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

[lenak]

or does it actually make it more difficult for women to say no and give men who rape a get out?

Just after some opinions as an essay I am currently writing for uni has piqued my interest in the subject.

I am studying Discourse Analysis and in particular am currently looking at Sociolingusitics.

On the one hand, there is the argument that there are different 'genderlects' and that the genders can hear and mean things differently, thus the need to teach women to 'just say no' as this is clear and prevents any misunderstanding due to differences in genderlect understanding. This has led to the development of Just Say No campaigns. The researcher who argues for the differences in genderlect understanding is a feminist who has been instrumental in the development of some of these Just say No courses.

On the other hand there is the argument that in human communication, rejections and refusals are commonly delayed and indirect and follow a typical pattern which generally includes delay in responding, some kind of prefacing of the refusal?, a palliative remark, and some kind of account aimed at softening, explaining, justifying, excusing, or redefining the rejection. It is important to note that refusals are almost always accompanied by explanations or justifications. This is the usual way that refusals are given and thus are understood by all (with adequate social skills) as refusals. Being direct and 'Just saying No' is unusual and uncomfortable for the person saying no as it doesn't follow the usual route of a refusal.

The promotion of 'Just say No' also provides an excuse for men to say "Well she didn't actually say no" when a woman uses more usual methods of refusal even if he understands these types of refusal perfectly well in his every day life.

The researchers who argue this are also feminists arguing from a feminist perspective.

So who's right? Personally, I think the second view makes more sense, but would be interested in the views of MN.

No, as I outlined before, "just say no" is the epitome of victim blaming. How many times have we heard the phrase "well, she never said no" to minimise rape? It removes the responsibility of men to make sure they have a "yes".

The biggest problem is not that "just say no" encourages women to act differently. Nor is it that it implies men are somehow stupid. The issue is that it implies that, if she doesn't say no, the victim is somehow to blame.

"Just Say No" is fine for other areas, I feel. Sure, tell your daughter to "just say no" to drugs. Sure, tell your son to "just say no" to alcohol. But you cannot tell people to avoid having something happen to them over which they have no control.

Yes, I agree about the victim blaming, but that comes after the rape has occured - when saying no (or not saying no, but using other, normally accepted methods of refusal) have failed.

I suppose I am looking at this from the perspective of the communication prior to any sexual interaction. At that point there is no victim to blame.

It's the idea that in order to prevent oneself from becoming a victim women must communicate in an unnatural way because otherwise the man might not understand them. But surely that is counter-intuitive - isn't acting in a way that is not natural more difficult and actually leaves things even more open to misinterpretation?

But that's the thing. Rapists ignore the communication. "Just saying no" to a potential rapist is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome.

The message should be focused on boys and men, encouraging them to make sure that before intercourse takes place, they have consent which hasn't been reached through coercion, drinks or drugs. Positive, active consent. Why, in the 21st century, are we still needing to drill this message home?

If a man is intent on raping, then yes, of course he will ignore the communication - whether it is an emphatic no or a more 'normal' refusal.

But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance (and before I get jumped on, I am not suggesting it is any less of a crime than a planned rape) there is going to be a 'window' for a refusal to be heard, understood and respected. Should we be teaching our daughters that the best way to ensure a positive outcome is to communicate in an unnatural manner? Is there really such massive scope for miscommunication between the sexes?

I agree about the message that boys should be given by the way (although it is outside the scope of my current study focus) - but I think that the idea of explicit consent is also problematic because as with explicit refusal, it is often not that direct (although it is more direct than refusals) so is also unnatural in terms of 'normal communication.

Whether you advocate 'Just say No' refusal skills training OR you focus on getting men to ensure they have explicit consent, the onus is still on the woman to communicate in a way that is unnatural in everyday communication whether that is positive consent or negative refusal.

I'd say all of these are ways that women communicate refusal in a natural manner I know I've used all of them at some point. Most of the time, whatever I said (or didn't say) got respected. A woman saying a "yes" that she believes in is far more natural than her saying a "no" that she believes in. We're conditioned to make excuses for our "no" responses. What is so wrong with expecting men to make sure they have an explicit yes? I have more respect for the partners I've had that did just that.

