She was asking for it.

[garlicnutter]

Sorry to post and run (am knackered) but it looks like a good time for this one to be taken out for some fresh air.

What you wear and how much you drink has little to no effect on whether you'll get raped.

Elaborate, please ...

I agree, they do know, alex. It's part of the abuser mentality, which was illustrated by OMC's quote. Such a person finds themself entitled to impose their will against the woman's wishes.

Yes, that's on the right track. Or "A real man takes NO for an answer" or something like that

God that's awful GN.

But you know what stands out there?

The fact that the guy who intervened, only thought it was necessary to give them all a bollocking.

He didn't think it necessary to call the police and have this man arrested for sexual assault of a minor. It didn't occur to him that this man is dangerous to girls and women. Next time, when he's not around, the fact that this man might go on to rape a child or woman, hasn't crossed his mind.

And that comes down to education. OneMoreChap, it is no-one's responsibility to avoid men like the ones in your list (excellent list BTW). It is the responsibility of men not to be like the ones in your list. Of course it's a good idea to avoid them - I actively avoid such men myself - but by saying it's a woman's responsibility to avoid them (how, if they are her brother, her uncle, her cousin, her father, her friend's husbands and boyfriends, the only sort of men she knows?) that implies that we accept the existence of men like that. What we need to do, is educate men not to be like that, not place the onus on women to avoid men like that.

UsingMainlySpoons
Why the focus on women saying no, though?

Sorry, genuinely don't know. It was a quote from Women's Voice back in the 70s. I presume it was addressing "Well she was wearing..."

Spoons - I think that "No means no" is addressing the men. It's saying "Stop if she doesn't want it, if she's not interested"

Yes, in a society where women are conditioned not to say a straight out "no", but to hedge their language around in ways which let someone down gently, the ability of a man to recognise that no means no, is pretty useless.

We need men to know that the absence of No does not constitute consent. The presence of Yes does.

HereBeBolloX
What we need to do, is educate men not to be like that, not place the onus on women to avoid men like that

OK, I'll leave the thread at this point.
Good luck with your ongoing programme of education, but with respect, I'll continue to advise those I'm close to to avoid dodgy areas and those whom your gut instinct tell you to avoid.

What is your objection to educating men not to be like that OMC?

Jumping ahead to Garlics True Stories pt.5 or thereabouts:

I'm at uni. After an ordinary (drunk) night out in a large group, I go back to halls with one of the blokes - his name is Hugh. It's been obvious he fancies me, but I'm not sure yet whether I fancy him. We have another drink in his room, then a bit of snogging. At this point, I decide I don't fancy him after all. I move away.

Instead of releasing me, he forces me down on the bed and starts shoving his hands inside my clothes. First time I get a chance to breathe, I look him in the face and say "Stop it, Hugh, do you realise you're raping me!" He is horrified.

So that young man was not a rapist, did know what No means, and is a perfect example of what happens when a normal bloke "gets carried away." No harm done, bar a bit of awkwardness. We remained friends throughout our time there.

About women saying no, this reminds me of something. A little while ago there was a really horrible thing that happened near me. A very drunk young woman got into her car with some friends, and she crashed, and she killed one of her passengers. She'd been told by friends not to drink drive and replied 'my car, my rules'.

No-one would say (I hope) that she should have been encouraged to drive just because she was happy to do so: she was not in a fit state to make that decision. And the general feeling was that her friends, especially those who were sober, did have a responsibility to stop her. In fact there was quite a big campaign about how if you see someone trying to drink drive or getting in a car with a drunk driver, you should call the police.

Why is it women's bodies don't merit the same consideration when the only person likely to be hurt is the woman herself? Suddenly when it's a question of rape, consent and alcohol, people start saying 'oh, but she didn't say no/oh, but she seemed to want it' ... makes no sense to me.

As far as I'm aware, there actually is a commitment to teaching more about acceptable behaviours/abuse and "No means no" in schools. At least, I hope this is a continuing initiative and not just a headline-grabber. Anybody got any teens who can confirm??

GB, honestly, I'm amazed you managed to be friends with someone who forced you down on a bed. I'd be revolted by that.

Oh, LRD, how sad.

I think people do try to look out for their friends - though often as ineffectively as the friends in your story. I worked at Canary Wharf during a spate of drink-spiking. People were pretty good about safely removing anyone who seemed inordinately drunk ... we did always report the incidents, but afaik nothing much could be done.

At the ages we were, I put it down to being 'carried away'. It wasn't an ongoing relationship or anything. He did stop, and was dead sorry.

Yeah, it was horrible.

You're right a lot of people look out for their friends, a lot of people are basically decent and kind. But some aren't, and they need dealing with.

... but IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. We shouldn't need to watch our friends for signs of Rohypnol poisoning. We shouldn't have to make allowances for disrespectful behaviour in lustful young men. We shouldn't need to advice our children on risk aversion.

Of course, there will always be bad, mad, insane and desperate people who commit crimes. But the crime of violation against a woman's body should never be considered more excusable than other crimes, especially not in terms of the victim's fault.

I'm sorry OMC was offended by comments above - I, too, consider it entirely reasonable to educate men against feelings of violent entitlement. I thought it was already being done, to some extent.

I was going to post something about how I don't think most men who pressure/cajole/blackmail/get a woman drunk so she's less likely to say yes/don't take no for an answer/use their relative power to make women an offer they can't refuse/etc. see themselves as rapists at all.

