How to Stop People From Becoming Rapists

[Box Boy]

That's more appropriate for the rape culture thread though, isn't it?
I mean, I got the impression this place was more for talking about how we can change the perception of sex in society and how to ensure there's less scumheads out there who get a power rush out of hurting/dominating others through rape, sooooo, yeah, as far as I can see the conversation shouldn't really be continued in this thread.

YMMV though, I guess.

[Death2]

Sexual violence is found in almost every country. Research suggests that in all classes and in all age groups sexual violence occurs. The prevalence of sexual violence however remains under research. Data on sexually violent men also show that most direct their acts at women whom they already know.[1][2] Among the factors increasing the risk of a man committing rape are those related to attitudes and beliefs, as well as behaviour arising from situations and social conditions that provide opportunities and support for abuse.

I'm not gonna argue with the research. If it happens everywhere, you only got one choice to prevent rape being committed by males. Store a few pints of load for reproduction and then chop off the testes and the dick. Happens to millions of women, having bits of their sexual organs removed, and they seem to make it through life alright.

Unfortunately, I don't know how much there is to debate about preventing rape. There are plenty of studies done that show elevated rates in poverty stricken areas, in sexually or violently abused children, and also by culture. Take your pick which particular area you'd like to improve but there's no simple solution. Since I'm not joking, why would you find my first suggestion immoral or unacceptable as compared to the trauma suffered by the sexually abused? Would it be that hard to give up a little pleasure to save your fellow human beings a lot of pain?

[CorruptUser]

I don't know if you are failing an attempt at humor, trying to be Jonathon Swift, or are just crazy, but you shouldn't severely punish everyone for the actions of the few. It'd be like removing everyone's hands at birth to prevent theft. And yes, castration is worse than being raped. Rape is not a fate worse than death*. You can survive, you can move on. If it was worse than death, then virtually every rape victim would've committed suicide**.

*Unless you are in a culture that declares being a rape victim a grievous sin, especially ones with the mother-whore dichotomy (looking at You, Saudi Arabia). A rape victim is "sullied", impure, etc, unable to marry and form a life, and left to a fate of prostitution and/or more rapes (non-virgins are "fair game").

**Many do. Especially in the cultures where rape victims are deemed 'sinful'.

[Box Boy]

Since I'm not joking, why would you find my first suggestion immoral or unacceptable as compared to the trauma suffered by the sexually abused? Would it be that hard to give up a little pleasure to save your fellow human beings a lot of pain?

Six very good reasons:
1) Not all rape is perpetrated by men, it's also done by women to women and men, and you don't need a dick to sexually assault someone.
2) Rape is very rarely about having sex, it's more often about dominating the victim, gaining revenge, taking pleasure from someone else's pain and getting a rush from the sensation of power that comes with it, so if the rapist can't rape, they'll probably move to using 'more violent'* methods such as severe beating, murder, ect and we won't be solving the problem.
3) Someone else's right to bodily autonomy doesn't invalidate mine, especially since they've only got a chance of having there's violated when mine is guaranteed.
4) You'd need an absolutely fucking massive amount of resources and 'man'power to get this done, which would freaking cripple and then decapitate the world economy, and the lack of the massive gene pool we currently have and small replacement would probably mean that eventually after a few dozen generations everyone is so closely related that all artificial inseminations count as incest and would lead to very messed up babies.
5) People will be pissed about this, and in a few years I guarantee there will be a fullscale international war over it.
6) What CorruptUser said.


*marked because, yeah, rape is also pretty violent a good bit of the time

[CorruptUser]

Really? I thought most rapes (in the West) were the kind that involved heavy drinking and impaired judgement rather than brute force.

[Box Boy]

Really? I thought most rapes (in the West) were the kind that involved heavy drinking and impaired judgement rather than brute force.

Not sure about America, but I'm fairly certain there was a study/survey on Europe a while ago that indicated far more rapes were about power and the like rather sex or being drunk, individually.
I'll go look for it later.

[Shivahn]

Really? I thought most rapes (in the West) were the kind that involved heavy drinking and impaired judgement rather than brute force.

Not sure about America, but I'm fairly certain there was a study/survey on Europe a while ago that indicated far more rapes were about power rather sex or being drunk, individually.
I'll go look for it later.

You should probably look for it, if for no other reason than information being interesting, but I feel compelled to point out that you two aren't actually talking about mutually exclusive conditions. You can be drunk and have sex with a drunk person and still have it be about exerting power rather than sex.