I'm struggling with the idea that the way women communicate differently from men is 'natural.' What you describe as 'genderlect' sounds like the result of a social construct, and refelcts the power imbalance between the sexes.

Similarly, one will find different ways of communicating between working class people and those of more privileged socio-economic classes. I don't think that difference could be described as 'natural.' either.

As the Fugitivus blog linked above illustrates, frankly, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Be deferential and polite and you'll be seen as indecisive and open to coercion. Be forthright and 'more like a man' and possibly be viewed as confrontational and deserving of a 'smack down.'

Even if 'retraining' in a different communication style could reduce risk (and I see no evidence at all that it would,) in a situation where you are under pressure, maybe have had a few drinks, are on your own with the man and probably frightened, all the training could just go out the window. That leaves another thing to blame the victim for - you were too stupid to remember the drill.

Also, I disagree that there is no victim unless a rape has happened. Arguing, humouring, appeasing and cajoling yourself out of a risky situation can be emotionally devastating. Having your night out with friends ruined by a persistant, intrusive man can be deeply upsetting. Maybe they aren't 'victims' in the same way, but it doesn't mean that women in such situations aren't deeply distressed as a result.

I just don't buy the idea that sexual harrassment or assaults an be curbed by better communication. It's not a case of men who rape not being able to understand when a woman doesn't want to have sex with them. They do understand. They just don't care
.

Natural is the wrong word; you're right, Kritiq.

Socially conditioned is the phrase that's probably more accurate

I disagree - I think that positive consent is natural and everyday. It doesn't mean that the woman has to state the exact phrase "Yes, I consent to sex" - it just means paying attention to body language, is she smiling, happy, touching you, responding, initiating intimate touch e.g. kissing, placing hands in certain places, moving closer to you, doing all of this enthusiastically.

It also means being aware of things like, is she trying subtly to put distance between you, is she lying there still and unresponsive, is she not kissing back, does she seem nervous, etc. All of those things are pretty obvious and natural signs to take a step back and ask if she is okay.

I think Nyac is right. You are coming at this from an angle that rape is somehow some miscommunication. It isn't, ever. It is about men's entitlement to have sex regardless of what is communicated by the woman. If you start from that position then all this "Just say no" and "No means no" crap is just that, crap. All the onus on the woman to communicate in someway that a man might understand, disappears and the onus is on the man's behaviour, as it should be in rape.

Lenak from what you have posted here, it sounds to me like the subject matter you have been asked to write about is not very clear.

It sounds as though whoever set the subject is mixing up two situations - being raped and saying no to sex.

Being raped, is something that is done to a woman. The rapist doesn't care if she says no.

Saying no to sex is something a woman does. I think it is interesting to examine the language women use to refuse sex, but I don't think it is useful to mix that up with rape.

Yes I think that's the prob here - the idea that rape and sex are the same thing.

Another thing about no - one of the reasons women don't say no, is because when you are just about to be raped, you know that your saying no, will be ignored. And somehow, that is far more frightening and disempowering and horrifying, than just submitting without the no. You can then both pretend that it wasn't rape. Which will then hopefully make it safer - you can get out of there without him doing anything worse than raping you. If you challenge him with no, maybe that will raise the stakes and make the situation even more dangerous than it currently is.

lenak - I think the basis of your study stems on this sentence: But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance.

I'm aware this could screw up your study if we manage to convince you, so I'm sorry for that, but I just don't think that statement is true.

If we use another, less-contentious argument from law, such as theft, I can explain this (even though I normally hate analogies comparing rape to other crimes). In order to prove theft, you have to prove intentionality. However, this does not mean that you have to have the intention to commit theft in a premeditated fashion. For example, you could go into a shop put some things in your basket and pay for them, then leave the shop, get to the car and realise that you haven't paid for the bottle of wine you put in the basket under your child's buggy because the basket was already full. Unless you go back into the shop and pay for that wine, you have committed theft. Your original attention may not have been to commit theft, but the minute you realised you had unpaid-for goods and made the decision not to pay for them, you intention has become to 'dishonestly deprive'. Did you make that 'mistake' in all honesty? Impossible to say. Does it being an 'innocent mistake' make it any less of a crime. No. In the eyes of the law, most definitely not.

