What do you do about rape?

[Archimedes]

No, pretending that anything I said presumes that people in this thread have brought that up is your attempt at a strawman.

No. I have made no attempt at any sort of a strawman. I may be wrong and I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but my post that you responded to was not any sort of "attempt" to create a strawman and I don't appreciate the accusation of dishonesty on my part.

The OP made the observation that men never think about what they would do to prevent being raped. Despite dishonest efforts by some here to draw other inferences about things with no logical relevance to the OP observations, the only thing that could be reasonably inferred from the male response in the OP scenario is that female on male rape is extremely rare.

Who is claiming that "female on male rape" is anything other than "extremely rare"? While I'm asking, why is " female on male rape" being singled out from "male on male rape" or other forms of rape that the OP specifically asked that the thread not be about?

 

[Rhea]

I wrote this on the "what do you do about murder" thread and it is equally relevant to this one.

…

An interesting thing about this thread is that some people take it as a joke, a slam. They have never once considered that any action they do can prevent a murder or other crime. Some do not think about murder or crime as being in their sphere. So it seems silly and foolish to even think about it. They picture “stopping crime” as being something one can only do during the commission of the crime. And they picture people talking about it as wannabe caped crusaders. It’s all a joke about something they don’t ever think about.

Other people think, “oh, yeah, there’s a level of public action that can reduce crime before it starts. Here’s what I’ve thought about.” Kind of in the “well-lit parking lot” sphere of actions.

Some people are the Kitty Genovese onlookers.

Some people are, yeah, violence is a thing I've always had to consider. There are very definite things that if you _ever_ forget, you are at high risk, such as Mumbles’ post.

It’s been interesting seeing all those different viewpoints collide in this thread.

In the context of this thread we can see those who think a discussion of reducing rape must only be the caped crusader type, because, what else can you do? While another group thinks, "we do stuff all the time to reduce rape, you didn't know that?"

It is indeed interesting to see the various viewpoints side by side.

For the record, the reason I put in the OP to make this about rapes of women was twofold.

1. The quote I linked was about the differences in how men and women think about the risks of rape and
2. Anything women can do to reduce rape of themselves and each other, man can do to. So talking about who is more put-upon would be a derail from the intent, which was

• A discussion of what actions are possible for people to do that can reduce the incidence of rape either to themselves or others. Specifically can men do something to reduce the rape of women even when those men are not the rapists themselves. The "well lit parking lot" mentality.

 

[doubtingt]

I wrote this on the "what do you do about murder" thread and it is equally relevant to this one.

…

An interesting thing about this thread is that some people take it as a joke, a slam. They have never once considered that any action they do can prevent a murder or other crime. Some do not think about murder or crime as being in their sphere. So it seems silly and foolish to even think about it. They picture “stopping crime” as being something one can only do during the commission of the crime. And they picture people talking about it as wannabe caped crusaders. It’s all a joke about something they don’t ever think about.

Other people think, “oh, yeah, there’s a level of public action that can reduce crime before it starts. Here’s what I’ve thought about.” Kind of in the “well-lit parking lot” sphere of actions.

Some people are the Kitty Genovese onlookers.

Some people are, yeah, violence is a thing I've always had to consider. There are very definite things that if you _ever_ forget, you are at high risk, such as Mumbles’ post.

It’s been interesting seeing all those different viewpoints collide in this thread.

In the context of this thread we can see those who think a discussion of reducing rape must only be the caped crusader type, because, what else can you do? While another group thinks, "we do stuff all the time to reduce rape, you didn't know that?"

It is indeed interesting to see the various viewpoints side by side.

For the record, the reason I put in the OP to make this about rapes of women was twofold.

1. The quote I linked was about the differences in how men and women think about the risks of rape and
2. Anything women can do to reduce rape of themselves and each other, man can do to. So talking about who is more put-upon would be a derail from the intent, which was

• A discussion of what actions are possible for people to do that can reduce the incidence of rape either to themselves or others. Specifically can men do something to reduce the rape of women even when those men are not the rapists themselves. The "well lit parking lot" mentality.

So, your entire OP was a story about people being asked "what do you to protect yourself from being raped?", and the responses by the men and women showed that everyone (both men and women) interpreted this just as intended to be about protecting only themselves and not other people. Yet your intent in posting this story was to use the men's lack of response as though they had been asked a completely different question regarding protecting women?

Like I said, most posts in this thread, including your own, have zero logical or psychological relevance to the contents of the OP. While my post may not connect with those logically irrelevant posts, it connects quite strongly with the actual OP and the minimal implications that can be drawn from the differential responses of the men and women in that scenario. So, I guess what we should do is take the OP, my post and others that respond to the actual OP contents and delete them from this thread and move them to a new one about what the OP story actually reveals.

