I recently wrote a post which included reference to a scenario from a NZ rape crisis schools education programme:
Jo is a Year 13 Student at XX High School. She is at a party on a Saturday night. Jared is going to be there and she’s been trying to hook up with him for awhile. She’s wearing a short skirt, boots, and a low cut top –she’s sure to catch his attention –She looks great. Jo and her friends drink a few bottles of wine before they get to the party and she feels pretty drunk by the time they arrive. At the party she starts talking with Jared, he asks if she wants to go up to one of the bedrooms –they walk up the stairs followed by comments from Jared’s mates as they close the door.
In the room they start kissing, and Jared is putting his hands up her top and down her pants, she likes it and starts touching Jared. Jared then takes off his pants and hers. Jo starts to feel uncomfortable and pulls back a bit, and pulls her underwear back up. She doesn’t want to have sex with Jared but doesn’t know how to stop it. Everyone at the party thinks they’re having sex, and she doesn’t want Jared to think she’s tight. Jared pulls her knickers back down and they have sex.
I deleted a comment from that thread, but I’ve decided it illustrates a point rather well, so I’m going to write a post about it:
what is of concern is that one can get the impression that women reward such behaviour as opposed to punishing it. a lot of men claim that it does work (and presumably they wouldn’t if it didn’t). Ie you proceed assumiong you have consent to avoid asking for it and opening the door to rejection.
This is actually a reasonably common argument when people discuss consent. You let a thread go on long enough and some man will make some sort of argument that boils down to: “men who don’t seek consent get more sex than men who do, women shouldn’t let that happen.”
Now I’ve no idea if the premise is correct. How would you know if men who ignore consent have more sex than men who seek consent? But the argument reveals some really disturbing thought patterns.
The first is that men are only motivated by their dicks, and so must be trained, much in the way you would train a dog. Women can control men by depriving them of doggie treats and if they don’t do so then it’s inevitable that men will continue to poo on the carpet and ignore consent.
Now we’re just going to stop for a second and put the blame for rape where it belongs – on men who rape. Of course the moment we do that the argument falls apart. Women should not have to centre their sexual actions around discouraging men from raping.
I want people to think a little bit about what it would mean for women to centre their sexual actions around encouraging men to seek consent. Women who freeze or disassociate because of past sexual abuse would have to stop. Women who don’t have a language to describe consent would have to learn. Women who have learned that their sexual role is to please men would have to unlearn. Women would have to ignore almost everything mainstream society tells us about sex.
I’m not saying that many of those changes aren’t desirable, but you can’t make that change in the hope that men will stop hurting you. It’s not claiming your sexuality as your own if you’re doing it to stop men raping.
The other disturbing aspect to this comment was also common on other on-line discussions of these scenarios. Here’s an example from Anarchia
Well that makes it harder. About a hair harder. She didn’t consent, so it’s rape. What should happen next is going to depend on things we weren’t told in the story.
It’s really common on discussions on rape scenarios for people to switch straight from a discussion about whether or not it’s consent, to a discussion about consequences. Sometimes people start talking about whether or not someone should be prosecuted, sometimes people are implying that the repercussions should be that the guy doesn’t get sex.
What seems missing from this is any idea that women are people, and the reason you shouldn’t have sex with someone when you don’t know if she really wants to have sex with you is because you could really hurt her. To be honest I don’t care about rapists and what happens to them, I just want them to stop.* Even if I supported the justice system in any form (and I really don’t) I know that they’re never going to catch and convict every rapist. I know that the only way we can stop rape is by convincing men that women are people, and our desires are as important as their desires, and our right to our bodies is more important than mens’ rights to our bodies.**
Every time someone skips straight to ensuring there are consequences to rape they’re implying that they think it’s more likely that we can catch and convict every rapist, than we can change men’s minds. That belief depresses the hell out of me.
* I’m fairly certain that the only rapist I’ve ever argued should go to jail is Clint Rickards.
** I can’t put into words how much this sentence scares and depresses me.
Note to commenters this thread is open to feminist, pro-feminist and feminist friendly commenters only. I would also point out that discussion of the scenario is off topic. If you think it’s fine to ignore consent then I don’t want to hear about it (plus read the first sentence a few more times and decide not to post).
Pingback: Dog training course
Pingback: a-blog馬鹿
Pingback: feminist blogs
Thanks for your observation about ensuring consequences! I was talking to my roommate, a rape prevention educator, a few days ago, and she was sharing how many young people in the schools where she presents are completely fixated on the legal definitions of rape, what would “count” in terms of being prosecutable, or what would be most likely to get one punished. She reflected that her hardest task sometimes is redirecting the conversation to “What is the RIGHT thing to do here?” instead of “What is the thing that won’t be punished?”
