What do you think "teach men not to rape" actually means?

It's very simple.

1. First and foremost, educate men (and women) on what constitutes rape. This should be done through comprehensive sex education. Teach everyone what the legal definition is, and how it affects all parties involved, particularly the victim.

2. In the same vein, teach everyone what constitutes proper consent for sex, and what the legal definition of consent is. Teach people how to obtain consent, and that it is necessary to back off when consent is not clear.

3. Make sure that there are strict laws in place condemning the act of rape and sexual assault, put in place proper, meaningful punishments for the acts of rape and sexual assault, and most important of all, make sure that those punishments are actually carried out to the perpetrators. Arguably this could be the most important piece of all, as if there are no meaningful punishments for rape, there is nothing in place to deter rape from happening in the first place.

4. Raise awareness. In particularly po-dunk, religious, or conservative areas, make sure that information about the law and what rape constitutes is readily available and distributed, as these areas are the most at risk.

5. Make sure that alongside all of this, educate in classes and through PSAs that the way a woman dresses should NOT affect how you treat her. Even if she's in a see-through bikini in the bar, that does not automatically mean "she wants it." And it absolutely under NO circumstances means that "she deserves it." Does a man deserve to be raped if he goes into a bar wearing nothing but a speedo? Of course not. It's the same for a woman.

The most important thing to remember out of everything... not hearing "no" does not mean she said yes, and therefor, does not count as consent.

I don't think they even have a clue what they are talking about, or any plan as to how they would achieve this, quite frankly, impossible goal. You can't teach those who don't wish to listen, so education is not a very logical way to prevent a would-be rapist from raping.

Edit: Ok, so I read your answer and I have a few issues that I think need to be raised with it. The first and most obvious point is that your implying that people don't already know how to tell people no. You imply that people do not have a sense of personal possession and view themselves externally as objects, and it seem's to me that you would struggle to find any individual who would suit this.

Second: if saying no was all it took, there would be no issue in the first place. A person who is set on having sex with someone to the point that they will commit rape is not interested in your wishes. It's like I told my kinds "your teachers will tell you that when someone is bullying you, your supposed to say to them 'stop, I don't like it. No **** you don't like it, that's why they do it, so when someone bullies you and won't stop should smack them in the face".

Finally, this assumes that rape has a shred of logic. It doesn't. It's compulsion, like addiction. As a former addict, I can tell you that the logic center which all of your argument hinges of kicking in is completely suspended. It's there, but the part that governs the will to act isn't listening, so your education policy, weak a it is, becomes a moot point.

I think it means as it is stated. They actually believe that men rape women all the time. That all men do it. When the fact of the matter is they don't. There statics say 25% of men when in reality, it's less like 3%. And those types of men have a mental disorder because they were molested growing up and act like a child like homosexual when they talk. Probably are mentally for all I know? Regular men don't rape though. They may covet from time to time, but so do women, and I consider this attraction. Men never act on it, though I have seen women act on it. They see another happy woman with an awesome guy, they covet, get jealous, then they try to get that guy into bed with them. Men covet, they look at the woman, then they look at the man, and think "what a lucky guy, I wish I had that.:'(" then they move on. Other than that, men used to try to ask women out, some men for other intentions(and let me tell you that the woman knew what it was from the start and went with it

You could stand in front of a classroom full of men and teach them not to rape. It still wouldn't make a bit of difference for some of them and they would still do it. It's more complicated than that. There are sometimes social, economic and financial hardship factors that come into play. It's sometimes a matter of experiencing and engaging with the environment around you. Sometimes the people and the environment around you aren't worthy of engaging with particularly if the environment is a very negative one.

Everyone's different. Everyone has different motivators and triggers. There probably isn't a single cause. If you asked a bunch of serial rapists why they did it they would all have a different response.

The primary intention actually is to take the blame off a rape victim: the rape occurred, but it wasn't your fault, you couldn't have done anything to prevent it because rape is premeditated...not a crime borne off a person's inability to control their sexual urge.

In practicality, it rubs innocent men the wrong way...they can't possibly fathom why they should be taught not to rape because they weren't going to do it in the first place. Then there's the fact that men are not the only ones capable of rape, nor are women the only victims. Plus when you think about a rapist, you visualize a psycho who is not a part of the common citizenry in the sense that virtually no kind of such "teachings" are going to change their present/future behavior, so they deem it acceptable to focus their energy on taking/propagating preventive measures so they can realistically tackle the situation, but it hands off the responsibility wholly onto women.

So essentially, by my understanding its rape victim blaming vs. probable rapist aka hitherto innocent blaming...and neither of these is moral or reasonable. Hence, for me its not an acceptable phrase.

