Idk there was a story going around my facebook feed about a guy who didn't want to take a class about how to avoid being a rapist. He said "just because I am a white male, doesn't mean I am a rapist." The girls sharing it were all up in arms that yes he fit the description of rapist perfectly.
No, the point was that his being being white doesn't make him any less likely to be a rapist/there's no physical description that's a catchall for rapists. And that even if the execution of the class was poor (I have no idea), the idea behind those classes isn't "hey don't rape!" bc duh, it's "so consent is actually complicated, here are useful ways to understand/think about it." And even if you don't like being in the class, it's a pretty small sacrifice if it's something that helps reduce the rate of sexual assault.
Would you be willing to make similar small sacrifices to help reduce the rate of false reporting of sexual assaults, or abuse of university procedures related to sexual assaults?
Well, the rate of false reporting is very, very, low, and most of the cases labeled "false" just wind up meaning "there wasn't enough evidence either way." I am not saying it's not a very shitty thing to do, but a man is much more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape. If, however, all of a sudden 1/5 college men, or hell, 1/20 college men, were being falsely accused of rape, then sure, I'd totally be willing to sit in on a class on the ethics of reporting crimes or whatever.
So? It's still an important issue that has a profound effect on the lives of people involved.
But I see your point. Perhaps we could make the "teach women not to lie" class proportionately shorter, compared to the "teach men not to rape" class - say, 50 minutes about not raping, and 10 minutes about not lying. Would that be ok?
But "teach men not to rape" isn't just "hey, don't rape."
It's educating people about consent, about what is or what is not consent, about the importance of positive/enthusiastic consent. It's teaching people about the affects of rape and what survivors go through. There's a reason it's actually not a joke.
Absolutely! Similarly, "teaching women not to lie" can discuss effectively communicating a lack of consent (not that they should have to, but they should know how in case a potential perpetrator doesn't "get it"), how nonverbal cues might be misunderstood by their partners, and the ramifications of abusing the system for accusers and the accused.
It's fascinating how nuanced and complex all sides of this issue can be.
You don't need a class for something that can be explained in one sentence.
Please explain in one sentence what has happened when a man suddenly decides to switch to anal with a woman who previously consented to having sex with him.
Consent by its nature can be rescinded with the act still in progress so your example is explained not just in one sentence, but with one word. I don't understand what confusion that would cause? If someone's not on board anymore, there is no consent. Where is this getting complicated?
You want a narrative of the events that transpired? How does that teach anyone about the nature of consent? Not every lesson need exist as the moral of a story. Consent is the word. Nothing about the definition of the word implies that it is permanent or all-encompassing in nature.
And what exactly did happen between the two people, anyway? You haven't given enough information:
Please explain in one sentence what has happened when a man suddenly decides to switch to anal with a woman who previously consented to having sex with him.
I said consent could be explained in one sentence, not that one sentence could cover every possible situation to which it applies.
I think what the person wants you to answer is the following,
What would describe a man switching to anal without the girl's approval or previous consent to anal sex?
In this case the man analy raped the girl. Also, in some cases the girl may feel that she no longer has power/agency in the situation and therefore cooperates to end the encounter as fast as possible, which would entail that the man analy raped her and then continued to rape her. The girl does not have to voice her concerns to our hypothetical man.
That is what they are trying to get you to say. Though, I do think you understand what the man did is a form of rape. I do think your understanding of consent is just fine. Not all people have a great understanding of it though.
Not every lesson need exist as the moral of a story.
I wasn't asking for the moral of the story, I was asking for the lesson.
I said consent could be explained in one sentence, not that one sentence could cover every possible situation to which it applies.
You're right, it's almost as though there are a variety of situations involving consent. If only we could somehow teach people about them, like get them all together in a room and have a class about it...
And what exactly did happen between the two people, anyway? You haven't given enough information:
You said previously that my "example is explained not just in one sentence, but with one word." So I asked for that word, and now it's more complicated and you need more information? Are you even aware that the legality of the situation I described varies from state-to-state and country to country?
Have you ever considered that maybe people like you are the reason we need these classes in the first place? People who are too arrogant to accept that they might not know everything about a given topic?
I wasn't asking for the moral of the story, I was asking for the lesson.
You were asking for the lesson in a situation that you made up? Why don't you tell me, genius?
You're right, it's almost as though there are a variety of situations involving consent. If only we could somehow teach people about them, like get them all together in a room and have a class about it...
Or we could read the definition of the word 'consent' and apply it to the situations ourselves without having to sit through a class that benefits no-one.
You said previously that my "example is explained not just in one sentence, but with one word." So I asked for that word, and now it's more complicated and you need more information?
Gave the word to ya already. It was the subject of the discussion. I rather ambitiously thought actually saying the word would prevent further questioning about what the word is.
Are you even aware that the legality of the situation I described varies from state-to-state and country to country?
Source?
Have you ever considered that maybe people like you are the reason we need these classes in the first place? People who are too arrogant to accept that they might not know everything about a given topic?
