Violence Against Men

quote:

---

Thus, using this statistic we would expect to find that nations with high violent crime rates tend to have different cultural factors than those that do not.

---

So why can't we say the same thing about location?
What's a culural factor? How many should be used?
Which should be excluded? What can be used as a control so that the results aren't skewed?

Again I ask why we should be so concerned with violence against a visable group rather than violence itself?

quote:

---

Again I ask why we should be so concerned with violence against a visable group rather than violence itself?

---

Because different sorts of violence may have different causes and require different kinds of responses.

When it comes to the hard, practical details of solving pressing social problems, splitters have a distinct advantage over lumpers. Which is why the Doc's comments are very much to the point.

quote:

---

Dynamic tension.
Worked for me. Haven't had sand kicked in my face for years.

---

Why am I suddenly hearing [url=http://www.lyricsmania.com/soundtracks/rhps/5.html]Rocky Horror[/url] songs in my head?

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Or have I misunderstood you?

---

I think so, or else I threw out some terms that I should have explained.

By "splitters" and "lumpers," I don't mean those who want to divide society, versus those who want to unite it. I mean people who recognize more distinctions and differences among things and situations, versus those who recognize less.

I'm not saying we should concentrate our efforts only where the problem appears worst, just that different circumstances require different solutions, or attempted solutions.

I do think that we have missing piece in our general education. That is knowledge of ourselves. Of noticing that the anger or fear which lies at the heart of violence is self-generated. Basic stress-reduction techniques touch on this. Too bad so few of us notice it. Every child by the time he/she reaches grade ten should be engaged in the simple experiments (there are many) which would reveal forever the value of keep one eye looking inside at our own sturm and drang. To become "response-able". Extend that to university! Now that would change things! Please, don't confuse this with the kind of "stoic" demeanour which is part of the current problem.

I would agree with your idea, vaudree, if it was set at 18 instead of 21. At 18, people are adults, and they can have sex with 90 year olds, for all I care.

And no, I don't think gender has anything to do with it. It is just as possible for a woman to commit statutory rape against a boy (I thought it was all sexual assault now, not "rape") as it is for a man to commit it against a girl. The point is that when they're underage, it doesn't MATTER if they gave their consent. They are not considered old enough to give informed consent or to understand the physical and emotional consequences of the actions. And there is also a power differential too - there is always more power on the adult side than on the teen's side, ESPECIALLY if the adult is the teacher. But even if the adult ISN'T a teacher, the adult is still often looked up to. That's what makes it wrong.

That's true, but once you're an adult, then you are free to enter into co-dependent or unhealthy relationships if you want to. An immature 30 year old could enter a relationship with a power imbalance due to finances or emotional issues - and people have to be free to do that and learn from it when they're adults.

I'm not saying 18 is a magical age where you grow up overnight. I'm just saying that most people leaving high school are ready to enter into long term relationships and experiment with sexuality on the same level of the adults around them - if you make it 21, then a 25 year old could be jailed for sleeping with a 20 year old - I think we all pretty much know that would be silly.

In our society, people at 18 are generally reaching a big time of transition that comes with responsibility. They are finishing high school and looking to embark into a more adult world, whether that means going to post-secondary education or going to work. They are voting, they are responsible legally for their actions as adults, etc. We train our children to work towards becoming an adult by the time they're 18. That is why I think 18 should be the legal age for sex with anyone of any age. When I was 18, I worked full time and had a long-term boyfriend who was 11 years older than me. I would have been pretty annoyed to learn that I can completely support myself through working full time, but that I'm not "old enough" to choose who I want to have sex with.

I think there are also laws against sexual relationships between people in certain professional relationships - e.g. doctor and patient - no matter what their ages. As for other relationships, well, as far as I'm concerned, if people can't figure out by thinking about it why it is probably not a good idea for a 20 year old to date a 90 year old, then they obviously have to learn by experience. That's what life's all about. I have been in relationships in the past that all my friends and family shook their heads and warned me about when I started them. But I had to do it myself and learn the hard way. And once in a while, one of those "inadvisable" relationships works.