 

[Togo]

The basic problem is that Rhea is making a different point from the article she is quoting. The two aren't really related.

The article is a call out to the well-known and often discussed phenomenon that danger of rape is something that women think about and deal with every day, and men don't.

Rhea wanted to make a different point, that men somehow don't do enough to prevent women from being raped. Unfortunately, all the actions listed in the original article are things that men can't practically do. So her original request didn't really make sense, and her strict prohibition against discussing male rape meant that no meaningful comparison could be made with the original article.

So we could discuss the article itself, which makes an interesting point. Probably best use a new thread for that.
Or we could discuss Rhea's belief that men aren't pulling their weight in rape prevention, but that would probably require some kind of example of what they could be doing, apart from discovering a rape in progress and glaring fiercely at those involved.

 

[Rhea]

The basic problem is that Rhea is making a different point from the article she is quoting. The two aren't really related.

I'm sorry this was so confusing. The segue in my head made sense. A post somewhere asks what people do to protect themselves, would it be interesting or illuminating to ask the related question, "what do we do (or can we do) to protects _others_?"

Especially, given that the answer to the first was so gender-different, but couldn't the answer to the second be more universal?

The article is a call out to the well-known and often discussed phenomenon that danger of rape is something that women think about and deal with every day, and men don't.

[...]

So we could discuss the article itself, which makes an interesting point. Probably best use a new thread for that.
Or we could discuss Rhea's belief that men aren't pulling their weight in rape prevention, but that would probably require some kind of example of what they could be doing, apart from discovering a rape in progress and glaring fiercely at those involved..

It's not my belief that "men aren't pulling their weight", I do not have data on this. It was rather a second question raised from the article - a question that wanted to know, what do people do, either men or women. maybe there is already something going on that I don't know about, I'll ask.

You'll notice I made no claim about who was doing enough. It was merely an open-ended question, "what Do You Do?" If someone interprets that to imply, "you're not doing enough" then perhaps that is a good part of the discussion - why do you infer that?

On the other hand, perhaps the results of the first article (which hasn't been proven anyway, it just made me think about the second question) might give a reason why preventive actions society-wide might be unequal if not everyone in society notices a problem. But that has yet to be determined. The question "what do you do" should start to elicit some answers as to whether there is, in fact, any difference between how people (men/women, urban/rural, US/Euro/Asia, etc) think and act about the crime of rape.

The discussion had no preconceived answer or solution. It has been interesting as-is. There are many different viewpoints.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry the OP was so confusing. This clarification that I posted on page 2 may help explain it a little.

The men were asked what they do to prevent themselves from being raped. Why did you link this and then asked what men on TFT do to protect women?

the topic was a tangent from that thing I read, which I thought was provoking of further thought itself, but that also sent me on a tangent of, "okay, here's how we can help ourselves, and here's how we can see that others don't even think about this - what if they DID think about preventing rape? Not of themselves when they are never subject to it, but of others?

When women go out, they will often watch each other's backs. This is because most of them understand exactly what this means. The #yesallwomen posts go through lists of what women do for themselves and for each other.

What if, I wondered, men did some of these things for women more often? What if they were taught to think about it and get backs more often? So I asked the question the way I did because my first thought was, "maybe they do already and I'm not picking up on it? let's see what they come up with on their own without me leading the answers down a path that is already familiar to me? How can I open MY eyes?

So I genuinely wanted to know. Do you do anything? Like what?


One example for me is that when I leave work, it is known that there are people who feel extremely antagonistic towards me. There are three people who get this. This means, they just hang around at the end of the day, at least one of them, so that I'm not leaving the building alone. There are a couple of people who will try to counter antagonistic comments so that the commenter knows that the community thinks they are out of bounds - prevents the antagonist from thinking they have justification.

Another example is what women do for each other. They watch - if they aren't going to the bathroom together, they at least watch as a person goes to and from. And they take note of the people who are getting with their friends. And even strangers; they will take note when they see someone getting very drunk, or getting alone (such as at a fair or carnival and a person is sober but unaware). They will just make the observation clear, "I am seeing you, I am remembering you," and this is a deterrent.

I think maybe one thing that I'm learning from this discussion is that men may not know what to look for. That makes this an opportunity. The overbearing space-invader at the park or bar or whatever. The dark parking lot with the close-parked van. The offer to walk someone out while saying, "let me tell the bartender I'm walking you so that you know I'm trying to help."


