Why do some men commit rape?

Wibbs

smash wrote: »

I'd like to congratulate NI24 for turning this thread in to a complete mess... :rolleyes:

/slow clap

Dial that kinda thing back please. Attack the posts, not the poster.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

That is why there are hundreds of students suing colleges because it is illegal. The problem is that Title IX is not a new law. It is an old law from the 70's that was introduced to stop gender discrimination. However it's use was reinterpretted years ago as basically saying colleges were not supporting gender equality as women were being sexually assaulted on college so a threat as made that if a college failed to stem sexual assault they had failed their Title IX responsibilities and so the college would lose state funding.

The preponderance of evidence was also then changed which is a violation of due process.

Well all I can say to that is it's unfortunate that a law is being twisted and due process violated.

Maguined wrote: »

The college investigators will ask the victim if they want to involve the police. However even if the person does not and is not going to press for criminal charges the investigators still conclude their own investigation and as the preponderance of evidence is so low and they fear losing federal funding it is simply easier for them to assume people are guilty and suspend them.

But if they don't want to press charges I believe the onus is still on the police to carry out an investigation.

ChampagnePop

Whats going on at the moment in the states in colleges is a joke, it's not fair on real victims or in the small number of falsely accused and expelled students

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

Well all I can say to that is it's unfortunate that a law is being twisted and due process violated.

Well that is the problem when someone does something with the noblest of intentions (everyone would like there to be less sexual assaults) but with poor implementation.

It is the exact same as what we did in Ireland regardng co-habitation laws. The government were getting pressured by the younger generations to allow same sex marriage but did not want to put it to a vote as they knew that would upset their older generation voters so brought in the co-habitation partnership laws which was fine in theory until people realised it was a opt-out situation rather than opt-in. If you are in a relationship with someone and live with them for 5 years you by default have all the obligations of marriage and you have to put in legal paperwork to avoid it.

Noble intention of providing homosexual partnerships with the same legal safeties of marriage (though as a cowardly way to avoid actually allowing them to to het married) and then a few years later we got to vote on gay marriage and it passed anyway.

NI24 wrote: »

But if they don't want to press charges I believe the onus is still on the police to carry out an investigation.

If a report is made to the police they will completely pursue an investigation but there is no onus on the victim to press charges. In this specific case if the college notified the police and the police asked the woman and she tells them she considered it consensual that would most likely be the end of it. The department of prosecutions would not have enough evidence to go to trial when the woman herself does not believe she was raped but considered it consensual.

Saipanne

Faith+1 wrote: »

The question I'd like to ask is how women can falsely accuse a man of raping her and avoid a custodial sentence. That pisses me off

What's also bad is the "listen and believe" campaign. Imagine that world.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

Well that is the problem when someone does something with the noblest of intentions (everyone would like there to be less sexual assaults) but with poor implementation.

You're a kinder person than me if you think it's noble. I have no proof of my hunch on this matter so I will go no further.

Maguined wrote: »

If a report is made to the police they will completely pursue an investigation but there is no onus on the victim to press charges. In this specific case if the college notified the police and the police asked the woman and she tells them she considered it consensual that would most likely be the end of it. The department of prosecutions would not have enough evidence to go to trial when the woman herself does not believe she was raped but considered it consensual.

Not necessarily. The police would ask her to explain step-by-step what happened that night and if her recollection of events is the same then that's cause for a conviction. That is, if they believe her and not him.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

You're a kinder person than me if you think it's noble. I have no proof of my hunch on this matter so I will go no further.

I do not believe how it has been enacted is noble, I believe the intentions were noble to begin with. They wanted to lessen sexual assault on campus which I do not think anyone would disagree with. They just screwed up how to actually implement a change that would help with that.

NI24 wrote: »

Not necessarily. The police would ask her to explain step-by-step what happened that night and if her recollection of events is the same then that's cause for a conviction. That is, if they believe her and not him.

I simply do not believe there will ever be a conviction of rape where the alleged victim was capable of consent and as a witness testifies it was consent. If you can show me any conviction otherwise that is not based upon the incapacity to give consent then I will believe you.

Pat Mustard

NI24 wrote: »

I'm saying that consenting after the act of rape is committed is irrelevant. Once it's committed, that is the "salient point". Perhaps she said she didn't want to have sex, but she still wanted to fool around and then he penetrated her. She made her intentions clear, but qualified it with, hey, let's do other stuff, but he ignored that and penetrated her. He's still guilty of sexual impropriety in that scenario, which is probably why he was never charged. But this is merely speculation. We'd have to read her statements.

