memes are the dumbest way to spread concepts, and yet, a meme _is_ a spread concept, so...

[solarbird]

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Fuck, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all.

Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don't rape her. If a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her. If a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her. If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her. If a woman is jogging in a park at 5AM, don't rape her. If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her. If a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her. If a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her. If a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her. If a woman is in a coma, don't rape her. If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her. If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her. If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her. If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her. If your step-daughter is watching TV, don't rape her.

If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her. If your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend. If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police. If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and report him as a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, and sons of friends that it's not okay to rape someone.

Don't just tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape. Don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x, y, or z. Don't imply that it's in any way her fault. Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl. Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.

If you agree, repost it. It's important.

Comments

yes, but...

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

I want to say right off that I enjoy reading your blog very much, and that is why I am sticking my petty two cents here. I like this statement, however it almost sounds like we should stop giving one kind of advice to women and start giving a different kind of advice to men. That sounds great in a well-written rant, but I ask you, which of the following two examples is actually practical and which is waste of breath?

A) Women, be careful because a lot of men are crazy fuckers.

***OR***

B) Men, please don't be crazy fuckers.

Now, the third and most important message here is about the role of men in perpetuating a form of silent consent. But a lot of this just sounds to me like a sort of rhythmic "slam poetry" that dilutes what should be a clear, serious message. I mean, really: "If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her." How is that any more intelligent than "Don't wear short skirts or have long hair"?

I agree with you also that a meme can be a dumb way to make a point, but not if it inspires thoughtful dialog, which is what I am humbly attempting here.

Re: yes, but...

[solarbird]

A) Women, be careful because a lot of men are crazy fuckers.
B) Men, please don't be crazy fuckers.
('Why bother with B,' to paraphrase)
Because there is an endless stream of "women, curtail your behaviour so men don't rape you," and a serious degree of pretending that most rapists are of the dark-alley variety, when in reality, most are people you actually already know, and because putting the responsibility onto women for something men do to them is not okay. American society is less bad about this than it used to be, but it still does it.

And yeah, I do think that, "Men, don't be crazy fuckers" is a legitimate demand to make. (Note that your "B" is phrased as a request; it's a "please," in your version. Your "A" is phrased as a warning. What does that say about the assumptions behind those statements?) I think it's legitimate particularly when there is a perpetuated form of silent consent, and particularly when there is a standard response of blaming the woman for being raped. "She wasn't careful enough." "She wore the wrong thing." "She trusted the wrong person." All those are variations on, "Well, it was really her fault." And, depending upon your social class and that of the rapist, it's pretty likely that even in the rare event that a rape case gets to trial, it'll be used against you; your life will be taken apart to make you, the victim, prove that you weren't secretly asking for it when the man raped you.

I mean, for the love of god, you can have the drugging and gang-rape on video and show it to the jury, and they'll still find a way to blame the woman, given half a chance. "She was a slut." "She asked for it." "It was a game." No, it was a goddamn gang rape, and the California case a couple of years ago was not the only one just like that.

Let's look at robbery for a second. It's not a good parallel, since it's not quite so personal, but let's pretend it is. Someone throws a brick through your window and steals things.

Nobody asks you why you had glass in your window instead of bars, or why you had windows at all. Nobody asks you why you put your DVD player where someone outside on the street could see it. Nobody demands to know why you didn't have a better alarm system, or a guard standing by at all times. Nobody argues that the thief should go free because you didn't have bulletproof glass in the window.

Nobody says that you really wanted to have your DVD player stolen.

See the difference?

Re: yes, but...

[solarbird]

(I use "rare" in the previous to indicate its relative proportion to the number of times rape actually happens. I know a lot of women who have been raped. I know very few whose cases have ever gotten to court, and the successful prosecution that most quickly springs to mind - an unsuccessful rape attempt, she fought him off - she had to fight the policeman to get said cop to pay attention to her when she tried to report the attempt. And no, it was not the "dark alley" kind, either. The whole issue of having to fight the justice system as if you, the victim, were the problem is part of the problem.)

Re: yes, but...

