Is rape always rape? Are men always to blame?

sillysmiles · 27-05-2013 05:03PM

I'm not sure if this has already been posted but I thought I'd link some advice for men, on how not to be a rapist.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AAvaRJUytZI/TqaY02nTiiI/AAAAAAAAAEs/m0qarRsx7gg/s1600/poster+1.jpg

27-05-2013 05:09PM

sillysmiles wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has already been posted but I thought I'd link some advice for men, on how not to be a rapist.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AAvaRJUytZI/TqaY02nTiiI/AAAAAAAAAEs/m0qarRsx7gg/s1600/poster+1.jpg

That poster is the last word in patronisation.

I know it's trying to be ironic, but it's missed the mark.

o1s1n · 27-05-2013 05:15PM

sillysmiles wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has already been posted but I thought I'd link some advice for men, on how not to be a rapist.

Thanks for that. Will definitely think twice about drugging someone now.

I am assuming because you've addressed mankind on a whole that you'll also show that to your father, brothers, nephews etc. You know, seeing as we're all rapists in the making.

jam_mac_jam · 27-05-2013 05:19PM

o1s1n wrote: »

Thanks for that. Will definitely think twice about drugging someone now.

I am assuming because you've addressed mankind on a whole that you'll also show that to your father, brothers, nephews etc. You know, seeing as we're all rapists in the making.

I think its meant to be ironic..and written in the way women are given advice

sillysmiles · 27-05-2013 05:22PM

o1s1n wrote: »

Thanks for that. Will definitely think twice about drugging someone now.

I am assuming because you've addressed mankind on a whole that you'll also show that to your father, brothers, nephews etc. You know, seeing as we're all rapists in the making.

Maybe. I maybe I wont assume that a woman didn't take the "proper precautions" before being raped.

Dravokivich · 27-05-2013 05:24PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think its meant to be ironic..and written in the way women are given advice

Like that campaign recently warning about overly posessive boyfriends? Both were ****, as in they are not providing a clear, concise and direct message to their target audience.

starling · 27-05-2013 05:24PM

Candie wrote: »

That poster is the last word in patronisation.

I know it's trying to be ironic, but it's missed the mark.

Yeah but I think the patronising tone was deliberate, like how it's pretty patronising for us to be told "Don't walk down a dark alley at night.." quite apart from the whole problem of concentrating exclusively on what women should be doing to avoid rape, a lot of the common advice implies that women are stupid and need men to tell them how to take care of themselves.

o1s1n · 27-05-2013 05:24PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think its meant to be ironic..and written in the way women are given advice

it is and it isnt.

There is most definitely a layer of man hating bile masqurading under the surface of 'irony'.

27-05-2013 05:28PM

starling wrote: »

Yeah but I think the patronising tone was deliberate, like how it's pretty patronising for us to be told "Don't walk down a dark alley at night.." quite apart from the whole problem of concentrating exclusively on what women should be doing to avoid rape, a lot of the common advice implies that women are stupid and need men to tell them how to take care of themselves.

I got that, it's not exactly subtle.

I don't think it works though. It's incredibly irritating for us to be patronised so it's just as likely to antagonise and irritate men, which is equally wrong and just makes them ignore or dismiss the message.

I think it's counter productive, but maybe I'm wrong and loads of guys will look at it and have some sort of epiphany.

I know it's trying to be ironic, but I don't think it's hitting the mark in the way it's intended to.

starling · 27-05-2013 05:30PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Like that campaign recently warning about overly posessive boyfriends? Both were ****, as in they are not providing a clear, concise and direct message to their target audience.

Well in the case of overly possessive bfs I think the problem they were trying to address was that a lot of people, especially young girls, get the notion that certain behaviours are romantic and/or proof of love, rather than warning sign that a boyfriend is potentially abusive.
The campaigns may not have been perfect but they brought certain issues into the open which are far too rarely discussed. Look at all the messages that young people get from movies, books, music, advertising etc etc and how rarely these messages are questioned.

Obliq · 27-05-2013 05:32PM

starling wrote: »

Nobody claimed that women never grope men. So what was the point of saying "But what about the menz?"

