High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?

[nomadthethird]

Heavy alcohol consumption also has been linked to sexual assault perpetration. In studies involving two different subject groups (i.e., incarcerated rapists and college students), men who reported that they drank heavily 2 were more likely than other men to report having committed sexual assault (Abbey et al. 1994; Koss and Dinero 1988). General alcohol consumption could be related to sexual assault through multiple pathways.

• First, men who often drink heavily also likely do so in social situations that frequently lead to sexual assault (e.g., on a casual or spontaneous date at a party or bar).
  
  
• Second, heavy drinkers may routinely use intoxication as an excuse for engaging in socially unacceptable behavior, including sexual assault (Abbey et al. 1996b).
  
  
• Third, certain personality characteristics (e.g., impulsivity and antisocial behavior) may increase men's propensity both to drink heavily and to commit sexual assault (Seto and Barbaree 1997).

Certain alcohol expectancies have also been linked to sexual assault. For example, alcohol is commonly viewed as an aphrodisiac that increases sexual desire and capacity (Crowe and George 1989). Many men expect to feel more powerful, disinhibited, and aggressive after drinking alcohol. To assess the influence of such expectancies on perceptions of sexual behavior, Norris and Kerr (1993) asked sober college men to read a story about a man forcing a date to have sex. Study participants reported that they would be more likely to behave like the man in the story when they were drunk, rather than when they were sober, suggesting that they could imagine forcing sex when intoxicated. Furthermore, college men who had perpetrated sexual assault when intoxicated expected alcohol to increase male and female sexuality more than did college men who perpetrated sexual assault when sober (Abbey et al. 1996b). Men with these expectancies may feel more comfortable forcing sex when they are drinking, because they can later justify to themselves that the alcohol made them act accordingly (Kanin 1984).

Attitudes about women's alcohol consumption also influence a perpetrator's actions and may be used to excuse sexual assaults of intoxicated women. Despite the liberalization of gender roles during the past few decades, most people do not readily approve of alcohol consumption and sexual behavior among women, yet view these same behaviors among men with far more leniency (Norris 1994). Thus, women who drink alcohol are frequently perceived as being more sexually available and promiscuous compared with women who do not drink (Abbey et al. 1996b). Sexually assaultive men often describe women who drink in bars as "loose," immoral women who are appropriate targets for sexual aggression (Kanin 1984; Scully 1991). In fact, date rapists frequently report intentionally getting the woman drunk in order to have sexual intercourse with her (Abbey et al. 1996b).

So this last sentence suggests that the best advice to women regarding spotting a date rapist is to tell women not to accept free drinks from their dates or to drink if your date seems to be encouraging you to drink. Or simply leave the date, since this is typical date rapist behavior.

 

[nomadthethird]

Most investigators agree that alcohol's effects on aggressive behavior are mediated by alcohol-induced cognitive deficits. Alcohol consumption disrupts higher order cognitive processes -- including abstraction, conceptualization, planning, and problem-solvin -- making it difficult for the drinker to interpret complex stimuli. Thus, when under the influence of alcohol, people have a narrower perceptual field and can attend only to the most obvious (i.e., salient) cues in a given situation (Taylor and Chermack 1993). In aggression-inducing situations, the cues that usually inhibit aggressive behavior (e.g., concerns about future consequences or a sense of morality) are typically less salient than feelings of anger and frustration. Therefore, when a person is intoxicated, inhibitory cues are ignored or minimized, making aggression seem like the most reasonable response.

In contrast, studies of alcohol's influence on sexual behavior have found more psychological effects. In men, high alcohol doses generally reduce physiological sexual responding, whereas low and moderate alcohol doses increase subjective sexual arousal. Many studies have demonstrated that men who believe they have consumed alcohol experience greater physiological and subjective sexual arousal in response to erotic materials depicting consensual and forced sex than do men who believe they have consumed a non-alcoholic beverage, regardless of what they actually drank (Crowe and George 1989).

So where are the PSAs about how drinking is more likely to make men sexually aggressive? If we're going by research and facts, we should be telling men not to drink to lower their risk of being sexually aggressive, and telling women to get out of the house more (preferably with female friends) and go to bars in order to avoid the high risk of rape while at home with a family member, friend, or intimate partner.

 

[nomadthethird]

One thing that is abundantly clear from all of this research is that the myth that alcohol is an "aphrodisiac" for men and women needs to end. It does not increase sexual function for either men or women, but the expectation society has inscribed that alcohol makes women hornier/looser leads men to misread signals and assume a date is interested in having sex with them.

