Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 9, 2016 14:06:05 GMT -5
I see your point, but "feeling bad" isn't what I'm worried about. I'm more concerned with the internalization of the whole idea that they had to have done something wrong, something to invite it, that it really is their fault. If they had only done everything perfectly, it wouldn't have happened to them. I've internalized the "if something bad happens to you, it's because you did something stupid" idea very well and felt it in terms of other, much less traumatic things. It's pretty much what we tell people on this very board about money. If you don't have enough, it's because YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG. Very rarely do we say, I see how outside forces contributed to that. My struggle is how do I advise my kids on ways to stay safe WITHOUT implying that if they don't do these things they're horrible people and they deserve it? How do I give them this information and still help them understand that sometimes you get dealt a crappy hand and it is NOT your fault? Maybe I can't, because we're all human and fallible and stupid and so preprogrammed to think this way, but I can and WANT to try. Aside from wanting them to understand it's general safety that all these precautions help, not just "rape prevention". I do understand what you are saying. And I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Sometimes bad shit happens no matter what you do. Someone can break into my house tonight and murder me in my sleep. I've taken all of the precautions I can but something can still happen. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to walk into a very bad area at 3 am all by myself because I know I'm at much higher risk of something bad happening. I still don't deserve it but my risk has gone up quite a bit venturing into the ghetto versus sleeping in suburbia. It just is. That's what I'm trying to get through to my daughter. There are bad people out there and we can't stop everything but by not leaving ourselves vulnerable we at least lessen the risk. I honestly have NO idea why anyone in this thread thinks that's a bad thing to teach kids....but to each their own And I'm not saying you shouldn't teach your DD to stay out of crappy neighborhoods where bad things are more likely to happen. I'm not saying YOU are teaching her this stuff is strictly just about keeping herself from getting raped. Let's face it though, lots of people/parents are saying exactly that. If not explicitly, then they're implying it mightily. ALL I've ever asked throughout this thread is that we are all aware of HOW we're saying this stuff, because they way you say things matter. For a minor example: When I was in my teens, I wanted to drive to some nearby larger city. Mom said no. I said I'm a safe driver. She said I know, I'm worried about the other idiots on the road. OTHER idiots. Which implies, of course, that *I* am an idiot too. Not how she meant it but that's how it came across. I understand NOW she didn't mean it to, but then? Just one more example of saying one thing when you mean another. Context matters. Phrasing matters. Kids hear it in totally different ways than you mean it.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jun 9, 2016 14:10:14 GMT -5
additionally, someone who was roofied seems to get blamed for drinking too. Even if they were drinking responsibly.
In order to prevent rape, I need to watch my drink, not drink too much, dress appropriately, travel with a buddy, not walk anywhere at night, not go to parties, not hang out with men. Some of the advice is good non genderspecific advice. Some is horseshit, but that's a lot of restrictions on MY behavior to attempt to control what someone else does.
How about we start reframing the conversation as to what is expected from the people who take advantage of people?
Serious question because I know you are very logical and not prone to dramatics. You are a defense attorney and have witnessed lots of bad stuff in your career. Based on your experience with the criminal element do you think that people who go on to rape, murder, abuse children, beat their spouses, etc all just needed to be talked to about why they shouldn't do that? Will people stop raping, stop killing, stop selling drugs, stop stealing, etc. if their parents tell them this is bad and they shouldn't do it? some people are just assholes and like to hurt others. there is nothing you can do about them.
talking can bring on a societal change. It used to be OK to beat your wife. It used to be OK to beat your kids. It was OK to beat your dog. We've brought the problems out in the open an and talked about why it's wrong and how you should treat others. Date rape (and I hate that term) needs the same sunlight.
