<p>BC Eagle, you are correct that college is too late. These courses my daughter took she said were excellent. They were not judgemental. They were these are why you shouldnt do these things, and how to plan ahead to avoid them. At a minimum, we need to educate HS students the dangers of taking pictures and drinking.</p>
<p>I prefer to see what 07 is saying as “here are some things you can do to prevent this situation.”</p>
<p>Do I believe that if you are walking through a horrible neighborhood by yourself in an alley it gives someone the “right” to mug you? No. Do I believe it is a good idea to teach my kids not to walk through an alley in a dangerous neighborhood? Yes, I do.</p>
<p>Do I believe that women are victimized? That Savannah was victimized? Yes I do. I applaud her standing up for herself and I imagine she won’t be doing shots that way anytime soon, either. Do I believe young women need to be taught to value themselves more highly, in light of the objectifying and constant media treatment of young women? Yes, very much so. </p>
<p>Conversely, any father or mother who chooses not to have conversations with their sons about their culpability in drinking encounters is a fool.</p>
<p>Things can be done and bad things can still happen. But, if you don’t teach your kids to be responsible for themselves and their own behavior, you aren’t doing your job as a parent, imho.</p>
<p>I remember when sexting was a new issue, and we saw teens seeing awful outcomes, I was talking ad nauseum with my three kids about why it was wrong, since a 14 yr old sending a pic of herself may not really see anything “wrong” as it is her or his own body. Explained how in the context of the law they could suffer very negative consequences that no parent could simply undo, etc. yep they rolled their eyes, but they got it.</p>
<p>Here’s what I mean.</p>
<p>“Did you hear about that Savannah case?” I ask my senior in high school.</p>
<p>“Yes mom. I heard.” (insert bored, oh no, tone of voice here)</p>
<p>“I’m glad she is speaking up for herself.”</p>
<p>“Yes, Mom. I’m sure you are. And don’t do shots with boys. Don’t go to some strange house when the parents aren’t home. Don’t drink. Don’t drink and drive. And if I ever need you to pick me up anywhere anytime, you will, no questions asked. Can I go? I have homework.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We had some relatives here visiting and I had taken a bunch of pictures of them on my camera which also had a bunch of my family photos on them. A nephew wanted the pictures so I handed him the SD card and he downloaded all of them to his laptop. It then struck me that he could do whatever he wanted to do with those pictures. I don’t think that he’d do anything bad with them but you risk that whenever you post pictures to the internet, store them on the cloud (which could be hacked) or give them to someone else.</p>
<p>So I have a policy of not putting family images on the web (I’ve posted some of me but that’s my risk). Images of the other nature (drunk, inappropriate, commiting a crime, etc.) can and does get people fired or in trouble with their school and can be career-limiting so kids should be aware of that if it’s not already obvious. I mention this sort of thing to my daughter from time to time but she seems to already be aware.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HS is way too late.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>poetgrl:</p>
<p>Actually, discussing the criminal part of this with a son is rather straight forward. What is rape, sexual assault, consent and barred age (statutory) is easy to articulate. What is more difficult is to explain how it works in the real world. As you said:
.</p>
<p>I found that it was particularly difficult to explain how conduct that seems to be “yes” and even actual statements of “yes” did not provide any “safe harbour.” Especially trying to do this without instilling a basic distrust of females. I too urged:
And, I added sans alcohol and drugs to the suggestion.</p>
<p>Poetgirl, 07DAD seems to be putting this all on girls.</p>
<p>285 – “I am not sure of the exact details of the request(s) that the boys destroy the pictures. I took a quick look on Lexis and the Commonwealth of Kentucky recognizes that destruction of evidence can constitute spoliation and is probative evidence inconsistent with innocence.”</p>
<p>“There is a 1 in 4 chance that the girl had photo’d and dsitributed her own genitals in the past. Believe me that will be looked into if there is a civil case.”</p>
<p>“For parents of girls, I’d ask the girl what price is a shot at popularity worth?”</p>
<p>302 – “Alcohol does not excuse either the male or female’s situational responsibility. Ask a recovering alcoholic female. If she is in long term recovery, she will accept some responsibility for the morning after “what I did or WAS DONE TO ME while drunk” so that she will change her behavior. IMO it is not just true for actual alcoholics.</p>
<p>(MY EMPHASIS)</p>
<p>Nothing re the boys.</p>
<p>Kayf, he said that in an age when one sees “Girls Gone Wild” video on the tv, and behaving that way is presented to youth as evidence of some spurious form of “girl power,” boys could gain the FALSE impression that girls who are acting that way have given “consent” to sex. Do you disagree? </p>
<p>What 07DAD says he told his sons is that they should NEVER assume that a girl behaving the way girls do in those videos has given consent. I would think you would agree with that. </p>
<p>I’m curious: in the story he told about the bar in Peru, do you think that the young woman he saved bore any responsibility at all for the events that unfolded?</p>
<p>Cross-posted with several people, including another excellent post from poetgrl.</p>
<p>actually, here’s where I find it gets tricky.</p>
<p>I do not believe someone is “responsible” if they are victims of criminal behavior. I do not believe that a man walking through a dangerous neighborhood is responsible if he gets held up at gunpoint. I don’t believe if you work in a seven eleven, you are responsible for a robbery or break in occuring because of the hour of the night.</p>
<p>But, I do believe you can be smart about it and that naive young men and women tend to believe they are safe in the world. I wish they were. </p>
