3 ms·

Thank you for sharing that. Your blog post definitely shed much more light onto the context of your comments, so I also appreciate your giving me the chance to

Thank you for sharing that. Your blog post definitely shed much more light onto the context of your comments, so I also appreciate your giving me the chance to keep my foot out of my mouth. ;-) First, your perspective raises the question for me, "Am I too focused on protecting my (future) teenage daughters, at the expense of not diligently analyzing their current environment?" Your approach here (of emphasizing mutual consent of affection to your young children) seems novel and effective. Was discovering that really the simple and logical progression you laid out in your post, or was there more to it than that? Second, it seems to me that GP was more concerned with how his daughters might protect themselves from strangers, as adults. Mutual consent might be a good red flag for a slowly escalating sexual assault, but for a more aggressive assault, doesn't physical deterrence seem more appropriate? In those circumstances, the difference between first-line defense and last-line defense seems incredibly small to me. But then, I'm not a woman and I've never been abused, so I'm probably ill-equipped to speculate there.

Mz 14y ago
Re the logical progression: I imagine I could say a lot more about it. I spent time in therapy. I spent a lot of time reading, journaling, contemplating sexual morality and the like. So there is certainly a rich background that informed my thought process. But I laid out my logic as best I could concerning what I actually thought in concluding that emphasizing consent was the single strongest and most civilized measure I could take. Without going back to reread it, I will add that I may not have touched on this: I also did not leave my children with sitters they did not like. Even as babies, if they disliked someone, I made other arrangements. As for adult women: Violent assault out of nowhere with no warning is incredibly rare. The vast majority of rapes (and child molestation) start with disrespecting social boundaries and escalate. It is almost always someone you know who has opportunity to worm their way inside your defenses and has spent some time doing so. Women are generally raped by "friends", relatives, coworkers, dates and other members of their social circle. Being randomly assaulted by a stranger is the exception. As an adult, I have never faced imminent violent assault of that sort, though I have routinely faced social situations wherein some man was pretty clearly up to no good. I have a track record of not allowing them to escalate. If you don't allow the escalation, it gets pretty darn hard to take advantage of someone. Please remember that the definition of rape hinges on the detail of consent. Most rapes do not involve significant violence. A lot of rapes boil down to tragic misunderstanding. I am pretty darn confident that most men who would be okay with manipulating and maneuvering me and cavalier about whether or not I really wanted sex would absolutely not resort to violent assault if I simply refuse to engage them in their sick little game. I am confident of it in part because I have a long history of doing exactly that. I have been met with anger, frustration, shame, and other strong negative emotions. But I have not been violently assaulted and brutally raped for refusing to go along with their plans to have me, like it or not. As for physical defense, it is possible I am somewhat biased about not needing any particular preparation due in part to my "cultural" background, for lack of a better word. I had a knife collection as a child. My father was a career soldier who grew up on a farm. There were guns on the wall and I knew how to use them. My ex was a career soldier. He took martial arts, had a knife collection, and owned a couple of swords (a real katana and a wooden practice katana). I am 5'8" tall and athletically inclined. My oldest son tells me he has watched me face down a threatening group of three or four men and my subconscious response was to position myself to be able to grab the nearest impromptu weapon should it escalate. Having been slapped around by a drug addicted relative, I have some firsthand familiarity with violence. I am aware I will fight back when faced with such. Still, I was not taught to shoot on the idea that I might need to kill a rapist. I find that a somewhat horrifying message to give a young woman. Yes, other people can be dangerous. But that is true of both men and women and it is not particular to sexual situations. Suggesting that it is sounds pretty emotionally poisonous to me. (Which may not be at all what the OP is doing. I am trying to answer your question, not slander him.) Having good boundaries is a generally more useful and better solution than being prepared for the worst. Preparing for the worst can be self fulfilling prophecy. My experience is that victimizers are not just bad people. They are also victims of a social paradigm which gives them no other viable choice. Having been trained to be a professional victim and then retrained myself, I am clear