Why do some men commit rape?

The Black Oil

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

How is it possible to figure out how someone else feels if they hide it? Feeling pressured to have sex yet going along with it willingly does not seem to me to be a rape however that situation is included in the rape statistics that are constantly trotted out.

Whose stats are you referring to? I had a quick look at the DRCC's 2014 annual report and for adults, they break it down into:

Rape
Sexual Assault
Marital Rape
Sexual Harassment
Suspected Drug Rape
Aggravated Sexual Assault

Often people carry these painful experiences for many years before they feel ready to talk about them, and may feel empowered to do so after hearing someone else speak out. During the year, both Louise O’Keefe and Mairia Cahill doing so generated many first time calls to our team. Frequently, first time callers cite blocks to disclosure such as, “I did not think I would be believed” ... ”It was my fault” ... “I do not want this to be reported”, and there is a palpable sense of relief when we can address those fears.

By far the greatest concern for many callers is the issue of consent, fearful that they may have somehow given the impression that they agreed to, or possibly caused, what happened. Very often ambivalent societal perceptions have added to this burden, so it is an important part of our work to break this cycle of victim blaming and reassure our callers that if they did not, or could not, give consent by reason of age or incapacity, the sole responsibility for the assault lies with the perpetrator.

So, we've consent coming through, unsurprisingly. And I know anecdotes are not data, but...from the same page.

One such caller was *Daisy, a 22 year old woman who had recently graduated and had been invited out to celebrate with her classmates. Although the party continued back at the house she shared with friends, she excused herself and went to bed. Later that night she awoke to find a male acquaintance in bed beside her, and although she said no, he did not listen. She froze, unable to stop him taking advantage of her. The following morning she called us in a very distressed state, unable to believe a trusted acquaintance could have done this, but because she had not physically stopped him, she felt responsible for what happened. She had started to minimise the rape and convinced herself no-one would believe her including her circle of friends. She was angry with herself for freezing and had rationalized that she must have encouraged him in some way. During the call she was met with compassion, understanding and, most importantly, belief, which helped her to realise she had not consented to what occurred and was entitled to the help and support she needed to overcome this experience.

*Name and identifying details have been changed to protect the confidentiality of our caller

Interestingly, they've stats based on disability too.

Here's the legal/reporting side.

Of the 293 cases where the reporting status was known, 104 cases were reported to the Gardaí, a reporting rate of 35.49%.
Of these 104 cases, 4 cases were tried, resulting in 3 convictions/guilty pleas, with the outcome of one case unknown.

Outcome information was known for 26 (25%) of the 104 cases reported.
Pending charge 15
Dropped charge (by client or DPP) 7
Went to trial 4

The Black Oil

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/irelands-rape-culture-2624463-Mar2016/

‘I’ve been groped, felt up, and harassed. Rape culture exists and we need men to step up’

It’s time for all men to get a little bit uncomfortable about the culture we all operate in, writes Mia Doering.

~

WHEN I WAS 16, a 17-year-boy raped me in a field, and in the same year a much older man sexually exploited me for a period of four years. In college, I was twice seriously sexually assaulted. I’ve been groped, felt up, harassed and followed home.

All women can relate to this.

~

When we talk about men’s violence against women, we talk about women; we talk about the victims and the survivors. We talk about how ‘not all men’ are violent, but leave out the fact that most men are very much silent. We don’t talk about how every single man can help dismantle our rape culture from the inside.

We don’t talk about it because don’t want to offend, we don’t want to scare them off. We want to be liked. We don’t want people to be uncomfortable around us. We want to keep men on-side when discussing, what I like to call ‘men’s issues with women’, rather than ’women’s issues’.

I am angry that I feel I have to cajole my man pals into caring. I hate that I consider my tone when speaking to them about these things. I hate that I censor myself in speaking my own truth because I am afraid it might make someone uncomfortable and therefore less likely to engage on it.

Men are built of tougher stuff than this. I hold men to a high esteem and a high standard.
They can handle compassionate non-judgmental but tough conversations. I know they can because I’ve had these conversations with them.

And knowing how these things go, the response to the responses will be all about the comments (some of which are well, the internetz) and not some of the assumptions in the article.

orubiru

The Black Oil wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/irelands-rape-culture-2624463-Mar2016/

And knowing how these things go, the response to the responses will be all about the comments (some of which are well, the internetz) and not some of the assumptions in the article.

Her very first assumption "all women can relate to this" is incorrect and the entire article fails because of this false assumption.

If Rape Culture does indeed exist then surely "Women" can be responsible for perpetuating or dismantling that Rape Culture just the same as "Men" can?

Is a women who says "rape culture doesn't exist" regarded as some kind of apostate? Is she grouped along with "Men" for the purposes of this discussion?

I think her opinion is worthless the moment she suggests that "men" should be the ones to step up.

This grouping, "Men", contains so much diversity of thought, ideology, attitude etc that it's going to be absolutely impossible to get them all to agree on one thing.

There is always someone who will rightly say "well, not all men..." and there is always someone who will correctly point out "well what about...".

