The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

[DontCallMePeanut]

From The Telegraph

Sorry, my head's not in the right place to provide any critique of this at the moment, but thought this would interest the members of the feminist section. Will attempt to comment when I have a clearer head.

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.

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

ah, here it is

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

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?

Good research, HerBeX

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Bloody autocorrect on phones. I mean Leningrad obviously.

Having read the whole thread - I couldn't sleep - the one thing I'd like to dispute is that women are 'conditioned' to be submissive and 'assertive' women get called aggressive bitches - I think aggressive women get called aggressive, but assertiveness is not generally seen as a negative trait. All the men I know have or are looking for gfs who are strong and smart, anything but a doormouse. Or is that doormat?

Anyway it might have been true in the past, and of course some women are naturally shy or unassertive and some men possibly prefer that, but in the modern world I think assertiveness has no negative connotations, while being submissive or passive aggressive, or aggressive are seen as less than ideal.

Undefeated, assertive women are seen as aggressive.

Aggressive women are seen as out and out loons.

This is not confined to the past. There have been masses of studies done about responses to men and women and the differing language we speak, the different intonations and different formulations.

On average, women use far more "hedging" language than men. When they don't, when they are being assertive, they are still often seen as aggressive.

As a forensic psychologist I can assure you that if a woman expresses herself in an assertive manner, she will most likely be recognised correctly as being assertive - not aggressive.

There are four methods of expressing ourselves, aggressive, assertive, passive aggressive, and submissive. For example, both your post and mine are people expressing themselves assertively, not aggressively. Only someone with uncommon difficulties, or perhaps in a defensive/antaganostic frame of mind, would infer aggression from either of our posts, whatever the sex.

I could point you to many women (or men) in the media or characters on soaps that use assertive means of communication. And I could do the same with those who are aggressive. Both men and women will not usually find it too difficult to tell the difference. Could you name me a famous woman who you think is seen as aggressive but is actually being assertive?

If women are so conditioned to never say no to a man, won't the same supposed problem arise if men have to ask verbally every time they want sex?

Johinna - "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."

Who said anything about saying no aggressively? (Nobody). Use the same 'hedging tactics, softening remarks, acceptable reasons for refusal, etc" you say people are adept at in other situations.

And if he's an 'aggressor' it doesn't really matter what you say does it? But saying 'not tonight I have my period, lets do this in a few days' might save a woman from rape, yes?

If women are so conditioned to never say no to a man, won't the same supposed problem arise if men have to ask verbally every time they want sex?
Well, if men used their common sense, and took "maybe later" as a "no", and any other excuse. Being conditioned to not say no doesn't mean we're automatically conditioned to say yes.

But saying 'not tonight I have my period, lets do this in a few days' might save a woman from rape, yes?

It really wouldn't. I was still bleeding post-partum, and the ex insisted on "sex"...