milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 14:16:23 GMT -5
No, I don't blame the attorney for trying to make the defendant look less guilty. The question is, why does asking the victim whether she's had sex with her boyfriend somehow make the defendant look less guilty? Isn't that the issue? Asking her if she's ever had sex, what she was wearing, etc only works because too many people believe that wearing a short skirt makes a rapist less guilty. Or that a woman drinking makes a rapist less guilty. Or that her not being a virgin makes a rapist less guilty. That is a serious fucking problem. I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but the context of my question was in response to someone posting the deposition testimony. That's different than what does society think. But it's the chicken and the egg. The defense attorney is only asking this stuff - in a way posing accusations as questions - because of what society thinks. Until we change how society views this issue, the defense attorneys are going to continue their attacks on the victims... because the attacks work and play into what society thinks.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 8, 2016 14:17:11 GMT -5
Is there any way to get from the first part to the second part? Ie. If you wait 10 minutes, between "the rapist is at fault" and going through a list of how to protect oneself is that an acceptable break so that you are not qualifying the first statement? What if you put put a bunch of words in between the two? Does that adequately separate the two? What if you separate them by a night's sleep? ie. one day you say "the rapist is at fault" and then the next day you say, "to protect yourself you should do the following." I guess my questions is, can you get there from here? Or do you just have to stop at "the rapist is at fault" and never mention the list? You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. How do you make it stand on it owns? The conversion usually comes up because of an incident.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 14:19:58 GMT -5
No, I don't blame the attorney for trying to make the defendant look less guilty. The question is, why does asking the victim whether she's had sex with her boyfriend somehow make the defendant look less guilty? Isn't that the issue? Asking her if she's ever had sex, what she was wearing, etc only works because too many people believe that wearing a short skirt makes a rapist less guilty. Or that a woman drinking makes a rapist less guilty. Or that her not being a virgin makes a rapist less guilty. That is a serious fucking problem. in here statement, she says she was wearing a cardigan. Didn't she know some guys have a thing for librarians? BTW, in my earlier statement that rape victims are "always" asked about what they were wearing... I know this because I've read studies about what rape victims were wearing. When I was reading the studies it struck me as odd that they'd have all that raw data to work with. I mean, how would the authors of the studies know what the women were wearing? Sadly, one of the authors explained that by noting that what the victim was wearing was almost always noted in the police report and in the few cases it wasn't listed in the police report, it was asked in the depositions. Oh, and if you're curious what the number one most rape inducing outfit was? Sweatpants. Jeans was a distant second. So most of the rape victims were prancing about in irresistable sweatpants. Think if they'd had the audacity to combine that bewitching sweatpant fashion choice with the ever alluring cardigan sweater? Attack would be a given...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 14:22:02 GMT -5
You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. How do you make it stand on it owns? The conversion usually comes up because of an incident. Really? When I talk to my kids about locking the doors, it's when I'm locking the door and explaining why. When I explain why I'm only having one glass of wine to drink at a gathering, it's usually at the gathering or the next day. When I explain why I'm parking under a light in this particular parking section, it's when I'm doing that.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 14:22:36 GMT -5
You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. How do you make it stand on it owns? The conversion usually comes up because of an incident. It comes up because people bring it up. Turn the conversation to the perp's actions, not the victim's. Discuss personal safety at another time. If it is an important conversation to have, it shouldn't take a high-profile rape case to jog one's memory... and if it does take a high-profile rape case to jog one's memory, the conversation can probably wait until the media furor has died down. Milee explained it much more clearly than I can. I am sure it is going to have to be a gradual shift in how the media (and we as a society) discuss these cases. IMO just turning the initial conversation to what the perp did, rather than the victim, is a step in the right direction.
