"Dont Rape" training...

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Marc MacYoung has an interesting post up on his blog:

http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html

Second, the most predictable of all is the knee-jerk accusation: "You're blaming the victim."

This is the default attack strategy of rape awareness programs. You will hear it if you question their doctrine or if you say anything that does not conform to their 'educational' curriculum. Most of all, you'll hear it if you dare mention any pre-assault behavior on the part of the victim.
In concession, I will admit protecting the emotional comfort of the victim is paramount to rape crisis programs following sexual assault. That is a good and necessary service.


But there's a difference between post-assault treatment and 'awareness.' Specifically, there is a huge disparity between dealing with the aftermath and rape prevention. In rape prevention, the statement of 'you're blaming the victim' has no place. That's because you cannot come up with effective rape prevention strategies if you do not assess common behavior that precedes rapes.


This is a big problem. First because "you're blaming the victim" rhetoric may protect the rape victim's feelings, but it shuts down any possible rational discussion about the subject (it's both a criticism and accusation, a.k.a. an attack).


Second, it's dangerous. By preventing discussion about safety measures (risk reduction), you increase other women's chances of being raped. You can't talk about what a woman can do to prevent being raped without an advocate claiming you're blaming the victim. If I really want to be catty, I could say -- by not allowing prevention to be discussed -- advocates ensure future clientele for the crisis centers.

But this is something you will not hear from the rape awareness camps. But notice, there's something the awareness group's letter doesn't mention. They intentionally skip over it to get to the extreme of self-defense and why it is an unreasonable expectation. It is not only the elephant in the room, but they cannot teach it (or even talk about it) without directly contradicting their own rhetoric about blaming the victim.

And that is 'risk reduction.'


What can a woman do to affect her chances of being sexually assaulted? I mean actively and consciously do to increase or decrease her chances of being raped? That is what these programs refuse to address, instead they focus on "more emphasis put on the "perpetrators (sic) behaviour" (sic).


It is the refusal to discuss risk reduction that divorces most 'awareness' programs from reality. They have to take this stance. Why? Because they insist that a woman's pre-assault behavior has no bearing on her being attacked. The 'rapist' is to blame. The woman has no responsibility at all. They are adamant that pre-assault behaviors do not matter. And a woman has no control over whether she is raped or not.

...as usual, its blunt and controversial but contains a core of truth. The current climate surrounding "rape education" does seem to focus on trying to "train men" not to rape vs teaching women risk reduction behaviors. Attempts to do so commonly seem to result in accusations of "blaming victims" who have already been raped. Personally I find that reaction odd when compared to self defense training of any other sort. If one were to teach "robbery prevention" I don't think there would be a huge uproar that you were blaming robbery victims for being victims.
 

sopraisso

Blue Belt
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
222
Reaction score
15
Location
Brazil
As an analogy, it is absurd to ask someone who doesn't want to be robbed to walk around carelessly just because the robber is not supposed to be robbing. People shouldn't be criminals, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful and understand the reality that THERE ARE criminals nonetheless. We don't live in a fairy tale.
Violence and danger will always exist by the way and this is a reason enough to make it wise for us to be careful (I didn't mean paranoid). If I'm walking down the street carelessly and a hole in the pavement can make me fall down should I remain walking carelessly only because the hole wasn't supposed to be there? It's impressive how sometimes people just can't be reasonable.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 4
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,414
Reaction score
5,911
Location
Covington, WA
Marc MacYoung has an interesting post up on his blog:

http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html





...as usual, its blunt and controversial but contains a core of truth. The current climate surrounding "rape education" does seem to focus on trying to "train men" not to rape vs teaching women risk reduction behaviors. Attempts to do so commonly seem to result in accusations of "blaming victims" who have already been raped. Personally I find that reaction odd when compared to self defense training of any other sort. If one were to teach "robbery prevention" I don't think there would be a huge uproar that you were blaming robbery victims for being victims.
I think we need both. For example, men need to be "trained" that a woman who is unconscious or close to it, whether drunk or whatever, cannot consent to sex. And women need to be advised not to input themselves into that situation.

There was a woman, a BJJ student, in New York a little over a year ago. She was out by herself on new years eve (IIRC) and ran into a couple of her training partners. She trusted them, and she ended up getting hammered. They told her they were taking her home to sleep it off and ended up raping her multiple times in a nearby parking garage and leaving her there. Who's at fault? Clearly the guys, but she wouldn't have put herself at risk had she not had so much to drink. Had they not been caught on camera, they might have gotten away with it.

