Training men and boys to honor women in the age of #MeToo

[Estro Felino]

If you dress like a hooker, how can you complain if men want to treat you like one?

I guess a male who likes a woman kindly asks her to hang out.

regardless of her clothing

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Dressing with modesty will not usually attract unwanted attention.

That is statistically false. The vast majority of rape occurs to women while wearing t-hirts or sweaters and jeans. There is no indication that women who wear less clothing or shorter skirts or pants are raped more frequently.

More importantly, clothing choice isn't consent to sex. It is not in any way anyone's responsibility to dress in a certain way to prevent criminal acts. That's all, and I do mean all, on the criminal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

From God's perspective...what is sick about it?

God had nothing to do with what you said. Don't defame Him.

 

[Sunstone]

...a male is suppose to be able to turn his arousal on and off like a faucet.

First off, that's a straw man. No intelligent male thinks in terms of "turning his arousal on and off like a faucet". Only naive fools and apologists for men who abuse women think that's how it goes.

Second, yes, if you're sexually attracted to a woman you're sexually attracted to her. But to seriously imply that means men are so weak and pathetic that the sight of bare flesh renders them in danger of surrendering their moral values in order to rape a woman -- that's just offensive and wrong. This is a big world with lots of diversity in it, and there are certainly men like that, but they are called "criminals" -- not responsible, decent men.

I'm sure you'll ignore this, but seriously, you strike me as nearly clueless about the relationship between male sexuality and male ethical behavior. Your ideas are no closer to reality than a cartoon of Donald Duck is to a real duck.

 

[Sunstone]

If you look carefully at the Imam's suggestion, he is equally blaming the men as being the dogs, unable to control their urges...

"Dogs". Do you know why you should be ashamed to agree with the imam? Ashamed. Because you're a Christian proud of her morals, certain that her morals are the best, and yet, you have a lower opinion of men than I -- a nonbeliever -- have even of the erotic dancers I used to see back in the days I now and then went to the clubs. I treated them like persons, with respect, and I never thought of them as less than human. But you have so much better morals than me, don't you?

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think men are dogs by any standard, and I would agree that most men are moral, decent, civilized human beings. But we also know that there are some men who are animalistic, predatory, and violent. It doesn't have much to do with what the woman is wearing; some guys are just violent and overamped. It's even worse if they're on drugs or alcohol.

But one also needs to be cautious and have a certain degree of situational awareness, especially if one chooses to enter a wretched hive of scum and villainy. It's a sad world we live in.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think men are dogs by any standard, and I would agree that most men are moral, decent, civilized human beings. But we also know that there are some men who are animalistic, predatory, and violent. It doesn't have much to do with what the woman is wearing; some guys are just violent and overamped. It's even worse if they're on drugs or alcohol.

But one also needs to be cautious and have a certain degree of situational awareness, especially if one chooses to enter a wretched hive of scum and villainy. It's a sad world we live in.

I agree, Stevicus. Yet are there not two sets of issues here? You raise the practical issues of safety and survival, but @Deeje raises the moral issues of who is to blame, who is morally obliged to act, and in what way are they morally obliged to act.

From a practical standpoint, it's damn foolish to walk into "the worse bar in town" where no one knows you and you have no friends, and then get totally drunk. But from a moral standpoint, there is no sound principle or reason why doing that is morally wrong. Foolish, yes. But immoral, no

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure, teach girls and women to respect boys and men. But while you're at it, be sure to teach boys and men to respect girls and women. In business, if you want to cut costs, you start with your biggest single expense. You don't start with you second or third or fourth largest expense -- you start with your first and make your first cuts there.

Yeah, but that's because cost cutting forces prioritization.
Is that the case here? I honestly don't know.

I would also say that boys respecting boys, and girls respecting girls is important. My limited exposure to toxic environments for women would suggest to me that they are also toxic for some males (non-conformers) and that within any group there are a range of people not strong enough to hold to their own values, and instead follow the herd.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Evidently there is a need for this, since most sexual assaults are committed by men, and not the other way around.

There is certainly a need. And there always has been.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When a female turns up at a place known as a pickup joint, dressed like a hooker, and is clearly drunk, how on earth can you blame an equally drunk male not to assume that she is there for the same reason he is?

I know, you don't like it when I personalise your points, but...
The answer is 'easily'. I can easily blame a male who anally rapes a girl, regardless of whether she is stark naked, and blind drunk.
I've been drunk. I've been around plenty of women with lowered inhibitions (to put it kindly). I was raised not to take advantage of extremely drunk women, even if they seem receptive, and this particular case goes far beyond 'merely' taking advantage of a drunk woman.
My parents would be disgusted with me if I didn't help organise some transport or similar.

