I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I thought long and hard about this and decided that talking to my children about the existence of sexual predators would rob them of their innocence.

I've studied how this works. Sexual predation almost never starts with rape. It starts with myriad instances of boundary violation and disrespect and culminates in rape.

Rape hinges on the detail of consent. As a society trying to combat this issue, we seem to overlook that for the most part.

I taught my children that hugs and kisses required consent. I taught that from birth. Even a baby too young to talk can turn their face away because they don't want a kiss or hold their arms up enthusiastically to receive affection.

When they were older, I told them if they told someone "no" and their decision was not respected, come get me.

I only had one of them come get me once. The person who felt entitled to get "sugar" from my child was utterly shocked that I told them they were wrong.

This was an elderly female relative. My children are both boys.

Most likely, she wasn't actually a child molester, but this practice of adults demanding hugs and kisses from children who have no right to say "no" is commonplace and gets treated as something funny in movies. I treated it as no laughing matter.

If you want children to understand consent and respect, the best thing to do is let them experience it firsthand from birth. And make sure they know that rule is a two-way street, not a one-sided privilege.

Did you ever deal with an instance where your kids started telling you "no" in response to demands you felt were reasonable, twisting your original explanations to use against you, for things like eating, cleaning up or hygiene? How did you reconcile the difference?

For eating, I made healthy foods available that they liked. This worked really well. One son has two conditions that can land a child in in-house hospital treatment for aversion to eating and he never had issues like that.

For trying new foods, they had to try it, not finish it. I never made them do things like clean their plate. Instead, I planned ahead for how much I expected people to eat at the meal.

I always had a good reason for what I was asking and it very rarely came to "because I said so." On the rare occasions where it did hit that point, they went along with it because it was rare, so they were convinced I had a good reason even if I couldn't get them to understand it.

I have one major rule - if I give an absolute command, it must be obeyed immediately without question. In exchange, I promise to do it very rarely and explain my reasons as the earliest possible convenience. This has helped in situations where it wasn’t practical for me to physically drag them - get out of the way of the car, come towards me NOW and away from that crumbling cliff. Stuff like that.

Most other things fall into place just by showing by example. Show interest in their homework, talk excitedly about science, etc, they do their best in school.

As a parent of teenagers... omg, yes. LOL. I think it's as much because they're teenagers preparing to leave the nest as much as anything.

That doesn't mean the teen years didn't have some bumps. The worst of that was cleared up by explaining to my children that they were being flooded with hormones and a side effect of high levels of testosterone is aggression and anger.

So if they were feeling very, very angry, it wasn't because they were being subjected to extreme injustice they had never before seen. It was because they were hormonal.

That conversation ended with the punchline "You're problem is called testosterone, not my bitch mother." which caused everyone to crack up.

After that I occasionally would say "You sound like an icky, hormone soaked teenager." And my son would say "I am an icky hormone soaked teenager" and he would try to tone down whatever made me say that and I would try to cut him some slack for being hormone soaked and not entirely in control of his big, fat mouth because of it.

Different kinds of families, I guess =)

We've also taught a similar one in "your body, your choice." I can confirm some folks look at us sideways when we agree with our kids choice to not hug or kiss.

If there is one thing I'd want my kids to know it is how to establish and confidently hold a boundary.

This isn’t to play down the experiences of women at all, but it can be easy to forget that this happens to men too

Given the current culture, it can be even harder for men to come forward with their stories, and even less likely for them to be believed

As a plus, I think making sure to teach boys what is and isn’t acceptable to happen to them could help to teach them how to treat others

I think that otherwise, if it’s “don’t rape” for boys, and “don’t let people rape you” for girls, then it’s almost like marking each gender out solely as potential abusers and potential victims, which surely couldn’t be a good thing

We should stop treating "tell folks not to have 'unacceptable' sex" as if it's a foolproof solution to all social problems. It just isn't.

If two adults get together, fly together, get a room together, drink wine together, have relations... Then we're supposed to say that consent can't be given because the woman is drunk. But they're both drunk. Isn't it essentially the patriarchy to say that a woman can't make that choice? Like if they're equals and they're both drunk, why do we blame the men?