O.K., I know I’m not supposed to comment, and I’m not really; I’m just wondering if there’s some content missing between the first blockquote and the subsequent text that on my browser starts “way you would train a dog”.
I found the recourse to legal definitions of rape (and the constant discussion of jail on the thread on the same topic on another blog) quite disturbing too Maia. Surely the focus should be on the pain that rapists inflict, and how we can move forward to a society where people’s first reaction isn’t to examine a law that could never be adequate but rather to challenge those who hold screwed up beliefs and the society that encourages those beliefs.
As a slight side note – I frequently have Nazis posting comments on my blog, and yet some of the comments on this topic on my blog are the closest I have EVER come to deleting a comment. Still, I think those of us who were actually interested in having a productive discussion have managed to at least begin it…
“If you think it’s fine not to ignore consent then I don’t want to hear about it (plus read the first sentence a few more times and decide not to post).”
I think the bolded “not” is a typo…?
The comment about consequence was mine. I think that there’s confusion here about the usage of the term ‘rape’. I have no objection whatsoever to rape being defined as sex without consent. However, rape is also the word used to describe a horrible vicious sexual assault. I’ve read many times that rape isn’t about sex, it’s about violence and power and misogyny. Because the same term is used to describe both acts it creates the impression that both are comparable. While I have my issues with the justice system i think that people who commit violent sexual assaults against women should be locked up. (fair trial first etc.) Based on the information given I’m not certain that Jared should be locked up, or even prosecuted.
False dichotomy, Joe. Do you believe that nonviolent sexual assaults are OK? Or that the only choices are “violent rape” vs. “everything else is legal”?
Thanks for pointing out the typos (a whole bunch of this post disappeared when I transferred from my blog to here – don’t know how that happened), hope the post makes more sense now.
Asher you didn’t write much about the police rape case last year did you? That’s what started me deleting posts with abandon. It’d be one o’clock in the morning, I’d be completely exhausted and having to go through 20 posts figuring which ones were victim blaming and which broke the suppression order. Only I’d be tired so I often couldn’t figure out what broke the suppression orders.
Ah – fun times.
I feel like my argument isn’t being demonstrated all over again.
No, I decided not to write about it after seeing the crap that you had to wade through, I limited my interaction with that case to offline stuff.
First let me say that I think the scene illustrates a rape. I also think the scene is an excellent educational tool.
No, I believe that non-violent sexual assaults exist and are not okay. I think that any assault should be punished. Having sex with someone who’s incapacitated due to drugs/alcohol or threatening to fire someone if they don’t have sex with you are both clear cut examples of non-violent sexual assault.
What I’m struggling with is the idea of non-criminal rape. I don’t know if the case described would be criminal or not.
To illustrate as best I can:
If an impartial observer would describe the struggle over her panties as “a brief but violent struggle” than I think Jared is a clear threat and should be punished in the criminal justice system. (or if she was clearly too drunk to fully understand what was going on. If she felt physically threatened. etc)
On the other hand if the same fair impartial observer would describe the struggle not as a struggle but as ‘awkward fumbling’ than I’d have to say that Jared isn’t a threat (probably)
Not having that additional information I call it rape. Sex without consent of both participants. But I also think that rape is a terrible act that SHOULD be punished. I’m just having trouble with the idea of non-criminal rape.
I, too, am having trouble with the idea of non-criminal rape. It’s like jumbo shrimp.
Joe I’d ask you not to post this thread any longer. You seem convinced on taking it on exactly the same derailment that I drew attention to.
Actually, I think Joe has inadvertantly provided a perfect illustration of exactly the conceptual problem on the part of men the post was talking about (although I agree that asking him not to post any more is a wise decision, to prevent the usual thread derailment). There seems to be a sense amongst many men that “non-violent” rape, ie rapes that don’t end up with the victim in the ICU, aren’t “real” rape and that the perpetrators shouldn’t be punished in the same way they would be if they left their victims with clear physical injuries. What they don’t seem to be grasping is that in rape the psychological injuries are the real problem. Bruises heal much more quickly than the emotional scars rape leaves behind. Joe’s posts also point to the other way in which men often don’t grasp what rape is really all about. He’s assuming that in the case outlined in the post “Jared” isn’t a “threat”, and that’s a false assumption, but it’s one that I see men make all the time. I’d say that if a man commits that kind of rape and gets away with it the chances of him doing it again are rather high, wouldn’t you?
There is a persistant problem with men refusing to define rape as rape unless it involves extreme violence. They do what Joe was doing here, making weasely statements like “well yes, obviously there wasn’t consent, but…”. I’m not sure if they really don’t grok the concept of consent or if they know damn well that examples like the one you gave are rape and are just playing dumb.
Ack, I don’t know if I’m making any sense. This whole subject makes me so angry that I start wanting to smack anyone who doesn’t get it in the head with a 2 by 4.