That's a strawman argument, if ever I saw one. Nobody has attempted to say that she consented after the fact because that is not possible.

NI24 wrote: »

At what point she consented is what's being contested. The article does not provide that information.

This timing issue is a red herring. Consent cannot be given afterwards. She said that she consented. If she consented, the consent had to have been given beforehand. There is no question of timing.

NI24 wrote: »

So if it's unlikely it isn't true? Sorry that doesn't cut it. Strange things happen, it could have happened here. Stockholm syndrome is unlikely, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. *Okay, I'm editing this part to say that if it's unlikely it's not proof of guilt, however, there may be more to her statement that made it likely. We simply don't know from the information provided in the article. Also, he was never charged with a crime, he was suspended from school.

What you have written above is fiction, based on your own imagination. Men are rapists, women are victims. It's like a bad Swedish crime novel.

Maguined

Pat Mustard wrote: »

That's a strawman argument, if ever I saw one. Nobody has attempted to say that she consented after the fact because that is not possible.


This timing issue is a red herring. Consent cannot be given afterwards. She said that she consented. If she consented, the consent had to have been given beforehand. There is no question of timing.


What you have written above is fiction, based on your own imagination. Men are rapists, women are victims. It's like a bad Swedish crime novel.

Actually that is what she argues herself. She did not want to have unprotected sex, he penetrated her then immediately stopped then asked if he got protection would it be okay and she said she was fine and consented with it. She then continued to see him and had sex with him on other occassions after.

The question of timing is completely important. NI24 believes he is automatically a rapist because he did penetrate her after she said no. The woman herself believes she can give consent because he stopped and got a condom so timing is everything.

Pat Mustard

Maguined wrote: »

The question of timing is completely important. NI24 believes he is automatically a rapist because he did penetrate her after she said no. The woman herself believes she can give consent because he stopped and got a condom so timing is everything.

But there cannot be an issue wrt timing of consent.

She says that she consented. Therefore, she must have consented beforehand.

I don't see any other way of reading this.

Maguined

Pat Mustard wrote: »

But there cannot be an issue wrt timing of consent.

She says that she consented. Therefore, she must have consented beforehand.

I don't see any other way of reading this.

She told him she did not want to have sex without protection. He penetrated her then immediately stopped and asked if he put on a condom would it be okay. She said yes giving consent and was fine with the incident. From a purely technical point of view he penetrated her when she said no as she didnt want to without protection so from NI24's point of view that is immediately rape and him stopping after the fact and the two of them consenting to protected sex is irrelevant. The second he penerated her he commmited rape and the woman then cannot retroactively consent to that fact.

It is not a viewpoint I believe but the issue of timing is the crux of the matter.

Pat Mustard

Maguined wrote: »

She told him she did not want to have sex without protection. He penetrated her then immediately stopped and asked if he put on a condom would it be okay. She said yes giving consent and was fine with the incident. From a purely technical point of view he penetrated her when she said no as she didnt want to

If he penetrated her without consent, that's a whole new ballgame. That's not just a technical matter at all.

She said that she consented. Consent cannot be given after the fact. Therefore, she must have consented before penetration. If the consent was not spoken, it must have been non verbal.

If what she says is true, there is no other way of looking at it.

Maguined

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If he penetrated her without consent, that's a whole new ballgame. That's not just a technical matter at all.

She said that she consented. Consent cannot be given after the fact. Therefore, she must have consented before penetration. If the consent was not spoken, it must have been non verbal.

If what she says is true, there is no other way of looking at it.

Have you read the article?

“Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

Pat Mustard

Maguined wrote: »

Have you read the article?

Are you trying to say that there was no non verbal consent even though the woman consented, just because non verbal consent is not mentioned in that statement?

Grant Neal's account:

She was very adamant in pulling me close and wanting me to have intercourse with her.

Maguined

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Are you trying to say that there was no non verbal consent even though the woman consented, just because non verbal consent is not mentioned in that statement?
Grant Neal's account:

I am not saying what did or did not happen, according to her statement she verbally told him no to unprotected sex. According to her verbal non consent did happen.

“Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

You said timing was not an issue but I believe it was. I do not believe she was raped because she herself states she does not believe she was raped. I believe what she herself but timing is certainly an issue in this case.