And impaired judgment seems like it would be a pretty strong reason to go on a power trip without thinking about the consequences.

[TheAmazingRando]

Since I'm not joking, why would you find my first suggestion immoral or unacceptable as compared to the trauma suffered by the sexually abused? Would it be that hard to give up a little pleasure to save your fellow human beings a lot of pain?

I would say they are equally unacceptable, as they are both impugning on the bodily autonomy of another human being. I don't see being mutilated as just "giving up a little pleasure" and I think it's horrifying that you do.

[Shivahn]

Since I'm not joking, why would you find my first suggestion immoral or unacceptable as compared to the trauma suffered by the sexually abused? Would it be that hard to give up a little pleasure to save your fellow human beings a lot of pain?

I would say they are equally unacceptable, as they are both impugning on the bodily autonomy of another human being. I don't see being mutilated as just "giving up a little pleasure" and I think it's horrifying that you do.

Are you talking on an individual level, or the scales discussed? Because I have a hard time seeing our current problems, however terrible, as being nearly as terrible as compulsory sexual mutilation (of a variety that makes clitoral cutting look pleasant) of half the race because of the circumstances of their birth.

I'd still disagree with you on an individual level, but I would be less surprised to find disagreement there.

[TheAmazingRando]

On an individual level. And even then I think they're equal in the sense that they're both terrible things that should never happen, on a level where I don't find it worthwhile to decide which is the greater evil.

[Shivahn]

On an individual level. And even then I think they're equal in the sense that they're both terrible things that should never happen, on a level where I don't find it worthwhile to decide which is the greater evil.

Ok, I can agree to that. No one needs something even more fucked up than the oppression olympics.

[Death2]

Couple quick notes... wikipedia says rape has more to do with power than with sex and the link between rape and alcohol isn't clear cut. Also removing the testes at an early age does effect the production of testosterone in a male and was practiced in the middle ages particularly for servants of women. So yeah, might not necessarily help past puberty, but would be effective if done at earlier age. From wikipedia, so take it for what you will.

Very interesting that so far all responses have been against the idea. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the "sanctity" of a persons body, it's a nice ideal but in practice it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

I would say they are equally unacceptable, as they are both impugning on the bodily autonomy of another human being. I don't see being mutilated as just "giving up a little pleasure" and I think it's horrifying that you do.

^-- This
Being mutilated. One gender being mutilated to prevent pleasure from enjoying sex, and another being mutilated by the other for the enjoyment of sex? (Or a desire for power?) What is the most beneficial course of action for the most people? I wonder about that...

[TheAmazingRando]

Being mutilated. One gender being mutilated to prevent pleasure from enjoying sex, and another being mutilated by the other for the enjoyment of sex? (Or a desire for power?) What is the most beneficial course of action for the most people? I wonder about that...

Under what definition does rape qualify as mutilation?

Regardless, unless you can prove (or even support) that this is the only possible way to drastically reduce occurrences of rape, you don't even have an argument. You're talking about a necessary evil, but you're jumping over the part where you prove that it's necessary.

[Death2]

Regardless, unless you can prove (or even support) that this is the only possible way to drastically reduce occurrences of rape, you don't even have an argument. You're talking about a necessary evil, but you're jumping over the part where you prove that it's necessary

I'm not saying it's necessary by any means or even a good idea. But what I am saying is that it may have a positive benefit in reducing the occurence of rape in the country. It may also have serious side effects that would be worse than the benefits. But only one person mentioned that. And it was way down the bottom of the list. Is "Hell No" the first thing thing that comes into our heads if we're faced with the question of sacrificing something for the benefit of someone else? Especially when what might be sacrificed seems really important to us right now?

My moral compass must be a little misaligned, but at this point in time, from my own perspective, I couldn't care less about sex. And I'm honestly not sure that I would particularly miss anything if I hadn't grown up with the unit intact in the first place. And I wonder what kind of hurt and suffering could be avoided to a good number of people if "you were missing something you didn't know you even had".

[Aaeriele]

Regardless, unless you can prove (or even support) that this is the only possible way to drastically reduce occurrences of rape, you don't even have an argument. You're talking about a necessary evil, but you're jumping over the part where you prove that it's necessary

I'm not saying it's necessary by any means or even a good idea. But what I am saying is that it may have a positive benefit in reducing the occurence of rape in the country. It may also have serious side effects that would be worse than the benefits. But only one person mentioned that. And it was way down the bottom of the list. Is "Hell No" the first thing thing that comes into our heads if we're faced with the question of sacrificing something for the benefit of someone else? Especially when what might be sacrificed seems really important to us right now?

