"5 Things We Must Teach Young Boys About Rape, Right Now"

Article here. Excerpt:

'George Will has added to the litany of facepalm-worthy statements by men about rape, implying that, due to university policies, victim status is “privileged” and “coveted.” In his June 6 column—which has gotten him fired from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch—he recounts a story from Swarthmore College in which a woman experienced date rape. The woman had been “hooking up” with a guy but then decided to just be platonic friends, a decision she thought was mutual. One night he fell asleep in her bed and she put on her pajamas and climbed in as well, thinking nothing of it. However, he began to pull off her clothes. She said no, but he persisted and she relented and let him do his thing. Six weeks later she filed rape charges.

Will seems to offer this case as an ambiguous scenario in which the woman is partly to blame for a) hooking up with the guy in the past and b) saying no only once. If we actually think this scenario is ambiguous—as apparently many young men do—then we need better sex education for boys.
...
That males might not clearly see certain behavior as rape when in fact it is is obviously worth emphasizing. Yet people tend to respond better overall to positive persuasion rather than alarmism. Rather than teaching boys that they are all teetering on the edge of violence, emphasizing the benefits of romantic and sexual relationships founded on open communication, honesty and mutual respect may provide more positive outcomes.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I can see some good possibilities. I'll set aside addressing the author's criticisms of George Will, as they aren't the main point he's taking up. (Will, BTW, didn't work for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He did and still does work for, which is to say draws regular paychecks from, the Washington Post, as well as Fox News and Newsweek. The St. Louis P-D just announced they'd stop printing his syndicated column. Not sure, but I think they're the only paper in the US to respond this way to the item in question, not that it matters to the rightness or wrongness of his opinion on the topic.)

Teaching boys early on about strategies for dealing with rejection from girls (and perhaps others in general) is a very good idea. In fact, why limit that to boys? Girls could probably use it, too. As for "respect for girls", in order to do that, they have to learn what respectful behavior is and looks like in the first place. After that, it's applicable really to everyone.

But my only concern would be that it not be a feminist indoctrination, complete with boy-shaming. Also, while clear communication standards are being taught to boys, what about girls? For example, I agree that an ambiguous answer to some kind of sexual advance shouldn't be interpreted as "maybe" or "keep trying". That's game-playing when intentional or true uncertainty when not. So in either case, to me, one should assume nothing. But can a young man new to the hazards of sex/romance in the modern era be expected to know this lacking the experience of his older relations? Without teaching, maybe not. But despite the assertions of many, many young men do understand this already. It's the few who don't who suddenly find themselves accused of sexual assault when they well and truly have no idea why. So to keep those guys out of hot water and their accuser out of an unhappy position herself, I'd like to suggest not only teaching such standards of communication to boys but also to girls. In particular, teach girls to avoid ambiguous replies to advances, even if they ought to assume the guy should know ambiguity is the same as refusal. This wouldn't be a shift-the-burden thing, but an avoid-the-potential-problem-entirely strategy. It'd be like the same kind of advice as "don't walk through dark alleys at night". If you're mugged or worse, it wasn't your fault. At the same time, the wise avoid dark alleys at night. A more pedestrian example is simply "lock up your car."

Finally, why limit the gender scenario to boys-->girls. It can just as easily be girls-->boys. Or really, anyone-->anyone, to cover all bases.

While we're at it, let's also teach everyone about compound interest and how revolving credit works. Now there's knowledge everyone should have by the age of 18.

Like0 Dislike0

Of course, any man who's ever been with a woman in a romantic way knows the first thing the woman will likely say is no. If he wants to be with her, his mission is to change that no to a yes. The problem is, women rarely just say yes--one thing leads to another, and soon that no has transformed into a silent yes. Saying no at one point does not necessarily mean it's rape.

Changing a no to a yes is not rape: it's salesmanship. It's why men take women out to dinner and pay the tab: they're hoping to find a woman to have sex with or perhaps a real relationship.

And I'm not sure hook-ups will ever be founded on "open communication, honesty and mutual respect." If that's what you want, you should look for a real relationship, not a hook-up.

The other issue is sexual protocols. There was a time when a woman simply did not get into bed with a man unless she was willing to have sex. Everybody understood that. It made things easier. Today, women believe they can get into bed with a man without implying they're willing to have sex. This results in great confusion. In the case cited by Will, the woman got into bed with a one-time lover wearing just her panties. If she didn't want to have sex, the wiser move would be to sleep somewhere else. That's why we need what I call protocols: doing one thing implies a willingness to do more. If you're unwilling to do more, don't do that one thing first. It's similar to going to lunch vs going to dinner: lunch can be business, but dinner usually implies romance. Developing and following protocols helps keep things from getting confusing. That's why people developed them. Now there are none. And only men are blamed if they misunderstand what is happening.

Like0 Dislike0

"2. “No” means no, and indecision means “no,” and silence means “no”—not “Keep trying until I say, ‘Fine’.”

This man has obviously never been on a real date in his life. He's also never tried to sell something in his life.

Men persist because it's usually the only way to get what they want. There is another way: just take it. But that truly is rape.

But if trying to convince a woman to have sex is also rape, then everything a man does is rape.

He also talks about ambiguous situations. Maybe we need to find a way to make situations less ambiguous. That's why I talk about protocols in my previous post. It's unfair to jail men who find ambiguous situations to be ambiguous--and end up on the wrong side of the "guous."

Like0 Dislike0