The best way to educate teens early on would be to make this abundantly clear, and to point out that male sexual function and performance actually declines with intoxication, rather than gets markedly better. They also need to learn that no matter how drunk a woman is, it can't be taken for granted that she's horny and therefore wants to have sex with you.

The only thing a woman can do to avoid being raped is to say NO as loudly and clearly as possible when unwelcome advances are made, and not to wait until they're already in the act of raping you to make your lack of consent abudantly clear. Unfortunately even this does not work in many cases.

 

[waffle]

OK, most people who drink excessively think it's not such a good idea but do it anyway.

What then would the perils of unrestrained drinking be understood to be?

But OK, we have established that most drinkers who drink excessively do so with an awareness that it is wrong or perilous.

So what is meant here? That we can not claim there is culpability and responsibility on the part of these excessive drinkers for placing themselves in peril and doing something they understand to be wrong because 'disavowal' in various forms is all over the place? Or is it that to do so would be hypocritical or somehow unfair?

I was asking what you meant by bringing in the notion of the " formal omnipresence, in consumer society, of fetishistic disavowal: the inconsistency between knowledge and behaviour ... knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway" with reference to people binge-drinking with the (disavowed) knowledge that it is a perilous activity?

I also asked what those perils might be understood to be but you avoided that question and instead said -

Do I really need to spell out where the logic of that seemed to be going?

I'll come back to this.

In your continuing eagerness to avoid the central point being argued, you're just obfuscating a very clear argument that has already been made repeatedly via a self-confusion hyperspiral of increasingly tedious evasions, pointless questions, and irritating non-sequiturs.

Do you still seriously insist that [1] women who drink and are subsequently raped are partly to blame for such sexual violence and [2] women should be educated about the 'fact' that drinking invites rape and [3] that if they don't alter their drinking behaviour, begin living in fear and paranoia as contemporary pomo ideology requires, and passively obey these rules of proper ladylike behaviour (and maybe take up 'healthy things' like self-defence, kick boxing, kung fu or buying a gun etc) they have ultimately only themselves to blame?

Because this is the disturbing impression that you (and Shonx, among others) are loudly broadcasting.

 

[nomadthethird]

A very recent real life example of the social consequences of emphasizing a victim's alcohol use:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7555299.stm

The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was raped five years ago on a night out in the West End of London.

The woman, whose attacker has never been caught, complained to the Metropolitan Police about the way her case was investigated.

As a result of her complaint, she received an official apology and two officers were disciplined.

But when she applied for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), which covers England, Scotland and Wales, she was told the standard compensation would be cut in her case to £8,250.

The authority told her the reason for the reduction was that "the evidence shows that your excessive consumption of alcohol was a contributing factor in the incident".

 

[waffle]

Ad above for the recent, bizarre NHS "Know Your Limits" campaign in Britain that linked sexual assault to drinking, a campaign that was suddenly abandoned after lobbying and analyses like this one.

Anti-Binge Drinking Adverts Are Backfiring

Experts have warned some anti-drinking campaigns may be "catastrophically misconceived" because they backfire at a psychological level.

Experts say party images remind young people of a 'fun night out'

Adverts about the perils of binge-drinking typically highlight embarrassing consequences like being thrown out of a club, having to be carried home or passing out in a doorway.

But researchers are concerned the partying images are regarded by young people as a reminder of a 'fun night out'.

They also display a basic misunderstanding - the assumption that young people who get drunk are disapproved of by their peers, it is claimed.

Professor Christine Griffin of Bath University said: "Extreme inebriation is often seen as a source of personal esteem and social affirmation amongst young people.

"Our detailed research interviews revealed that tales of alcohol-related mishaps and escapades were key markers of young peoples' social identity.

"These drinking stories also deepen bonds of friendship and cement group membership.

"Not only does being in a friendship group legitimise being very drunk - being the subject of an extreme drinking story can raise esteem within the group."

Fellow researcher Professor Chris Hackley said: "Inebriation within the friendship group is often part of a social bonding ritual that is viewed positively and linked with fun, friendship and good times...

"This suggests that anti-drinking advertising campaigns that target this kind of behaviour may be catastrophically misconceived."

The study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, involved interviews with 94 young people in three UK regions over a period of three years.