<p>Extreme example: I do not hold Natalie Halloway responsible for her murder, nor do I believe she bears any responsibility for it. </p>
<p>This is what keeps us parents up at night, no? Just kids out in the world getting enough experience to have some street smarts before anything bad happens. I mean, look at the driving statitistics, to go back to the defensive driving metaphor. New drivers and new adults are just less aware of the issues that could come up. But it in no way makes them “responsible” for the evil and predatory behavior of others.</p>
<p>Consolidation --</p>
<p>Boys could gain false impressions a number of ways, it seems that 07Dad puts it on the girls. Frey and Zehnder seemd to say an unconscious girl can girl consent by laying there and doing nothing. </p>
<p>I think that people who drink do bear responsiblity for throwing up on people, etc. They do not bear responsiblity for sexual abuse. There is a difference between saying do not drink excessively, for a number of reasons (including potential sexual abuse) and saying that it makes one responsible for things that happen to you.</p>
<p>Posted before I read Poetgirl – who said this very well.</p>
<p>No one is ever “responsible” for someone else choosing to perform a criminal or evil act, I agree.</p>
<p>I think the woman in the Peruvian bar was responsible for choosing to get wasted in public, choosing to ignore the advice of her friends who tried to remove her, and putting herself in a position where she required rescue. In short, she was responsible for acting like an ass. Ultimately, she was very, very lucky that 07DAD was there and willing to act on her behalf. Would she have been “responsible” for her own murder or rape, had that happened? Of course not.</p>
<p>It is a tricky thing. I think that the “defensive driving” metaphor works the best.</p>
<p>Bad stuff happens even outside of evil intent. There was a recent case of an intoxicated woman that tripped on a staircase in a building and fell and died. There was no crime involved but bad things can happen when you take risks.</p>
<p>I think people get hung up on the term “responsibility,” and perhaps read it as “blame.”</p>
<p>If I climb to the top of a metal pole during a lightning storm, I am acting in a way that exposes me to risk. If I leave my car at the curb in a sketchy neighborhood at night with the door open and the motor running, I am also exposing myself to risk. While the guy who actually steals my car is responsible for his own crime, my actions greatly increased the risk that I would be the victim of such a crime.</p>
<p>Teens need to understand that their own behavior can put them at risk, including the risk of being harmed by opportunistic people. I don’t think that’s blaming the victim–I think it’s educating kids on how to avoid being victims. It gets tricky when the risky behavior by the victim is used to excuse or minimize the guilt of that opportunistic person. I don’t think anybody should do that. However, simply pointing out that the victim engaged in risky behavior is not the same as excusing the criminal action.</p>
<p>Excellent points, Hunt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this. exactly.</p>
<p>I think this is why it sometimes gets challenging to talk about this kind of thing. It’s probably because there are, in fact, two points: 1. the victim’s risky behavior, for which she already paid a consequence. 2. the criminal behavior itself, for which the justice system must set out a consequence.</p>
<p>ETA: if we do not point out the risky behavior of the victim, we have no way to learn or teach how to avoid dangerous situations. And, it is interesting the way you tease that apart. It is not excusing the criminal to say that the victim should be wiser in the future. But, it doesn’t “sound” very good. Does it?</p>
<p>
It’s particularly tricky when there are disagreements about whether the behavior is risky, and whether people “should” be able to engage in the behavior without being victimized. For example, women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want–but are some clothing choices “risky” in certain situations? It’s a hot potato issue.</p>
<p>Hunt, you say "It’s particularly tricky when there are disagreements about whether the behavior is risky, and whether people “should” be able to engage in the behavior without being victimized. For example, women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want–but are some clothing choices “risky” in certain situations? It’s a hot potato issue. "</p>
<p>I do not see as a hot potatoe issue. If you are legally clothed, you can wear what you want. Women are not “asking for it” by wearing short skirts.</p>
<p>Hunt, you say " It gets tricky when the risky behavior by the victim is used to excuse or minimize the guilt of that opportunistic person. "</p>
<p>I disagree, its not tricky. It is flat out wrong.</p>
<p>Well, I’m of the opinion that people “should” be able to engage in any behavior without the risk of getting victimized. However, that doesn’t mean I taught my kids that they “could” engage in any behvior without the risk of getting victimized.</p>
<p>I believe we should all be able to walk around fearlessly and do what we want, as long as it does not victimize others, but that does not turn out to be the case. </p>
<p>I believe I should be able to drive on the roads, and as long as I follow the rules, never encounter a situation in which I have to avoid an accident because of someone else breaking the law, but that is simply not the case, either.</p>
<p>But, I still believe the criminal is always responsible for the criminal behavior. No matter what.</p>
<p>Re “certain situations”: is a woman “asking for it” if she is wearing a camisole top with a visible navel and visible bra straps and shorts that don’t completely cover her behind? I’ve seen plenty of young girls so attired. In our society, the answer would be no. How about Morocco? SHE may not think she is, but by local cultural norms she might be, whether we like it or not.</p>
<p>Things are just not that black and white, kayf.</p>
<p>We are all in agreement that a lack of common sense or forethought on the part of a victim does not “excuse or minimize” the guilt of a criminal.</p>