|
|
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 8, 2016 14:22:37 GMT -5
in here statement, she says she was wearing a cardigan. Didn't she know some guys have a thing for librarians? BTW, in my earlier statement that rape victims are "always" asked about what they were wearing... I know this because I've read studies about what rape victims were wearing. When I was reading the studies it struck me as odd that they'd have all that raw data to work with. I mean, how would the authors of the studies know what the women were wearing? Sadly, one of the authors explained that by noting that what the victim was wearing was almost always noted in the police report and in the few cases it wasn't listed in the police report, it was asked in the depositions. Oh, and if you're curious what the number one most rape inducing outfit was? Sweatpants. Jeans was a distant second. So most of the rape victims were prancing about in irresistable sweatpants. Think if they'd had the audacity to combine that bewitching fashion choice with the ever alluring cardigan sweater? Attack would be a given... It makes sense. Sweatpants are easy to pull off.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Jun 8, 2016 14:22:43 GMT -5
You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. How do you make it stand on it owns? The conversion usually comes up because of an incident. You make it stand on it's own by having conversations with your kids of all genders about their personal safety in all matters. And respecting other people. Not tying the story of a rape into a lesson to your daughters how it is their responsibility to not get raped.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 8, 2016 14:23:10 GMT -5
How do you make it stand on it owns? The conversion usually comes up because of an incident. Really? When I talk to my kids about locking the doors, it's when I'm locking the door and explaining why. When I explain why I'm only having one glass of wine to drink at a gathering, it's usually at the gathering or the next day. When I explain why I'm parking under a light in this particular parking section, it's when I'm doing that. I guess I meant more a "national conversation" (don't you love that term??) rather than a personal one.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 8, 2016 14:23:57 GMT -5
But what a defense attorney does and what we do as a society are - and should be - two different things. Defense attorneys can get away with this defense because our societal conditioning makes us predisposed to believe it is relevant. When our media reports on these incidents and lists the attacker's athletic achievements or states what the victim was wearing... that perpetuates the myth. When we have school dress codes and administrators that explicitly state that girls have to cover up because if they don't it distracts the boys, that perpetuates the myth that girls are responsible for preventing boys' bad behaviour. When we individually hear about one of these crimes and discuss what the victim did - drinking, wearing, actions - to "contribute", then we perpetuate the myth. And because everybody buys into the idea that women are responsible for controlling the thoughts and actions of men and because it's considered OK to examine what she was wearing and how she contributed or failed to prevent her attack, we perpetuate the idea that she is partially responsible. We can stop this by making small but meaningful changes. Changes like: Calling out the media on their descriptions. Recently, our local paper had the headline "Man convicted of murdering a prostitute". A reader wrote in to point out that the attacker was a registered sex offender with many prior convictions and that the headline should have read "Convicted Sex Offender convicted of murdering a woman." Read that again. It's subtle but powerful. In the first headline the woman - who was the VICTIM - is devalued, demeaned and the implication is that she was putting herself at risk or was someone who deserved whatever she got at the hands of a "man". It's that type of pervasive messaging that is the problem. When we talk to our daughters about how to keep themselves safe, don't do it right after we hear about a rape. By connecting the two, you are implying with the timing that the rape victim was at fault. Work with our schools to make the dress codes gender neutral - same for all sexes and about a standard level of covering up, not about one sex being responsible for controlling the other sex. Call people out when they want to discuss the victim more than the crime. Will any of that help immediately or result in a 180 degree change? No. But over time, it will help. I'm in my 40s and remember how when I was growing up, the news always discussed the race of the criminal as an integral part of the story. It was "a black man is accused of _______" or "a jury convicted John Smith, a black man, of ________." Just mentioning the race implied that race was relevant to the crime. People would discuss crime and usually casually mention race in the discussion. None of that is considered OK any more partly because of small but important changes in the media