All this further complicated by racism in the guise of sexism/victimization:
Binge-drinking mother jailed after crying rape against devout Muslim taxi driver

 

[Shonx]

This is the kind of rhetorical flourish that I just relish in a self-proclaimed woman proctectionist non-sexist. So a "woman" told you this at work, eh? So does that mean it has some sort of authority, because a woman said it? So a woman told you that, once again, as you've been repeating endlessly here, that it's UP TO WOMEN to get smart and buck up to the task of making themselves invulnerable to rape, is it?

No, not at all. The reasoning behind it is that an abuser generally looks for someone that he can easily dominate. Now this might be because they're physically weaker but it can also be tied in to their low self-image and emotional neediness, and also often whether their environment was violent whilst they were children, and this influences their idea of an "acceptable" way to act. Women that believe that an abusive partner is better than none at all, and after flashes of violence still make excuses for them (they had a difficult childhood, they were drunk, they can't control their temper, etc) and think that partner loves them deep down.

Now these aren't rare cases, I see these in my work on a daily basis (mostly legal cases concerning children being put into care, injunctions, child contact and residency issues) - I've even seen one instance of a woman preferring her children to be put into care than leave the guy that had not only been beating her up but had been in prison for raping one of her kids. We can agree that this is an unhealthy sort of emotional attachment presumably.

Now my colleague's thinking was that if the women were stronger in themselves and didn't rely on abusive partners for all of their emotional support, that they would be less likely to stay in these situations and say "enough is enough" earlier, get out and deny the abuser their power, and hopefully stop their children growing up witnessing these events (which seem to continue the cycle into the next generation). Picking out girls that were exhibiting low self-esteem and helping them to become more emotionally independent and secure in themselves would reduce this greatly.There are obviously a lot more factors to take into account, but as this seems to be such a common one, it's worth taking into account, no?

For the record, I haven't once said that women are responsible, culpable or asking for it by being drunk, dressing provocatively, being in the wrong place, going home with the wrong guy at all. The reason behind all rapes is the rapist wanted to rape and had the opportunity to, what I'm arguing for is reducing the opportunities. It is not the same as blaming the victim. As I know several people that have suffered this (and in my personal circle, drugs and/or alcohol were a contributing factor in most of the incidents, even if that doesn't tally with national statistics) and I wouldn't want them or anyone else to have to repeat the experience, I'd rather reduce that possibility. It's not because I can't deal with unladylike behaviour, my ego won't allow it or it doesn't fit in with my concept of masculinity or whatever new fantasy you decide to concoct - women have been getting drunk for as long as I've been drinking and I've been drinking quite happily with them. It genuinely worries me when I think of how my friends got into those situations (and by extension girls in similar circumstances I see), and I find it insulting that you demean my concern as fake for reasons that are purely in your imagination. It's called empathising, it's not exclusively a female trait.

Regarding the ads on male consumption of alcohol and increase of likelihood to rape, I see the main problem being that it basically stigmatizes the men who aren't going to do it with a return to the "all men are potential rapists" line of thought, and for those that want to do it anyway, they won't care. I thought that maybe trying to make boys aware at a younger age, maybe via victim testimony, of the damage it can do, it might reduce the level of rape, but I think because of the lack of concern for the victim inherent in the crime that it wouldn't be much use. Alcohol does seem to reduce empathy generally in some people, but it's questionable whether it appears that way because they're less inhibited in hiding it.

 

[jambo]

In your continuing eagerness to avoid the central point being argued, you're just obfuscating a very clear argument that has already been made repeatedly via a self-confusion hyperspiral of increasingly tedious evasions, pointless questions, and irritating non-sequiturs.

I'm asking you about something you said. It seemed that you were both saying that drinkers drink excessively knowing it is perilous, but that we should excuse this because 'disavowal' is all over the shop. And then you seemingly wanted to apply this to rapists as well. I thought it was funny that's all. I know it's probably not what you mean to say, but that's what it ended up like. Please excuse me for having a little fun.

It's not me avoiding something, you can see the rest of the discussion can't you. You're the one who evaded my question and tied yourself in knots.
But who gets to decide what the 'central issue' is? 'Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries', as someone said on another thread. Threads move on.

Do you still seriously insist that [1] women who drink and are subsequently raped are partly to blame for such sexual violence and [2] women should be educated about the 'fact' that drinking invites rape

'Partly to blame'? Excuse me? Where did I insist this, where did anyone insist this? It was actually what you said that rather more strongly suggested this by saying that heavy drinkers did it knowing it was 'perilous'. But you of course you wouldn't be drawn on what those 'perils' would be understood as.

