Where's the fun in that?

whether it's rape or robbery or whatever. But it's only treating the symptoms, not the disease.

How is it you do not?

It never was an either/or question.

For example, you can find articles about "how to avoid getting robbed" that don't blame the victims.

It should be possible to come up with pointers that don't place blame on the woman, delving into sexist stereotypes, or resorting to arguments that have already been proven false.

But I agree 100% that there should be an aggressive anti-rape campaign that targets young men and boys.

by which I mean they think it only counts as 'rape' rape (thanks, Whoopi) if a weapon is used and there's extreme violence involved, then you know we're not doing a very good job of trying to prevent it. At all.

Some people deny date rape even exists. I agree we shouldn't be qualifying it (rape is rape), but the idea that someone can just 'get their signals mixed up' and 'accidentally' or 'unintentionally' rape someone is 100% bull****.

denied?

i cna point to people who deny the earth os round, but no one is really listening.

on edit horrible typo.

Or did you want a reference to some place that said there's no such thing?

Oops, saw the edit... what exactly do you mean by reputable and non-anecdotal? It's been implied by legislators, and outright stated by many, many individuals (but these are anecdotal, I take it?)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for, sorry.

"wow, the problem of 'denying date-rape happens is real and prevalent and i am wrong and will have to change my beliefs'."

evidence of a prevalent opinion.

the third however, i will have to read and get back to you.

She is expressing an expert opinion through anecdotes in order to foster understanding.

Again "google" issues with date rape and you will find a wealth of information.

"THE PROBLEM WITH MAINSTREAM ATTITUDES TOWARD DATE RAPE" is the title of the article.

The article clearly outlines the societal attitudes toward date rape ... due to the prevalence of a societal tendency to deny date rape it is difficult if not impossible to prosecute the crime if folk deny that it is a crime.

Seriously, did you read the article ....?

I'll post some links. Somehow I suspect you'll find them all easy to dismiss. Meanwhile a very short amount of time spent looking into the epidemic of rapes on college campuses would seem to indicate that either many, many college age men are dedicated rapists, or that they simply don't consider what they're doing to be 'rape' rape, and therefore it's ok.

http://www.dlcc.org/GA_Rep_Says_No_Such_Thing_as_Rape_Victims
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2011/may/18/kenneth-clarke-edmiliband
http://www.sexhealthnews.org/articles/Rape%20-%20Crime%20or%20Confusion.pdf

And of course there are tons of individuals claiming date rape doesn't exist, and that it's only a fiction made up by women who regret sleeping with someone.

I didn't spend much time looking for this, either.

as date rape until a few days ago. Not in their statistics 'cause it wasn't a "crime."

The reason I didn't realize it, is because I was on a date, and I didn't realize that on a date, being forced to have sex constitutes rape.

We went to see a movie, drove back to campus, he parked and out of the blue he grabbed me. No warning. He started unbuttoning my clothes, and I tried to get away. While he was busy unbuttoning (and I hitting him), I opened the door and almost fell out. Since now the door was open, and I was out, I grabbed my purse and took off. I didn't realize I could report him, should report him. To be sure, I didn't see him again and I told all my female friends at the dorm what had happened. Their reaction? Something like: "Oh man, what an ass." I should've reported him but didn't know that was cause for reporting him. I honestly didn't.

We are sent many mixed messages about sex and consent. And many more about how poor, blameless men just 'can't help themselves' so women should be very careful not to 'lead them on'.

In this very thread people are busy absolving men of responsibility.

there is no way there can be an effect on our youth.

i personally am not going to demonizing all our boys, becuase we have such a fucked up society that uses rae as entertainment and places male sexuality at such a height of awesomeness it is all that he is.

all of this feed our boys

and twice I was date raped. All times alcohol was involved, and all times I said "NO" loudly and clearly (and physically tried to get away).
I didn't report any of it. At the time I figured I was drunk so I deserved it. Date rape wasn't really 'recognized' as 'rape rape' as someone said, back then. I didn't figure out that's what it was until I was an adult and watched some public service message after some tv show that had a date rape scene. It was an eye opener, that's for sure, to realize you were, indeed, raped.

be okay with such things.

What a bad way to think.

In no way does giving potential victims tools to deal with rapists excuse the actions of the rapist. Of course victims should never be victimized a second time for somehow making them think that they were to blame for the crime. But women, children, and men can be taught how to avoid being victims of crime. I

In that it places the responsibility on women to avoid being raped. It creates the assumption that if they are raped, it's not because they were victimized by an abuser and a criminal, but rather because they "failed." I'm sure it's not malicious; I believe these sort of guides really are put out with the best interests of women intended. The problem is, it has unintended effects - woman who gets raped may never report it, under the belief that the authorities will just shake their heads over her not "following the guidelines" for instance. It's the right intent, but a flawed approach.

Further it perpetuates a sort of culture of isolation among women; the idea that a woman must always be "on guard" against rapists does have a psychological effect, and can lead to a sort of siege mentality. After all, it's the woman who is being told to change her habits, wear different clothes, be on the defensive, in order to protect against an assault that the guides often seem to paint as inevitable iff she DOESN'T do so. Many of these guides also seem to make the terribly false assumption that most rapists are people who jump you in empty parking lots.

Comparing it to "how to not get robbed" isn't exactly accurate, either; our culture doesn't have any real history of blaming victims of robbery for the crime perpetuated against them, nor does it ostracize or attack victims of robbery. Robbery victims are generally met with sympathy, while rape victims are distressingly often treated as "sluts" who somehow brought it upon themselves. "well what you you expect, wearing makeup like that?!"