and in how people talk amongst themselves. Over time, public reaction helped the media to realize that this was unacceptable and you don't hear about it any more. In most social settings, it's not considered acceptable and you don't hear it any more. We need to do something similar with how we constantly connect rape and "prevention"... make it socially unacceptable. Over time, as that happens it will no longer be something that defense attorneys will do since it will not be effective and will even backfire as people find it repugnant that a defense attorney would attempt to imply the length of a victim's skirt is relevant. Just like it now backfires if a defense attorney implies the color of the defendant's skin is relevant. See, this is why I should read further before commenting. Milee already made my point, but better. It's a point that needs to made multiple times by multiple people.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 14:27:05 GMT -5
Really? When I talk to my kids about locking the doors, it's when I'm locking the door and explaining why. When I explain why I'm only having one glass of wine to drink at a gathering, it's usually at the gathering or the next day. When I explain why I'm parking under a light in this particular parking section, it's when I'm doing that. I guess I meant more a "national conversation" (don't you love that term??) rather than a personal one. Separate them. Same thing. Just on a national level. The discussion about drinking for example is important. Doesn't need to wait until an incident. It can stand on its own.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Jun 8, 2016 14:31:40 GMT -5
You may it stand on it's own by having conversations with your kids of all genders about their personal safety in all matters. And respecting other people. Not tying the story of a rape into a lesson to your daughters how it is their responsibility to not get raped. So much for making things relevant. How often does information given in a vacuum sink in or mean something. If I were to randomly tell you one day that exposure to sun causes sunburn how more or less effective would it be than if you passed someone looking all lobster like on the street and I said to you that guy should have worn more sunscreen, remember to put some on now that we're on the beach. I don't see how having a conversation with your children about all types of personal safety is giving them information in a vacuum? is that true of every conversation with kids? Are we supposed to wait until we hear about some kin in the news failing to talk to them about doing their homework? Until their teeth fall out before talking to them about dental hygiene? For one of their friends to die in a car accident before we explain road rules?
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 8, 2016 14:36:49 GMT -5
I guess I meant more a "national conversation" (don't you love that term??) rather than a personal one. Separate them. Same thing. Just on a national level. The discussion about drinking for example is important. Doesn't need to wait until an incident. It can stand on its own. I agree. I just think it is hard to separate the two. Even without an incident if you bring up that women should take precautions to protect themselves from being victims of sexual assault and rape there is going to be a fairly large contingent that respond that instead of telling women how not to be raped, how about telling men not to rape women. And then you are back in the same conversation we are in. Where we are currently at, I just don't know if there is a way to genuinely talk about it.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Jun 8, 2016 14:43:18 GMT -5
I don't see how having a conversation with your children about all types of personal safety is giving them information in a vacuum? is that true of every conversation with kids? Are we supposed to wait until we hear about some kin in the news failing to talk to them about doing their homework? Until their teeth fall out before talking to them about dental hygiene? For one of their friends to die in a car accident before we explain road rules?
Of course not. But it's also not out of line to relate those lessons back to real life and relevant news. ETA: and why are some jumping to the either/or ends of spectrum here. Nobody has said that we shouldn't be working to decrease the instances of rape attempts or to increase awareness or to hold those who do this responsible. Well, then I guess I'm unclear on your position of a few minutes ago that having the conversations at times other than when a story in the news is irrelevant and won't sink in?
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 8, 2016 14:47:13 GMT -5
I don't see how having a conversation with your children about all types of personal safety is giving them information in a vacuum? is that true of every conversation with kids? Are we supposed to wait until we hear about some kin in the news failing to talk to them about doing their homework? Until their teeth fall out before talking to them about dental hygiene? For one of their friends to die in a car accident before we explain road rules?