Neither have I 'insisted' that women 'should' be educated that drinking 'invites rape'.

and [3] that if they don't alter their drinking behaviour, begin living in fear and paranoia as contemporary pomo ideology requires, and passively obey these rules of proper ladylike behaviour (and maybe take up 'healthy things' like self-defence, kick boxing, kung fu or buying a gun etc) they have ultimately only themselves to blame?

Erm, no.

Because this is the disturbing impression that you (and Shonx, among others) are loudly broadcasting.

No.

I don't go around lecturing people on their alcohol / drug intake. I might tell someone that I know well who has a pattern if I think they should perhaps take it easy, but we all need to blow off steam from time to time. I wouldn't pick on women specifically, I think it's often stupid and unpleasant when anyone does it. Actually overly drunken men are far more unpleasant. But I do know women who have been in the habit of caning it way more than I would consider advisable for anyone and who have found themselves passed out naked at parties, or in stranger's houses without memory of how it happened. This has had some impact on their choices in the future.

 

[jambo]

If you cross the street while the pedestrian light says "green", then you are well within your rights and have not broken any law. If a car hits you while you are lawfully crossing the street, the CAR has broken a law by not obeying traffic lights, you haven't. You have only crossed the street in good faith that others are obeying the law, because one must often act in good faith that if they obey the law, the world is a better place for everyone. You can never ensure that others are obeying the law, or that you won't get hit crossing the street. Does this mean you're wrong to cross the street in good faith? There's really no other way to cross the street--otherwise, you'd be paralysed with fear of being hit.

Should the person who hits you while you're lawfully crossing the road escape all prosecution because people don't "believe you" when you claim you were crossing the street when the pedestrian light was green? All those pesky pedestrians, always lying to get someone in trouble for revenge. Did you see what s/he was wearing? It's almost like s/he *wanted* someone to hit her/him. Would it be "your word against the driver's" in court, or would the pedestrian be given the benefit of the doubt? (Answer: yes.)

If someone robbed you of your rolex in my neighborhood, would people say "can I see some hard evidence, like bruises?" or "how do we know you're not just making this up?" Nope, the police would file the report and begin searching for your item (provided you weren't in NY, where they don't have time nor the resources to investigate petty non-violent crime). People wouldn't say "well, that idiot shouldn't have ever worn a watch."

Jambo, you refuse to see this, but what you're doing with this analogy between rape and wearing a rolex in a bad neighborhood is assuming that simply being a drunk female is some sort of "advertisement" to a rapist. The sad fact of the matter is that simply being FEMALE AT ALL is enough to get you raped. enough to advertise your vulnerability to a straight rapist. Being drunk has not much to do with it.

If you don't want to see this, this is your damn problem. I can't save everyone from become a complete moron with silly things like facts, I suppose.

The analogies were suggested by waffle. The mistake there being to introduce this notion of 'complicity'. (Disavowed) complicity, perhaps?

And since when has 'the law', or acting in 'good faith' had anything to do with reality?

 

[jambo]

The fact is that you are LESS LIKELY TO BE ASSAULTED WHILE DRUNK AT A BAR than you are at home with a friend or relative. THIS MEANS that STATISTICALLY it is SAFER TO BE DRUNK IN A BAR THAN at HOME IF YOU ARE A FEMALE who is afraid of being raped.

How about passed-out drunk at a bar / club / party alone compared to moderately drunk with friends?

It is simply not factual that more women who are raped are severely physically incapacitated by alcohol.

Look, I think everyone accepts this, you don't need to worry. But that doesn't mean that the discussion necessarily ends there. There have been other assertions that to me seem illogical, and also misunderstandings and accusations about what people have said that I think people still want to clear that up.

 

[waffle]

No, not at all. The reasoning behind it is that an abuser generally looks for someone that he can easily dominate. Now this might be because they're physically weaker but it can also be tied in to their low self-image and emotional neediness, and also often whether their environment was violent whilst they were children, and this influences their idea of an "acceptable" way to act. Women that believe that an abusive partner is better than none at all, and after flashes of violence still make excuses for them (they had a difficult childhood, they were drunk, they can't control their temper, etc) and think that partner loves them deep down.

Again, you're - perhaps unwittingly - placing the onus of responsibility on the victim here by virtue of her being 'physically weaker', of her being 'needy', of her having 'low self-esteem' ie. the more vulnerable she is, the more she is implicated in her violent sexual abuse, and justifying this via psychologizing a history of violent passionate attachment/Oedipal investment. And what happened to the alcohol?

