In the comments to an earlier post – one which made fun of the idea that by entering a man’s hotel room, a woman has consented to sex – “Rap” wrote:
Why is basic common sense no longer applicable in this situation?
If a person has no intention of getting shot on a certain street known for nightly shootings then that person, even if they have the right to walk down that street, can absolutely 100% without any doubt eliminate the possibility of being shot on that street if they simply choose to not walk on that street at night.
And why is basic common sense more applicable in this situation, as it always is?
Get a grip.
The thing is, “common sense” doesn’t begin and end with not going to a man’s hotel room alone, does it?
If women avoid doing all the things that they’re supposed to avoid doing in the name of “common sense” measures to avoid rape – if women don’t let themselves ever be alone in a room with a man they don’t know well, if they never walk alone at night or on isolated roads, if they never go to an empty bus station or subway terminal and never ride in an empty train car, and never walk alone in a public garage, never drink in a bar alone, never get drunk at a frat party (actually, better not attend the frat party in the first place!), and of course never wear tight clothing, etc etc…
If a woman actually obeyed all those “common sense” rules, it would be an awful lot like a life lived under house arrest, wouldn’t it?
Suggesting people should avoid walking down murder row is reasonable. Suggesting women should avoid the world – which is what all those “common sense” strategies boil down to – is not reasonable.
(And the wacky punchline to all this? Even if a woman obeys every single rule for avoiding rape, she still might get raped.)
I do think women – like everyone else – should exercise some common sense for self-protection. But in the final analysis, changing women’s behavior isn’t a promising anti-rape strategy. I’d rather discuss ways of changing men’s behavior. Rapists are by and large male, after all..
I have been thinking about this issue since I read your post yesterday. I did have some points to make about the issue of why a woman would visit a guy’s hotel room if she is not expecting him to jump on her.
This is not always cut and dried like the “common sense” advocates make it sound.
There are lots of reasons to be in a confined space alone with a person of the opposite gender and I don’t see why a woman should have to take the absurd (and very insulting to men) precaution of avoiding all such situations.
I am a professional corporate trainer. Sometimes I have to travel and conduct training in a hotel. Sometimes in the course of these events I have to meet with another trainer or training manager (who is male) in one of our rooms. I certainly do not assume that doing so means I am inviting rape.
When I was in college and lived in a dorm I did not assume that going to a guy’s room meant I was asking for rape, either. This included if we were working on research or studying together but it also included if I went there after a date. Was I just being naive? Was I merely lucky that, in 4 years of college, not one of the men I ever visited, assumed that I was asking for sex by entering their room and forced me? Or is it that the idea of men as much more than merely sexual beings, is actually a more accurate assumption than the reverse?
I lived in Saudi Arabia for a year, where making eye contact with the opposite sex is a come-on — I learned to keep my eyes on the ground while I lived there. These “common sense” standards sound like America is moving that way. Just avoid all situations where you might have to be alone with a guy? Can you say “Gender Segregation”? What should I do if I am waiting for an elevator and it opens and there is a single guy inside? Take the stairs, I suppose, that would be just “common sense.”
Common sense also keeps us from making men ressponsible for their actions. This is just one large, all-encompassing version of the idea that women are always the passive receptors who say yes or no to sex but never take the lead.
(1) Anna, a feisty young woman who has just started work in our building – 30 something, fit, healthy, assertive – has announced she won’t get into a lift alone.
In case someone gets into it at another floor.
She has to wait for someone to go up or down with her, who she knows.
Lives are ruined in this way.
(2) I remember a rape case in the late 80s where a judge remarked that a woman who went into a carpark in a miniskirt was simply asking for it. This was when skirts were worn above the knee in corporate suits. In other words, if you accepted his word, a woman wouldn’t be able to work – at least, not if she had to go and get her car afterwards at a late hour.
Ampersand is spot on. Why is it our behaviour which needs to change?
To Helen:
Re your answer to my completely silly and gratuitous example of refusing to get on an elevator:
ARGH. And I thought it was a misogynistic climate here in the MIDDLE EAST where i live. At least no one that I have ever met has a problem getting on elevators with strangers.
Re your comment on miniskirts, that also reminds me of another Saudi Arabia anecdote: Some people had started health clubs for women only (everything is gender segregated in SA as you probably have heard), and they caught a guy who was peeping into the windows of these health clubs in Riyadh — so they closed down EVERY women’s health club in the ENTIRE KINGDOM in order to protect those women from peeping toms. Whose behavior needs to change, indeed. Obviously women who work out are being provocative and asking for it.
For some reason, I’m reminded of a Golda Meir anecdote.
It seems that in the late 60’s there was an epidemic of rapes taking place after dark on the streets of Jerusalem. In a cabinet meeting, entirely male, except for Ms. Meir, someone suggested that perhaps there should be a curfew imposed on women to keep them off the streets after dark for their own protection.
She responded by pointedly questioning why the curfew should not be applied to the men since it was they who were committing the rapes.
No curfew was ever imposed.
I remember about ten years ago I walked my roommate’s dog down an alley in Chicago around midnight every night for months. It was a stupid thing to do, and I long suspected I had managed to dodge a bullet for months. Eventually I did get mugged.
According to conservative thinking, the problem was that I did something stupid, not that two guys threatened me and tried to take my money. (I didn’t have any on me. I wasn’t that stupid.) Semi-risky behavior, particularly about things that could end badly but shouldn’t (walking down an alley, going into some guy’s hotel room), doesn’t eliminate the fact that someone else committed the actual crime.