So sure...she was foolish. Just like it would be foolish of me to wander around with a lot of money in my wallet. Or to wear flashy jewellery and wander down quiet laneways at night. That has absolutely nothing to do with the men who attacked her, does not lessen their culpability in the slightest, and (frankly) having my gender compared to dogs unable to control their hormones merely provides an out for every undisciplined, un-empathetic piece of filth going around.

 

[Sunstone]

Yeah, but that's because cost cutting forces prioritization.
Is that the case here? I honestly don't know.

Yes, the business principle of beginning with the major cost does apply here. Here's why: Suppose you had two expenses. The first was a major expense of $1000. The second was a minor expense of $100. Now, suppose you cut 10% of each. You would be rewarded with $100 for you cut to your major expense, but only $10 for your cut to your minor expense.

Now translate that into rapes. Suppose that men commit 1000 rapes an hour in a given country, but women only commit 100 rapes an hour. If you were humane, and genuinely concerned with reducing suffering as fast as possible, then -- all else being equal -- which problem would you focus on first, supposing you had limited resources and needed to focus on each in turn, rather than at once?

Naturally, the principle rests on "all else being equal" -- or at least, significantly equal.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree, Stevicus. Yet are there not two sets of issues here? You raise the practical issues of safety and survival, but @Deeje raises the moral issues of who is to blame, who is morally obliged to act, and in what way are they morally obliged to act.

From a practical standpoint, it's damn foolish to walk into "the worse bar in town" where no one knows you and you have no friends, and then get totally drunk. But from a moral standpoint, there is no sound principle or reason why doing that is morally wrong. Foolish, yes. But immoral, no

You're correct; I see the moral issues as being irrelevant to the problem at hand. Even if one agrees (and I wouldn't agree) that it's immoral for a woman to dress or behave immodestly, it doesn't excuse or mitigate the immorality of any man who commits an act of violence against a woman. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

It would seem that, if the argument held any water at all, one would have to demonstrate that men, who are already hard-wired to be visually stimulated and aroused at the sight of a beautiful woman, would have their brains so overloaded that they would lose their faculties and all higher-reasoning powers that they would become animalistic sex maniacs. The argument seems to imply a plea of insanity, since it implies that the criminal has lost his ability to tell right from wrong, that they somehow couldn't help themselves due to some mental defect.

That aside, there are quite a number of men who most certainly have various mental defects, so it pays to be careful.

 

[Deeje]

There is definitely a 'women are below men and all should adhere to gender norms' air in all the congregations and literature I've viewed. One of the plethora of reasons I left.

Oh dear....I guess then that you misunderstand that gender roles were actually designed by God to make things run more smoothly?

In any organization, there can be a number of people down a line of command, answering to the one who occupies a position higher than themselves. Can you see a problem when one person assumes the role of the one above them regardless of gender? Does it make for peaceful relations in the company?

Like an organization, a family arrangement has their appointed 'CEO'....whatever happens in the family, the buck stops with him. It is not a position of power but a position of responsibility. His wife is appointed as 'second in command' but it is not an inferior position any more than a vice president's position is inferior.....if something happens to the CEO, the vice president has to fill that position.

"I want you to know, that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

This arrangement is God's order of things so that all know what is expected of them. It is not a power trip or a dictatorship, but a loving arrangement that humble ones will see the value of. Even Christ obeys his "head".
Its a case of know your assigned role and do your best in it. It works for us.

What would happen if all vehicles were fitted with two sets of controls and the people occupying the driver's seats wanted to go in opposite directions? Its not a very good idea. Better to have one driver and consultation about the destination.

Of course, there are JW outside that normative thinking. (#notallJW) but they tend to be outside the governing body.

There are no JW's outside of the governing body. These we recognize as "the faithful and discreet slave" who are assigned to "feed" the entire household of Christ's disciples. (Matthew 24:45) Any who "feed" outside of that arrangement are not considered JW's at all. We hold one set of beliefs in common.....all of us. Its what unites us and keeps the peace.

 

[Deeje]

You have a low opinion of men, whether you confess to it or not. Yeah, we're all animals who flush our morals down the drain the moment we see a bare belly or short skirt -- and none of us ever drink responsibly either. That's just asking too much of a man.

Thanks a lot.

I am always amused when people jump on me as if I attacked them personally. You might not be like a lot of men Sunstone....or maybe you are? I don't know what your moral standards are. All I know is, that women who dress in a sexually provocative way ask for what they get.