How often do we read articles about a young woman who alleges she was raped, and within the first couple sentences of the article, we get a complete description of her outfit? "Jane Doe, 21 of Laurelhurst, alleges she was raped by two men while walking home from a nearby club. Jane, who was wearing a short skirt and sleeveless blouse...."

Right now, I think that the issue is that we have a rape culture that we are struggling to even acknowledge exists. And so, some people push harder to the other extreme than would otherwise be necessary. I think it will normalize at some point, as we acknowledge both sides of the issue.

Interesting article.
 
OP
Tgace

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
How often do we read articles about a young woman who alleges she was raped, and within the first couple sentences of the article, we get a complete description of her outfit? "Jane Doe, 21 of Laurelhurst, alleges she was raped by two men while walking home from a nearby club. Jane, who was wearing a short skirt and sleeveless blouse...."

ummm...I never have.
 
OP
Tgace

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
I think we need both. For example, men need to be "trained" that a woman who is unconscious or close to it, whether drunk or whatever, cannot consent to sex. And women need to be advised not to input themselves into that situation.


Like this case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...256a1e-10d3-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

In a nutshell...the victim states she went to a party and got intoxicated. Had consensual sex with one guy that evening and a different guy when she awoke the following morning. She found out later that she had sex/was raped (depending on unknown facts) by three midshipmen in between those contacts.

At issue is her condition at the time and if it was consensual. The common understanding (what most people assume) is that if she didn't remember it than she must have been unconscious and these guys took advantage of an unconscious victim. However....its also possible that she was "conscious"...speaking...and giving these guys the impression this contact was indeed consensual. Alcoholic "blackouts" don't equate to unconsciousness.

What would the legal issues be if both male and female parties were intoxicated enough to not recall the previous nights happenings? Is the male party still guilty of rape?

This is not to condone (by ANY means) those situations where men do indeed know the female is too intoxicated to consent...charge em and convict em. But if a guy is the type of person to do that I highly doubt that a class telling them that was wrong would be much more than a PC waste of time. Women need to protect themselves from people and situations like that. I don't want any of my daughters to be at the mercy of assuming a guy has been "properly trained" not to rape. If he needs that type of explanation in the first place I wouldn't want them associating with him.

I want women to be safe. I don't think that shutting down discussion of personal safety issues by screaming "YOU ARE BLAMING THE VICTIM" advances the issue at all. We ALL make mistakes..thats why in the LE/MIL world we have after action reviews (AAR's) we point out where we made mistakes and hope to learn from it so that we don't repeat them. It's not a matter of assigning blame...
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,414
Reaction score
5,911
Location
Covington, WA
Like this case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...256a1e-10d3-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

In a nutshell...the victim states she went to a party and got intoxicated. Had consensual sex with one guy that evening and a different guy when she awoke the following morning. She found out later that she had sex/was raped (depending on unknown facts) by three midshipmen in between those contacts.

At issue is her condition at the time and if it was consensual. The common understanding (what most people assume) is that if she didn't remember it than she must have been unconscious and these guys took advantage of an unconscious victim. However....its also possible that she was "conscious"...speaking...and giving these guys the impression this contact was indeed consensual. Alcoholic "blackouts" don't equate to unconsciousness.

What would the legal issues be if both male and female parties were intoxicated enough to not recall the previous nights happenings? Is the male party still guilty of rape?

This is not to condone (by ANY means) those situations where men do indeed know the female is too intoxicated to consent...charge em and convict em. But if a guy is the type of person to do that I highly doubt that a class telling them that was wrong would be much more than a PC waste of time. Women need to protect themselves from people and situations like that. I don't want any of my daughters to be at the mercy of assuming a guy has been "properly trained" not to rape. If he needs that type of explanation in the first place I wouldn't want them associating with him.

I want women to be safe. I don't think that shutting down discussion of personal safety issues by screaming "YOU ARE BLAMING THE VICTIM" advances the issue at all. We ALL make mistakes..thats why in the LE/MIL world we have after action reviews (AAR's) we point out where we made mistakes and hope to learn from it so that we don't repeat them. It's not a matter of assigning blame...
Whoa. Back up for a second. I'm not arguing against the original point you were making. I agree. We need both. While I do think we need to "train men" to not rape, we ALSO need to teach women to be accountable and stay safe.
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,931
Reaction score
1,591
Location
Huber Heights, OH
...as usual, its blunt and controversial but contains a core of truth. The current climate surrounding "rape education" does seem to focus on trying to "train men" not to rape vs teaching women risk reduction behaviors. Attempts to do so commonly seem to result in accusations of "blaming victims" who have already been raped. Personally I find that reaction odd when compared to self defense training of any other sort. If one were to teach "robbery prevention" I don't think there would be a huge uproar that you were blaming robbery victims for being victims.
As usual, he's over-stating his case.

