Teach Men Not to Rape

I've come across people saying things like "teach men not to rape" in response to the problem of sexual assault in America. The more I see this idea, the less I like it. I feel like it genders rape, which I don't think is the way to go when dealing with it. I think looking at it from that perspective leads to a deepening in the divide between the genders.

It is true that there is a gender disparity between victims and perpetrators of sexual assault. However, I think the way that society treats male victims likely leads to under reporting of rape for that population. I believe that certain stereotypes (such as the belief that men are highly sexually charged and cannot be raped) may also directly lead to males being victims themselves. I imagine that women still are the primary victims, but I think that focusing on female victims only is naive and leaves male victims out in the cold and further isolates them.

In order to tackle the problem of rape and sexual assault, I think problematic stereotypes on both sides need to be addressed, rather than making it a gendered problem. First, people need to be educated on what rape is - there is a lot of ignorance on general issues of consent, and many people don't know how to approach instances of sexual assault that fall outside of the stereotype of what a rape "should" look like (i.e. some people may think that someone's husband can't rape their wife because they were previously sexually intimate.) Second, harmful stereotypes for BOTH genders should be addressed i.e. refuting the stereotype that women should or are just "playing hard to get" when they refuse advances; the belief that many women are falsely reporting rape (when in reality false rape accusations happen about as frequently as false accusations of any other type of crime); the otherizing of women/men to the other gender; the false belief that men cannot be raped and that being raped is just free sex for them. Third, I think people should be more openly talking about their experiences with sexual assault and rape if they feel comfortable speaking about that aspect of their lives. I think that by giving it taboo status as a conversation topic, it partly hides these types of crimes and makes them seem less common than they really are. I also think that being unable to talk about these experiences further marginalizes victims. Being unable to talk about such a significant experience in one's life can give the impression that it is a shameful experience to have.

From the research I've read on perpetrators of sexual assault, it's not really average men that are committing these crimes most of the time. It's people that lack empathy, have negative views of or otherwise dehumanize women (the research largely focuses on male perpetrators), and have higher levels of narcissism. Most importantly, these types of people seem to have conflated power and sex in their minds. I'm not sure how to curb this type of personality development, but I don't think that simply teaching these men that rape is bad is going to be particularly effective at stopping them. These kinds of people aren't committing these acts because they don't know better; they know exactly what they're doing and don't care.

What do others think? I'd be interested in learning a more nuanced view on the subject. I am hardly an expert and don't really know what I'm talking about.

one major problem with rape in general is that the definition of what constitutes as rape is constantly changing, and in some cases is extremely unreasonable (for example in the UK some fuckwit thought it'd be smart to put into law that "yes" doesn't mean consent, and while less unreasonable than that example, the same could be said about the campus rulings in California regarding "yes means yes") so there are inconsistencies even in the definition of basic concept such as rape, consent, ect.

this is a big problem because it means we cannot properly educate people on a consistent term that protects against things that are actually "rape".

on teaching "people not to rape", ultimately people are going to rape regardless if you "teach them not to rape", we teach people not to murder, they will still murder, we teach people furiously not to steal, but many people still steal, ect. when people go and do things they will outweigh their personal benefit and ability to avoid detection over that of the possible punishment they have and therefore don't really give half of a shit if you don't want them to rape them, its the real life equivalent of saying SWIPER NO SWIPING

a better approach would probably be to address all of society on how to avoid rape; yes, its true that it is possible to still get raped even considering the best precautions but at the same time you reduce the risk of the general population by educating them how to deal with potential rapists, how to avoid rapists completely, how to detect behavior that can lead to rape, what defines rape ect.

this is how we deal with situations that are simply too dangerous, have too many consequences or unable to really pull yourself out of. we tell people to NOT go to north korea, we do not tell north korea to stop imprisoning people because they don't give a flying fuck

also i think its important to note that while you are technically considered unable to consent while intoxicated or under the use of a substance then you know whether or not what actually happened was "rape" - yes, youre not in the same mindset but at the same time there are people including myself who have had sex while under the influence of alcohol myself, and i wouldn't really consider that rape. I guess what i'm trying to say here is that you should give people as many resources as you can to understand what is and what isn't rape but also give them the choice to understand whether or not they consider that rape or not themselves, because there are always exceptions to the rule. you have to decide for yourself, is this rape or is it not rape? me drinking and then going off and having fun with my bae is hardly rape, someone spiking my drink and me passing out sure is tho

at the same token though i think that rape allegations should be kept private until a verdict is chosen; its possible that people are lying (for example its likely that at least one of the allegations against bill cosby is a lie, which is a serious problem because if people find holes in one story they will start doubting possible legit cases) and not only that but it also damages the reputation of a potentially innocent person, less so in cosby's case considering there are a lot of cases but in individual cases its a very possible option

I think educating the public is key, but as mentioned it's conflicting information that will be received, different rules, different contexts, different circumstances... It's very, very difficult to address every since situation that something may or may not be "rape". Really, it comes down to the individual to question themselves at every given moment, whether the potential aggresser be male or female; questions such as:

1) Has the person in question been drinking?
2) Does the person appear to be drugged?
3) Does the person have any mental handicaps that would prevent formal communication, which when absent can be considered an unlawful advance?
4) Is the person underaged?
5) Has the person told you verbally or with body language that they're not interested?
6) How do you feel about the situation? Does that feeling tell you that you should proceed with caution?
7) Is the person unconscious?
8) Is the person injured?

