapon in the fight, not replace the current ones. If we 1) know that almost all rapes are committed by psychopaths 2) We have extremely accurate “psychopath detection” skills (that can be taught)
Why wouldn’t we add it? You say…
===============
You can’t spot a rapist.
===============
True. You can not spot a rapist.
You can however spot a psychopath. In fact, there are SAT-like tests on it.
Per example, just rounded percentages: If you had a 90% ability to spot psychopaths, and 90% of rape is commited by psychopaths. By having that skill, you are able to spot 80% of all rapists.
==============
And telling women that they can just puts them at more risk and also sets them up for blaming themselves more when they failed to spot that rapist that certain people think they should have been able to spot.
==============
I realize where you’re coming from because of that entire issue in the usa with victim-blaming. So I understand the instant assumption.
And… at the same time. You’re saying we shouldn’t be using something that saves women 80% of the time, because in case it doesn’t work… they might feel guilty it didn’t work? So we’d rather they not use it at all?
Do you see my point. This is an issue of victim-blaming.
If we don’t adopt new weapons in the fight, because we’re afraid that victim blamers will shame us for using them, then the victim-blamers have won, no?
============
It’s also throwing up our hands at the problem, and throwing open the door for the usual “he’s not a rapist! I know him! He’s not a psychopath! He’s a good person! He once gave money to a charity!” kind of arguments.
=============
So you actually agree with me. What you describe above is how people act around a psychopath. They rationalize out that he must not be one because they think that a psychopath acts evil on the outside.
In fact, psychopaths make friends the most easily and are perceived often times the friendliest most charismatic people around.
There is a huge problem, and that is people are entirely IGNORANT about psychopathy.
Besides. Here are some other things that psychopaths are the main perpetrators of in everyone’s life:
-Physical abuse
-Cheating
-Manipulation in both financial and personal life
You’re telling me that if women (and people in general) were able to recognize psychopaths, that wouldn’t bring huge advantage to their lives?
Alek, I do not have the time for the rest of your comment at this particular moment, but I did not make the assumption that you were pro-rape. I said in fact that you seemed to have good intentions. People I deem rape apologist do not have good intentions in my book.
But your bullshit about saying that men shouldn’t rape is saying that all men are rapists causes me to deflate despite the rest of your comment. Especially since I just looked and no on on this thread even said the words “men should stop raping.”
I’ll be back for the rest later.
Thank you Cara 🙂 I’m looking forward to the rest of your thoughts on the above.
As for the above, you did not say it in those exact words. But it was with the same unqualified sentences:
“And what do you mean boys are more like to commit rape when they have been drinking?”
“Boys” aren’t more likely to commit rape if they have been drinking. Psychopaths and those with psychopathic tendencies are.
“Boys” is a 10 times broader term. Its an entire gender.
Also…
“No one wants to hear that their son could potentially rape someone . . . let’s keep talking about slutty drunk girls, so that no one has to sit down and have uncomfortable conversations about sex, power, violence, or icky old consent.”
Again… it doesn’t qualify “son”. Not qualifying “son” or “boys” is the same as applying it to the entire gender.
————–
Please again. Don’t understand me as subtracting from your great points. I’m just a subscriber to the “ecological activism” frame. Where we need to be careful when solving issues, to not create the opposite issues.
If we are not careful with unqualified statements, we can create toxic sexual shame in boys. This in turn creates boys that grow not knowing where their self-shaming comes from, and then, guess what? They channel it into misogyny.
I might be overcareful, but I certainly wouldn’t want to contribute to misogyny, when qualifying any statements on men is very easy.
——-
The suggestion above on parental conversation is great. And obviously (I AGREE) with it. Parents should have this conversation.
I’m adding something on top of it, not instead of it. Which is that parents should also get educated on psychopathy and be able to recognize it forming.
In Fact… One of the international solutions currently being constructed to lowering rape in the long-term (over generations) is for countries to diagnose potential psychopaths as early as possible and then adjust their upbringing to eliminate psychopathy.
In other words, for a psychopathic boy… the plain uncomfortable conversation from dad and mom is not **nearly** enough to scare him.
This boy needs even more treatment. So on top of the current suggestion, we’d also add even more preventive measures for psychopathic boys.
“Boys” is a 10 times broader term. Its an entire gender.
Yes. So? That’s not even remotely the same as saying that all boys/men are rapists.
People are more likely to get into a car accident when they are drinking. Is that saying that all people drive drunk?
Women are more likely to cheat on their partners when they’re deployed with the military (I believe — for the sake of argument at least). Does that mean all women are cheaters?
Children are more likely to hit each other when their parents aren’t around. Does that mean all kids are violent when unsupervised.
Of course they don’t. And I can’t imagine you or anyone else taking offense at the above statements in terms of generalizing about an entire gender/age group/species, assuming that the statements are verifiable accurate. But a lot of people get all pissy when you say something like “men are more likely to commit rape when they’re drinking.” It’s not saying “men will commit rape when drinking.” It’s not even close. It’s pointing out a statistic, and a double-standard. It’s really annoying. And you know what? I feel no need to coddle men when talking about sexual violence committed by men against women. Just none, whatsoever. Including the majority of men who are not rapists. If non-rapist men want to make conversations about rapists and the women they rape about them (which is not the route you’ve taken, but the most common one — “but I’m not a rapist!”), I”ve got no time for it.
There’s a difference between making a joke about murder and actually committing it.
And there’s a difference between making a joke about rape (still abhorrent and something I have no tolerance for) and telling a rape victim that she deserved it, or that she wasn’t really raped because of X, Y, Z, using all of the same justifications as rapists.
If we 1) know that almost all rapes are committed by psychopaths 2) We have extremely accurate “psychopath detection” skills (that can be taught)
Again, do we know this? I didn’t have time to read through the link you provided thoroughly, but no evidence jumped out at me, and I really feel like I would have seen it before if out there.
There is a huge problem, and that is people are entirely IGNORANT about psychopathy.
And they tend to be just as ignorant about consent. Again, I don’t believe that most rapes are committed by psychopaths, nor will I until I see very convincing evidence. I believe that most rapes are committed by men who know that they’re doing something wrong, but convince themselves that the non-consent doesn’t really “count.” Most people believe that rape means the victim must fight and scream, and that the rapist must use force outside of the rape itself. When those things don’t happen, lots and lots of people think that’s consent. Most people don’t know what rape is. Studies also show that most men who commit rape don’t call it rape. I think it takes a person with a mental illness or just a pure evil streak to really beat a person and threaten them with harm and rape them, but I don’t think it takes mental illness to rationalize doing a horrible thing to another person. I think most of us have done that at some point. And it’s even easier when the horrible thing looks nothing like what we’re told the horrible thing is supposed to look like.
Pingback: Consent & Sex « Pizza Diavola
Black Adam and Alek,
Ur a pair of F/wits. U make me hurl with your stupid, ignorant, rape-apologist comments.
Boys are raped; dozens of elderly folk – many of them male; men; women and girls; infants.
Not all rapists are sociopaths, paedophiles or anythng ‘separate’ to the rest of the community. Most of them claim to be heterosexual and many carry on seemingly normal and ordinary social involvement – family; jobs; friends.
When these ‘ordinary’ blokes rape; they don’t even think it’s rape – they think it’s just an opportunity and their entitlement – and that’s because society has infused them with exactly the claptrap you two are sprouting.
idjits both