Does "Just Say No" Rape awareness work......

He's read DOG and TEM and we've discussed them, he's been in social situations with friends and reprimanded them when he felt they weren't behaving appropriately. He is the male of choice for late night escorts back home after a night out because he enjoys the company and the walks.
But he doesn't pick up on social cues, or understand inferential comments. He's the sort that needs an unambiguous statement.
He and a female friend went out on Valentine's day, she got all specially dressed up and he had a great time. But he apparently spotted two friends on the way to the station and invited them along too, and she was mortified that he saw it as a trip out, the more the merrier. Which isn't what she'd planned at all.
I'll keep talking with him, unpicking situations and explaining events, just as I always have done. But no means no would be something he understood and would not argue with. I'm sorry if that is too much to expect from a woman. A red card would work just as well on him.

Oh, Dust ... Young people with an AS dx get so much better teaching/training now, one hopes it won't be a problem.

About 10 years ago I helped out at a club for autists. They were mostly men. One of the things we were there for was to explain that groping wasn't acceptable - same with lewd comments and direct propositions! They get it, it was just that they hadn't learned by osmosis (as you will understand.) In the more formal environment, they were being helped more with all that: as I understood things, one man being told about one grope would learn not to do it in that precise situation. But wouldn't necessarily extrapolate it to similar circumstances, so the proper teachers were dealing with that.

They were aged about 20-40, a decade ago. I'm pretty sure they'd not received the understanding and help your sons will be getting.

Garlicbutter, you are getting into an area that terrifies me as the mother of a teenage male on the spectrum.

I shouldn't have said should she carry on with her subtler tactics because "should" doesn't come into it here. She might be scared, or wanting to preserve a relationship with the bloke, or have some other reason for continuing in the same vein.

I meant would it be more effective to carry on with her subtler tactics ...

This is bonkers. You're heading towards a position that women have no responsibility for their own boundaries and safety.

When I wrote that I was thinking of people on the autistic spectrum or with other impairments that have similar effects: brain injury; other developmental disorders; hormonal imbalances; shock; even PTSD can have that effect.

People with a social communication problem don't go round wearing a special hat. You often can't tell until an interaction becomes intimate. If it does, and they get it wrong, you have to state your point clearly.

I haven't said or implied, anywhere, that all socially impaired men are a threat or suggested there's anything wrong with the subtle forms of communication we usually use. I've said subtle communication won't work in every situation. This discussion was about the ways we say No. I introduced the observation that, when subtle communication becomes inappropriate, we need to use clear communication.

Either you're trying to argue that "No, Stop that" is not the clearest way to tell a person 'No, Stop that' or you're saying women have no responsibility to change their communication style when their usual style isn't working.

The thread's about how we communicate in a sexual situation that's going wrong. Not about whether rape is wrong, or whether anybody has the right to invade another's boundaries.

I find this interesting precisely because of what that blog post says about social conditioning for women. If a woman was getting sexy with a man who then revealed he was unwilling to respect her boundaries - or unable to perceive them - should she carry on with her subtler tactics or should she bellow "No, Stop that?"

Who are these "socially impaired" men, garlic and why are they trying to have PIV sex with women? Why are they doing harm to women who don't/can't articulate a clearly defined "No, go away".

If, when I was out I got urges to hit people, it wouldn't be up to other people to say no don't hit me, it would be up to me to not hit them (or not put myself in situations where I was going to hit them), social impairment or otherwise. Why should rape be any different, unless you think men have a right to have sex/rape women and women are in a permanent state of "yesness" unless otherwise stated. Neither of which are true of course.

Lol. I tried.

So, it's down to the victim to work out if her potential rapist is "socially impaired"?

Or are you just saying all socially or communicatively impaired men are a threat?

Either you're splitting one short post into two separate arguments, Trophy, or we have misunderstood each other - easily done on a forum, to be sure.

I said that, if you were dealing with a person whose communication skills were badly impaired, the only clear instruction would be No, Stop That Now. I then said that we shouldn't treat all accused rapists as if they were impaired.

Basically, we seem to be agreeing that accused rapists (unless they actually have a social/communication impairment) should be expected to understand normal stop signals.

If the person is impaired, they have to be told ultra-clearly.

If we differ at all, it might be that I think it's safest to err on the side of caution and to communicate clearly at all times.

(which I appear to have failed to do here )

It doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop to figure out when someone doesn't want to engage in sex with you.

