So..... in order to resist rape she has to not be a dirty slut. Because dirty sluts love rape.

This guy reads like the mythical drunk frat guy consoling his best friend after a breakup.

"No no, dude, sheriously, what you've got to undershtands is, is that all women, all girls are whoresh, man. Like, they have no, no sense of decency. Fuck 'em. I love you man. You're a good pershun!"

Holy crap I'm praying Jessica took it out of context (I'm trying here people). How about posting the few sentences before and after to give us some perpective (cause I'm sure as hell not buying the book)?

I don't believe he means modesty in attire but in attitude. The idea being that the innappropriate advances of a would-be rapist will signal the modest lady to stop talking to the slimeball. Seems like pretty decent advice to me.

I'll see if I can find the whole paragrapgh...

tRJ, come on. so if you don't stop talking to a "would-be rapist" it's ok if he rapes you? and if DO stop talking to him he WON'T rape you? mansfield is saying that it's women's responsibility not to be raped, not men's responsibility not to violate women. please.

Mansfield is also saying that the only possible reason a woman could object to being raped is a sense of shame at her own body. Never mind that she's being physically violated in a pretty horrific way, decorum demands that she not allow her naughty bits to be tossed around willy-nilly by any cretin with the muscle, the inclination, and the silent go-ahead from the dominant culture (for which Mansfield is a ceaseless apologist) to force himself on her. The corrolary is that "immodest" women, those who aren't "ladylike," don't have a problem with being raped.

I love the "more than martial arts" bit especially.

"No, no! Please don't learn how to beat the crap out of people like me! Just dress more modestly. That's only reasonable. I'm only saying this for your own good..."

I second Jessica on this. I've never tried to read Manliness, but I didn't have to in order to recognize it as crap. Same goes for The Bell Curve. Sometimes you really can tell a book by its cover.

By the way, Althouse is a HUGE fan of Harvey Mansfield, which explains an awful lot.

Cheers,

TH

So if you don't stop talking to a "would-be rapist" it's ok if he rapes you?

No, I did not say that. Rape is morally reprehensible and I support the highest penalties for offenders. So I certainly don't think it's "ok" if you're raped.

What I am saying is that there are ways to not be a victim. For all the talk of agency and victimhood around here, I am surprised that you're willing to see rape victims as helpless products of circumstance. Here's a great way to achieve agency: don't talk to sleazeballs who want to rape you.

Mansfield is saying that it's women's responsibility not to be raped, not men's responsibility not to violate women.

I am not familiar with Mansfield's work, so I don't know if he is saying that. But I doubt it. The responsibility not to rape falls on the rapist, clearly. But that doesn't mean there's nothing the potential rapee can do.

tRJ, are you joking? It's hard tell from the post, but I'm going with the assumption that I just missed the sarcasm.

Because... men only rape women who talk to them. So clearly the solution is not to talk to men? No, wait... maybe you have to use your feminine intuition to know which ones are the rapists?

This is as hard as math! In the end, just remember: it's never entirely the rapists fault. The woman must have done something wrong...

I doubt this is out of context. I can see where Mansfield is going with this: patriarchy as "civilization." It's the high-brow form of victim-blaming that (in its most elliptical form) hides its noxiousness by pretending to focus on the deterioration of the whole society, rather than asserting straighforwardly (as its more honest exponents do) that the victim deserved it. Mansfield is arguing, I think, that men are inherently uncivilized beasts (I take offense). He is further arguing that only a rigid code of social norms about sex keep men in line, and that by acting in accordance with a rigid set of sex role norms for women, women can evoke the entire weight of "civilization" in a defense stronger than any physical resistance.

Of course, this has never worked, but Professor Mansfield has probably clouded his own view of history so much that he believes it has. This version of chivalrous patriarchy (1) is fundamentally elitist, never offering protection to women of the "wrong sort"; and (2) doesn't work anyway, because any rape can be excused by some actual or imagined breach of the supposed norms. After all, this is the system represented by the Burka, and yet in Pakistan, it does not prevent rape. They have laws that essentially outlaw reporting of rape, just to make sure that people can pretend that their social norms prevent rape!

Closer to home, we see the bend-over-backwards logic of victim-blamers here. If the right to be free of rape depends on a woman remaining within the "magic circle" of ceremonial lady-dom, then all that will happen is that every woman who is raped will be called for some sort of foot-fault. This way of thinking, in fact, puts an affirmative obligation on women to follow the "rules" to keep themselves from getting raped, and when the inevitable rapists commit the inevitable rapes, the rapists will be inevitably excused by an assertion that the victim failed of her obligation.

Patriarchy in the guise of chivalry has never prevented rape, in Western culture or elsewhere, and it never will. Also, by advocating a social system in which rape is both inevitable and excused, Harvey Mansfield is effectively pro-rape the way folks who oppose comprehensive sex ed are effectively pro-unwanted pregnancy.

don't talk to sleazeballs who want to rape you.

You have now made it apparent that you are quite serious about this, which means that you are about to be, quite rightly, taken to the woodshed.

Do women have, in your mind, some magical sense of which men want to rape them? Particularly as distinguished from those that are interested in them as consensual sex partners? Generally, to the extent that women can determine these things, I think it is fair to say that they gather the necessary data through the primary mode of interpersonal communication for the last 10,000 years, talking. Which you are weighing in against.

Perhaps you are in favor of exclusively pre-screening men online before meeting them in person for sex? Your idea actually seems quite practical, by the way, for lesbians, insofar as they do not want sex from men and can avoid personal contact with men for any other purpose; which is to say that your remarks would make sense if you think that lesbian separatists have got it right. I don't think you are saying that, but I am charitable enough to point out that there is one scenario where what you said is neither nonsensical nor disingenuous.

The modesty argument is just ridiculous. Women get raped in chadors all the time; women get raped in burqas. Women get raped who don’t even look at, let alone talk to a male stranger. I know those women. They still get raped. Mister Mansfield is talking out of his arse and there is nothing “high-brow� about it. It is true, to resist rape we need more than martial arts and police; we need men to be human.

And tRJ,

I don’t know how much you know about rape, but it usually does not occur as a result of speaking with sleaze balls. Like I said rape happens to women who don’t talk to any male strangers. Most rape is acquaintance rape anyways. I just have a feeling that this kind of advice is just a pretext for blaming the victim, or an excuse to control women: don’t behave like this, don’t go out at night, don’t talk to sleaze balls, be a lady. Why should I have to loose my freedom? Why can’t men just not rape?

