13
14

Improving consent education and anti-rape campaigns (self.SRSDiscussion)

NowThatsAwkward が 投稿

We all know that it's important to teach people about consent, because more people admit to raping someone when the act of rape is explained, rather than using the R word.

We've all seen the backlash to the consent campaigns, often known as the 'teach men not to rape' campaign. I've also seen discussions on how it needs include some more messages aimed at women (though some campaigns do already include it) to be more inclusive- and also just because there are still myths around that men always want it. I'll be speaking about the campaigns as they exist currently, mostly directed towards men, though I think there needs to be consent education aimed at everyone.

I'm sure everyone here is also extremely familiar with the backlash the campaigns have caused. The drama about it pops up in sometimes quite unexpected places- I was reminded about this today from SRD covering an argument about consent and rape in /r/soccer!

The current consent campaigns seem to have had a positive effect, but I think that there's a possibility of using the common arguments and misunderstandings about it to improve these campaigns.

First let's look at some quotes from an analysis of a study. They found different types of rapists, the ones who admit outright to rape and ones who only admitted to raping someone when the word 'rape' wasn't used:

Indeed, some men will endorse items asking whether they have used force to obtain intercourse, but will deny having raped a woman.

There has been little research on differences between individuals to endorse a behaviorally descriptive item versus a labeling item. The present study uses discriminant function analysis to separate men who do not report intentions to be sexually coercive, those who endorse behaviorally descriptive intentions but deny it when the word rape is used, and those who endorse intentions to rape outright.

Here's a part of their analysis (emphasis mine):

Men who are primarily motivated by negative, hostile affect toward women and who conceptualize their own intentions and behaviors as rape are unlikely to benefit from the large group primary prevention efforts done as part of college outreach efforts. However, program- ming using a group and norm-based approach appears to be appropriate for men who endorse force but deny rape, as long as the programming can establish rapport and credibility with participants. Because these men do not view their sexually aggressive intentions as rape, failing to attend to issues around beliefs about the stereotypical rapist and not identifying with them could weaken the effectiveness of the programming due to not receiving buy in from participants. This would ultimately likely leave the men who could benefit most from these prevention efforts disengaged.

I'm sure that we've all seen this happen. 'Rapists will rape no matter what' as if rape is an immutable force of nature.

Many people, especially men, seem to classify a Rapist as a monstrous non-human. It's almost assumed that you should be able to immediately tell a Rapist from a normal person. Rapists are insatiable rape machines that will rape women in the street if they get the urge (which of course is why we shouldn't 'lead them on'). It's my personal belief that this idea of a grotesque, easily identifiable Rapist is closely related to the idea that only 'pulled into the bushes' rape is real rape. Because an otherwise normal, functioning member of society can't be a rapist, Rapists are a special other class.

You can see some examples of this whenever a woman talks about self-protection, or asks that men take into account women's comfort levels. You see this argument when it comes to Elevatorgate, women admitting they get scared when any man follows them, and in a special twist, you often see it in personal messages when a woman says she doesn't want to meet up or be alone with a stranger or acquaintance for fear of personal safety. "I'm not going to rape you or anything." Sometimes it's said as a joke, but I've personally had it said to be in earnest, "C'mon, how can you think I'm that type of guy??"

So many people assume that teaching consent means assuming that all men can be rapists. #NotAllMen, after all. Of course it doesn't mean that every man is a rapist, but that any man could potentially be a rapist, so women are taught to be vigilant of their personal safety at all times. Schrodinger rapist/ #YesAllWomen (I think? I don't do Twitter)

This seems like the exact problem mentioned in that analysis:

Because these men do not view their sexually aggressive intentions as rape, failing to attend to issues around beliefs about the stereotypical rapist and not identifying with them could weaken the effectiveness of the programming due to not receiving buy in from participants.

It's my opinion that this resistance to consent education and defensive outrage around this could be addressed by demolishing the myth of the Rapist bogeyman. That rapists commit a very serious crime that can severely hurt people, but that they can otherwise be normal humans. They have jobs, families, sports careers, friends. That yes, someone you know could possibly be a rapist.

It seems an odd message to have to send, because so many women are already taught this in a way- every man is a potential threat, so we always have to be vigilant for our safety.

So if you made it through all these words, thank you for your time. And what do you think? Could demolishing the myth of the capital-R-Rapist reduce resistance to consent education?