Lemming

"The law is an ass". Remember that phrase folks. It's there for a reason.

I suspect that if this case were ever to see the inside of a court, it'd be thrown out in short order because the courts do not take a literal interpretation of the law (as to do so is impossible to legislate for). Not least because the woman in question herself is adamant that she was not raped and that she did consent to sex; just not unprotected sex and of which the accused immediate stopped and sought further consent and that both parties continued the encounter enthusiastically. Indeed, continued with further encounters on top of that.

Tipperary Fairy

Yeah, as I said pages ago, technically she was raped but most people would choose not to look at it that black and white.

Just saw this -http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent - wtf

tritium

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Yeah, as I said pages ago, technically she was raped but most people would choose not to look at it that black and white.

Just saw this -http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent - wtf

I think the most pertinent part of the report is this

But legal experts and victims’ advocates said they viewed the ruling as a sign of something larger: the troubling gaps that still exist between the nation’s patchwork of laws and evolving ideas about rape and consent.

Basically the court appeared to do exactly what the law requires in judging this. However there's a gap in the law that this slipped through. Not a great situation tbh and one you'd hope will be quickly addressed.

The last line of the quote above could (and probably should) however be applied as part of a much wider discussion about rape and consent, preferably one where a full range of voice are heard in an absence of emotive pleadings, as unfortunately doesn't appear to be the case on for example US campuses at present

*its actually quite sad that both sides of the debate can find so much evidence to support the position that the law is unfair to them. We've ended up with an arms race of victimhood where everyone loses *

Tipperary Fairy

Yeah it's a matter of the law catching up, but you would like to think these gaps should be closed before it gets to this point.

Pat Mustard

Maguined wrote: »

I am not saying what did or did not happen, according to her statement she verbally told him no to unprotected sex. According to her verbal non consent did happen.

You said timing was not an issue but I believe it was. I do not believe she was raped because she herself states she does not believe she was raped. I believe what she herself but timing is certainly an issue in this case.

Well, I don't see how we can put the matter any further, then. Each of us believes the other to be wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

Tipperary Fairy

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Well, I don't see how we can put the matter any further, then. Each of us believes the other to be wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

That has to be the most civilised end to a discussion I've ever seen on boards

Maguined

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Well, I don't see how we can put the matter any further, then. Each of us believes the other to be wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

Well neither of us was disagreeing over the main issue. We both believe the woman gave consent therefore this was not a case of rape. What we disagree about is the issue of timing and how much that factors into the actual incident.

WinnyThePoo

Speaking of the American consent situation. I was in a similar situation. Expect opposite sexes. I was with the a girl who didn't want me to wear a condom. We started but I didn't feel comfortable at all and asked her to stop. She did. I put a condom on and we continued. Was I raped?

Pat Mustard

No

WinnyThePoo

http://avondhupress.ie/rape-culture-ireland-2016/

I didn't know there was an Oxford definition for rape culture

"“A society… whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalising or trivialising sexual assault and abuse”

Louise O'Neill posted the article on her Facebook.

mzungu

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

http://avondhupress.ie/rape-culture-ireland-2016/

I didn't know there was an Oxford definition for rape culture

"“A society… whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalising or trivialising sexual assault and abuse”

Louise O'Neill posted the article on her Facebook.

The three examples of Irelands 'Rape Culture' in that article are noteworthy, particularly because they are far from the norm. Although I will admit they have stayed in my memory, particularly because of the major public outcry against it.

The definition of rape culture in that article:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines rape culture as “A society… whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalising or trivialising sexual assault and abuse”.

The fact that the public were up in arms about these cases shows that it is far from normalised in this country. Although sentences are an absolute joke, so I would say we have a 'leniency culture' in the judicial system that really should be looked at.

Last month, my colleague Mia Doering wrote a column for TheJournal.ie entitled “I’ve been groped, felt up and harassed. Rape culture exists and we need men to step up.” Mia spoke about her experiences as a rape survivor and a victim of sexual abuse and suggested that all men need to start feeling uncomfortable about the society in which we live.

Predictably – and this is no knock on TheJournal.ie – the comments section immediately proved Mia right. Presented with the testimony of a rape survivor, the immediate reaction of some men was not concern for the victim or anger that any man would rape, but rather to screech #NotAllMen and – while they were at it – to insult, blame and demean her. If #NotAllMen, you’d certainly wonder about some.