I think that in our society, we shame girls for a lot of things and let guys get away with more than a girl could. So men love women who show their body but slut shame them. With rape, girls are told that if you cover up you won't get raped. Or the way they dressed and/or their actions "provoked" the rape. But men are not told, just because she is dressed provocatively, doesnt mean she wants to have sex. Men are allowed to chant things like "no means yes and yes means anal." Men generally have the perception that women are asking for it if they are too sexy or are dancing or something. The phrase is just basically saying, instead of living in a society where we make it seem like its okay to rape if the girl was asking for it or where we scare girls and tell them how to potentially avoid rape, we should start telling guys that no matter what, rape is wrong and if a girl says no, its no. It is necessary to teach men not to rape because society has gotten to the point where police ask rape victims what they were wearing before they ask if the victim is okay. This statement is a generalization and is also geared towards female rape victims

I'm not a feminist and I think sometimes feminists can be irrational not because of being easily emotionally compelled but because of the same reason racial groups homosexual/transgender and so forth feel. They have a mind set that what is directed to them is solely their hardships based off reoccurring social problems and they want it to be fair. Feminism specifically does not focus on the advantages women have over men, they are seeing only the disadvantages women face. The fact women are raped is always there just like people are murdered and children are abused, unjust actions are taken all the time. The only reason they say "teach men not to rape" is a sarcastic approach to how people teach women to avoid getting raped rather than acknowledging that rape itself can't be justified by these avoiding factors. You can lock your doors at night and take safety measures but that doesn't mean your house can't be invaded, and the invasion is thus still wrong regardless if the safety measures were taken or none at all. Men can get raped too but they never ask what he was wearing or what actions he was taking beforehand. If you feel violated it is exactly that. The only thing is they didn't see that the reason behind asking these questions is because men are falsely accused of rape constantly but women are not, so they try to crack down and look at the core evidence was she actually raped or is she trying to avoid trouble with her parents or even being spiteful ect. They forgot to realize that asking what she was wearing is not only irrelevant, it is also insensitive to a real victim. Women are taught growing up that we are the real target of rape, so women are upset by the fact that we are also taught that we are seen at fault first before the rapists is, in the case something as horrifying as rape occurs. Teach men not to rape is a phrase not a literal procedure, it puts a different perspective on how women are taught to avoid rape but aren't taken care of very well when it happens.

My mother taught me not to lie, not to steal, not to hit people, not to bully others, not to hurt a man's ego (I'm serious), not to use people, etc.

I don't see what's wrong with parents teaching their kids not to rape. If people were born with a perfect moral understanding, good parenting and a good culture would be unnecessary.

In many societies (including Western society less than century ago), marital rape is not considered rape, nor is it considered immoral. Domestic violence is considered "marital discipline". Both are legal.

However, if the "teach men not to rape" approach is to start holding compulsory classes in state funded schools, I am against it. I am against the government enforcing their values/morals into children. That sort of indoctrination can go horribly wrong. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children morals. And I hope they are teaching their sons not to rape.

Honestly? I think this has a political aspect to it. What it really means is we are going to get a bunch of boys and teach them that the must behave and feel exactly how we want them to behave and feel. They must do exactly what society expects of them. E.g. this is an exact, detailed and specific template of how you should behave. Nothing else is acceptable. If you feel or think differently, you will immediately be marginalized, berated and persecuted until you conform.

Educating boys how not to be rapists is LIKE* educating black/brown/white/green/purple/yellow people to not have skin tone X simply by thinking different thoughts. It is complete, 100% nonsense. You are a rapist or you are not. If you are, it is not going to be cured by someone telling you not to be. This isn't a particularly complex concept.

*For the mentally retarded: LIKE, in this context, means a similar concept to E.g. a person can't change their skin tone, as a rapist can t change their twisted sexual urges**. It does NOT mean I am associating people of ethnicity X with all being rapists, or any other idiotic rubbish.

**For the mentally retarded #2: No, I am not condoning the actions of rapists, personally I think they should either be executed or imprisoned on an island penal colony for life if found guilty of committing rape.

It sounds like a frustrated and anger induced phrase. Normal people know not to rape. The people who do it are not innocent. They know what they are doing. If they truly did not know they were doing something wrong they would be open about it and would not try and hide it. By hiding what they did and being secretive and sneaky they know they are doing something wrong. Unless they are socially retarded (legit) or something they know. Even a preschool child knows rape is wrong. All this they didn't know bs is just bs. There is no rehabilitation or teaching them. They are simply fvcked. Lock them up and throw away the key. The idea of sitting down with a group of rapists and reaching an understanding by the end of it is just hysterical. And the socially retarded ones who truly dont know should be locked up as well since we shouldn't have crazies running around anyway.

It ACTUALLY means --

"Here is my smart-a$$ reply to those who say rape can be prevented by teaching women not to dress revealingly. I will pretend it actually means something as opposed to being just a putdown of the other gender because I'm tired of hearing the other thing. Any generalized implications about men, or trouble that I might start in the cause of gender equality, are irrelevant, because 'getchaback' makes me feel good and THAT'S what's really important."

There ARE no "practices intended." They haven't thought it out that far. It's just a throwaway line intended as a generally antimale putdown.

ADDED: Let me ask YOU-- what possible motivation could there be for insisting on the use of a social formula that is SO poor a description of the dynamic, plus includes a generalized slur on the UNINVOLVED (men who DONT rape), and does not actually contribute to understanding of a problem?

Why your constant insistence that the PURPOSE OF THESE STATEMENTS be ignored (manbashing) and the EXCUSES provided be concentrated on?