that part of the problem is that we teach women to be prey. If you run from a bear or wolf, it will chase you. Your flight incites its predatory chase instinct. Backing away slowly is a much better plan. You are much less likely to get mauled. That same general principal applies when dealing with another potentially predatory animal: Humankind. I do not believe that overemphasizing a need to be prepared to physically assault another person is a means to teach women to not behave as prey in relation to men. I think it mostly reinforces the mental model that women are, in fact, prey. It strikes me as counterproductive to frame it that way. Again: I learned to shoot as a child. I was a damn good shot at one time. I was aware that my father viewed the guns on the wall as a potential means of defense if someone invaded our home. But they were also tools by which food was put on the table. He hunted. I grew up eating squirrel and deer. So my exposure to guns was not a strong message that the point was to shoot other people. For one thing, I was taught to shoot in part as a gun safety issue. It was part of teaching me guns are not toys and you do not play with them. So I don't have any problem whatsoever with teaching children to shoot or enrolling them in martial arts. But I am very leery of doing so with some implicit or explicit message that it is something a girl needs to know "to deal with rapists". The main thing a girl needs to know is how to insist a man treat her with respect. That will protect her far better and in far more situations than being a good shot. Violence is not the best antidote to violence. Respect is overall a better antidote. It is more likely to actually prevent violence rather than merely invert who got hurt. Since you mentioned it, I will suggest you are putting your children at grave risk to view protecting their sexuality as an issue for their teen years. I was molested as a toddler and again from age 11 to 13.5. I did not get my period until I was nearly 17. My lack of sexual maturity did not prevent me from being raped at age 12. If you are worried about predators, your daughters' sexual maturation is not that relevant to the problem. Teach them now that they have a right to say "no" to unwanted affection -- to anyone, you included, with zero need to justify it. Be prepared to back their decision if someone else will not take "no" for an answer from them. Tell them that is the policy -- that it is their choice and they can call on you to back them if necessary. Thank you very much for asking.
- notdonspaulding 14y ago
  "Still, I was not taught to shoot on the idea that I might need to kill a rapist. I find that a somewhat horrifying message to give a young woman." And neither was that the message I intended to give them. It's an educational issue. I live on a farm and we kill a large portion of what we eat ourselves. Given a collapse of the supply-chain ecosystem that keeps grocery stores stocked with food, my family won't be scratching their heads wondering where the food went. I don't expect the global collapse of a food supply chain. I would guess it's statistically less likely to affect any one individual than rape is. But the tools for dealing with a worst-case scenario are best learned in advance. And so I intend to educate my children about self-defense in much the same way. "I do not believe that overemphasizing a need to be prepared to physically assault another person is a means to teach women to not behave as prey in relation to men." Isn't it similar to how you emphasized a need for mutual consent to your children? Moreover, isn't physical defense merely one more tool to pull out when others have crossed a boundary? I understand your argument that it isn't likely to be used, but it seems like you're drawing a distinction between the value of having boundaries and not letting people cross them, and the value of being able to reestablish those boundaries once crossed. Why do so strongly prefer the former to the latter? This seems especially odd considering your own position of being physically capable of defense. Doesn't it seem like a good idea to have other women be as capable of defending themselves as you are? "..., I will suggest you are putting your children at grave risk to view protecting their sexuality as an issue for their teen years." That's the question I mentioned in my last post that your experience has raised for me. I intend to very carefully reconsider how I'm protecting my children in their current environment. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
  - Mz 14y ago
    I feel like you have misunderstood me in exactly the way that I hoped to avoid by writing such a lengthy reply. In brief: I have no problem with teaching kids how to defend themselves. But I think kids who know how to defend themselves but were never taught healthy boundaries are at greater risk than kids with zero training in "defense" but much clearer boundaries than average. My sons were never taught to shoot and never took martial arts. That did not prevent my oldest son from hitting or shoving classmates in elementary school who were refusing to respect his boundaries.