But when people are under 18 - they're still vulnerable, usually still under adult supervision (or in need of it even if they aren't) and relationships with older adults can be a real power difference. At 18, you're pretty much free to go and do what you want, and make life decisions by yourself. At 16, you're generally not.

That's the difference.

I've been reading the 'stories of violence' thread. I feel there is a role for a male voice in that conversation - but I'm not sure the ground-work has been laid...if that makes sense.

I marvel sometimes at the world in which our women live. How much better is it than burkas? Well maybe that is too far. Nevertheless, I've gotten a glimpse of what is like to live in fear, and I don't like it. I don't know how women can live with it.

Not too long ago I was mugged, violently. I was too shocked to respond or fight back. It was my first real encounter with random violence and my approach to the world has been irrevocably altered. Suddenly I understand the impusle to buy a gun: the world, even with its police and judges and laws and good people, can still be dangerous. You never know when you'll be immersed in violence. And the kicker is it doesn't matter how you philosophize about criminal-behaviour...all the politics and all the philosophy doesn't matter a bit when someone stabs you in the night. It is simply you and your heart pumping the best of you out a jagged wound. In the end, all our progress comes crashing to such a primitive halt.

And this is the type of fear you never know until it happens...but maybe women know it far more intimately than I do.

Violence by men against women is different from violence by women against men and they are both different from violence by men against men.

The circumstances, the causes and the contributing factors are all different. A blanket fight (inappropriate word that that is in this context) against all violence, as well-intentioned as it might be, is less effective than one targeted and focused appropriately.

That doesn't mean that one concentrates more resources on one group than another. Many means of dealing with violence (imprisonment for those found guilty of it, for instance) are applicable across the three. And it is a mistaken leap to assume that when sometimes some people want to concentrate on domestic violence, because it has a very damaging, long-term effect, often on more than one person, as compared to two men who drunkenly fight outside a pub, that it is either saying one is more acceptable than another. I would imagine ask any woman and they find men fighting extremely intimidating, even though they may not be the target, so I doubt it is because they don't care. But, there is often, not always, a difference between men who fight other men (and the reasons why they do) and men who beat up their wives/grilfriends (and the reasons why they do) and the ways of reducing one will not reduce the other, and vice versa.

seems to me that it's only possible to take advantage of young people sexually in an environment where they are not exposed to, educated about, or encouraged to explore sexuality in a healthy way.

people are sexual beings. parents don't like to acknowledge it, but it's true. in a world where this was recognized and celebrated, people would feel confident and at home in their sexual identities and would be much harder to take advantage of.

laws that restrict sexual activity due to age just reinforces our society's doublethink around sexuality, and would serve more to hide the problem than to solve it.

there is no problem that legislation can't make worse.

Well, all children ARE sexual beings. But that doesn't mean people should be having sex with them. All you have to do is watch a 3 year old playing with himself for half the day and you'll know they're sexual beings, capable of feeling sexual pleasure. I was talking to a grade one teacher once, and she told me it was unbelievable, how sexual young children are - always rubbing up to things, talking about their genitals, touching them when they think no one is noticing, etc.

However, this does not mean that children should be encouraged to be sexual beings in the sense of having sexual experiences with other people. At that stage, discovering their own pleasure zones and sexuality is more than enough for them to handle - they don't need the confusion of sharing sexual experiences with other people.

Sure, little kids play doctor with each other, and they are curious. I'm not saying that should be criminalized or even considered bad - but I do think that when children are discovered "playing doctor", a responsible adult should teach them some restraint without making it seem "dirty". I really don't think children are emotionally equipped to share sexual experiences with other people. With themselves? Absolutely - they should be able to experiment with their own bodies as they like, although I generally encourage my son not to play with himself in view of other people, including myself. That way they have lots of time to learn about their own sexuality before having to deal with someone else's.