Also, referring back to your initial post, the idea that women should center their behavior on discouraging rape is absurd. It’s placing the responsibility on the wrong party. In any other scenario we assume that criminals are the ones responsible for their actions, not crime victims. No one talks about how people who are carjacked should never have stopped at that light.
And to add to your initial point, or even take it a bit further – what’s really missing from this conversation is that if you’re OK with the idea of having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you there is something wrong with you. Clearly you do not understand how sex is supposed to work. The fact that, looking at the studies, so many boys seem to have no understanding of the idea that sex is supposed to be something that people do together rather than something that one person does to another is horrifying.
I’m trying to tease apart this because something about it seems inherently illogical. Let’s assume I, a woman, have two men – Joe and John – in my life. I am equally interested/disinterested in having sex with both of them. More specifically, with both men, I am currently in a place where I want to date them but do not want to sleep with them. After a date with Joe, who doesn’t believe in asking for consent, I don’t consent to sex, but I am coerced into it anyway, so he “got sex” and was thus “rewarded” for not asking. After a date with John, who does believe in asking for consent, I don’t consent to sex, so he doesn’t get sex and was thus “punished” for asking. What are the alternative scenarios that the doggie-trainer-theorists are proposing? I see them as follows:
1. Somehow don’t have sex with Joe. Um… folks… rape exists because this isn’t always an option. These encounters don’t happen in a vacuum.
2. Have sex with John. This is ridiculous as it negates the concept of consent. I may say “yes” but it is because the doggie-trainer-theorists told me to reward John, not because I was actually wanting to have sex with John.
I may be missing something, so let me know if that is the case. Where I’m at right now, though, is thinking that the doggie-trainer-theorists don’t appreciate the “enthusiastic consent” concept and believe “consent” means passively allowing instead of actively desiring.
And if we’re going all behaviorist, let’s look at how men have been trained to think that sex with somebody who doesn’t consent to it is a “reward.”
Not to defend the doggie trainer theorists (like the phrase, by the way), but I think the idea is that women should be more effective at option 1. This is particularly in relation to men who refuse to accept implied withdrawal of consent, but would accept explicit withdrawal of consent, who would not use physical force to overcome being pushed away, or who would stop if told “stop” or “no, I don’t want to have sex” or “stop pulling my underwear down.” I’m not sure if it that doggie trainer theorists don’t understand enthusiastic consent, or if they merely don’t think that what needs to change is men’s understanding of consent as being enthusiastic consent. If they really don’t understand that not fighting back is not the boundary line of consent, then they are more likely to respond to that sort of scenario by saying, “But that isn’t really rape.”
This sort of scenario, which is even purer than the scenario discussed previously that originated with from a discussion on Bighting Beaver, is one that definitely deserves attention. I think it often gets obscured by reactions (even from serious feminists, I think ginmar did this in a previous thread) that date rape isn’t just someone giving into social pressure to have sex (which, certainly much date rape isn’t, and it is important to make that clear). Someone giving in to social pressure to not resist having sex when they don’t want to is still rape, it can still be incredibly damaging. A rape that could have been avoided by the rapist accepting that a withdrawal of consent is a withdrawal of consent, even if it isn’t explicitly stated or backed by physical force, that could have been avoided by the victim of the rape escalating to an explicit withdrawal of consent, is somehow a particularly frustrating phenomenon. It seems like it should be such an easy evil to stamp out, but it is so easily obscured and excused that it actually ends up having very long roots.
I think it is a real problem that women are put in the position of choosing between submitting to rape and social disapproval for having been rude to someone seeking sex. I think that a culture of enthusiastic consent is an important part of the solution to this. I think a culture of explicit consent, in which talking about what you are doing, about what you would like to do, while you are doing it, is viewed as a normal and erotic part of sexual interactions (because using implicit consent, even enthusiastic implicit consent, is still open to rape by misunderstanding) is another part of the solution. I think a third part is a change in the way that we handle the social approval and disapproval of people choosing whether to have sex.
If the result of saying “Stop” is that you will be thought a tease or frigid, and the result of escalating to physical resistance is that you will be thought totally out of control (“You guys went up the room to have sex, then you change your mind, so you pushed him off of you while screaming “Help! Rape! Stop!” What’s wrong with you? He’s not the kind of guy who would rape anyone. You must be really fucked up.”), then that makes it much harder to do so when you need to than if the reaction was “Oh shit, I misread your implicit response, what’s wrong with me? I’m so sorry.” from your partner, and “Geeze, I had no idea he was actually the kind of guy you had to say “stop” to, what a jackass,” from everyone else.
I don’t know how to make those changes happen, but I think things need to change at all three of those levels.
Hang on, hang on, why do women have to explicitly say a big loud NO? Why can’t men (and indeed women) be encouraged to ask for consent?