Here we go again. Lets pluck some examples from the journal.ie comments section as use this as an example of rape culture and men in general. Wonderful stuff.

The recent announcement of compulsory consent workshops in Dublin universities was met with derision from some quarters, but with one in four female TCD students reporting they have experienced sexual assault, consent workshops seem a minimum first step.

Ahhh, the 1 in 4. I was wondering when that would show up.

The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report (2002) is now fourteen years old and it remains a deeply disturbing work. Among its findings: 27% of Irish women and men experience sexual violence in their childhood. Roughly one third of Irish women and men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.

Only one in ten victims of sexual crime in Ireland reports that crime. Those who do report then face a torturous journey to the point where the DPP thinks it worth prosecuting the case. Ireland has the lowest conviction rate for rape cases – following allegation – in Europe, standing at 1 – 2%. The EU average is 8 – 10%.

Said it before and i'll say it again, this is a case for toughening up the laws. There is a big problem in that regard.

If you want an understanding of rape culture, I would recommend Louise O’Neill’s novel “Asking For It”. It’s a stunning work, one which will get into your head and leave you at times gasping for breath.

The obligatory plug for a pals novel, sure why not. We all gotta make a living. However, it still is fiction, and not bullet proof evidence of rape culture like this dude thinks it is.

In real life, every day in Ireland, sexual assault and abuse are trivialised, denied and normalised.

Still not seeing any evidence for this in day to day life.

If you don’t think Ireland has a rape culture, you either haven’t been paying attention or else you don’t care.

Maybe it only exists in the journal.ie comment sections? A cesspool of hate and bile even on its best day.

Anyways, claims of rape culture should be backed up with sufficient evidence, and that is the one thing all these articles lack. The three examples cited were indeed awful, but they were the exception and not the rule.

If that is the zany logic at play here, could I not pick three random examples of maternal fillicide and start a campaign warning against 'fillicide culture'?

After all, if you don’t think Ireland has a fillicide culture, you either haven’t been paying attention or else you don’t care.

ChampagnePop

I've experienced rape culture in Ireland, it was in college and it was not funny. I thought it was just a series of creepy jokes with the same male characters at the centre of it for the laugh, it wasn't until one of them was caught with an unconscious girl that people started talking and it turned out that she wasn't his first victim and there were people actively working to brush over the truth "ah sure he's harmless", "he's great craic" , "that's ***** for ya".....
It had gone on for years and it still makes me sick to think about it.

I don't know how widespread rape culture is, but it certainly exists in Ireland.

ChampagnePop

Cloudsky90 wrote: »

Rape is considered one of the most serious crimes in Ireland, it is far from normalised.

I've very close friends who have been date raped and violently raped, I know how serious it is, believe me

NI24

Pat Mustard wrote: »

That's a strawman argument, if ever I saw one. Nobody has attempted to say that she consented after the fact because that is not possible.


This timing issue is a red herring. Consent cannot be given afterwards. She said that she consented. If she consented, the consent had to have been given beforehand. There is no question of timing.


What you have written above is fiction, based on your own imagination. Men are rapists, women are victims. It's like a bad Swedish crime novel.

Are you capable of reading? The fact that you even think it was the friend, and not the girl, who gave that statement to investigators about telling Grant no tells me you are not.
The article stated explicitly that the penetration after her first no was why he was suspended, so the timing is not a red herring. You can keep repeating your standard MRA "men are rapists, women are victims" crap all you want but it just shows how incapable you are of debating an issue.

NI24

Cloudsky90 wrote: »

Yes like most people know thats why talk of rape culture is nonsense.

Except the fact that those people were making jokes about rape would suggest otherwise.

NI24

Not necessarily related to rape but pertinent to the issue of rights on campus.

https://www.thefire.org/

ChampagnePop

Cloudsky90 wrote: »

Yes like most people know thats why talk of rape culture is nonsense.

It does exist, I've witnessed it, and it had been going on for years. I don't think it's common in irish society, but it exists.

Lemming

ChampagnePop wrote: »

It does exist, I've witnessed it, and it had been going on for years. I don't think it's common in irish society, but it exists.

If it's not common, then it's not a "culture". To say it's a culture implies it is normal everyday behaviour in soceiety, that it is widespread and prevailant. What you have descrbed as having encountered is not a culture, but a bunch of asshats that you have had the very bad misfortune to encounter.

