Did You Learn About Rape in Grade School?

[Thanas]

Same here, but really, you don't need to be a genius to figure out that taking something against the will of another person is bad. I don't buy the excuse of the Steubenville scumbags one bit.

[dragon]

I was in a Department of Defense school and our sex ed was better than the usual school sex ed. But they didn't really cover rape until there was a case in the news and we asked the teacher what it meant.

[Lagmonster]

What you were taught about rape is a lot more important than that you were taught about it, though. The terrifying opinions and misconceptions people have about consent indicate that what's going on isn't good enough.

Not just about consent, if you think about it.

We teach women how to avoid rape, how to prevent rape, but not necessarily how to endure and survive rape. Or any trauma, really. I've met college kids who didn't know what a 'rape kit' was, for example, or what the law has to say about consent, or what their medical concerns should be. What saddens me most is that women are still taught that they should feel 'used' or 'ruined'. It significantly de-powers women when we impress upon them how they should feel. In fact, we teach them to act even more vulnerable when victimized, as though that were normal, healthy or necessary.

And we teach boys that their sex drives are an abberration, their urges the result of poor upbringing and environment as opposed to the average biological differences between men and women. When you don't teach someone to control his sex drive and his strength, and even worse when he is taught that the differences between him and his female peers is purely the result of social factors, you end up with a confused person who doesn't understand his body and is ashamed of himself. At best. You get a dangerously repressed person at worst.

[Eleas]

And we teach boys that their sex drives are an abberration, their urges the result of poor upbringing and environment as opposed to the average biological differences between men and women. When you don't teach someone to control his sex drive and his strength, and even worse when he is taught that the differences between him and his female peers is purely the result of social factors, you end up with a confused person who doesn't understand his body and is ashamed of himself. At best. You get a dangerously repressed person at worst.

Citation needed. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the opposite is the actual problem, i.e. this notion that boys (like in Steubenville, for instance) cannot be expected to control their supposedly vaster sex drive because they are men. Funnily enough there's actual evidence to back up this theory, starting with the preponderance of cases in which sexual predation has indeed been excused by statements to the effect of "but she should have known better than to provoke the hair-trigger male sexuality by existing" and "him touching your boobs is just horseplay" and going on to make women responsible for allegedly out of control male urges.

[Lagmonster]

Citation needed. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the opposite is the actual problem, i.e. this notion that boys (like in Steubenville, for instance) cannot be expected to control their supposedly vaster sex drive because they are men.

Bullshit. Just because an element of your physiology allows for facilitation of a particular behaviour, doesn't mean that it causes said behaviour or that it is uncontrollable. Which is why I said that education that includes acknowledgement of the differences between men and women is important. And judging from your response, we also need to teach kids the difference between IS and OUGHT, and why knowing how something IS doesn't explicitly justify any particular behaviour. We have to be knowledgeable so that we can determine as a society how to teach people how they ought to act.

Funnily enough there's actual evidence to back up this theory, starting with the preponderance of cases in which sexual predation has indeed been excused by statements to the effect of "but she should have known better than to provoke the hair-trigger male sexuality by existing" and "him touching your boobs is just horseplay" and going on to make women responsible for allegedly out of control male urges.

That's not evidence, so much as anecdotes from the catalogue of excuses of poorly-raised people. You get the same effect whenever racial supremacists misunderstand evolution theory. I'm sure you can point to people abusing or misrepresenting any number of scientific facts in order to justify being an asshole. For example, despite our rather mild sexual dimorphism as a species, untrained, average males have a fairly clear advantage over untrained, average females by way of their greater average height and strength. But that doesn't mean that might makes right.

[Eleas]

When you don't teach someone to control his sex drive and his strength, and even worse when he is taught that the differences between him and his female peers is purely the result of social factors, you end up with a confused person who doesn't understand his body and is ashamed of himself.

Lagmonster, you have no evidence for this bizarre supposition, and indeed signs point toward the opposite being true: statistically, rape and sexual violence is higher in places where gender stereotypes are rigidly promoted.

Just because an element of your physiology allows for facilitation of a particular behaviour, doesn't mean that it causes said behaviour or that it is uncontrollable. Which is why I said that education that includes acknowledgement of the differences between men and women is important.

You seem to want to offer a rationale for why "acknowledgement of the differences between men and women is important", but there is no logical connection between these two sentences. My point, again, is that where this pointless "acknowledgement" is stressed, the result tends to head in the direction of gender stereotyping and a bolstering of rape culture.