There is a scene in the movie Animal House where one of the pledges gets a girl really drunk to where she passes out, and he contemplates having sex with her. The angel and devil sit on his shoulder telling him to do it. In the end, he doesn't and he delivers her home in a shopping cart. That scene needs to be the equivalent to blackface or "to the moon, Alice" jokes.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 9, 2016 14:34:24 GMT -5
I don't know why but I'll try again. Stranger danger was hammered into my head as a child of the 1980's. Don't get into strange vans with strangers, don't take candy from strangers you know the routine. Researchers decided to put it to the test to see how effective it was. They sent in an actor in a car with the parents/researcher watching behind the scenes on a hidden camera. To their horror the majority of kids got into the car! What they discovered was in the child's mind the person in the car was no longer a stranger once he had introduced himself. To a child once you introduce yourself to them and they have your name they consider you to be someone they know and therefore no longer a stranger. Talk about an "oh shit" moment. It was just one teeny tiny word that made a huge difference in the outcome. As an adult I understand you are still a stranger if we've just met. A CHILD does not. I cannot apply my logic as an adult to a situation where a child needs to make the decision. Just because I do not use the words "stranger danger" anymore it does not mean that I tell my daughters they are free to take candy from anyone and get into any car that pulls up along the side of the road. It's now I am aware I have to change my wording so the actual message I want to convey gets across. Since she's five it's currently very simple: no rides from anyone other than us, grandparents, aunt/uncles or on the school bus for a field trip. Rape is the same way. By turning every discussion into a "Well I know she's not to blame BUT" debate that sends the message that if you don't do whatever comes after the "but" you are to blame for whatever happens to you. It makes victims not report it because they fear they won't be believed. That doesn't mean you don't teach someone how to be safe or use common sense. What it means is you change your semantics so you're not sending the wrong message either on purpose or by accident. We need to encourage women to come forward so more assholes are taken off the streets. Hammering home "well you shouldn't have gotten shit faced" isn't going to get them to come forward. They already know that too late to do anything about it now. I don't understand...all of you "woman shouldn't have to take care of themselves because no one should rape them" are saying there is no way that a woman can do anything to avoid putting herself in a situation where she can be raped (I can quote justme's post to me as an example). So why waste time teaching a child or young woman anything? All I'm getting out of this thread is we need to tell bad people not to rape, murder, steal, etc. Just think, if only parents told psychopaths not to be bad we wouldn't need prisons! Where did I say that? Did you not read the first half of my post about how "stranger danger' in the 1980's had a fatal flaw in it's message. Children don't think people are strangers once they know someone's name. That doesn't mean the message needed to be thrown out completely. "Stranger danger" is a good premise in and of itself. It's we had to change how we present the information because children don't think like we adults do. The message had to be changed so a child does not get in the car with "Jerry". The message has to make clear that "Jerry" is still a stranger even if you know his name. It's the same with rape. If we want it brought to light and taken seriously we need to change how we present the message. We have to stop pointing at the victim and saying "Yeah BUT . ." and focus on the responsibility of the perp. If women don't have to fear facing judgement and blame they will be more likely to come forward. The same would go for men if we removed the stigma of being a rape victim. It's easy for us to say we don't think they get raped as much but we don't really know because they are even less likely to report it than women. That doesn't mean do whatever you want as you seem to believe. It means changing the message from "This is what you have to do as a woman to prevent rape" to "This is what ANYBODY should do to try and stay safe" I thought the example of how the "Stranger danger" program has evolved since its inception in the 1980's would help but I was wrong.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 9, 2016 15:39:08 GMT -5
Serious question because I know you are very logical and not prone to dramatics. You are a defense attorney and have witnessed lots of bad stuff in your career. Based on your experience with the criminal element do you think that people who go on to rape, murder, abuse children, beat their spouses, etc all just needed to be talked to about why they shouldn't do that? Will people stop raping, stop killing, stop selling drugs, stop stealing, etc. if their parents tell them this is bad and they shouldn't do it? some people are just assholes and like to hurt others. there is nothing you can do about them.
talking can bring on a societal change. It used to be OK to beat your wife. It used to be OK to beat your kids. It was OK to beat your dog. We've brought the problems out in the open an and talked about why it's wrong and how you should treat others. Date rape (and I hate that term) needs the same sunlight.
There is a scene in the movie Animal House where one of the pledges gets a girl really drunk to where she passes out, and he contemplates having sex with her. The angel and devil sit on his shoulder telling him to do it. In the end, he doesn't and he delivers her home in a shopping cart. That scene needs to be the equivalent to blackface or "to the moon, Alice" jokes.
I agree that things that used to be ok are no longer ok. but they still happen. We can talk about it all we want and society can say those things are wrong but people are still going to do them. I wish we lived in Utopia where everyone did the right thing but it will never happen.