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

I also think that "Men, don't be crazy fuckers" is a legitimate demand to make, and yes it should be phrased as a demand. I phrased it as a polite petition here to emphasize the impotence and futility of this legitimate demand. It is futile because anyone who would think "she asked for it" cannot be reached with reason. Any demand directed at a rapist is, in my opinion, wasted breath.

Another legitimate demand, in my opinion, would be "don't vote for George Bush". Similarly, I think anyone who is insane enough to vote for George Bush is not going to be at all moved by this demand, no matter what kind of passionate jingoism it is packaged in.

I understand your point here, well there are several of them (paraphrasing):

- There is a culture of silent consent (check!)
- All too often it is implied that it is somehow the woman's fault (check!)
- Men should be more aware of this and more proactive about putting a stop to it (double check!)

They are good points and I agree with them and I agree that they should be shouted from the highest rooftops. I am not attacking the legitimacy of any point you have made. I am questioning the efficacy of telling a person not to commit a crime.

And I am glad that I said something because it has caused you to restate the important points with passion and eloquence.

And now that I have said all this I have had a revelation of such stunning dunderheadedness that you are sure to roll your eyes and never speak to me again: All of these demands are not meant as literal admonitions for potential rapists; they are a poetic way of making the point that all of the blame and responsibility belongs to the rapist and not the victim. Duh! Sorry, I am clueless when it comes to irony. Nothing to see here. Move along...

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, the strategy of blaming the victim is not unique to rape cases, but is particularly sickening in rape cases. But yes, people do get blamed in court for being robbed. This strategy will be invoked any time a criminal confronts his accuser in court with a lawyer at his side. Robbers have sued and won after getting injured in their victim's home - while robbing it!

Consider the doctrine of "attractive nuisance (http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/attractive-nuisance-doctrine.htm)", for example. It states that if a child wanders into your yard and drowns your swimming pool, it's your fault, even if the child had to climb over a tall fence and sprint past a vicious dog. Only in America!

As you said, none of these crimes can possibly be compared to rape. But in light of all the absurd cases that make it to court in this country, it does not surprise me that this idiotic culture of "blaming the woman" has gone unchecked here.

[honormac.livejournal.com]

The last paragraph of the last comment leaves me with significantly less to say than when I was reading down to that point.

Yeah... It's not so much just "Please don't be a crazy fucker." It has to be "Goddamn it, we're not going to put up with you crazy fuckers anymore!" Of course, it's getting that from print on a screen to action in society that's the painfully difficult part.

Yes, I think women should be encouraged to cultivate the capability to defend themselves, but going much beyond that is a very dangerous path. Every admonition that heads toward "women should hide themselves, camoflauge themselves, sequester themselves, make themselves small and invisible and quiet and demurred and restrained, lock themselves away, and never, ever open themselves to any kind of risk." has it's equal and opposite reaction in the unspoken addendum "...because boys will be boys, and really, what can you do?"

I think and think about how to change things... Because we have to admit it's a two part problem.

First, it's partly just the way most male animals are wired... Just like every other creature on the planet, human beings have a highly evolved breeding strategy, and just like every other creature on the planet, male humans have found rape to be a very effective way of propagating their genes. Yes, of course most human rape is about power and not about intercourse/reproduction... But that's not because of the nature of rape, it's because of the nature of human beings. We've gotten complex enough to associate a great deal of social and emotional significance to it. We see the same trend in many other higer animals.

The second part, of course, is a by-product of a human supra-society that has, for millenia, indulged and forgiven and blessed this behavior. Generations upon generations of building up social lore about man's or woman's "natural place" and all that has come with it. The more "advanced" males became, the more important it became to underscore the idea that a woman's sole value lies in sex and reproduction. The vilification of female sexuality outside that controlled environment, the implication that a woman who dares show any sexuality outside the domain of her "owner" is worthless, while any male who gets her to do so is crafty and clever and successful.

So... I think the only way to "fix" it is through social activism... More noise, more strident denial of any willingness to accept the status quo. We have to own our sexuality, we have to make it just as ok for us to express and enjoy it as it is for them to do so, and we have to take the stigma out of standing up for ourselves when our freedoms in that area are abused or taken away.