I am sure that the writer of the article is inviting those responses and I am sure that she sincerely believes she has the antidote for "not all men" responses or any kind of "whataboutery".

Let's say a theoretical man decides he wants to help dismantle the Rape Culture. Then a young lady comes along and says "there's no Rape Culture". What can the man do? Tell a woman that her opinion on Rape Culture is wrong? Should he just give up there and then because a woman has said "you don't need to step up actually"? How does it work?

I think that this highlights how the arbitrary groupings of "Men" and "Women" when it comes to discussing things like "Rape Culture" do nothing at all to help the conversation. These groupings are simply not appropriate and they are not useful.

100% of fatal car crashes involve cars. Only a small % of cars ever actually crash though. This is because most people are natural careful drivers. What can the careful driver do about the drunken maniac weaving all over the road at 70 mph? Politely ask him to stop? Aggressively force him to stop? We already have a culture of safe driving. Nobody wants to be killed in a car crash. You could call that a "Safety Culture". Ah, but car crashes still happen though, don't they? So, do we live in a "Car Crash Culture".

Our society is absolutely opposed to rape. The everyday "man on the street" is in no way an advocate or supporter of rape. In general, nobody wants to be friends with a convicted rapist. Our culture is quite strongly, obviously, demonstrably anti-rape.

Yet here we are imploring "All Men" to speak up, to oppose, to dismantle "Rape Culture".

Something is deeply flawed in that logic.


Why do these rants always eventually try to shine a light on sexist jokes or objectification? Is that the true goal here? To eradicate jokes about women and get rid of adverts with sexy ladies in them?

If we can somehow link the lady on TV, making a load of cash from using her body to sell products, to rape then we can put her out of a job and replace her with an "average" woman right?

When things like jokes or objectification get brought up in these talks I begin to wonder if this isn't all a way for women to do battle with each other. Using the specter of the ultimate taboo, rape, as a weapon against each other?

Hasn't there always been some kind of secret battle between the "hot" girls and the "ordinary" girls? Or is that just a lazy stereotype?

If a woman eats well, goes to the gym, gets some cosmetic surgery and gets an agent to tout her to advertising companies then she may well find herself in a high paying job. Accuse those companies of perpetuating Rape Culture by employing her and we can get her off our screens and replace her with someone more "average", right?

Honestly, just like Computer Games and Violent Crimes, I am not seeing the links between Jokes, Objectification and Rape. I am not even seeing an effort to prove that those links exist.

It's simply stated as fact and, because the subject is Rape, nobody wants to be seen as the @$$hole who tells a rape victim, to their face, that their hypothesis is utter nonsense.

Wibbs

orubiru wrote: »

It's simply stated as fact and, because the subject is Rape, nobody wants to be seen as the @$$hole who tells a rape victim, to their face, that their hypothesis is utter nonsense.

Yep O, that is all too often the case. Hell one of the commenters regurgitates that old saw of "1 in 4 Irish women are raped". That nonsense is believed by too many. I have certainly zero problem calling bull on that and showing why it's bull too.

tritium

orubiru wrote: »

Why do these rants always eventually try to shine a light on sexist jokes or objectification? Is that the true goal here? To eradicate jokes about women and get rid of adverts with sexy ladies in them?

If we can somehow link the lady on TV, making a load of cash from using her body to sell products, to rape then we can put her out of a job and replace her with an "average" woman right?

When things like jokes or objectification get brought up in these talks I begin to wonder if this isn't all a way for women to do battle with each other. Using the specter of the ultimate taboo, rape, as a weapon against each other?
.......
.........

Honestly, just like Computer Games and Violent Crimes, I am not seeing the links between Jokes, Objectification and Rape. I am not even seeing an effort to prove that those links exist.

It's simply stated as fact and, because the subject is Rape, nobody wants to be seen as the @$$hole who tells a rape victim, to their face, that their hypothesis is utter nonsense.

Pretty much spot on. The only purpose of these statements is to convince people that rape culture exists. Not to prove, just to convince. Proving involves dealing with the uncomfortable evidence that you may be wrong and hence is avoided.

And yes its utter nonsense. Usually backed with an appeal to emotion rather than fact. The opening lines of the article are a fine example if this -" I'm a victim, here's my experience now don't question my bona fides because I represent all women...". With respect to victims of physical and sexual crime everywhere there's something a little distasteful about enumerating your victimhood to push an agenda that can't stand on its own merits.

The Black Oil

Louise O' Neill's book Asking for It is coming to the small screen.

I can see how it might work in that format. According to the link, O' Neill will be co-writing the script. They'd need a few episodes to get the story across, really. Plenty more column inches to come from this one once it airs.

orubiru

The Black Oil wrote: »

Louise O' Neill's book Asking for It is coming to the small screen.

I can see how it might work in that format. According to the link, O' Neill will be co-writing the script. They'd need a few episodes to get the story across, really. Plenty more column inches to come from this one once it airs.

I honestly think that the sensitivity of the subject prevents people from having really constructive conversations about it.