Now these aren't rare cases, I see these in my work on a daily basis (mostly legal cases concerning children being put into care, injunctions, child contact and residency issues) - I've even seen one instance of a woman preferring her children to be put into care than leave the guy that had not only been beating her up but had been in prison for raping one of her kids. We can agree that this is an unhealthy sort of emotional attachment presumably.

Yes, it is, though details are scant. Was she economically dependent on the guy? Did she try to stop/report the rape of the child? How was the rape discovered? Did she give supporting/hostile evidence? Was he repeatedly threatening/engaging in violence against her in relation to this rape? Was she as emotionally disturbed as the guy, given her stated 'preference', etc? Or was she just utterly terrified of his abuse of his position of power, as anyone might potentially be in such an extreme situation? Alcohol?

Now my colleague's thinking was that if the women were stronger in themselves and didn't rely on abusive partners for all of their emotional support, that they would be less likely to stay in these situations and say "enough is enough" earlier, get out and deny the abuser their power, and hopefully stop their children growing up witnessing these events (which seem to continue the cycle into the next generation).

Stronger 'in themselves'? Weakness is inate, essentialist, is it? The social, economic and power structures in which they are immersed has no bearing on any of this? This is magical thinking, imagining that women are supposed to be endowed with special inherent ability and resolve to cope with or resolve any situation, however horrendous it may be, and however powerless they may actually be in confronting it, no opportunities being available (or made available) to do so..

As I know several people that have suffered this (and in my personal circle, drugs and/or alcohol were a contributing factor in most of the incidents, even if that doesn't tally with national statistics) and I wouldn't want them or anyone else to have to repeat the experience, I'd rather reduce that possibility.

But in what way were they a contributing factor? You don't explain. They aggravated the abuser/rapist's aggression?

It's called empathising, it's not exclusively a female trait.

Earlier you were suggesting that 'emotional attachments' were a possible sign of 'low self-esteem', 'weakness', etc, the reason why abusive relationships perpetuate themselves. Now you're construing them albeit in a different context as positive, healthy, supportive, beneficial? Forgive my confusion.

Regarding the ads on male consumption of alcohol and increase of likelihood to rape

The ads being criticised are those relating to female consumption of alcohol and their insinuation that such consumption increases the likelihood of being raped, thereby implicating the rape victim.

I see the main problem being that it basically stigmatizes the men who aren't going to do it with a return to the "all men are potential rapists" line of thought, and for those that want to do it anyway, they won't care.

What return might that be? Is this not a bit hysterical? Is this yet another appeal to the poor battered male ego beset with yet more inconvenient social responsibilities, yet more injustice and bad press? Most rapes are unplanned, once-off episodes, not the result of elaborate premeditation and planning (though the latter attract the most reportage), perpetrated by those who were invariably certain they were never 'going to do it'. Until they did ...

 

[waffle]

I'm asking you about something you said. It seemed that you were both saying that drinkers drink excessively knowing it is perilous, but that we should excuse this because 'disavowal' is all over the shop.

??? Who is excusing it? On the contrary (Disavowal is 'all over the shop' because, as stated earlier, of commodity fetishism, which is structural to consumer capitalism: for instance, even anti-drinking ads, indicated above, often wind up encouraging yet more drinking).

And then you seemingly wanted to apply this to rapists as well. I thought it was funny that's all. I know it's probably not what you mean to say, but that's what it ended up like. Please excuse me for having a little fun.

But it wasn't being applied to rapists, however funny that might seem; I was saying that everyone already knows that excessive drinking can be perilous (alcoholism, illness, hangovers, aggression, etc), and then excuse themselves for having a little fun.

Actually overly drunken men are far more unpleasant.

 

[Shonx]

Again, you're - perhaps unwittingly - placing the onus of responsibility on the victim here by virtue of her being 'physically weaker', of her being 'needy', of her having 'low self-esteem' ie. the more vulnerable she is, the more she is implicated in her violent sexual abuse, and justifying this via psychologizing a history of violent passionate attachment/Oedipal investment. And what happened to the alcohol?