In Australia, we have a drinking culture that is very obvious at any gathering. All occasions require alcohol... and copious amounts of it. I can't think of too many people who can drink responsibly in my country. You only have to see what happens on the streets of the city on a weekend night....men and women blind drunk, falling all over themselves, vomiting, urinating in the street....getting into brawls outside pubs.....its not a pretty sight but a very regular occurrence. Its the same in many similar cultures...Emergency Room personnel are sick to death of them.

Drunk people account for 70% of weekend emergency room visits in UK city

Drunk patients causing havoc in hospitals, doctors and nurses assaulted

How College Students End Up In the ER

Since I am relying on the Bible to make my value judgments, then it is God who recommends that morality have standards set by him...not ourselves. We are pretty bad at it apparently.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, the business principle of beginning with the major cost does apply here. Here's why: Suppose you had two expenses. The first was a major expense of $1000. The second was a minor expense of $100. Now, suppose you cut 10% of each. You would be rewarded with $100 for you cut to your major expense, but only $10 for your cut to your minor expense.

Now translate that into rapes. Suppose that men commit 1000 rapes an hour in a given country, but women only commit 100 rapes an hour. If you were humane, and genuinely concerned with reducing suffering as fast as possible, then -- all else being equal -- which problem would you focus on first, supposing you had limited resources and needed to focus on each in turn, rather than at once?

Naturally, the principle rests on "all else being equal" -- or at least, significantly equal.

I get all that. I'm not sure what amount of resource we're talking about here, though.
In the abstract, your point makes sense, but I'm unconvinced we can't tackle both (all?) at once.

Probably badly, because generally humans don't understand much about how other humans work. I find it hard to believe rapists aren't all mentally I'll, although I know they're not, and can rationalise that I want there to be a 'wall' separating them from 'normal' people.

(For anyone reading along, I fully realise the many, many flaws in my gut reaction, both in terms of incorrectly defining rapists as 'different', making mental health some constant, assuming I'm on the right side of it, and then assuming mental health issues increase the likelihood of taking actions harmful to others. I'm actually not ignorant of this whole area, but clearly my gut reaction is, so I apologise for any insult.)

 

[Sunstone]

I find it hard to believe rapists aren't all mentally I'll, although I know they're not, and can rationalise that I want there to be a 'wall' separating them from 'normal' people.

I know what you mean, Dave. I have a very hard time getting my head around the normal, average, basically decent guy who date rapes, for instance, or the doting uncle who fondles his nieces.

 

[Deeje]

I know, you don't like it when I personalise your points, but...

Wasn't talking about the good moral people LnM...I know you are an exception...

The answer is 'easily'. I can easily blame a male who anally rapes a girl, regardless of whether she is stark naked, and blind drunk.
I've been drunk. I've been around plenty of women with lowered inhibitions (to put it kindly). I was raised not to take advantage of extremely drunk women, even if they seem receptive, and this particular case goes far beyond 'merely' taking advantage of a drunk woman.
My parents would be disgusted with me if I didn't help organise some transport or similar.

She was raped by the son of the nightclub's owner. It was not a gang rape. He was alone with her.
I wonder how his parents reacted?
You think they blamed their son? He was in the habit of taking advantage of drunk girls who frequent this nightclub. Sounds like it was not an unusual thing for him. Perhaps he was not raised like you.

So sure...she was foolish. Just like it would be foolish of me to wander around with a lot of money in my wallet. Or to wear flashy jewellery and wander down quiet laneways at night. That has absolutely nothing to do with the men who attacked her, does not lessen their culpability in the slightest, and (frankly) having my gender compared to dogs unable to control their hormones merely provides an out for every undisciplined, un-empathetic piece of filth going around.

"Foolish" doesn't quite describe what she did. "Irresponsible and naive" maybe....but we reap what we sow, you know. If you don't want to grow tomatoes then don't plant them. Its called putting yourself in harm's way. You have to take a certain amount of responsibility for that whether you asked for it or not.

If all "your gender" were like you LnM, then perhaps these incidents would stop happening and all the nice men would send all the drunk girls home in a cab? But wouldn't it be nicer if there were no drunk girls in the first place and people learned how to have a good time without getting blind drunk and actually treated each other with respect? Too much to ask I know....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know what you mean, Dave. I have a very hard time getting my head around the normal, average, basically decent guy who date rapes, for instance, or the doting uncle who fondles his nieces.

Yep. It's like 'Man, they MUST belong to a different species'.
I have the same issue with murderous dictators. There just isn't that much separating them from the rest of our species.