My moral compass must be a little misaligned, but at this point in time, from my own perspective, I couldn't care less about sex. And I'm honestly not sure that I would particularly miss anything if I hadn't grown up with the unit intact in the first place. And I wonder what kind of hurt and suffering could be avoided to a good number of people if "you were missing something you didn't know you even had".

Would you mind saving your random crazy ideas for a non-serious thread?

[TheAmazingRando]

Is "Hell No" the first thing thing that comes into our heads if we're faced with the question of sacrificing something for the benefit of someone else? Especially when what might be sacrificed seems really important to us right now?

This isn't self-sacrifice, though. This is sacrificing others, against their will. You're damn right my first reaction to that is "hell no!"

[Dark567]

2) Rape is very rarely about having sex, it's more often about dominating the victim, gaining revenge, taking pleasure from someone else's pain and getting a rush from the sensation of power that comes with it, so if the rapist can't rape, they'll probably move to using 'more violent'* methods such as severe beating, murder, ect and we won't be solving the problem.

I really don't buy this point. Most of what I have read considers this a common misconception, and possibly a politically motivated cause of rape instead of one based on evidence. The emprical evidence show this. Moreover it has been shown that rapists would nearly universally prefer consensual sex than forced sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12908124
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2487141
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6786900318

On a more anecdotal (please don't judge me too harshly) level [Trigger warning for rape and douchness and everything else imaginable]:

Spoiler:

I've had the desire to rape women before. More than once. Does it disgust me that I have? Yes. Absolutely. But it still happens. Often it will be under the influence of alcohol, sometimes not. We might be drinking, and I know shes too drunk to consent but isn't exactly rejecting anything, and it crosses my mind. And there is one motivation for it: sexual gratification. That's it. Now I am a decent enough person that as soon as these thoughts come up I push the them out of my head, give said gal my number, and ask her to call tomorrow.

And I don't want to speak for all guys, there very well might be something psychological different between the people who cross that line and those who don't. But from where I sit its easy to see how easy that line would be to cross with the same motivations I have.

[CorruptUser]

On a more anecdotal (please don't judge me too harshly) level [Trigger warning for rape and douchness and everything else imaginable]:

Spoiler:

I've had the desire to rape women before. More than once. Does it disgust me that I have? Yes. Absolutely. But it still happens. Often it will be under the influence of alcohol, sometimes not. We might be drinking, and I know shes too drunk to consent but isn't exactly rejecting anything, and it crosses my mind. And there is one motivation for it: sexual gratification. That's it. Now I am a decent enough person that as soon as these thoughts come up I push the them out of my head, give said gal my number, and ask her to call tomorrow.

And I don't want to speak for all guys, there very well might be something psychological different between the people who cross that line and those who don't. But from where I sit its easy to see how easy that line would be to cross with the same motivations I have.

Now add in not having sex in the past 6 months (or even years), and see what your decision is.

Try not to hold your nose too high. We all like to think we are far and away superior to criminals and scum, but given the right (wrong?) conditions, people can do ANYTHING. Yes, even you.

[Gelsamel]

Considering the thread this is in, it should go without saying that this post will include things that may trigger people, but I'll mention it anyway... Read ahead with caution.

I believe what Box Boy is refering to is specifically violent assault/rape (ie. the 'Crazy person in a dark alley' rape) which is more about dealing with the frustrations of feeling like you have no control in your life than it is about sexual satisfaction. It is similar to when someone bullies their younger sibling and that younger sibling takes their frustrations out on a yet younger sibling by bullying them. In that situation it's less about getting pleasure from the physical violence and more about the feeling of power the bully has over his victim. I guess for people who find themselves commiting rape it's a way for them to feel like they at least have some control over something in their life when they otherwise feel like they're constantly fucked over by society and other people. Sex in those situations is just the tool used to exert one's control/power much like physical violence is just the tool used to exert one's control/power in bullying situations.