Most rape-prevention training includes such nuggets as, "most rapes are Acquaintance/Date Rape" and then offers a variety of advice to modify or mold behavior of the potential victim to not put her (him?) self in that position.


  • Plan your date for a public place
  • Don't have your date drive you, meet your date there
  • Double-date
  • Don't leave your drink unattended or with your date
  • Do not drink to excess
  • If you're going partying, go with a group of others you know and trust
  • Make a pre-agreement with your group/double-date wing to watch your behavior and to warn you if you appear to be becoming too intoxicated or may be drugged
  • &tc.

These are all classic staples of rape-prevention training and tacitly acknowledge that a potential victim's behavior and choices can either contribute to their safety or contribute to making them more vulnerable to a crime.

Mr. MacYoung is over-stating his case.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,931
Reaction score
1,591
Location
Huber Heights, OH
we ALSO need to teach women to be accountable and stay safe.
Rape prevention classes usually try to do this but you have a three hour class trying to contradict to the woman a lifetime of cultural messages telling her to be a Party Girl, drink to excess, act provocatively (and often more), and that "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun."

It is the equivalent of a 3 hour martial arts "Self Defense" seminar. It ain't gonna train you to fight.

I've been asked several times to teach a Women's Self Defense seminar and I've always answered yes but that, before I did, here is a list of some of the things I'll be teaching. Weapons (knives, guns, bludgeons), personal responsibility, knives/guns/bludgeons, warning signs, knives/guns/bludgeons, the "I'm worth fighting for myself" mindset, weapons, simple tricks don't work ( as in "if you know that a man's groin is a sensitive area, don't you think he knows it too and has an entire lifetime of learning to protect it?"), oh, and did I mention weapons? This is how a smaller, less massive, less strong, person is going to be able to overcome a stronger, heavier, more aggressive person when you only have a few hours of training.

Surprisingly, no one has ever gone ahead and said, "yes, teach us." Shocking, I know. :p

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
OP
Tgace

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Whoa. Back up for a second. I'm not arguing against the original point you were making. I agree. We need both. While I do think we need to "train men" to not rape, we ALSO need to teach women to be accountable and stay safe.

Didn't mean to sound confrontational Steve..I was sort of continuing a train of thought vs contradicting anything you said there. All's well. ;)
 

chrispillertkd

Senior Master
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
107
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
I think we need both. For example, men need to be "trained" that a woman who is unconscious or close to it, whether drunk or whatever, cannot consent to sex. And women need to be advised not to input themselves into that situation.

I'm sorry, and this isn't intended as a personal dig or anything, but this is the most bizarre thing I have read in a long time. We have to train men to realize that when a person is comatose they're incapable of consenting to sexual congress? Sorry, but if that's the case we've lost any hope that this will, in fact, work or that the people receiving the "training" are anything other than rutting animals in the first place. We might as well admit that we have no idea what the actual problem we're dealing with is or how to address it.

Pax,

Chris
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,414
Reaction score
5,911
Location
Covington, WA
I'm sorry, and this isn't intended as a personal dig or anything, but this is the most bizarre thing I have read in a long time. We have to train men to realize that when a person is comatose they're incapable of consenting to sexual congress? Sorry, but if that's the case we've lost any hope that this will, in fact, work or that the people receiving the "training" are anything other than rutting animals in the first place. We might as well admit that we have no idea what the actual problem we're dealing with is or how to address it.

Pax,

Chris
Not taken as any kind of dig, Chris. I wonder why you think it's bizarre, though. Where do you think we get our ideas about sex, sexuality and what is considered appropriate behavior? I believe that it is taught.

Getting women drunk so that they can be "taken advantage of" is now considered a reasonable tactic among some young men. Where do they learn this? Why do they think it's okay? And, why would it be bizarre to teach them otherwise?

As I said before, women need to mitigate risk, as well, and should know that getting drunk isn't a great idea unless you're around people you know and trust.

My opinion is that morality is learned and that we are competing with unrestricted access to hardcore videos for free, on demand, and viewable on everything from phones to tablets to computers from anyplace with 3g or wifi. We're also competing with sitcoms and movies and popular culture in which kids are being taught that binge drinking of concoctions called, among other things, "panty droppers" is normal.

So, yeah. I think young men should be re-trained. Call it what you want.
 