I think it is fair to say that they gather the necessary data through the primary mode of interpersonal communication for the last 10,000 years, talking. Which you are weighing in against.

I am weighing in against continuing to talk to certain guys. That's the whole point of Mansfield's comment. There should be certain behaviors and certain suggestions that a modest woman would find offensive. And it is at that point that this woman would think to herself, "This guy has crossed a line and I no longer trust his motives."

“There should be certain behaviors and certain suggestions that a modest woman would find offensive.� What the hell does “modest woman� mean anyways? So if I am not a “modest woman� then I am somehow responsible for my getting raped? Why do women have to be on their toes all the time? Do you have any evidence that “modest women� get raped less often? Like I said women get raped even if they never talk to male strangers. Women get raped in Saudi-Arabia, in Afghanistan and in Iran, all those modest women, all covered up.

All too often the point where the rapist has crossed the line, is the point of assault tRJ. Mansfield's comment even when applied to the conduct of a person, and not the dress, still propagates harmful myths about rape; namely that there is some way to identitfy an attacker, and so women should be responsible for avoiding being raped.

There should be certain behaviors and certain suggestions that a modest woman would find offensive.

So you're agreeing that it is a woman's responsibility to stop contact with a man who says or does something suggestive or provacative.

Why is it not the man's responsibility to stop saying or doing suggestive things? You call them sleazeballs, but seem to be blaming the women for the sleazeballs actions...

You're deluding yourself if you think a simple thing like not talking to him will stop a man with rape on his mind. There is no way that responsibility for rape lies anywhere but with the rapist. Period.

sojourner - Women get raped in chadors all the time; women get raped in burqas. Women get raped who don’t even look at, let alone talk to a male stranger.

And to take your point further, old frail women get raped in their homes or hospitals as do children and we occasionally hear about people who are mentally or physically not capable of consenting getting raped or the dead. All of the above are socially repugnent and could never be thought of as asking for it and yet they aren't spared this ordeal either.

Jings this is tiresome to have to do in 2006 but here goes.

If I go out wearing a pussy pelmet, thigh-length PVC stiletto boots and a bra made out of duct tape with my nipple piercings hanging out, then proceed to get drunk and swear in a truly immodest fashion and perhaps even flirt with men, the only, reapeat ONLY reason that I will get raped is if THE RAPIST DECIDES TO ASSAULT ME.
There is no other reason or "responsibility" for rape.
The irony is that those who like to blame victims for rape are exactly the type who would go to their miserable graves fighting for their right to shoot any intruder who breaks into their home on the grounds that the perp crossed the line and was therefore asking for it. Only it rape, it seems, does the victim "ask for it"....
*sigh*

Of course it's not a failsafe solution. Of course people get raped in other circumstances where this is inapplicable.

I just found it odd that a group so big on "agency" would so quickly dismiss the idea Mansfield presented. So I was trying to clarify/add to the idea.

But this is clearly one area where you've embraced victimhood. I did not realize that before. Now I do. Mea culpa.

I find the statement repugnant, too.

Tom Head, what support do you have for your claim that Ann Althouse is a "HUGE fan of Harvey Mansfield"?

Uh, yeah, tRJ--when somebody is raped, they're victims. Not perpetrators. Victims.

I don't see how your argument, or Mansfield's, can be distinguished from "she asked for it." Yes, there are ways that you can reduce the statistical odds of rape--though "modesty" has never been shown to be one of them. That's nothing more than sympathetic magic--the idea that if you behave less sexually, you'll be less likely to be a victim of sexual violence because both are related in some way to sex.

Martial arts training and police protection, on the other hand, actually do work sometimes. So the first problem with Mansfield's argument, before we even get to the part about it being morally reprehensible, is that it's completely false.

tRJ, you are not having a discussion here. You are bashing women, mindlessly taking whatever the anti-feminist position of the moment happens to be, and then whining when they defend themselves. Please go back to Althouse's blog, where Mansfield's argument would no doubt be universally accepted.

Cheers,

TH

tRJ, your assertion that anyone here has "embraced victimhood" is both unsupported and repugnant, and it shows your ideological agenda. As to your assertion that women can prevent themselves from being raped by stopping conversations upon certain occurances, you have offered nothing but vague generalities, and even at that you admit that your solution is flawed.

If you have a proposal that can be reduced to some sort of objective criteria, set it forth. Under what circumstances should a woman presume in conversation that her interlocutor is a would-be rapist?

tRJ, you clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman.

The other day, some guy started bothering me at the bar. He initiated the conversation, and I was completely disinterested. I was polite at first, but eventually I got annoyed and started to walk away. THAT'S when he got angry and grabbed my arm. When I stopped talking to him.

Of course, I was in a crowded public place and he got kicked out. But what you're saying just doesn't make sense. Rapists don't go, "Oh, she doesn't want to talk to me because I crossed a line, I guess I won't rape her." They get angry when women say no. They deliberately act appropriately UNTIL they get a woman into a compromising situation from which she can't escape. They take advantage of the elderly, of children, and of anyone or anything that they can.

To say that a woman can prevent rape in the manner you suggested is ridiculous. There are plenty of practical suggestions that DO work: stay with your friends, watch your drinks, etc. This one is just stupid.

I find the statement repugnant, too.

Tom Head, what support do you have for your claim that Ann Althouse is a "HUGE fan of Harvey Mansfield"?

"A certain ladylike modesty," eh? Well now that was very enlightening. It certainly clears up any questions one might have as to how the weaker sex should preserve the flower of their womanly virtue against ruffianly ravagers, and incidentally, whose fault it would be should they rashly ignore his wise avuncular advice and go get themselves raped.

So tell us next, chief, now that we've solved the rape problem for the ladies, what attitude should a male in prison adopt that will magically fend off homosexual rape? Frankly I think "ladylike modesty" might not cut it in those environs.

I don't even think Mansfield is giving "helpful advice" to avoid being raped. If he were, certainly he would consider a police intervention sufficient to prevent the crime. He is actually suggesting that forced sex is not actually rape if you don't have an appropriately modest demeanor.

The irony is that those who like to blame victims for rape are exactly the type who would go to their miserable graves fighting for their right to shoot any intruder who breaks into their home...

I am glad you brought this up, because this is a great analogy. I happen to think you should be able to shoot intruders. I also think you should be able to shoot your rapist. Seriously, I worked in corrections in my younger days, and I dealt with rapists all the time. There truly isn't a punishment harsh enough that our system is willing to dish out.

