"Yes, your friend may be a rapist!" - really?

[Canarr]

The article/blog/whatever here:

http://powderroom.jezebel.com/yes-yo...88337/+Jessica

Now, I know there've been a few topics on here over the past year or so, dealing with rapes and sexual assault where, afterwards, the community involved covered for the perpetrators beyond all reason. And, yes, most of us here condemned them for it, because they sucked. The communities in question, of course; not us on here.

But, that? Isn't that going way, way too far into the other direction? Should every man be considered a rapist by definition, until proven innocent (for now, at least...)? Should all women, always, be afraid of all men? Who wants to live in a society like that?

Of course I know what kind of website Jezebel is, but that piece still rubbed me the wrong way - massively. And, yes, I know that criminals of all kinds - including rapists - can hide under a seemingly normal exterior. But, dammit: I know my friends! I know that they wouldn't rape a woman - because, if I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be friends with them!

Shouldn't that be common sense? Or am I wrong? And, if so: how? Why?

[Gravekeeper]

This seems out there even for Jezebel. When the thesis of your article is "Are you a man? You might be a rapist!" you need to take a step back and rethink things.

[Greenday]

I think what the author was trying to get at was that people need to stop with the, "But he can't have raped her! He'd never do that!" argument. We see it all the time and not just for rape. "He's a good kid. He'd never do anything wrong!"

[Sleepwalker]

It's not a matter of wanting. We DO live in a society like that, where a significant portion of the male population are rapists, and a large number of women are raped. You wanting the 'right' to trust your friends doesn't actually stop rape from happening. Every murderer and rapist on trial has their backers, generally family and friends, who say they couldn't have done it. Familial attachment is not an indicator of innocence- your 'common sense' is why wives, husbands, mothers and fathers, friends and relatives all say they know better than the court, the witnesses, the investigators. Because they want to believe.

You want the right to trust your male friends are not rapists- will you trust your female friends when they tell you they have been raped?

The article is saying that your judgement of character is fallible. This does not seem to me to be particularly debate worthy.

[Kheldarson]

It's not a matter of wanting. We DO live in a society like that, where a significant portion of the male population are rapists, and a large number of women are raped.

What? No.

A large number of rapists are men, but that doesn't mean a large number of men are rapists.

The blurring that's done with "men as rapists" isn't just dangerous for men (who are dropping out if much needed career positions like teachers or facing issues getting involved with their kids because, hey, they might be a rapist*); it's dangerous to the anti-rape cause. It paints those involved as being hypersensitive, at best, and paranoid, at worst. It also isolates them from potential allies, which is never a good idea.


*Please note here that I'm not trying to minimize the trauma of rape or equate the issues men face to that. But we need men to be able to feel comfortable in community teaching positions in order to teach the next generation how to be, you know, good men.

[Canarr]

I think what the author was trying to get at was that people need to stop with the, "But he can't have raped her! He'd never do that!" argument. We see it all the time and not just for rape. "He's a good kid. He'd never do anything wrong!"

If that was his intention, he overshot by quite a margin. He literally says that, unless you immediately accept the accusation at face value and ostracize the accused, you're siding with a rapist:

Rapists are often popular, or "nice," or "mean well," and people "don't want to take sides," content with ignoring the fact that refusing to disassociate with someone you have been told is a rapist is to very clearly choose a side.

Is that fair? You're told to immediately sentence and punish anyone accused of rape?

It's not a matter of wanting. We DO live in a society like that, where a significant portion of the male population are rapists, and a large number of women are raped.

I'm sorry, but what do you base that claim on? How large is that "significant portion of the male population"? How many are a "large number of women"?

You want the right to trust your male friends are not rapists- will you trust your female friends when they tell you they have been raped?

Yes, I will.

If a female friend told me she'd been raped by an unknown male (to me, at least), I'd believe her.

If an unknown (to me) female accused a male friend of rape, I'd believe him.

If a female friend accused a male friend of raping her... admittedly, I'd be stumped. In my (ideal) world, this wouldn't happen, because I associate neither with men who rape, nor with women who make false accusations of the same. So... hm. I don't know.

The article is saying that your judgement of character is fallible. This does not seem to me to be particularly debate worthy.

No, the article goes a lot farther than that. It basically claims that any man has a sociopath's mastery at subterfuge and manipulation, but that's simply not true. Most people aren't that complicated, and most people really aren't that good at concealing their true character.

If you spend a lot of time with someone - like you'd do with a friend or a close relative - then you *do* get to know them. You understand what makes them happy, angry, sad, and you know how they react in any of these situations. So, yeah: you'd know if they might rape someone, or not.

I mean, following the same logic, any man - and any woman, come to think of it - would also be capable of murder, assault, breaking & entering, arson... any crime, really. You could never actually *trust* anyone, because everyone could assault, rob or kill you at any point!

What kind of sense does that make? If everyone is capable of anything, then no one is safe, anywhere, ever.

[Ghel]

I'd have to dig up the statistics, but IIRC, 1 in 5 women has been or will be raped in her lifetime. That's a "significant portion," at least to me. Even if we consider that one man might rape multiple women, I'd still say that a "significant portion" of men have raped someone else (keeping this gender-neutral, since men and those who identify as neither women nor men can also be raped).