Of course not. But it's also not out of line to relate those lessons back to real life and relevant news. ETA: and why are some jumping to the either/or ends of spectrum here. Nobody has said that we shouldn't be working to decrease the instances of rape attempts or to increase awareness or to hold those who do this responsible. I have so many thoughts on this it's hard to get them into a cohesive state, but I'm gonna try.... I think the difference is in HOW you phrase things in talking to your kids. Do you imply it's stupid to not do something to make yourself safer? Like not using sunscreen? Or locking your door? They're going to hear the implied "you're an idiot to do....." even if you leave it out of the don't leave your drink unattended conversation. And if they ever slip, and something horrible happens, they'll be afraid you'll look down on them in disdain as well. So they may not tell you. Or report it. This particular crime has way more likelihood than any other of the victim blaming themselves and being blamed by others. That's my big fear, anyway, that the kids will pick up something I'm not actually saying because I have indeed called some things just plain dumb. (drugs, for example)
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 14:50:05 GMT -5
Separate them. Same thing. Just on a national level. The discussion about drinking for example is important. Doesn't need to wait until an incident. It can stand on its own. I agree. I just think it is hard to separate the two. Even without an incident if you bring up that women should take precautions to protect themselves from being victims of sexual assault and rape there is going to be a fairly large contingent that respond that instead of telling women how not to be raped, how about telling men not to rape women. And then you are back in the same conversation we are in. Where we are currently at, I just don't know if there is a way to genuinely talk about it. I think that most of the precautions aren't rape-specific, though. Be aware of your surroundings, don't drink too much, use caution in isolated areas, lock your doors at night, use the buddy system, etc. can protect you from all types of assault (and robbery). Men and boys should be hearing these tips too. It doesn't necessarily have to be a conversation about "preventing rape," but a general conversation about keeping yourself and your belongings safe in public.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 8, 2016 14:56:17 GMT -5
I agree. I just think it is hard to separate the two. Even without an incident if you bring up that women should take precautions to protect themselves from being victims of sexual assault and rape there is going to be a fairly large contingent that respond that instead of telling women how not to be raped, how about telling men not to rape women. And then you are back in the same conversation we are in. Where we are currently at, I just don't know if there is a way to genuinely talk about it. I think that most of the precautions aren't rape-specific, though. Be aware of your surroundings, don't drink too much, use caution in isolated areas, lock your doors at night, use the buddy system, etc. can protect you from all types of assault (and robbery). Men and boys should be hearing these tips too. It doesn't necessarily have to be a conversation about "preventing rape," but a general conversation about keeping yourself and your belongings safe in public. That is a good strategy. As long as you talk in generalities and don't mention he-who-should-not-be-named you should be able to get the message through.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 8, 2016 15:00:56 GMT -5
When the subject comes up in real life around me what I find insulting/interesting is the conversation always revolves around how I, as a woman am supposed to keep myself safe, what I should/should not be wearing and how to conduct myself sexually. I don't hear anyone say that we need to teach men how to keep it in their pants. That "being a boy" is not a free pass to do whatever you want with a woman (or another man for that matter). They need to be taught they are responsible for their own actions and if you commit a crime it doesn't matter that she was passed out behind a dumpster, you still committed a crime and should be punished for it. When I bring it up I am told that "men are dogs" or "men can't help themselves" or to use my DH's favorite phrase "I know what guys are like". Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe we should not be raising our boys to "be like that?" I can do everything "right" and still end up a rape victim. That doesn't somehow make me a more valid victim than a woman who was working as prostitute, someone that has had multiple partners, someone that wore a mini skirt or got drunk or walked down a dark alley. THAT to me is a problem. While we agree that all the ladies I listed are victims somehow they are "less" of a victim than I am since they were "stupid". That's bullshit. We need to focus on figuring out getting rid of the underlying bias that men can't help themselves sexually and it's up to women to prevent them from acting on it. That doesn't mean do whatever you want without any thought of your safety. I could just as easily be murdered or robbed walking down a dark alley as I could be raped. Staying out of a dark alley has multiple safety considerations behind it. Telling me I shouldn't have been wearing a mini skirt is not "keeping me safe". It's blaming me for tempting men by exposing my skin.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Jun 8, 2016 15:03:04 GMT -5
I agree. I just think it is hard to separate the two. Even without an incident if you bring up that women should take precautions to protect themselves from being victims of sexual assault and rape there is going to be a fairly large contingent that respond that instead of telling women how not to be raped, how about telling men not to rape women. And then you are back in the same conversation we are in. Where we are currently at, I just don't know if there is a way to genuinely talk about it. I think that most of the precautions aren't rape-specific, though. Be aware of your surroundings, don't drink too much, use caution in isolated areas, lock your doors at night, use the buddy system, etc. can protect you from all types of assault (and robbery). Men and boys should be hearing these tips too. It doesn't necessarily have to be a conversation about "preventing rape," but a general conversation about keeping yourself and your belongings safe in public. I am at this point inclined to say it absolutely shouldn't be a conversation about "preventing rape". It is everyone's job to stay safe, but it's time to stop all implications that the burden for preventing rape is on the woman.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,420
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 8, 2016 15:05:53 GMT -5
So how many of you have said something to their sons/daughters along the lines of "I love you and always will, etc. ... but there are a few things in life I might not be able to forgive if you did them. Raping somebody makes that list..."?