But consider burglars: if someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff, that isn't your fault. There isn't anything you can do to avoid a determined burglar. And yet people lock their doors, install motion sensor lights and alarms, etc. People take precautions because it's all they can do to feel like they've taken charge and avoided becoming a victim.

And that's all I am saying: do what you can do not be a victim. It will always be the rapist's fault. And in most cases, a rapist is not going to be stopped. But that doesn't mean you can't be sensitive to threats to your security.

There are plenty of practical suggestions that DO work: stay with your friends, watch your drinks, etc.

I have to disagree. "Stay with your friends" works until you want to be alone with someone. In other words, that's telling women to avoid doing things they want to do, things that men take for granted that they can do, so that they don't get raped. I'm not okay with solutions like that. Women need to be able to live in no more fear of being raped than men do; that is to say, negligible. And that has to be true whether they are white or non-white, rich or poor, old or young. Otherwise, we're still in patriarchy.

Right--Mansfield's argument has nothing to do with preventing rape and everything to do with masculinity-worship.

And MidwayPete, you may be right about Althouse and Mansfield. I had been told that she was a huge fan of his (I can't remember where), but a quick Google search suggests that she may not be. I suppose one would have to ask her.

Cheers,

TH

tRJ, you've switched from generality to metaphor. What exactly is it that ought to alert a woman that the man she is speaking to is a rapist, and how is it distinguishable from a man's expression of interest in consensual sex?

The problem is that "ladylike modesty" is the exact opposite of the type of behavior that will dissuade a potential rapist (if the rapist is in the category that prefers to avoid conflict. Some rapists prefer victims who fight back. The best advice I have gotten on this is to trust my instincts, which is what an FBI agent who specialized in abductions told me.)

According to Gavin De Becker's books, The Gift of Fear/Protecting the Gift, it is often women's socially programmed politeness that is dangerous. When it comes to rape, some (but not all victims) do reach a point where they are deeply uncomfortable with the actions of their soon-to-be attacker, but they don't break off contact because they don't want to be rude or hurt his feelings. At least for some rapists, kicking up a big fuss over so-called "minor" transgressions--such as not leaving you alone, asking overly personal questions, touching you in ways that you find inappropriate, although not necessarily overtly sexual--can be a big deterrent.

He also warns people, women particularly, to be wary of people who ignore it when you say "no" even if what you are saying no to is not remotely sexual. I.e., he offers to help you with your groceries, you say no, and he picks up a bag anyways. At this point, he would advise making a scene.

We need to realize that we are not responsible for everyone else's social comfort, propriety be damned.

But this is not modesty. Modesty is a blushing, passive-aggressive display. Looking someone dead in the eye and saying "you need to leave, now" or "stop touching me" is not modest. And it is empowering.

This is also not to say that it is anyone's fault for not being assertive. Sometimes bad behavior is just so shocking that even one of us who is normally assertive does not respond the way s/he would like to. Been there, done that, and I'm someone who has given the topic a lot of thought since about age 14, and have military and martial arts training.

But consider burglars: if someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff, that isn't your fault. There isn't anything you can do to avoid a determined burglar. And yet people lock their doors, install motion sensor lights and alarms, etc. People take precautions because it's all they can do to feel like they've taken charge and avoided becoming a victim.

And it's the same thing with rape. Everyone does the equivalent things, like locking doors, avoiding people who are obviously creepy, resisting during the actual act, and so on.

Draconian guidelines about how women should never go alone or never want to have casual sex, are nothing of that sort. The equivalent with burglary is "Live in a crappy house and don't keep anything beyond bare necessities, so that nobody will want to rob you."

The only crime anyone seriously suggests as restrictive a reaction as Mansfield is for rape is terrorism: a lot of people are happy to shred civil liberties over it.

Thomas: Someone else switched it to a metaphor. So I was trying to work with it.

As for how a woman ought to recognize the signs, help me understand this. If a guy is interested in consensual sex, for that to work out for him, the woman has to be interested, too. That's the consensual part.

So if the woman is not interested, but the guy keeps making advances...

Do you see what I am saying? That's where the line gets crossed, by a guy who keeps making unwanted advances. And I think that was Mansfield's point, was that what the threshold for what qualifies as "unwanted" should be lower.

tRJ,

You are assuming that the rapist is making advances,and then when they are spurned, he rapes. Many of them do not. They get the woman in a vulnerable position, and then attack. If they are acquaintances, they may never have made a pass before. If they are drug rapists, they wait until she is under the influence. If they are strangers, they get her in a place where she is vulnerable before they attack.

Follow-up--For those who do make "passes" or "advances" see my above post about how they are better met with rudeness then with "modesty." I think I've covered the field.

Ismone: I direct you to my previous comment that "of course people get raped in other circumstances where this is inapplicable."

I am not sitting here saying "Wow, Mansfield solved rape!" I just thought it odd that his idea was dismissed out of hand. In a world where rape will never be stopped, it seems prudent to take advantage of what little power you do have.

Modesty is not power. Telling someone to take a hike or defending yourself with physical force is. Modesty is focused on your own conduct, assertiveness is focused on getting another's bad conduct to stop. It's not that his advice is rarely applicable, it is that it is never applicable.

So, tRJ et. al;
In my mom's day, the nuns used to tell the girls that if they shout "Flee from me, for I am a daughter of the Virgin Mary!", it would "save" them. Should we ressurect that? Would that work, do you think?

tRJ:

Let's try to explain this so that you might comprehend.

You say that Mansfield's advice is good. Exercise ladylike modesty = avoiding rape. However, you also say that weilding weapons = avoiding rape. other people tell me that yelling like a fiend and drawing attn to the person assaulting me = avoiding rape. And still others council that you should just shut up and lie still which won't = avoiding rape, but will = avoiding murder. And then other people tell me about a thousand other things that might or might not help me avoid rape. Which should I follow, oh wise counselor? Which of the thousands of suggested methods should I apply?

See, when it comes down to it, we've tried EVERYTHING to avoid being raped and NOTHING works. NOTHING reduces your chances of being raped, or, even if it does reduce yours, it inflates some other womans. A man who wants to rape will rape. End of story. Period. The author of MANLINESS shouldn't be counsling women on how to behave. He should be explaining to men how not to stick their dicks into places they aren't welcome, plain and simple, and lecturing them on the fact that THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX.

Get it?

tRJ - I agree with you that there are things a woman can do to protect herself. She can trust her instincts, carry emergency cab money (assuming she can afford to), and stay with a group.

Women should do those things for their own protection, at their own discretion. That is a FAR CRY from saying that women get raped because they were "talking to sleazeballs."

