Safe place for budding feminists

Buffy, I really hope you will return because everything you have said is so thought provoking.

I have had to entertain the idea of my son growing up to be abusive, because he has already seriously assaulted me, through anger that he can't control me. Some of the ideas he raises also send a flash of ice cold fear through me, because saying it as a cute 8 yr old and saying it at 16 are very different things, so I have to work towards and believe that through talking and a gain in maturity he will never realise some of the stuff he considers.

I didn't read your post as you being unwilling to use the word rapist, you were articulating how, knowing your son, you wouldn't believe he had deliberately, knowingly caused harm, but that he had let all the mythology and misinformation around sex delude him into thinking he wasn't doing anything wrong. And as a parent, I would feel the same way, and that I had failed him as a parent.

Enthusiastic consent is the only safe path through this minefield. I will drum it into him, but at the end of the day he will make his own choices. And I will feel incredibly shit if he rapes.

Haven't read the full thread, and feel a bit ill so I'm just popping in to say I'll be back.

Sorry. Name change failure.

Fela your posts have been helpful. Thanks.

The support and willingness to share is so amazing on MN that's it's easy to forget you are often making quite tough emotional demands on other posters when you pose direct questions. It's easy to.be so caught up in your own thoughts.

Sorry again.

I'm sorry you were attacked too dilberry.
I'm also with buffy about the levels of censure here. What I say is just my opinion, based on my life and experiences. I'm trying to help others on the thread see that they aren't alone in their feelings about men, not minimise others experiences or perspectives.
I don't think I minimised female assaults. I said it was rare (true, and a fact). And I said that could change how I viewed an accusation against my daughter (total speculation and not relevant to anyone else's opinion). I also said I was thinking it through because that isn't a logical position.

Cross-posted with Buffy. And to Buffy too.

I expect if it were my son who did the act you describe you would call it rape and him a rapist.

I am sorry, yes genuinely, you are hurt but I still think it was a very odd way of applying standards.

Shit. I'm really sorry. I really really appreciate the discussion and the honest answers. And yes the language is much less important than the discussion to me.
Sorry you need to leave the thread. It's a new area to me to have discussion of such difficult topics.

I think possibly Buffy's reaction is indicative of the level of cognitive dissonance many mothers would feel if confronted with the fact that their son had raped someone. This is after all the individual we can remember as a tiny baby, as an inquisitive toddler, as a chatty 5 year old. And society constructs narratives round rape and sexual assault which, along with the dichotomy of "the good girl who wouldn't" versus "the slag who's up for it with anyone", constructs a dichotomy of "the normal, decent guy" versus "the evil rapist who leaps out of bushes" - no overlap between categories allowed, no room for the idea that the good girl might quite legitimately want casual sex with a partner of her choosing (while at the same time retaining the right to say no to blokes she doesn't fancy), or that the everyday bloke you'd trust to back you up at work and chat to amicably about last night's TV also raped his last girlfriend (Schrodinger's rapist, NAMALT, etc, not saying all decent everyday blokes are rapists, but that many rapists may present to the world at large as decent everyday blokes). So it's really really difficult to frame the idea of the cuddly baby turned curious toddler turned chatty five year old turned thoughtful eight year old... has turned into "a monster". I know intellectually that my DS could turn out to be a rapist when he grows up - after all, all rapists were at some point some mother's small boy - but on an emotional level, my imagination won't do it. I'm guessing (I don't want to put words into her mouth) that Buffy's unusually "twee" (to use Lass's choice of adjective) wording is down to this instinctive "my imagination just won't go there" reaction. I say "unusually" because I've seen enough of Buffy's other posts to know she wouldn't usually word it this way. But I wouldn't rush to scream "hypocrisy" on this basis, when in fact this may just be a subject which pushes too many emotional buttons to produce an entirely detached response.

But is it necessary to have one's imagination go there in order to have a discussion about the subject? Is admitting the possibility on an intellectual level enough to get the ball rolling?

Ok I see your point of view.

I found the expression euphemestically twee. A man rubbing against a woman on a crowded underground train is "putting his penis where it's not wanted". It is not rape.

Other than the sentence I'm about to write I can't think of any legitimate use of the (non) word "rapey".

But i didn't find my lovely son put his penis where it wasn't wanted minimising.Personally I found those words more shocking and uncomfortable than the word rape tbh

Really? "Putting his penis where it wasn't wanted" could describe the penis referred to in the waxing thread or a flasher. Both nasty but more shocking than "rape" ?

I admit to not being sure how I felt about the second sentence you quote Lass.

But i didn't find my lovely son put his penis where it wasn't wanted minimising.Personally I found those words more shocking and uncomfortable than the word rape tbh.

If it was a date/acquaintance situation, then I would be utterly devastated, because it's overwhelmingly likely that my lovely son put his penis where it wasn't wanted. I would believe that he didn't mean harm, but would think that he had been INCREDIBLY stupid, careless, selfish, thoughtless, and as a result had harmed someone

I'm quite shocked by the double standard here. Other people's son's who do this are rapists. Your lovely son just put his penis where it wasn't wanted but he didn't mean any harm by it.

I'm quite shocked at Fela's minimisation of sexual assaults by women too.

Grr, this really makes me wish I had a life where I still used my brain. I don't even have the vocabulary for discussion these days, let alone the knowledge or analytical skills. I wonder if you can start at 40?!

It was said during this thread that someone would find it more difficult to believe if their daughter rather than their son was accused of something.

It's hard for me to talk about this objectively, so I won't say anymore on the subject. But it does give credence, in my mind, that demonising part of society can sometimes prevent the true pattern of shades and shades of grey from being distinguished.

which leaves about 60% men as not rapey at all. If the 60% and the 30% and their female allies unite in angrily denouncing any attempt to improve the situation for women by tackling the questionable behaviour of the 30%, because it hurts men's feelings to hear about it and that's not fair, rates of rape and sexual assault aren't going to reduce.

All of this is fascinating. My first thoughts are around these %s.

I think my wariness is around the "60%" group. Although 40% is a pretty big % to justify general wariness anywsy.

I have anger at the (majority?) of that 60% for propping up/enabling/whatever a culture of rape. Is there culpability in that group even? But I think I have been believing the 60+30% are actually a 90% of potential abusers. i haven't been seeing a division between those not "seeing" the problem and those who might act incorrectly. Has felt like a blurry line so interesting to read of the clear division.

I don't think there is a clever reason for my shock Fela. I think maybe I just haven't got your faith in unconditional love. I expect that's just because I haven't thought it all through though.

I don't quite understand why biology etc is rejected on the grounds of no motivation to change. I think like a lot of crime people act because a combination of biology/socialisation. The shaping behaviour for the good of society is necessary regardless of the cause? I get presentationally why policies would only tackle one element but if you back away from one part of the explanation might you not miss part of the solution?

Thank you. It was more horrifying
than traumatising, if that makes sense. But it was still very unpleasant. But I really do find it upsetting to read that people would want more to see her as innocent because it fits in better with their theories.

And for Dilberry too. I too believe you are telling the truth about your assault.

I can only reiterate what I said upthread - that there are circumstances - such as jury duty - where it is inappropriate to go on statistical judgements, and that the only thing that matters is listening to testimony, evidence and the details of that individual case.

But there are also circumstances - making a snap decision in a long taxi queue as to whether to take someone up on their offer to share a taxi with them - where it is not unreasonable to make a judgement on the basis of statistical risk.