Because they aren't really equals? Isn't that what we're fighting against? We blame the men for not ignoring the wishes of the woman while drunk. It's a little bit chauvinistic to think the men know better isn't it?

So neither of them would classify, in this story?

So it was just two consenting adults, and the part about wine was... Flavor text, essentially? Unless she was saying she was unconscious and I missed it.

I thought the implication there was essentially that she couldn't give consent, which is a rape accusation - that's very serious. But it doesn't sound like either of them would pass the bar for inability to give consent?

Unless I read it wrong.

The above commenter is insinuating that society applies a double standard here: that if an intoxicated man and woman have sex, the former is considered a perpetrator while the latter is considered a victim. That is incorrect, both are treated equally in the eyes of the law. This scenario doesn't happen because if two people had sex at least one was sober enough to decide to have sex. This situation where two people are intoxicated to the point where they are incapable of consenting have sex cannot occur.

Here's the actual law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

> A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

> The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

The man is expected to be the adult.

When someone goes along with something but ends up feeling uncomfortable or even resentful about it, they can talk about it with the other party. And that party should acknowledge it. They may have meant no harm or even be surprised or feel hurt, but a decent person would consider the other's feelings and admit they may have had poor judgement. This Jon Pretty guy allegedly has a pattern of maneuvering women into vulnerable positions, inappropriately bragging about his "conquests" and from what multiple sources confirm shows a bunch of telltale signs of an emotional abuser and manipulator. It wasn't one instance of them being drunk, it was an extensive period of pushing boundaries, coercion and probably gaslighting.

You'll always hear questions along these lines. "Why did she stay around him if she was uncomfortable/mistreated/abused?" "Why did she wait so long to talk about it if it bothered her so much?" "Why didn't she collect proof?" "Why didn't she just say no?" These questions interpret the situation as far too simple. Abusers are great at creating doubt. They do something wrong, they make their victims feel as equal accomplices. Good and fun times are alternated with bad ones. They don't outright break the law or force someone but will push boundaries and wear someone down repeatedly to get their way despite the discomfort of the other.

That's why it's so hard for a victim to come forward. It's exactly because everyone says "well you didn't set hard boundaries, did you?" It's because maybe no crime was committed according to the letter of the law so they don't feel like they really have a case to make. It's because the victim initially feels like they share as much responsibility or it's their own fault and they should have known better. Abusers are great at walking that line where they get what they want while still maintaining plausible deniability, making it impossible to fully dismiss the argument that the other person is responsible too. It lets them justify their actions to themselves and others, believing it was as much the agency of the other party as their own. Meanwhile they're constantly using a position of power and a victim's weaknesses to manufacture precisely the situation they want.

They call them predators for a reason. It's cause they seek out prey. They know what to look for in a potential target. Don't blame a victim for being possibly naive, inexperienced or easy to sway when those were exactly the preconditions to be taken advantage of. It doesn't justify someone doing just that.

Which is the very thing feminism was fighting AGAINST - having men make decisions for you. Then we blame men, say they need to do better.

That seems ridiculous.

Mate, no. This applies to men, women, nonbinary folks, non-human animals, etc. Literally any living thing. If you don't consent, anyone having sex with you is wrong. It's wrong if a man tries to have sex with a drunk, non-consenting person, and it's wrong if a women tries to have sex with a drunk, non-consenting person.

This is the _opposite_ of making a decision for someone. It's recognizing that they kind of _can't_ make a decision, so you simply do nothing.

They were consenting adults, both well within their senses? Or was she like unconscious and he's an absolute monster?

A story that paints him as responsible for everything including her feelings.

Blaming behaviors are a marker of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder.

I'm obviously not qualified to diagnose either party, but a lot of the content of her article blames him for things he's not responsible for and that are completely out of his control.

Furthermore, it seems the worst he's guilty of is being interested in having consensual sex with her. Whereas she's interested in destroying his livelihood and career.

Ya from an armchair this does seem like classic narcissistic abuse. Mentor public figure in a position of power. Blame and gaslight the victim when confronted. Then shame the victim when she comes forward with her story.