[honormac.livejournal.com]

O.O

Wow. I guess I still had something to say, after all. ;-)

Hello from the land of tangent!

[corivax.livejournal.com]

> Another legitimate demand, in my opinion, would be "don't vote for George Bush". Similarly, I think anyone who is insane enough to vote for George Bush is not going to be at all moved by this demand, no matter what kind of passionate jingoism it is packaged in.

One does not have to be "insane" to vote for George Bush. There are entirely self-consistant and rational combinations of beliefs and values that a person could have, that would make voting for Bush the obvious and correct thing to do. They're not your beliefs and values (and they're not my beliefs and values, either!), but they're not insane, and perfectly rational, intelligent people can hold them.

Not to say there aren't people who are irrational and frothing who voted for Bush, of course, but there are most certainly irrational, frothing people who didn't vote for Bush, too. And not to say there aren't corrupt, greedy, selfish politicians, but no party has a monopoly on those, either.

Ninety nine percent of everyone is normal people, real people - not the crazies, not the corrupt, just people who are honestly doing what they think is best. That's it.

It makes sense to be angry at the corrupt, and the crazies, sure. It's even better if you're angry at our corrupt and our crazies, too - though I can certainly understand the other side's are much more frustrating, and much easier to see. :) (I certainly find it easier to be annoyed at opportunistic Republicans than opportunistic Democrats, probably because, given the political slants of all my close friends, I hear about the former more than the latter.)

But it's unfair, to hate the people who are sincerely trying to do the right thing. You and I are doing the best we can, too, no more and no less, just like everyone else, just like the people who vote for Bush. They're parents and kids and taxi drivers and orchestra conductors and teachers and Seattle residents and Atlanta residents and gayfolk and straightfolk - there is nothing we are that they aren't, too.

And it's dangerous to write them off as insane or stupid. It means you can't talk to them, means you're refusing to understand them. If you can't understand how they think, if you write them off as stupid or insane, how on Earth do you expect to change their minds?

Feel free to delete, ignore, or flame this comment as you see fit. :) It's very off-topic.

Re: yes, but...

[corivax.livejournal.com]

Also, I like your last paragraph here. I was sort of thinking something like that, but hadn't been able to put it into words so well. Thank you.

Re: yes, but...

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

But there is a group of men for whom this may be effective. There are going to be guys who were uncomfortable with the frat boy kind of scenario but who didn't really think of it as rape. Making it clear and unequivocal that "Yes, this is rape" may push them over from uncomfortable into speaking up and saying "Stop!"

Cathy

[rosepurr.livejournal.com]

Hey! You took my rant! Good for you! :)

Re: yes, but...

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

"...talking to a conservative is like talking to your refrigerator. You know, the light goes on, the light goes off, it's not gonna do anything that isn't built into it. But I'm not gonna talk to a conservative any more than I talk to my damn refrigerator."

-Utah Phillips

But you're right, "insane" is an oversimplification. But I was trying to make a point. I hope some of it still makes sense.

Re: yes, but...

[solarbird]

I am questioning the efficacy of telling a person not to commit a crime.
Most of the people at whom this is aimed don't think what they're doing is really a crime. Slipping a pill into a woman's soda and then raping her isn't "really" rape, since everybody know that happens in dark alleys. Drunk and passed out at a party is "not really rape," she was drunk and at the party, she must be asking for it. Most of the examples listed are ways normally used to turn "rape" into "not really rape and therefore okay," or at very least, turn it into "she really wanted it."

If most or all rapes were Ye Olde Dark Alley Rape, then you'd be right: it would be pretty pointless. But they're not. It's mostly people you know, people you go on a date with and think are okay until suddenly they aren't, people you meet at a party, or family. That's where most rape happens. It's mostly not done by people who decide, "I'm going to commit a crime," it's mostly done by people deciding it's not really rape, so it's okay, or, it's not a real crime, I can get away with it and score. Putting it in these stark terms makes it clear that yes, it is rape, even if you try to pretend it isn't.