The discussion could bring out more things like that.

When women do things to "prevent rape", they are not doing them once the rape starts. They do it to PREVENT. There are opportunities for men, friends and strangers, as well to diminish the likelihood and capacity for rape to occur.

 

[doubtingt]

I'm sorry this was so confusing. The segue in my head made sense. A post somewhere asks what people do to protect themselves, would it be interesting or illuminating to ask the related question, "what do we do (or can we do) to protects _others_?"


I think maybe one thing that I'm learning from this discussion is that men may not know what to look for. That makes this an opportunity. The overbearing space-invader at the park or bar or whatever. The dark parking lot with the close-parked van. The offer to walk someone out while saying, "let me tell the bartender I'm walking you so that you know I'm trying to help."

Okay, I can buy using the OP as a springboard to ask the very different questions of what people do to protect "others" from rape, so long as we all acknowledge that nothing in the OP itself including the thread title gave any indication that anything other than "protect yourself" was being asked and that women in the described scenario were just as self-focussed and not concerned with other women in their responses as the men were. That's actually good because it shows men and women can similar follow instructions and understand the question they were asked.

So as to the different male and female responses to the issue of protecting others, first we need to establish how different they really were since so many men in the thread were responding to the idea of being the one personally involved in a rape, either as the victim or the rapists (thus the "I don't rape" comments), or just being flippant in response to what they saw as a nonsensical OP that seemed surprised that men don't chronically focus upon and take steps to prepare for the threat of themselves getting raped.

Once we establish how the responses to your intended question differ, we can ask "why do they differ?"
I would content that the extreme differences in frequency and probability of men and women getting raped is the #1 causal factor behind differences even to your intended question about protecting others. IOW, men and women are similarly self-centered and their own experiences determine their thoughts about others and their awareness of situational features. For example, women's fear for themselves when they walk to their car is what makes them think about other woman walking to their car alone.
Could men think of these things? Sure, but what we do think of is more a function of motive than ability. Self-interest gives women more motive to think of these things about other women. Therefore, the differences in threat to oneself greatly impacts the likelihood of thinking about and doing these things for other women in 3 ways: First it impacts the past experiences stored in memory that determine whether the preventative act comes to mind, second it impacts emotion/fear based motive to be assessing each situation for rape threats to oneself, and third when one does think of a situational threat to oneself it is far more likely to apply to the women around you, if you are also a women (since the minimal rape threats that do exist for men differ from those for women).

Besides the strong influence of actual rape threat to oneself on thinking about preventing rape for other women, there is the fact that men cannot (or are greatly discouraged from) do many of the things that women can do for each other. Men cannot follow women to the bathroom, they cannot walk a woman home or to her car without it being interpreted as a come-on, and even when its clear to both that it isnt' a come-on they cannot do it for women with boyfriends, dates, and husbands. Ironically, the fear of being perceived as sexually aggressive likely inhibits men from protecting women against actually sexually aggressive men.

As for what can be done? It could be helped by some amount of education and awareness of not only threatening situations for women but all the issues I raise above about why men don't think of or do as much as they could to protect women. That includes educating women on these things, so that they can be more accepting of such help. But that puts women in a conundrum of "do I accept this guys offer to walk me to my car, or is he the one who's going to rape me?" Again, men are aware that women could think this and it likely inhibits them from offering.
Regardless, all the education and dialogue in the world will never make up for the constant and extreme differences in actual threat of rape to oneself. Women will always think more about rape threats to the women around them than men do, and no one should feel guilty about that or think it has a political solution.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Whar do we do about rape?

"Baliff! Whack off his pee-pee!"
- Cheech and Chong routine

 

[angelo]

The basic problem is that Rhea is making a different point from the article she is quoting. The two aren't really related.

The article is a call out to the well-known and often discussed phenomenon that danger of rape is something that women think about and deal with every day, and men don't.

Rhea wanted to make a different point, that men somehow don't do enough to prevent women from being raped. Unfortunately, all the actions listed in the original article are things that men can't practically do. So her original request didn't really make sense, and her strict prohibition against discussing male rape meant that no meaningful comparison could be made with the original article.

So we could discuss the article itself, which makes an interesting point. Probably best use a new thread for that.
Or we could discuss Rhea's belief that men aren't pulling their weight in rape prevention, but that would probably require some kind of example of what they could be doing, apart from discovering a rape in progress and glaring fiercely at those involved.