For example, the idea that "we do nothing to stop it" seems a bit false. What can you really say to challenge that idea without finding yourself accused of being a rape apologist or something like that?

Another example, when she says "rape culture" I really wonder if she's referring to "lad culture" as a lot of these kind of stories seem to involve high school or college lads and lots of alcohol. Like there is a real effort made to demonize those boys or to create the impression that a woman crossing a 21st century western university campus at night is putting herself in immediate danger.

Even here, this story is fictional and the writer is pushing a really, really, obvious agenda. Yet, there seems to be no room AT ALL for conflicting or dissenting views.

Nobody speaks up because the subject is too sensitive. How dare you question someones "lived experience". I can agree to a point. It's not appropriate to get up on your soapbox and start ranting when someone is, on the surface, really only saying "rape is more common than we should all be comfortable with, it's a problem and we need to do something stop it". However, when there is some really twisted and poisonous rhetoric hidden behind those good intentions, what can you do? How do you oppose it?

I doesn't matter how you try to rephrase it or present it, the basic message here is "teach men not to rape".

I can't imagine anyone questioning whether or not stopping rape is a good thing. However, the problem is that we are stopping people from questioning whether the solutions proposed, and the rhetoric spouted, are actually helpful at all. What if they do more harm than good?

Herd the men into a room and give them consent classes. OK, now what? Should it be mandatory? Will it work? Does it work? Has it worked? What do we do if it doesn't work?

The problem with "lets get people talking about it" assumes that the average person can understand the mind of a rapist. Or even to just understand the mind of someone who doesn't grasp, or care about, the concept of consent.

Ever been standing in line for the bus only to have some moron walk straight up to the front of the line? What the hell are they thinking? Why would they do that? Will we ever be able to understand? Is the key to stopping it as simple as "teach people not to jump the queue"? I doubt it.

So actually what happens is you get people who aren't really qualified to comment on the subject of rape or consent coming to the forefront and presenting their views without any challenge. In fact, challengers are shouted down or branded or shamed into silence.

The unfortunate side effect of "teach men not to rape" is that we teach girls they shouldn't need to protect themselves and so we leave them vulnerable to people who either don't want to be taught or who just can't learn. As long as "victim blaming" is taboo you are really only dealing with one aspect of the problem.

Really we are allowing people who can't learn, or don't want to learn, to fall through the cracks. Then we're willfully turning a blind eye to the fact that the only way to stop those ones is to start looking for ways that victims could have better protected themselves and use that knowledge to teach people how to protect themselves.

What happens in 50 or 100 years when it's obvious that consent classes aren't working? We just keep women indoors? Keep them covered from head to toe when out in public? Maybe they can't be out alone with men who aren't family?

There has to be a middle ground here. Some way we can say OK let's start giving kids proper education on sex, consent and all the other related issues and also teach them that getting blind drunk at a party and trying to stagger home alone might just be an incredibly reckless thing to do.

All of that is just dealing with prevention, really. How do we "root out the cause, burn the disease at its very core" when we don't even really know what the root cause(s) might be? There's a lot of talk about "sexist jokes" or "objectification" and I get the increasing feeling that "rape culture" is just a really dishonest and nasty way of saying "lad culture". Are these really the root causes?

If we remove all jokes about women from TV and stop images of fake boobs in bikinis from being seen can we really expect to stop, for example, young lads who are abused at home from growing up to be dysfunctional members of society?

The Black Oil

I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't know if it's all down to sensitivity, though what I'm about to post about Stephen Fry might say otherwise. Anyway, part of the problem, as you allude to, is the SJW end of the spectrum and its intolerance towards alternate views. On women protecting themselves, this is usually seen as a no go owing to victim blaming. Perhaps that needs to be flipped to assertiveness skills, along with other tools to tackle the issue. Assertiveness shouldn't offend anyone, right?

Meanwhile, Fry has caused offence.

The mental health charity Mind has criticised its president, Stephen Fry, for comments suggesting he had no sympathy for child abuse victims’ “self-pity” if it meant restricting free speech.

Fry, who quit Twitter earlier this year after a backlash over a joke he made at the Baftas, was speaking to the US TV show The Rubin Report about campus free speech, safe spaces and trigger warnings on literature.

“In terms of how they think, they can’t bear complexity. The idea that things aren’t easy to understand,” said Fry, who has spoken openly in the past of his own mental illness. “They want to be told, or they want to be able to decide and say, ‘This is good and this is bad,’ and anything that conflicts with that is not to be borne.”

Using child sex abuse as an example, Fry said people who wanted warnings on disturbing texts needed to grow up.

“There are many great plays which contain rapes, and the word rape now is even considered a rape,” he said. “If you say: ‘you can’t watch this play, you can’t watch Titus Andronicus, or you can’t read it in a Shakespeare class, or you can’t read Macbeth because it’s got children being killed in it, it might trigger something when you were young that upset you once, because uncle touched you in a nasty place’, well I’m sorry.

“It’s a great shame and we’re all very sorry that your uncle touched you in that nasty place, you get some of my sympathy, but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity.

