Moms of sons - do you guide your son to be respectful of girls?

[Anonymous]

So taking a step back - if we, whom I'm guessing are majority women - can't even agree on what constitutes rape, doesn't that impact how you want your sons treating women?

My best friend from high school and I were talking about this the other day...how much intense pressure some of the guys would put on us, and how while we don't think we would have said rape at the time, it was definitely next to impossible to say no.

What I would want for my son is to not be the guy putting that kind of pressure on a girl. I would want my son to not be the "But I'm the nice guy, so you should have sex with me" guy. I don't want my son to be in the position where there is a gray line.

Now, when it comes to girls pressuring him, that's a fully different conversation, and one that should also be had, but not at the expense of him not being the gray line guy.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/02/why-do-high-profile-campus-rape-stories-keep-falling-apart/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So taking a step back - if we, whom I'm guessing are majority women - can't even agree on what constitutes rape, doesn't that impact how you want your sons treating women?

My best friend from high school and I were talking about this the other day...how much intense pressure some of the guys would put on us, and how while we don't think we would have said rape at the time, it was definitely next to impossible to say no.

What I would want for my son is to not be the guy putting that kind of pressure on a girl. I would want my son to not be the "But I'm the nice guy, so you should have sex with me" guy. I don't want my son to be in the position where there is a gray line.

Now, when it comes to girls pressuring him, that's a fully different conversation, and one that should also be had, but not at the expense of him not being the gray line guy.

So spot on, every word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it wouldn't. If the person was capable of consent AND consented, it's not rape. If a person was capable of consent but did not consent, then it's rape. If a person was not capable of consent, then the person did not consent (even though the person may have agreed), and it's rape.

i totallly agree with you. Some people are trying to make situations where a person consented also areas where it may be sexual assault and rape.

"Some people" who? And how?

Yeah...I also would like to know who these "some people" are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So taking a step back - if we, whom I'm guessing are majority women - can't even agree on what constitutes rape, doesn't that impact how you want your sons treating women?

My best friend from high school and I were talking about this the other day...how much intense pressure some of the guys would put on us, and how while we don't think we would have said rape at the time, it was definitely next to impossible to say no.

What I would want for my son is to not be the guy putting that kind of pressure on a girl. I would want my son to not be the "But I'm the nice guy, so you should have sex with me" guy. I don't want my son to be in the position where there is a gray line.

Now, when it comes to girls pressuring him, that's a fully different conversation, and one that should also be had, but not at the expense of him not being the gray line guy.

So spot on, every word.

Thank you ; I will let me daughter date your son.

[Anonymous]

My best friend from high school and I were talking about this the other day...how much intense pressure some of the guys would put on us, and how while we don't think we would have said rape at the time, it was definitely next to impossible to say no.

When did women become so weak?

[Anonymous]

When I was a teenager and if a young man was too persistent in wanting sexual affections. I told him no and walked off. Easy.

Acquiescence to persistence does not equate to sexual harassment or assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:now adays anything can amount to rape.

There are many grey situations where a woman may consent to sex and then regret it later. Under today's definition, that would be rape.

It could be drunk sex where both parties were mutually drunk (not sex where someone slips something into your drink or purposely makes you drunk to incapcitate you, that's rape)

It could be where the woman was unable to speak up clearly and said yes to sex even though the situation was uncomfortable to her. These people would also classify it as sex.

There are people trying to say that if someone lies to you to have sex (e.g. he tells you he is rich but he is not) that is also rape.

Its ridiculous.
F

This. It is out of control. Not every regret or tipsy, uninhibited sexual encounter is rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I am less concerned that my daughter will be rape than a girl will have next morning regrets and accuse my don of rape. I saw it happen more than once in college--that and breakup revenge rape claims.

While this is concerning, you can rest assured that false rape claims are few and far between. You should be much more concerned that your son will probably have female friends that are terrified to let an authority know they are raped. Most rapes are never even reported, let alone prosecuted.

Bullshit. I knew of multiple cases in college based upon both revenge and regret. It is a pure fallacy that false claims are few and date between especially in today's climate where everything is rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My best friend from high school and I were talking about this the other day...how much intense pressure some of the guys would put on us, and how while we don't think we would have said rape at the time, it was definitely next to impossible to say no.