That's not evidence, so much as anecdotes from the catalogue of excuses of poorly-raised people.

Handwaving nonsense.

[Stark]

Does 'control sex drive' mean 'don't rape people'? Because that seems a pretty long bow to draw. In my experience men in crisis don't 'not understand their body', they don't understand their feelings and how to deal with them constructively and acceptably. This is hilariously because gender stereotypes often teach men that to ask for help is weak, and further define success in extremely narrow ways that drive negative behaviours. MUST ACQUIRE HOT WOMAN CANNOT DEAL WITH FRUSTRATION HOW TO DISPLAY MACHISMO.

[Eleas]

that is just possible

Meanwhile, in those benighted places on Earth where the dangerous conceit of not-totes-different seems to flourish... just happen be where we've also seen a marked reduction in both sexualized violence and general equality.

this is all very confusing

[Lagmonster]

Lagmonster, you have no evidence for this bizarre supposition, and indeed signs point toward the opposite being true: statistically, rape and sexual violence is higher in places where gender stereotypes are rigidly promoted.

And if I were talking about stereotypes, that would mean something. You're talking about a correlation between stereotypes (ie. lies, beliefs), whereas I'm talking about facts, which you'll notice are a) not the same thing as stereotypes, and b) not responsible for how you use them in society. I get that you're probably one of these social construction types who are worried about the ethical and political consequences of identifying any such differences as fact. That doesn't excuse us from the pursuit.

For now, try to understand the difference between IS and OUGHT. Untrained, average males ARE bigger. That doesn't mean they OUGHT to use their strength to coerce people to do things. Males HAVE differences in their chemistry that facilitates aggression. That doesn't mean they OUGHT to act aggressively. That's a fairly concrete set of assertions, and even if I admit we don't yet have all of the facts on how much our physiology influences our behaviour, it's just as wrong to fill in the gaps with whatever bullshit suits your experiences as it is to just carry on with a melange of tradition and selfishness.

You seem to want to offer a rationale for why "acknowledgement of the differences between men and women is important", but there is no logical connection between these two sentences. My point, again, is that where this pointless "acknowledgement" is stressed, the result tends to head in the direction of gender stereotyping and a bolstering of rape culture.

So, what, you're throwing a tarp over the whole IDEA of differences between men and women, and saying, "If there were any, someone, somewhere will manipulate that to be mean to people." So fucking what? I'm only interested in a) is it fact? And b) what can we learn from it, starting from the assumption that all people are deserving of equal social status. We can learn that we have to raise kids with slightly varying considerations of their development and the facilitators on their behaviour without setting up a goddamn patriarchy. The fact that other people have failed miserably at setting up a tolerant, equal society while quoting what they felt were obvious impartial reasons for doing so, doesn't say much other than that they couldn't separate 'is' from 'ought' either.

That's not evidence, so much as anecdotes from the catalogue of excuses of poorly-raised people.

Handwaving nonsense.[/quote]
It must be so embarrassing to have to disregard ideas you don't understand.

Facts need to be objective, and confirmed. Once confirmed, facts inform us of how we can meet our goals. Lying about facts, as you've pointed out unnecessarily, or launching ahead without getting them right, can let you meet any goals you might have. Whatever the facts suggest - and here I am not looking for subjective anecdotes - to be part of the final equation. Now, if you want to debate whether or not said facts are true, go find an evolutionary psychologist to embarrass you in public. It's not my area of expertise.

[Losonti Tokash]

I think it's pretty horrifying that you think the way to prevent sexual violence is emphasizing minor differences between genders and reinforcing the view that men are barely controlled creatures of sexual desire, capping it all off with BIOTRUTHS and EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.

[Lagmonster]

I think it's pretty horrifying that you think the way to prevent sexual violence is emphasizing minor differences between genders and reinforcing the view that men are barely controlled creatures of sexual desire, capping it all off with BIOTRUTHS and EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.

One, your opinion is worth dick. Two, I specifically said that biological factors are a facilitator of behavior and not necessarily a cause. Three, you frivolously dismissed several ideas because, what, you didn't like them? Who can tell?

You're embarrassing yourself. Please stop writing posts that, on review of this thread, make it look like I pick on the mentally handicapped in my spare time.

[Losonti Tokash]

I dunno, in a thread where you're claiming gender stereotypes arise from EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY while also admitting no education in the field or that rigid gender norms are good, it looks like you're the one humiliating yourself. You already totally ignored Eleas saying countries that don't strictly enforce gender roles actually have less sexual violence, but me dismissing your hilarious citation of biotruths with nothing but your own bias as supporting evidence is clearly some egregious offense.