What about tripling the penalty for rape? First offence, no excuses 10 years with no parole. Rape With violence 20 years, no parole before the felon has served a min of 15 years. Rape and murder, life with no possibility of any early release.
I'll bet that would reduce rape by at least 50%. Even if one woman is saved it would be worth it. Of course the rape would need to be proven beyond doubt.

 

[bigfield]

The basic problem is that Rhea is making a different point from the article she is quoting. The two aren't really related.

The article is a call out to the well-known and often discussed phenomenon that danger of rape is something that women think about and deal with every day, and men don't.

Rhea wanted to make a different point, that men somehow don't do enough to prevent women from being raped. Unfortunately, all the actions listed in the original article are things that men can't practically do. So her original request didn't really make sense, and her strict prohibition against discussing male rape meant that no meaningful comparison could be made with the original article.

So we could discuss the article itself, which makes an interesting point. Probably best use a new thread for that.
Or we could discuss Rhea's belief that men aren't pulling their weight in rape prevention, but that would probably require some kind of example of what they could be doing, apart from discovering a rape in progress and glaring fiercely at those involved.

What about tripling the penalty for rape? First offence, no excuses 10 years with no parole. Rape With violence 20 years, no parole before the felon has served a min of 15 years. Rape and murder, life with no possibility of any early release.
I'll bet that would reduce rape by at least 50%. Even if one woman is saved it would be worth it. Of course the rape would need to be proven beyond doubt.

If only it were that easy: we could do the same for a whole bunch of crimes.

 

[angelo]

The basic problem is that Rhea is making a different point from the article she is quoting. The two aren't really related.

The article is a call out to the well-known and often discussed phenomenon that danger of rape is something that women think about and deal with every day, and men don't.

Rhea wanted to make a different point, that men somehow don't do enough to prevent women from being raped. Unfortunately, all the actions listed in the original article are things that men can't practically do. So her original request didn't really make sense, and her strict prohibition against discussing male rape meant that no meaningful comparison could be made with the original article.

So we could discuss the article itself, which makes an interesting point. Probably best use a new thread for that.
Or we could discuss Rhea's belief that men aren't pulling their weight in rape prevention, but that would probably require some kind of example of what they could be doing, apart from discovering a rape in progress and glaring fiercely at those involved.

What about tripling the penalty for rape? First offence, no excuses 10 years with no parole. Rape With violence 20 years, no parole before the felon has served a min of 15 years. Rape and murder, life with no possibility of any early release.
I'll bet that would reduce rape by at least 50%. Even if one woman is saved it would be worth it. Of course the rape would need to be proven beyond doubt.

If only it were that easy: we could do the same for a whole bunch of crimes.

Many decades ago, a guy I knew but not a friend raped a girl. He sneaked up behind her and threw his overcoat over her head to stop her identifying him, dragged her to a nearby bush and raped her. Unlucky for him there was a witness who saw him running away from the scene of the crime, and on closer examination found the whimpering victim and alerted police.
He was picked up within days, charged and found guilty, given an 8 year sentence, served 5 and was deported on release. Nowadays that guy would have to be very unlucky to recieve less than half that sentence and most likely not be deported. Needless to say, rape was a much rarer occurrence then than what it is today.

 

[bigfield]

Many decades ago, a guy I knew but not a friend raped a girl. He sneaked up behind her and threw his overcoat over her head to stop her identifying him, dragged her to a nearby bush and raped her. Unlucky for him there was a witness who saw him running away from the scene of the crime, and on closer examination found the whimpering victim and alerted police.
He was picked up within days, charged and found guilty, given an 8 year sentence, served 5 and was deported on release. Nowadays that guy would have to be very unlucky to recieve less than half that sentence and most likely not be deported. Needless to say, rape was a much rarer occurrence then than what it is today.

Rape was much rarer decades ago?

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, sexual assault, along with several other categories of crime, has decreased over the last five years despite increased reporting. It suggests a trend completely opposite to what you're claiming.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...res~Changes in personal crime victimisation~5

Have you got any evidence to show that rape has increased since your acquaintance committed rape, controlling for both increased reporting and larger population?

 

[angelo]

Those are recent figures. I'm going back to the 60s-70s.

 

[bigfield]

Those are recent figures. I'm going back to the 60s-70s.

And why should I believe your claim?

 

[angelo]

Those are recent figures. I'm going back to the 60s-70s.

And why should I believe your claim?

Have a look at the rising trend of forceful rape from 9.6 per hundred thousand in 1960 to 26.9 in 2012.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

[Jokodo]

Those are recent figures. I'm going back to the 60s-70s.

And why should I believe your claim?