“Get rid of it, because no one’s going to like you if you feel sorry for yourself. The irony is we’ll feel sorry for you, if you stop feeling sorry for yourself. Just grow up.”

I saw this interview at the weekend, before it blew up online. Fry's always had that mixture of seriousness and mixing things up a bit, but I don't think he's an arsehole or an unthinking person.

The “It’s a great shame and we’re all very sorry that your uncle touched you in that nasty place, you get some of my sympathy, but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity" remark is a little on the cheap side, but when I watched the clip originally, it didn't seem like to me he was equating sexual abuse with self-pity. I'm bound to say that, as a man, though, right? He has spoken before about his depression its ugliness being caught up in some self-pity, which may be where he's coming from. I think also his broader point was about the culture of students at university level (not ones who've been raped) and their clamour to flag anything they don't like as problematic.

Original video below. If you don't know Dave Rubin, he's formerly of The Young Turks, iirc, part of why he exited them is owing to their style (maybe too PC). It's quite a short interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJQHakkViPo

An here's an open letter to the Irish Times.

For one, I agree with your sentiment about the permanently outraged brigade. You’re right, people are too easily offended these days. It seems to enliven them and give them a sense of purpose, to puff their chests in indignation over everything. The sceptre of political correctness has lynched the beating heart out of many vital things: a healthy debate. Humour. Wit. Frank discussion. Twitter used to be a hotbed of roiling, meaty and uncensored talk, and like you, I miss those salad days, too.

But let me tell you about ‘trigger words’, and why they are necessary; for some, a necessary evil, in modern society. After a trauma – and most of the world agrees, sexual abuse would be classified as such – the brain often attempts to suppress the memory. It’s a survival mechanism. When those thoughts and feelings are recalled, unbidden, by outside forces, it can lead to confusion, hurt, upset: in some cases, an experience of revictimisation. I don’t make the rules here, and neither, really, does society. This is simply how the brain works. But surely you wouldn’t want to use a certain type of word, or phrase, if you thought it would genuinely hurt someone? Surely that’s just empathy, plain and simple, and not ‘political correctness gone mad’?

Whatever about the use of the word ‘rape’ – and in today’s society, the word is so ubiquitous that we’re beyond talk of ‘triggering’ – your comments about abuse victims as self-pitying, and needing to ‘grow up’ are craven. A stunningly callous sentiment, and one I admit I was surprised to hear from someone who often wakes up to a battle-cry from their own brain. Perhaps it’s because you have been so articulate on mental health that makes your observations all the more shocking. When you know how unforgiving and downright malevolent one’s inner critic can be, how lost one’s inner child can get while negotiating the complexities of adulthood, where does this ‘yeah yeah, get over it’ sentiment come from?

I know this from first-hand experience. I was raped when I was seven years old: just the once, by an opportunistic family friend. My complex, beautiful, hard-working brain worked overtime to suppress and negotiate the memory, and it made for difficulties and a frankly exhausting fallout much later down the line.

I am a victim/survivor/delate as appropriate and add your own inoffensive word of choice here, of sexual abuse. Screw self-pity; I use the term ‘victim’. You may hate that. It may reek of misery. But what happened was not my fault. And some days I am nobody’s version of a survivor. And the shadow of childhood rape is long and ceaseless.

~

And of course, there are the moments where I’m told to ‘snap out of it’ as an adult. No need to bang on about it, as you might offer. Trust me Stephen, society does a rather stellar job of prompting me to snap out of it already without your needling input. Some months ago, I decided to investigate the possibility of reporting the rape. It’s not that it never occurred to me not to down the years, but society doesn’t make it easy on victims who report rape, as I’m sure you’re acutely aware. In fact, the numbers who report historic rape cases are perilously low; around 25 per cent go through with the process after making an initial inquiry about how to report one. And because the perpetrator has a constitutional right to a good name right up to conviction, I’ve been informed by experts that victims of historic abuse run a high risk of being retraumatised. The process is not victim-friendly, I’ve been warned repeatedly, by those whose job it is to facilitate victims of rape and abuse. Have you any idea what it’s like to come up against a system like that?

We need a debate that gives a space to rape victims, clearly. We need a debate that calls out the regressive left owing to its creeping influence in colleges. Why can't we do all of that?

smash

I haven't read this thread, but the AH thread about legalising prostitution made me think about it. Maybe I'm way off in my views of prostitution but the whole area of consent just seems way off and falls more in to the area of coercion when I think about it. And then the more I think about it, it's all very rapey.

I mean, there's men who will see a woman who would under normal circumstance be unattainable but who they can pay to have sex with them. There's a power trip there, and there's coercion through financial gain. I'll add that the men usually couldn't care about the possibility of the situation which has placed the girl there to become a sex worker. Obviously the woman is consenting to the act, but only upon condition of payment. And sometimes under duress.

I don't know, I've never rented a hooker as I've never felt the need to, and I never will. Am I way off in how I'm viewing it?

mzungu

orubiru wrote: »

For example, the idea that "we do nothing to stop it" seems a bit false. What can you really say to challenge that idea without finding yourself accused of being a rape apologist or something like that?