The same is true of rape. A man may not go out with the intention to commit rape, and may even find himself alone with a woman where the signals are good and sex seems likely, but once he finds himself in the position where the woman's 'consent' is less than absolutely 100% clear and he proceeds anyway, he is making a decision to commit rape there and then. Therefore, he is a rapist. No ifs, buts or maybes. And, of course, unlike the theft from the shop, you can't go back and offer to put things right and so undo being a thief. Once you've raped someone, you are a rapist.

There is no such thing as mixed signals. If there is any 'mixing' going on the answer is 'No'.

Surely the only sensible solution to this is to ram home the message that unless she's practically ripping your clothes off and begging for it, the answer is no.

I often pass items I would dearly love to possess. Sometimes I am in a position where I could take them and no one would know. I don't do it because that would make me a thief. Do we really believe men are so less capable of controlling themselves?

OK - I'm going to try and explain this once again.

Thanks for your concern Sunshine but it won't screw up my study because that is not the basis of it. You seem to have only picked up on half of the sentence. The whole sentence was:

But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance (and before I get jumped on, I am not suggesting it is any less of a crime than a planned rape) there is going to be a 'window' for a refusal to be heard, understood and respected.

The basis of the study is the language used in that window. How men and women say no to sex and whether there are really such differences in communication between men and women that miscommunication is likely if not inevitable.

I am NOT interested (for the purpose of this study) in the act of Rape itself, why men rape, anti-rape activisim or rape prevention (apart from the type of language women are taught to use in refusal skills training).

I am only interested in the language used in refusing sex

Beach the subject matter is very clear. It is only about the language women (and men) use to refuse sex. I am not mixing it up with rape at all. The only reason rape comes into it is because that is the result where that refusal is not heard / understood or is ignored.

Just for clarification:

The area of study is Discourse Analysis. Discourse Analysis (DA) is complex, but a simplified explanation is that it is the study of language in use or talk-in-interaction.

Specifically for this assignment, I had to choose one of two schools of DA - either Conversation Analysis or Sociolinguistics and apply the methods and debates from one of those schools to a transcript.

I chose to look at Sociolingusitics and used a transcript which contained two group interviews with young men - one of which was based around the question of how they would refuse sex, the other about how they would know that a woman was refusing sex.

The relevant background reading to this was an essay by Deborah Tannen which expands on her theories that that the different genders communicate in very different ways and that this leads to miscommunication. While Tannen's work has been fiercely criticised, it still feeds into the prevailing thinking about rape amongst psychologists, sociologists, law makers etc that if women could only communicate in a way that could be understood then rape (in particular date rape / acquaintance rape) may be more preventable. Hence the word NO being so central to refusal skills training and even anti-rape campaigns.

The opposing view is that of Kitzinger and Frith who argue that the miscommunication model is misguided and that it should not be necessary for a woman to say No for her to be heard as refusing an invitation to have sex. They argue that advice given to women to just say no is simplistic and perhaps even futile because it ignores how refusals are typically performed in every day life. They argue that it is women's knowledge of culturally normative ways of doing refusals that makes it so difficult for them to simply say no and that men share this understanding of cultural rules.

The reason I posted here is because I was interested in people's views of these two models particularly with the prominance given to the word no in anti-rape campaigns.

I've finished my essay now, however, upon googling, I've managed to find the original study from where the extracts I had to look at were taken.

Feminism and Psychology: ?You Couldn't Say "No", Could You??: Young Men's Understandings of Sexual Refusal

They cite the feminist argument that the victim precipitation model of rape prevention needs to be overturned in favour of social structural model which focuses on changing societal beliefs about rape.