On the other side, though, rape due to impaired judgement (underage, intoxicated, etc) or when a partner doesn't think the "stop" is serious because "they were totally into it just a minute ago" is less about control and more about wanting to get off. Similarly sexual assaults that slowly build into rape between family members or friends/acquaintances are probably more about relieving sexual frustration than about exerting control. Rapists in this category may often try to fool themselves into thinking the other party likes it or wants it despite the (implicit, or explicit) signs otherwise, meaning in this case it's less about denying the victim's will (ie. power/control) and more about relieving their sexual frustration, which they then attempt to justify.

Of course, we have to be careful not to fool ourselves into thinking it's ever entirely about control or entirely about sexual desire. If there wasn't some arousal and it was just entirely a control crime then it might simply end up as assault rather than rape. Similarly someone has to want to exert a certain amount of control over someone to think their "stop" is disingenuous or to get someone drunk to get them in bed or to exploit their relationship to sexually assault them. We also have to consider that sexual frustration might lead to a feeling of powerlessness that then leads to the person wanting to exert control over someone. This means that even in control oriented crimes, the root cause may still be a sexual issue and, more importantly, a person having a healthy sexual life may prevent them from developing that feeling of powerless.

[setzer777]

On a more anecdotal (please don't judge me too harshly) level [Trigger warning for rape and douchness and everything else imaginable]:

Spoiler:

I've had the desire to rape women before. More than once. Does it disgust me that I have? Yes. Absolutely. But it still happens. Often it will be under the influence of alcohol, sometimes not. We might be drinking, and I know shes too drunk to consent but isn't exactly rejecting anything, and it crosses my mind. And there is one motivation for it: sexual gratification. That's it. Now I am a decent enough person that as soon as these thoughts come up I push the them out of my head, give said gal my number, and ask her to call tomorrow.

And I don't want to speak for all guys, there very well might be something psychological different between the people who cross that line and those who don't. But from where I sit its easy to see how easy that line would be to cross with the same motivations I have.

Now add in not having sex in the past 6 months (or even years), and see what your decision is.

Try not to hold your nose too high. We all like to think we are far and away superior to criminals and scum, but given
the right (wrong?) conditions, people can do ANYTHING. Yes, even you.

This ties into a good point Enuja made in the Rape Culture thread - it's a mistake to assume that there's a fundamentally different kind of human that's capable of rape. Humans in general are capable of it.

So the real question is what sort of controllable conditions are there that cause people to not want to rape? Obviously "make sure everyone is sexually fulfilled" isn't really an option, since everyone has the right to reject any given person.

[Gelsamel]

Obviously "make sure everyone is sexually fulfilled" isn't really an option, since everyone has the right to reject any given person.

Well the issue is less that people can reject others, afterall there are more ways to reduce sexual frustration than by having intercourse, and more that "make sure everyone <anything>" is pretty much impossible due to the large variety of people and the situations they might possibly be in. That being said we can reduce the amount of people who are sexually frustrated by encouraging positive views towards pornography, fantasy, kinks and other non-harmful sexual practices while discouraging the negative views society has against certain relationships (or lack of relationships) that induce sexual frustration at an external level.

I am a 22 year old who has never had sex, let alone a SO let alone kissed or hugged or held hands with anyone I was romantically or sexually interested in. I'm just glad I have a healthy mentality towards these things such that I don't have a serious issue with not having experienced any of that yet (and honestly, I'd be fine with not experiencing any of it in my entire life, although I'd prefer to experience it at some stage). If, instead, I truly internalised general society's perception towards sex, relationships and towards people like myself then I wouldn't be surprised if I was seriously fucked up.

So, if we focus on making attitudes towards sex and relationships in society better, I think we can reduce the amount of people who feel the need to take such drastic measures to alieviate sexual frustration, simply because they won't have (as much of) that sexual frustration. I don't think anyone here believes we can truly eradicate rape let alone any other crime... so we're in the business of reducing not eliminating. Therefore we don't need absolutely everyone to be fulfilled, although that would be nice, we just need to make things better for more people.

[nitePhyyre]

We could always do what they did in A Brave New World*. Make sex as common and expected as a hand shake. I've never felt traumatized when someone shook my hand without permission.


*with a grain of salt, obviously, Huxley was trying his damnessed to write a dystopian novel.

[Deep_Thought]

I've often thought that might be the solution too. But there are two rather large practicalities - pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases - that you have to eliminate before you even arrive at the much larger problem of jealousy and other related emotions. The risk of pregnancy can be hugely mitigated via contraception, but it is still a lingering issue. STDs are harder to prevent - barrier contraception does not prevent them all. There are some who say we should eliminate the handshake as well for pretty much the same reason, as the hands are generally the dirtiest part of a person. After all, they are the parts of us we use to actually touch stuff! With decent hygiene/health standards you could mitigate this as well, but look at the problems we have with getting people to take regular STD checks today.