As an aside to this, if you want to make something sound scary and out of control, stick the word "culture" in the name; rape culture, gun culture, drug culture, drink culture, culture of secrecy, corruption, etc. People are maleable when scared of something; and what better way to drive an agenda than to frighten the bejesus out of everyone.

Lemming

NI24 wrote: »

Except the fact that those people were making jokes about rape would suggest otherwise.

People make jokes about all sorts of things; it's called gallows humour. For a lot of people, it's also a coping mechanism for referencing crazy (as in bad, very bad) things that they've witnessed.

Does someone joking about going to off to hang themselves to escape the pain-in-the-ass bit of work they have to do mean that we have a suicide culture? How about a culture of violence/guns/murder because someone jokes about going postal if a third party suggests xyz? Does someoen saying they're sweating like a bishop in a scout camp mean we have a culture of paedophilia?

There is a time and a place for everything. Sometimes making a joke is not suitable, sometimes it is. Context matters, and trying to place something up on a pedestal as some sort of sacred cow never ends well.

tritium

Lemming wrote: »

As an aside to this, if you want to make something sound scary and out of control, stick the word "culture" in the name; rape culture, gun culture, drug culture, drink culture, culture of secrecy, corruption, etc. People are maleable when scared of something; and what better way to drive an agenda than to frighten the bejesus out of everyone.

Maybe we should start talking about misandry culture, I reckon for any example of rape culture that can be provided it can be matched with at least one example of misandry. That should confuse the hell out of the social engineers

Lemming

tritium wrote: »

Maybe we should start talking about misandry culture, I reckon for any example of rape culture that can be provided it can be matched with at least one example of misandry. That should confuse the hell out of the social engineers

Nah, too much effort. Just round them all up and fire them into the sun. The energy they expend on faux outrage should provide the power for a few thousand years worth of nuclear reactions inside the star.

Does that mean we live in a nuclear-sun-rocketist culture now?

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

Not necessarily related to rape but pertinent to the issue of rights on campus.

https://www.thefire.org/

FIRE are pretty critical of how poorly implemented title IX has become.

https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment.

To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university “carries the responsibility to investigate” all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech.

“The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President & CEO Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.”

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

FIRE are pretty critical of how poorly implemented title IX has become.

Yeah I know but that's not the main purpose of the group, so I just wanted to make it clear. According to the site, colleges are violating rights for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily sexual assault. Btw, I still don't understand how a college can lose funding by not "prosecuting" a student if no misconduct was found. If they show they followed through on an investigation, they've proved compliance with the law.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

Yeah I know but that's not the main purpose of the group, so I just wanted to make it clear. According to the site, colleges are violating rights for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily sexual assault. Btw, I still don't understand how a college can lose funding by not "prosecuting" a student if no misconduct was found. If they show they followed through on an investigation, they've proved compliance with the law.

It was just all political pressure. Title IX was enacted in the 70s to stop gender based discrimination however a few years ago lobby groups were promoting the idea that beause women encounter sexual harassment more frequently on college that the college was at fault for not protecting their female students and so failed to uhold their Title IX obligations. This put the pressure on colleges who reacted badly under their pressure by violating an accuseds due process as it is simply easier for them to suspend a student as an example to show they were trying to be protective and reduce harassment numbers. All colleges receive federal funding but the government said they would withold it if a college failed to protected their female students as it would violate Title IX.

It is only now a couple of years later that we are seeing the outcome that if you suspend students from college without due process that those students are entitled to sue the college.

For the second broader point Title IX was a good idea but it is the modern interpretation that has become problematic. Everyone agrees with the principle that students should not be discriminated against based on their gender but what constitutes discrimination is where it gets tricky. The first modern "reinterpretation" of Title IX actually happened years ago and is becoming more and more of an issue and that is college sports. Over a decade ago complaints were made about college sports funding, how college football teams had lavish budgets while smaller sports had very little. The colleges defended the budgets as basically capitalist in nature because college footballl generates huge streams of revenue as it is all but practically a professional sport in itself and people are willign to pay vasts amounts of money to support college football. The income from college football is actually funding other sports but some argued it was still discriminatory. They argued that it violates Title IX for the mens football team to receive millions in funding while for example the womens soccer team might receive a tiny fraction. It was argued that all sports should be equally funded to ensure there is no gender based discrimination.

orubiru

mzungu wrote: »

The three examples of Irelands 'Rape Culture' in that article are noteworthy, particularly because they are far from the norm. Although I will admit they have stayed in my memory, particularly because of the major public outcry against it.