The point was that hugging someone or putting their hands on them inappropriately in a bar is not an issue of "rape culture", it is just inappropriate. Both men and women can be inappropriate and need that pointed out to them, but the fear of the potential for what else they could do is different. I am saying "what about the menz" because even though a man who might get handsey in a bar would be very unlikely (assumption here) to not stop if asked to, he is assumed to be a fella who probably (your use of words) wouldn't stop. The same does not go for women - if they behave similarly, it is not seen as threatening.

I understand as well as any woman where that fear comes from, but it's not necessarily rational to equate someone who hugs the hell out of your personal space with someone who would rape.

starling · 27-05-2013 05:33PM

o1s1n wrote: »

it is and it isnt.

There is most definitely a layer of man hating bile masqurading under the surface of 'irony'.

Please don't confuse "rapist hating" with "man hating". Very few people genuinely hate all men.
And yes there may be anger involved but I honestly think it's understandable when people get angry about the way that rape is treated especially in the US.

kunst nugget · 27-05-2013 05:33PM

o1s1n wrote: »

it is and it isnt.

There is most definitely a layer of man hating bile masqurading under the surface of 'irony'.

Ah, ffs… are you seriously getting man hate from this poster? It's a bloody joke.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2013 05:39PM

starling wrote: »

I was the one who said it was forced sexual contact. Because it is.

Leggo and his friends are laughing off the regular sexual assualt this guy practices. They are refusing to take it seriously even though they consider it a problem worth warning the girls about. They are refusing to do what they can to make this guy re-examine his actions and instead leaving it all up to the victims to stop him.

That is how rape culture works. That's what she was trying to get across to you.

Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something here, a hug is not sexual assault, it's not even a sexual thing most of the time. If its unwanted its unwanted, but that doesn't make it sexual. Again I could be missin something here but it does come across as hyperbole...

starling · 27-05-2013 05:40PM

Candie wrote: »

I got that, it's not exactly subtle.

I don't think it works though. It's incredibly irritating for us to be patronised so it's just as likely to antagonise and irritate men, which is equally wrong and just makes them ignore or dismiss the message.

I think it's counter productive, but maybe I'm wrong and loads of guys will look at it and have some sort of epiphany.

I know it's trying to be ironic, but I don't think it's hitting the mark in the way it's intended to.

Yeah sorry I didn't mean to imply that you were thick or anything. I'd be putting in an emoticon there if I were on a real computer.

I definitely see men reacting indignantly to it and dismissing it, but at the same time, I think it does get people talking about the issue of how much time we spend telling women how not to get raped versus how much time we spend getting the message across that rape is the rapist's fault and not the victim's....
I don't know if many men have had there minds changed after discussing the issue, though I have heard one or two say "actually, I hadn't thought much before about how I could be helping to make rape less common instead of just leaving it up to the victims to prevent it..."

So I guess I'd have to say that as a trigger for discussion it serves its purpose, IMHO.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2013 05:45PM

starling wrote: »

I know "men are stronger" is a generalisation, but if she was actually stronger and was preventing him from moving away, there are still things he could have done, like pointing out to the people around him that he didn't want this and that he wanted her to leave him alone. Violence is not the only way to stop it.

Let me ask you something. If the genders were reversed would you have any hesitation telling a woman to punch a guy who was groping her?

starling · 27-05-2013 05:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something here, a hug is not sexual assault, it's not even a sexual thing most of the time. If its unwanted its unwanted, but that doesn't make it sexual. Again I could be missin something here but it does come across as hyperbole...

Leggo described it as unwanted. He also said the guy does it to the girls, but he didn't say "he does it to guys too" though he is welcome to correct me on that.
The fact that he only does to women indicates there's a sexual motivation. As does the fact that he hugs them from behind. Leggo didn't describe what he does with his hands but if you hug a woman from behind your hands are going to be in front of her, where her breasts are. In that scenario if she complains about you feeling her boobs you can pretend it was an "accident" and that you were only hugging her.
Y'know, totally innocent except for the fact that you came up behind her so she couldn't see you coming and try to step away.

GalwayGuy2 · 27-05-2013 05:46PM

I think it's counter productive, but maybe I'm wrong and loads of guys will look at it and have some sort of epiphany.