The ideal of sex-with-everyone-all-the-time is unfortunately, in my view, a utopian one. Reality has this unfortunate habit of getting in the way. Perhaps more importantly, to argue with your analogy, has anyone really shaken your hand without permission? As in, actually came up to you and grabbed your hand? Not just extended their's towards you and requested one unexpectedly? If someone forcefully takes hold of a part of my anatomy I tend to get quite affronted. Maybe not traumatised, but certainly shocked. Similarly, if I receive an unexpected offer of sex from someone, that's fine. I can turn them down or accept. It's the part where my choice is removed from the situation that causes the trauma.

[Gelsamel]

What about all those people who aren't as interested in sex or are entirely asexual or have problems with the physical contact of handshakes let alone sex? Wasn't that the entire point of the book? (Have not read it, genuine question). How are your claims of rape going to sound when everyone treats them like a handshake? "Really? You're complaining about that?" we already have people in our society treating victims exactly like that about many issues like personal space and physical contact and a hundred other things.

For a 'utopian' 'ideal' solution it's pretty fucking horrible to suggest we create a culture that is so horrendously parallelized towards a single sexual behavior. Our current societies are, already, mostly parallelized towards a single sexual behavior (Monogamous Heterosexual relationships with no kinks) and look how that turned out.

[Deep_Thought]

Not to mention all those people who aren't as interested in sex or are entirely asexual or have problems with the physical contact of handshakes let alone sex. Wasn't that the entire point of the book? (Have not read it, genuine question).

No, I'm pretty sure that's not the point of A Brave New World.

For a 'utopian' 'ideal' solution it's pretty fucking horrible to suggest we create a culture that is only understanding of a single attitude towards sex. This is what society, in general, already does.

Ah, but in utopia everyone is nice and understanding and if you simply say "No thank you, I'm not interested in sex today, tomorrow, or in fact ever" then the other person will simply walk away and not do anything to you. Coz, you know, it's utopia and everything. I could have better phrased it as sex-with-whoever you want-all-the-time, as this includes the possibility that people don't want sex. But you are right, often the mainstream forgets and ostracises the alternative*.

*For a good example of exactly this in literature read Excession by Iain M. Banks (There is a character who shuns human contact and sex in a very promiscuous society. The benevolent machine-gods find him a happy place on an asteroid all by himself).

[Gelsamel]

Not to mention all those people who aren't as interested in sex or are entirely asexual or have problems with the physical contact of handshakes let alone sex. Wasn't that the entire point of the book? (Have not read it, genuine question).

No, I'm pretty sure that's not the point of A Brave New World.

Yes, I've read the summary on wikipedia. I'm pretty sure Brave New World is about the issues of the denial of individual identity that occurs due to overparallelization of society. Some characters are considered outcasts due to their sexual behavior which is just like society is now towards homosexuals and asexuals and many other people. The only difference is that the parameters that are considered acceptable in 'The' Brave New World are much more narrow set of parameters than are considered acceptable in our current society.

If you didn't mean "Make sex as common and expected as a handshake" like the other poster said but simply "Lets make a utopia" well... duh. Utopias solve everything but they don't add anything to the discussion. Everyone knows that the perfect utopia is perfect as well as perfectly unattainable and thus perfectly irrelevant. That being said, we should absolutely advocate for being understanding of all sexual behaviors that are not harmful to at least move a bit closer to an understanding, inclusive society. It's just, that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the commonness and expectedness of sex and in fact, increasing those things makes it harder for people with those expectations to be understanding of people who don't want that sex (and vice versa).

[Deep_Thought]

Erm, I think you and I aren't really disagreeing about much here. I didn't say "Let's make a utopia". I stated:

The ideal of sex-with-everyone-all-the-time is unfortunately, in my view, a utopian one. Reality has this unfortunate habit of getting in the way.

By that I hoped to imply that I know making a utopia is impossible. That was my whole point! Sex-with-everyone-you-want is wishing for the fulfilment of a fantasy, held by a decent proportion of humanity, and it's never going to happen.

