<p>“While it is empowering that more women are taking the initiative to learn to defend themselves, it is concerning that more women are feeling the need to, as this means more women are living in fear."</p>
<p>Recently, sexual assault on college campuses has been discussed more openly. The idea of self-defense courses for college women seems to be a progressive one, but does it fully address the issue? Should self-defense classes be offered at more colleges or should the fight against sexual assault be approached differently?</p>
<p>I think that there is more to self-defense than just protection against sexual assault. Overall, I think that it’s fine that anyone may want to take self-defense classes to fend off attackers, that’s usually the purpose they serve. I don’t like how they are talking about it in that article.</p>
<p>This alone will not be a “key” to reducing the amount of sexual assaults on college campuses or in general. It may certainly help but it shouldn’t be treated as the magical formula for fixing the issue. That article is pretty dumb, so are some of the people they reference in it… Anyone can take self-defense classes for any reason they want, I don’t see the reason to hype it up as it seems in this article</p>
<p>I read a very interesting quote a while back: “Women have learned all that they could about not how to be raped. Now we need to teach men not to rape”. There is the common sense stuff (stay away from dark alleys, carry mace, etc.) but doing everything can’t protect you 100%.
Granted, I have grown up in a very safe neighborhood and have not had problems (except for a few creepy harassers), but I’m 6’0" and I do my best in public to look like nobody wants to mess with me. I think that self-defense and anti-sexual assault/harassment courses should be mandatory at the middle-school level, but I am simultaneously scared that apparently the only way to reduce sexual assault in our society is to place teh burden on the potential victims.</p>
<p>The problem with teaching men not to rape is, how many guys would say that they think rape isn’t wrong (imagine the response of every male friend you could ask). Then out of those very few that do say it isn’t wrong, do you really think their mind can be change? Placing burdens on the potential victims may not be fair but it is probably more effective at reducing rape than trying to teach people not to rape. It’s like if you choose to walk a way home you know is riskier than another route for whatever reason. The thieves and muggers know what they are doing is wrong but they just don’t care. The way to prevent the victim from getting hurt isn’t to educate the criminals or even to make the victim stronger (even men stand little chance against a bigger, stronger adversary who might have a weapon, it’s about getting the victim to avoid the situation by making good choices. That is the way to get rape numbers down.</p>
<p>My school offers a free self-defense class to all female students over the summer - it’s run by the Boston Police Department; I think that the focus of it is rape but it also covers other types of assault as well. </p>
<p>I think self defense classes are a fine idea. They are useful in many more ways than just preventing rape. For instance, if in a dark alley in a city and you are about do be jumped, self defense classes can be very useful. Oftentimes, college students go to work in cities and other metropolitan areas after college and its always good to be prepared.</p>
<p>As for teaching men not to rape, I think while it is a valid idea, it is already done in most colleges. Making the potential victim stronger against the potential rapist I feel like would perhaps subconciously change the culture. In addition, much of the lines in rape is often blurred. For instance, I read a statistic, that more often than not, the people who commit rape are either friends or acquaintances at a party or get together. It is important to emphasize that it can take many different forms, not just the stereotypical “dark alley” depiction we often imagine.</p>
<p>In addition, I read that other colleges have pursued policies that teach the bystanders to take a more active role in stopping rape. For instance, let’s say at a party everyone is drunk and there is a lady who is herself intoxicated with alcohol lying upstairs. There a guy may want to pursue the woman sexually, despite neither of them being in the correct state of mind. A friend could potentially distract the other friend who is planning to pursue the lady upstairs, because more often than not, it is difficult to stand up to your friend and say “no” especially if the lines are blurred as it is sometimes in a party. These strategies can be just as effective to prevent rape if there is a collective campus culture (including greek life) that opposes it.</p>
<p>Because, you know, teaching murderers to not murder people works wonders. I’m sure if we just told Ted Bundy that killing is wrong, he wouldn’t have been a murderer!</p>
<p>“Teaching men not to rape” won’t do anything; men who are rapists (or who go on to be rapists) have some kind of impairment or dysfunction that allows them to convince themselves that they have a right to another’s body; these men honestly couldn’t care less if society condones their actions or not. (Women rapists also exist, and this more or less applies to them as well.)</p>