I'm not justifying her abuse at all. And for the umpteenth time I have to restate that abusers look for people they can dominate, preferably as easily as possible. Therefore people that are easily dominated or intimidated for whatever reason are more likely to attract people with those tendencies, in much the same way that someone that was seen to be knowledgeable might be far more attractive to someone that liked intelligent people. Alcoholism does seem to be pretty usual in both parties, does seem to be that substance abuse and low self-esteem often go hand in hand though (although obviously there's still a percentage of unrepentant/in denial section of alcoholics and junkies).

Yes, it is, though details are scant. Was she economically dependent on the guy? Did she try to stop/report the rape of the child? How was the rape discovered? Did she give supporting/hostile evidence? Was he repeatedly threatening/engaging in violence against her in relation to this rape? Was she as emotionally disturbed as the guy, given her stated 'preference', etc? Or was she just utterly terrified of his abuse of his position of power, as anyone might potentially be in such an extreme situation? Alcohol?

She was told by her doctor that the abuse to her baby had caused the worst vaginal damage that he'd ever seen - she said if that was the case she would have noticed it when changing the nappy (???). She was diagnosed as having very low self-esteem by the psychologist and had made several suicide attempts previously. Like I said, it may not be the crucial factor, but it's definitely a contributory factor.

Stronger 'in themselves'? Weakness is inate, essentialist, is it? The social, economic and power structures in which they are immersed has no bearing on any of this? This is magical thinking, imagining that women are supposed to be endowed with special inherent ability and resolve to cope with or resolve any situation, however horrendous it may be, and however powerless they may actually be in confronting it, no opportunities being available (or made available) to do so..

This isn't what I said at all. People with a higher sense of self-worth generally are less likely to tolerate people that try to control them. Some people have been brought up in environments that make abuse "normalised". Obviously putting far more money towards women's refuges and the police being effective at keeping dangerous partners away from women also helps a lot. Like I said, it's a factor, there are plenty of other things to take into account as we both have indicated.

But in what way were they a contributing factor? You don't explain. They aggravated the abuser/rapist's aggression?

Well in that they made the possibility of rape seem attractive (to the male) and possible (via the woman being virtually comatose/unable to put up resistance). Now in at least two of those cases, the women would have battered the shit out of the guy if they'd not been that fucked. As I've stated endlessly, this is an opportunistic, cowardly crime which generally targets those that make easy victims. If the rapist drinks and becomes confident enough to think he can get away with it, and if his target is in a situation that they won't put up much of a struggle then it basically favours the former. I don't think this is anything other than a statement of fact, although please feel free to tell me otherwise

From the New Statesman -

""The overwhelming majority of rape reports on the Met's files - 87 per cent - are made by women whose characteristics make them vulnerable. Most are known to the perpetrators: acquaintances, partners and ex-partners; they are young; they consume alcohol or drugs; they suffer from mental illness"

"Furthermore, as long as men target women who have been drinking or young women under 18, there is a good chance that the police won't bother to interview or investigate, and the allegations won't appear "on the books"."

So basically they're easier and the police are less likely to take the story seriously. This next article indicates the increase in possibility of opportunistic rape - "In 50 per cent of all reported rapes the victim was seriously drunk; the figure is likely to be far higher for cases that went unreported."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200509260024

you were suggesting that 'emotional attachments' were a possible sign of 'low self-esteem', 'weakness', etc, the reason why abusive relationships perpetuate themselves. Now you're construing them albeit in a different context as positive, healthy, supportive, beneficial? Forgive my confusion.

Unhealthy emotional attachments e.g. to an abusive partner as opposed to benign supportive relationships. Your confusion is wilful and pedantic clearly.

What return might that be? Is this not a bit hysterical? Is this yet another appeal to the poor battered male ego beset with yet more inconvenient social responsibilities, yet more injustice and bad press? Most rapes are unplanned, once-off episodes, not the result of elaborate premeditation and planning (though the latter attract the most reportage), perpetrated by those who were invariably certain they were never 'going to do it'. Until they did ...

In terms of my own responsibility to avoid these situations, I don't grab women, get into their body space unless shown to be welcome and generally try and organize a meet for another time if either of us is too drunk. I might enjoy the flirt and think it might go further but if it doesn't I just shoulder the rejection rather than thinking it's my right to have sex. If I saw someone intimidating a woman friend I would pull them up on it. This is why I don't think people that act respectfully to women should be tarred with the same brush of "potential rapist". Why alienate people who already agree with the main aims?

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes, abusers look for people they can physically dominate. All women can be physically dominated by the average sized man. Even a woman of the same height and weight of a man has less physical strength in her upper body and can without much of a struggle be overpowered by a man of the same height and weight. Alcohol need not be a factor.