This is my problem with the treatment of rape within Irish media. It is pretty much operates under the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" line of questioning. What I fail to get my head around is why the parameters of the debate around sensitive issues such as this, are being dictated by those with obvious axes to grind.

It does neither side any good.

The Black Oil wrote: »

We need a debate that gives a space to rape victims, clearly. We need a debate that calls out the regressive left owing to its creeping influence in colleges. Why can't we do all of that?

A good point, to which I say that this needs to be spearheaded by medical professionals, counselors etc. This would ensure a calm mannered approach to the topic. Hopefully that might see a more mature discussion emerging and put an end to loaded terms such as 'rape culture' being bandied about on clickbait articles in The Guardian.

orubiru

The Black Oil wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't know if it's all down to sensitivity, though what I'm about to post about Stephen Fry might say otherwise. Anyway, part of the problem, as you allude to, is the SJW end of the spectrum and its intolerance towards alternate views. On women protecting themselves, this is usually seen as a no go owing to victim blaming. Perhaps that needs to be flipped to assertiveness skills, along with other tools to tackle the issue. Assertiveness shouldn't offend anyone, right?

Meanwhile, Fry has caused offence.

I saw this interview at the weekend, before it blew up online. Fry's always had that mixture of seriousness and mixing things up a bit, but I don't think he's an arsehole or an unthinking person.

The “It’s a great shame and we’re all very sorry that your uncle touched you in that nasty place, you get some of my sympathy, but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity" remark is a little on the cheap side, but when I watched the clip originally, it didn't seem like to me he was equating sexual abuse with self-pity. I'm bound to say that, as a man, though, right? He has spoken before about his depression its ugliness being caught up in some self-pity, which may be where he's coming from. I think also his broader point was about the culture of students at university level (not ones who've been raped) and their clamour to flag anything they don't like as problematic.

Original video below. If you don't know Dave Rubin, he's formerly of The Young Turks, iirc, part of why he exited them is owing to their style (maybe too PC). It's quite a short interview.

We need a debate that gives a space to rape victims, clearly. We need a debate that calls out the regressive left owing to its creeping influence in colleges. Why can't we do all of that?

I think we can't do it, or we won't do it, because people often refuse to approach the subject honestly.

I saw the Stephen Fry thing to and the backlash appears to be along the lines of "Stephen Fry tells abuse victims to grow up" and if we are being honest here that's not REALLY what he said at all.

So you have to wonder if the people stirring up this outrage are doing so with full knowledge that they are misrepresenting the situation.

The whole thing comes across as more of an attack on Stephen Fry than any kind of concern for victims or any kind of attempt to understand the actual point he is making. It's simply "How dare you say this! Apologize right this instant!". I see that he has apologized now.

There was never any debate there because people were not honest about what Fry was really saying from the start.


In the other article you linked Louise O'Neill says "Because what happened to her is real, it occurs every day, to millions of women (and men) all over the world, and we do nothing to stop it."

Now, this "we do nothing to stop it" is quite obviously false. Not only that, it's quite a controversial thing to say. It seems like the most natural thing in the world for people to say "hang on a minute...".

This is a very serious and important subject and Louise O'Neill is a very prominent and vocal figure in the discussion. Yet, her starting point is an obvious falsehood. "We do nothing to stop it". Come on. NOTHING? Is she serious?

Personally, I refuse to believe that she is blissfully unaware that what she is saying is wrong.

The problem is that once it has been said you can't really move forward in the discussion until you've kind of cleared up that point and if she would refuse to concede that she is totally wrong there then you get stuck in an argument rather than a discussion.

This is what happens on all sides of this particular conversation. So, again, there is no debate.

You shouldn't kick off a debate on such a serious topic by approaching it from a place of dishonesty. The end result is just a shouting match and that's really what we have right now.


For the most widespread example of this. I would look at the way Feminist types are incredulous that someone would use "Not All Men" as a defense or a counter argument.

If your starting off point in any debate is wide open to the response "not all men" then you are most likely starting from a position that does not reflect reality.

After a certain period of time they must surely know that conversations like "we need to examine how Men treat Women" can't go anywhere because the groupings "Men" and "Women" are so diverse that they simply cannot be generalized. If they generalize then it's blatantly obvious that the points will be instantly contradicted.

Yet, instead of understanding this obvious flaw in their logic, Feminists simply try to turn "Not All Men" into a taboo phrase. So now you can be summarily dismissed for pointing out the flaws in their logic.

The "discussion" ends up filled with phrases and buzzwords that are designed specifically to sneak around objections by making some perfectly valid objections seem malicious.

The video below, for me, represents everything that is wrong in this "debate".

It's an appeal to emotion and it lacks any real substance.

Did the creators of the video know full well that there is no proof of causation between "sexist jokes and insults" and sexual assault or domestic violence and decided to just run with it anyway?

There is some level of dishonesty here. It's plain to see and we should really all be suspicious of it.