If we knew in ADVANCE who the rapists were, we wouldn't talk to them. Or, um, live on the same street as them. Or go to the same gym as them. Or be a young child at a school where one of them works. Or be the child of one. Or take a job from them. Or jog in the same park as them... tRJ, have I missed anything else women ought to be doing to avoid being "helpless products of circumstance"?

Let's try to explain this so that you might comprehend.

This seems unnecessary. I haven't implied that you are dimwitted for not seeing my point.

tRJ - I agree with you that there are things a woman can do to protect herself. She can trust her instincts, carry emergency cab money (assuming she can afford to), and stay with a group.

Well, good. That's really all I am trying to say. For me, where modesty fits into that, is basically adding that to the list of instincts.

Believe it or not, I am a chivalrous sort. I hold doors for women and stand when they leave the table. I half expect that you think that's sexist, too, but, by my rearing, it's just good manners. As a result, I personally think guys get away with a lot that they shouldn't, as far as ogling and cat calling and grabbing women. The modesty concept is not that you should dress more modestly, or behave more modestly. It's that you should be more offended by sleazy guys. Demand that men treat you like a lady. That's what the whole "don't talk to sleazeballs" comment meant.

tRJ writes:
The modesty concept is not that you should dress more modestly, or behave more modestly. It's that you should be more offended by sleazy guys. Demand that men treat you like a lady.

...and then maybe, if you're really really good, you won't get raped.

And you base this on what, exactly?

Cheers,

TH

"elieve it or not, I am a chivalrous sort. I hold doors for women and stand when they leave the table. I half expect that you think that's sexist, too"

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Why don't you just return to the 16th century?
I like people to be nice and polite to me, but not because I am a woman.

"It's that you should be more offended by sleazy guys." You just don't seem to get it. As many people have emphasized being offended by sleazy guys does not protect one from being raped. For the nth time: women get raped in chadors, women who don't speak to male strangers.... But you're not gonna get it, because you don't want to get it.

...and then maybe, if you're really really good, you won't get raped. And you base this on what, exactly?

Really, enough with the straw men.

tRJ, your argument is a straw man.

Cheers,

TH

tRJ, what you have said applies to the following circumstances:
(1) a man approaches a woman and propositions her for sex;
(2) she says no; and
(3) he keeps pursuing the subject when they are in a public place.

If she doesn't say no right away, perhaps because she is interested, then she will not know whether her limits will be respected until they are behind closed doors and usually alone.

If she says no, and he persists, but they not in a public place, then not talking to him is quite beside the point. In fact, if he intends to rape her at that point her options are flight, resistance or passivity in the hope of mitigating damage.

This does not address stranger assaults, which are a minority but not an insignificant minority of rapes. This does not address use of incapacitating intoxicants, which might be involved in a majority of rapes.

So you're dealing with perhaps, generously, 20% of scenarios.

Then, add to this that your solution may be effictively mooted by women's actual conduct. Most women I know stop talking (in anything but an adversarial way) to men who make unwanted, persistent advanced -- not out of ladylike modesty, whatever that is, but out of self-preservation. You're postulating a universe where women are trying to fend off leering, aggressive cretins by ... what, being witty? And you're postulating that these leering, aggressive cretins then rape women, but would not done so had the women merely said ... what, "you've offended me, get lost"? But as Prairylily noted above, in practice many women are already telling these aggressive guys to get lost, and the problem is controlling their behavior at that point.

So in sum, you've postulated a point in the progression of events where a woman can be assertive and stop the escalation. But (1) this progression occurs in a minority of rapes; (2) the point at which assertiveness might be effective often does not coincide with the point at which the woman has enough information to act on it; and (3) to the extent that women have enough information to spot an emerging problem when they think that assertive rejection of the would-be assailant will do some good, they are generally already doing it.

In that light, all your suggesting adds is some gloss about modesty and chivalry, which I have explained above are counterproductive. Your remarks will certainly be read by others as an excuse to victim-blame because a woman didn't spot a rapist early enough in the interaction (even if you don't mean it that way) because we live in a culture that blames victims for rape.

tRJ:

Since you obviously failed to read the whole of my comment, I repeat this:

See, when it comes down to it, we've tried EVERYTHING to avoid being raped and NOTHING works. NOTHING reduces your chances of being raped, or, even if it does reduce yours, it inflates some other womans. A man who wants to rape will rape. End of story. Period. The author of MANLINESS shouldn't be counsling women on how to behave. He should be explaining to men how not to stick their dicks into places they aren't welcome, plain and simple, and lecturing them on the fact that THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX.

And I will also place this in italics in hope that you might spare a bit of attention: Women, no matter how they behave, dress, act, what they do, how they walk, how aware they are, cannot avoid being raped. We cannot even really reduce our chances, since most males who rape us are acquaintences or loved ones. We cannot put a dent in the rates. PERIOD. Only you, as a male, can do that. How can you do that? When you see men ogling and cat calling women, call them out on it. Threaten them. Embarass them. Don't laugh at rape jokes or support any industry that makes women into objects.

Jeanna: I read every comment, in its entirity, twice, including yours. I can't address everything everyone says.

And believe me, I do exactly what you suggest. I actually have female friends who call on me to escort them because of my willingness to do just that. I don't put up with it. I don't think women should either. Unfortunately, I see women putting up with it all the time.

And to that end, I just don't agree with you that women can't do anything. As DT noted, there are ways to be more guarded. And I think this is a good one to add to the list.

You're really not being clear about what "more guarded" means, and how it's supposed to protect someone.

And believe me, I do exactly what you suggest.

Cudos to you man. Now try actually believing in it.

Because if you did there would be no way you could voice agreement with a statement that implies responsibility on women for getting raped.

...this independent of the fact that tRJ can provide absolutely no evidence, of any kind, that what he's suggesting will actually prevent rape.

Cheers,

TH

I like people to be nice and polite to me, but not because I am a woman.

I admit I don't understand that attitude. That's just a massive cultural difference that can't be overcome. Of course, once a women yelled at me for holding a door for her, I pretty much stopped.

But you're not gonna get it, because you don't want to get it.

I understand what you're saying. But you're talking about something entirely different from what I am talking about.

tRJ, your argument is a straw man.

Good one. And Tom, no I don't have any stats. I am not a rapist. I don't know any rapists. All I said was it sounds like a good idea.

You're really not being clear about what "more guarded" means, and how it's supposed to protect someone.

It goes back to what I said about demanding more of men, expecting to be treated with more respect.

...if you did there would be no way you could voice agreement with a statement that implies responsibility on women for getting raped.