They give an example of a recent attempt by the Australian government to attempt to do just that:

One recent example of such an attempt, however, is the Australian Government-funded campaign, Violence Against Women: Australia Says No, which aims to provide information on how to build and maintain loving supportive relationships and to send a ?clear message? that violence, including sexual violence, against women will not be tolerated (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004: 1). However, while apparently guided by a social structural account of rape, this campaign is equally influenced by Tannen?s (1990) ?miscommunication? model, as evidenced by the assumed need to say ?no? presented in the campaign slogan.

If the use of the word No in any campaign shows influence of the miscommunication model and thus is part of the prevailing Victim Precipitation model, where does that leave campaign like "Yes means Yes and No means No" - are the contradictory to the aims of the Social Structural Model or a necessary half way house in the fight for change?

It is an interesting thought........ (but not directly related to the study of DA - so off now to start revising for the exam - I hate exams )

lenak thanks for the clarification. I do see more where you're coming from. Yes, there's a window where a man can make a decision to proceed (and be a rapist) or drawback and not be one. I still think it's a mistake to think that this decision is based on the language used by the woman though.

80% of human communication is non-verbal. I really think that any man with even lowish intelligence or above is capable of working out whether or not he has an enthusiastic, willing participant. If he can't, then he shouldn't be trying to have sex with anyone.

I think there is perhaps a window but a rapist knows that what he is doing is wrong he just doesn't care (and knows he will get away with it).

You're in the feminist section Linak. If you're posting stuff that is extremely politically problematic and harmful to women there will be a response.

Rape isn't an abstract academic argument, it's real, it happens to women. It's a crime that some men choose to commit against women. There is very little in academic feminism that has been useful to women and this is just more of the same: people conducting abstract arguments so they can publish papers and up their citation and publication count.

Also I'd say the way you were framing these arguments is a hell of a lot more patronising than anything I said. Mumsnet have just done a big campaign on rape myths, yet here are some being presented as if they were up for debate e.g. that rape is a matter of "miscommunication".

Or for example this is just nonsense:

"But there are cases where rape occurs where it was not the intention in the first instance (and before I get jumped on, I am not suggesting it is any less of a crime than a planned rape) there is going to be a 'window' for a refusal to be heard"

Can I suggest you read the recent consent thread in this section. It will probably help you clarify the real dynamics of rape.

There isn't another crime that demands the victim say no or she is somehow complicit in the crime being committed against her.

I didn't say "no" to the teenagers who mugged me when they pushed me over and made off with my handbag. Should I have used the "just say no" model then, hoping there would be a window where any miscommunication should have been cleared up. After all how could they have guessed I didn't want to give them my bag?

Thanks for the clarification but I still think things aren't very clear. I don't mean not clear in the sense that you haven't been asked to examine something specific, you clearly have. You have been asked to consider the language that people use to refuse sex.

What doesn't seem clear to me is the political parameters within which you are working - surely it is impossible to examine something like this in isolation? Women don't refuse sex and then get raped in a vacuum. Surely if you want to examine the 'window' within which a man will go ahead and penetrate a woman who does not want him to, you need to examine entitlement and rape culture? Even if you are just concentrating on the communication aspect, surely an issue like this needs to be placed within a very clearly defined analysis of socialization in general, as it occurs in male supremacist culture?

There may be men who 'misunderstand' a woman's 'no signals/language' and penetrate that woman anyway. I don't really believe that they misunderstand because there is a communication problem though. I think they misread the situation and think that they have a right to have sex with a woman who isn't happily participating because that is what society has taught them about sex. I think the problem is male entitlement and the oppression of women as the sex class. No communication in the world is going to change that.

I just seems a kind of odd thing to study to me. Certainly it strikes me as victim blaming and rape mythy.

The "window for refusal to be heard" is just abstract academic bollocks.

The refusal is heard. It's just ignored if the man is a rapist. If he's not, the refusal is heard and he stops. Nothing the victim says or how she says it, is relevant. Only the beliefs and attitudes of the man matters. If he doesn't believe that he has the right to penetrate a woman who doesn't 100% want him to penetrate her, then he won't penetrate her. If he does, he will. With or without the window.