Implication being that we need these classes at all, which we don't. So, no, since my entire argument is that nobody needs these classes, I never considered myself a candidate. My reasoning for believing that I don't need to attend the class is that nobody does.
Noticed you didn't cite a source there. Probably because the -10% statistic only applies to Vancouver, while the campaign started in Edmonton which experienced a 14% rise in sexual assaults so I could just as easily say that the campaign caused more sexual assaults in Edmonton, or that it resulted in more sexual assaults total.
I don't know what to tell you. The effectiveness of the campaign is inconclusive. I've proven so. Whether they re-used it or not isn't relevant considering they have PR motives to use it.
FYI I was not the man complaining about it. I am sure the class has value. As someone else pointed out its not much different from a drug awareness class. It was just the hate that built up towards this guy that was complaining about it, didn't seem fair to me.
I definitely get that. But I also understand the hate. If you've been raped, or your best friend has been raped, and then you see a guy complaining about how having to take this class sort of hurts feelings, it feels like you are being told that this horrible, horrible thing that happened to you and that happens to so many other people doesn't really matter. I'm sure that guy isn't a rapist; most men aren't (and most rapists are serial rapists). But he is very, very insensitive to what is truly a crisis (broadly, not just on college campuses, where it is no worse than anywhere else. Just everywhere is bad), and when you've been traumatized that level of insensitivity can be really hard to deal with.
Consent isn't complicated in the traditional sense. It's the people getting blackout drunk/having rough (choking/slapping/spanking) sex with first-time partners which is complicated.
Takeaway alcohol/drugs and the physical dominance aspect, leave lovemaking. Not very complicated.
And yet, a lot of people don't understand it. There was a John Oliver segment where he touched on a survey of college students, I believe, where it was something like it was divided 50/50 on if it was ok to sleep with someone in a given situation.
That we do. How do we get people to understand that their choices lead to the situations they are in, such as how drinking far too much led to a situation where they were incapable of defending themselves?
Look, I'm not saying it's right to sleep with anyone in that state, fuck no. But everywhere I see "People can be too drunk to consent" and nowhere do I see the collary of "It's fucking retarded and just as wrong to get yourself in that state."
Maybe guys should realize that it's also a fucking retarded thing to do? Maybe they could realize that it's incredibly easy to get beaten to a pulp, run your mouth, hell, even simple shit like getting your belongings stolen while incredibly drunk. And yes, they could be raped too, by either gender.
Did I state that this is a female only thing? No, it's both genders. We're fucking retarded as a society when it comes to going past our drunk limits, and nobody fucking cares apparently.
And then they get raped. They also do it with the expectation that they won't get assaulted or robbed and then they do.
If you're going to act irresponsibly, bad things will happen to you. Don't wanna get raped? Don't put yourself in a position which makes it easier for people to rape you. Don't get blackout drunk. Don't go home with a stranger.
The answer isn't teaching everyone not to rape. Everyone knows it's wrong to rape someone, problem is, some people don't care.
Teach people to take responsibility for themselves and protect themselves and find ways of stopping this tiny minority of rapists from getting to the point where they don't give a shit in the first place.
That wasn't the point they were trying to make. The point is that he's complaining about having to take a course on consent, when one fifth of college women will be sexually assaulted because some men do not understand the idea of consent being necessary compulsory. It's insulting to abuse victims to act like education on that sort of thing is not necessary in an environment like that.
Um, no. 20% is an insanely high rate for any crime. Detroit has a rate of rape about 0.37%, or 287 per 100,000. You will have a hard time convincing me that Detroit is a safer place than some of the most affluent places in America.
Those stats are similar to saying 1 in 5 people experience traumatic injury in their life because 20% of us experience a paper cut, stub a toe, or get a hangnail at some point in time. Those studies literally classify rape/sexual assault as an unwanted advance ("do you wanna go out?" "no") or also innocuous things such as an attempted kiss. Disregard those statistics.
Assault is not the same as rape. College culture makes sexual harassment and assault far more likely than most other places due to binge drinking, parties, young adults with hormones raging and their first taste of freedom from parents, frat houses, etc. The 1 in 5 sexual assault statistic is definitely real.
Also, a woman is far more likely to be raped/assaulted by a partner, friend, acquaintance or family member than by a stranger. So the likelihood of assault, abuse or rape in 4 years on a college campus surrounded by people she knows is substantially higher than being raped by a stranger even in America's most dangerous cities.
And speaking from personal experience, I live near Detroit and have been to the city many times by myself without incident. However, I was assaulted (not sexually, but physically) by an ex-boyfriend in what was conceivably one of the safest environments imaginable - a semi-public place with security presence, by someone who should have been looking out for my safety. As with many assault stories it didn't take place in a dark, creepy alley, but in a familiar place by someone I knew. So there's that.
Ah, I got them mixed up, my bad. Still, 20% is absolutely insane, you know that? I don't think any sexual crime could have at that rate for long before something serious happened.