Teaching that no means no and that force is never acceptable is clearly needed. So is the ability of the victim to stop the perp in their tracks.

so "don't go into a room alone with Dominique Strauss-Kahn" is probably good advice for any woman.

kids

on the one hand a message rape is bad. on another hand, sexualize the victim as a titillation feeding the stimulation instead of showing the actual ugly of rape.

and I find it disturbing. I'm one of those that think the term rape should not be tossed around lightly.

I don't particularly like seeing terms like 'fraped' or colloquialisms where 'rape' is used a synonym for harsh or unfair treatment.

I think some young people today use it that way, and I cringe when I see it. They use it for shock value and think its cool or something.

Carry a handgun or mace.

Use it if some asshole comes after you.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

The point of the article was that "rape" is not just the "stranger in a dark alley" kind.

Your suggestion assumes that only "assholes" commit rape. I think you'd be surprised how many rapes are perpetrated by intimate partners, boyfriends, bosses, etc., etc., etc.

The point of the article was that the best rape prevention starts with the potential rapist, not with the potential victim.



TG

but I would argue that anybody boss, intimate partner etc who rapes is an asshole.

Obviously the best prevention is to not rape, but there are always going to be criminals, whether it's rapists or thieves etc. Being prepared is a good thing, whether it's locking your door or bringing enough gear when going hiking.

the insistence is that only horrible criminals who go into the situation intending to rape someone commit rapes.

When the truth is that partners of all kinds rape, either because they're socialized not to pay close attention to cues, to think of their wants as paramount, to think that 'no' means 'yes', etc.

The tired advice that's been directed at women is very old. We know it all. So stop repeating it, and let's start aiming our advice at boys and men, too.

These men, ESPECIALLY intimate partners, know the cues. They hear the word 'no'. ESPECIALLY bosses and such. They all know the rules.

The problem is that when they want what they want (which in this case is sex), they don't care. They can't be made to care. All the education in the world is never, ever going to help.

You think more highly of intimate partners, bosses and boyfriends, etc. who commit rape and sexual harassment. You think they can be educated. They cannot. They must either be deterred... or done away with.

The way to do that is not for women to "avoid ATMs at night" or that BS. It's not even about educating these men. It's about putting them down. HARD. More of these fools need to be made an example of.

The only thing you aim at boys and men who attempt to rape, be they a street punk or an intimate whatever or a boss, is a gun, a can of mace, or a well-trained hand.

May I suggest learning Krav Maga?

men cannot be stopped from raping. It is their nature, and there's nothing that cane be done to stop it. They are natural born rapists and cannot be tamed, trained, or controlled.

I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this.

If men can be "trained" not to rape during daylight hours on public streets, and most of them seem to have been successfully trained that way, then they can be trained not to rape in bars and at night and on dates.

If men can be 'trained" via movies and advertising and song lyrics and the approval of their peers that it's okay to force their sex drive on women who don't want them, they can be "trained" not to.

Make up your mind: It's either uncontrollable nature, in which case most men should be locked up right now or even killed in the womb, or it's controllable by nurture. and if it's controllable by nurture/education/training, then we damn well ought to start doing it.

It's not in a man's nature to rape, but there are some men who act like animals.

You train them by taking them OUT and making an example of it to other men.

We do enough propaganda about how rape is evil - and said propaganda is good, mind you. These guys get the message day in and day out.

The world is already separated into the men who act civilized and these rapist animals. There ain't much in between. If you force sex on a woman you know better, unless you are insane.

You've missed the point.

The education strategy targets the "normal" guys who are not "animals" but who are nonetheless rapists.

I would recommend you do a little more study of the subject before you make these simplistic remarks. Many rapists are "normal" guys who do not consider what they do to be "forcing" sex on their victims. They believe -- because they've been culturally accustomed to that belief -- that if a woman is drinking in a bar, she's asking for sex. They believe that if a woman is wearing provacative clothes, that she is asking for sex. They believe that if a woman agrees to go on a date with them, that she is consenting to sex with them. They believe that if a woman is at a party and does not have a date, that they are free to have sex with her. They believe that if she has had sex with them before, or with a friend, or they think she had sex with a friend, that she is required to have sex with them and she has relinquished all rights to say no.

These are the guys we're talking about. We're not talking about raving lunatics who skulk in parking garages and on deserted subway platforms or brain-damaged parolees who wait until the all the library patrons have left and it's just librarian there by herself. These people are actually a very small percentage of rapists. Most are "ordinary guys" who have internalized all the messages thrown at them by movies and magazine ads and popular music and tv and even DU discussions, that they're entitled to sex and women have no right to say no and mean it.

We don't have enough "propaganda" about rape being evil. What we do have, however, is tons and tons and tons and tons of propaganda that women are there for the taking, that women are suitable victims, that women are only good for one thing, that women are worthless and useless and objects, that they don't count and don't matter.

as enthusiastic at having sex.

that is a whole shift in todays thinking.

That men will think less of them and will only want to use them, and not consider them relationship material.

in all our progressiveness, the girl/woman is constantly handing her sexuality to male instead of owning it. it is all about what she can do for him. it is all about his sexuality. allow the girl/woman to have ownership of her own. as we do boys/men

It still leaves open a defense of "She said 'no' but I thought it was just part of an enthusiastic game she was playing." And a woman can be enthusiastic through foreplay and then suddenly decide she doesn't want to go through with it; does her "enthusiasm" override her right to say no at the last minute?

Inventing or changing language is far more difficult than using the language we already have. Besides, it won't counter the existing propaganda that says women are fair game, men's sexual desires override women's integrity.