Believe it or not, I have been known to make that statement.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 8, 2016 15:08:37 GMT -5
So how many of you have said something to their sons/daughters along the lines of "I love you and always will, etc. ... but there are a few things in life I might not be able to forgive if you did them. Raping somebody makes that list..."?
Believe it or not, I have been known to make that statement. I may have threatened to beat them senseless/told them jail would be much less scarier than me.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 15:10:00 GMT -5
Exactly. The only precautions I can think of that are "rape-specific" are the ones that aren't really precautions, but judgments. The victim's manner of dress, sexual history, etc. Changing from a miniskirt into sweats or remaining a virgin into college isn't going to do squat when it comes to rape prevention.
|
|
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 8, 2016 15:21:26 GMT -5
I have so many thoughts on this it's hard to get them into a cohesive state, but I'm gonna try.... I think the difference is in HOW you phrase things in talking to your kids. Do you imply it's stupid to not do something to make yourself safer? Like not using sunscreen? Or locking your door? They're going to hear the implied "you're an idiot to do....." even if you leave it out of the don't leave your drink unattended conversation. And if they ever slip, and something horrible happens, they'll be afraid you'll look down on them in disdain as well. So they may not tell you. Or report it. This particular crime has way more likelihood than any other of the victim blaming themselves and being blamed by others. That's my big fear, anyway, that the kids will pick up something I'm not actually saying because I have indeed called some things just plain dumb. (drugs, for example) Here's a real life conversation that I had when I found out a young cousin and her girlfriend were about to go to a party at a hotel brought by a boy their age (15/16) and they didn't know anyone else who would be there, except they were 'older' and there would be drinking. (I was the cool cousin at this point well into adulthood myself so this why they told me). I was driving them to McDonald's at the time where they were to meet this friend. I asked what their plan was? How would they get home? What was their signal to each other to get out? How much they planned to drink? Should they drink? Do they think it's a little odd that older guys would invite a much younger guy to the party and told him to bring girls? Did they trust this boy that was bringing them? When I received very vague and naive answers to these questions, I finally asked them how it felt to be offered up as a prize. They both looked at me dumbfounded as it had never occurred to them that they were being set up for a very very bad situation. I then point blank told them that their friends couldn't be trusted and that they needed to wise up to what was about to happen to them. I told them they always needed to have a plan if they were going to be in situations that could get out of hand, such as drinking. I told them they were responsible for making sure they maintained control of themselves and that it was ultimately up to them to keep themselves from bad situations. Oh and I also told them they were crazy if they thought I was about to let them be stupid, drove them home, and grounded both of them for a month. (My mother who had custody of the cousin at the time added hard labor to sentence). Was I supposed to let them tra la la off into a gang rape situation? How about sending them off with a 'If you get raped it's not your fault it's the rapists fault' Get real... these were two clueless girls that needed to be told they were doing something stupid and were about to put themselves at risk. They needed to be told because they really didn't get it.
However, if they didn't tell you where they were going and they did get gang raped, would you have told them they were stupid?