But I think we should also be teaching boys and men how not to be victims. Both sexes can be abusers, and we spend almost no time teaching boys and men how to recognize and escape abusive situations.

And an abused boy could well become an abuser in the future. Sad but true

Are you talking sexual abuse? If so, then references please.

There are a lot of ways that abuse goes down the generations. For example girls who were abused are more likely to get together with abusive men as adults. But I've encountered zero evidence that victims of pedophiles are particularly likely to become pedophiles themselves when they grow up.

I have personal reasons to be interested in the topic, so I spent a lot of time at one point looking for evidence that sexually abused boys were likely to become sexual abusers as adults. I have concluded that such evidence both doesn't exist, and it isn't true. Had I known that when I was younger, I could have avoided a whole lot of guilt and self-hatred.

for example here https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72050039.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2082860/

but both of the studies says that the self reports are questionable.

First of all, we all rework our childhood memories to better fit our adult personas. Depressed people talk about all of the terrible things that happened to them as kids which make them depressed now. Happy people, all of the happy things that happened that make them happy now. A gay man might talk about wearing dresses and playing with dolls that made him gay.

But attempts to corroborate current stories with past events (the gold standard being longitudinal studies) find that none of that is true. Happy and depressed people have the usual mix of happy and sad childhood events, they just remember them selectively. The gay man's twin brother says maybe he wore a dress once, and has made a mountain out of a molehill. And so on.

Pedophiles are even worse. Pedophiles have the problem that they fall in love with children, and have to gaslight themselves into believing that they do no harm by having sex with the child. Under this pressure, pedophiles make up memories out of whole cloth.

However in general, we have not found any correlation between what actually happened to you before puberty, and who you wind up sexually attracted to after. We can't predict whether you'll be straight. Whether you'll be gay. Or whether you'll be a pedophile. Which means that if you were the unfortunate target of a pedophile, there is no particular reason to believe that have anything other than the 1% risk that every boy does of growing up into one.

To expand on this the two reasons for this myth are abusers tend to lie about their childhoods to gain sympathy. And basically there are a bunch of confounds that both increase the likelihood you will be abused and that you will be an abuser but there's no real causation.

I am lucky to have a mother who never hid the harsher realities of life from me; She taught me how to understand what "no" means, because it's easy for horny young boys growing up to hear "no" as "No, I want you to try harder" or "No, I am a good girl and I do not want to look like a slut by giving in", so, she said "no means no because the risk of hurting her is much higher than the reward of getting your way".

I don't want to blame the media for putting this in our heads, because it _is_ a real thing (that women are sometimes bashful and may expect men to be a bit more pushy to show that they are serious) but because it's so nuanced and difficult it's better to play it safe, because you really _need_ to be _looking_ for the nuance and looking out for clues they're not into it and I don't think people (especially men) understand that.

And even then it's not a given that we're taught to look for it; and even if we are: it takes time even if you _do_ look for it, it's MUCH better to play it safe.

Anyway, my point is, parents don't _necessarily_ teach men or women what consent actually means, the media doesn't help.

A good example, of course, is: Silence is not consent. Which is a very difficult concept to grasp given that it leads to weird thoughts about "it's not romantic to ask if she wants to have sex" but it's not just about not asking, it's about looking for non-verbal cues which could be easily missed if you're aroused.

You're getting older and obviously you're interested in sex. Being sexual is a healthy and normal part of being human. Know that I support you if you are gay, straight, non-binary, binary, etc... I love you because you are you and that will never change.

As your father, it is important to me that you are a kind and caring person. Kindness comes in many forms, many of which are obvious. Such as lending your arm to an elderly woman trying cross a busy, snow-covered street, for example. Kindness is also being generous to and patient with your partner before, during, and after sex. It is being aware of their needs and desires as well as what they don't like.

To that end; nobody, and I mean nobody, should be forced to have sex. If your partner doesn't clearly consent to having sex with you then it is forced. To do otherwise is an act of violence--the opposite of kindness. If you are unsure about whether your partner wants to have sex then they don't.