<p>However, there are sometimes murky situations where the question of consent does not have a clear answer that people in general should be taught to avoid. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>If asking for sex, all answers other than a clear “yes” from someone who is sober (of all drugs) and unquestionably can consent must be treated as “no”.</li>
<li>If asked for sex, clearly say “no” if sex is not wanted.</li>
<li>Consider risks of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and use appropriate protection.</li>
</ul>
<p>Of course, general personal safety methods can also be taught. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>Avoid getting drunk to the point of serious impairment …</li>
<li>… especially in an environment where most other people are drunk.</li>
<li>At parties, do not leave your drinks unattended, since actual rapists may add “date rape drugs” to them.</li>
<li>Do not leave your dorm room or any valuables unlocked and unattended.</li>
<li>New frosh should be especially wary, due to otherwise being easy victims due to naivete.</li>
<li>Know whether the campus safety people are actual police or not.</li>
</ul>
<p>Note that many of the crime risks on college campuses are not the “attacker jumping out of a dark alley to commit assault, rape, robbery, etc.”.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing about alcohol, people will readily say that a woman who is intoxicated is incapable of consenting. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the next part of the argument that says that men who are equally impaired should still be able to make complex moral and legal judgments and be held responsible for the consequences of their actions and for the well-being of themselves and the girl while they are impaired.</p>
<p>I like the thought of teaching personal safety methods, but that is the job of the parent when the girl is 10-12 years old.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t really like the whole alcohol relinquishes the ability to consent, because most times it is a choice. It’s not a matter of the girl choosing to be raped, it’s more of a matter of her choosing to be vulnerable in a situation where there are predators (anywhere outside your home and this will never change just human nature). But you can still go out and have a good time, but like ucbalumnus said you just have to avoid serious impairment in areas/clubs where you don’t feel completely secure.</p>
<p>Knowing and following clear lines (e.g. “no sex unless everyone is sober”) significantly simplifies any complex moral and legal judgements that one may have to make, even if the clear lines are set somewhat on the conservative side.</p>
<p>The thing about drunk people is that they aren’t bad, but they are stupid and impulsive. This makes any judgment or correct thought process exceedingly difficult. At some points even moderately mentally handicapped people can give better responses to questions whether thy’re about ethics or basic arithmetic. I think its very possible that every person who drinks to excess has done something they regret under alcohol that they wouldn’t have otherwise. </p>
<p>P.S. Once all your evolved decision-making parts of the brain are shut down by the effects of alcohol, there is only that primitive part left that says, “Pretty girl, I want to have sex with her.”</p>
<p>Some people internalize simple rules like “no driving after drinking alcohol” and stick to them even when very drunk.</p>
<p>Someone who cannot follow such simple rules to keep themselves from committing crimes or endangering themselves or others when drunk should not get drunk in the first place.</p>
<p>I do not think people understand what it means to teach men not to rape. Teaching men not to rape is not saying do not rape, it is addressing the culture/stereotypes/stigma surrounding rape. For instance the high school girl that was raped by college football players. Not only were people chastising her for her behavior but a news anchor felt sorry for the boys because they couldn’t play on their football team. What about the fact that 55 colleges have to be investigated because they are not doing enough to fight sexual assault. <a href=“55 Colleges Face Sexual Assault Investigations | HuffPost Latest News”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
Or the instance where a student at Florida University had so much trouble getting officers to take her case seriously and she was blamed for what happened. <a href=“Errors in Inquiry on Rape Allegations Against FSU’s Jameis Winston - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/16/sports/errors-in-inquiry-on-rape-allegations-against-fsu-jameis-winston.html</a>
Teaching men/women not to rape is teaching boys and girls from a young age that it is NOT okay to rape, assault, or harass anyone no matter if you are a athlete or if the victim was drunk or young. Sexual assault and rape still happen in some cases because as a society we condone it. We make excuses for men and we blame victims, because they were too drunk or dressed too slutty. For those who are saying “okay yeah teach men not to rape, teach a murderer not to murder” THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE A LITTLE MORE. I think self-defence classes are a good idea but they should be a second option not the first. </p>
<p>Self defense, to me at least, is more about the discipline to learn and work than about the actual defense.</p>
<p>Taking a class will not make one more powerful than a practiced burglar or mugger or rapist, however becoming a practitioner of said art will allow one to become more disciplined, and eventually master their own art.</p>
