(TW : Discusses rape stats) AIBU to find this interview with Louise Perry insulting to both women and men?

[Carla786]

I still think Louise Perry has valid points in her 2022 book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution and some of her Maiden Mother Matriarch podcast interviews, although I've always had disagreements with quite a few of her points

I cam across this interview today and was shocked, however. She badly states that she thinks 1/3 of men would commit rape given the chance of getting away with it.

Evidence? In her book, she does cite a study of US college students where 1/4 of the men said they would force sex if they could get away with it. (Higher numbers said yes when asked that than when asked if they would commit rape if they could get away with it).

But 1/4 is not 1/3, and a sample of US college students is not 'all men'. I searched for other studies giving such high numbers, but could find none. I myself believe that the numbers of men who would do that are higher than we'd like to think, but I certainly don't think they're as high as 1/3, and tossing around this kind of unsubstantiated claim feels insulting to men on general

She's spoken of the huge impression working for Rape Crisis for her gap year had on her, so maybe that's given her a skewed view?

Furthermore, if she sincerely believes that 1/3 of men are that evil, why on earth does she keep encouraging women to marry as early as possible and have kids younger? I don't think there's anything wrong with marriage and kids young, but I certainly wouldn't give that advice if I believed 1/3 of men were potential rapists! lt feels profoundly immoral to encourage women to prioritise marriage so much if you believe 1/3 of men would rape. Particularly as someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about abuse surely knows that those men who would rape or abuse are more likely to step that up when a woman's pregnant or raising a young kid.

MN thoughts? Am I overreacting, or is this position both disturbing and profoundly insulting to both men and women?

I'm glad you shared your age with us, because your comment makes a lot more sense within that context.

I think if you reflect back on this in 20 years time, you'll probably be able to see with hindsight that there's a huge difference between being technically too drunk to consent, but a willing participant in a one night stand, versus a person knowingly taking advantage of you when you were drunk.

I don't mean that to sound condescending, but based on my own experience.

There isn't really a grey area here. If I had sons, I'd be teaching them that a woman can't properly consent if she's drunk. That doesn't mean that drunk sex is always rape, but unless you can be absolutely sure she'd consent when she was sober? Probably a good idea to ask for her number instead.

@gannett education and calling them out. The off colour jokes, the entitlement. You shouldn’t accuse men of being rapists without evidence, but you can call out rapey behaviour and rapey attitudes. Every time we hear some bloke compartmentalise, other, explain why it’s not so bad in this or that situation… we challenge it.

That Jeremy Clarkson bile intended humorously that called for Teresa May to be paraded naked through the streets while we pelt her with tomatoes, for example.

That's what I can't get my head around. I'm bi myself but only date women, by natural preference. I have a pen pal who's Polish but lives in Czechia, & we often swap thoughts on feminism etc. She's very cynical about men (sexist attitudes are part of the reason she moved), though not to Perry's degree, whereas I don't like to be pessimistic about 50% of the population as it seems so depressing. Also, I want kids, and I wouldn't want to believe that if I had a son.
My friend is lesbian, though, so she doesn't have to worry about men in her personal life, so there's no cognitive dissonance in that sense. Despite our different views, we both agree that never being alone with male friends is a good policy, especially as so many rapes seem to be committed by 'nice guy' types who cosy up under the guise of friendship.

What I can't wrap my head around is the cognitive dissonance of believing this about men (1/3 or as some pps have said, a lot more) & then presumably (in the case of most voters & posters here) mostly being married to men. Though everyone has a father, many have brothers and sons, so this question extends further than just women with husbands.

I remember so fondly a fellow student who put me safely to bed when I was in no fit state to consent, and called a female friend in for a second opinion on my wellbeing. He was a good man. I hope he still is.

I thought it was Meghan? Either way it was vile.

I hope so too. We need more men to behave like that...

I alluded to this in my last post, but I think part of the conversation needs to be around educating boys and young men.

As a mother of daughters, I've been finding age-appropriate ways to educate her about sexual safety since she was old enough to learn the name of her body parts.

I don't see the same effort go into teaching boys and young men not to grow up to be the kinds of men who perpetrate these acts.

Not by accident, the true nature of rape is hidden in our culture. If you asked most people to describe what a rape is, they'll talk about a man violently grabbing a woman he doesn't know, forcing her to submit, possibly injuring her in the process. That form of rape happens, but is very rare. It's a totally male-centric view of rape - an 'innocent' woman, going about her day, is violated by an unworthy man, stolen from her true owner, ruined against her will. She doesn't play any part - in fact, she resists with all her might, as a good woman should. The man is a villain, breaking the code of ownership by stealing the virtue of another man's possession.

In reality, rape typically involves a man manipulating, bullying or coercing a woman he knows - his partner, daughter, sister, cousin, friend - into submitting to sex. Because she gives in and he feels entitled to her body, he doesn't consider that rape. Over and over women on MN have had to be told that if her husband browbeats her continuously until she provides sex as a bargain for peace, that is rape. In that context, I believe that 1 in 3 is very conservative and I believe that many men have raped but would never accept what they did being called that.

As others have said, throughout history rape was essentially normalised - it was a tool of war, and a fact of life for many married women. Patriarchal society sees sex as a right that men are owed, not something that happens consensually between two equal adults. Men have a right to pursue it. In that context, the idea that fewer than 1 in 3 men rape seems naive. I know the two men that raped me would never ever consider themselves rapists, not for a second.

You are naive for thinking most men wouldn't rape.