NO MEANS NO is really simple to understand, but we need a cultural change so that advertising and movies and music and everything returns ownership of women's bodies to themselves.

Otherwise, if we go along with this "You shouldn't go there, you shouldn't wear that, or you'll be sorry and it'll be your fault " kind of restrictions on women's behavior, we're essentially saying men are NOT responsible, can't be trusted, can't be trained, and yet we're letting them be in charge and make the rules!!

For further reading --

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/07/10/anti-rape-campaign-for-once-tells-men-not-to-rape/

http://mystrength.org/5.0.html

http://www.xojane.com/relationships/rape-campaign-finally-admits-men-have-something-do-it

It's not about "enthusiasm" -- it's about NO.

More important, though, is it's about educating and acculturating (much more difficult) men and boys to not rape. To not insist on sex. To not EXPECT sex as a right.

How do you do that, as a parent or an educator, when there are so many messages out there that say SCORE, SCORE, SCORE? When the media -- especially advertising -- constantly demeans women? The PLCB ad was just another example of how prevasive it is? Not a whole woman, not an acting woman, just part of a body, panties at her ankles. The same with the UK campaign -- not a whole body, just part of one, The woman dehumanized, reduced to a torso in knickers.

Look at the trailer for "Miss Representation." Look at Jean Kilbourne's videos, updated and updated and updated because the media is not getting -- or doesn't want to get -- the message.

Women are people, too. And we are psychologically and sociologically shaped by the culture around us. And it's a culture that demeans and dismisses women. it's a culture that celebrates sexual scoring even when the scoree is unwilling.

Margarat Atwood once said or wrote -- I don't have the exact quote in front of me but I can get it quickly enough -- "Ask men what their greatest fear of women is, and they'll say they're afraid women will laugh at them. Ask women what their greatest fear of men is, and they'll say they're afraid of being killed." That should give you some idea of the power imbalance here.

Men who rape -- and not all men DO -- often rape because they can. They have sex with a woman because they know they can, they know she can't or won't fight back. They don't think of it as rape because rape is stranger-in-an-alley-with-a-gun, and that isn't want they're doing. They're just taking what they think is theirs, because they bought her dinner or they slept with her last week or their best friend lived with her for a month or so and dumped her.

It's all about telling THESE guys, the ones who ARE teachable, that no means no. Period. At any time, at any place, at any point along the continuum from first kiss to penetration, NO means NO. it's not up to the guy to interpret whether no means maybe or yes or keep trying. It means NO. He doesn't have to gauge her level of enthusiasm, he just needs to learn that no matter what the latest music video says, NO means NO. No matter what the hottest pop star is doing or saying, regardless of gender, NO means No.

And as simple as that seems, it's a very difficult point to get across, as the length of this thread and others like it shows.



TG

and i strongly disagree. many girls will say yes for many different reasons and really not want the sex. i want my kids (boys) to be perceptive and aware enough to be able to see that instead of waiting for the no. i case it does not come. in case her no is internal and never makes it to her lips, for whatever reason.

but... i agree with ALL you say in your post. how our culture feeds and encourages so many unhealthy in both gender.

Agreed, needs to be mentioned again.

Enthusiasm is NOT consent. Really.

may be feeling pressure in having the sex. hence, the ethusiasm. as much want as the guy. a clear picture that it is mutual. actually, it works for the guy, too. they may feel pressure, too. and they may feel less than enthusiastic, too. no more for them than for a girl.

i dont know how you can get, that she says no and there can be an interpretation of enthusiasm. no pretty much squelches the enthusiasm meter.

i want it clear to my boys to only have sex when it is wanted in a two way manner.

for any reason, is criminally deviant and deserving to be made a serious example of. Boyfriend, boss, intimate partner, someone at a party, etc.

I don't buy into arbitrary lines between dark alley rape and spousal / date rape. The word at the end is rape, it's rape. Life's simple like that.

Perhaps the problem is that we don't really sock it to these boyfriends, bosses and all these other people you label as being outside of the "dark alley marauders", when they force sex on a woman.

This ain't the same as saying all men are rapists. It's saying that rape is rape is rape and when you cross that line it doesn't matter who you are, you need to be put down.

And I'm saying that many rapists are not "criminally deviant." Given what we know -- and don't know -- about criminal and/or deviant behavior, most rapists are not deviant.

Rather than allow them to continue to rape and then make examples of them, the current argument is that perhaps changing the culture and changing BEFORE IT HAPPENS the way rape is seen, that it can be prevented. Why not prevent rather than punish?

Altering the criminal code, and the mental health diagnostics that would be required for a "deviant" status, would be very very difficult, and would likely encounter a HUGE backlash, perhaps to the point that prosecution for rape would become nearly as difficult as it was before such concepts as date rape, spousal rape, and even rape shield laws entered the prosecutorial process.

When you have a culture that implies "no" really means "try again," a culture in which women are depicted as sexual objects and often nothing more, many rapes are not seens as "real" rape. Susan Estrich wrote a whole book about "Real Rape." Susan Griffin, Diana E. H. Russell, Susan Faludi, David Finkelhor, and others I've mentioned in previous threads have studied and reported on "real" rape as well as the "other" kinds.

It's not "deviant" behavior if it complies with the cultural norms. Sadly, some of our cultural norms DO encourage rape, DO exonerate rapists, DO blame women for their own victimization.