Any ideas of how we as people, or the ad campaigns, start addressing this misconception specifically? It doesn't seem easy to do without it coming across to the uninformed as a witch hunt or paranoia (though there are some people who will never argue this in good faith and will think it anyway, it's still best to aim for as effective a message as possible)

(Rebecca Watson and her explanation of Schrodinger's rapist tried! It didn't reach a whole lot of friendly ears though. I've got to admit that while I got the reference, I didn't understand at the time that it was meant to address the idea that regular people couldn't possibly be rapists. Is there a clearer way to address it? Are there other feminist writers who have addressed this that you can recommend to read?)

全 13 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]WorkshopVillage 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (8子コメント)

We all know that it's important to teach people about consent

We've all seen the backlash to the consent campaigns, often known as the 'teach men not to rape' campaign

In my honest opinion, consent education efforts are doomed to fail until they cease to be gendered.

When consent education endorses the idea that a lot of people may be guilty or rape without even classifying it as such, but then is presented in such a way as to suggest that the "a lot of people" actually only includes men, its understandable why the efforts are met with resistance or downright outrage.

[–]Intortoise -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well when men cease committing most of the violent/sexual crime maybe you'll have a point.

[–]WorkshopVillage 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I feel I have a point regardless, and I suppose I'll elaborate:

  1. The set of women who commit nonviolent rape (i.e. rape that might not be classified as rape in a schema built around the "Rapist bogeyman" concept, as the OP put it) is NOT an empty set.

  2. The material involved in consent education is not, in and of itself, gendered. Consent education's core tenants should not change with the gender of the intended audience; thus, the cost of directing consent education at both genders simultaneously is practically zero.

  3. Both men and women only to stand to gain from increased knowledge about what constitutes rape.

  4. Directing consent education at both genders will, in my opinion, greatly reduce the resistance the movement currently faces.

[–]Intortoise 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey I'll agree that teaching everyone about consent is probably the way to go. Rape culture is toxic and affects everyone regardless of their place on the gender spectrum.

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]A2GT [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    So if you made it through all these words, thank you for your time. And what do you think? Could demolishing the myth of the capital-R-Rapist reduce resistance to consent education?

    Perhaps, but from my experience as an undergrad, that isn't the biggest issue. We had a required online course on things like alcohol and sex, trying to prepare kids for college with safety tips and what not. This included saying that if someone is drunk, they can't give consent.

    Now here is the thing. Many (most?) people don't think being drunk means you can't consent. If you can't walk properly, almost everyone would recognize that is too drunk. However, there is a large gap where people are very much drunk, but perfectly capable of engaging physically in sex. In fact, in college it is a pretty normal thing for people to get drunk and have sex.

    This controversial (to many freshmen) idea comes with a very obvious question. What if both people are drunk? The answer was "It's the guys responsibility to determine if the girl is too drunk no matter what."

    Pretty much every guy and almost every girl I talk to about it thought the whole thing was a joke, and this was the most common reason. It doesn't make sense, is blatantly sexist, and what about gay couples?

    I understand the intent of policies like this is to protect women from being preyed on. However, when given such a ridiculous statement on "how consent works", everyone just threw out everything else said about the subject. "These people are crazy, why believe anything they say?" I don't believe this sort of policy is isolated to my undergraduate either.

    From my experience, you need to make sure your consent policy is coherent before you try and teach it. Even if most of it is fine, people aren't going to abandon the morals and intuition they grew up easily, and one bad part is at all it takes.

    [–]Anasthera -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I don't think this is going to actually reach anyone, but I'm going to try anyway.

    This anti-rape campaign is being approached in entirely the wrong manner. Yes the whole "rapist boogey-man" is bullshit and I'm glad you bring that up, however constantly talking the specific behavior does nothing to address the causes. As long as you continue to address the specific behavior (read: symptom) you will never make a difference. In fact, all you will successfully do is create something that constantly is belligerent to men and society in general.

    When people rape most of the time it comes from two sources

    A: sense of entitlement

    B: urges and needs that go unfulfilled.

    Addressing A entitlement is the easiest one to tackle because it is entirely cultural, AND it applies to everyone equally. There are just as many entitled women as men, and until feminist organizations REALLY start stressing this point and come up with an ideal scenario on the whole that appeals to EVERYONE and make it their front line issue, they'll continue to see backlash and a rise in resentment towards feminism.