Which is why I have NO IDEA why so many people think it is wrong to tell a girl not to make herself vulnerable. Not to take a drink from a stranger. Not to get fall down drunk so you can't control yourself or even make informed consent. Not to walk in the hood. Not to leave your doors unlocked. Or why we can say all of that but never say the word "rape"..because telling her to protect herself from getting car jacked, mugged at night or whatever is acceptable but the minute we say "don't do X because some asshat might target you for rape" is so wrong....clearly I don't understand the logic in this thread. And it is always the same people on one side versus those of us on the other side. There is really no point. Im not enough of a feminist I guess...because I do think women have the power to prevent some bad shit that can happen to us...not all bad shit, of course.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 9, 2016 15:43:26 GMT -5
I do understand what you are saying. And I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Sometimes bad shit happens no matter what you do. Someone can break into my house tonight and murder me in my sleep. I've taken all of the precautions I can but something can still happen. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to walk into a very bad area at 3 am all by myself because I know I'm at much higher risk of something bad happening. I still don't deserve it but my risk has gone up quite a bit venturing into the ghetto versus sleeping in suburbia. It just is. That's what I'm trying to get through to my daughter. There are bad people out there and we can't stop everything but by not leaving ourselves vulnerable we at least lessen the risk. I honestly have NO idea why anyone in this thread thinks that's a bad thing to teach kids....but to each their own And I'm not saying you shouldn't teach your DD to stay out of crappy neighborhoods where bad things are more likely to happen. I'm not saying YOU are teaching her this stuff is strictly just about keeping herself from getting raped. Let's face it though, lots of people/parents are saying exactly that. If not explicitly, then they're implying it mightily. ALL I've ever asked throughout this thread is that we are all aware of HOW we're saying this stuff, because they way you say things matter. For a minor example: When I was in my teens, I wanted to drive to some nearby larger city. Mom said no. I said I'm a safe driver. She said I know, I'm worried about the other idiots on the road. OTHER idiots. Which implies, of course, that *I* am an idiot too. Not how she meant it but that's how it came across. I understand NOW she didn't mean it to, but then? Just one more example of saying one thing when you mean another. Context matters. Phrasing matters. Kids hear it in totally different ways than you mean it. But my mom said the exact same thing to me (about other idiots) but never did I think she thought I was an idiot, too. I understood that she meant that there are a few morons on the road who make it dangerous for all. Maybe that's why I'm not getting why some of you are hell bent (not you, I'm talking in general) over using the word "rape" in discussions? Because I'm clearly not getting it!lol
On that note, I'm done with this thread. I'm now being accused of wanting other kids raped instead of my daughter...which is laughable but it is what it is.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Jun 9, 2016 16:19:47 GMT -5
(This is a broader question and not directly related to the Stanford case where both father and son are mysoginistic predators.)
So, while having sex with an unconscious partner is NEVER okay, I still think there needs to be some sort of litmus test for punishment: is the defendant a predator who pursued the victim and brought about the circumstances of unconsciousness and separation from the larger group in order to take advantage of the victim, or was the defendant a stupid, clueless, horny teenager who believed the victim was "in to him" and had consented prior to falling unconscious during the hookup without any active role by the defendant?
Because, those are two very different defendants deserving of very different punishment, IMHO. The first should get decades of jail time and a lifetime on the sex offender registry. The second should get jail time and a certain number of years on the sex offender registry IF there are no further crimes.
(I acknowledge that these situations are rarely so black and white but I still believe there is a population of stupid, uninformed, men who have sex in very questionable circumstances but who are not predators. they deserve punishment, but not at the same level as the predator group. Does that make sense to anyone?)
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 9, 2016 16:24:59 GMT -5
There's no means no And yes means yes Maybe we need unconscious means don't touch?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 9, 2016 20:13:20 GMT -5
Value Buy -what you said about your sons and the young ladies who persued them: it is a fact as you have noted that both both and girls can be very aggessive in an attempt to secure them as a boyfriend/girlfriend material That has been going on for milleniums. What the issue of the thread is about is one taking sexual advantage of another who is unconscious. In this case the victim had passed out from too much booze, and was unable to give her consent to have sex with the guy. Most times, rape is not about sexual attraction but about physical and psychological control over another, people they know and people they don't know. I am of the opinion that the rape in this discussion is a rape of opportunity and probably had less to do with control of the victim. The kid saw an opportunity to have sex without seeking consent and took it. He got caught. It was a stupid kid move. It went way way beyond a stupid kid move. Other than that, I agree with your answer.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jun 9, 2016 20:51:07 GMT -5
I really don't understand why people can't separate the two ideas. There is not "but". There is simply
She is not to blame.
Here are the things that she and everyone else can do to help avoid certain situations.
Not erase them entirely, but help to avoid.
I understand that once a person has been raped telling her "well, you shouldn't have been drunk" is not the way to go. But saying "hey, don't get drunk when you go a frat party tonight bc there might be some guys who will want to take advantage of you" is something I would certainly tell my daughter (if I had one)
|
|