Anyways, claims of rape culture should be backed up with sufficient evidence, and that is the one thing all these articles lack. The three examples cited were indeed awful, but they were the exception and not the rule.

If that is the zany logic at play here, could I not pick three random examples of maternal fillicide and start a campaign warning against 'fillicide culture'?

After all, if you don’t think Ireland has a fillicide culture, you either haven’t been paying attention or else you don’t care.

What they won't admit is that they use the phrase "Rape Culture" as a device to include all men as part of the problem. It's not just a group of social outcasts or misfits or even just people with really, really, awful social skills, it's our entire society and culture that is the problem.

Consider this:

"The recent announcement of compulsory consent workshops in Dublin universities was met with derision from some quarters, but with one in four female TCD students reporting they have experienced sexual assault, consent workshops seem a minimum first step."

Now, I would automatically ask why the hell they think the minimum first step for educating young people about consent happens at university? Seriously? Kids starting university are gonna be 17 to 18 years old. Many of them would have been having sex a couple of years before they even started university. So nobody really cares about whether or not they understand consent until a few years after they've been having sex?

What about people who don't actually attend university at all?

Why this strong focus on men at universities?

orubiru

"Last month, my colleague Mia Doering wrote a column for TheJournal.ie entitled “I’ve been groped, felt up and harassed. Rape culture exists and we need men to step up.” Mia spoke about her experiences as a rape survivor and a victim of sexual abuse and suggested that all men need to start feeling uncomfortable about the society in which we live."

The problem with this is it requires all men to understand the inner workings of people who would commit these offences.

You can't say "OK lads we need to end Rape Culture here so when you go out at the weekend don't rape anyone" because it is incredibly patronising and insulting.

Most people do not need to be told these things.

You also can't say "OK lads we need to identify which of our friends are likely to become rapists and stop them before they can do it" because very few people have that ability to perform deep psychological analysis and it's not exactly a good thing to be accusing friends and family of being potential rapists.

Most people don't have the knowledge or education required to identify and reform potential offenders.

If Steve from my 5-a-side match on a Saturday reckons that shot of Megan Fox bending over the motorbike in Transformers 2 is super hot should I speak up and say "now, Steve, attitudes like that help perpetuate Rape Culture". He might think that he's just checking out Megan Fox's behind but actually 1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault so it's no laughing matter.

If all men are going to step up and "end Rape Culture" then how can it be achieved? By never looking at hot ladies? By telling that guy in class to stop making those kinds of jokes? Any proof that any of this will actually work or is it just a shot in the dark?

orubiru

ChampagnePop wrote: »

I've experienced rape culture in Ireland, it was in college and it was not funny. I thought it was just a series of creepy jokes with the same male characters at the centre of it for the laugh, it wasn't until one of them was caught with an unconscious girl that people started talking and it turned out that she wasn't his first victim and there were people actively working to brush over the truth "ah sure he's harmless", "he's great craic" , "that's ***** for ya".....
It had gone on for years and it still makes me sick to think about it.

I don't know how widespread rape culture is, but it certainly exists in Ireland.

Do you think the jokes were directly responsible for the crimes that this guy committed?

Serious question, if someone had stepped in and said "OK, don't tell those jokes around here any more" then he would have never been found with an unconscious girl and there would have been no victims?

You aren't really demonstrating cause and effect here, really.

As a society, we keep going round and round the same loop. The killer listened to Slipknot all day. The high school shooter was a big fan of call of Duty. Now, the rapist was often heard telling sexist jokes.

So if we took away the music, the games or the jokes we'd stop the crime from happening?

smash

orubiru wrote: »

If all men are going to step up and "end Rape Culture" then how can it be achieved? By never looking at hot ladies? By telling that guy in class to stop making those kinds of jokes? Any proof that any of this will actually work or is it just a shot in the dark?

Mandatory burkas for all... Both men and women! This way nobody can look at each other in lust. :rolleyes:

The biggest issue with articles like you've quoted is that the writer doesn't want to be allocating any amount of victim blaming and the only way to ensure this is to allocate blame to all men. What she's saying is that some men indulge in 'rape culture' but that it's the responsibility of all men to ensure it stops.

Does that mean if you overhear someone in the pub saying "Did you see Kim Kardashian's showing her arse on the net again?" you should interrupt and tell them they're alluding to rape culture? Or do you congratulate them on encouraging KK to be a liberated woman?

mzungu

orubiru wrote: »

What they won't admit is that they use the phrase "Rape Culture" as a device to include all men as part of the problem. It's not just a group of social outcasts or misfits or even just people with really, really, awful social skills, it's our entire society and culture that is the problem.