In this case, are we looking at a genuine attempt to put an end to sexual assault, rape, domestic violence etc or are we looking at a hit piece on men and boys?

At best it's just wild speculation presented in a highly polished, professional, way that lends it some level of legitimacy. Do they sit there saying "well we know this is total BS but let's try to convince them to believe it anyway"?

Worse, what if man hating nonsense like "Dear Daddy" actually perpetuates, or even creates, Rape Culture?

Is it valid to ask the same questions of Louise O'Neill? Is she genuinely interested in solving the problem? If so then why approach it from a disingenuous starting point like "we do nothing to stop it"?

"We do nothing to stop it" creates the impression that you have all of these lads rampaging through society, destroying lives, giving each other high fives while the rest of us just say "meh, boys will be boys". It's not an honest portrayal of reality. Is she doing that deliberately?

I can see a logic behind being disingenuous if your goal is to demonize university and college lads, or "lad culture", because you simply just don't like them or maybe outright hate them. You tell lies about them because the truth that most of these lads never hurt anyone, and never will, is so boring and mundane. It's rather difficult to make waves with boring and mundane.

I don't understand why you'd want, or need, to be dishonest when your goal is simply to stop rape or sexual assault.

Even if you just want to see better and more competent education on sex and consent at secondary school level then you don't have to kick it off with lies, right?

If tactic for starting debate is "I'll state some obvious falsehoods and then get up in the face of anyone who dares question me" then I don't really see how the problem ever gets solved. That's not really even a debate.

Often people who see themselves as "controversial" are really just dishonest and disingenuous. They probably know that's what they are.

I'd argue that publicly being a controversial Feminist really just opens the door for controversial "anti-feminists" to step up and then all the general public can do is sit back and watch the drama unfold. Two sides lying about each other non-stop and getting nothing done.

The whole conversation needs more honesty and less rhetoric. From all I've seen so far, Louise O'Neill is all about the rhetoric. She becomes a champion for people with an axe to grind and in doing so she makes a bit of money but does she actually get anything done in terms of solving these societal problems?

Getting people talking doesn't solve the problem if the conversation has us looking in the wrong place for a solution. I wonder if they ever even think of that?

LostinBlanch

Here's an article on the feminising of the justice system in the UK and how the authorities are downplaying the presumption of innocence and the belief that criminal accusations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt using fair procedures.

Having once been deplorably insensitive to the problems that rape victims face, I believe that our criminal justice system has swung too far the other way. It now assumes that an accusation by a woman is tantamount to proof of guilt.

Even worse, it has encouraged sharp tactics on the part of the police and the CPS who are keen to have a more positive image as being tough on sex offenders and winning more successful prosecutions.

The Black Oil

mzungu wrote: »

A good point, to which I say that this needs to be spearheaded by medical professionals, counselors etc. This would ensure a calm mannered approach to the topic. Hopefully that might see a more mature discussion emerging and put an end to loaded terms such as 'rape culture' being bandied about on clickbait articles in The Guardian.

The mainstream media, and I'm thinking of broadcast in particular because of its reach, needs to do a better job of not pandering to columnists. As you allude to, the debate format should be primarily expert centred (and the lived experience too because personal stories can be hugely valuable just like in mental health), not just narrative driven.

As for Stephen Fry, I found it interesting that a couple of the responses found it necessary to have a go at him in their opening paragraphs, one calling him 'thesaurus clutching', or similar. Not a way to strengthen your argument, imo.

I've just picked up Stopping Rape: Towards a Comprehensive Policy on Kindle, so I'll see if it has any suggestions or points not addressed by columinists.

Below is an Intelligence Squared debate from last September re assaults on college campuses. I might grab the podcast version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8VYE9IyZXM

The Black Oil

I listened to the podcast version of that debate. There's a bunch of stuff I don't understand about the US legal system such as title IX and so forth. The motion, "Courts, Not Campuses, Should Decide Sexual Assault Cases" was lost, in the end. Don't think that's terribly surprising and it felt a little condensed in podcast form, tbh.

I've read one chapter of Stopping Rape: Towards a Comprehensive Policy. It starts with: 'Rape shatters lives. Its traumatising effects can linger for many years after the immediate pain and suffering. Rape is a consequence and cause of gender inequality.'

Knowing today's online world, such sentiments, the second sentence, are likely to get some men's backs up right from the get go, because any talk of equality or inequality is a turn off. A shame, really.

It points to the following points that can address and prevent rape:

• Strategic planning and co-ordination - e.g. national action plans, specialist expertise
• Co-ordination of service provision, specialised services for victims/survivors
• Research, data and statistics
• Deepening gendered democracy
• Reducing gender imbalance
• Law and criminal justice
• Conflict zones
• Culture, media and education (here is the only reference to 'rape culture', so far.
• Overall violence reduction
• Supporting victims
• Changes in culture, norms and attitudes
• A more developed model/theory of gender based violence

At one point, it says effective policy requires 'gender experts', whatever they are...Still, I'm fairly confident it'll be a good book, overall.