I agree with Nyac, that you may find reading the thread about the concept of consent, relevant to your subject.

The upshot really is that women shouldn't have to say no. They should just never be forced into the position where it is necessary (either by society or by individual men).

That isn't very helpful for your essay though - sorry I too think it all sounds like academic bollocks. (The subject, not you obviously)

here OP here's the consent thread it may be helpful

Nyac I am in the feminist section because the two ideas that I am studying were written by feminist academics and are part of the feminist school of sociolinguistic study.

You may not think that feminist social scientists add anything of any use to the feminism debate, but I was under the impression that this section was for discussing all aspects of feminism whether you think they are useful or not. I appreciate that some people might not find academic feminism useful and prefer to concentrate on feminist activism - presumably that is why there a separate board for it?

And once again, I am fully aware that rape is not an abstract argument, but as I have stated time and time again, I am not studying rape, I am studying the use of language in the refusal of sex. I do not need to clarify the dynamics of rape, because I am not studying rape.

I am not (intentionally) framing these arguments in any particular way, I am presenting two different models that I have studied and asking for feminists opinions on them. That is why I have tried to avoid using value-laden language such as "rape-myths".

You seem intent on accusing me of somehow creating the miscommunication model and of advocating Just say no. The miscommunication model is not mine, it is that of Deborah Tannen, a feminist sociololinguist and is largely attributed to her 1990 best-selling book You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation.

I agree with you about there not being another crime where women are seen as complicit if they don't say no correctly. That is why, as I stated earlier up the thread, that on balance I agree more with Kitzinger and Frith than with Tannen. Just to make that clear for you, I was saying that I did not agree miscommunication model.

You make some valid points about why the miscommunication model is wrong. That is the sort of opinions I was seeking. I am just not sure why you have to frame those opinions in such a way that sounds like you blame me for the miscommunication model existing in the first place.

The fact is that the miscommunication model is key in current prevalent thinking and attitudes to rape in psychology and in society and the law, and arguably even some anti-rape campaigns (in No mean No, the assumed use of the need to say no at all is due to the influence of the miscommunication model.). It is not simply an abstract argument because it has had a very real impact on how rape is viewed in society and abstract arguments simply don't have that kind of power.

What I also think is important is that it was developed by someone who is widely recognised as a feminist - as such there is some difficulty in simply labelling it as a patriarchal rape myth.

For it to be overturned, it needs to be understood and dis-proven - science based evidence to prove conclusively that it is wrong and, in partnership with feminist activism, overturn it's dominance - simply shouting rape-myth over and over again will not work in isolation.

You might not like academics, but the opposing argument to the miscommunication model, led by Kitzinger and Frith and taken up by others, provides solid, qualitative and quantitative evidence that the model is wrong. I am unsure why you think that kind of evidence would not be of use to the feminist movement but that is your prerogative.

Interesting that both the quoted studies concentrate on the way that women communicate, ie the onus is on the refuser to make her wishes clear in a way the requester cannot misunderstand. So they both consider it the woman's job to repel boarders, as it were, rather than the man's responsibility to obtain consent. The only difference in their viewpoints is whether she needs to say it louder and clearer, or whether less direct communication should be accepted as legitimate refusal.

I wonder whether the OP would stand a chance of passing if she were (after due discussion of both, of course) to introduce a third viewpoint, the one where the onus is on the one who wants sex to obtain unequivocal consent. Communication, after all, consists of both talking and listening. The most eloquent discourse in the world will not persuade someone who just is not interested in what the speaker has to say.

I prefer to focus on feminist politics. Feminism is a political movement, not an academic exercise for people to get careers and degrees and publication records.

Perhaps you should ask for an academic feminism section.

"You might not like academics"

I don't like academia hijacking feminism for their own anti-feminist agendas, and claiming it's feminism. I think that's a fairly reasonable position. I don't have a problem with academics, providing what they are doing is intellectually honest and not perpetuating misogyny.