I don't think that's why the statement says or implies. That's the whole reason I commented in the first place. I understand that's how it's interpreted here. I was simply offering another perspective.

Let me pose a question. And I truly ask this without any sarcasm and would appreciate an honest response. I did not major in Women's Studies, so I don't know the party line, but isn't the whole point of feminism to empower women? Or rather, to help women break out of the oppressive world they've been lead to believe they must live in? I've seen people mention agency (as opposed to victimhood) and the concept of taking responsibility for your own reality. Make the world what you want it to be, and all that.

So where in that concept does "We cannot do anything about rape" fit?

Tom, as always, you are my hero.

And..."So if the woman is not interested, but the guy keeps making advances..."

This describes practically every single interaction women have in bars. To say nothing of airplanes etc. How do you propose we distinguish rapists from jerks?

What's most offensive about your comments, trj, is your assumption that women do not already do all we can to avoid rape. Trust me, the fact that men rape us does not come as a huge shock to most women. We are aware. The idea that some men seem to have that common-sense tactics on how to help ourselves just haven't occurred to us is obnoxious, sexist, patronizing, and silly. And when we point that out, and note that the responsibility not to rape lies with men, you claim that we're "embracing victimhood." No. Victimhood is being inflicted upon us by men who rape. We are acknowledging that reality. In the real world, problems don't go away just because one closes one's eyes and pretends they don't exist ("if I don't say I'm a victim, then I'm not").

So what tactics are you suggesting? "Modesty"? Could you define that?

Rape is a terrorist action, because it affects not just the woman who is raped, but it is used to justify behavioral controls over women in general: dress "modestly," take offense at offensive behavior (as though we don't already), don't be alone with a man. Well, what if I want to be alone with a man? Because he's a friend, and I trust him? Or because I think he's cute and want to get to know him? Or because I want to fool around but not necessarily to have sex? Men are the ones that rape, overwhelmingly so. So if you or some self-proclaimed expert on "manliness" wants to prevent rape, direct your comments and advice to men.

OK, trj. I'll take offense at offensive behavior. Your comments are obnoxious, offensive, and profoundly sexist. But I'm not taking offense because I'm "modest." I'm taking offense because I'm assertive, I like wearing skirts, and I like crude jokes, and I don't think those behaviors on my part excuse rape.

So where in that concept does "We cannot do anything about rape" fit?

It's an exaggeration, and I don't think a helpful one, because it's obviously not 100% true.

However, it's true if you change it slightly, so it's "We cannot stop rape... (without locking ourselves up in tiny rooms for our entire lives and never speaking to any men, ever.)" Women of all ages, attitudes, and appearances are raped. And men of all ages, attitudes, and appearances rape. It is NOT something you can avoid just by "avoiding rapists," because the rapist is just as likely to be your buddy as he is to be the creepy stranger at the bar.

Now, I understand where you're coming from in part, because some feminist protests do seem to insist that women literally can't do anything to resist any kind of rape or rape attempt, and that's obviously not true. Physical self-defense does help. Verbal self-defense does help.

But I:
1) don't understand what you mean by "modesty" or how that's supposed to protect women.
2) don't believe it's true at all that women can by themselves stop rape. As said above, we've tried. It hasn't worked.
3) know that self-defense doesn't matter in the least when someone is paralyzed by fear.

The idea that some men seem to have that common-sense tactics on how to help ourselves just haven't occurred to us is obnoxious, sexist, patronizing, and silly.

Yeah, and that, too. This isn't about celebrating victimhood, it's about acknowledging reality.

tRJ, your 'modesty' argument does not empower women, it takes empowerment away from them. It suggests that women can't behave how they want to, talk to who they'd like to or even tell raunchy jokes if they wish to. Etcetera, etcetera.

You tell me how, it empowers women to have them act differently than they normally would, (or 'modestly' to use Mansfield's terms) in order to avoid getting raped.

This argument is nothing new and is one of the oldest forms of anti-feminism in the books. 'If they only acted more lady-like, then they'd be treated like ladies...' It's a crutch men use to justify the loss of control of their own impulses and desires.

don't understand what you mean by "modesty" or how that's supposed to protect women.

As to modesty, this must just go back to me being old-fashioned (opening doors and such), but I can't believe some of the things women let slide. Some men are very agressive in their approach. And I don't mean this in the sense of a guy who is all over a woman with his "Let's go back to my place" talk. I am annoyed by guys who sidle up to a group of girls and just start in with the smooth talk and "What are you guys up to later?" I guess I do want us to go back to a time when there were things that polite people simply didn't do. I just wish women would demand more of men, and visa versa.

This isn't about celebrating victimhood, it's about acknowledging reality.

It's not celebrating it, it's embracing it. It's throwing up your hands and saying "We are totally at the will of violent men."

You tell me how, it empowers women to have them act differently than they normally would.

An analogy that I do identify with: In my town of Madison, WI, there is a disturbing trend of violent robberies in the downtown area at bar closing time. The common link between all the victims is that they were alone and in the area.

So I have made a decision not to be in that area, alone. These thugs have forced me to change my behavior, have curbed my freedom. But I have taken the power I do have to avoid being mugged.

That's what I mean by empowered. These kids are taking the power from people by creating an environment of fear. And by refusing to enter their domain, I take my power back.

Just as with the rape issue, I wish I lived in a town where I didn't have to worry about this. But I do. So I do what I can do not become a victim.

Some men are very agressive in their approach. And I don't mean this in the sense of a guy who is all over a woman with his "Let's go back to my place" talk. I am annoyed by guys who sidle up to a group of girls and just start in with the smooth talk and "What are you guys up to later?" I guess I do want us to go back to a time when there were things that polite people simply didn't do. I just wish women would demand more of men, and visa versa.

But women are demanding something of men, here: don't rape us. And you don't seem to think that's good enough.

I'm not even sure how to tackle this because I'm still unsure how this behavior is related to rape. It sounds like you wish men were more modest, but first that women would have to be more assertive to get the men to back off and be modest. Right, that's Mansfield's whole thing.

But as you're talking about this as an old-fashioned thing, as in women used to do this and men used to do this... and well, it's not true. There was rape all over the place back when women were "modest" and men respected the "modest" women and so restrained their "natural" sleaze. It just wasn't spoken of as often, and sometimes wasn't called rape at all.

And many women *are* assertive and make it clear to guys that they are not going to deal with their sleaze, and it doesn't get the guys to back off. And some women are assertive and they do get sleazy guys to back off, and then they're attacked for it - this case where she had to physically get a man to back off, and then she was attacked by men and some women who insisted that she was behaving like a crazy violent bitch. Women know how they're treated if they don't respond positively to male attention. There's no easy way to deal with this crap.