Asking for consent can be quite sexy imho.
It seems to me that women are constantly told of the “precautions” we should take to avoid rape (not wear short skirts, not walk alone at night, not get ourselves in “those situations”.)
So how about men take one small precaution to avoid raping – ask for consent.
All three levels.
If women are not capable of saying a big loud no, then asking for consent doesn’t solve the problem. If we go back to the example scenario, and change it so the man asks, “may I take off your underwear?” and the woman runs through the same mental process that kept her from saying “no” to the action and finds that she can’t say “no” to the explicit request, nothing changes, except for the fact that now everyone will be even less willing to conceive of what happens as rape (even though she is still having sex she doesn’t want to have), and she will have an added layer of “Why didn’t I just say no when he asked me?” added on top of everything else.
Now, certainly, initiating a spoken or physical “no” in response to an action or an unspoken request may be harder than answering “no” to an explicit request (as the request may create a larger space for the “no”), particularly since doing nothing in response to an unspoken request or an action is more likely to be taken as consent than no response to an asked question. But that doesn’t mean that the issue of being able to say “no” isn’t important.
More explicit communication lessens the risk of miscommunication. Ability to communicate effectively lessens the risk of miscommunication. Setting the bar for consent very high lessens the risk that miscommunication will lead to a fundamental violation of consent. I don’t see why all three things aren’t worth working on.
I have a friend who verbally consented (and not under any guessable duress) to have sex with her regular partner, and experienced it as rape, because she didn’t want to have sex. The fact that her partner explicitly asked her to have sex, and she verbally agreed, did not change the fact that she didn’t want to have sex, it just meant that everyone else viewed her experience much less seriously. Now, in that situation, I think that he violated the principle of enthusiastic consent, and she found that she couldn’t say “no” even though she wanted to, but explicit consent occurred and didn’t do anyone any good. Explicit consent is not sufficient.
You know what might help in deciding how to handle this is trying to teach men to understand how afraid of them women can be. Not in the “women are natural victims” sicko way, but to make them understand what it’s *like* to feel like prey all the time, everywhere you go, from a very young age. To know that because of the way your body’s constructed, you’re seen as a target by a large percent of the population.
I didn’t date in high school because I was terrified of men. Of rape, of being hurt, of the feeling that they had no empathy for me…and considering how many of them stood around hooting and “rating” girls who walked by like pieces of meat, it’s not hard to see why I felt that way.
And I wasn’t even ever attacked…though another thing that shaped my feelings was being followed by a man when I was 10 (!) and again when I was 15 and having to run/hide to get away from them. I wasn’t a paranoid kid, generally, there was just no mistaking that they were stalking me.
I have male friends, who are gentle and compassionate, but really? They have no idea, none, what it’s like. They don’t understand how a woman can give up even when she’s not being obviously threatened, how her fear/panic kicks in because she’s faced with someone who is both someone she cares for and someone she fears, in a fundamental way. How she feels helpless to control the outcome of what’s happening, because she feels surrounded on all sides.
I won’t go into the specific example above because we’ve been asked not to, though I would suggest that the comment at the end – “If you think it’s fine to ignore consent then I don’t want to hear about it (plus read the first sentence a few more times and decide not to post)” is rather unfair – it’s possible to strongly believe that no-one should have sex without consent, and yet still believe that such grey area cases are consensual – the implication is that anyone who doesn’t define the example as rape is of the opinion that rape is OK – it’s a false dichotomy.
Anyway, to address the point at hand – I can actually see the point in this comment – “what is of concern is that one can get the impression that women reward such behaviour as opposed to punishing it. ”
In a world where many women are taught that it’s wrong to want sex, I suspect that verbalising one’s desire for intercourse can be quite off putting. When I was younger I found my partner constantly asking if I was OK a real turn off (I’d suddenly feel embarrassed and awkward) – I didn’t want to talk, and as far as I could see, I’d tell him to stop if I didn’t want something. So, going by non-verbal cues, and never explicitly saying “Shall we have sex” is probably a more successful tactic that actually asking – because asking can sometimes turn the answer from “yes” to “no”.
While I think the social pressure on girls to have sex can lead to having sex you don’t really want, at the same time this goes for guys too. In fact, there’s much more social pressure on guys to never refuse sex, and there’s a great deal of pressure on women to go slow (otherwise they’ll be seen as sluts, and men will think they’re fast and sleep with them once but not commit etc. etc.). This is apparently the most common kind of sexual coercion of men by women – the “are you a man or not?” question.
Lots of people are awkward about sex, and will shy away from verbalising their feelings – I don’t think this is a case of needing to train men to specifically ask for consent, or training women to refuse all men who don’t specifically ask (but operate by non-verbal cues). I just don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon, and I’m not even sure it’s necessary. I personally think more could be gained from encouraging young men (in sex ed class, or whatever) to attend to non-verbal clues – to stop and check if everything’s OK if their partner seems to be struggling or crying or otherwise behaving reluctantly.