Yes we do still have violent stranger rape, and generally when that happens and the rapist is identified and caught, there is severe punishment. But if the culture dictates that the woman is to blame, if the culture dictates that she has no power to accuse, if the culture dictates that her rapist will more often than not be exonerated, then the threat of punishment serves no purpose. Remember, the death penalty has not deterred murderers.

Okay let me try this from another angle, since this keeps drifting back to street thugs. Let's talk directly and exclusively here about husbands who force sex on their wives - I will reiterate again, husbands who force sex on their wives are scum. Cultural "norms" is a bullshit term to excuse the big gaping moral black hole in the soul of a husband who cannot heed his wife's objections and proceeds to force her into sex.

If anything, a husband who forces sex on his wife is even WORSE than a street thug. That's his wife and he doesn't have the human decency to respect her wishes concerning her body? We're talking betrayal times 9000. How in the hell are we supposed to educate a monster like that? That don't make nobody's damned sense. Think about it for a second. "I know you're my wife, I know I'm supposed to love you, but I'm going to force sex on you even if you don't want it." How the heck do you educate a mind like that? I'm utterly baffled.

I see no rational reason in this modern age for these men not to understand the word "no" from their spouses / girlfriends. "Cultural norms" just doesn't explain why a husband would disregard his wife on such a big issue as her own body.

Fine, you're right, education is the key. So let's go with that. What the hell does anyone expect to be able to reach a mind so far gone that he ignores the wishes of his wife and betrays her to hell and back by forcing sex upon her?

from either perspective.

Now, when you can get off your high horse and calm down, maybe we can further this discussion.

I've been there. Not anecdotes from friends, not case histories in books, not interviews with county jail inmates. Me. My experience. First hand.

And I'm going to say you don't know what the bloody fuck you're talking about.

Do I need to know what it's like to be a victim of abuse to say abuse is wrong, and worse when it's a loved one? Heck no. Likewise your argument doesn't work that way here, either.

Second, I asked you specifically, what kind of education do you hope to use on these animals that excuse or engage in spousal rape. Instead of answering that, you come up with this?

People who commit spousal rape are vile individuals who betray their own wives. People who excuse this behavior are beyond any hope of educating. I say your idea doesn't work. Now show me otherwise. Put up your so-called "education" plan. Show us how much you know of what you're talking about.

Show
me
the
PROGRAM.

Till then you've got nothin'.

You have been suggesting throughout your posts that "deviants" who force others, including wives, girlfriends, or even strangers, into having sex ought to be made examples of. Unfortunately, we don't have a justice system in place to handle most of those cases should they be brought to court. And we certainly don't have a prison system large enough to contain all the convicted perps, assuming any would actually be convicted.

Until the 1978 Oregon case of Greta and John Rideout, there was virtually no such legal thing as spousal rape. The cultural and legal understanding was that marriage gave the husband not only exclusive sexual rights to his wife but that he could exercise those rights at any time with or without her expressed consent. Similar to the laws of implied consent that come with a driver's license -- if you're asked to take a blood alcohol test, you can't say you didn't consent, because you've implied your consent when you accept the license -- the marriage license was considered the woman's permanent and irrevocable consent to sex, whenever, however, wherever her husband wanted it. She no longer had ownership of her own body; it belonged to her husband.

I don't know when you were born, Zalatrix, but I was married in 1969. My children were born in 1976 and 1977. I was raised and married in a time and in a culture when spousal sexual rights had the force of law. Because most such laws are set by states rather than the federal government, in the wake of the Rideout case, more states began to pass laws regarding marital rape, and one such debate produced the quote from an outraged California assemblyman, "If we can't rape our wives, who can we rape?" (Variously attributed to British politicians as well; I have the original reference somewhere in my notes but I'm not going to look for it now.) The point is that even into the 1990s, some states still prohibited charges of rape within a marriage.

What's moral and what's reprehensible may not be distinctions under the law, and when the law is on one side, it's pretty damn difficult for the other side to fight back. Not impossible, but still difficult.

The Rideout case ended in acquittal for John because, as one juror said, they didn't know who to believe and therefore there was reasonable doubt. Even with laws in place prohibiting marital rape, how does one prosecute? If it's not forcible rape that leaves bruises or other physical evidence of force (which can be explained away anyway) and there are no witnesses, what jury will convict? How does one present evidence of coercion?

Have you ever read the story of Charlotte and John Fedders? Raised a devout Catholic and trained as a nurse, Charlotte wanted nothing more than to be a devoted wife and mother, raising lots and lots of Catholic children. She married John Fedders, who eventually would become chief enforcement officer with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He made a lot of money and he kept her in a very nice home and put their six boys in Catholic school and belonged to the country club and presented a public face of utmost respectability. But he was violently abusive, and Charlotte, raised to believe the external trappings of success were incompatible with his behavior -- successful men didn't behave like that, only poor trashy folks did -- denied his abuse for years. She had internalized all the propaganda.

Francine Hughes and her husband Mickey might have fit Charlotte's image of trashy people. Mickey was so abusive that Francine killed him by setting fire to the bed he was sleeping in; her account "The Burning Bed" was turned into the TV movie that brought the late Farrah Fawcett an Emmy nomination. How long ago did Francine kill Mickey? 1977. Just about that same time that John Rideout was (allegedly) raping his wife Greta. And not too long after that, the big pop culture event was the rape-followed-by-the-wedding of Luke and Laura on the soap opera General Hospital. Rape morphed into seduction morphed into love. So which was it?

Is it any wonder women like Charlotte Fedders were confused? She knew John was violently abusive. He'd kicked her down a flight of stairs and caused her to miscarry. He'd broken her ribs. Unlike Francine Hughes, Charlotte had resources -- not the least of which was professional training that would have enabled her to earn a living independent of John -- but she was also receiving all these conflicting cultural messages.