[solarbird]

Robbers have sued and won after getting injured in their victim's home - while robbing it!
This is one of those moral equivalence moments. Yes, this happened - once, in California. It was freakish, it made headlines across the country, there was huge outrage, and that's pretty much been it for that.

That does not make it the equivalent of the systematic and continuous shifting of blame to the rape victim for her being raped.

Consider the doctrine of "attractive nuisance", for example.
No. A woman's body is not an "attractive nuisance"!

This is exactly what we're talking about. Wear a short skirt, look attractive - in some cases, be visible at all outside a burka - and suddenly, "it's partly your fault." You attracted the rapist by being visible in the wrong way. I will not accept that.

in light of all the absurd cases that make it to court in this country, it does not surprise me that this idiotic culture of "blaming the woman" has gone unchecked here.
Completely unrelated topics. In fact, the converse has been true. It is less bad than it has been in the past, when women would be more severely punished for being raped, as is still standard in many cultures.

Another tangent

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

Since we are looking at the culture that silently condones rape and considering it a symptom of male-dominant society, I think it is important to consider the implications of another kind of rape that never seems to be mentioned in these discussions. I am talking about prison rape. It is another example of reinforcing the power/sex relationship. Millions of men are raped in prison as a matter of course and we condone it because "they deserve it" and it is an unspoken, universally sanctioned part of the punishment. I never hear anyone crying out against this, and I would expect to hear more protests from women who have something to say about rape.

If you steal a car or commit fraud or (heaven forbid!) get caught with drugs, you will go to prison and you will get raped. And the only way not to get raped in prison is to do it to somebody else. We all know this is true. It is joked about and alluded to with cute names like "the pound" and "the pokey". And yet we look the other way. Our only reaction is to think, "God, I hope I don't get caught with drugs and go to prison!"

Now, think about what all the rape literature says about what this crime does to a woman, and apply it to a man who is, after all, also a human being. Consider that this deeply scarring crime is going on 24/7 in our prison system, the largest on Earth, which holds more people than the populations of some small countries. Consider that there are something like 30 million ex-cons walking around trying to live a normal life after being "reformed" in this way.

I just don't think we can talk about rape and the "culture of silent consent" and the problems of paternalistic society without recognizing the role that prisons play. It is just as bad when a man gets raped as when a woman gets raped, and it perpetuates all these other horrible, culturally entrenched problems.

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

I think we're going to have to agree to agree here. It makes no sense to compare rape to any other kind of crime. Rape is indefensible, by any logic. Excessive litigiousness is a systematic and continuous problem in the world. But these two topics are completely unrelated. I agree.

[darkphoenixrisn.livejournal.com]

Amen.

Re: Another tangent

[solarbird]

Prison rape is always brought up in these discussions, typically fairly early, typically by men who think out-of-prison rape isn't very important or is entirely the woman's responsibility to deal with.

I do agree that prison rape is a serious problem and should be taken seriously in ways it isn't taken seriously now, and I do agree that some of the same things apply. However, many women find it extremely frustrating that a systematic violence committed overwhelmingly against women by men apparently cannot be discussed without men bringing up prison rape as some sort of buffer, which is, notably, also committed by, well, men.

It isn't even that that discussion isn't invalid. It is. It's utterly valid. Christ on a crutch, it's a prison, the authorities ought to be able to stop it. But the conditions around it are very much different, even if there are many similarities as well - and more importantly, while I don't particularly think you're using it this way, it is commonly used to change the subject away from violence against women in general. It's used to end discussions of violence against women and turn them in to Another Problem Men Must Face, so why don't you Annoying Feminists Just Shut Up Already while We Talk About Real Things (tm).

Again, I don't particularly think you're doing that, but it's a common distraction technique.

Re: Another tangent

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Prison rape isn't an argument against solarbird's point. it's an argument for. The rapists in prison rape are still men, even though the victims aren't women. The way to stop prison rape is the way to stop all rape, by enculturating men not to rape and being clear on what rape means.

Re: Another tangent

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

Agree agree agree. I wasn't aware that this point was often brought up by anti-feminists as a way to obfuscate, but I'm glad I've been spared the accusation. I have participated in a few of these discussions, and I have never heard the point raised, but that just speaks more to my ignorance on this subject.