Removed as it broke the moderation guidelines at the beginning of this thread – Maia
CJ,
That was repulsive, but I’m not going to go into any more detail than that, as I don’t think you are supposed to be in this thread.
CJ,
There are times when “within this framework” doesn’t mean “right now”.
We’ve had “within this framework” and it resulted in marital rape. That’s not a time we need to be going back to. We need to get men to respect things like “No”, “Not now”, “I’m sorry, but I’m tired”, “Maybe tomorrow — it’s late and I’ve got work in the morning”.
The only permissible context is mutual consent. Each and every time. Not consent the first time, and then it’s okay every time afterwards.
I’d like to go back to Riina’s comment for a minute, because although I disagree with her here and there, I think she provides something crucial – the social context for the beliefs about consent which at least most of us are finding problematic. We ignore the lived reality of young people at our peril, as well as theirs. We would like to make that reality better, but it is hard to change culture by fiat. We have to enter it, even sympathetically, before we can better it. This used to be the message of anthropology’s cultural relativism – not so much that other ethical ideas were unchangeable or equal, but more that you have to suspend your own moral ideas as a precondition for understanding the social environment in which the strange moral ideas held by others made sense. And the assumption always was, that these cultural ideas, however strange or repellent they might be to us, have to be understood (and addressed) on their own terms.
In this era of universalizing human rights, it seems that we rarely make this effort anymore, particularly on behalf of those within our own cultures who hold beliefs we think we understand all too well. And of course we are interested in change, not only understanding. But what seems to happen is that we present, as unarguable and immutable moral standards, a set of principles which is well adapted to the lives and social expectations of “our people,” but one which does not address the problems which arise in the social environment of others. Social environments tend to be self-reinforcing and self-validating, even in the face of regulations imposed from above; we tend to approve of this when colonized peoples retain their cultures, to the extent they do, in the face of colonialism, but we are less approving when we are the ones trying to engage in top-down social reform.
It is easy enough to figure out what is the right answer in a rape prevention scenario. It is not hard to learn that authority has a right answer for your heartfelt dilemmas, and is not really interested in why you find authority’s answers difficult or unworkable. It is a lesson taught to young people by all too many of the institutions which dominate their lives.
It isn’t so much what is taught in the scenario, that fails to take. It is what is taught by the social structure in which the scenarios are presented. For those of the young who do not adopt our ideas, do we really want “feminists” to represent the people who presented them with scenarios which had right answers, who started up discussions which only had right answers, who told them there was either the right way or the highway, and who didn’t deign to listen? Can we expect young people to learn to listen to each other, if we do not listen to them? If we tense up at the merest mention of an idea which might orbit at whatever distance from “rape culture,” and fail to see the utterer, too, as a real, vulnerable, young person, with real problems of learning to manage a reputation and sexual persona within a real social environment?
Masculinity, even for us, is like femininity a performance, something which is not innate but learned. It is learned, and it is reinforced by others. In any particular culture, including our own cultures of “traditional sexuality,” masculinity is reinforced by men and women, as femininity is reinforced by men and women, playing off the expectations of each other. Those in whom masculinity does not take, are not reinforced – and many of these are not “gay,” which is now a recognized status for many people who do not otherwise allow a lot of leeway within the expectations of masculinity for heterosexual men. Those in whom femininity does not take, I need not explain their fate for this audience, whether they remain heterosexual or choose a lesbian identity.
Well, maybe to use the postmodern expression, I am one of those who believe that we are “always already dog training” each other, and this is inescapable. But if our goal is to teach others to avoid giving pain and hurt, I think we can do this, if we model the compassion we want, ourselves. There are those who do not care whether they hurt others, and I don’t think we can always reach them, though some do change. But what about those who do care, and who do not, themselves, rape, but who come up with the wrong answers in the scenarios because their experiences of the world are different than the ones we wish them to have? I think they have to have real options, not just ideal ones, but ones which make sense to them, in their world.
Personally I side with emphasizing rules less. I think there is a big emphasis on consent as rules, not only because of the need to explain regulations and punishments, but also because our culture just doesn’t do emotions well. In what other field of life do we try to encourage people to treat each other without hurt, rather than to grab for whatever they can within the technical limits of the law? The practice of schools enforcing their rules according to mechanical “zero tolerance” principles, rather than by using measure and human judgment, is corrosive to trust and makes young people all the more susceptible to looking at the wording of regulations rather than to human meaning. And in practice, when enlightened practices are motivated by institutional fear of lawsuits, this does not lead to the institutions treating people as human beings either. We have entrusted the kindling of warm, human caring to cold, indifferent institutions.