An analogy that I do identify with: In my town of Madison, WI, there is a disturbing trend of violent robberies in the downtown area at bar closing time. The common link between all the victims is that they were alone and in the area.So I have made a decision not to be in that area, alone. These thugs have forced me to change my behavior, have curbed my freedom. But I have taken the power I do have to avoid being mugged.

Right, but if we're talking about this as an analogy for rape in general, that would not mean avoiding one sketchy area. It would mean avoiding all men - especially men you know, because acquaintance rape is more common than stranger rape. Now, avoiding the sketchy area where there have been lots of stranger-rapes reported, sure, that's good, and I would recommend that women do it even while acknowledging that it sucks that they would have to do that. Absolutely. The problems related to this are:

-If someone says, after a woman is attacked, "well she should have avoided that sketchy area!" That doesn't help her, she was already raped.
-women who live in that sketchy area can't exactly avoid it
-women who might not have a way around that sketchy area and can't afford to take a cab or go three miles out of their way every night to get home
-women who don't have any friends they could ask to walk with them through the sketchy area
-again, a woman is more likely to be raped by the friend or acquaintance she asks to walk her home through that sketchy area than she is by a stranger.

It's not celebrating it, it's embracing it. It's throwing up your hands and saying "We are totally at the will of violent men."

Well, I partly agree here. But I think it's more far more complex than that. Throughout history, women have been modest, assertive, restrained, virginal; worn bikinis, burkas; forced to stay locked up in their homes, wandered the streets at 2 am - and none of that has stopped rape. The important point here is that it's really up to men to stop raping.

And hey, I think a small percentage of psychopaths will always rape, and maybe there will always be a sketchy dark alley somewhere, and that's the point where it's fair to say "defend yourself." But at this point in time, when we're discussing rape in general, it's not that easy.

tRJ, Ismone at 12:42 discussed Gavin de Becker's book and what it recommended for women, which as she pionts out is the opposite of acting "modest' and you still don't seem to get it. Most men are not into being chivalrous so expecting it will not help women. I highly recommend de Becker's book, Gift of fear. I just found it in my local library last month and it is a quick read. Then maybe you will have something on which to base your ideas rather than an ideal view of what the world should be like.

So I have made a decision not to be in that area, alone.

For this to be a true analogy, you would have to apply it to every pub and every area. Not just in your home town, but in all places. Just as women would have to be 'modest' talking to all men - even their acquaintences...

So would you stay home alone - locked in your house all by yourself? Tell me again how that is empowerment?...

" I guess I do want us to go back to a time when there were things that polite people simply didn't do. "

This time never existed. Sometimes there were things "polite" men didn't do to certain women--i.e. women of their own class and race--and sometimes there were things that "polite" women just didn't speak of, and that nobody would believe them about when they did speak of (cf. Freud).

Well, I've made my point and my point has been taken (at least insofar as I could expect). So this is my last comment.

Then maybe you will have something on which to base your ideas rather than an ideal view of what the world should be like.

Not basing ideas on an ideal world is exactly what I'm talking about. There has never been and never will be a world where rape does not happen. I would like to see everyone do their part to prevent rape and that includes the few things victims can do to protect themselves. Demanding that men stop raping is only part (albeit the largest part) of the problem.

Thanks for listening and sharing your ideas.

You know, tRJ, that last line sums up the privilege that underscores everything else you've written. Imagine if a raging homophobe went into a gay bar and started screaming about Leviticus. As the bouncer dragged his placard-waving rear out of the place, he shouts out: "Thanks for listening and sharing your ideas."

No, tRJ, thank you. And don't let the door hit your male chauvinist ass on the way out.

Cheers,

TH

Heh, Tom. Now I'm literally picturing a "placard-waving rear," and I'm giggling.

*giggle* Oh, dear! That is a special image, isn't it.

Thanks for the kind words, by the way. :o) I enjoy your posts an awful lot as well--if you have a blog yourself, I'd love to add it to my bookmarks!

Cheers,

TH

A man who wants to rape will rape. End of story. Period.

What are you talking about? Like murder, rape is usually not premeditated. Rapists are generally opportunists, which means that if by some method you deprive them of the opportunity right now, they won't rape you this time.

Rape is a terrorist action, because it affects not just the woman who is raped, but it is used to justify behavioral controls over women in general: dress "modestly," take offense at offensive behavior (as though we don't already), don't be alone with a man.

That's not terrorism. Terrorism requires an intention to terrorize. For example, blowing up a black church in order to intimidate black people is an act of terrorism. Murdering a black person in a heated argument isn't terrorism, even if it's used politically to tell black people segregation is good for them.

Incidentally, the form of rape that does get used a lot for terrorism purposes is male-on-male rape. Often, an alpha male will rape another man who he perceives as too gay; then generally it's a hate crime (since the alpha male committed a crime against a gay person because he hates gay people), and on some level an act of terrorism (since he intended to intimidate gay people in general).

Overall, it's a lot more useful to analogize rape to homicide than to terrorism.

Throughout history, women have been modest, assertive, restrained, virginal; worn bikinis, burkas; forced to stay locked up in their homes, wandered the streets at 2 am - and none of that has stopped rape.

Nothing will stop rape; the idea is to reduce its incidence. You need to make a stronger argument than that - for example, to say that in recent years, rape rates have risen and fallen seemingly independently of women's personal habits.

Hmm. I'm not sure I buy the argument that the intent of the criminal determines the crime. The effect of rape is terroristic--is that word?--and just so you know I'm not jumping on the 9/11 bandwagon, I've been of this opinion for 10 years (that doesn't make me right, of course--I just don't want to be thought of as opportunistically trendy!).

But can we categorically say that the rapist's intention isn't to terrorize? Is there not some element of "keeping women (as a group) in their place?"

Thanks, Tom! I'll email you?

EG, please do!

Alon, you're missing the point here, which is not that there is absolutely nothing women can do that might help protect them from rapists. It's that there's absolutely nothing women can do that will change male behavior so they don't "make" men rape them, because they don't "make" men rape them in the first place.

And however reasonable tRJ tried to sound near the end of the thread, take a hard look at the quote he was defending and realize he was trying to parse us into a compromise on an issue about which there should be no compromise, ever, period. When men rape women, they are the sole perpetrators and the only ones whose behavior contributed in any way to the rape. Period.