If "yes" is answered to any of these, then don't do it. Simple as that. It'll keep the good people who make bad, ill-informed decisions out of trouble. The chronic rapists, though - the ones that rape for power and to spread fear, not necessarily for lust - obviously won't be asking themselves these questions, but it might keep the good people who, again, make bad choices out of trouble.

If it doesn't feel right, or it could be misinterpreted in some way, then it's probably not right and not a good thing to do, lest you be fully prepared to accept legal consequences. And even if you think it's "all good" but the situation would be interpreted by the rest of society as bad, sleazy or wrong, then don't do it either. The jury'll probably side with what they think you "should've" realized at the time.

I have no respect for individuals who use the high-profile case of rape to acquire media attention, slander an individual to the point where it affects that person's life, or to put some in jail on person / receive a monetary sum. It's horrible, whether the victim is male or female or the person in question is male or female. You can even be found not guilty, but it'll still paint your life after-the-fact simple because you were involved in that kind of legal suit.

Also, if you as the aggresser are intoxicated and have relations with someone that is interepreted as unwarranted or unappreciated, you're still liable. At the end of the day, it was your choice to excessively drink. Even if you weren't fully aware, this choice led to others that may have resulted in extreme trauma for someone else. You're responsible for every choice that leads to this kind of perhaps involuntarily behaviour. That's why it's always important - always, always, always - for anyone and everyone to consider the consequences of every action as the consequences of further actions having resulted from that one choice is still a liability to you.

Belldandy said:

Also, if you as the aggresser are intoxicated and have relations with someone that is interepreted as unwarranted or unappreciated, you're still liable. At the end of the day, it was your choice to excessively drink. Even if you weren't fully aware, this choice led to others that may have resulted in extreme trauma for someone else. You're responsible for every choice that leads to this kind of perhaps involuntarily behaviour. That's why it's always important - always, always, always - for anyone and everyone to consider the consequences of every action as the consequences of further actions having resulted from that one choice is still a liability to you.

Click to expand...

alright I agree with most of what you said but this part kind of bugs me, what would you consider rape in this situation? sexual interaction always involves at least some involvement with another human being, and someone who is drunk/high/whatever is, in most cases, not going to be "right enough in the mind" to go fully through with actually raping someone. if you're sober and their not i can guarantee you that in most if not all cases you can get yourself away from that person because that person has a lot less stability in that state. if theyre on alcohol their movements will be inaccurate and slurred and if theyre high on weed they will also have delayed responses, allowing you to get out of there most of the time.

i'm not going to pretend that it doesn't happen or anything but i do think this is a major grey area, you basically stated that if youre intoxicated then its rape but if the perpetrator is intoxicated then theyre the rapist? what actually defines the perpetrator then? what if both of you are drunk? who then is the rapist?

just trying to get a bit more of a discussion here

in my personal opinion i think it all boils down to how you feel after the interaction. like i said before there are times where i engaged sexually with people while intoxicated but neither of us would consider it rape; of course this doesn't apply if, say their so shitfaced that they are totally passed out, but it's something to think about. but if neither party thinks its rape then it likely wasn't rape. some couples smoke marijuana before sex to try to enhance the experience for example, while legally they are raping each other they are just approaching sex differently

like i said consent seems to have some serious flaws in its definition which is why it needs to be refined to actually help people understand rape.

i do agree you should be responsible for your actions if you are drunk or high or whatever but at the same time, what actually defines rape and in those situations is that person being a rapist or are they being raped themselves?

They call me Brandon Lee said:

i do agree you should be responsible for your actions if you are drunk or high or whatever but at the same time, what actually defines rape and in those situations is that person being a rapist or are they being raped themselves?

Click to expand...

This is the grey area that constantly becomes a gender-related issue. If both male and female (for heterosexual interactions, anyway) are intoxicated, then quite honestly I think it nullifies the entire thing unless there is excessive evidence that shows that one person (or multiple if it's a gang thing) had ulterior motives before being in the situation to assault someone. Recording, testimonies (to some degree), etc. could be used to prove this.

If there is no such evidence, even if someone comes forward claiming they were assaulted while intoxicated by someone else who was also intoxicated, then I don't think a trial could ever properly solve the situation. Both parties could equally claim that there were taken advantage of while intoxicated when video or audio evidence is lacking. You'd basically be suing eachother.

The problem lies with the fact that in a male-female case, usually the female wins because of the ulterior implications - pregnancy being the main one - caused by "unwanted" sexual relations. The male is always seen as responsible and the woman is never held accountable.