Nevertheless, if consent is, to us, caring and treating others as human beings, we have to say explicitly and convincingly that that is what it is, over and above its explanation as rules. And we have to model the human treatment of human beings as we do so. I’m not criticizing anyone specifically here; I’m not even saying that the “feminist” education many young people get is even by people who understand feminism. At this point, the legal requirements are such that much “feminist” education is done by people who hardly “get it,” but they do “get” institutional legalistic pressures, and the human factor suffers.
Actually I have faith that consent, presented as part of a basic mutual respect, can appeal to many, who find its presentation as rules more problematic. Particularly if they are allowed to generate the rules themselves, in ways which make sense to their underlying cultural and social realities. The presentation from above, or at any rate from outside, of what looks like a whole new way of life, will often fail; but people can find for themselves how to implement basic human respect, within the frameworks that they understand. And this will itself, from within, make changes that it is harder to make, from without.
I apologize sincerely and strongly for the heteronormativity above, which I can’t believe I wrote, about “choosing” a lesbian identity or “retaining” a heterosexual one. If I can amend it to say, “whether they are heterosexual or lesbian”, I would very much appreciate it.
As I said, culture does not change overnight, or by fiat, even in my would-be enlightened head. Which is now firmly hitting the desk about this.
deleted – what part of don’t post on this thread don’t you understand? – Maia
deleted
CJ,
You have already been banned from this thread, and at this point, I think you are perilously close to being banned from this site. And this fragment above is exactly why.
I think that my friend shouldn’t have been raped by my other friend. I think we should find ways to change the culture to make rapes like that one not happen. I think both my friends would have been happier people if they hadn’t had sex that night. This isn’t a thread about what the legal definitions of rape should be, or of what sort of evidence should be admissible, but it seems that that is the only way that you can conceptualize rape. As something to be punished by the law, not something to be prevented from happening.
Charles,
I don’t want to give the asshat who insists on posting to this thread any more attention than he’s managed to get, but I’m really uncomfortable with any definition of “rape” that isn’t punishable by law.
Yes, let’s prevent it from happening. Let’s educate men that they don’t have a right to sex. But I don’t want there to be some kinds of rape that are “legal” and other kinds of rape that are “illegal”.
Maybe I’m reading you wrong because asshat keeps barging in, in which case I’m sorry for the misreading. I just don’t see men changing their behavior until the things women know to be “rape” are things that courts of law also know to be “rape”.
There are a lot of actions that have “Bad doggie, bad!” consequences. I don’t think all feminist-definition-of-rape rapes need to result in someone going to the Big House, but I do believe that all feminist-definitions-of-rape acts are rape, even if they don’t mean someone goes to the Big House. I think that’s one of the problems with rape — there aren’t enough “degrees” of rape. There isn’t a “this is rape, sorry, you might not like it, but the legal system recognizes that this is rape.”
If I touch you, and you didn’t want to be touched by me, that’s battery. There’s a point where my touching you on your shoulder against your wishes is going to warrant more than a stern warning from the police, but if you touch me after I’ve told you not to, I can call the police and they will give you that stern warning.
I don’t have a clue how it would work, but there have to be consequences other than wagging a finger disapprovingly and saying “Bad doggie!”
CJ this was a feminist only thread – it was never acceptable that you post here.
Everyone else I’m sorry I didn’t notice this conversation yesterday – Maia
I’m going to pipe up in support of Maia here. I think the strategy of “letting the legalities rest for a minute” is critical and a very good idea.
It is one thing for antirape education to just be an explanation of, “here are the laws, these are the consequences.” But Maia seems to want it to accomplish something more.
Not all rapists or potential rapists are reachable. Those who really don’t care about consent — the sociopaths and the extreme “ideological” sexists — are probably not going to be changed by education. But I think there is also a population which could be reachable by a different approach, an approach which honestly approaches the question in terms of the harm that rape causes, which demonstrates convincingly how that harm arises directly out of disregarding the consent of the other person, and which appeals directly to the desire to be a decent person, not to cause harm.
I would argue that such education also has to be compassionate to its target audience, to understand (if not always agree with) its culture and, for example, the pressures it puts on men to be masculine in a certain way.
Let’s not insult the target audience of antirape education by assuming that they are without feelings and compassion themselves, and assuming that they will only respond to commands and legalities. If discussions tend to be derailed in that direction, one (maybe minor) reason for this may be because legalities are so often the focus in the first place. Perhaps taking a break from legalities could be a good strategy.
I was recently raped. I have faced the whole “at least you weren’t beaten badly” attitude. This attitude is why many rapists walk free to rape again. Believe me…I almost wish I had been beaten…so that it would be easier to prosecute. And they are prosecuting… and I know how hard it will be. Or at least they keep telling me that. I can’t imagine hell on earth getting much harder than this already is. But I will keep on if it means he might get justice….and I might get justice adn protect others from this horror…but I hear it is really difficult.