Consider this:

"The recent announcement of compulsory consent workshops in Dublin universities was met with derision from some quarters, but with one in four female TCD students reporting they have experienced sexual assault, consent workshops seem a minimum first step."

Now, I would automatically ask why the hell they think the minimum first step for educating young people about consent happens at university? Seriously? Kids starting university are gonna be 17 to 18 years old. Many of them would have been having sex a couple of years before they even started university. So nobody really cares about whether or not they understand consent until a few years after they've been having sex?

What about people who don't actually attend university at all?

Why this strong focus on men at universities?

As far as I'm aware this is a knee-jerk measure that has been transplanted directly from the US college system. Very little thought went into it over there, and zero over here.

mzungu

orubiru wrote: »

If Steve from my 5-a-side match on a Saturday reckons that shot of Megan Fox bending over the motorbike in Transformers 2 is super hot should I speak up and say "now, Steve, attitudes like that help perpetuate Rape Culture". He might think that he's just checking out Megan Fox's behind but actually 1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault so it's no laughing matter.

Going on their logic, then yes, this is an example of 'rape culture'. I can only assume the end goal is that in a generation or two we all end up being completely asexual !

mzungu

smash wrote: »

Mandatory burkas for all... Both men and women! This way nobody can look at each other in lust. :rolleyes:

The biggest issue with articles like you've quoted is that the writer doesn't want to be allocating any amount of victim blaming and the only way to ensure this is to allocate blame to all men. What she's saying is that some men indulge in 'rape culture' but that it's the responsibility of all men to ensure it stops.

Does that mean if you overhear someone in the pub saying "Did you see Kim Kardashian's showing her arse on the net again?" you should interrupt and tell them they're alluding to rape culture? Or do you congratulate them on encouraging KK to be a liberated woman?

The impression i get from all these articles is that it is the job of the majority of decent men, to police the minority who cross the line. Now, where exactly that line is, who knows? If looking at Kim Kardashian's derrière is a part of 'rape culture', then is looking at Brad Pitt (or whoever the stud de jour is) also part of it too? So, is it the ideal that men call out men for objectifying women, and women call out women when they objectify men?

Pawwed Rig

mzungu wrote: »

The impression i get from all these articles is that it is the job of the majority of decent men, to police the minority who cross the line. Now, where exactly that line is, who knows?

They all assume that men just have male friends and women just have female friends which is very odd imo ie women have no responsibility for their male friends but men do. It propagates the lack of agency that some Feminists believe is inherent in women.

smash

mzungu wrote: »

The impression i get from all these articles is that it is the job of the majority of decent men, to police the minority who cross the line. Now, where exactly that line is, who knows? If looking at Kim Kardashian's derrière is a part of 'rape culture', then is looking at Brad Pitt (or whoever the stud de jour is) also part of it too? So, is it the ideal that men call out men for objectifying women, and women call out women when they objectify men?

Bizarrely, it's only ever noted when men objectify women. Don't you know that the diet coke break is 'just a laugh', and only women are objectified by porn?

orubiru

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They all assume that men just have male friends and women just have female friends which is very odd imo ie women have no responsibility for their male friends but men do. It propagates the lack of agency that some Feminists believe is inherent in women.

It's also very convenient that their theories for the cause of one of the most serious crimes imaginable just happens to be things that they personally don't like.

Whether it's sexist jokes, objectification, portrayal of women in video games, gendered insults etc they have never been able to prove that there is a causal relationship there.

Probably most people don't like the stereotypical "jock" university lad but these people really want to take it a step further. The way they go on you'd think that it's safer for a woman to live in the Congo than to attend a university in the west.

orubiru

smash wrote: »

Bizarrely, it's only ever noted when men objectify women. Don't you know that the diet coke break is 'just a laugh', and only women are objectified by porn?

The thing is that when talking about objectification of women they often take up a false position.

The page 3 models in the Sun may have been objectified sure but that is objectification of those women, not all women.

Arguing that a lot of things "objectify women" is a good way for ugly, fat, blue-haired pigs to stroke their own egos.

"This objectification of women is terrible, I'm getting so tired of the Male Gaze" said Plain Jane, as she completed her daily attention seeking routine.