As for young teenagers - well, I realize that once kids hit puberty they are biologically programmed to be able to start having sex. But you know, we're biologically programmed to crap on the ground too, yet we socialize our kids about that too. Sex is a highly socialized activity, and the reason is because it has a certain place in our highly socialized culture. Sure, young teenagers get urges to have sex. But people who say to let them go along with their urges because it's natural do not take into account the fact that we socialize young teenagers to still be children in every other way - still dependent on parents for financial security, still dependent on education to teach them about their very complex society and intellectual development, etc.

No one would say, "Well, it's natural for human animals to mate at puberty, so why not let 12 and 13 year olds marry each other?" In some countries they DO marry at that age, and we cringe. We think it's terrible for children to marry at that age when it should be spent finishing at least a basic education and enjoying their teenage years, the end of their childhood. We think they're not emotionally capable of handling the responsibility of marriage and home economics yet. But when someone says they don't think a child of 12 or 13 is old enough to handle the emotional upheaval of a sexual relationship with someone their own age, much less an adult where there is a whole big power dynamic coming into play, we're said to "underestimate" young teens.

Well, maybe 200 years ago when very young teens becoming fully adults was normal, and the entire culture was socialized around this, then teens having sex might be appropriate. But now, when people are kept children in every social way except for sexually, I think sex can be a very stressful thing that is not easily dealt with by a very young teenager.

quote:

---

And in the opposite there are cases of 45 year olds forming honest/good relationships with 16 year olds.

---

In all cases of 45 year olds and 16 year olds there is an inherent power imbalance that makes the relationship wrong.

quote:

---

It is true to say that an arbitrary age is not helpful in some ways because different people mature, physically and emotionally, at different speeds, but children are taken advantage of not because they don't "feel confident and at home in their sexual identities", but because they trust adults (often especially the abuser), and because they are children. They are not adults, they are learning, trying to make sense of the world, of people.

If you really think all young people are sexual beings, seek help!

---

Extremely well said. Paedophiles all insist that it is just a loving relationship and most children or young adolescents end up emotionally scarred for decades. It is even worse when you add power or trust relationships into the equations such as a teacher or coach.

As an old fart (guess my age from my "name") I cannot imagine what a 45 year old would want from a relationship with a 16 year old that wasn't perverse.

First off thank you “writer” for this entire series of threads which I have been trying to get through for the last 4 hours. Some of my comments are based on this thread but also from the “Duke U” thread and others. Since we are talking about sexual violence and manipulation here as well as other forms of violence let me start with a quote from another thread.

quote:

---

Rape is recognized by society as an abhorrent crime, to such a degree that even among prison populations, rapists are kept segregated from the general convicts for fear of violent reprisals.

---

No it isn’t. Rape is a violent act designed to exercise control. It is still an accepted technique. Soldiers are taught to demean their enemy. That includes the things he holds close to heart. This includes his wife and daughters. We only have sympathy for victims of rape when there is an enemy to vilify. Bosnia. Rape camps. Rwanda. Rape camps. Yet the UN and Western relief workers subjecting women to sexual violence and exploitation is not serious enough to look into because after all the UN and relief agencies aren’t the enemy. Japan’s use of women to service Japanese soldiers although the outrage vanishes when those women were used to service GI Joe. Men use rape on other men for the same reasons of control and dominance. Prison rape is a source of amusement for Hollywood films and “good” citizens. Why? Well after all their criminals and deserve what they get. Rapists are not segregated from general convicts. Child rapists perhaps, maybe some rapists who prey on women, but not the guys who rape other prisoners. Some young men are intimidated and forced to participate in sexual assault. (I don’t say this for you to have sympathy just to contribute to the use of violence as a control mechanism.) Can a young man be more afraid of what will happen to him when he witnesses violence and commits an act as a means of self-defense? Very important that in reading through all the threads I have the overwhelming impact is that rape and sexual assault are still accepted. This quote from BCG in another thread is very true and always has been.

quote:

---

There are women society considers unrapable, and the woman in Durham that night is one of them.