Apparently in this day and age…you need not beat a woman into submission when you can drug her and rape her repeatedly…and when she wakes up and can’t move…just keep raping her and tell her all about how you raped and humiliated her the whole night. And…She can’t fight back. She wishes she could have fought back.
My heart was destroyed. If you have never been raped you will NEVER ever know that no matter how it goes down….you have been crushed. “Rape really is a way of killing a person, but then asking them to get up afterwards. So it’s a way of stealing one’s spirit, but you’re supposed to somehow keep going.” -Salamishah Tillet
I will struggle the rest of my life with it. I think you should all see this site The Truth About Rape… Truthaboutrape
Rape of one woman makes others question and worry for themselves and it affects everyone. I sing the praises of BritGirlSF on this thread. Thank you.
Take the Rape Quiz
Talk About Rape, the Quiz
As far as me… who will doubtfully ever be raped…. wondering at what kind of rape is worse… “I envy you and your ignorance…I hear that it is bliss” – Ani Difranco
I am not discouraging men from being involved in the fight against rape.
Just try to get the story straight.
Lastly an excerpt from “ I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape” – Andrea Dworkin
I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape
“What’s involved in doing something about all of this? The men’s movement seems to stay stuck on two points. The first is that men don’t really feel very good about themselves. How could you? The second is that men come to me or to other feminists and say: “What you’re saying about men isn’t true. It isn’t true of me. I don’t feel that way. I’m opposed to all of this.”
And I say: don’t tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There’s no point in telling me. I’m only a woman. There’s nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don’t, then you had better let them know.
Then there is the private world of misogyny: what you know about each other; what you say in private life; the exploitation that you see in the private sphere; the relationships called love, based on exploitation. It’s not enough to find some traveling feminist on the road and go up to her and say: “Gee, I hate it.”
Say it to your friends who are doing it. And there are streets out there on which you can say these things loud and dear, so as to affect the actual institutions that maintain these abuses. You don’t like pornography? I wish I could believe it’s true. I will believe it when I see you on the streets. I will believe it when I see an organized political opposition. I will believe it when pimps go out of business because there are no more male consumers.
You want to organize men. You don’t have to search for issues. The issues are part of the fabric of your everyday lives.”
correction :
As far as men…
who will doubtfully ever be raped…. wondering at what kind of rape is worse… “I envy you and your ignorance…I hear that it is bliss” – Ani Difranco
I’d like to apologise for not getting onto this yesterday.
I’d like to thank Charles and humbition for moving things away from a legalistic model. I can’t remember if this is something I’ve addressed explicitly – but always coming back to ‘what should his punishment be’ is a very perpetrator focused approach.
It appears to be almost impossible to get people to think about women who have been raped, rather than men who rape, and I find that really depressing.
I don’t think the problem is one of men not understanding that rape is a bad thing. Ask a man what his reaction would be if his mother, wife, girlfriend or daughter were raped. I think the overwhelming majority of men would be all for drawing and quartering whoever did it.
But if it gets turned into “You’ll hurt her feelings” education, I think rape is going to turn into a decision between two different people’s feelings and someone deciding rape is okay because their feelings (or, more likely, “needs”) are more important than the other person’s feelings. Or worse, “What about my feelings when she keeps saying ‘No’?” I’ve seen enough of those discussions on-line to know where that one is going to go.
Something to ponder as I bow out of this discussion.
“I don’t think the problem is one of men not understanding that rape is a bad thing. Ask a man what his reaction would be if his mother, wife, girlfriend or daughter were raped. I think the overwhelming majority of men would be all for drawing and quartering whoever did it.”
But there’s someting seriously wrong if men don’t understand that rape is a bad thing unless it happens to a woman in relation to himself.
But there’s someting seriously wrong if men don’t understand that rape is a bad thing unless it happens to a woman in relation to himself.
No, that’s just human psychology. I can read you the news from China where a flood has killed 100,000 people, and – after decent expressions of grief and sorrow and perhaps a philosophical thought about the fragility of life – you’ll sleep like a baby. If I inform you that your Anglo brother visiting China is starving and ill, you’ll toss and turn all night. This isn’t because you hate Chinese people or because there’s something wrong with you; it’s our natural behavior to be more concerned about Bad Things the closer they are to us either biologically or in terms of emotional bonds.
Men understand that rape is a bad thing intellectually; to get it in the gut, it has to be in the gut, and that means people they (we) care about.
Robert,
We’re not talking about being less upset because someone elses mother or sister or wife or daughter is raped than if ones own mother, sister, wife or daughter is raped, we’re talking about men who’d be upset if it happened to their own family member, but who do it to someone elses.