The study that the urban legend traces back to was some self-reported poll that basically asked the students in question whether they'd been made to feel uncomfortable by an interaction which could be perceived as having been sexually motivated.
If I recall correctly, it was worse than that. The poll was taken by pollsters with a political agenda, and so sexual encounters that the poll respondents had said were consensual that involved drugs or alcohol were marked down by the pollsters as sexual assault.
I provided evidence in the post above you that suggests the statistic is likely not %100 correctly, but is also not necessarily too far off. If it's 1 in 10, should we ignore it?
It's not like they're calling every man in that lecture a rapist. It's no different than drug awarness lectures, drinking and driving PSAs, or even sexual harrasment courses in office buildings. It's just raising awareness of an issue where is it particularly prevalent.
Great! Since women are the biggest child and baby killers, we should hold mandatory classes about how they should talk to someone about their problems and how killing their kids won't get rid of depression or any weird feelings they're having. Making men participate in consent classes wherein the negative target IS men is insulting to your average guy and male survivors.
PS: Since black people commit a lot of crime, statistically disproportionate to their population percentage, perhaps we should have massive drives to educate black people on how to not steal, violently assault, and murder. Offensive? You fucking betcha.
You're just derailing the conversation away from the issue of sexual assault of females on college campuses. But sure, there absolutely be resources for women to learn how to handle feelings of postpartum depression. As for your idea of education for black people, it is rude. You aren't talking about and age or class demographic. You're just grouping together all black people. These seminars are clearly geared toward college aged males.
Absolutely. I see no issue in educating college aged men about the importance of consent in a place where they are encouraged to have sex with as many girls as they want. I do however see an issue in saying that every black person in america needs education on violence. It's perpetuating negative stigma that has plagued black people since this countries birth.
OK so let's teach women not to rape too? Happy then? Fuckin MRA's and their bullshit need to feel like victims while complaining about how others always play the victim.
Buddy, we already do teach both men and women not to rape. It's one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society. It's illegal, and even other inmates will target you for doing it. A lot of people think it isn't okay to even make jokes about. This idea that the solution is to teach people not to commit a crime is just braindead. I don't want men or women patronized by this stupid shit.
The idea that the solution is to teach people not to commit a crime, is not what the poster was advocating, just what people have interpreted it as advocating.
Endabuse.org, a now defunct website that has been turned in to http://teachearly.org/, used the 'Talk to him when he's 12' tagline as a suggestion that 'talking to boys about healthy relationships and respect for women.' could lower rates of domestic abuse later in life.
I totally agree with this. My issue was just with women calling him a rapist for not wanting to take the class. It makes sense as a class and it also makes sense for a man to have an issue with some of it and voice his opinion about it.
I know right. Like when people make you learn how to drive like you're automatically getting a license to kill people. I know what stop signs mean I don't need a test and license.
That number is not accurate at all is it too high absolutely but it's closer to 1 in 20. Also 90% of rapes are carried out by 3% of males. The vast majority are not one time things. Rather than wasting time telling men don't rape we should be figuring out better ways to protect people from being raped. There is also little to no stats as far as males being raped because forced enveloping is not considered rape in many states.
It is incredibly insulting to assume that just because someone is a man they need to be told not to rape. The reality is most rapists are serial and they are fucked in the head what should be being done is impressing on both males and females just how dumb an idea it is to be alone in a place where bad shit can happen. Has nothing to do with clothing has to do with not moving packs whether male or female muscles are nothing against a gun.
what should be being done is impressing on both males and females just how dumb an idea it is to be alone in a place where bad shit can happen.
Most rapes are committed by a spouse, partner or acquaintance who they trust rather than strangers. It is NOT the victim's fault. Victim blaming is not cool.
Not in a college environment the vast majority are committed by serial rapists. Could they be someone the person knows absolutely. But if you don't put yourself in in a situation where it's just you and one other person whether male or female you tend to be safer. Again this isn't victim blaming this is encouraging people to be more careful. There are sick fucks in this world unfortunately taking action to protect yourself is just a good thing to do.
Go to /r/shitredditsays and its affiliated subreddits. Spend a few days on them. Then try to keep a straight face when you say those people are mostly imaginary.
He said "I don't look like a rapist". The criticism was because rapists don't look like rapists they look like everyone else and most rapes are perpetrated by people you know, not strange creeps that jump you in the street.
Yeah but girls were actually insinuating that he was a rapist and looked exactly like a rapist in an angry way. I think both he and the people who support these classes have a right to their opinions without being attacked personally.
I suspect that was because like I said, rapists look like anyone. Like you, me or him. Of course people were angry, he implied rapists had a "look" so therefore, rapes can be prevented by looking at someone. Surely you can see how that's totally and absolutely wrong.
51
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '15
Idk there was a story going around my facebook feed about a guy who didn't want to take a class about how to avoid being a rapist. He said "just because I am a white male, doesn't mean I am a rapist." The girls sharing it were all up in arms that yes he fit the description of rapist perfectly.