Bonus points for ableism, too.

[Eleas]

Lagmonster, you have no evidence for this bizarre supposition, and indeed signs point toward the opposite being true: statistically, rape and sexual violence is higher in places where gender stereotypes are rigidly promoted.

And if I were talking about stereotypes, that would mean something.

You are talking about stereotypes, specifically your own, and making manifest the logic-warping ability of your own hilariously obvious bias. Let's go over this again, this time broken down into its constituent parts, in the hopes that you'll actually read it:

1. You claimed -- in fairly unambiguous terms -- that a male person who was not reared on biotruths would be "confused", not "understand his body", and be "ashamed of himself. At best." Worse still, you intimated that such a heinously abberrant form of child-rearing would give rise to sexually predatory behavior.
2. I, valuing sanity, pointed out that you had and still have no evidence whatsoever for the outlandish mockery of psychological cause-and-effect that you posted. I then pointed out the traditional (and statistically verifiable) result of teaching an emphasis on rigid gender separation, which is fucking obvious even to first-year students of anything.
3. You repeat your assertion, condensing it into two mutually exclusive statements. You then go on to say we also need to teach people to not act out these supposedly all-important urges (we'll ignore for the moment your other statement about such differences being "rather mild"), a method of education that again statistically tends to ensure the opposite. You then dismiss my statement about a preponderance of cases by saying they must all be anecdotes, proving you cannot grasp the difference between anecdotes and trends.
4. I point all of this out, again referring to statistics rather than the feelings sprung from your gut.
5. In response, you overlook or ignore all my statements, preferring to veer off into cloud-cuckoo land. First, you advocate placing enormous importance on a difference you've already identified as trifling, to address a problem that doesn't fucking exist at a time when problematic behavior is caused by people placing, yes, unwarranted importance on this trifling difference. You then try to pigeonhole me into a helpful stereotype, overlooking by virtue of your own idiocy the fact that real people don't think the way you desperately want them to. You then admit that you have not studied these matters and are basically just vomiting forth uninformed water-cooler opinions, which was already manifestly obvious but nice to have confirmed. In that same sentence, you claim I base my points on my own experiences, which as anyone can see in this thread is your exclusive angle.

Now. If you want to reexamine your own numerous pratfalls and perhaps apologize for wasting everybody's time, please feel free to do so. I'll still be here once you've collected yourself, and will be happy to furnish you with the requisite research data, both from the gender studies faculty in Lund and the biology institution as well as newspapers and studies across the world. I'm not certain, however, if any such unimportant data will ever hold quite as much authority as The World According To Lagmonster.

[Lagmonster]

You are talking about stereotypes, specifically your own, and making manifest the logic-warping ability of your own hilariously obvious bias.

Tell you what. I'm not an expert at human psychology, so I have no choice but to bow out, leaving everything that's been said on the table as it is. For better or worse. You're correct in that I should not have argued out of my own depth, although I'm sure that wouldn't have been the way you'd have put it. You've obviously got a great deal of conviction in that what you've studied correctly informs your opinion and that your conclusions are supported by evidence. My opinions on human sexuality and behaviour are informed differently, from work such as Pinker, Symons and Mills. In the end, however, I'll trust whatever work comes up objective and testable, and I won't accept anything less. But I'm something of a scientific realist, criticisms of that notwithstanding, so there you go.

My advice would have to be, commit to what you think helps make people be better people. If you think you can fix society by changing social elements, do that with your kids, and your community. I'll do what helps my family and my community. Meanwhile, we'll both wait to see what comes out of the ongoing debate on human psychology.

P.S. Funnily enough, part of my career involves coordinating the peer-review committees for our agricultural research scientists, and many of my peers actually do support and sometimes like to discuss the theories of evolutionary biologists. I suppose that means you were entirely prescient when you accused me of having some 'water cooler opinions', in a roundabout sort of way.

[Eleas]

Alright, if you wish to bow out I'm not going to lambaste you about it. I'd have preferred to understand what your rationale was in the first place -- there seems to be no argument given for it -- but if you want to end the conversation then sure.

In the end, though, I don't disagree with (my reading of) your advice: with an active focus on furthering positive and respectful interaction, even if the principles used were poorly thought out, one would still likely get far better results than if one didn't bother at all.