    Teaching things like "every man is a potential threat" is ridiculously harmful and a really stupid thing to preach. If you live in the urban centers of the world, you're about as likely to be full on raped (not "sexually assaulted") as you are to be gruesomley injured or die in a car crash. But very few people are afraid of driving, and nobody teaches you to be afraid of driving, so why teach to be afraid of men? Not only does it increase the stigman of just being a man, but it creates more unease around the topic of sex, and do we really want to go back to victorian era style of sexual taboo? I doubt we will ever reach that, but there is certainly pressure from almost exclusively feminists and religious groups.

    Now to address B. this one will be a lot less popular but it needs to be said. Sex is a need, and this is more true for men than it is for women. It comes down to biology and the effect of hormones, as well as far more cultural pressure on women involving sex and how late Americans actually engage in sexual activity. Human beings normally are curious about sexuality and want to explore in their early childhood years, like 5-7, and really start to experiment around puberty. The vast majority of American children don't even understand their own bodies by the time they hit puberty, how much of a shame is that?

    So instead of having a burgeoning sexual education through exploration during adolescence, we have millions of kids who are stunted in their understanding and interest. I fucking met and hooked up with a 19 year old girl who worked at a theater with me about five years ago who though that playing with her pussy and breasts might get her pregnant. She didn't fucking know! What the fuck is that shit?

    So inevitably what sex becomes for both genders in our culture is the mysterious and compelling thing that men are obsessed with and the scary unknown thing that women are afraid of. neither of these attitudes are healthy and it is ABSOLUTELY systemic, both institutionally and culturally. And in a culture that DEMANDS that men be assertive and aggressive and competitive where sex is a commodity and a rarity, why is anyone surprised that rape occurs and occurs somewhat frequently, ESPECIALLY as of a few decades ago?

    TL:DR you want to reduce and stop rape? You'll never cut it completely like any crime but the best thing you can do is change attitudes about sex and be less entitled and teach how to be less entitled. This means starting with YOU. Make sex not nearly as big of a deal as we currently make it, be more free and willing to have it, even if it's not exactly what you want to do. And in fact, make more concessions and compromises in your daily life overall to reduce your own sense of entitlement, as well as socially punish overly competitive behavior and reward cooperative behavior with friendship, sex, relationships and positive comments. Even a fucking high five and kudos for being reasonable and understanding in potentially conflict-ridden scenarios ought to be frequently rewarded with high-positive reactions.

    Hope you all feel me on this.

    [–]NowThatsAwkward[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Some of what you say, like the need to change the culture around sex and how it defines a man's worth, is totally reasonable and I agree with.

    I don't know if you meant the other stuff how it comes across, but it comes across as... off the rails.

    change attitudes about sex and be less entitled and teach how to be less entitled. This means starting with YOU. Make sex not nearly as big of a deal as we currently make it, be more free and willing to have it, even if it's not exactly what you want to do.

    That sounds like you're saying to reduce rape, people, especially women, should be okay having sex when they don't want to. So by being okay with rape happening to us, we will reduce rape.

    socially punish overly competitive behavior and reward cooperative behavior with friendship, sex, relationships and positive comments.

    When you take a line straight out of Elliot Rodgers manifesto, you might want to rethink it. Sex is not something women "give" men as a reward for being good people. It is a partnered activity that people choose to have for a myriad of reasons, and choose not to have for a myriad of reasons. That's just basic bodily autonomy.

    Is this the entitlement you refer to women needing to reduce, the entitlement to decide what happens to their body?

    I'm sorry if you didn't mean these abhorrent things, but there are a lot of people on here who do believe those things, so I just want to be clear on what you mean from the start.

    [–]A2GT [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    change attitudes about sex and be less entitled and teach how to be less entitled. This means starting with YOU. Make sex not nearly as big of a deal as we currently make it, be more free and willing to have it, even if it's not exactly what you want to do.

    That sounds like you're saying to reduce rape, people, especially women, should be okay having sex when they don't want to. So by being okay with rape happening to us, we will reduce rape.

    I just want to comment on this as well. Anasthera isn't wrong that sex is a physical need, but this is the completely wrong approach to it. No one has an obligation to have sex with other people. It is actually a little horrifying that someone could even suggest that people should have some social duty to have sex with enough other people.

    The obvious answer, to me, is the legalization of prostitution. Make it a legitimate profession, then it can be both safe and voluntary. Then people who, for whatever reason, can't get sex normally have other means. At the same time, no one is being forced into sex.

    Prostitution may not be a perfect answer, but it is 100x better then copying ideas from A Brave New World.