Well, it would be helpful to get rid of the idea that 'no means try harder later' mindset that some people have.
I have a hypothesis on this. It doesn't make it right, but it might be why, and if so, it offers a possible solution.
After my first date, I attempted to kiss the girl, and she got all shy and backed away. So I figured, okay, no kissing. When she wants to kiss, she'll let me know.
No such notice was given with various other dates, and her roommate eventually flat out asked me why I didn't try to kiss her.
My hypothesis would be that it's considered socially unacceptable for the girl to make the advances, which leaves boys realizing that they have to keep attempting to do so or it won't happen at all.
Now, granted, most people aren't going to be like me where no once means never until I get notice otherwise, but that's the issue.
Perhaps part of the aid there would be in helping girls to understand that it's acceptable to ask out, to make the first move and so on?
Supporting this, here, have an entire study about self-reporting rapists who are quite open about their sexual activities as long as the forms don't actually use the word "rape" in them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination
AndyZ: it would only make sense if that disbelief occurred in the sense of "we have to believe he's innocent until proven guilty," as opposed to, "she's a lying whore doing this for attention fuck her and everything she stands for."
One is a question of maybe trying to make sure justice is found. The other is attacking someone on the presumption they're a liar.
Would you prefer to only not have this for rape cases or not to have it at all?
Suppose this would be time to return toward “manslamming.” There has been no consensus that manslamming is indeed a non-issue, Andy. There is not enough supporting evidence at the moment to warrant any serious consideration, which there really hasn’t been any serious consideration to my knowledge. To my view this has thus far been a couple of papers doing a bad job writing on the subject and then a great many anti-feminists picking it up to draw controversy, fear of feminists and make the feminist argument out to be ridiculous. Manslamming has enough theoretical bases to be potentially true. Lack of evidence does not make something untrue, just untested.
Also, as a sidenote the fact that you would say that being raped is preferable to being accused of rape simply shows a lack of insight and that as a man you were never taught to fear being raped. To say that you would rather a physical assault, potential death, being forced to endure someone else’s whims without your own input or concern and in large part treated as a thing instead of possibly suffering a reputation hit (because we’re just saying accused) is telling of where you think your danger lies. This is also dismissive of a very serious issue and part of your issue with cheapening the feminist movement.
Manslamming is a social curiosity, just as manspreading. This is simply noticing a social attitude and behavior that is part of a larger societal custom. Manspreading became an issue when it was noticed that men were taking up more space on public transport systems than women to the point they were occupying the space of female passengers. As a passenger on the same transportation device where we both paid the same money, I should be able to enjoy the same space on that transport as my male co-passengers. Men do occupy more space than women intentionally. This is not a man thinking, “fuck that bitch I’m entitled to more space.” This is simply men being taught to be more dominant, to occupy more space as a show of their dominance and doing this without thinking. Just as when I sit down, I am not think that I need to be dainty and demure so as not to offend. I simply was taught and used to a way of sitting, which does conform to the societal view of women not occupying as much space and not intruding on the space around them. So when you have two groups raised to do that, there is an issue with public transportation and women being pushed to the side on something they paid to ride.
Feminists will get things wrong, certainly. Feminists will jump off the handle sometimes, come up with convoluted ideas and make irrational claims. This is just like any ideological group of people. There are mistakes. The only reason these mistakes would cheapen a movement that is legitimate is when people take those mistakes and make them out to be something more than what they are.
Oh, I meant accused in the sense that everyone believes it and that I have to go to jail and do all the stuff when I didn't do it. If the choice was between unsuccessfully accused and unsuccessfully raped, I don't really know what I'd pick either.
The point I was trying to make, and will try to make in another way, is that any movement is most easily associated with its fringe elements.
If I say "Republican," you don't immediately think, "Lower taxes, less government, and so on." The brain instantly goes to "Hatred of women, taxes only for the poor, banning abortion even in the case of rape, and so on." That's just how categories work.
When Todd Akin mistakenly said how women can't get pregnant when raped, people like Rush Limbaugh came forward and said otherwise so as not to taint the entire party.
Similarly, a lot of Christians have openly said how they disagree with what Westborough Baptist Church is doing.
Not every group does this, but I find it's helpful when a group does.
Certainly some feminists do, like Steampunkette did in her Feminism thread stating that she didn't stand with TERFs.
In my experience, the feminist movement has no clear leader, and tends to be as varied as Christianity in the way it's seen and practiced. I feel as though this causes problems for feminists the same way that so many point to Todd Akin's words as apparent proof of what Republicans believe.
How can we fix it?
Well, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people. A title such as "How to respect a Lady" does not quite convey the same important as "Teach men not to rape." Now, I could see changing the title toward "How to Not Rape", but the rape of men was probably still little understood and acknowledged at the time. I'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here. The obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.
In my experience, there are two categories to which you can put people. The ones who care and want to understand, and the ones who don't care and don't want to understand.
You're just not going to reach the latter. Everything you do will reach the former, and probably harder than you intended it to.
I've told the kissing story to other girls and many find it amusing, but the more you tell men not to do stuff, the ones who care will shy away even further from what you wanted than what you intended, and the ones who don't care aren't going to be affected at all.
I don't consider "We just haven't set it enough" to be a viable tactic. If it did work, we could cut down on all crimes by just repeating not to do them over and over again.