Have a look at the rising trend of forceful rape from 9.6 per hundred thousand in 1960 to 26.9 in 2012.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

You do realise that those figures are only partially comparable even when ignoring the fact that those are reported cases without any estimate of reporting rates? You know what happened between the 1960s and the early 90s? Marital rape was recognised as a crime (the last state to criminalise marital rape was North Carolina in 1993). So Even if we ignore (possibly changing levels of) underreporting, we can still only directly compare figures from 1993 onwards. In that period, the rate has dropped by about one third.

 

[thebeave]

nm

 

[thebeave]

Those are recent figures. I'm going back to the 60s-70s.

And why should I believe your claim?

Have a look at the rising trend of forceful rape from 9.6 per hundred thousand in 1960 to 26.9 in 2012.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

You do realise that those figures are only partially comparable even when ignoring the fact that those are reported cases without any estimate of reporting rates? You know what happened between the 1960s and the early 90s? Marital rape was recognised as a crime (the last state to criminalise marital rape was North Carolina in 1993). So Even if we ignore (possibly changing levels of) underreporting, we can still only directly compare figures from 1993 onwards. In that period, the rate has dropped by about one third.

And yet, today, we supposedly live in a "rape culture". In 1993, there was no such term, and discussions about rape were a drop in the bucket compared to now. Go figure.

 

[Jokodo]

Those are recent figures. I'm going back to the 60s-70s.

And why should I believe your claim?

Have a look at the rising trend of forceful rape from 9.6 per hundred thousand in 1960 to 26.9 in 2012.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

You do realise that those figures are only partially comparable even when ignoring the fact that those are reported cases without any estimate of reporting rates? You know what happened between the 1960s and the early 90s? Marital rape was recognised as a crime (the last state to criminalise marital rape was North Carolina in 1993). So Even if we ignore (possibly changing levels of) underreporting, we can still only directly compare figures from 1993 onwards. In that period, the rate has dropped by about one third.

And yet, today, we supposedly live in a "rape culture". In 1993, there was no such term, and discussions about rape were a drop in the bucket compared to now. Go figure.

And? In the early 1700s, people were executed for witchcraft. In 1700 there was no such term as Christian right, and discussions about the Church having to much influence on politics were a drop in a bucket compared to now (if that). Go figure (?).

 

[Sabine Grant]

It is highly relevant to the reality that empathetic people would know better than engaging on a public forum in communications known to be distress triggers for rape victims. Got it?

Impressive tactic. But this is PD, not Support Fireside. Most people are empathetic to some extent or another, but none exercise empathy to the same extent 100% of the time, and not every situation calls for empathy to override all other priorities. Empathy in the case of a thread like this might merely warrant something like a "trigger warning" disclaimer, rather than tabooing certain lines of discussion which seem practically inevitable in a rape discussion.

The Op question is :

Men - what do you do to protect women from being raped?

And how is launching the "what she wears" bit " practically inevitable" in addressing that question? Unless the assumption is that "what men can do to protect women from rape" is to control what they wear and make sure they do not "make themselves attractive and enticing". Considering that in patriarchal and religious cultures, women being commanded to not make themselves attractive and enticing certainly does not prevent rape and certainly does not protect them from rape, tell me again how this obsession with "what she wears" is warranted in this discussion guided by the OP question.

Further how is it part of any "priority" to discuss the "what she wears" bit in this thread considering the specific question from the OP?

 

[Sabine Grant]

I don't find your call for censorship compelling.

1) Your launching the "what she wears" bit and persisting in it to satisfy your curiosity in NO way addresses the question presented in the Op which I will once more quote :

Men - what do you do to protect women from being raped?

Unless the assumption is that what men can do to protect women from rape is to control women's appearance to include "how they make themselves attractive and enticing" and what type of clothes they wear. It should be known by you that religious and male dominated cultures applying such measures certainly do not result in preventing rape. Your "what she wears" bit obsession is totally irrelevant to what men can do to protect women from rape.

Your need to satisfy your curiosity has in fact distracted from if not hijacked the intended discussion guided by the Op question quoted above.

2) You are free to start your own thread on your specific topic while your Op content will line out which type of documentation you expect to counter argue your position. While you will make sure to document your own position (which you never did in this thread). Where your " I bet you that..." was the product of a horrifying "social experiment" which would undeniably and willingly cause harm to the parties you would subject to such experiment. Your Op would be followed by a Mod Notice forewarning readers of the content so that the Owners of this privately owned board can protect recovering rape victims from exposure to communications/comments they know to be distress triggers. That is your alternative from persisting in hijacking this thread and ignoring my call for decency.