Read Susan Douglas' "Where the Girls Are" to get some idea of the mixed messages sent to girls in the 1960s and 1970s. Watch Jean Kilbourne's videos on the media's images of women in teh 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s. Understand that both men and women, beginning before puberty, are bombarded with these images and messages.

Now I'm going to throw another cultural bombshell into this mix -- the 1972 publication of the blockbuster historical romance novel "The Flame and the Flower" by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss. "Gone With the Wind" had had another theatrical release in 1967 and would make its TV debut in 1976; whether that TV release was in response to the by-then explosion of paperback original romance novels, I don't know, but I do know that rape-as-romance had become a cultural phenomenon. Regardless whether you like or loathe them, historical romances of the 1970s were -- and remain -- a major industry and cultural influence, and the debate over whether it's rape or forced seduction or romance or whatever continues.

And what's the most "romantic" scene in "Gone with the Wind"? Why it's when Rhett hauls Scarlett up those stairs and has his wicked way with her against her will and then she's purrin' like a kitten the next morning. Rape as romance.

Of course it's fantasy. We all know it's fantasy. We all know that's not "real" rape. But as Helen Hazen would write in 1983, "I would like to be raped, but I want it to happen to me exactly as it happened to (the heroine) in (a romance novel).” The debate, often heated, continues with the romance-reading and -writing community. And not all the readers of romances or the viewers of soap operas or the fans of "reality" shows are as savvy as those of us here on DU. The vast majority of the population IS influenced by these cultural products. Their mindsets and even their morals are informed by the messages they receive from pop culture.

While all this was going on, in the 1970s and 1980s, laws were changing, to be sure. Rape shield laws went into effect, supposedly preventing a rape victim's sexual past being used to discredit her accusations. Marital rape became a crime. But the culture hadn't changed. The New Bedford gang rape of Cheryl Araujo occurred in 1983. "The Accused," a fictionalized account based on the New Bedford rape, earned Jodie Foster an Oscar in 1988. In 1989, a group of high school atheletes in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, brutally raped a mentally challenged girl with a broomstick, and were defended by locals who accused the girl of being promiscuous.

84% of rapists -- not "potential" rapists but guys who have done the deed -- do not believe what they did was "really" rape. They don't see themselves as rapists, because rapists are deviants. Real rapists are like convicted child molester Richard Hurles, who was probably so brain-damaged by the violent abuse he suffered at the hands of his father that he didn't really have much of a clue what he was doing was wrong. Not long after his release on parole he sexually assaulted and murdered Kay Blanton, librarian of the Buckeye, Arizona, Public Library. Hurles is a "deviant." Ted Bundy was a "deviant." The men and boys in Cleveland, Texas who gang raped an 11-year-old girl in 2010 were not, in the opinion of many residents of the small, poor Texas town, deviants; instead, they blamed the girl, for dressing too provocatively and looking older than she really was. "Our Guys" in Glen Ridge, NJ, were not "deviants."

We all know it's wrong to drink and drive. We know there are laws against drunk driving, driving under the infuence, driving while impaired. Many of us know the severe penalties for being caught; an acquaintance of mine is currently facing about $12,000 in fines, court costs, impound fees, and lawyer's fees because of DUI. He's not an alcoholic, with a physical inability to control his consumption. He just thought that since the bar was only about a mile from his home, he could drive that short a distance without an accident. Well, he didn't have an accident, but he was driving so slow he caught the attention of a patrolling police officer. The point is, however, that popular culture encourages drinking. The various warnings to drink responsibly are not as pleasure-inducing as the commercials with the skimpily clad girls.

Which is precisely why so many anti-rape campaigns have failed in the past. They aren't as sexy -- pardon the really bad pun -- as a rape-as-romance novel or Clark Gable carrying a kicking and screaming Vivien Leigh up the staircase or Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or whoever the latest pop twit is sprawled undie-less in the paparazzi's camera lens. Women and women's sexuality becomes a joke, and the women become dehumanized.

So the MyStrength project targets young couples, but it doesn't say anything about casual hook-ups or dating before commitment. It doesn't address the pervasive culture that's already in place. There are no PSAs during the NFL play-offs that say "NO means NO." (We will, however, get commercials from Randall Terry about the evils of abortion, and we all know that the anti-abortion is also anti-woman, and it defends the rights of rapists to own and control the bodies of their victims, while denying the rights of the victims to owenrship and control of their bodies.) Just as the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s hasn't done way with bigotry and prejudice and de facto segregation, anti-rape legislation and projects have not addressed the culture. It's still securely in place, and vociferously defended by those who have a vested interest in it.

Men who pressure their wives or girlfriends into having sex don't think they're doing anything wrong. She doesn't feel good, she has a head ache, the kids wore her out, her job sucks, so what? All he wants is a little lovin' and she's his wife so he nags and touches and she shoves his hand away and he puts it right back and he's insistent and after all she's his wife and. . . . most men don't consider that rape. Persuasion maybe, or persistence, but not rape.

Not all men, of course. Some read the signals and are respectful enough and don't even try. But others have internalized the popular culture. Like the guy in my AJS 305 class, they figure they're entitled. They're just taking what belongs to them, no big deal. She doesn't have to enjoy it if she doesn't want to, but he spent money on her after all, and what's a woman for if not. . . .