Cheers,

TH

I've been watching this thread (typoed the first time: "threat," heh) for a while. I have a million thoughts on these things but was struck pretty speechless. However, I just realized something:

Didn't we institute this typepad sign in thing so we could moderate comments? I personally think tRJ should've been booted somewhere around that claiming victimhood bullshit, I think that's pretty generous.

It's that there's absolutely nothing women can do that will change male behavior so they don't "make" men rape them, because they don't "make" men rape them in the first place.

Well, if that's the point then there's nothing we disagree on here.

And however reasonable tRJ tried to sound near the end of the thread...

Actually, I think it's the other way around: he started saying something that was defensible - basically, extracting a trivially true point out of the quote while opposing its nontrivial substance - but then started conflating the two.

Basically, the closest you can get to Mansfield's stance while remaining sane is as follows:
- It's possible for women to do certain things to avoid rape.
- Beyond small things like locking doors, it's unreasonable to make women responsible to doing these things because they're too restrictive.
- Rape rates are independent of trends in female behavior.

Here is the problem as I see it: I don't think anyone here is arguing that women should not do everything in their power to prevent rape. I think everyone here would agree -- yes, do everything you can! Learn martial arts and self-defense, carry pepper spray or a whistle, alert bouncers when creeps won't leave you alone, call 911 if you're being chased, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. Likewise, no one here is denying the reality of rape in spite of our very best precautions.

Here is the problem with Mansfield's comment: it injects an irrelevant aside into the discussion of rape. What the fuck does "modesty" have to do with preventing rape? Absolutely nothing. Stop talking to an annoying guy? Duh; any halfway sentient woman will do that anyway. What is the point of bringing this up??? I think the perception (and I think it's likely correct) of most people here is that Mansfield's comment comes dangerously close to the blame-the-woman mentality that is STILL NOT DEAD in our society. I attended law school at a top ten university, and I had CLASSMATES who still buy into this bullshit. That's what's troubling about this. When you have supposedly intelligent, powerful people who STILL think a woman has some responsibility not to get herself raped, I think it's easy to see why comments like Mansfield's put some of us a little on edge.

The point is not that Mansfield is objectively wrong. The point is that he's taking the discussion down a peg or two by bringing this issue up at all. The problem for *society* is not what women should do to prevent rape; it's what institutions should do to prevent it. Leave us individual women to figure out how we personally will fight it; really, trust us, we have more of a vested interest in stopping it than Mansfield does.

Oh -- the other problem is that Mansfield dismisses valid things like martial arts as though they're less helpful than "modesty." He's using rape to get an emotional impact and make it sound like, you see women, this is why you should be modest. It will help save you from rape.

Screw Mansfield. His point has nothing to do with rape. It has to do with his idealized notion of the feminine as "modest." Men like him make me want to stop waxing and shaving and take to picking my nose in public. Screw "modest." I'll take "independent" over "modest" any day.

Law Fairy, well said.

Cheers,

TH

This is such a non sequitor,I can't for the life of me figure out what he is trying to say.But I'm certain that I resent it.

tRJ, your 'modesty' argument does not empower women, it takes empowerment away from them. It suggests that women can't behave how they want to, talk to who they'd like to or even tell raunchy jokes if they wish to. Etcetera, etcetera.

Hear, hear! Talking to "sleazeballs" may be unwise, but it is not wrong.

Oh, and ribald humour is not necessarily sleeze...

Nothing will stop rape; the idea is to reduce its incidence. You need to make a stronger argument than that - for example, to say that in recent years, rape rates have risen and fallen seemingly independently of women's personal habits.

Why? I'm sure that the rape rate *is* lower in countries where women cannot leave the house without a male companion, where women cannot leave the house without full burka, where women cannot be alone in a room with a man unless they're married or a relative, etc. That doesn't mean women should start picking up those particular habits.

Demanding that men stop raping is only part (albeit the largest part) of the problem.

But that is the whole problem! If men weren't raping, we could all wander around drunk in the middle of the night in the sketchy part of town in a mini skirt. Exaggeration aside, I think that the only solution to rape is to demand that men stop raping and to deconstruct the socialization that causes rapists.

Why? I'm sure that the rape rate *is* lower in countries where women cannot leave the house without a male companion, [etc]

I know I'm just nitpicking, but it might not be. Those societies are super patriarchal, and women are probably raped by family members (husbands, fathers, brothers) all the time since they're viewed as property.

Yeah, I thought about that. I'm just not sure it would actually be that much higher. There are plenty of men in the US who will act like women are full human beings and not property - except when it comes to sex.

Hard to tell if all you have are official government statistics.

It's true that women need more than the police and martial arts classes to stop rape. You need guns.

And what's this "we need men to be human" crap? Humans are vicous evil bastards who will take advantage of weaker humans if they can get away with it, and don't anyone ever forget that.

Unless the weaker human puts a bullet in their ass that is.

Yeah, women shooting every man who is or may be sexually assaulting them will go over really well with the law.

I was a rape victom at 19 and I did nothing to cause it. It took me 40 years to realize this and get over the experience. I know modesty had nothing to do with it. My rapist was actually turned on by my innocense and modesty. Rape is about violence and domination, not sex. It's a shame we have to teach our sons and daughters to be distrustful of others but it is necessary for their own safety.

I was a rape victom at 19 and I did nothing to cause it. It took me 40 years to realize this and get over the experience. I know modesty had nothing to do with it. My rapist was actually turned on by my innocense and modesty. Rape is about violence and domination, not sex. It's a shame we have to teach our sons and daughters to be distrustful of others but it is necessary for their own safety.

Pat Blue, your voice is one that we absolutely needed in this conversation. Thanks so much for posting this--I'm guessing it's probably not easy to talk about this, but if any of the Mansfield types are still lurking, you just brought them back to planet Earth better than any of my longwinded arguments ever could. I admire your courage. Bless you.

Peace,

Tom

trj, I'm not sure stopping talking w/ assholes would solve anything. in my case, i was told i was raped BECAUSE i turned down the asshole for a date and then proceeded to ignore him. and i tried to defend myself (i was in taekwonodoe) but he was with his friends and in the end they won the fight. in fact, i was very mad at myself that i even tried to fight back, because the rapist told me that made him angry and they weren't PLANNING on raping me UNTIL i started fighting them.