In fact, I believe when most people think of the word "rape" have a very clear image in mind that involves a stranger, use of violence and a victim that is clearly "unavailable" for sex (e.g. very young, very old, disabled, not doing anything or appearing in any way available for sex.)

So, I genuinely believe that there are many men who have raped - as in had sex with another person without first gaining their full, informed consent, who wouldn't in a million years see themselves as rapists. They probably see themselves as entitled to have sex with any woman they can push, press, coerce, cajole, etc., but not that that is rape.

Which takes me to OMC's list of "danger signs" that a guy could be a rapist. What occurs to me is that most of these indicators could also apply to alot of people's concept of something not far off a "normal guy," or maybe just a bit of a "bad boy." I mean even in popular culture, there are movie and book "heroes" that embody some if not all of those characteristics, and they are considered to be the "good guys."

Actually, reading back through the list, I can see a man who displays some or most of these characteristics as being quite admired amongst other men. For example:

1. Insensitivity for others/emphasis on self - can be interpreted as just being very self-confident.

2. Belittling behavior or attitudes towards others - this is the stuff of many popular jokes, and a tactic commonly used by men to gain status (as John Stoltenberg would say - to get higher on the manhood cliff.)

3. Negating behavior or comments - again not necessarily seen as a bad thing. Perhaps they are very knowledgeable and just don't "suffer fools gladly."

4. Hostile and/or threatening language - I've noticed quite a few men using this kind of language to gain kudos, to show they are hip and trendy.

5. Bullying - is it really bullying or just another version of 2 and 3 above? Perhaps just a "joke."

6. Excessive anger - again, that's not universally seen as a negative characteristic of men. Alot of competitive sports feed on the idea of channelling anger into winning.

7. Brooding/ revenge - that can be seen as sticking to one's principles, not caving in, not letting someone else get the upper hand (none of these particularly seen as negative aspects for a man.)

8. Obsession - an extension of 7 above. Obsession in terms of career, sports and hobbies can be seen as a positive thing and there is a tendency to excuse "driven" behaviour that leaks out into other forms of interaction.

9. Extreme mood swings - follow on from 6, 7 and 8. I think where a woman might be called a "moody cow" or "hormonal" and that be seen as a negative thing, being "moody" is often promoted as quite an attractive characteristic in a bloke, and assumed he may have a good reason for being that way.

10. Physical tantrums - a bit like 6, expressing emotions physically isn't necessarily seen as a bad thing for a man, so long as they avoid causing damage to another person (unless it can be argued that they deserved it.)

11. Jock or gorilla mentality - again, something that's considered fairly unremarkable in "normal" men, perhaps referring jokily to a man being a bit chauvinistic, bit of a dinosaur, but harmless.

12. A mean drunk - lots of bad behaviour is completely excused because the person is drunk.

13. Alcohol or drug abuse - in many social circles, heavy drinking and drug taking are regarded as quite normal, so absolutely no indication of anything untoward in a man.

Thing is, I would wager that if a woman noticed some of the above characteristics in a bloke, thought to herself that he could have the potential to be a rapist, and shared her concerns with anyone else, she'd be accused of blowing things out of proportion, being paranoid, being a man hater or something along those lines.

The problem, imho, is the boundary between what constitutes the "normal range" of male behaviour/attitudes and the behaviour/attitudes of a potential or actual rapist are quite, quite blurry.

Yep. The list OMC posted isn't a million miles from Joe Carver's "Loser", widely known at Mumsnet, but not widely enough in general.

I suspect that overbearing/abusive/rapist men often target young women because they're more likely to be unaware of the difference between the fictional, moody, alpha male, and the real-life misogynist bully.

People who were abused in childhood are more likely to be raped. I think the reason is the same one that leads such people into abusive relationships: pre-conditioning that 'normalises' abuse. As a result, you'd be much less likely to spot the warning signs (or realise they were bad signs.)

It is that "normalising" of abusive behaviour that worries me. The nasty flipside of sexualisation of young girls is hypermasculisation of young boys, imho. Even young people who don't have direct experience of sexual or other forms of abuse still absorb the message of gender stereotypes very young. Increasingly, I think male gender stereotypes embody at least in some form alot of characteristics from that list and incorporate them within the "normal" range of male behaviour.

That's crappy not just for the young women who are given mixed messages about what they need to do to protect themselves yet be popular and attractive to men. It's also crappy for boys and young men who do not aspire to this model of masculinity, and can suffer bullying and intimidation from other males as a result.

I definitely agree with the suggestion that society/people/women/men need educating about what rape is, and that it is not just the very narrow stranger-in-a-dark-alley definition.

I hate the reduction of rape to 'no means no' and the prevalence of this.

My ex knew no meant no. So he went on and on and on and on and on and fucking on at me till I stopped saying 'no'. And of course in his head, well 'no means no' and I no longer said 'no' so he could so what he liked with impunity.

Was OMC offended by the comments, d'you think?

Why would that be?

Did anyone say anything particularly offensive?

I find it very interesting taht some men get offended by the idea that it is they who need to be educated about how to avoid rape, not women.

They're the only ones who can stop it. If women could stop or avoid rape, we'd have done it centuries ago. No woman in her right mind would actively seek rape if she could avoid it, so it stands to reason that women are powerless to stop it and the only ones who can, are men.

It really is very very simple, all this. We dress rape up as complicated, complex, difficult, sensitive, purely because we don't want to admit that most rape could be wiped out tomorrow, if all men examined their own attitudes and educated other men about their's, to ensure that they don't feel entitled to penetrate our bodies against our will. That's all we need. But men seem outraged when such a simple solution is suggested.

Some men, that should say.