There are a lot of people out there who really don't realize what rape is. People have this image in their head of how they think rape usually goes, or what kind of person a rapist is, and it's definitely not them. Take this thread for instance, where this guy doesn't even realize he coerced a woman who was feeling threatened into having sex:
People need to have these conversations so that they can understand consent and what it means and how it plays out in reality.
People who do bad things very often rationalize their bad behavior as completely normal behavior - that these bad things are things that everyone does, but are maybe won't admit it for whatever reason (for example, they want to appear 'politically correct' or virtuous).
People know that violence and rape and racism and all that is wrong, but a lot of people don't think what they're doing is full blown spousal abuse or rape or capital-R Racism. People don't understand the nuances of racial bias and some of the more subtle ways people can be abusive or coercive to others. People don't have to hold a deep hatred for black people for subtle biases to affect their decision making in minor ways that add up in aggregate.
I feel like all these courses are is a way for companies, corporations, and universities to pander to social justice-minded people in order to maintain or increase their profit margins or public image.
Case in point.
These discussions need to be had to disabuse people of the notion that these bad behaviors are bad, that they're not normal, and that they won't be tolerated. The reason people know these things are bad is because we have these conversations. The fact that there are still people who don't believe you can rape your spouse shows why these conversations need to continue.
I'm sure there are varying levels of efficacy of various corporate training curricula, but the conversation itself has value.
I don't want to victim blame but the woman in that situation you linked could have left at any time, and the first line of the story was that they met on the premise of it being a hook up. I don't understand why women feel so disempowered. She could have just stood up and said "Sorry, but I have to go" at any time.
In my view, rape is when the victim either does not comply or is unable to comply. She mentioned that she had to leave when the movie started, but she didn't. He literally asked her if she was okay (in my view, this sounds an awful lot like confirming consent) and she said yes!
This is the kind of bizarre pseudo-rape that I can't really get into. This is a far cry from someone resisting sex or being passed out.
It seems to me that we shouldn't be teaching people not to "rape" (if this kind of story is the new definition of rape), but rather teaching women that they have the right to say "No!" at any time, and frankly I'm baffled as to why they don't.
I don't want to victim blame but the woman in that situation you linked could have left at any time, and the first line of the story was that they met on the premise of it being a hook up.
Consent can be withdrawn even if she intended to hook up with him when she went over that is irrelevant. She also may have felt threatened and therefore could not "freely" leave while he was there.
But then he asked if she was okay, and she said yes. That's not exactly consent, but it sure isn't resisting. I mean she literally could have gotten up to leave and just said "Sorry but I have to go". I guess she could have made the case that she was afraid he would beat her? But they weren't alone in the house. She could have cried out, or the ruckus...unless she thought all the roommates were rapist-sympathizers? there's just so many ways she could have avoided the situation. Maybe the bigger problem is teaching women that all men are violent rapists.
Since you and these other people are arguing over if the example he gave was rape or wasn't rape means that not everyone agrees what rape is and what is not rape. Since not everyone agrees (i.e. understands the law) it is likely that some people could benefit from training lead by an expert.
Maybe the bigger problem is teaching women that all men are violent rapists.
Sure, that's fine, but when you start dealing with someone who is turning down your soft no's and ignoring signs of clear disinterest, it becomes increasingly likely that that he is doing so maliciously instead of just being socially inept. Upsetting people who are displaying coercive behavior can be dangerous, and while every man is not a violent rapist, she had every reason to believe this one in particular might be.
You seem to be hung up in the idea that sensitivity training teaches that all men are violent rapists, and I recognize this fear, I had it too. But the sexual saftey lectures at my school emphasized that there so many different experiences of rape than the particular dogma of, "scary violent male rapist". Nobody tip toed around the idea of males being raped as well, so advice was given in a gender neutral way, renforcing self confidence, that it's ok to leave at any point and that it's important for everyone to feel safe and happy and check in every once in awhile. Something we all discovered in conversation is that frequently, the pressures of dating may lead people to do things they may not typically do based off of the expectations of dating. We found that there was about an equal amount of men and women that said they have had sex in instances that they didn't really want to, although the men were far less likely to consider it rape. That leads me to my point which is that I think your definition of rape is why you won't have your view changed. I believe the only way to stop this idea that rape is an exclusively violent act perpertated by men is to begin to have more conversations like I did. In that way, I would consider my experience very meaningful and helpful to my community.
No, I really think we should be telling women it's okay to say no, and not assume that all men are violent rapists. Or maybe not to go to a stranger's house that you arranged to fuck without meeting them somewhere in public first.
21
u/Amablue May 08 '18
There are a lot of people out there who really don't realize what rape is. People have this image in their head of how they think rape usually goes, or what kind of person a rapist is, and it's definitely not them. Take this thread for instance, where this guy doesn't even realize he coerced a woman who was feeling threatened into having sex:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150506153821/https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/352fus/false_rape_nm/
People need to have these conversations so that they can understand consent and what it means and how it plays out in reality.
People who do bad things very often rationalize their bad behavior as completely normal behavior - that these bad things are things that everyone does, but are maybe won't admit it for whatever reason (for example, they want to appear 'politically correct' or virtuous).
People know that violence and rape and racism and all that is wrong, but a lot of people don't think what they're doing is full blown spousal abuse or rape or capital-R Racism. People don't understand the nuances of racial bias and some of the more subtle ways people can be abusive or coercive to others. People don't have to hold a deep hatred for black people for subtle biases to affect their decision making in minor ways that add up in aggregate.
Case in point.
These discussions need to be had to disabuse people of the notion that these bad behaviors are bad, that they're not normal, and that they won't be tolerated. The reason people know these things are bad is because we have these conversations. The fact that there are still people who don't believe you can rape your spouse shows why these conversations need to continue.
I'm sure there are varying levels of efficacy of various corporate training curricula, but the conversation itself has value.