In both scenarios - which is why, in my initial post, I never point out "he" or "she" but "individual" or "person" - you're responsible for your choices. If you're intoxicated and are assaulted by a perfectly coherent individual, then yes, that's assault. If you're both intoxicated, then it's a level field. If you're intoxicated and assault someone else, you're to blame. Intoxicated =\= having drank a little alcohol. You need to be inebriated past the legal limit at the time of the incident - which could be hard to prove - to be considered "intoxicated" and thus incapable of fulling resisting assault or controlling your actions.

It's all about choices. If you are under the influence of alcohol or a drug that you yourself purposefully and knowingly consumed, you have first and foremost chosen to be under that influence and assume immediate responsibility for any consequences related to that choice, whether you're male or female. If you both are under that influence and create a neutral field of "either could have been assaulted", then it needs to be acknowledge as a mistake and both parties need to move on (unless a pregnancy occurs, since now they're involved in some way for life if the child is kept).

That said, if you are intoxicated or drugged by a third party and it can be proven, then that third party becomes ultimately responsible for the actions of the victim and becomes an accessory to assault if assault in fact occurs.

People need to start assuming responsibility and the consequences of their action. Along with a lack of shame nowadays, there's a lack of owning up that particularly affects men in North American society: the benefit of the doubt in sexual assault cases is always given to the woman, which makes it that much harder to "prove" the innocence that shouldn't be proven (guilt is to be proven, not innocence) or to prove that a man was in fact assaulted by a woman.

The legal system needs to berid itself of that systematic descrimination against men in sexual assault cases and people need to start realizing that ultimately they're responsible for the choices they make. People think they can get away with anything nowadays because of system flaws. "Oh, well if they fire me, I can just sue for discrimination" or "My child fell out of this tree because I wasn't monitoring them and he broke his foot consequently; I should sue the city for planting that tree" - no, seriously, these are all cases I've heard about lately not even related to sexual assault but that tread that fine line of "I can't come to terms with my own faults, so I'll just sue someone to make me feel better about myself."

It's sick, actually.

They call me Brandon Lee said:

i'm not going to pretend that it doesn't happen or anything but i do think this is a major grey area, you basically stated that if youre intoxicated then its rape but if the perpetrator is intoxicated then theyre the rapist? what actually defines the perpetrator then? what if both of you are drunk? who then is the rapist?

Click to expand...

I've always wondered this as well. I used to smoke weed with exes and hook up, and I've had a fair few drunken hookups with people I didn't really know that neither of us would consider rape or felt harmed by. Obviously if someone is passed out, unaware of what is happening, or otherwise unresponsive to their environment it's always rape, or if someone drugs another person without their consent it is rape, or if someone is sober and goes after someone who is intoxicated it is rape, but it seems so ambiguous in some other situations. I sometimes wonder what the defining factor that leads someone to being traumatized by a drug-facilitated hook up is. My experiences with hooking up while under the influence have been pretty unambiguous - either I felt fine and comfortable the whole time and did not consider myself taken advantage of, or I was aggressively fighting back and clearly not consenting despite being inebriated which is obviously rape. Basically, in my case, the situation would've looked the same with or without drugs.

I do agree that male victims have a horrible time with the legal system. I don't think a lot of female victims have it great either though. I was treated like crap by the police because I happened to have been on drugs when I was brutally and violently raped, and they basically dismissed my case because I didn't fit the profile of a "true" victim. The detective straight up told my mother it looked like I just "enjoyed rough sex" and that he thought I was lying about being raped. My hands were black and blue from punching my assailant to try to get him to stop, and I had obvious bruises all over my body from where he hit me to get me to stop fighting back and from where he forcibly held me down to stop my struggling. I still can't believe the police treated me like that.

Magic Christmas Lights said:

I do agree that male victims have a horrible time with the legal system. I don't think a lot of female victims have it great either though. I was treated like crap by the police because I happened to have been on drugs when I was brutally and violently raped, and they basically dismissed my case because I didn't fit the profile of a "true" victim. The detective straight up told my mother it looked like I just "enjoyed rough sex" and that he thought I was lying about being raped. My hands were black and blue from punching my assailant to try to get him to stop, and I had obvious bruises all over my body from where he hit me to get me to stop fighting back and from where he forcibly held me down to stop my struggling. I still can't believe the police treated me like that.

Click to expand...

Just in relation to this, maybe why we need more education about rape and consent is to prevent prejudices in society like this from occurring. As has been mentioned in previous posts, there are a group of individuals who rape for power and therefore rape, like other crimes, will still occur regardless of education. However, we should be able to control our response to rape and treatment of the victims. Education on what consent is may help some of the confused perpetrators (re Belldandy's post), but surely it will improve society's treatment of victims such as in MCL's post.

The unfair bias against men in rape cases is due to gender stereotyping (i.e. lusty males, weak females), so education on this front to try to minimise the impact of these stereotypes would definitely be helpful. Sex education in schools should introduce lessons on rape and consent, but also the stereotypes of perpetrator and victim.

I feel like enhanced sexual education around the age of puberty for both genders would suffice. There should always be a definite emphasis on the concept and idea of only having sex or performing sexual acts with consent.

I refer to this video as a good explaination of consent.

[agelimit]those ready to understand what sex is about



[/agelimit]