It also cites a British Crime Survey stating that a significant portion of rapes are by partners and former partners. I guess that's not too surprising, really.

WinnyThePoo

Discussion on rape and consent on the Pat Kenny show on newstalk happening. Near the start of the show if anyone wants to listen later.

LostinBlanch

I just saw this on Reddit.

Basically a guy and girl engage in consensual sex, another girl finds out the next morning and surmises that because they guy is a prominent football player she's been raped and reports that to the University Authorities who then suspended him despite her saying that the sex was consensual.

This is going to a federal law suit. His lawyer states

In the federal lawsuit Neal is suing not only CSU-Pueblo, but also the U.S. Department of Education for its Title IX process.

“CSU-Pueblo has violated my client’s due process rights and engaged in gender discrimination in his wrongful suspension,” said Neal’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg. “There’s a mountain of evidence to prove my client’s relationship with the alleged victim was entirely consensual, including statements from the alleged victim herself.”

smash

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I just saw this on Reddit.

Basically a guy and girl engage in consensual sex, another girl finds out the next morning and surmises that because they guy is a prominent football player she's been raped and reports that to the University Authorities who then suspended him despite her saying that the sex was consensual.

This is going to a federal law suit. His lawyer states

How the????

ivytwine

The girl stirring **** should be tossed in jail for a long long time.

I'm a woman, I've been a victim of sexual assault, and she makes me sick. That poor man.

The Black Oil

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Discussion on rape and consent on the Pat Kenny show on newstalk happening. Near the start of the show if anyone wants to listen later.

Panel with Colm O' Gorman, Fergal Rooney, counselling psychologist, Ellen O'Malley Dunlop, former CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre, Martina Devlin from the Indo.

https://twitter.com/PatKennyNT/status/722746790198538240

https://twitter.com/PatKennyNT/status/722718350300880896

https://twitter.com/PatKennyNT/status/722717838595780608

Blanket statements - productive, as always.

The Black Oil

A listener, Paul, sent in a text about how his male friends felt they had been put in a situation where they'd not given consent. Martina Devlin dismissed this as a wind up, telling him to 'behave himself' and 'shame on you, get back to work'.

WinnyThePoo

She didn't really add anything progressive towards the talk . Buzzwords and anger was her mo.

smash

Why does it feel like we're moving towards a society where sexual acts must only be participated in while sober, after both parties have consulted with a solicitor? And where there's also a need for a follow up sign off when you're finished.

orubiru

smash wrote: »

Why does it feel like we're moving towards a society where sexual acts must only be participated in while sober, after both parties have consulted with a solicitor? And where there's also a need for a follow up sign off when you're finished.

I have a lot of "Tin Foil Hat" thoughts on this but basically it feels like there is a push to control how people behave or think. I wonder about the kind of people who are most vocal about these things and why they have such a big desire to get involved in other people's lives. What's the end game here? To stop the popular girls and the popular guys from hooking up in college?

Consent is a fairly easy thing to grasp for most normal people but there is a definite push to publicly examine the specific minor details of people's private sex lives so "we" can all decide if your sex is morally correct.

Oh, so you slept with the popular girl in your college course last weekend? Exactly how much did she have to drink, hm?
Did you get enthusiastic consent? What was said EXACTLY?
Did you take pictures, make a video? Have you deleted the files?
Did you change positions? Did she consent to each change, what was said EXACTLY?
Tell us every detail and then we'll decide your fate...

It's gross AND it assumes that the girl has no agency of her own. The campus feminists have to step in and audit her sex life to be 100% sure that no rules and guidelines have been broken.

If you think about the example of a successful football player in university then you'll know that this is likely to be a smart, well educated, relatively wealthy, successful, healthy and fit guy. For most straight women I'd imagine he's a desirable guy. Others, who can't have that, will be insanely jealous though.

When it gets to the point where a guy and a girl have consensual sex but the girls "friend" reports the guy to the authorities and effectively ruins his life then you are at the point where university men are going to stay well clear of the women.

Can you imagine being a lad between 18 and 21 years old, you meet a girl you like and she's really into you, you sleep together and then you find yourself kicked out of university the next day because her friend accused you of rape? The girl you slept with says "it was consensual, I really like him" but the University still kicks you out?

Honestly, I'd say most guys are absolutely terrified of being falsely accused. Maybe they should be. There are certain groups out there really driving that fear and using it to apply pressure. Is the end result a sterilised campus environment where everyone just keeps themselves to themselves? Except for a select few who can have their protests or dictate policy without ever being questioned. Oh, and those select few also have the power to make accusations that can ruin lives.

I think about that Blurred Lines song that got banned on a lot of campuses. Probably there was once a time when enjoying songs with "controversial lyrics" would be standard fare for kids in colleges and universities. I am also sure that anyone who's been to a nightclub, or a party with a dancefloor, knows that when the popular song of the day comes on all the hot people will be up there grinding against each other in all the various combinations. Basically having the time of their lives.