This. 100% this.

“What I can't wrap my head around is the cognitive dissonance of believing this about men (1/3 or as some pps have said, a lot more) & then presumably (in the case of most voters & posters here) mostly being married to men. Though everyone has a father, many have brothers and sons, so this question extends further than just women with husbands.“

I assumed everyone knows they are taking a punt, knowing he could turn on them if things don’t go his way. That’s why we have ‘running away’ pots.

Another strategy is to marry a somewhat docile, submissive man. Though anecdotally, he may well lose interest in sex quicker than she’d prefer.

I would add that the fact that rape is in any way considered to be sex shows how fucked up our idea of it is.

I cannot call a punch a hug because it involves the same body parts.

Sex and rape involve the same body parts. They are not the same thing.

The night I met my DH, I was sexually harassed by another man. My DH acted like a perfect gentleman and has never given me any cause to worry afterwards. 1/3 of men, or 41% which is another consistent statistic, is still not all men. Not even most men. But you pretending it isn’t both a fuck of a lot of men, and almost always men, is just a combination of the optimism of youth and our natural desire to avoid fear.

If you also typically date women, you aren’t sleeping with the enemy. Even ‘lucky women’ have been in a lot of oh shit situations. Those times your blood runs cold and you look for a way out. Often around men who you thought were friends, or you thought were a good man you were seeing. At 19, you’ve had maybe 5 years to see it. I’ve had many decades and honestly, it hasn’t stopped yet.

I love a good man/men story. Those wonderful men who stopped bad things happening, who stood up, who did something. We should recognise them as well. It is possible. But not by pretending the others aren’t very very common.

You don’t sound like a teenager at all. I would expect a teenager to be shocked or upset by these statistics, not repeating use the word rape in a flat detached tone.

The fuck off fund. Yep. Always had one.

And I married a very classical huge blokey bloke. He’s never had to worry about or prove his masculinity and somehow that seems to have made him immune to toxicity. Also, his mum and sister and granny are/were tough as nails and raised him right. His mum in particular was tough but open and loving with him. She and FIL both came from abusive families with DV in them. They worked hard to not be the same. Mostly luck because trauma can go either way!

I despair of the “get married as early as possible and have kids” crowd. Firstly because they aim this solely at women but secondly I think many women would marry and have kids early if in a situation to do so. Many are not.

Given how common rape is as a weapon of war, how many women report suffering some form of sexual assault and just how common it is, that when men are given some degree of power over women (throughout history and to the present day), a significant proportion use it to coerce sex - I am really not surprised she feels that way.

I don’t think a high number of men would drug and rape a woman of jump out of bushes with a knife and overpower an unsuspecting female passerby.

But if you introduce other forms of non consent / sexual coercion and I think the number gets much higher. They just would not see it as rape.

So I don’t think 1/3 of men would rape a women if they saw it as rape. But I think a high number would engage in extremely problematic, non-consensual active as long as it was not deemed as “rape” in the society in which they live.

To be fair, it’s theoretical until you are living it.

I think she is just saying that social norms are very important in restraining male urges. Obviously fewer than 1 in 3 men are rapists in real life, because they feel restrained by the laws and norms of our society - which is a good thing! And norms include anything that makes it logistically difficult to get into a position of being able to rape someone.

Something she often speaks about is that she thinks feminists underestimate the degree to which plain sex drive is a large contributor to rape - she disagrees that it's purely due to "demonstrating power" etc (although this is also a factor).

If a man had a group of his friends line up a prostitute and he thought on balance she probably wasn't into it but knew no-one would find out and she was there naked and he was horny - I think this is her point, how many men would simply stop because "it's morally wrong"? (She thinks 2/3 presumably.) And how many men would stop, but only because they thought there was a chance it might get out somehow?

I think overall she's saying, a lot of men would like sex full stop - it's not just the "depraved, power hungry" ones or whatever we might imagine.

Nonsense.

This doesn't make sense though.

It's a myth that men have higher sex drives. Plenty of women have a much higher sex drive than their husbands, but don't rape them.

This is the point I was trying to make I think. I think the “if they could get away with it” is paramount. I think few would where rape is heavily stigmatised and rigorously prosecuted.

Where there is no law and order (or where under the law rape of certain women is not deemed a crime, such as enslaved women or wives), where the only thing that would prevent a man raping is his own moral compass, I do think just 1/3 is probably low.

Tbf someone being 'docile' and 'submissive' isn't necessarily a safeguard. I have a friend whose father has turned out to be really psychologically abusive (and occasionally physically before the separation prevented it escalating). His personality does seem to be essentially docile but also with a vicious & jealous streak (possibly envy of her mother's successful career).

Men often say that successful women wanting a more successful man is proof of wanting a provider, or a spouse who seems dominant or superior. But it could also often be the knowledge that if a spouse is less successful/ambitious they may become jealous and abusive.

There’s probably a mathematical term for this -

‘some women have higher sex drives than their husbands’ (and song rape them)

is not the same as

‘some men’s sex drive is very powerful and overwhelms more civilised behaviour’ (leading to rape).

I’m not disagreeing, just pointing out the difference.

Some men will have sex with anything. 🤢 Literally.

Men do generally report having higher sex drives and thinking more about sex. Lesbians generally have a bit more casual sex than straight women but certainly (and luckily!) don't feel the need usually to go as crazy as gay men often do, to compare environments that aren't influenced by the other sex.

However, imo there's a lot more complexity to this.