[Ahriman238]

I got the rape talk along with the sex talk from my dad, summer before high school. I don't think he ever specifically said that taking advantage of someone while drunk, high, unconscious or otherwise unable to give consent was wrong, but his opinions on the subject were made pretty clear long before then with movies like Animal House. As for a school, I don't remember the topic coming up until college when they explained the first night how to behave in the dorms.

So I'm actually going to back Stark on this one, TV and movies taught me about rape long before parents or school got around to it. On the other hand, since I've started teaching I've seen most freshmen read 'Speak' a book about a highschool girl getting raped by a popular kid and her struggle to speak out, report it, do something.

[The Disintegrator]

I don't think I was ever even shown how to use a condom in my sex ed class, and rape was kind of glossed over. They told us about roofies, and about people being taken advantage of, but they never really talked about what entailed. As far as we knew rape only happened from roofies or in dark alleys. I suppose at some point I kind of figured things out from movies, TV, and the internet.

It wasn't until I joined the Air Force that I was given proper briefings on the topic. For as many problems as the military has been having with sexual assault, they start talking about the issue straight from basic training. And then after that there was a follow up briefing in tech school, our MTL's talked about it when we got to our second tech school, then another briefing when I got to my first duty base, and then a recurring briefing on it every year. I'm not sure what they taught in the women's classes, but for the men the emphasis was put on bystander intervention. The military's handling of sexual assault still needs a lot of work, but I at least commend the efforts to educate.

Now that I'm in college, things are different. Being a transfer student I didn't get any kind of orientation, so I have no idea what they teach in my school's orientations. All I can say is that I have yet to see anyone try to have a serious conversation about rape. Even with the Steubenville case on the news I actually have yet to hear anyone try to have a conversation about it. Nearest I can tell, students here likely get some kind of talk about rape during their freshmen orientation, and then that's it. Admittedly it's a bit worrying.

[Ford Prefect]

evolutionary psychologist

It was my understanding that appeals to pseudoscience were frowned upon by this website.

[Terralthra]

Not all evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

[Eleas]

Not all evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

That is true. However, as with other scientific fields, conclusions made in evolutionary psychology frequently gets misinterpreted by laymen all over the Internet, whether knowingly or not.

[Lagmonster]

Not all evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

It's desperately unpopular with its opponents, and its serious adherents come across as either ivory-tower types who don't give a fuck or closet racists. There are a number of ethical and philosophical ideas up for grabs in the fallout of the debate. Though nowadays, the only time the debate crosses my path is in the context of a tangent to a beer night pub-booth chat. And it's one-sided. We never invite any social scientists; they always insist on splitting the tip perfectly evenly.

[Guardsman Bass]

Not all evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.

That is true. However, as with other scientific fields, conclusions made in evolutionary psychology frequently gets misinterpreted by laymen all over the Internet, whether knowingly or not.

It seems to spawn a ton of shitty "Just-So Stories", more so that most fields.

[DieselJester]

I learned about Rape and Sexual Violence from my parents waaaaaay before I ever heard about it in school. I was in like 5th or 6th grade when my parents talked to me about it and a Junior in High School when we'd broached the subject there. Even then, it was via an 'optional' attendance of a play that my drama class put on called "Date Rape Prevention" (back in the mid to late '90s). Who knows what the school system nowadays does.

[Scrib]

I had no sex ed whatsoever. None.

I guess I came from a conservative enough culture that a lot of the questions that would be posed were non-issues? Majority Muslim society ==never feeling the need to learn about alcohol and consent. That was pretty much a non-issue which doesn't seem like a good thing in hindsight.

As for physical rape in general: it was a common sense thing, you don't rape people. End of.

Though I have no idea how people would react to marital rape or more subtly coercive rape and abuses of power.It's just not something that ever came up. I can see people not considering it rape.

[Algebraist]

Sex-ed at school for me didnt include anything on rape that I can recall. Certainly not date rape which is where is seems there is an ambiguity still in many minds. I did a quick google search and, although that's hardly conclusive, it seems the result as shown in the above poll is not untypical. Parents have a responsibility - mine was a more traditional upbringing in which really sex was only genuinely seen as acceptable in marriage and thus the conversation never got close to mentioning rape! My first experience of hearing about "date rape" was almost certainly through the media and actually I thought it gave a clear message about what was wrong. Although many point to sexual imagery, porn, portrayal in some fictional programmes to objectifying women and blame attitudes on this and there may be a point to this. The fact is however that the repression of women, and that includes rape as a weapon, is so much worse in less developed countries which dont have the same education and media expression. In any case it seems to me including eduction at school on this subject would be valuable.