Further, if anything, the expectedness of sex should be reduced. An awful lot of people expect to get sex quickly after meeting someone, and those attitudes can't but help contribute to attitudes excusing rape. Sex on a first date is great, but it's not guaranteed and really shouldn't be expected.

[Gelsamel]

Fair enough. I just don't think that the situation described by nitePhyyre is a utopian one at all, more like a dystopian one.

I don't think expectedness of sex is a metric that relates at all reducing rape or helping society be accepting of sexual diversity. Reducing expectedness would likely increase 'slut shaming' while increasing expectedness would likely marginalise asexuals further. Ultimately I think we should focus on encouraging tolerance over worrying about how prevalent sex is.

[Enuja]

2) Rape is very rarely about having sex, it's more often about dominating the victim, gaining revenge, taking pleasure from someone else's pain and getting a rush from the sensation of power that comes with it, so if the rapist can't rape, they'll probably move to using 'more violent'* methods such as severe beating, murder, ect and we won't be solving the problem.

I really don't buy this point. Most of what I have read considers this a common misconception, and possibly a politically motivated cause of rape instead of one based on evidence. The emprical evidence show this. Moreover it has been shown that rapists would nearly universally prefer consensual sex than forced sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12908124
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2487141
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6786900318

I think Gelsamel did an excellent job of explaining about how rape is probably about both power/dominance/violence and wanting sex, but no one has addressed your evidence.

The study whose abstract you link first appears to be completely useless for your purposes in this thread.

This study was directed toward testing a major component of the feminist explanation for rape: that such criminal behavior is most fundamentally the result of traditions of male domination in most sociopolitical and economic affairs. ... Generally, rape rates in American cities appear to be unrelated to sex disparities in earnings, education, occupational prestige, or employment.

The title of the study is "The feminist explanation for rape: An empirical test". First of all, there, isn't one single "feminist" explanation for rape. Second of all, the argument that rape and sexual assault and abuse are caused by male dominance in social power structures is a broad, society wide argument. Looking at measure of sex disparities and rape rates in US cities is looking at the noise that would obscure this pattern, not looking at where this pattern would show up. This data is interesting to look at, so I guess I'm glad that the researchers did this, but they seriously overstepped their data in their title and conclusion. And even if this study did convincingly show that rape does not occur because of power disparities between sexes, that would give no indication one way or the other about whether rapists rape to be violent or to have sex.

I can't figure out what your second link has to do with the question of why rapists rape (violence v. sex), and your third link seems to be the same researchers as your last link debunking their own research (not even mentioning the seriously mismatched groups in the last link -- rapists in prisons versus non-rapist undergraduates in college?!?), because the measure they've been using is too variable for the same person when measured at different times.

I strongly suspect that this question (is rape about violence or about sex?) has not been convincingly answered by research, and I'm with Gelsamel that the question itself is creating a false dichotomy.

[Lucrece]

I came across about some news concerning a pilot who was suspending for some pretty awful rant he delivered on a stuck microphone, basically airing the speech to more people than intended.

In said rant the pilot expressed deep anger at the poor choice of willing females he had to put up with, and how it failed his expectations for the destination he was going to. It brought an issue of entitlement that was hard to understand for me.

Some people, mostly men, have the idea that they should not have a hard time being shown sexual interest by a person who they expect to strictly adhere to their standard of attractiveness. Some are plain nasty in expressing their resentment toward women who don't visually please them. So, when a woman that might finally please them appears, the assumption is that said woman has the obligation to fulfill him, and not doing so is being rude or inconsiderate.

This happens particularly when some men happen to take out a woman for a date, and believe that because they've spent money by buying dinner and other investments, they should get their desired return.

I think part of the effort to combat rape should be dispelling the notion of entitlement to sexual satisfaction. It faces its set of issues in execution because generally men are socialized to be egocentric, while women are socialized to the other extreme of selflessness. Doing away with homosocial foundations can go a long way, allowing for greater empathy as a result of more time spent interacting since childhood, and the other sex is no longer seen on terms of utility (sex, financial help, protection, menial labor and other gender roles) and more as a peer.

[Deep_Thought]

Thank you Lucrece, this is what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. I didn't use the right wording to explain myself. There is a distinction between societal expectedness, or social norm, and personal entitlement, or what you think you should get from a situation. The latter is what I meant by expectedness earlier, and it most certainly is a big problem.

