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.

"OK - once again - I am not studying feminism or politics, I am studying Discourse Analysis e.g. The Use of Language"

But you brought this up in the feminist section.

Do you really believe that the social sciences are science and can claim the same level of authority as the natural sciences lenak? That would be rather odd.

Beach I think academic feminism is mostly bollocks.

It may be, I wouldn't know. I am studying Discourse Analysis and Sociolinguistics.

It is very damaging to women to suggest in any way whatsoever that they can influence whether they are raped or not - by concentrating on how women refuse sex, your argument is doing just that.

You are focusing on a red herring, in fact worse than a red herring - a rape myth. I fail to see how that is going to help women who are raped and I don't see what is scientific about it. Quite the contrary.

I am simply trying to study how language is used in a particular situation. I am not trying to suggest anything to women, I am not working on any original research. I am evaluating two existing sociolinguistic schools of thought.

I am concentrating on how people refuse sex and how they understand others to be refusing sex, because that is the bit that is relevant to sociolinguistics which is what I am studying. That is the subject of the transcript I had to analyse and the subject of the supporting reading material.

Garlic

That's interesting and I agree with a lot of what you say. It just goes to show there is some overlap between the two arguments.

Studying how people communicate is certainly fascinating - I had to look at Foucault's theories on discourse as part of this assignment, but I daren't ask for opinions on his ideas - the thread may explode!

But how people refuse sex has nothing to do with rape, because the rapist has already refused to acknowledge his partner's refusal for sex, be it verbal or non verbal.

Trophy, I think the question is about what happens at the point of refusal ... looking into how it happens, rather than disputing whether it happened.

The only 100% clear refusal is a powerful No, Stop That Now. In some situations where you were dealing with, say, a person incapable of understanding non-verbal clues and social niceties, that would be the only way to make yourself adequately clear.

Should we assume that every bullying man is thus impaired? No, we shouldn't, so I agree with K&F in lenak's OP. But I think we also need to recognise that social niceties are not universally understood and are easier to dismiss than clear instructions.

Garlic, I linked on the first or second page a poster which detailed commonly recognised ways of saying "No"

Rape happens because rapists refuse to accept a "No", verbal or non verbal. How hard is this to understand. There are hundreds of ways of saying "no". Hundreds. All of which are commonly understood.

It is so common, so unbelievably common, for someone in a potential rape situation to freeze out of fear. Telling people the only clear refusal is a "No, stop that now!" is victim blaming, however you want to dress it up.

Lenak - just because it is the dominant ideology does not mean to say it has any credence or worth. It is a myth. I really can't believe you came on to the feminist section touting this, especially during the "We believe you" campaign.

Should we assume that every bullying man is thus impaired? No, we shouldn't

I don't see how that's victim blaming.

I didn't say that was victim blaming, Garlic Butter. I said that telling people the only clear refusal was a firm "no, stop that now" was.

It doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop to figure out when someone doesn't want to engage in sex with you.

What a load of utter bollocks.

Either you're splitting one short post into two separate arguments, Trophy, or we have misunderstood each other - easily done on a forum, to be sure.

I said that, if you were dealing with a person whose communication skills were badly impaired, the only clear instruction would be No, Stop That Now. I then said that we shouldn't treat all accused rapists as if they were impaired.

Basically, we seem to be agreeing that accused rapists (unless they actually have a social/communication impairment) should be expected to understand normal stop signals.

If the person is impaired, they have to be told ultra-clearly.

If we differ at all, it might be that I think it's safest to err on the side of caution and to communicate clearly at all times.

(which I appear to have failed to do here )

So, it's down to the victim to work out if her potential rapist is "socially impaired"?

Or are you just saying all socially or communicatively impaired men are a threat?

Lol. I tried.

Who are these "socially impaired" men, garlic and why are they trying to have PIV sex with women? Why are they doing harm to women who don't/can't articulate a clearly defined "No, go away".

If, when I was out I got urges to hit people, it wouldn't be up to other people to say no don't hit me, it would be up to me to not hit them (or not put myself in situations where I was going to hit them), social impairment or otherwise. Why should rape be any different, unless you think men have a right to have sex/rape women and women are in a permanent state of "yesness" unless otherwise stated. Neither of which are true of course.

This is bonkers. You're heading towards a position that women have no responsibility for their own boundaries and safety.