What a load of utter bollocks.

I didn't say that was victim blaming, Garlic Butter. I said that telling people the only clear refusal was a firm "no, stop that now" was.

Should we assume that every bullying man is thus impaired? No, we shouldn't

I don't see how that's victim blaming.

Lenak - just because it is the dominant ideology does not mean to say it has any credence or worth. It is a myth. I really can't believe you came on to the feminist section touting this, especially during the "We believe you" campaign.

Garlic, I linked on the first or second page a poster which detailed commonly recognised ways of saying "No"

Rape happens because rapists refuse to accept a "No", verbal or non verbal. How hard is this to understand. There are hundreds of ways of saying "no". Hundreds. All of which are commonly understood.

It is so common, so unbelievably common, for someone in a potential rape situation to freeze out of fear. Telling people the only clear refusal is a "No, stop that now!" is victim blaming, however you want to dress it up.

Trophy, I think the question is about what happens at the point of refusal ... looking into how it happens, rather than disputing whether it happened.

The only 100% clear refusal is a powerful No, Stop That Now. In some situations where you were dealing with, say, a person incapable of understanding non-verbal clues and social niceties, that would be the only way to make yourself adequately clear.

Should we assume that every bullying man is thus impaired? No, we shouldn't, so I agree with K&F in lenak's OP. But I think we also need to recognise that social niceties are not universally understood and are easier to dismiss than clear instructions.

But how people refuse sex has nothing to do with rape, because the rapist has already refused to acknowledge his partner's refusal for sex, be it verbal or non verbal.

Do you really believe that the social sciences are science and can claim the same level of authority as the natural sciences lenak? That would be rather odd.

"OK - once again - I am not studying feminism or politics, I am studying Discourse Analysis e.g. The Use of Language"

But you brought this up in the feminist section.

Cross-post. I think juries understand this well enough; prosecutions should perhaps be painting a clearer picture for them. In that respect, I agree with K&F's argument!

But I'd still like to see younger people and women more educated in their right to say No. It's a useful word

And juries need fewer rape myths. Not more.

They need to take the focus off the women and place it firmly where it belongs - on the rapist.

It is very damaging to women to suggest in any way whatsoever that they can influence whether they are raped or not - by concentrating on how women refuse sex, your argument is doing just that.

You are focusing on a red herring, in fact worse than a red herring - a rape myth. I fail to see how that is going to help women who are raped and I don't see what is scientific about it. Quite the contrary.

So I find the subject flawed. Hence why I think it is bollocks - because I have analysed it and I disagree with it.

I find this interesting. But then, I'm slightly obsessed with communication - which is why I should have known better, above, and used a non-rape-related illustration or at least said "You might be screaming".

stop people asking when it comes rape "Did she say no clearly enough?" and instead get them asking "Did he deliberately [ignore] her refusal which was articulated in a culturally 'normal' way".

There are situations where the recommended communication is different from the everyday. If you see a house on fire, it's better to shout "Fire!" than check with someone else first. You may manhandle a child who's running into moving traffic. The question might be: Is a romantic situation, which has turned aggressive, a sufficient emergency to drop the social norms and shout No?

I would say it is, but that still leaves the burden of responsibility on the weaker party. It's unfair. There's also the complication of an ongoing relationship: I might think no woman "should" harbour any desire to keep a relationship with a man who acts like that, but she very likely might want to keep it ... at that moment. So she'll continue trying polite persuasion where strong defence would serve her better.

Would a jury understand her persuasive efforts? I think they would, actually, and maybe the prosecutors are at fault here. "I was enjoying it until he ... then I said Stop but he just carried on ..." is a common enough story in most people's lives. We say Stop; Pack it in; Don't do that, do this; Not now - etc. We know that to ignore "stop signs" is wrong and rude. Juries know it.

Should there be a requirement for the word No to be used? No!
But I stand firm for increased use of the word No, and for better understanding of boundaries, among both (all) genders.

I'm waffling aren't I

I think you are confusing academia with analysis.

I'm all for analysis - I just think it is something that everybody can do. You don't need to be able to read or write to engage in feminist analysis.

I think academic feminism is mostly bollocks. I think feminist analysis (and indeed all sorts of other analysis) is vital.

Academics do not own analysis.

I don't think all academia is bollocks, lots of it is brilliant. My comments are reserved for what academia seems to do to feminism.