My personal anecdote time - recently I was having a discussion with some male acquaintances, including one who has been single for 6 months. He said that if he didn't have sex on a first date it wasn't worth pursuing the relationship any further, as you obviously have no physical chemistry. When I tried to point out that you can get a feel for physical chemistry without actually sleeping with someone, and hence that waiting a while was perfectly fine, he almost laughed at me. Luckily, another friend backed me up, but said he still thought you should sleep with someone on a second date. Attitudes like this are not uncommon, and most certainly lead to unwanted pressure on people to get into bed much sooner than they feel comfortable with.

allowing for greater empathy as a result of more time spent interacting since childhood

I think this is one of the most practical suggestions given thus far. Obtaining greater empathy with others is key.

[KestrelLowing]

Thank you Lucrece, this is what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. I didn't use the right wording to explain myself. There is a distinction between societal expectedness, or social norm, and personal entitlement, or what you think you should get from a situation. The latter is what I meant by expectedness earlier, and it most certainly is a big problem.

My personal anecdote time - recently I was having a discussion with some male acquaintances, including one who has been single for 6 months. He said that if he didn't have sex on a first date it wasn't worth pursuing the relationship any further, as you obviously have no physical chemistry. When I tried to point out that you can get a feel for physical chemistry without actually sleeping with someone, and hence that waiting a while was perfectly fine, he almost laughed at me. Luckily, another friend backed me up, but said he still thought you should sleep with someone on a second date. Attitudes like this are not uncommon, and most certainly lead to unwanted pressure on people to get into bed much sooner than they feel comfortable with.

allowing for greater empathy as a result of more time spent interacting since childhood

I think this is one of the most practical suggestions given thus far. Obtaining greater empathy with others is key.

Wow. All I can think to say is WTF??? Maybe I'm a prude but that seems absolutely ridiculous. I didn't even kiss my boyfriend until our 3rd date, and we've definitely got some physical chemistry going on 3 years later.

If anyone expects sex on the first date, they're ruling out tons of people as the majority of men and women I know would never have sex on a first date.

But yes, somehow we need to get society away from the idea that sex is something you're entitled to, or something you earn or deserve. Rather, it's a gift, and only a gift.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

I recently heard, to my great disgust, a popular radio show podcast I listen(ed) to have the following discussion. They were discussing how many dates a woman should go on before putting out. (A huge freakin' red flag right there, but I kept listening, hoping it wasn't going where I was pretty sure it was.) First, they concluded that the number of dates the woman should go on without having sex is 2-3 max, or else you "look like a prude". Then, they proceeded to back this up by saying that as a woman, "you're obligated!" to have sex within 3 dates if the man pays. If you do not put out, you are taking advantage of the man's generosity without paying him back, and if you break up, you should compensate the man for any meals or gifts you have received. There was a lot more after it, but I shut it off - I was getting too angry.(I don't listen to that podcast anymore)

[Aaeriele]

The whole concept of "putting out" is despicable.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Yeah. It's really cliche, but really true - I as a woman literally cannot win when it comes to sex. I'm either a dirty, promiscuous slut, or a prudish, frigid b*tch - it's the old sluts vs. studs deal. Nevermind that there could possibly be a middle ground, or, you know, valid choice that is my business and nobody else's! (Sorry, this just is really frustrating lately.)

</offtopic ranty rant>

[Роберт]

Dating != prostitution, but apparently the podcasters for that particular show were unaware of the "subtle" differences.

[Enuja]

Some of you seem to be implying that pushing the number of dates at which sex is "expected" up would, by itself, reduce the amount of rape. I strongly disagree. I think that focusing on individual desires instead of society wide expectations would reduce rape. That includes empowering people to say, up front, that they usually want to have sex on the first date, before they go on a date. That way people who want to have sex on the first date can find each other, preventing people who don't want to have sex on the first date from being pressured on a date, and preventing people who do want sex on a first date from regularly being frustrated by not getting what they want. Of course, on dates where both people prefer to have sex on a first date, sex might not happen: one or both of these people could decide that they don't want to have sex with the other person, and sex wouldn't happen. But it would be a failed date: a second date wouldn't happen either. Personally, I can be perfectly happy with having sex on the first date or sex on the 15th: it's the communication and consent that matter to me.


I posted this quote on the Woman Thread, but I think it belongs here, as well. This is from the book chapter "How Libertine Is the Netherlands? Exploring Contemporary Dutch Sexual Cultures" by Gert Hekma, from the 2005 book Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity. Hekma has five interesting points, but the relevant one here is "Sex is a male affair" and an example and suggestion about the sex education in the Netherlands.