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 8, 2016 15:24:16 GMT -5
Here's a real life conversation that I had when I found out a young cousin and her girlfriend were about to go to a party at a hotel brought by a boy their age (15/16) and they didn't know anyone else who would be there, except they were 'older' and there would be drinking. (I was the cool cousin at this point well into adulthood myself so this why they told me). I was driving them to McDonald's at the time where they were to meet this friend. I asked what their plan was? How would they get home? What was their signal to each other to get out? How much they planned to drink? Should they drink? Do they think it's a little odd that older guys would invite a much younger guy to the party and told him to bring girls? Did they trust this boy that was bringing them? When I received very vague and naive answers to these questions, I finally asked them how it felt to be offered up as a prize. They both looked at me dumbfounded as it had never occurred to them that they were being set up for a very very bad situation. I then point blank told them that their friends couldn't be trusted and that they needed to wise up to what was about to happen to them. I told them they always needed to have a plan if they were going to be in situations that could get out of hand, such as drinking. I told them they were responsible for making sure they maintained control of themselves and that it was ultimately up to them to keep themselves from bad situations. Oh and I also told them they were crazy if they thought I was about to let them be stupid, drove them home, and grounded both of them for a month. (My mother who had custody of the cousin at the time added hard labor to sentence). Was I supposed to let them tra la la off into a gang rape situation? How about sending them off with a 'If you get raped it's not your fault it's the rapists fault' Get real... these were two clueless girls that needed to be told they were doing something stupid and were about to put themselves at risk. They needed to be told because they really didn't get it.
However, if they didn't tell you where they were going and they did get gang raped, would you have told them they were stupid?
You beat me to my answer. There's a difference between having actual right now, first hand knowledge that someone is about to put themselves in a very bad situation and the abstract conversations about what they may encounter in the future some time.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 15:28:22 GMT -5
I have so many thoughts on this it's hard to get them into a cohesive state, but I'm gonna try.... I think the difference is in HOW you phrase things in talking to your kids. Do you imply it's stupid to not do something to make yourself safer? Like not using sunscreen? Or locking your door? They're going to hear the implied "you're an idiot to do....." even if you leave it out of the don't leave your drink unattended conversation. And if they ever slip, and something horrible happens, they'll be afraid you'll look down on them in disdain as well. So they may not tell you. Or report it. This particular crime has way more likelihood than any other of the victim blaming themselves and being blamed by others. That's my big fear, anyway, that the kids will pick up something I'm not actually saying because I have indeed called some things just plain dumb. (drugs, for example) Here's a real life conversation that I had when I found out a young cousin and her girlfriend were about to go to a party at a hotel brought by a boy their age (15/16) and they didn't know anyone else who would be there, except they were 'older' and there would be drinking. (I was the cool cousin at this point well into adulthood myself so this why they told me). I was driving them to McDonald's at the time where they were to meet this friend. I asked what their plan was? How would they get home? What was their signal to each other to get out? How much they planned to drink? Should they drink? Do they think it's a little odd that older guys would invite a much younger guy to the party and told him to bring girls? Did they trust this boy that was bringing them? When I received very vague and naive answers to these questions, I finally asked them how it felt to be offered up as a prize. They both looked at me dumbfounded as it had never occurred to them that they were being set up for a very very bad situation. I then point blank told them that their friends couldn't be trusted and that they needed to wise up to what was about to happen to them. I told them they always needed to have a plan if they were going to be in situations that could get out of hand, such as drinking. I told them they were responsible for making sure they maintained control of themselves and that it was ultimately up to them to keep themselves from bad situations. Oh and I also told them they were crazy if they thought I was about to let them be stupid, drove them home, and grounded both of them for a month. (My mother who had custody of the cousin at the time added hard labor to sentence). Was I supposed to let them tra la la off into a gang rape situation? How about sending them off with a 'If you get raped it's not your fault it's the rapists fault' Get real... these were two clueless girls that needed to be told they were doing something stupid and were about to put themselves at risk. Suggesting safety precautions to a specific person when that person is about to do something stupid is exactly the right thing to do. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Turning the national conversation toward "rape prevention" (versus the behavior of an actual rapist) following a high-profile rape trial is a bit different. It's not targeting someone who may be in imminent danger, it's Monday-morning-quarterbacking the actions of a rape victim.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 15:38:17 GMT -5
Is there any way to get from the first part to the second part? Ie. If you wait 10 minutes, between "the rapist is at fault" and going through a list of how to protect oneself is that an acceptable break so that you are not qualifying the first statement? What if you put put a bunch of words in between the two? Does that adequately separate the two? What if you separate them by a night's sleep? ie. one day you say "the rapist is at fault" and then the next day you say, "to protect yourself you should do the following." I guess my questions is, can you get there from here? Or do you just have to stop at "the rapist is at fault" and never mention the list? You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. I think the discussion about frat parties and the 151 drinks is interesting. We warn women to be careful about these drinks and use the buddy system, but has no one suggested to the guys that maybe it's not a good idea to spike womens' drinks in an effort to lower their inhibitions? Or is it just an accepted part of frat culture? That's like asking if anyone has talked to a murderer and explained it is not a good idea to murder. Why is it so wrong to teach our children to not put themselves in vulnerable positions?