I suppose my accusation is that certain unpopular types sit on the sidelines wondering if there's a way to put a stop to all of this. If they could just stop the popular girls and the popular guys from being so into each other, right? Maybe "heteronormativity" is actually oppressive, or maybe "cis gendered" people have too much power and too much privilege. It's easy to do this on a university campus where people are afraid because they actually have something to lose. The universities seem happy enough to kick people out when an accusation is made against them.

Maybe each student needs to have a Scientology-esque auditing session once a month? Maybe students should report for a quarterly Privilege Check? Bless me Feminism, for I have sinned, it's been 2 weeks since my last confession...

Maguined

smash wrote: »

Why does it feel like we're moving towards a society where sexual acts must only be participated in while sober, after both parties have consulted with a solicitor? And where there's also a need for a follow up sign off when you're finished.

Well that's why they made an app for consent.

I think it is a broader issue that is suggesting people should have less and less accountability or responsibility in their lives. It is always someone elses fault.

smash

orubiru wrote: »

Consent is a fairly easy thing to grasp for most normal people but there is a definite push to publicly examine the specific minor details of people's private sex lives so "we" can all decide if your sex is morally correct.

You'd assume it is, but assumptions are dangerous. In something I watched the other night there was a discussion about consent and a scenario arose:

Boy A is horny, Girl B isn't and does not give consent. Then after a bit of kissing she gets horny and gives consent. This can be classed as coercion from Boy A.

WTF like?

BoatMad

IN Russia , dash cams are common to ensure that in an accident a independant view of what happened can be put forward

I sometime think men need dash cams in relationships these days

orubiru

smash wrote: »

You'd assume it is, but assumptions are dangerous. In something I watched the other night there was a discussion about consent and a scenario arose:

Boy A is horny, Girl B isn't and does not give consent. Then after a bit of kissing she gets horny and gives consent. This can be classed as coercion from Boy A.

WTF like?

Yeah, the troubling thing is that if you can reasonably argue that convincing or persuading someone to do something is "coercion" then people are afraid around each other.

If Girl B says "sure, eventually I gave consent there" then that should be the end of it. If third parties are allowed to come in and twist the story then that's not good.

What if the guy makes a move and she says "no" and he does that pick up artist routine of pretending he's not interested in her until she makes a move on him?

It could easily be described as manipulation. Well, it really is manipulation when you look at it.

What happens when a guy, or a girl, sits down with their partner after a month of not having sex and says that if things don't improve in the bedroom then the relationship may be in danger? If they have sex within a few days of that conversation, is it coercion? Or is it a wake up call to save the relationship?

Again, it's OK if the two people involved say what happened is all fine. If you have people outside the relationship trying to step in there, it's a problem.

How far should it go? I go on a date and pay for dinner, drinks and a taxi home. At home I ask her if she is OK with everything. I make sure I have ongoing enthusiastic consent. Should I double check that she isn't just giving consent because she feels obligated to, on account of my paying for the food etc?

How does a feminist deal with a hypothetical situation where a woman says "well I gave him consent, yes, but that's only because I felt an obligation. You see, he's a great guy and I didn't want to disappoint him or lose him"?

What if the consent is given because the woman feels obligated, or because she might be denied some other thing if there's no sex, but the guy is actually not aware of that and thinks she is just consenting because she wants to?

Obviously, it's a bit of a slippery slop fallacy but once in a while there is a story that makes you wonder how far they will really go with this.

mzungu

orubiru wrote: »

Maybe each student needs to have a Scientology-esque auditing session once a month? Maybe students should report for a quarterly Privilege Check? Bless me Feminism, for I have sinned, it's been 2 weeks since my last confession...

Close enough to the truth. This unhealthy desire to control the sex lives of others has a lot in common with the old days of Catholicism. Although, if memory serves, Catholicism would most likely be a 'trigger' word to these self righteous numpties on college campuses. The more I read about this stuff thats happening in US colleges (and starting to happen here), the more utterly depressing it becomes.

To be honest, in general I find the whole idea of people being preoccupied with the sex lives of others, to be utterly creepy.

mzungu

smash wrote: »

You'd assume it is, but assumptions are dangerous. In something I watched the other night there was a discussion about consent and a scenario arose:

Boy A is horny, Girl B isn't and does not give consent. Then after a bit of kissing she gets horny and gives consent. This can be classed as coercion from Boy A.

WTF like?

Things are now being taken to ridiculous extremes. I mean, what is it going to take to prove consent? Jesus like, at this rate the act of having sex will become a once off ceremony that has to be witnessed by friends, relatives and lawyers .... you know...just to make absolutely sure nobody took advantage of the other.

newport2

smash wrote: »

You'd assume it is, but assumptions are dangerous. In something I watched the other night there was a discussion about consent and a scenario arose:

Boy A is horny, Girl B isn't and does not give consent. Then after a bit of kissing she gets horny and gives consent. This can be classed as coercion from Boy A.

WTF like?

FFS. That's not coercion, that's turning someone on. If Boy A is not horny and Girl B whips her top off, is that coercion? Ridiculous and they'll end up undermining themselves.