I know it's trying to be ironic, but I don't think it's hitting the mark in the way it's intended to.

In my opinion, it's close to making a rape joke. And is a waste of money in whatever campaign that was.

Ah, ffs… are you seriously getting man hate from this poster? It's a bloody joke.

Isn't there a theory (which I'm not sure I believe in) that says jokes perpetuate Gender myths? Would you be okay with me telling women to get back in the kitchen, or start popping out babies?

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2013 05:51PM

Ah, yeah if the hugs are behind that's different. As for normal hugs, I'd hug family as readily as I'd bug my mates on a night out so I just thought applying a sexual element to that seemed like completely OTT hyperbole.

sillysmiles · 27-05-2013 05:54PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

In my opinion, it's close to making a rape joke. And is a waste of money in whatever campaign that was.

I disagree, I think it points out that all or most of the conversations around rape speaks to women and what checkboxes they should fulfil avoid being raped. I think the point of the poster is to shift the focus from the victim to the perpetrator.

starling · 27-05-2013 05:56PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me ask you something. If the genders were reversed would you have any hesitation telling a woman to punch a guy who was groping her?

It's the last thing I would tell her to do. If she punches him she is unlikely to seriously hurt him and very likely to make him angry.
In any discussion or class on self-defence women (and men) are always advised that the first thing you do is try to remove yourself from the situation. You shout for help, you make a lot of noise, you only fight back as a last resort.
Many rape victims say that when they knew they couldn't get away, they did not try to use violence because they knew it wouldn't work and they were afraid they would just end up getting seriously beaten, so they tried to just endure it until their rapist was finished. They should never, never be told that this was the wrong thing to do.
I certainly would never tell her that violence is the only way to stop him, as O1s1n claimed.

wonderfulname · 27-05-2013 05:58PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

The idea that someone has to physically resist or cry out to stop rape or sexual assault is damaging as well. You'd often hear about that tactic being used as a defence in trial. "Why didn't you or the 'alleged' rapist have bruises from fighting back? Why didn't you scream for help? It was obviously because you were enjoying it and it wasn't rape at all. No-one being sexually assaulted would let it happen, so it obviously didn't happen." The idea that you have to react a certain way to a rape or assault is complete rubbish.

This, a thousand times. Going off on a slight tangent but I think it's a bit of a problem with the "No means no" campaign, there should be more of an emphasis on explicit or implied consent (the former being "yes, I do want to have sex with you" and the latter being a level of engagement and enjoyment that makes that fairly bloody obvious, tbh I don't see the point without the latter). I also think that's something which should be the responsibility of everyone involved, regardless of gender, everyone is capable of overstepping boundaries, it doesn't take malicious intent.

kunst nugget · 27-05-2013 06:03PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

In my opinion, it's close to making a rape joke. And is a waste of money in whatever campaign that was.

Isn't there a theory (which I'm not sure I believe in) that says jokes perpetuate Gender myths? Would you be okay with me telling women to get back in the kitchen, or start popping out babies?

The point of the poster was to patronise men in the same manner that women are patronised in those sorts of posters. So it's attacking gender myths as much perpetuating them imo.

You can fire ahead and tell all the woman get in the kitchen jokes you want. It's not going to do anything but bore me and make the person telling them look like an asshole.

27-05-2013 06:05PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

You can fire ahead and tell all the woman get in the kitchen jokes you want. It's not going to do anything but bore me and make the person telling them look like an asshole.

I think that was GalwayGuys point, in fairness.

starling · 27-05-2013 06:10PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

there should be more of an emphasis on explicit or implied consent (the former being "yes, I do want to have sex with you" and the latter being a level of engagement and enjoyment that makes that fairly bloody obvious, tbh I don't see the point without the latter). I also think that's something which should be the responsibility of everyone involved, regardless of gender, everyone is capable of overstepping boundaries, it doesn't take malicious intent.

YES THIS
I agree that enthusiastic consent should be sought. I think the "no means no" campaign started as a means of changing the then very common misconception that sometimes women say "no" but they don't mean it.
IMO that was a product of the times; women were afraid to show too much enthusiasm because they had been brought up with the idea that they shouldn't enjoy sex, or at least they shouldn't enjoy casual, extra- or pre- marital sex. In order to avoid being judged, they felt obliged to put up some token resistance, to not be "easy".