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 8, 2016 15:39:12 GMT -5
You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. I think the discussion about frat parties and the 151 drinks is interesting. We warn women to be careful about these drinks and use the buddy system, but has no one suggested to the guys that maybe it's not a good idea to spike womens' drinks in an effort to lower their inhibitions? Or is it just an accepted part of frat culture? That's like asking if anyone has talked to a murderer and explained it is not a good idea to murder. Why is it so wrong to teach our children to not put themselves in vulnerable positions? What is so wrong with ALSO telling the boys that doing something like that is wrong on so many levels? ETA: It's not wrong to teach the kids to watch out for things that are unsafe, but we shouldn't make it about "you're stupid if you don't do this or that" or JUST about "rape prevention". Most of this stuff applies to more than just rape.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 15:39:32 GMT -5
You could say "the rapist is at fault" and then maybe delve into why HE thought his actions were OK or what led him to become a rapist. What was his childhood like? Was he spanked as a kid? Did he get enough attention from his parents? Did his high school teachers let him skip tests because he was on a sports team? etc. etc. The "how to protect yourself" conversation can stand on its own. I think the discussion about frat parties and the 151 drinks is interesting. We warn women to be careful about these drinks and use the buddy system, but has no one suggested to the guys that maybe it's not a good idea to spike womens' drinks in an effort to lower their inhibitions? Or is it just an accepted part of frat culture? That's like asking if anyone has talked to a murderer and explained it is not a good idea to murder. Why is it so wrong to teach our children to not put themselves in vulnerable positions? The guys doing the drink spiking are someone's children, too... And given how widespread and accepted the frat culture (almost wrote fart culture, LOL) seems to be, I don't think murder is a very analogous comparison. People can generally agree that murder is wrong. Putting tasteless alcohol in inexperienced drinkers' drinks and encouraging them to get falling-down-drunk... that's just getting the party started, right?
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jun 8, 2016 15:43:19 GMT -5
What is so wrong with ALSO telling the boys that doing something like that is wrong on so many levels? It's not. Nobody said that we shouldn't. That goes back to my either or comment earlier. We should be having both conversations. That is what I've been trying to say. Since Miss T and I seem to be sharing the same brain today, I'm pretty sure that's what she's been saying as well. I get that, do you get what the rest of us are saying? That it's time to have higher expectations than "boys will be boys" and "she shouldn't be wearing that short skirt". That we need to be saying something about changing the thinking as well as trying to teach them ALL to look out for bad situations?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 15:44:32 GMT -5
We've been having the "what can women do to prevent rape" conversation for several decades now. Maybe it's time for the other one.
|
|
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 8, 2016 15:48:44 GMT -5
They shouldn't be asking about her personal life at all. It should have just been figuring out if the rape had occurred and that's it... It doesn't even matter if she's been known to cheat or sleep around. It doesn't matter. The point in the court case should be to clarify this was a rape and what the charges should be for this rape. Not to try to discredit her and make it seem as if she was "asking for it," or "deserved it" It doesn't matter what she was wearing. It doesn't matter if she's cheated on her boyfriend. (I don't condone cheating but it still shouldn't be part of the case.) And people saying the boy is having a hard time irritate me. I don't care if he's having a hard time... I don't know California law, but I suspect, based solely on the fact that she was unconscious and therefore unable to consent to having sex, that he raped her. Plain and simple. Nothing else -- not her dating history, not her drunken condition, not even his swimming times, are relevant. She was out cold. She did not say "yes". She could not say "yes". He had sex with her. He raped her. End of story.
|
|