Accordingly, public school sex education and commercials produced by the government instruct girls and women to say "no" to the sexual advances of boys and men, and instruct boys and men to accept that girls and women say "no." The presumption of this kind of education is both sexist and heterosexist. Teaching children only how to civilly decline heterosexual sex does not help children of either gender to explore their sexual preferences, or to enjoy sex in all its diversity. Teach kids to say yes to sex might more effectively instill a healthy sexuality, because once they had learned to say yes to what they desired, they would also know to say no to specific undesired or destructive sexual propositions.

I do think that teaching people to say "yes" instead of "no" to sex would reduce rape. In a culture where people say "yes," not communicating anything is therefore always a "no," from both or all possible partners in a particular sex act.

[KestrelLowing]

Some of you seem to be implying that pushing the number of dates at which sex is "expected" up would, by itself, reduce the amount of rape. I strongly disagree. I think that focusing on individual desires instead of society wide expectations would reduce rape. That includes empowering people to say, up front, that they usually want to have sex on the first date, before they go on a date. That way people who want to have sex on the first date can find each other, preventing people who don't want to have sex on the first date from being pressured on a date, and preventing people who do want sex on a first date from regularly being frustrated by not getting what they want. Of course, on dates where both people prefer to have sex on a first date, sex might not happen: one or both of these people could decide that they don't want to have sex with the other person, and sex wouldn't happen. But it would be a failed date: a second date wouldn't happen either. Personally, I can be perfectly happy with having sex on the first date or sex on the 15th: it's the communication and consent that matter to me.


I posted this quote on the Woman Thread, but I think it belongs here, as well. This is from the book chapter "How Libertine Is the Netherlands? Exploring Contemporary Dutch Sexual Cultures" by Gert Hekma, from the 2005 book Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity. Hekma has five interesting points, but the relevant one here is "Sex is a male affair" and an example and suggestion about the sex education in the Netherlands.

Accordingly, public school sex education and commercials produced by the government instruct girls and women to say "no" to the sexual advances of boys and men, and instruct boys and men to accept that girls and women say "no." The presumption of this kind of education is both sexist and heterosexist. Teaching children only how to civilly decline heterosexual sex does not help children of either gender to explore their sexual preferences, or to enjoy sex in all its diversity. Teach kids to say yes to sex might more effectively instill a healthy sexuality, because once they had learned to say yes to what they desired, they would also know to say no to specific undesired or destructive sexual propositions.

I do think that teaching people to say "yes" instead of "no" to sex would reduce rape. In a culture where people say "yes," not communicating anything is therefore always a "no," from both or all possible partners in a particular sex act.

You know, I'd be really, really uncomfortable with that. It seems as if teaching children to say yes, you'd actually be increasing the amount of unwanted sex because it's "what you do" "everyone has sex" "everyone says yes". We've already got enough of those problems. I don't think that simply telling people "it's ok to say yes" will increase the number of people who actually want to have sex. Instead, I think it would put even more pressure on everyone to have more sex - something I think would be detrimental and contribute to rape culture.

While I fully agree that people who want to have sex on the first, second, third, 20th, 100th, date should go right ahead and have sex, I think that it should be a huge focus that EVERYONE can say no - men included. But the idea of having sex be something that's earned or bought, really contributes to a society where sex is expected. I think we need to focus on the fact that sex should never be a bargaining tool, or be payment for dates, or be something you owe someone else because they find you attractive and you talked and smiled at them.

I don't think that teaching people to say yes would be at all helpful.

[Роберт]

I don't think that teaching people to say yes would be at all helpful.

I thought the point was teaching people that consenting to sex is done by saying "yes", rather than teaching refusing sex is done by saying "no", will help stop some rapes.

The idea being people would less likely to interpret a lack of a response as a yes if consent is taught as being given rather than being withdrawn.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Consent cannot be the default state if rape culture is ever going to be a thing of the past. Po6ept is right - we need to teach people to look for "yes" instead of "no." Obviously no should be respected, but yes should be expected. Think of it as a contract - my default state for any contract is to not be in it. I must explicitly (and willingly) enter the contract to be considered a party to that contract; I do not have to explicitly exit the contract to not be considered a party to it. I'm already not a party to any given contract by default. This is how consent must be viewed to stop rape culture.