*Sighs*

Maybe we just dip convicted sex offenders in bright green, glow in the dark ink?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

She was raped by the son of the nightclub's owner. It was not a gang rape. He was alone with her.
I wonder how his parents reacted?
You think they blamed their son? He was in the habit of taking advantage of drunk girls who frequent this nightclub. Sounds like it was not an unusual thing for him. Perhaps he was not raised like you.

Some people habitually justify poor behaviour. I'm not a believer in 'slippery slopes', per se, but almost invariably people's behaviour escalates through increasingly extreme incidents until...finally...they end up doing something so extreme it has 'crossed the line', all with much hand ringing about 'how could this have happened'.

Teaching respect for women, regardless of whether they are acting sensibly or foolishly, dressing modestly or not, is a long term thing. And his parents failed at it.
Without knowing the specifics, I'm really not pointing the finger too much, no matter how it sounds. But in the end, that's what has occurred.

What you're arguing, perhaps, is that we should be teaching girls to respect themselves. I'm guessing we'd differ on what that means, but in terms of it's importance, I wholeheartedly agree.

"Foolish" doesn't quite describe what she did. "Irresponsible and naive" maybe....but we reap what we sow, you know. If you don't want to grow tomatoes then don't plant them. Its called putting yourself in harm's way. You have to take a certain amount of responsibility for that whether you asked for it or not.

The victim has invariably suffered from a 'natural' consequence far outweighing the 'crime' though. Who could possibly suggest she's avoided anything??

If all "your gender" were like you LnM, then perhaps these incidents would stop happening and all the nice men would send all the drunk girls home in a cab?

There's no 'perhaps' about it, but the world doesn't work like that.
I've also entirely avoided fights in clubs and pubs through my life.
Hmm...there was supposed to be a little smiley here, sticking his tongue out, but for some reason they don't render properly from my phone (just to show I don't take myself TOO seriously...lol)

But wouldn't it be nicer if there were no drunk girls in the first place and people learned how to have a good time without getting blind drunk and actually treated each other with respect? Too much to ask I know....

Meh, you're talking to a drinker. Drunk girls are fine. Blind drunk, less so (just like men). I'm going out tomorrow (Good Beer Week!!!)
Regardless, my principles don't change based on the presence of alchohol.
I don't see alchohol as reducing responsibility for my actions in ANY way, unless it's a case of drink spiking (which I've not personally experienced).

 

[Deeje]

Teaching respect for women, regardless of whether they are acting sensibly or foolishly, dressing modestly or not, is a long term thing. And his parents failed at it.

Too many parents have no say in what young people do once they turn 18. I personally think most 18 year olds are still children with a lot of growing up to do. Add alcohol and drugs to immaturity and you have a recipe for what happens every weekend at the ER.

What you're arguing, perhaps, is that we should be teaching girls to respect themselves. I'm guessing we'd differ on what that means, but in terms of it's importance, I wholeheartedly agree.

Yes...girls have to understand how their behavior affects the way men see them and treat them. If you have no respect for yourself, how can you expect anyone else to? Its too late to shut the gate once the horse has bolted.

The victim has invariably suffered from a 'natural' consequence far outweighing the 'crime' though. Who could possibly suggest she's avoided anything??

She was from the Central Coast and traveled to Sydney with a friend....seriously, who goes specifically to Kings Cross and a notorious nightclub with the intent to get drunk and not expect something bad to happen? The consequences were not to be entirely unexpected. Her equally drunk friend was no use to her at all. This girl will pay for her stupidity for the rest of her life. The moral of the story is.....if you put yourself in harm's way then expect harm to catch up with you. No amount of lamenting will undo that damage.

There's no 'perhaps' about it, but the world doesn't work like that.

Yes I know, which is why we shouldn't invite problems on ourselves. We know how the world works and we are aware of the outcomes.

my principles don't change based on the presence of alchohol.
I don't see alchohol as reducing responsibility for my actions in ANY way, unless it's a case of drink spiking (which I've not personally experienced).

I have seen people drunk out of their brains....you think they retain control? If you don't know or remember what you did last night, how can you have control?

A few years ago I had a young guy turn up on my front door step at 3 am. He rang my doorbell in the mistaken notion that it was his own house. I turned on the light and opened the front door because the screen door was locked. He glared at me and asked where his mother was? I told him his mother wasn't here and that he'd made a mistake. He shook his head and wandered around on my front lawn muttering to himself, then came back and fell into my garden. He picked himself up and then went to sleep on my front porch. I called the police to see if they could take him home, which they did. He lived 50 klms away. You honestly think this guy was in possession of his faculties?