Being less concerned is, as you say, understandable. We all have our own lives close to home complete with our own problems. But to create a problem for someone else? Sorry, that’s just disgusting.
“She didn’t consent, so it’s rape”
to me, it’s that easy.
How can it be more complicated?
But this example is so interesting,
Is it a good habit for a woman to bring a drunk man that high up the defcon while alone, in a bed,in the dark, with no pants on *then* cordially inform him that he isn’t getting any? (if it’s spur of the moment, that’s justifiable)
What If he snaps from johnny football hero to a raping rapist who rapes her out of sheer drunken indulgence in temptation/ knowledge that his reputation/her wish to maintain hers will save him? (It’s still 100% his fault, legally and morally..in my view, without consent) but still, such scandelous behavior on the part of a woman is …cruising for a brusing, so to speak.
ALEX, No matter how much you say you don’t think rape is right….or double speak….No matter how you frame it your last sentence, “cruising for a bruising” confirms that you believe the myth that women “ask for it”.
All conditions aside…if a woman doesn’t want to have sex and the man decides his choice is more important than hers….it is rape …and no one asks to be raped.
See how deep these rape myths run in our culture. Don’t be a rape apologist.
I can see an feel the deep tug of war inside of people where they want to believe that it is wrong….but they still just can’t help themselves from holding on tight to the myth that the woman asks for it and is responsible.
Placing the responsibility for rape on women is the cornerstone of the problems surrounding rape. Please let go of all your “what if’s” If a woman is raped… it is wrong… and it is the man’s responsibility and fault for committing the rape. I am sick of the “he couldn’t control himself” crap.
Placing responsibility on the woman continues in many ugly ways out side of the rape and leads to other sad occurrences such as victim blaming.
I am a rape victim and your little scenario was not the scenario…. but even if it was it would not be my fault. Men have control over their actions.
In your scenario would the woman still be considered “cruising for a bruising” if the guy snapped because he didn’t get what he thought he had coming to him…and angered so that he kills her? Is it really ok to lose control like that?
“Rape really is a way of killing a person, but then asking
them to get up afterwards. So it’s a way of stealing one’s spirit,
but you’re supposed to somehow keep going.”
-Salamishah Tillet
I have also recently encountered Victim Blaming. It is a surprising and painful second to the actual rape. This kind of blaming the victim must stop!
I want to ask rape victims who have suffered victim blaming to talk with me on my blog. http://anallegoryofthecave.blogspot.com/
I think a better way 0f putting it is “it’s a myth that women intentionally do things thinking they are going to be raped”. It’s the “You Should Have Known Better” Syndrome.
The mistake is that there are socially-acceptable instances in which what Alex described up until the rape IS the correct behavior.
Man and woman go out on a date. Woman agrees to be designated driver. Man drinks, woman is sober. Woman drive drunk boyfriend home. So far, so good. Man decides he “deserves” sex because of those $3.00 Virgin Daiquiris. Woman winds up being raped.
How does that differ from the scenario Alex presented? Me — I don’t sleep fully clothed.
What’s the socially realistic alternative here? No one ever drinks? Women leave drunk men in bars? Drunk men drive themselves home? Men and women stop living together?
Good Point Furry. Thank you for pointing out another facet of victim blaming…the, “You Should Have Known Better” syndrome.
If all these myths were true then we’d have to assume women are responsible for all the bad things that happen to them and they are also stupid because they don’t use their mind-reading and future seeing powers. Silly girls!
I went to sleep clothed. I woke up being raped by a completely naked and disgusting male stranger. What should I have done differently? Not gone to sleep?
Should I have known that being asleep as a single young girl is asking for it?
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION…THE RAPIST IS TO BLAME!
You cannot predict a rape…anymore than you can predict getting punched…or murdered….or getting run over by a car. Why are we blaming the victims?
I think men all too often feel lumped into a category. Or maybe some of them have the urge to rape …and when they hear that other men have raped….they sympathize with the rapist…“poor guy got lead on and then just lost control” Rapists are in control of their actions. NOTHING A WOMAN DOES MEANS SHE DESERVES TO BE RAPED!
Are you a man who wouldn’t rape? Are you a man who is angered that your gender is ruining your genders good name? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Our culture molds rapists from sexism and misogyny. Don’t let messages go out that degrade women and illustrate them as powerless idiot bodies to be used like trash.
If your friends say misogynistic and degrading things to or about women… Speak out against it. Don’t buy into the porn industry and the sex industry…. Don’t sit by silently as the women of the world are raped.
Rape is an act of terror. It is not only the victims (women and men) that are afraid. It is everyone. One rape makes all people fear for their safety.
Only Rapists have the power to stop rape. STOP VICITM BLAMING!
GET INVOLVED. GET INFORMED.
TAKE THE RAPE QUIZ…
Talk About Rape, the Quiz