Did you know that according to extensive research on the topic, most women who drink to excess drink in part because they've already been sexually traumatized, either by sexual assault, rape, or abuse/molestation as a child? A woman who has been raped once becomes much more likely than a woman who has never been raped to be raped again. [The only place where alcohol has been proven to be a statistically significant factor in rape is on college campuses. If one weights the numbers for the fact that more college students in general binge drink than adults who are not in college binge drink, the statistics that correlate drinking and raape become very similar to the overall statistics among the general population.]

Could it be that rapists and abusers are especially good at singling out women who are psychologically less likely to report them, to challenge their authority, to leave a bad relationship, to have especially low self-esteem because society partially blames them for their own sexual traumas? Research suggests that this is, in fact, exactly what sexual predators excel at doing. It is the responsibility of the parents of female children to ensure that they are not abused, molested, or raped, and that their self-esteem remains healthy and intact. Unfortunately, as you know, many women are systematically abused and broken down psychologically. It is not within their capacities to fix this themselves without professional guidance.

Men who hold traditional views about the appropriate "role" of women are far more likely to commit rape (and deny that they have) than other men. This fact in and of itself suggests that the most effective method of stopping rape would be to educate males (and females) from a young age that rigid adherence to gender norms and traditional roles can actually lead to rape, that woman are autonomous beings whose rights need to be protected as stridently as the rights of men.

 

[nomadthethird]

Regarding the ads on male consumption of alcohol and increase of likelihood to rape, I see the main problem being that it basically stigmatizes the men who aren't going to do it with a return to the "all men are potential rapists" line of thought, and for those that want to do it anyway, they won't care. I thought that maybe trying to make boys aware at a younger age, maybe via victim testimony, of the damage it can do, it might reduce the level of rape, but I think because of the lack of concern for the victim inherent in the crime that it wouldn't be much use. Alcohol does seem to reduce empathy generally in some people, but it's questionable whether it appears that way because they're less inhibited in hiding it.

You have got to be kidding me...once again, in your view, men are "stigmatized" when people point out the FACT that men rape women at rates that are frankly staggering. The sad fact of the matter is that through the process of socialization and poor upbringing, men who never would have raped for any genetic or "inborn" or "inherent" reasons become rapists. Studies prove that there is a positive correlation between men who learn strict traditional gender role "values" and likelihood to commit rape. The first thing we need to do is reeducate people who have been brainwashed by society to believe that women can through their own negligence become victims of rape. This is false. Women who are raped bear no responsibility for their own rape. They are victims. Their rapists often do not even understand that they have violated their victim's personhood and autonomy, not to mention her personal space and feeling of physical safety.

Men who rape are not monsters who live alone in rapists colonies and only come out to prey on drunk women in bars. They are your father, your brother, your friend, your husband.

Using hysterical rape victim stories to try to make it clear to men that rape is harmful does not work, because most rapists would agree that rape is bad. They need to understand WHAT RAPE IS, since studies prove that most rapists don't even believe that what they have done counts as rape.

How much clearer could this get? Waffles linked to a great Curvature post that had a pdf study with tons of helpful information, if you still don't understand.

 

[nomadthethird]

She was told by her doctor that the abuse to her baby had caused the worst vaginal damage that he'd ever seen - she said if that was the case she would have noticed it when changing the nappy (???). She was diagnosed as having very low self-esteem by the psychologist and had made several suicide attempts previously. Like I said, it may not be the crucial factor, but it's definitely a contributory factor.

This just makes me ill. You're trying to say that a woman who has most likely been physically abused by the same man who is raping her infant is wilfully overlooking the rape because her self-esteem is just so low?

Do you know anything about victim psychology?

First of all, no one wants to believe their infant has been raped, let alone by their husband. Most abusers and child molesters show no "warning signs" to their wives or girlfriends. They're predators. They have to hide their sexual activities and go to great lengths to do so. So the power of "denial" (a survival instinct we all have, since often the truth is just too overwhelmingly painful for people to handle) is definitely at work here.

The reason why the woman's baby has been raped is not because she has low self-esteem, it is because her boyfriend is a pedophile and a rapist.

The woman has most likely been molested or abused herself in childhood, and it would hugely painful and traumatic for her to admit the abuse of her daughter, which would simultaneously serve to force her to relive her own abuse and acknowledge that it happened at all (which many victims of childhood sexual abuse don't do--many of them bury the memories and have years of life that they've "blocked out" completely.)

