Consequences in "why to ask first"

Post Reply New Topic

^ That all sounds sensible to me. It was a well thought out post and clear for me to understand.

I guess that if rapes are massively unreported, then encouraging women to report them will also (hopefully) lead to more convictions of the perpetrators. The higher publicity regarding the naming, shaming and imprisonment of those responsible would also act as a better deterrent towards those men who would be more likely to commit rape anyway and help to reduce this "cognitive dissonance" and make them realise that their actions would be immoral.

Yes, most serious offenses are done by people the victim knows (4 in 5 or so last I checked for murder, and I'm betting it's similar for rape).

Hence, educate children about all of this, and to make sure they report any abuse as soon as it happens, so it can then be investigated. Once educated, it should stick as they age.

Which is also simple to do, and any parent worth her salt should do it.

You should read "Ne le dit pas à maman" par Toni Maguire.


[spoil]

It's a true story of a woman who was raped frequently by her father since she was child; what's even sadder that her mom knew and stayed silent - shoking.

[/spoil]

Yes, that's half of the equation. The other half is for parents to educate their children as to the absolute necessity of respecting other people's bodily autonomy, and that it is just as bad, if not worse, to be the abuser, as it is to be the abused.

Also to keep in mind that children are not intellectually and emotionally mature at the same time they are physically mature, and that what seems obvious to an adult may be incomprehensible to a child.

But....until the parents (or potential parents) are up to speed on what these lessons are and how to deliver them, their children are going to miss out. So, some of this "training" *must* be directed at adults first.

^^^
That's also usually the case when someone's home gets broken into and robbed. 9-times-out-of-10 it was someone that had been over there before at least once. Most any cop will tell you that. One could also say it's slightly the victim's fault for letting the wrong person into their home to view their possessions.

That goes along with the education.

I doubt you'd get through to anyone that would actually rape someone though. I'm pretty sure any non-intellectually/cognitively impaired teenager/adult knows that you can't force yourself onto someone, and doing such equates to rape/assault and battery, no matter how "well meaning" and "loving" they are. It's no different than saying, don't murder someone because it's wrong, to the men that murder their families in an emotional rage.

I'd rather focus on those who're the potential victims than trying to change the bad men and women out there (once a snake, always a snake).

I don't think that's what this thread has been about though. The whole thing, from the title to the OP to quite a bit of the posts, have been more about threats, using what happened to a man who was accused of not getting explicit consent years ago as a cudgel to push tarantella's idea of how human interaction should work rather than trying to persuade anyone that it's the right thing to do, but then again tarantella and co have usually been long on snark and hyperbole, not to mention ad hominem and straw men, and short on persuasion.

Further, I have a real problem with this 'if it doesn't prevent 100% of rapes, it's useless' attitude, and the hostility and vitriol that has accompanied it. As I pointed out earlier, it's counterproductive and puts everyone on an adversarial footing, which is doubly silly when the whole stated premise involves getting buy in from men about cultural change.

If someone did a thread focused on discussion about lifting the shame of victimization, I don't think you'd have a single objection, and I think the consent thing could be discussed a bit more civilly as well if someone wasn't implying that anyone who objected was a potential sex offender, cave man, sexist, etc.

This is what I find depressing in debates on Aspie forums. It's always the most socially experiences people who have the most valid opinions. Years ago. I was on another aspie forum reading a debate on the "war on terror". The most socially experienced, cosmopolitan and urbane posters on the thread had talked to hundreds of Iraqis and Muslims in their circle of acquaintances to gather a wide ranging informed view, while the most isolated and aspie members were left repeating what they had read in newspaper opinions. Obviously the more worldly wise and life-experienced people do have more valid opinions, but it depresses me as an aspie who finds people a struggle how the more antisocial you are the less wide ranging your experience of people and the less valid the opinion.

I am sure a lot of self defence advice givers being demonized are well meaning though, for example I have known areas in towns where a brown skinned person would not have been safe due to hooligan gangs, if I told my Indian friend to avoid the area that would not mean I believe racism is the victim's fault or that education against racism should be abandoned for focusing on the behavior of the potential victim, but, while supporting the slower task of changing the worlds problems, in the short term it's best to avoid immediate threat.

@Tallyman - I see that it's upsetting to you that the advice isn't well-received. I'd ask you though to separate two thoughts:

1. You are a misogynist.
2. The thing you have suggested is misogynist.

I think most people, when they first wander into conversations that have power relationships at their heart, are unaware of where their received ideas are coming from and the sentiments that long ago informed them. It seems sensible to you that a woman would be safe if she stayed in "safe places" with "safe people" rather than wearing "slu*ty clothes" in "bad neighborhoods". There's a truckload of misogynist thought informing that and I'm sure you've been unaware of it, because it's a normal thing to think. And I appreciate that the suggestion is well-meant. In pointing out the misogyny inherent in it, I'm not saying "you are a misogynist", I'm saying "you are carrying around misogynist ideas and trying to apply them."

I hope too that you'll stop and think a moment about how exhausting it is to explain to wellmeaning people what AS is, and what kind of harmful but commonly-held misconceptions you have to disabuse them of, before you can have a reasonable conversation with them about AS. The same thing is going on here.

The word "mysogynist" has now lost all meaning. I hope you're happy.

The problem, Venger, is that thieves don't wear signs saying "hello, I steal things" any more than date-rapey boyfriends wear t-shirts that say "I have already raped three women". This is why victim-blaming's such a pernicious thing. Yeah, some baddies will signal way ahead of time in a way anyone could see and understand (and I'm aware of the irony of saying this on an AS board). But plenty won't. So while one could say it's slightly the victim's fault, one would be kind of a crap person for doing so, because of the odds that it's wrong and hurtful for no reason.

So you are saying I hate women? That is the dumbest thing you've come out with so far. I'm out of this thread, there is no conversing with you.

A fair point. I'd suggest, though, that if you're going to expend the energy to tell the victim to take all the responsibility for staying safe -- circumscribing freedom of motion -- that you'd also be working on ways to make that area safer and get rid of the racist gangs.

No, that is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.

This. Misogyny is not a catch-all for "things I disagree with". It has a very specific definition. No one has said anything mysogynyst in this thread whatsoever.

Also, I'm interested to see how the anti-advice, educate men crowd responds to the links Venger posted.

I made an unfortunate typo there, but the "point" still stands.