<p>Taking 1 class for the sake of learning to fight will not help. Take the martial arts class for the sake of learning discipline, and the ability to fight will come with it.</p>
<p>I also agree that we should teach men to never rape, and also punish rapists much more (not capital punishment (i’m against that), but a lot of jail time for sure).</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus Most people will readily admit that driving drunk is wrong yet nearly ten percent of the 18 and older population of the U.S. has been arrested with a DUI. Then you have to factor in that there are probably many more people who drive drunk who don’t get caught. These people have internalized the simple rule but they just are not able to make that good decision while they are drunk.</p>
<p>@gag207767 First, there were many reasons why they didn’t go after Jameis Winston harder and even more reasons why they didn’t arrest him. Most of the reasons had to do with flaws that made the case weak even compared to college rape incidents and the rest had to do with him being a star athlete (you don’t go after the president unless if you are sure you have the fire power). The only problem is that campus police have swept a lot of rape cases under the rug when it comes to influential students or when they prematurely decide that the case is going to be to hard to pursue. I think the other situation references the Stubenville case. That was a case of pure sadism on the part of the rapists. They would not have been deterred know matter how much education we provide because they just flat out knew it wrong. The people around them also knew it was wrong but like you said they were concerned about the upcoming season. From what I remember the entire case shifted with the release of the twitter pictures. Nobody was in the football players’ corner after the documentation came out. That is the main problem with rape cases is that nobody truly knows what went on unless if there is a witness or documentation. I think the two cases are similar. It’s hard to make a case or even believe to an extent when you don’t know anything for sure except a drunk girl left willingly with a guy. Rape cases will always be hard to prosecute without evidence but when the twitter pictures came out the two rapists were quickly indicted and convicted of rape.</p>
<p>I don’t think that teaching men not to rape at the college level or high school level is not a good thing to teach (although I do believe in most cases it is unnecessary and ineffective), I question whether or not it will truly reduce the number of rapes. Once again most guys will readily say that rape is horrible, and then the ones who are going to rape anyways will do so no matter how much we tell them it is not acceptable. To say we need to tell people not to rape implies they haven’t learned it before and if that is ever the case it would be the fault of the parent’s (but even then they would have not heard it anywhere in society which is nearly impossible). Entitlement is a big factor in rape but even if we tell them that it is unacceptable for them to rape they’re going to do it because they feel above our “petty” laws. Finally, when most schools do their rape prevention seminars it is about telling men not to rape and does not even come close to focusing on rape culture whether or not one truly exists in America.</p>
<p>Some people do not believe that DUI is dangerous or wrong. Others who do have not internalized simple rules. They may instead try to apply complex rules like “wait H hours after drinking the last of N drinks before driving, based on some table to memorize accounting for body weight and gender”. Of course, after a night of drinking and partying, someone may have difficulty remembering what N and H are, or what the table looks like. It is quite likely that the combination of poor judgement and poor ability to remember things while drunk causes error in such a relatively complex decision.</p>
<p>Instead, following a very simple rule like one of the following reduces the chance for error, since there are fewer complexities to get wrong while drunk:
a. If you drink any alcohol at all, do not drive.
b. Have your own breathalyzer, and do not drive until you blow 0.00% BAC in it.</p>
<p>There most definitely needs to be a bigger focus on teaching consent and respect. I think that these “self defense” courses are done with the best interest, but fall flat for several reasons. For starters, it’s not a simple “strangers in a dark alley” situation, because most sexual assault victims know their rapist, and the assaults take place in “safe” places (the victims home, a friend/relatives home). The majority of victims attempt to use these self-defense mechanisms, and it really does not aid them in any way or act as a deterrent, because the assault still happens. So these self defense courses place the responsibility to not be raped on the victims, even when it has been proven that they are ineffective when it comes to real life assault.</p>
<p>“8% of men admit committing acts that meet the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. Of these men who committed rape, 84% said that what they did was definitely not rape.” They literally just don’t know what consent is, what rape is, and they don’t respect women enough to understand that no means no, and see that if their partner is uncomfortable or intoxicated that they should stop. There should be consent workshops that focus on the statistical average rapist, which is a white male.