This woman needs help, desperately. Her daughter needs to be in special care until she's rehabilitated. But the LAST THING SHE NEEDS is for all of this to be blamed on her carelessness.

The bastard who is raping her daughter needs to be sent to jail without change of parole IMMEDIATELY. He needs to be exposed publicly for what he is. The medical personnel who have identified the abuse have the power and authority to make all of this happen. The woman herself does not, nor does she have the psychological capacity to even begin to deal with this issue on her own.

 

[nomadthethird]

One of the biggest problems with the arguments I'm reading in this thread is a complete ignorance of the scientific method and how statistics relate to reality.

Correlation does not prove causation. The fact that some women (by far not a majority) are drunk when they are raped does not mean that this is the CAUSE of the rape. No more than the reason that more rapists than victims are drunk during rapes means that alcohol causes men to rape. Statistical correlations are not proof of a causal chain of events.

It is clearly deeply ingrained in our culture for people to believe that it's completely inoffensive to focus on victim behaviors in an attempt to curb rape and sexual assault, especially when it comes to ensuring that men who are not rapists (even though there is no reason why any man couldn't rape a woman or eventually "become" a rapist) can cry foul when it comes to the male right not to be implicated in someone else's crime. If only we extended this same right to female victims, eh? But of course, it's business as usual. It's wrong to hold all men up to high standards of behavior in an attempt to lower the incidence of rape and sexual assault, but it's perfectly acceptable to place undue focus on female drinking habits. That's not at all lopsided or ineffective.

As research has proven, it is this focus on victim behaviors that contributes to the social attitudes and norms that enable rapists to rape with very little statistical probability of being charged or successfully prosecuted for his crimes. The focus on victim behavior pre-rape is also, as has been proven beyond any doubt, a component in the thought process a rapist uses to justify his crime. Most rapists use this idea that a victim's behavior can stop rape to convince themselves that they haven't even committed a crime at all.

If some people here are too dense to understand this, so much the worse for all of us.

 

[nomadthethird]

The analogies were suggested by waffle. The mistake there being to introduce this notion of 'complicity'. (Disavowed) complicity, perhaps?

And since when has 'the law', or acting in 'good faith' had anything to do with reality?

No, they weren't "suggested by waffles." They were suggested by you.

If you didn't rely on faith in others' driving abilities, you'd never cross the street, because you'd be paralyzed with fear.

If you didn't sometimes get out of the house and meet people, in faith that most people are good (which they are), you'd never leave the house.

Sadly, staying in is more likely to get you raped than going out.

 

[nomadthethird]

How about passed-out drunk at a bar / club / party alone compared to moderately drunk with friends?

Most women who are considered legally "drunk" who are raped are not passed out. Almost none of them are, in fact.

Close to zero women who are raped are so drunk as to be physically incapacitated or unconscious.

Some of them have had a couple of drinks in a bar or restaurant with a date.

Most of them are in a home with someone whom they know well, are related to, or who they've married.

 

[nomadthethird]

From the Men Can Stop Rape non-profit's blog called "Masculinity in Media":

http://mencanstoprape.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-men-dont-talk-about-masculinity.html

The organization I work for, Men Can Stop Rape, frequently explores how to engage men around the prevention of men’s violence against women without blaming or inducing guilt. We try to reach out to men in a positive way, a way that will inspire action. On a recent trip to work with high schools in South Carolina, a colleague and I presented to hundreds of young men with a wide array of perspectives. The one thing we found in common was an energized desire to talk about sex. And the conversations that followed are linked to the prevention of sexual violence. As our organizational hand-out “Stopping Rape: What Men Can Do” says:

Sexual violence often goes hand in hand with poor communication. Our discomfort with talking honestly and openly about sex dramatically raises the risk of rape. By learning effective sexual communication – stating your desires clearly, listening to your partner, and asking when the situation is unclear – men make sex safer for themselves and others.

This same open communication can also be used for men to explore the diverse possibilities of their sexual expression. This is definitely a positive, and potentially very pleasurable exploration. What I’m talking about is sometimes called comprehensive sex education, and can include (though often doesn’t) – information on the male multiple orgasm (debunking the “blue balls” myth), perineum stimulation, vasectomy as a contraceptive option, male masturbation, etc. Men have a lot to benefit from talking about sex beyond the ways the centerfold syndrome expects us to, and by doing so maybe the violent sexuality so prevalent on Facebook, won’t feel like the only option.