Also, there was no real way to not see him, since i went to school with him. What would've been a good solution to this? carry a gun (to school?)? Go on a date with him?

i know many ppl who were raped, and NONE were by strangers. in fact, most were when the victim was not even an adult by relatives or classmates.

how do you propose my friend could've prevented her rapes from 4 to 12 years old by her father?

nerdlet:
Physical self-defense does help. Verbal self-defense does help.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Sure. Obviously it's a hard thing to measure, but quick googling here:

Surprisingly, one third of the victims of attempted sexual assault were men. Their tactics differed from women's. Men used verbal resistance more often (47% vs. 31%)--perhaps because women were the victims of more forceful assaults. Of the women, 47% fought back or fled, compared to 22% of the men.

After the fact, most resisters are glad they fought back. In a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study of victims of violent crimes, 73% reported offering resistance. Of those who took action, 63% felt their action helped, 7% said resistance worsened the situation, 6% said it helped and hurt, 13% said it did neither and 11% were not sure.

And:

Of those women who fought back, nearly 70% were able to repel their attacker.

I've seen other studies. I've also seen a few that show it just increases the odds that the woman will be hurt, but those have tended to have smaller sample sizes.

It is also simply logical to believe that verbal self-defense does help if you believe in classifying non-violent coercive sex as rape: ie, where the woman (or girl) isn't physically forced but is strongly pressured into having sex and is either too afraid to say no or feels like she'd be bad if she said no, etc.

I'm sure that the rape rate *is* lower in countries where women cannot leave the house without a male companion, where women cannot leave the house without full burka, where women cannot be alone in a room with a man unless they're married or a relative, etc.

So is Margaret Atwood; that doesn't make it right. One of the implicit points in Against Our Will I wish Brownmiller had paid more attention to instead of ranting about defense lawyers is that conservatism is not a protection against rape. There was no less rape in the 1950s than in the 1970s, at least not relative to the general crime rate (which went up by a lot in the 1960s in the US).

In Saudi Arabia, men virtually have free reign to rape their wives. Hell, uncles can rape their nieces, and if anyone finds out, the niece will probably be killed while the uncle is spared.

It is also simply logical to believe that verbal self-defense does help if you believe in classifying non-violent coercive sex as rape: ie, where the woman (or girl) isn't physically forced but is strongly pressured into having sex and is either too afraid to say no or feels like she'd be bad if she said no, etc.

Right now I'm going to go with the more conventional definition of rape, largely because a) surveys don't capture acts that would only be considered rape under your definition and b) it makes rape more about sex than about power, and in particular dilutes established rapist profiles.

Exaggeration aside, I think that the only solution to rape is to demand that men stop raping and to deconstruct the socialization that causes rapists.

Yeah, but that sort of deconstruction a) hasn't gotten anyone anywhere so far and b) requires a level of cultural change that will make the 1960s look like business as usual.

Nobody is saying "Men shouldn't assault," or "Men shouldn't murder." When people want to stop murder or assault, they typically talk in terms of law enforcement or poverty alleviation or gun control or even urban gentrification.

So is Margaret Atwood; that doesn't make it right. One of the implicit points in Against Our Will I wish Brownmiller had paid more attention to instead of ranting about defense lawyers is that conservatism is not a protection against rape. There was no less rape in the 1950s than in the 1970s, at least not relative to the general crime rate (which went up by a lot in the 1960s in the US).

In Saudi Arabia, men virtually have free reign to rape their wives. Hell, uncles can rape their nieces, and if anyone finds out, the niece will probably be killed while the uncle is spared.

I don't think conservatism is a protection against rape (and neither does Margaret Atwood), and I'm well aware that most of the countries with strong limits on what women are allowed to do also have pretty horrible rape laws. Obviously it's going to be hard to get real statistics on rape rates from such places.

At the very least, I'm certain that if women in the US all decided they would avoid ever being alone with any man or group of men, rape rates would drop dramatically. If they shot and killed every man they felt threatened by, rape rates would also drop dramatically. It doesn't mean either of those are practical or correct solutions.

Right now I'm going to go with the more conventional definition of rape, largely because a) surveys don't capture acts that would only be considered rape under your definition and b) it makes rape more about sex than about power, and in particular dilutes established rapist profiles.

Some rape surveys don't require that rape involve physical force/drugs, actually. Those and others also use terms like "force or threat of force," which can be pretty widely defined - a threat doesn't have to be explicit, after all.

Anyway, it's not a definition I created, and it's one I'm sure some posters here use to define rape. I don't think everyone is starting from the same page on this thing.

At the very least, I'm certain that if women in the US all decided they would avoid ever being alone with any man or group of men, rape rates would drop dramatically.

Only because rape is defined by law to involve penile penetration. There's plenty of abuse in lesbian relationships, including sexual abuse; it just doesn't register in rape statistics because of a definitional problem.

Those and others also use terms like "force or threat of force," which can be pretty widely defined - a threat doesn't have to be explicit, after all.

It doesn't have to be explicit, but when the woman is just too timid to say no, calling it rape is at best like calling negligent manslaughter murder.

So when a man intimidates a woman into thinking that actually vocalizing a No would only make the situation even worse, because he knows that these tactics cut down on her otherwise present resistance -- that's not rape in your world?

Only because rape is defined by law to involve penile penetration. There's plenty of abuse in lesbian relationships, including sexual abuse; it just doesn't register in rape statistics because of a definitional problem.

1) I said "drop dramatically," not drop altogether.

2) The rates of woman-on-woman sexual assault (which does count as rape by some definitions even if not by DOJ definitions) have been studied and remain miniscule compared to man-on-woman or even man-on-man, so there is still nothing untrue about what I said.

Alon,

Why should she have to say no? Why isn't just not saying yes or not responding in any way to sexual advances enough? Are we working from a presumption of consent, or non-consent?

Iz

Alon,

I also think that the difference between focusing on men not raping and focusing on men not murdering is that we do not blame (mostly male) murder and assault victims, or talk to men about what they should do to avoid being murdered and assaulted. And men are disproportionately the victims of both crimes.

Ismone

>What are you talking >about? Like murder, rape >is usually not >premeditated. Rapists are >generally opportunists, >which means that if by >some method you deprive >them of the opportunity >right now, they won't >rape you this time.

But not always. Sometimes its planned.

>That's not terrorism. >Terrorism requires an >intention to terrorize.

Some rape with an intention to terrorize unfortunately. Generally to stop the victim talking. But sometimes just to teach women a lesson, girls a lesson etc etc

>Incidentally, the form of >rape that does get used a >lot for terrorism >purposes is male-on-male >rape.

Also rape in war, which is usually done to women, girls and boys.

Rape is done to control, terrorise and hurt. Its not a loss of control but done in a belief they are better than you are and your opinion doesnt matter.