OP
Tgace

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Not taken as any kind of dig, Chris. I wonder why you think it's bizarre, though. Where do you think we get our ideas about sex, sexuality and what is considered appropriate behavior? I believe that it is taught.

Getting women drunk so that they can be "taken advantage of" is now considered a reasonable tactic among some young men. Where do they learn this? Why do they think it's okay? And, why would it be bizarre to teach them otherwise?

As I said before, women need to mitigate risk, as well, and should know that getting drunk isn't a great idea unless you're around people you know and trust.

My opinion is that morality is learned and that we are competing with unrestricted access to hardcore videos for free, on demand, and viewable on everything from phones to tablets to computers from anyplace with 3g or wifi. We're also competing with sitcoms and movies and popular culture in which kids are being taught that binge drinking of concoctions called, among other things, "panty droppers" is normal.

So, yeah. I think young men should be re-trained. Call it what you want.

We don't get it in an hour long class given by a dorm RA that's for damn sure....the idea that a public service announcement level of "dont rape guys" is going to accomplish anything is pie in the sky reasoning. If it's not common sense that a passed out girl is not a target for sex then that person has more issues going on than "poor training".
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,414
Reaction score
5,911
Location
Covington, WA
No disagreement from me here, tgace. What we're really talking about is changing culture and it won't happen in a 2 hour (or whatever) training class. Training a guy on this isn't going to do any more good than teaching a woman anti-rape "self defense" at a 2 hour seminar.

But, there is a place for an institution formally saying, "This is okay. This is not okay." It can help with accountability and is one step out of many needed to change the culture around a particular subject.
 

chrispillertkd

Senior Master
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
107
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Not taken as any kind of dig, Chris. I wonder why you think it's bizarre, though. Where do you think we get our ideas about sex, sexuality and what is considered appropriate behavior? I believe that it is taught.

I think it's bizarre for the same reason I thought it was bizarre the first time I encountered this idea about 20 years ago when I was in college: it signals a fundamental moral (and intellectual) bankruptcy that is, apparently widespread through society.

I won't argue that some morality is taught. It is. But much of it is derived from general principles that have already been taught. In other words, a parent teaches a child "Don't steal." As the child grows up he is able to reason out from that principle that fraud is wrong. A parent teaches a child "Always keep your word." As the child grows they know that keeping marital vows is of paramount importance. Etc.

My point is, if we have to specifically teach men that a woman who is passed out drunk cannot give consent and that any sexual behavior taken on their part is rape is indicative of a much larger problem. I would also argue that, if such training is necessary in the first place it will itself be a futile endeavor. What is needed is much more fundamental.

Getting women drunk so that they can be "taken advantage of" is now considered a reasonable tactic among some young men. Where do they learn this? Why do they think it's okay? And, why would it be bizarre to teach them otherwise?

It has always been considered a "reasonable tactic" by some people, of course. But if you're saying it's now much more widespread, I agree. As for where they learned it, that depends on the person. The dreaded amorphous "society" is certainly to blame to some extent. But society is made up of people and families. If there is a fundamental problem with men not realizing raping someone is bad the fault at least partially lies with their parents. Of course, they themselves are guilty, too, since we all have the ability to use our reason to arrive at the truth about things. (I won't get into ridiculous exceptions that would mitigate moral culpability because that's not the point. And making an exception into a norm is absurd.)

We don't need to train men that getting a girl drunk and then raping her is bad. We need something much more basic than that. Because if a man has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not so bad to rape a woman when she's passed out you're going to have to start at rock bottom in your moral reasoning with him. (Unless one would want to simply concentrate on the possibility if prosecution and jail time which would stand as a deterrent only for some, I think.)

As I said before, women need to mitigate risk, as well, and should know that getting drunk isn't a great idea unless you're around people you know and trust.

I totally agree here. The three most important rules for self-defense, which I think takes care of not all but an awful lot of problems, are: Don't go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things.

My opinion is that morality is learned and that we are competing with unrestricted access to hardcore videos for free, on demand, and viewable on everything from phones to tablets to computers from anyplace with 3g or wifi. We're also competing with sitcoms and movies and popular culture in which kids are being taught that binge drinking of concoctions called, among other things, "panty droppers" is normal.

So, yeah. I think young men should be re-trained. Call it what you want.

I get what you're saying, I think. But my thinking is that such a re-training will not be successful for many people unless it consists not just of "hey don't do this one behavior" (because, you know, why shouldn't I if all those influences you just named are out there?). It's going to necessitate a rebuilding from the ground up for a lot of people. And, as things stand now, that simply isn't going to happen.

