A third of male uni students say they would rape a woman if there no were no consequences

[CoteDAzur]

Small sample size but still...

32% of male students polled at a university said they would have sex with a woman against her will if there were not consequences.

Surprisingly, more than half of those said they would not rape a woman

It doesn't mean a third of men are rapists, but it does suggest the only thing stopping many of them is the fear of the potential consequences, which is still a pretty damning statistic.

It shows that (a) we need to better educated boys and men so that instead of just "consequences" stopping them, it's genuine respect for women. And (b), until that's achieved, the fear of consequences (presumably primarily legal consequences) is crucial, so increasing reporting rates, conviction rates, sentences, etc all play a huge part in preventing rapes.

It shows that (a) we need to better educated boys and men so that instead of just "consequences" stopping them, it's genuine respect for women.

I am not sure it is possible to educate someone to respect women. Respect is a feeling, not an information.

According to some studies, not feeling compassion for others is a learned skill. You don't learn to respect others, you learn not to.
Therefore, what we need is not adding some lessons to the curriculum, but change the whole culture so that boys never get the opportunity to unlearn their natural compassion for girls and women.

However, I am not sure if this covers it all. Men created patriarchy after all. Many, many men must have lacked respect for women even without a culture that encourages such an attitude.

It might be an idea to educate boys re what constitutes rape, though.

As in, when you force a woman to sexual intercourse, that is actually called 'rape'.

That might at least take care of the ~20% who totally intend to force a woman to have sexual intercourse but say they would never rape a woman.

I know it sounds awful but I'm not surprised.

It's disturbing how cruel humanity can be when anonymous and able to get away with it.

That might at least take care of the ~20% who totally intend to force a woman to have sexual intercourse but say they would never rape a woman.

Or they would just learn not to admit as openly that they would like to "force a woman to have sexual intercourse".

It seems overly optimistic to assume that they'd just go "Oh, that's called rape? Then I will never ever do it (again)!"

Perhaps it would scare them into not doing it if they knew it is illegal, but ... not so sure. One would have to increase the percentage of rapists who go to prison to show them that they could be caught.

Can I come and join this board please. I've never identified as feminist or even really thought much about it, but Chat and AIBU are currently making me want to cry.

I have 4 teenage daughters what they come up against makes me believe that statistic and I wish I didn't.

Welcome, finallydelurking. It's a horrible feeling when you start to see this shit in all its hideousness, and you can't unsee it.

I've been following David Lisak's work (one of the researchers referenced in that summary blog post upthread) for many years. It's terrifying - and I know I have known socially men whom I later discovered were rapists - ones even whose victims continued to interact with because it was that or total ostracisation.

Thanks Lurcio you're right, some things you can't unsee or unknow. I've lurked for a while and think I might be staying.

I have to say, though, intellectually dissecting research aside, what is ever the point of having sex with someone who doesn't want to? The whole think is having someone join in with either your normalcy or your weirdness and finding you attractive..otherwise it seems kind of pointless..

what is ever the point of having sex with someone who doesn't want to?

Fucking massive eye roll.

I think it is safe to assume that rapists aren't looking for an emotional connection or that special, intimate moment...

Rape is a form of violence, and the point is the same point as with punching someone in the face: It makes worthless males feel better about themselves.

Many males view sex in general in those terms - the whole "pickup artist" crowd, for example.

Getting a woman to let them fuck her is a victory, it means tricking her into doing something that is very much to her disadvantage. (That's why they look down on women who have sex with many men; those are easily fooled = stupid)

Some men are content with this victory, some find it more enjoyable to "win" by force instead of lying.

This is a rapist's mindset, and it is very much the norm. It shows in the whole language of "scoring" of "first base" and "second base", et cetera.

Some feminists say that rape is not about sex, but that depends on what you understand "sex" to mean.
For some men, it might be about using women as living sexdolls; they don't enjoy the rape more than 'consensual' sex.

However, if you understand "sex" to mean this special, intimate connection ... then no, rape is not about sex. Because indeed, in that case, it would be entirely pointless.

I am not sure it is possible to educate someone to respect women. Respect is a feeling, not an information

I really hope you are wrong on this point.

I'm not sure kids are born with natural compassion for anyone. Most small kids I know seem pretty selfish and need to be taught to - share, play without resorting to violence (yes ds I'm looking at you).

It's pretty horrifying that so many can't see that forcing someone to have sex is the same as rape.

I'm not sure kids are born with natural compassion for anyone. Most small kids I know seem pretty selfish and need to be taught to - share, play without resorting to violence (yes ds I'm looking at you).

I think that is more of a development thing than a teaching thing.

Thing is, historically, there are lots and lots of rituals around hunting to appease the soul of the killed animal, and with executions, it is the same. Killing a person is something people seem to usually feel an extreme discomfort about. (Allegedly, in World War I, many soldiers never aimed at enemy soldiers, and missed a lot more often than should statistically be the case if they had really tried.)

And racism and sexism are strategies designed to think of people as objects, to justify treating them as such.
Would such a thing be necessary if it was natural to treat people like objects?

The only ideologies that are really invested in teaching compassion are Christianity and similarly minded religions, and they don't seem to be very successful. (The ultra-religious like to believe that atheists are amoral and evil, but this is not the case. There are no pronounced differences.)

Probably both being a decent human being AND being an asshole are natural to some extent, as in both cases, someone had to have the idea to construct an ideology that promotes one or the other.

I just fear that trying to teach your son to respect women might fail if he gets the opposite message from the whole surrounding culture.

I think that is more of a development thing than a teaching thing

I'm not sure children would just naturally turn into rounded adults without some pretty significant socialisation.

There are religious festivals to regarding killing animals but there are also festivals celebrating harvest. That's not because of any great respect for vegetables. It's to try and guarantee next years harvest by appeasing the gods.

I just fear that trying to teach your son to respect women might fail if he gets the opposite message from the whole surrounding culture

What other option have I got though? Cultures not going to change overnight.
On the whole society is less violent than it was decades ago. I think society will change but it's not going to happen overnight.