Given that social context a lot of people genuinely had to be convinced that if a woman says no, and you don't stop, that is rape.

We should all be on the same page about that issue by now. We should be able to move on to the concept of "Don't have sex with her if she isn't enthusiastically, clearly saying she wants it" rather than "Has she clearly said no? If not, carry on"

We should, but depressingly, there are some people (thankfully, a minority) who are still not altogether clear on the whole "no" thing

Obliq · 27-05-2013 06:33PM

Considering we're only 40 years on from what I just saw on an A&A thread. In 1970.....

A woman couldn't:
Keep her job in the public service or a bank when she got married
Sit on a jury
Buy contraceptives
Drink a pint in a pub
Collect her children's allowance
Get a barring order against a violent partner
Live securely in her family home
Refuse to have sex with her husband
Choose her official place of domicile
Get the same rate for a job as a man

If in 1970, you couldn't refuse to have sex with your husband - and I also remember hearing you weren't required to enjoy it either, it's not a surprise that the focus of the campaign was on no means no, as you both say. Definitely time for it to move to "it's not consent if it's not yes", and a clearly enthusiastic yes at that.

St.Spodo · 27-05-2013 06:58PM

Rosy Posy wrote: »

No, this is bullish!t.

Rape culture is being fearful of calling a rape a rape lest you be branded a false accuser.

Rape culture is people saying it wasn't really rape because you had previously had a one night stand with the perpetrator, because you passed out drunk, because you wore short skirts, because you weren't ashamed of your sexuality.

Rape culture is the community casting aspertions on the validity of the rape because you didn't report it.

Rape culture is being told that the guy who raped you actually really liked you and wanted to be your boyfriend, as if that would make you feel better about it.

All these things happened in Ireland. If you think there's no rape culture in Ireland then you've got your head in the sand.

You put it better than I could.

leggo · 27-05-2013 07:00PM

I still can't take people seriously when they say that a hug is sexual assault. It's not a sexual act. It's not even assault (technically if you bump off someone's shoulder on a bus journey, it's assault, however to charge someone there needs to be blood or some kind of notable physical damage, bruising etc).

It's inappropriate at worst, possible cause for concern and noteworthy. But not sexual assault. That makes a mockery the gravity of sexual assault, only causes confusion for people about what does/doesn't count (a cause people recognise in a large number of cases to go unreported) and demonises men who, to date, have committed no crime. It's also defamatory to accuse someone of committing a crime so serious, given that you cannot charge someone for giving unwanted hugs. That's fact, and continuing hyperbolic and damaging rants will only lead to people discrediting any actual valid points they're making. So please, people, a bit of perspective here.

27-05-2013 07:11PM

leggo wrote: »

I still can't take people seriously when they say that a hug is sexual assault. It's not a sexual act. It's not even assault (technically if you bump off someone's shoulder on a bus journey, it's assault, however to charge someone there needs to be blood or some kind of notable physical damage, bruising etc).

AFAIK:

Assault is physical contact someone without their consent.

Leaving physical damage in the form of a bruise or leaving them bleeding, but not seriously injured is Actual Bodily Harm.

Leaving someone with injuries requiring medical attention is Grevious Bodily Harm.

Might be slightly different in ROI but that's my understanding.

You're right, a hug isn't sexual assault. An UNWANTED one may very well be.

Edit: just looked it up and they all come under the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Persons Act.

leggo · 27-05-2013 07:17PM

Candie wrote: »

AFAIK:

Assault is physical contact someone without their consent.

Leaving physical damage in the form of a bruise or leaving them bleeding, but not seriously injured is Actual Bodily Harm.

Leaving someone with injuries requiring medical attention is Grevious Bodily Harm.

Might be slightly different in ROI but that's my understanding.

You're right, a hug isn't sexual assault. An UNWANTED one may very well be.

I had to study this to get my security licence. Your definition of assault is right, but the example that I gave (bumping into a stranger on a bus, say) shows the large leeway in the law, so there must be both intent and damage to charge someone with assault. Not that this matters...a hug doesn't count either way.

Is rape always rape? Are men always to blame?

Comments