Pax,

Chris
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,414
Reaction score
5,911
Location
Covington, WA
I think it's bizarre for the same reason I thought it was bizarre the first time I encountered this idea about 20 years ago when I was in college: it signals a fundamental moral (and intellectual) bankruptcy that is, apparently widespread through society.
bankruptcy? I don't know about that. Certainly I'd go as far as to say that there is a genuine moral deficiency where sexuality is concerned. And I'm not talking about it in the Victorian sense of, "Oh, I do declare! Those kids are having SEX!"
I won't argue that some morality is taught. It is. But much of it is derived from general principles that have already been taught. In other words, a parent teaches a child "Don't steal." As the child grows up he is able to reason out from that principle that fraud is wrong. A parent teaches a child "Always keep your word." As the child grows they know that keeping marital vows is of paramount importance. Etc.
Right. Parents are teaching morality that is aligned with society. In this case, parents teach their kids (generally) to respect other people, that rape is wrong and that for a man to take advantage of a woman is considered rape. Society teaches them otherwise, and the contrary messages are pervasive. I was just watching a brand new sitcom the other night (Trophy Wife) and two women were drinking "Panty Droppers."
My point is, if we have to specifically teach men that a woman who is passed out drunk cannot give consent and that any sexual behavior taken on their part is rape is indicative of a much larger problem. I would also argue that, if such training is necessary in the first place it will itself be a futile endeavor. What is needed is much more fundamental.
I don't think we're disagreeing here. There IS a larger problem. As I said to Tgace, the training will likely not change many individuals behavior, but the training will help in other ways. At the very least, the training sets a clear expectation. What we're both saying, I think, is that what is needed is a fundamental shift in culture. Starting there, setting clear expectations, such as through training or whatever, will help hold people accountable.

I really think we're saying the same thing, which is why I wonder why you keep using the term "bizarre."
It has always been considered a "reasonable tactic" by some people, of course. But if you're saying it's now much more widespread, I agree. As for where they learned it, that depends on the person. The dreaded amorphous "society" is certainly to blame to some extent. But society is made up of people and families.
And the internet and peer groups and schools and clubs and the media and churches and work.
If there is a fundamental problem with men not realizing raping someone is bad the fault at least partially lies with their parents. Of course, they themselves are guilty, too, since we all have the ability to use our reason to arrive at the truth about things. (I won't get into ridiculous exceptions that would mitigate moral culpability because that's not the point. And making an exception into a norm is absurd.)
once again, we agree. I would only add that you might be forgetting the significant influences on a person from outside the family. In fact, while parents are the singular authority on most things early in a child's development, as schools, clubs, peer groups and other external activities start entering the mix, children receive significant influences (both good and bad) from outside the home.
We don't need to train men that getting a girl drunk and then raping her is bad. We need something much more basic than that. Because if a man has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not so bad to rape a woman when she's passed out you're going to have to start at rock bottom in your moral reasoning with him. (Unless one would want to simply concentrate on the possibility if prosecution and jail time which would stand as a deterrent only for some, I think.)
When I first said it, I put "train" in quotes, because the term was being used by others. What you're saying is that we don't need (or shouldn't need) to tell a guy that raping her when she's drunk or passed out is bad. I think we do. Not that raping is bad. Most young men would agree that raping anyone is bad.

The training is, "Hey, if she's drunk or passed out... that's rape." It's, "This is rape. This is not rape." Because the issue is muddied in popular culture from scenes from TV Shows and Movies as recently as last week, to as far back as I can remember (Anyone remember the devil/angel scene in Animal House).
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,244
Im absolutely shocked some times at how sloppy drunk people get in public. We have a nice waterfront downtown bar district and every weekend we find woman passed out unconscious on park benches or store steps. All alone and passed out cold or so drunk they can barley talk. When I worked undercover I would regularly go down town on the weekends and just walk around. Now I was fully bearded wearing biker clothes looked nothing like a cop. I would find woman almost every weekend passed out on park benches ask them where they were staying and offer to walk them back to their hotels and 90% of the time they would just go with me no questions asked. We would cut through back ally ways and down empty streets and they would never question me. I would almost never say I was a cop or if I did I never had badge or ID on me.
Im also kinda surprised how men tend to stay together even when drunk Its rare to find a Guy alone when hes that drunk. We find woman like that far more often. I dont know why woman tend to either leave friends behind or what happens
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,563
Reaction score
441
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I've never seen stats. on the value of this training. Surely some are scared away by being informed of the legal penalties, whether they're morally straight or not?
 
Top