So yeah, I'm not saying, "Think of all the poor men who get raped, you insensitive feminist". Heavens no. I am acknowledging that rape is something perpetrated (with few and freakish exceptions) universally BY MEN. So it makes sense to me to look at the male institutions (like prison) where this behavior is not just condoned, it's encouraged. So hell yeah, let's look at fraternities, let's expose date rapists and the silent buddy accomplice, let's shine a light Mr. Normal-Looking and Mr. Might-be-someone-you-know guy. Let's destroy the Dark Alley Myth. That is the main point here and I don't want to distract from it.

Re: yes, but...

[avram]

So what's all that stuff about doing the laundry, jogging, breaking into houses?

[foibos.livejournal.com]

What you said.

I don't know, off-hand, any other violent crime that gets explained away as routinely as rape. Perpetrators, judges, peers all chime in to state that it probably wasn't really rape at all, and if it was, it was probably her fault. We men can't help it when we're aroused, say the men. She had only herself to blame, say the women. It can't be proved that she in fact made it totally clear to him that she didn't want it, say the courts.

And, interestingly, there *are* no rapists. It doesn't happen here, not among us. *We* would never do it. Sure, people from some demographic slice particularily affected with criminality and subhuman morals might do it. Look, we could string *them* up if you insist.

One of the best social debaters in Sweden recently wrote an article where he argued that we men, as a group, are guilty of rape. As long as rape (and similar crimes committed by men unto other kinds of humans) continues, we men each and all share the guilt for it.

I guess you can imagine the response. For myself, I had to think hard about it. In the end I decided that it really makes a lot more sense to blame men as a group than to blame women, as is currently the case.

Re: Another tangent

[laputain.livejournal.com]

How do we "enculturate" people? I've never seen that verb before. It sounds like something you'd do with garden shears. Seriously, I get the point, but sometimes people talk about "changing culture" as if it was as easily done as changing wallpaper.

If you're going to talk about "how do we stop rape?", or more precisely "how can we make sexual violation socially impermissible?", then the first step would be to examine the several messages in Western culture that state, over and over again, to any male past the age of puberty: "if you ain't getting some - by fair means or foul - you are not a man and therefore prone to be humiliation and even rape yourself".

[verbonaut.livejournal.com]

I was going to say something similar, agrumer. But then I figured it out. As solarbird says, Most of the examples listed are ways normally used to turn "rape" into "not really rape and therefore okay," or at very least, turn it into "she really wanted it."

The other examples (laundry, jogging, etc) are examples of putting the blame on the woman. "She should have known better. She should not have been in the laundromat alone." Practical advice, perhaps, but again, it insinuates that it's the woman's fault somehow.

Now the one about breaking into a house, I don't get that, but the general idea here is clear.

Re: Hello from the land of tangent!

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I don't know, off-hand, any other violent crime that gets explained away as routinely as rape.

Agreed, but some of this is the very nature of the crime of rape. If there's consent, you have a consensual sexual act, if there isn't, it's a serious crime. This dichotomy doesn't exist for most other violent crimes, you don't find a lot of people agreeing to be murdered. And in those cases where you do (such as the Armin Meiwes case in German) you do see that the case becomes complicated.

One of the best social debaters in Sweden recently wrote an article where he argued that we men, as a group, are guilty of rape.

Using that logic, are all Americans guilty of the crimes committed by American soliders against Iraq civilians, even those who oppose the war? Should the family of a rapist be considered guilty of rape as well?

Personally, I don't think the concept of collective guilt is appropriate or useful. Yes, we (men and women) should all do what we can to stop rape, we should feel responsible for helping shape a culture that is intolerent of rape and punishes it seriously when it does occur, but that's not quite the same thing in my mind as guilt.

[foibos.livejournal.com]

• I don't know, off-hand, any other violent crime that gets explained away as routinely as rape.

Agreed, but some of this is the very nature of the crime of rape. If there's consent, you have a consensual sexual act, if there isn't, it's a serious crime.