When I wrote that I was thinking of people on the autistic spectrum or with other impairments that have similar effects: brain injury; other developmental disorders; hormonal imbalances; shock; even PTSD can have that effect.

People with a social communication problem don't go round wearing a special hat. You often can't tell until an interaction becomes intimate. If it does, and they get it wrong, you have to state your point clearly.

I haven't said or implied, anywhere, that all socially impaired men are a threat or suggested there's anything wrong with the subtle forms of communication we usually use. I've said subtle communication won't work in every situation. This discussion was about the ways we say No. I introduced the observation that, when subtle communication becomes inappropriate, we need to use clear communication.

Either you're trying to argue that "No, Stop that" is not the clearest way to tell a person 'No, Stop that' or you're saying women have no responsibility to change their communication style when their usual style isn't working.

The thread's about how we communicate in a sexual situation that's going wrong. Not about whether rape is wrong, or whether anybody has the right to invade another's boundaries.

I find this interesting precisely because of what that blog post says about social conditioning for women. If a woman was getting sexy with a man who then revealed he was unwilling to respect her boundaries - or unable to perceive them - should she carry on with her subtler tactics or should she bellow "No, Stop that?"

I shouldn't have said should she carry on with her subtler tactics because "should" doesn't come into it here. She might be scared, or wanting to preserve a relationship with the bloke, or have some other reason for continuing in the same vein.

I meant would it be more effective to carry on with her subtler tactics ...

Garlicbutter, you are getting into an area that terrifies me as the mother of a teenage male on the spectrum.

Oh, Dust ... Young people with an AS dx get so much better teaching/training now, one hopes it won't be a problem.

About 10 years ago I helped out at a club for autists. They were mostly men. One of the things we were there for was to explain that groping wasn't acceptable - same with lewd comments and direct propositions! They get it, it was just that they hadn't learned by osmosis (as you will understand.) In the more formal environment, they were being helped more with all that: as I understood things, one man being told about one grope would learn not to do it in that precise situation. But wouldn't necessarily extrapolate it to similar circumstances, so the proper teachers were dealing with that.

They were aged about 20-40, a decade ago. I'm pretty sure they'd not received the understanding and help your sons will be getting.

He's read DOG and TEM and we've discussed them, he's been in social situations with friends and reprimanded them when he felt they weren't behaving appropriately. He is the male of choice for late night escorts back home after a night out because he enjoys the company and the walks.
But he doesn't pick up on social cues, or understand inferential comments. He's the sort that needs an unambiguous statement.
He and a female friend went out on Valentine's day, she got all specially dressed up and he had a great time. But he apparently spotted two friends on the way to the station and invited them along too, and she was mortified that he saw it as a trip out, the more the merrier. Which isn't what she'd planned at all.
I'll keep talking with him, unpicking situations and explaining events, just as I always have done. But no means no would be something he understood and would not argue with. I'm sorry if that is too much to expect from a woman. A red card would work just as well on him.

He regards groping and inappropriate contact as a violation of personal space and hates it. He's peeled girls' hands off himself before and yelled 'no' and they were surprised that he was angry about what they saw as playful teasing.
So he's never done to someone else without being sure that it was OK and being encouraged and included. Group hug stuff.
So he'd expect someone who was cross, unwilling or afraid to say 'no'

Apologies to those on the board for derailment. I'm not intending my post to sound like a 'What about the Menz' approach.

But no means no would be something he understood and would not argue with. I'm sorry if that is too much to expect from a woman.

Well, yes. Hence my passion for assertiveness training! Everyone should know about boundaries and their right to say No.

DS sounds lovely. I feel a bit of a twinge for his girlfriend, though!

He has no girlfriend, he has several friends who are female.
He will not have a girlfriend until there is one who like him, and whom he likes who can speak to him with clarity and directness about having a relationship and what that entails. And then remind him at intervals what the expectations on both sides should be.

the most effective thing might be to issue girls with guns at birth. all these complex nuances in human interactions - it is really unfair to expect anyone to interpret ambiguous signs like crying, freezing, pushing hands away...these could very reasonably be interpreted as signs that a woman loves it and wants more, i know i often react this way when having the time of my life

high calibre weaponry represents a more explicit signal! at least until more people see women as human, rather than things to do sex on

So, you shoot someone who is about to rape you.
Or whom you think is going to rape you.
Or who has frightened you into thinking you are going to be attacked.
or who looks a bit odd and dangerous.
Or who is male and therefore obviously a threat.