It is my sincerest hope that one day you find someone who you will fall in love with and who will fall in love with you. When you do, you will find that kindness plays an important role in that. Because sometimes that person will treat you poorly. They will be angry, short, and disrespectful to you. And you will do the same to them. That is part of being in a healthy relationship. It's unpleasant but it's how we grow. One thing I have learned in the years spent with your mother is that returning such anger and disrespect with kindness goes a long way towards developing a deep and lasting bond with one another.

Know that I am always available to you if you have any questions about sex, or any other subject for that matter. I know it's uncomfortable to talk about this right now. It is for me too. But it will get easier the more we talk about it so come to me anytime you feel you need to."

I cannot believe this guy doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong.

We should identify and mitigate high potential threats by public warning, ostracism or legal action. Overcorrect if necessary.

Hell no, that’s what all our legal systems are not about and there are also provisions against this sort of zealotry.

And rightly so, it’s such a historically proven road to hell and unintended consequences.

In case you didn't notice, there is a pattern, very often, the aggressor is in a relative position of power.

People with power feel free to abuse people with less power, simply because they've learned that most of the time they can get away with it.

Obviously, we were long time friends and this would be different if I was meeting a conference speaker, but as usual, nothing is as black or white as "men only want sex".

However, I do agree with your point. Boys need to be taught what could be considered rape, and girls need to realise that sadly some men will abuse them sexually if given half a chance.

Maybe things have changed since I was young but, that may be overly generous. The kind of discussion I'm suggesting never happened with me, or, if it did, it happened only once. My parents left me to figure that out on my own. I don't want this to sound like I'm attacking my parents because I'm not. I had great parents, but the topic of sexual behavior was obviously something they weren't comfortable having with me at the time.

Thinking back on conversations I've had with pretty much all of my male friends, they had the same experience.

But it always, always has to be "the boys need to learn". Women are treated like children: nothing is ever their fault and they're easily manipulated. Men are held to a much higher standard. Anything happens it's their fault, always.

That is why I was explicit in my request that people not put words in my mouth or read between the lines.

However, to suggest I'm blaming the victim is the epitome of putting words in my mouth and I soundly reject that suggestion as nothing short of offensive. I have done no such thing, nor would I ever.

I respectfully ask that you retract any such suggestion.

There will always be Jon's and worse than Jon's out there in the world. They are to blame indeed. But what are you going to do about it? How are you going to protect yourself and others?

Taking measures for protection does not mean you are to blame.

Exactly. The conclusion is simple, yet challenging to implement: don't have sex outside of marriage. For girls and women: don't have casual relationships with men. Problem solved.

Of course it does. Marriage means responsibilities and protects rights, and no one night stands. Just because abuse happens in some marriages does not mean that we should leave sexual relationships to happen adhoc. Limiting sexual relationships to contracts (marriage, not prostitution) is the solution that has worked forever basically. The widespread of STDs, not to mention children out of wedlock, not to mention the mental tolls that come out of easy relationships is already documented, and the society is paying the price.

The incident in very article you're replying to would have been avoided had there been no casual interaction with the man, let alone sleeping with him in the same room.

> your point is clearly proven wrong by and large.

Quite the contrary. We're already seeing the effects on conservative societies that have "westernized", and normalized sex outside of marriage. The effects have been catastrophic to say the least at every level: mental, societal, familial, health, financial. The society in its entirety is paying the toll.

What your logic straight dictates is that the solution to our freedom and dignity being stolen is to not have freedom and dignity in the first place.

You speak of mental toll. Do you understand the mental toll of being locked with your abuser in the same house and your abuser also having the support of the "society"? The mental toll of being devoid of any alternatives in the first place? The toll of being degraded and considered inferior and subservient to the other half of the population? Do you understand how much society pays because kids are grown up in such environments?

You speak of "Westernization" as if treating women as humans is a strange new counter-society idea. You got it backwards honey. Islam placing women below men and denying the freedoms and dignity of a human being, with the seal of approval of allah himself, with a small a, is the abnormal and perverse thing in human civilization.

You ask why I assume you are a Muslim? Only a Muslim would write such hateful things towards women. Even the misogynists of the other places and religions would not be able to write the things you did with a straight face and with such confidence.

May Islam die so that women can live.