Mz 14y ago

Re the logical progression: I imagine I could say a lot more about it. I spent time in therapy. I spent a lot of time reading, journaling, contemplating sexual morality and the like. So there is certainly a rich background that informed my thought process. But I laid out my logic as best I could concerning what I actually thought in concluding that emphasizing consent was the single strongest and most civilized measure I could take. Without going back to reread it, I will add that I may not have touched on this: I also did not leave my children with sitters they did not like. Even as babies, if they disliked someone, I made other arrangements. As for adult women: Violent assault out of nowhere with no warning is incredibly rare. The vast majority of rapes (and child molestation) start with disrespecting social boundaries and escalate. It is almost always someone you know who has opportunity to worm their way inside your defenses and has spent some time doing so. Women are generally raped by "friends", relatives, coworkers, dates and other members of their social circle. Being randomly assaulted by a stranger is the exception. As an adult, I have never faced imminent violent assault of that sort, though I have routinely faced social situations wherein some man was pretty clearly up to no good. I have a track record of not allowing them to escalate. If you don't allow the escalation, it gets pretty darn hard to take advantage of someone. Please remember that the definition of rape hinges on the detail of consent. Most rapes do not involve significant violence. A lot of rapes boil down to tragic misunderstanding. I am pretty darn confident that most men who would be okay with manipulating and maneuvering me and cavalier about whether or not I really wanted sex would absolutely not resort to violent assault if I simply refuse to engage them in their sick little game. I am confident of it in part because I have a long history of doing exactly that. I have been met with anger, frustration, shame, and other strong negative emotions. But I have not been violently assaulted and brutally raped for refusing to go along with their plans to have me, like it or not. As for physical defense, it is possible I am somewhat biased about not needing any particular preparation due in part to my "cultural" background, for lack of a better word. I had a knife collection as a child. My father was a career soldier who grew up on a farm. There were guns on the wall and I knew how to use them. My ex was a career soldier. He took martial arts, had a knife collection, and owned a couple of swords (a real katana and a wooden practice katana). I am 5'8" tall and athletically inclined. My oldest son tells me he has watched me face down a threatening group of three or four men and my subconscious response was to position myself to be able to grab the nearest impromptu weapon should it escalate. Having been slapped around by a drug addicted relative, I have some firsthand familiarity with violence. I am aware I will fight back when faced with such. Still, I was not taught to shoot on the idea that I might need to kill a rapist. I find that a somewhat horrifying message to give a young woman. Yes, other people can be dangerous. But that is true of both men and women and it is not particular to sexual situations. Suggesting that it is sounds pretty emotionally poisonous to me. (Which may not be at all what the OP is doing. I am trying to answer your question, not slander him.) Having good boundaries is a generally more useful and better solution than being prepared for the worst. Preparing for the worst can be self fulfilling prophecy. My experience is that victimizers are not just bad people. They are also victims of a social paradigm which gives them no other viable choice. Having been trained to be a professional victim and then retrained myself, I am clear that part of the problem is that we teach women to be prey. If you run from a bear or wolf, it will chase you. Your flight incites its predatory chase instinct. Backing away slowly is a much better plan. You are much less likely to get mauled. That same general principal applies when dealing with another potentially predatory animal: Humankind. I do not believe that overemphasizing a need to be prepared to physically assault another person is a means to teach women to not behave as prey in relation to men. I think it mostly reinforces the mental model that women are, in fact, prey. It strikes me as counterproductive to frame it that way. Again: I learned to shoot as a child. I was a damn good shot at one time. I was aware that my father viewed the guns on the wall as a potential means of defense if someone invaded our home. But they were also tools by which food was put on the table. He hunted. I grew up eating squirrel and deer. So my exposure to guns was not a strong message that the point was to shoot other people. For one thing, I was taught to shoot in part as a gun safety issue. It was part of teaching me guns are not toys and you do not play with them. So I don't have any problem whatsoever with teaching children to shoot or enrolling them in martial arts. But I am very leery of doing so with some implicit or explicit message that it is something a girl needs to know "to deal with rapists". The main thing a girl needs to know is how to insist a man treat her with respect. That will protect her far better and in far more situations than being a good shot. Violence is not the best antidote to violence. Respect is overall a better antidote. It is more likely to actually prevent violence rather than merely invert who got hurt. Since you mentioned it, I will suggest you are putting your children at grave risk to view protecting their sexuality as an issue for their teen years. I was molested as a toddler and again from age 11 to 13.5. I did not get my period until I was nearly 17. My lack of sexual maturity did not prevent me from being raped at age 12. If you are worried about predators, your daughters' sexual maturation is not that relevant to the problem. Teach them now that they have a right to say "no" to unwanted affection -- to anyone, you included, with zero need to justify it. Be prepared to back their decision if someone else will not take "no" for an answer from them. Tell them that is the policy -- that it is their choice and they can call on you to back them if necessary. Thank you very much for asking.

notdonspaulding 14y ago
"Still, I was not taught to shoot on the idea that I might need to kill a rapist. I find that a somewhat horrifying message to give a young woman." And neither was that the message I intended to give them. It's an educational issue. I live on a farm and we kill a large portion of what we eat ourselves. Given a collapse of the supply-chain ecosystem that keeps grocery stores stocked with food, my family won't be scratching their heads wondering where the food went. I don't expect the global collapse of a food supply chain. I would guess it's statistically less likely to affect any one individual than rape is. But the tools for dealing with a worst-case scenario are best learned in advance. And so I intend to educate my children about self-defense in much the same way. "I do not believe that overemphasizing a need to be prepared to physically assault another person is a means to teach women to not behave as prey in relation to men." Isn't it similar to how you emphasized a need for mutual consent to your children? Moreover, isn't physical defense merely one more tool to pull out when others have crossed a boundary? I understand your argument that it isn't likely to be used, but it seems like you're drawing a distinction between the value of having boundaries and not letting people cross them, and the value of being able to reestablish those boundaries once crossed. Why do so strongly prefer the former to the latter? This seems especially odd considering your own position of being physically capable of defense. Doesn't it seem like a good idea to have other women be as capable of defending themselves as you are? "..., I will suggest you are putting your children at grave risk to view protecting their sexuality as an issue for their teen years." That's the question I mentioned in my last post that your experience has raised for me. I intend to very carefully reconsider how I'm protecting my children in their current environment. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
- Mz 14y ago
  I feel like you have misunderstood me in exactly the way that I hoped to avoid by writing such a lengthy reply. In brief: I have no problem with teaching kids how to defend themselves. But I think kids who know how to defend themselves but were never taught healthy boundaries are at greater risk than kids with zero training in "defense" but much clearer boundaries than average. My sons were never taught to shoot and never took martial arts. That did not prevent my oldest son from hitting or shoving classmates in elementary school who were refusing to respect his boundaries.