A couple thoughts on the linked page: You can never really know that someone isn't a rapist, since you can't be with someone else 24/7 for their whole life. You can make a judgement based on their character, as you know it, but since most rapists lead otherwise normal lives, your judgement might not be correct. Also (as described in the article) the rape culture we all live in tends to excuse rapists and say that it wasn't really rape and otherwise make it very difficult for victims to report a rape and rapists to be convicted, so it's unsurprising that rapists walk free all over the world.

There's also the related concept of Shrodinger's Rapist. Which is basically that a woman (or other potential victim) can't tell if someone is a rapist or not just by looking at them, so she gets to choose her level of risk in any situation. The link goes into a lot more detail.

[Kheldarson]

I'd have to dig up the statistics, but IIRC, 1 in 5 women has been or will be raped in her lifetime. That's a "significant portion," at least to me. Even if we consider that one man might rape multiple women, I'd still say that a "significant portion" of men have raped someone else (keeping this gender-neutral, since men and those who identify as neither women nor men can also be raped).

It's not even a significant portion, possibly. A study done showed that in an on campus survey of 1800+ men, only 120 self reported having raped (or attempted to) somebody. And, of that, 76 reported multiple rapes (or attempts). All told, these 120 men self-reported 483 rapes or attempts.

Link

I can't link the actual report since it's a doc and I'm on my phone, but it's the linked study by David Lisak.

Yes, we may need to be cautious, but acting as if all men are rapists is a horrible mindset to be encouraging.

[Ghel]

Yes, we may need to be cautious, but acting as if all men are rapists is a horrible mindset to be encouraging.

I agree that it's not helpful to say that all men are rapists (mostly because that suggests that men are unable to control themselves), but I think it's reasonable for a potential victim to behave as if any man could be a rapist.

[Greenday]

I agree that it's not helpful to say that all men are rapists (mostly because that suggests that men are unable to control themselves), but I think it's reasonable for a potential victim to behave as if any man could be a rapist.

So, should they not go out in public then? I mean, if someone is that scared of those odds, they should never get in a car because it'd be too likely that someone might hit them.

[Ghel]

So, should they not go out in public then? I mean, if someone is that scared of those odds, they should never get in a car because it'd be too likely that someone might hit them.

That's entirely that person's choice. There are certainly examples of people who refuse to get in cars because they don't feel they're safe. A potential rape victim similarly has a choice of never venturing outside without someone they trust. Victims of rape often make similar choices to avoid encountering their rapist again for fear of being re-victimized. The important thing is it's that person's choice, and not enforced by others.

[Kheldarson]

That's entirely that person's choice. There are certainly examples of people who refuse to get in cars because they don't feel they're safe. A potential rape victim similarly has a choice of never venturing outside without someone they trust. Victims of rape often make similar choices to avoid encountering their rapist again for fear of being re-victimized. The important thing is it's that person's choice, and not enforced by others.

Right, but every person (particularly every woman) is a potential victim of rape. Or any other crime. Yes, we should make sure everybody knows how to mitigate their risks for any particular bad event (limit your drinking in a strange environment, avoid certain areas after dark, don't drive drunk, etc), but we shouldn't be propagating the idea that an entire group of people should be avoided because they might be X.

[Gravekeeper]

I'd have to dig up the statistics, but IIRC, 1 in 5 women has been or will be raped in her lifetime. That's a "significant portion," at least to me. .

Specifically, its 17.6% of women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape. With the highest risk to native women who have double the risk of everyone else. Native woman are also far far far more likely to be raped by a stranger. However, these statistics are US specific. Contrasted against the UK for example, its 5%.

Conversely, 5% of American men will be raped by a woman though that figure is probably subject to some massive under reporting. That also does not include statutory rape. But straight up actual rape. When you factor in male on male rape ( courtesy of the wonderful prison system and huge incarceration rates ), there are more male rape victims in the US than female rape victims ( Seriously. ). Male rape is also vastly under reported ( more so than female rape victims ) and either stigmatized or laughed off.

Rape is also equally psychologically damaging to both women and men. Even in the case of a woman raping a man.

So, rape is rape, rape is bad and anyone has the capacity to be a rapist regardless of what sort of genitals they have or even if they have none at all.

[BlaqueKatt]

If you spend a lot of time with someone - like you'd do with a friend or a close relative - then you *do* get to know them. You understand what makes them happy, angry, sad, and you know how they react in any of these situations. So, yeah: you'd know if they might rape someone, or not.

My rapist was my best friend for over 6 years at the time, we even dated for a brief period, I stayed at his house almost constantly during a time when my roommates were awful, but the night my first husband and I separated........And he was friends with my husband, because of me. No trial though, he actually plead out, and admitted what he did, I had to be present for his plea. He not only blames me for "ruining his life" but has told numerous people he still loves me and knows "we're meant to be together".

[HYHYBT]

I think what the author was trying to get at was that people need to stop with the, "But he can't have raped her! He'd never do that!" argument. We see it all the time and not just for rape. "He's a good kid. He'd never do anything wrong!"

That is surely then intent... but then they need to say that instead of what they did and stop there. Going further, even if it was only intended as emphasis and even if you look at it as only by implication, is 100% inexcusable.