I don't think this reasoning is a factor at all. In the typical case, everyone seems to agree that she wasn't consenting to sex, but since he didn't realize that/she wasn't trying hard enough to defend herself/she was slutty, drunk or both, it's not really rape.

Using that logic, are all Americans guilty of the crimes committed by American soliders against Iraq civilians, even those who oppose the war?

Well, duh. Americans often seem to have a strange notion that they as citizens aren't accountable for the actions of their government. If they didn't, maybe they'd pay attention when there's an election going on. All Americans are certainly guilty of those crimes, but opposing the war should probably count as a mitigating circumstance.

Should the family of a rapist be considered guilty of rape as well?

Um, why not?

I don't think the concept of collective guilt is appropriate or useful.

His point was that with current thinking, women are by default considered responsible for a rape happening, should it happen to them. Men, on the other hand, are never responsible, since it's either something they can't help, or a crime committed not by "men" but by "[those] men"; substitute some despised ethnicity, religious group or whatever for those.

Reversing that mode of thinking and accepting that "men" is the most appropriate label to attach to rapists, perhaps we could see a more genuine incentive to change.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I don't think this reasoning is a factor at all. In the typical case, everyone seems to agree that she wasn't consenting to sex, but since he didn't realize that/she wasn't trying hard enough to defend herself/she was slutty, drunk or both, it's not really rape.

I don't agree with that at all, I think you're taking a few outlier cases and making them the rule rather than the exception. I think it's extremely common in date rape cases for the defense to claim that there was consent.

Should the family of a rapist be considered guilty of rape as well? Um, why not?

Because the concept of people being guilty because of some broad class you belong to rather than something you did (or did not do) is not a useful concept IMO.

I'm responsible for the things I do (ordon't do). If I know someone who goes around talking about how women 'really want it even when they say no' and I don't do my best to educate that person, then yes I do have some degree of guilt. If I don't do my best to elect officials who treat it seriously, if I don't speak up when some crazy judge talks about how a rape victim was dressed, then yes, I do have some responsibility.

Reversing that mode of thinking and accepting that "men" is the most appropriate label to attach to rapists, perhaps we could see a more genuine incentive to change.

See I'm skeptical that I have any influence with other people simply because we happen to share the same gender. In the circle of people I do associate with, anyone who claimed that 'no doesn't mean no' or that women who dress in miniskirts want to be raped would be flayed alive and rightfully so. So how do I influence other men who share few if any of my values?

[foibos.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with that at all, I think you're taking a few outlier cases and making them the rule rather than the exception. I think it's extremely common in date rape cases for the defense to claim that there was consent.

I have no doubt that "she consented" is the second favorite defense after "I wasn't even there". What I said was that in those cases, everyone seemed to agree that she did not consent (even if the defense tried to claim otherwise).

Because the concept of people being guilty because of some broad class you belong to rather than something you did (or did not do) is not a useful concept IMO.

I was just wondering why the rapist's family should have some special immunity, as you seemed to state.

See I'm skeptical that I have any influence with other people simply because we happen to share the same gender.

It's probably because of my difficulties in expressing myself in English. I'll try one more time.

The point of the challenge I quoted here was to change our way of fixing guilt in rape cases in two respects. Currently, a) women are de facto (and very nearly de juro) considered to be the guilty part in rapes, and have to provide a very convincing case to make the court or the public think otherwise; b) *men* do not rape, period. Black men might, or Eskimo men, or Zoroastrian men, or Catholic men, but it's always *another* subset of men that are regarded as potential rapists, not you, me, or our buddies. The corollary of this is of course that if anyone of "us" commits rape, it clearly *wasn't* rape, because he doesn't belong to any of the raping kinds of men.

The "we men are guilty" line of thinking is an attempt to do away with this. It means that a) women should be considered to be innocent to rape (unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary) and b1) *all* men, not just those other men, need to make sure the woman they're about to have sex with is in fact enthusiastic about it herself, because otherwise it could very well be rape, and b2) even your best friend could be a rapist -- you can't consider him innocent because he's the same kind of man that you are.

I do hope I'm making myself clear now.