Hook-Up Culture at Harvard, Stanford Wanes Amid Assault Alarm

Student Lounge College Life
61

<p>@Pepper03 </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I only have sons, but if I had a daughter going off to college, here is part of what I would say, in addition to talking about the buddy system, saying no, reporting an assault etc.</p>

<p>"In a perfect world, we would not have to lock our house and car doors, but we do. We would not have to have security passwords to lock and open our cellphones and computers, but we do. And, in addition to the locks, we have advance alarms on most of these as well. And the list is much longer for our habitual alarming and locking of devices and securing of items. We do these actions, not because all people are bad, but because, while the overwhelming majority of people are good, the bad ones are really bad, and we know to be proactively smart to lower the risk of giving these bad people an opportunity to harm us. This is an unfortunate natural part of the world in which we live.</p>

<p>I recommend you do everything possible to have a great and fun time in college. However, please never forget that the most powerful instrument you have in regards to your personal well-being and safety, in any situation, is your brain. It is your silent alarm that can signal you to act when a situation is not right and your safety might be or is threatened. This allows you at act smartly to get out of a bad situation. Your brain is also your dynamic security lock that allows you to say “no” to any situation you do not want to be a part of, including sex. Please remember though for it to be useful your personal alarm and security lock, i.e., your brain, must be functional. </p>

<p>Since you habitually lock your door, phone, computers, and have passwords for inanimate objects to protect them from criminals, I hope you realize you are much more important than any of those objects and you should strive to be mentally aware enough at all times to be able to protect yourself. This means not having your brain in such a state of disrepair, as to where you have no functioning personal alarm and no personal security lock in place. I recommend highly you do not leave yourself in such a state where your personal safety is dependent on the goodwill of a criminal not to harm you, including rape. Truth be known, the criminal will not leave you alone, regardless of any behavior codes in your college handbook, as words on a page are not physically protective. </p>

<p>I simply ask that you treat yourself better than any of your devices and be smart about your surroundings - not scared, not afraid, not leery, but smart. This is because criminals do not care about you or about rules; they only care about what they want. And just like your devices, you do not have some magical invisible protective shield around you, so do not act like you do and please do your best to keep your brain useful to yourself at all times because you are worth it."</p>

62

<p>

I thought this was a pretty astute point, made earlier in the thread. This issue is bandied about over and over. It occurs to me that perhaps it’s self-preservation if it’s a warning in advance, and victim blaming if it’s after the crime has happened. In other words, the difference between, “Make sure you lock up your bike,” and “You should have locked up your bike.” Even though the latter is obviously true, nobody likes to hear it when the real criminal is the person who took the bike.</p>

<p>By the way, I think the bike-locking example is a good one; it’s designed to discuss the general topic of warning vs. blaming in the context of a less emotionally charged situation.</p>

63

<p>@Hunt We need to train everyone to treat others property with respect and not to steal bikes!</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that would not have worked in my town growing up. </p>

<p>Even in a great neighbor, everyone knew the kids who would sneak in and steal our bikes, if we left them outside on the lawn. So, we learned not to leave the bikes outside. Nothing wrong with smart prevention against a known potential problem. And after getting arrested a few times, those same kids still stole things, if bikes were not available… </p>

<p>Until someone comes up with a surefire way to treat repeat-offender social psychopaths, all the teaching and preaching about respect in the world will mean nothing, including to the non-violent teenage bike stealer. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I kind of differ here.</p>

<p>I do not think it is difficult at all to understand and explain the difference, and I believe most people instinctively get the difference. However, for whatever reasons, a segment of people refuse to accept that ill-intentioned people exist who will act on that ill-will whenever possible, and that it is a smart thing to preemptively avoid such people in whatever way possible. Preemption to this segment of people is the same as victim-blaming. Why? I have not a clue.</p>

<p>Preemption is not blaming anyone for anything that may end up happening; it is just being ahead of the game about potential harm, which could come to one’s person and not giving that harm the environment or chance to come to fruition.</p>

65

<p>

And what is it called when you say, “Next time, lock up your bike?”</p>

66

<p>^^ You call that teaching someone to learn from experience, not victim-blaming. </p>

<p>Just like we learned not to leave our bikes on the lawn. That is quite different than saying, “Your bike would not have been stolen if you had locked it, so it is your fault.” </p>

<p>It is true the criminal is the one who commits the crime. However, to teach young females (and males too) that to be preemptive is a loss of freedom is teaching them not to value their own safety in light of the fact that the criminal STARTS with the premise that he does not value their safety. No need to help the criminal along by showing yourself the same disregard.</p>

<p>The bike example has its limits because it is not a dynamic situation, i.e., involving the actions of two people in a live situation. I think the more apt analogy is defensive driving skills. When driving, you may the right-of-way in a particular situation, however, it is smarter to be the one to preemptively stop or slow down if the other driver does not to respect the rules of the road. </p>

67

<p>

It’s nice to hear this now, when in the past, posters in this very thread (not you) have said I was victim-blaming. Now, only if we could have a thread about what constitutes as victim-blaming to curb those who are quick to pull the victim-blame trigger. :-? </p>

68

<p>I wasn’t really kidding when I said it’s self-preservation in advance and victim-blaming after the fact. It’s a matter of tone–“you should have locked up your bike” sounds–or feels–a bit too much like “you were asking to be robbed by failing to lock up your bike.”</p>

<p>I should note that with many issues like this, the current thinking is a reaction against previous situations in which there was rampant victim blaming. So if you use language that sounds like the previously common victim blaming, people are going to react negatively.</p>

69

<p>

Yes, this is a good analogy. </p>

70

<p>I wrote in post #59 that one thing groups need to be careful of is becoming “unbelievable” to the moderately informed and the educated. That was just my personal opinion based on parents I have talked to. However, that opinion is now being openly discussed, as this Stanford Hoover Institution scholar’s article indicates. </p>

<p>This is not meant to rehash old discussions, as much of the article’s points have been discussed in several threads on CC. It is this point I think relevant - openly questioning the foundational premise with simple logic:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As I stated in my post, when things do not add up, informed people will start to ignore the clarion call. Just because politicians may be on board for now, does not mean the majority of the populous will buy-in. And, if the populous does not buy-in, what the politicians do would soon be much less effective and would most likely backfire. </p>

<p>A serious problem requires a serious solution backed by real facts and a real understanding of where the scope of the problem lies. A broad brush usually ends up ineffective because no one believes it. </p>

<p>Therefore with 95%+ of moms knowing their sons are not rapists, telling all moms to teach their sons not to be rapists is a non-starter at best, and false numbers of the number of sexual assaults will be ignored by both moms and dads. And interestingly enough, based on their actions, both mainstay clarion calls are currently being ignored by regular, informed moms and dads.</p>

<p>Link: <a href=“U.S. Colleges' Sexual Assault Crusade | RealClearPolitics”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/05/us_colleges_sexual_assault_crusade_123851.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;