The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

Definitely with you there Lemon. I think if you can be honest and talk about the patriatxhy's double standards with both sons and daughters you will prepare them to be prepared and respondable in all situations.

I think it might also be useful for all our sons to know, that they are more likely to be raped by another man, than they are to be falsely accused of rape by a woman. Lots of men are worried by the latter, but not many worry about the former, even though it's far more likely. I'm not saying they should be worried about it, it's not a good idea to raise a bunch of neurotic loons, but in terms of getting things into perspective, it's useful for people to know how to rank different scenarios in terms of probability.

MJHASLEFTTHEBUILDING : I was thinking about what you said at the weekend and was going to say the following before MarySue chose to go nuclear:

I may be wrong (and please tell if so!) but I think your worry about treating your male and female charges (for wont of a better way, I'm confused by the abbreviations) is based on your worry that one might be raped and the other might be (falsely) accused of being a rapist. You say you would believe them both without question, which I don't doubt for a minute.

I think if you do as you say and make it clear to both that sex should always be consentual and that no one ever "asks for it" in anyway, you have little to really worry about as concerns your son (stepson?). The idea that false rape accusations happen all the time is a myth in itself. As has been said on this thread, it happens only rarely. What is more common is for a rapist to argue he has been falsely accused because the sex was "bad"; the whole Assange defence basically. If your son is -like the vast majority of the male population- respectful of his sexual partners, noone will have cause to accuse him of anything.

For this reason, I think if I were you (and I will be in a few years) I wouldn't worry about treating them differently: just recognise that rape culture will teach them different perspectives on this depending on their sex. If you try to be clear about rape myths with them, you won't be treating them differently at all.

I hope this makes sense to you. It matters to me too, because I also have a DD and DS.

"That's why it's really important for us to get it clear in our heads what the difference is, so that we can make it clear to our children, so that the next generation of jurors, judges and the general public, are also clear about the distinction and don't line up with rapists by accident."

Well said, Herb.

"Nothing yet has convinced me that DS would be more liable than DBD"

Really? You honestly think that if your DS penetrated a girl who didn't want him to, he wouldn't be more liable for that, morally or legally, than if your DBD was penetrated by a boy when she wasn't wanting him to penetrate her? Do you mean that, or is that just badly worded?

"I still thinking that telling them drunken sex is bad for both of them, in different ways, is my way forward."

Of course drunken sex is bad for them. But drunken sex is not rape or sexual assault. You need to be very clear about that and so do they. Too often, women don't seek the comfort and validation they need after rape because they write it off as "drunken sex", having been told that that's all it was, and rapists tell themselves that they had drunken sex with their victims.

There is already too much confusion between rape and sex. The distinction is not that difficult, the only people who benefit from all of us being confused about it, are rapists. That's why it's really important for us to get it clear in our heads what the difference is, so that we can make it clear to our children, so that the next generation of jurors, judges and the general public, are also clear about the distinction and don't line up with rapists by accident.

Deborah Cameron in "The Myth of Mars and Venus" has something interesting to say on this:

• in non-sexual situations BOTH genders rarely use the word "no" when refusing an invitation. Instead, they use hedging tactics, softening remarks, acceptable reasons for refusal, etc, but rarely the actual word "no".

• and that this kind of indirect refusal is so universally understood by both sexes that people can tell when a refusal is coming before the words come out. If people understand the language of "no" in non-sexual situations why then is it hard to do so in sexual situations?

• in cases of sexual assault the last thing that a potential victim who is scared will do is say an outright "no" for fear of provoking physical assault.

• insisting that we say "no" aggressively and directly makes the assumption that such a "no" would be enough to dispel the misunderstanding and that the aggressor would happily go on their way.

Good research, HerBeX

The O'Byrne Hansen and Rapley stuff that she refers to in that article, is the second thing I've linked to just there btw.

Really fascinating stuff, all this, isn't it?

And here's another random article, nothing to do with rape this time, but just about how we all use more "hedging" language because it is seen as aggressive not to:

hedging stuff

That article is fascinating and horrifying in equal measure, thanks for posting it.

ah, here it is

Can't find it at the mo uncle, will have a look for it, but in the meantime, here's an article about another bit of v. interesting research about the use of the word No and female language and male understanding of it

no

That's very worrying...is there a link to that research? That's exactly what I find so alarming, that if no clear verbal signal comes from the woman it must be consensual sex. I like this board by the way, it's been enlightening to read the clear lines of argumentation and feel the strength that some of you have. Thank you.

Yes there was also some research done on young men who were asked how they turned down sex if they didn't want it. Many of htem were horrified when asked if they just said a straight out bald "no". "Of course not - I'd say "I've got an important presentation tomorrow/ early start/ not feeling too well -would always let someone down gently, I woudln't want to embarrass her" was the gist of their responses.

This from the sex who haven't been conditioned from birth to consider other people's needs more important than their own. Yet even they find it excruciatingly embarrassing to just say no, they make polite, socially acceptable excuses to save everyone's face, because that's what we all do if we're nice, considerate, normal-ish people.

And yet women are supposed to be more assertive and clear than these young men, who are not actually in any danger or fear, even though they have been specifically given the message from birth, that assertiveness = nasty person. When they're scared and feeling trapped. They are supposed to make themselves clearer than young men who are in no danger of being raped.

Those same men, when watching a video of a rape scene, all said that it wasn't rape, because she hadn't straight out said a clear, unequivocal no. She'd hedged a bit, been polite, made excuses, was ambiguous - just like they all said they did when they didn't want sex. But the consequence for them, wasn't rape.

I remember reading an article a couple of years ago that said that women often didn't 'just say no' for a reason, and that was to avoid confrontation and antagonising an aggressor in situations when they were afraid for their safety. It was pointed out that in everyday life people rarely say 'No I don't want to', they say 'I'm sorry, I think I'm away that weekend...' or something similar. The original article put it much more clearly!

That's for certain HerBeX

I even went off to yell at learn some coding to clear my head

And that's why posters like that can be so puzzling. Becuse they say they are saying one thing, while saying the opposite and so it does every fucker's head in.

The technique is pretending to agree with the basic premise (rape is wrong, men shouldn't do it, women are not responsible for it), while saying things which actually oppose that basic premise (women should just say no, refusal to answer direct questions about whether a woman who hasn't said no can ever be raped with the obvious get outs like unconsciousness, drunkenness etc., left aside).

It's very clever. For the unattentive, it looks as though the poster is agreeing with the basic premise, because they don't notice that the actual sentiments they are expressing, are the opposite of what they are at pains to say they believe.

"MarySue, I'm really sorry if we are all misinterpreting what you are saying, but to be fair, we are all reading the same things and coming to the same conclusions about what you are saying.

For me, the reason why you are a rape apologist is because when unclefest described a scenario where she gave non-verbal signals that she wasn't consenting, your answer was that she should have said "no". Responsibility should be on the man to establish consent (and in law it is), not the woman to deny it. To put it down to women makes women's bodies a free for all."

Exactly.

Now bearing in mind I was on that thread, I think you can safely say I'm not some nutter with extreme views (not that I think anyone has come across that way on here), I am genuinely confused at the mixed messages you are putting across.

One minute you are saying basically the same as everyone else, the next you are saying something as ridiculous as what karma mentioned above.