So how do we go about changing the culture? First of all, by admitting that it exists, that it's very powerful, and that it is ABOUT power. Understand that every time there's a commercial or a magazine ad that shows a woman being victimized, it sends a message. Don't be silent when you see it -- start a dialogue. Afraid you'll be laughed at? Is that the worst that can happen? Is it more important that you NOT be laughed at than that you make an effort to change the message being sent to men and women about sexual and bodily integrity?

Start by recognizing that ANYONE can be a rapist. Just because he's gay or he's got a good job or he comes from nice people and went to a good school -- none of those qualities prevents him from also being a guy who thinks he's entitled to sex on demand and is capable of coercing or pressuring his partner into delivering.

Start by stopping with blaming the victim. Regardless what she wore or how much she drank or who she was with or what she did before with him or with other guys, the guy chose to assault her against her wishes or without her consent.

Start by stopping with equating rape to deviant behavior. Understand that non-consensual sex is culturally, if not overtly, condoned and encouraged. Learn to look for and be aware of examples of this.

Start by examining your own behavior. Even if you insist you never have and never would commit rape, do you do other things that support a rape culture? Do you laugh at lokes that demean women? Do you evaluate women foremost on their physical attributes? Do you summarily dismiss women's assessments of their situations because your experience is different?

That's what it's going to take: teaching, and learning, cultural awareness, so that the messages are no longer effective. I never said it would be easy or quick, any more than overcoming racism was accomplished with the Brown decision.

Susan Brownmiller wrote "Against Our Will" in 1975; Susan Faludi's "Backlash" came out in 1991. The greater backlash continues two more decades on. This is a battle that has been going on for a long time. We shouldn't have to be still fighting it, but the problem still exists, and the fight must continue. That it has to continue here, in a forum where we're all supposed to be enlightened and reasonably progressive, is particularly discouraging. But it's better to continue fighting than to give in.

This part, especially: "But it's better to continue fighting than to give in."

it is why i cringe when i hear someone say, have a gun, shoot them. it is obviously a person that does not get date rape. i dont know how to spell it out. seems like people have tried in this thread. in this society, from day one with our boys, we create their sexuality as priority. all powerful. as they grow up, they learn how they are suppose to manipulate, convince the girl to have sex. they take it too far. the jokes they make confirm this behavior. it is not the deviant. it is the boy next door.

she says no, convince her yes. she needs help convincing, liquor her up. girls are suppose to struggle a bet. they spent lots of money on her, she owes them. all their lives with movies, music adnd games, they are taught girls are their to service them.

specifically the thing they like to all "last minute resistance".

a total imbalance of power. even young and unaware i could not stomach the implications in seduction. on either side of the gender.

by saying that it's late, or she has to be up early, or that she just doesn't want to have sex... well that's just her not wanting to be thought of as a slut, don'tcha know... so you can just disregard that... just slow down a little, but keep 'escalating' to get the sex you are of course entitled to.

consider their actions normal. i don't believe it is the deviant person's opinion of their own behavior that is used by psychiatrists to determine deviancy. rape most certainly is deviancy - regardless of what the rapist thinks. they may think they deserve the key to the city, so what?

We get that. We understand that. And yes, there are "real rapists" who don't think they did anything wrong.

We're not talking about that. We're not talking about guys who think the woman's screams and struggles are part of her passion. We're not talking about guys who get off on physically overpowering a woman who has said no repeatedly, has tried to get away from him, and continues to fight. We're not talking about guys who go after every woman they see and think all women are hot to go to bed with them. We're not talking about guys who think 10 year old girls are begging to be gang raped.

We're talking about guys who behave in a manner that is constantly depicted in the media, in the commercials, on "reality" tv, in movies and books and magazines. What we're saying is that this depiction of sex, of women, of relationships is WRONG and that the behavior and attitudes are LEARNED from that culture. We're not talking about mental illness; we talking about a sick culture.

It feels very much as if some people on this thread have come up with a nifty word that they are now trying to fit to a concept it was never intended to fit.

whatever attempts they (or their attorneys) might try to blame socety.

Is that it makes any and all programs aimed at prevention impossible by definition.

Stating that only "deviants" rape means that unless we identify the "deviants" before they rape, we can only punish them afterwards, but not prevent them from doing their deviance on someone else.

Of course, if they haven't yet worked their deviant ways, we can't punish them or even make examples of them, unless we make it a crime to be deviant without doing anything.

And how would you identify deviants before they act? Where is the test that determines "This person WILL commit a deviant act and therefore must be incarcerated to prevent this happening." Where is the test that tells the future? When did our justice system begin to convict and incarcerate people pre-emptively?

I'm not trying to change arely staircase's thinking, because I don't think that's possible. He/she/it has come to this conclusion without providing very much evidence other than an aristotelian "A is A" rather like Ayn Rand and is being very stubborn about it. I can't help that. But I can continue to put my version out there for the benefit of others.

i think

and frankly you are all over the place with your argument. maybe i am misunderstanding, but ould you state your thesis in a couple of sentences?

And perhaps intentionally.

If you really want to learn about this issue, rather than just make blanket statements, you've already been given enough resources. Start reading. Take a class.

You'd have a decent beginning.

I have not been inconsistent.

I have not said there are rapists and non-rapists and some third category that's neither, although how there can logically be something that is neither a rapist nor a non-rapist is beyond me. You have repeatedly stated that rapists are deviants. You have brooked no opposition to that statement. No matter what I write, you disagree with it.

I have given you a variety of references; if you like, I can insert the entire bibliography from my research papers on the subject, although that list is now slightly out of date because much more has been written since my last academic paper in about 2002.

So here is my "thesis".