---

There is a set criterion for victims. If you don’t fit the mold you aren’t sympathetic and thus the “weight” of the crime is less in our eyes. One of the things I thought was missed by posters like Sven in the other threads is the desire to “hide” behind the logic of isolated cases to ignore the whole picture. BCG and other women do not have to offer alternatives because there is still not enough outrage out there and we need that outrage. Whether there are a handful of innocent men being accused is not the point. The overwhelming reality needs to be stated over and over again and one thing I noticed in all the threads is sometimes how easily and often some of them got sidetracked into technical arguments that missed the whole point, became the source of amusement, or simply got knocked off topic.

To address another point. Violence is learned behaviour as much as it may be instinctual. We can learn to control our instincts and don’t HAVE to commit acts of violence. We manipulate our instinct for violence and nurture it. Violence as control contributes to the ongoing argument of violence against children. Spanking or striking a child even to the point of deciding which weapons are acceptable. It is no longer acceptable to strap students but we can’t get past the need to act violently against our own children. A teacher once took my older brother by the neck and slammed his head into a desk. My mom was outraged and threatened to have the teacher charged and fired. Yet she beat us with a stick and that was acceptable to everyone. When my dad saw and/or listened to other sailors on board ship talk about how they smacked their wives around he came home and tried it on my mom. She fought back and eventually he left us. But the violence didn’t leave. When she hit us it was not just because we were “bad”. The first two strikes got the point across that I broke a rule. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth blows were an expression of her anger and frustration. Strong prey on the weak and that is what bullying and gangs are all about. Hitting a three year old has nothing to do with teaching or discipline. It is the use of fear as a tactic to control behaviour. I grew up in a violent town and constantly walked around in fear of being beat up (and occasionally was) by other guys. I hated violence but that didn’t stop me from terrorizing my little sister because she was the only person I could find who was weaker than I was.

Until we can teach young men that they don’t have to be in control of their environment but only need to be in control of how they conduct themselves within their environment, we will have problems with male aggression and violence. Until we can sever that final act of violence, violence against our own children, then they are going to continue to grow up knowing that the secret to controlling what goes on is ultimately the use of violence and force. You can expand that if you wish to society’s need to control every aspect of behaviour through force, and nations controlling other nations through force.

quote:

---

And yes, I have resisted the urge to buy a gun. But not out of any ideological purposes...my ideological purposes seem to have faded to pragmatic recourse. I guess I have resisted the urge because I rationally realize the odds of random (or semi random) violence occuring again to me (especially since I'm more careful) or my loved ones is low. And I don't *want* to live in a martial society...but I do want to live. I want to live unafraid, and a gun is a very good equalizer...

---

Good to resist the urge to buy a gun. I would take exception to the last statement though. Guns are not an equalizer because the motivation is not the same. In Haiti we were stopped by gangs while traveling to the school. I was very scared, mostly of the kids carrying the rifles. I can’t imagine how my having a gun would equalize that situation because the act that would trigger my using the gun is not the same as the motivation they use. The amount of will it requires for them to shoot me simply isn’t equal to the amount of will it would require for me to use a weapon for deadly purposes. I studied martial arts and have a black belt. I came to it late though and not for reasons of self defense. It does not motivate me to use violence in situations but has changed how I approach situations. I'm calmer and able to "read" situations a lot better which leads me to find avenues around the use of violence. Again it is not having to control the environment but controlling how I act within the environment that matters. That allows me to address man on man violence within my own life. Society allows me, as a man, more opportunity to avoid violence than it does women. Women simply face imminent danger more often than I will ever have to. That greatly limits the choices for women and requires a greater understanding of violence when used by women than it is by men.