(all of these facts are taken from <a href=“One In Four USA”>http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php</a> btw. the sources are at the bottom).</p>
<p>I have never met anybody that would say there is nothing wrong with DUI. They may just not care whether it’s right or wrong or think it doesn’t apply to them, but I have never met a person who would say it is safe to drive under the influence. Also, I’m not talking about complex rules because people don’t honestly believe those are true reasons to drive after drinking they just use those as excuses to allow themselves to drive. Most people have been taught and have internalized the rule that you shouldn’t drive after drinking. The only alteration I’ve ever seen someone make to this rule is, “I’m not too drunk to drive safely”, but that once again is just them thinking the rule doesn’t apply to them in the first place.</p>
<p>a. Great Rule, I would love it if everyone would abide by it, but even very intelligent and conscientious people once they start drinking lose the ability to make good decisions. It’s like the tennis ball challenge: easy to catch when you have no impairment, but once you put on the goggles it becomes very difficult. Same goes for decision-making.</p>
<p>b. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone own a breathalyzer much less have one on them while out at a party or bar. I think I saw it used by a woman once on T.V. Doesn’t seem very common from where I’m from so I question how many people currently use this method.</p>
<p>A good method I think to use is to space drinks out by drinking water between them. Very simple, but same critique as the breathalyzer: How many people would actually do this?</p>
<p>And then all of this relates back to the cognitive impairment of an individual using drugs or alcohol. People just simply cannot control their decision-making after they drink. The only thing you can fault these people for is the fact they chose to drink in the first place and become this inebriated.</p>
<p>Here’s another factor. How about the “very intelligent and conscientious” people who drink and will drive, but not because they lost their ability to make good judgements, rather they do not believe the drinks they have had prevent them from driving? Not everyone believe that if you have a drink or a couple drinks, you should not drive. </p>
<p>@Niquii I actually referenced that throughout the entire first paragraph: "The only alteration I’ve ever seen someone make to this rule is, “I’m not too drunk to drive safely”, “They may just not care whether it’s right or wrong or think it doesn’t apply to them”. But, there is no legitimate argument for the safety of drunk driving and no parent, mentor, or policeman would ever say the following, “it’s okay to drive if you feel you’re still capable”, just like nobody is told that forcible sex against a women’s will is acceptable. The people who feel the rules don’t apply to them won’t think differently from more awareness about what rape is or trying to get them to feel empathy. I would be all for this plan of action if I thought it would, but I think that even in it’s best case scenario it would have to start early and be done consistently throughout youth and would cost an extraordinary amount of money to pursue the program, but even then would it be effective, because from my perspective, I see parents already doing this and here we are in our current state. Ultimately, sad to say, it usually takes punishment to correct this behavior (DUIs or sexual misconduct).</p>
<p>@evelync I agree with everything in the first paragraph except the putting blame on the victim. I think the self-defense courses are just another safety precaution just like telling someone “don’t go down that street at one in the morning”. I don’t think its saying, “you need to be able to prepare yourself because if you aren’t able to then the rape is your fault”.</p>
<p>The thing about the statistic of men who don’t think they’ve committed rape is that I definitely believe 6% is way too high and it definitely should be lowered. My reservations though are will it effectively reduce rapes by reducing the number own to the optimal level which would probably be around 3%. It is very hard to educate people on the exact legal definition of rape when it changes from state to state and the definitions change constantly (this is why some people are not aware about the relatively new addition about women being unable to consent while drunk even if they say yes. Also, 50% of rapists are white males, so it’s hard to paint a picture of a white rapist when there are just as many minority rapists in a country that is 80%+ white. Also, you might want to check out other statistics apart from a women’s advocates page: <a href=“http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/”>http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/</a>
This article carries many links to reputable sources such as the CDC that have statistics that say that many women are just as likely as men to be sexually violent. The reason why male rape numbers are so low is because most female-male rape falls under “made to penetrate” statutes and because most men feel ashamed that they are victims. So, the average rapist may not be white or male. It wouldn’t be a large leap to say that men are just as often victims of sexual violence as women are. But right now society is promoting a “teach men not to rape” movement when it needs to be “teach people not to rape”.</p>