1. Rape is "deviant" behavior, but all that means is that it deviates from a norm. Not "the" norm, but "a" norm, meaning that the norm changes, is mutable, is (gasp!) relative. As I have said before, marital rape used to be an oxymoron; legally, there was no such thing. Now there is. Until a couple of weeks ago, the FBI didn't recognize date rape as rape. Now they do. The norms change.

2. Some people who engage in "deviant" behavior are (pretty much) incapable of altering their behavior and/or/because they are (pretty much) incapable of understanding that what they're doing is wrong. These people's deviant actions are less informed by outside influences than by internal motivations. These are both the psycho/sociopaths like Ted Bundy and the brain-damaged like Richard Hurles. Their behavior does not conform to any socially acceptable norm. They often cannot be identified until after they have engaged in their "deviant" behavior.

3. Other people who engage in "deviant" behavior are much more strongly influenced by outside, cultural forces and less by internals. Their patterns of behavior are learned, either directly or indirectly, from the culture around them. These people are capable of altering their behavior (if they want to) and are capable of understanding (if they want to) that what they're doing or have done is wrong.

4. It is one thing to label rape as deviant behavior, but it is another thing entirely to label all persons who commit (or attempt to commit) rape as deviant persons. Even in the narrow terms of rape prevention, to label the rapist as deviant -- rather than just the act -- makes prevention impossible. It removes any responsibility from the society at large for change. It is, in effect, a very right wing authoritarian point of view. This is a viewpoint usually espoused by those who benefit the most from the status quo.


TG

sentences?

Again, I'm not referring to people who have "recurrent, intense. . . behaviors," but rather people who believe what they do is all right because they see it going on around them all the time. These are not people divorced from reality, living in world only they inhabit.

Furthermore, most of them can be EDUCATED to behave differently. They don't need psychotropic drugs to control them, or extensive psychotherapy. They were originally "educated" by the culture they live in, and it may be difficult to overcome the effects of that "education," especially when there's little to no change in the culture.

I'm referring to a set of behaviors and beliefs that are "learned," in much the same way racism is "learned" through the culture.

posters refusal to allow his brain to grasp what is being said. why the reluctance? even beyond the mere reluctance. if men are so unwilling to allow themselves to see where the real issue in a rape culture is coming from, how do we expect to be able to educate our sons not to repeat the very same things and our daughters not to experience the rapes.

a father says, how.what do i explain to my daughter going off to college. the first step would be to get this, understand this. and work to change the mentality

Most guys aren't "rapists" and never will be. They don't lurk in parking garages and around bus stops waiting for vulnerable women. And it's probably very comforting for most guys to believe "rapists" are "deviants", and since those guys aren't "deviants," they don't have to worry about ever being seen as a rapist.

It's scary, I think, for some guys to accept the fact that guys just like them -- guys who aren't "deviants" in the classic scary monster mode -- are out there perpetrating rapes. Then it becomes a "there but for the grace of whatever" concept, and guys, being human, get defensive.

They shouldn't be. No one that I know of is accusing them individually of doing anything wrong. Certainly I'm not.

But what the Ebony article posits is that it's not enough just to tell women how to minimize their risks, especially what that strategy doesn't cover a lot of the situations women find themselves in. It's not JUST about going to bars or frat parties and drinking yourself to oblivion. It's ALSO about focusing on the guys, the non-deviant guys who are behaving badly.

The fact that so little focus has been on the guys over the past, say, 40 years ought to be a good indication of how non-deviant their behavior is. It really doesn't deviate all that much from what's considered normal and acceptable, at least according to the images of women in the media. How on earth, we wonder, could the families of the rapists in Cleveland, Texas even begin to defend gang-raping an 11-year-old? It's because they don't see their fathers and brothers and cousins as "rapists," and if they don't seem them as "rapists," then what they did can't be rape and therefore there has to be another explanation, like it was her fault. I know that's kind of bizarre logic, but that's the way people's minds work.

Look at it this way: At the other end of the socio-economic spectrum from Cleveland, Texas, Roman Polanski is still defended. He's a great director, he's created magnificent works of film art. "Deviant" people don't create great art, therefore Roman Polanski cannot be "deviant." Since only "deviant" people commit real "rape," Roman Polanski must be innocent and there's another explanation for what he did.

I think that's why the whole issue with "all men are potential rapists" hit a nerve. No one wants to think of himself as "deviant," and since only "deviants" commit "rape," normal, non-deviant men can't be rapists.

Unless and until there's an admission made that it's the CULTURE that makes NORMAL men do things that are defined as rape, we're not going to get anywhere.

Once we're able to get beyond that point and can begin discussing the power imbalance that sets the stage for the flowering of a rape culture and subsequently so many rapes, we can start to make progress.

Maybe.

but a tiny, tiny minority don't care. Do you honestly think a DARE-style program of "don't rape" ads will make any difference whatsoever to that tiny, tiny minority of people who don't give a shit that rape is wrong (aka rapists)?

I've seen men say that they 'just got their signals mixed up'. Those aren't men who know and don't care. Those are men who have been confused by the messages in rape culture.

Statistics have repeatedly shown that from 1 in 6 to 1 in 4 women have experienced some form of sexual assault in their lives. This includes forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, coercion to perform sexual acts, and so on. And don't forget that many of them are children unable to report anything, unable in many cases even to know what they're experiencing. And believe it or not, there are "perfectly normal" men who can blame a 10 or 12 year old girl for enticing them into rape. Please google Cleveland, Texas.