When did women become so weak?

+1 Seems like maybe the people of past generations had a point in fostering rigid and strict sexual mores among st young folk. So far this free love experiment has just led to more confusion and accusations. If that is so, we can return to the sexual mores of before, no sex before marriage. Full stop. At least society can be upfront about that instead of espousing free love and sex positivity then leading to all this hand wringing over what is acceptable sex and what is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:now adays anything can amount to rape.

There are many grey situations where a woman may consent to sex and then regret it later. Under today's definition, that would be rape.

It could be drunk sex where both parties were mutually drunk (not sex where someone slips something into your drink or purposely makes you drunk to incapcitate you, that's rape)

It could be where the woman was unable to speak up clearly and said yes to sex even though the situation was uncomfortable to her. These people would also classify it as sex.

There are people trying to say that if someone lies to you to have sex (e.g. he tells you he is rich but he is not) that is also rape.

Its ridiculous.

Someone asked who the people classifying those instances as rape were:

Drunk sex where both parties were mutually drunk: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html

But in cases like the Occidental one, where both parties are going through the motions and saying the words of enthusiastically consenting to sex, the incapacitation standard presents a legitimate paradox: Once she filed a report, Jane’s incapacitation became the sole evidence that she had been victimized, and yet John’s incapacitation could not be used as a defense. According to Occidental’s sexual misconduct standard, Jane was too drunk to consent to sex because she lacked “awareness of consequences,” the “ability to make informed judgments,” and the “capacity to appreciate the nature and the quality of the act.” Meanwhile, John was held responsible because he “knew or should have known” Jane was incapacitated—a calculation that’s based on what a sober person would have known in his circumstances.

In order to resolve those contradictions, some people are comfortable assuming that the man is at fault. In a 2004 article on common legal approaches to intoxicated sexual encounters, the California Western Law Review’s Valerie Ryan noted that “the justification for demanding that men assume the greater legal burden and be held responsible when there is an allegation of rape may be that, in almost all cases of rape, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.” But while it’s true that most sexual predators are men, that doesn’t mean that most men are sexual predators

women agreeing to sex even though she is inwardly uncomfortable with it
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/heres-how-to-start-fixing-our-culture-of-sexual-assault-903
Canadian feminist author Anne Thériault laments “the still-pervasive and very flawed idea that if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape” — clearly referring not just to attacks involving violence or incapacitation (for which few would demand a verbal “no” as proof of rape), but encounters in which a woman yields to unwanted overtures, like I did.

If someone lies to you to get sex
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html

So yes, the very simple definition of rape, sex against your will by force has become murkier to encompass sex. Why don't we just criminalize it all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Canadian feminist author Anne Thériault laments “the still-pervasive and very flawed idea that if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape”

Surely you're not saying that this idea is flawed? Because the alternative is the idea that I'm saying yes unless I explicitly said no.

[Anonymous]

If I was a guy, I would be VERY careful where I put my penis.

Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 Seems like maybe the people of past generations had a point in fostering rigid and strict sexual mores among st young folk. So far this free love experiment has just led to more confusion and accusations. If that is so, we can return to the sexual mores of before, no sex before marriage. Full stop. At least society can be upfront about that instead of espousing free love and sex positivity then leading to all this hand wringing over what is acceptable sex and what is not.

I don't know why the hand-wringing. It's very simple.

Acceptable = all involved parties consented
Not acceptable = everything else

Also, the official sexual mores of before may have been no sex before marriage, but what people actually did was very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Canadian feminist author Anne Thériault laments “the still-pervasive and very flawed idea that if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape”

Surely you're not saying that this idea is flawed? Because the alternative is the idea that I'm saying yes unless I explicitly said no.

I'm specifically speaking about the situation where a woman agrees to sex but is inwardly uncomfortable but does not express it to her partner.
According to her, yes, that would fall under rape.

I also find this affirmative consent yes means yes business stupid. There was once in a drunken fit I invited a cute boy from upstairs to my dorm. No words were said. Under this yes means yes what we did, I probably raped him. Oh no he raped me. ridiculous.