Allow me to reprise the story of my Women, Crime, and Justice class from spring semester 1999 at Arizona State University - West Campus. Many of the male students were current police and probation officers from the Phoenix metro area. One, a beefy assertive blond of about 35, always sat in the middle of the classroom and virtually always challenged everything Prof. Marie Griffin said about women. The women in the class, myself included, felt this guy's misogyny a mile away.

As we were discussing rape and how the definition had changed over the years and how prosecution of rape charges had changed, this guy insisted, in no uncertain terms, that he had a RIGHT to sex with a woman he had spent money on.

"You mean if I spend a couple hundred bucks on her, take her to dinner and a show and so on, I can't expect something in return? That's not fair."

There was an audible gasp from the class.

Remember, this guy was a law enforcement officer in some capacity. How sympathetic do you think he was going to be if confronted with a situation in which a woman was claiming to have been raped by her date? By her husband? By her ex-boyfriend?

Maybe this guy never actually raped anyone, but do you see how his mindset can affect the behavior of others?

What if he HAD been confronted with a "domestic situation" where a woman was raped by her live-in boyfriend and he had told her it was her own fault? What if he HAD walked away and done nothing? What do you think her feelings would have been? What do you think she would have done the next time the boyfriend forced her to have sex? Do you think she'd have called the cops? do you think she would have reported it? What do you think she would have told her friends, her sisters, her daughters, when they asked her what they should do? How willing do you think she would have been to tell them to call the cops and report it? Or would she more likely have said, "Deal with it, honey, 'cause nobody's gonna believe you."

THAT, my friend, is a rape culture. It's not a culture where men are told overtly that it's okay to rape; it's a culture in which they're told overtly not to, but covertly it's wink wink nudge nudge and "Take it, brother, any chance you get and blame her afterward, 'cause you're ENTITLED to it."

that rape is perpetrated by strangers. Some guy who goes around checking for unlocked doors or lurks around hiking trails.

What we're talking about here is a culture that (not so) subtly says, "Hey, guys, if she's in a bar, she's easy. Ask her if she needs a ride home, and if she does, that's a good as saying she's ready to climb in the back seat in the parking lot."

When people right here on DU say that well, maybe if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't go in bars, should wear make-up, shouldn't have a social drink, those people are saying women who do these things are consenting ahead of time to sex and have no defense. It's their own fault. If they didn't want to have sex with anyone and everyone, they shouldn't have gone to the bar, because it's not the rapists' fault! It's the woman's! She could have prevented it by not going in the bar!! Duh!"

What the Ebony essay and some of the rest of are saying is, that's wrong. It's NOT the woman's fault. It's the rapist's fault, and what we need to do is a better job of teling men, who are overwhelmingly the rapists of women, that no means no. It means no now, it means no later. No means no.

What part of that don't you get?

Is it so much to expect that men learn to control themselves in bars and at parties? They're able to control themselves on public sidewalks and in grocery stores and offices when they see a woman in a short skirt. So it's not that they physically can't control themselves; it's that they believe they've been given the right to behave differently.

That's an education thing.

A guy I know believed for years and years and years and years that there was no such thing as rape, period. Women consented, all the time. There was no such thing, because his mother (!) had always told him, "A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down." One day I said to him, "What if there's nowhere for her to run to? What if he has a knife to her throat? What if he threatens her children? Is it rape then?" He didn't like admitting his mother was wrong, but he did.


For those who would like to read about my experience in a classroom academic discussion of rape in which a law enforcment professional defended his own right to have sex with a date, whether she consented or not, please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002100430#top

For the rest of you, here's the text of the flyer I handed out in that class:



“ ‘No’ is a complete sentence.”

“What part of ‘No’ don’t you understand?”

“ ‘No’ means ‘No.’ Period.”

If you have problems with those three lines, you may be a potential date rapist.

Is that a harsh statement? I don’t think so.

When a woman says no, it is up to you to accept her no and stop. At that moment. Unequivocally. If you do not, if you exercise your “right” to pressure her into having sex with you, whether that pressure is verbal, physical, sexual, or any other kind of pressure, you are stating very clearly that her wishes are ignorable. You state that you don’t believe her or that you don’t care if she’s telling the truth. If you persist in your “seduction,” you are saying that your desires are more important than her integrity, her personhood, her wishes, and that you, for whatever reason, have more of a right to have sex with her than she has the right to say no.

You may say that “when she says no, she really means not now,” and that the key to your success is maintaining the pressure until she gives in. That’s force. That’s coercion. That’s rape.

It is also a denial of her integrity as a person. You are saying that her words don’t mean what she says they do. You are also saying that you know her mind better than she does. Would you allow her the same liberties? Would you allow her to persist long after you had lost interest in her?

Many women have been so thoroughly conditioned and socialized by our society to think that they can be held responsible for someone else’s actions that they have lost the ability to say no. They have been taught that saying no doesn’t mean anything. They have been taught that their integrity doesn’t mean anything, because it can be overridden by your desires and you are more important than they are. So they don’t speak, they live in fear, even if it is not a palpable fear. And they allow you, by their frightened silence, to do things to them that they don’t want.

Nothing a woman has done with you in the past, even if she has had sex with you on a regular basis, even if she is your wife, nothing justifies your overriding her simple no. Nothing. You have no more right to continue talking her into something she doesn’t want to do that you have the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. When your “right” infringes upon someone else’s right, you lose that right.

Does this mean you are going to have to give up some of your male privilege, your “right” to seduce and/or rape the women you desire? Yes. That you are going to have to learn that you are not more important than the women you date? Yes. That you have no right to pressure her, to coerce her, to force her? Yes.

“Yes,” in this case, is a complete sentence.

What part of “yes” don’t you understand?

Yes means yes.