We can’t win. If I excersise caution by not going into an elevator with a man I don’t know, by not inviting my date up for coffee at the end of the night, by not allowing a guy to get me a drink (ah, the wonder of date rape drugs), I’m a man hater who thinks all men are rapists. If I didn’t do these things and something happened, I’d be asking for it because I didn’t exersize “common sense.”
Oh, yeah someone’s got to get a grip, indeed. Sheesh.
Well, there’s “risk” and then there’s “risk.” Like anything else, the situation matters.
Going to a man’s hotel room alone with him because you’re a trainer or for some similar business-related reason is one thing.
Having drinks with a guy in a bar and then going to his hotel room alone with him is a bit different. No, you’re not “inviting rape” but certainly it’s disingenious to pretend you didn’t realize getting tipsy and going to someone’s bedroom wasn’t at least a tacit signal that you were willing to engage in sexual behavior.
Walking a dog, getting on an elevator, working out, these fall into the first category. They’re something anyone, male or female (men get mugged and sometimes even raped), should be able to do without being perceived as “inviting” an assault.
Everyone has to be responsible. People have to exercise some common sense and society has to take action to minimize the risk of just living everyday life.
Sorry to double-comment, but I just had to add this. I’m a bit concerned about discussions of “changing men’s behavior.”
Men are not, by and large, rapists. There are circumstances under which each of us, male or female, would commit different kinds of violence, but very, very few of us are just randomly violent.
A few men do commit rape but I think it’s necessary to distinguish between a psycho crouched beside a dark bush on an unlit street, knife or gun in hand, and the kind of, well, almost “date rape” that fits the “going to his hotel room” scenario.
Of course, bottom line, as a woman I think “no means no” and it’s rape if you’re saying no and you’re overpowered and forced to have sex, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think there are qualitative differences between a predator and a more, well, “situational” rape.
I’m no psychologist and I’m not trying to pick a fight, but in some way I can’t articulate, it seems to me that there’s a significant psychological difference between the two.
A really nice piece, Ampersand!
Some time ago I used to work in a city where a very unusual serial raping crime was ongoing. Two men, as a team, kidnapped women, forced them into their car, drove to some deserted location and then raped the women. These kidnappings and rapes took place at any hour of the day, but usually in the middle of the day. One woman was kidnapped from a busy supermarket parking lot.
The advice I was given at work was not to go out unnecessarily… I did go out, of course, but that’s when I started learning self-defence. It’s no substitute for a safer society, but it’s something.
This comparison is wonderful! If you walk down a dangerous street and someone you don’t know shoots and kills you, is that person responsible for his or her actions?
Well, yes, of course. That’s not even a question. Our legal system doesn’t blame the victims of murder for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No matter where you are, the person who attempts to kill you, or even, attempts to kill someone else and kills you by accident, is always at fault. They can’t say, “Sure, I murdered that person but I was really shooting to kill someone else.”
Now, what if you do something against common sense or cultural mores, and accidentally are in a situation where someone might think you wanted to have sex? Are they allowed to FORCE you to have sex without your consent?
No, that’s just silly. Even if you are sending the wrong signals about your intention to consent to sex, if someone has sex with you against your will, that’s rape. If you look like you could use a good meal, and I forcefeed you a sandwich, no jury is going to say, “Well, he was too skinny, she couldn’t help herself.”
The only reason that a rapist (or his lawyer) can even introduce the idea that you were in the wrong place, or wearing the wrong clothing, or whatever, is that we as a society are still confused about the difference between consent and force. Or, one could argue, introducing such arguments are predicated on using the threat of rape to keep women from having freedom of movement, dress, etc.
Anne, why is going to someone’s hotel room a tacit signal to engage in sexual behavior? The only signal it should be is that you would like to spend more time with the person. What if it was a straight guy who went to the room of a gay guy? Is that a signal that he’s willing to get sexual? If not, why is it different? (A heterosexual woman does not feel attracted to every heterosexual man she meets, and vice versa.)
Am I tacitly agreeing to sex if I hang out alone with a guy friend (whom I know and trust) after havinga few drinks? Where, exactly, do we draw the line? What is wrong with expecting men to assume that going to someone’s room doesn’t mean you’re consenting to sex, or consenting to certain sex acts? It’s irresponsible to give men license to do whatever they want. Why is it so difficult to ask *men* to take responsibility for their actions? Men who rape make a choice to force someone to have sex. They don’t have to make that choice. And if they don’t think they can handle it if a woman turns them down for sex, maybe they shouldn’t be inviting strangers up to their hotel rooms.
And yes, I think men’s behavior needs to change. Not all men are rapists, but there is enough BS out there excusing rape. And you know, more “situational” rape (whatever that means) is still committed by someone who thinks he’s entitled to take what he wants no matter what his partner/companion says. *That* behavior has to change.
If a strange man allowed himself to get drunk and pass out at my place, I would still be guilty of theft if I stole his wallet. No matter what rationalizations I gave (he should have known better, I’m not a mugger waiting in a dark alley, this was situational, he should have realized that he was consenting to sharing his wealth with me when he passed out in my living room).
“Walking a dog, getting on an elevator, working out, these fall into the first category. They’re something anyone, male or female (men get mugged and sometimes even raped), should be able to do without being perceived as ‘inviting’ an assault.”
Walking a dog in a well-known dangerous area? How is that different from going to someone’s hotel room? Except, of course, that the crimes that can be committed usually happen to men as well. Let’s say it’s a serial rapist out there, and a woman gets raped while walking her dog. Is she responsible? Many would say so.
“Everyone has to be responsible. People have to exercise some common sense and society has to take action to minimize the risk of just living everyday life.”
No argument with that. I do, however, have a problem with “responsibility” being put on women when they are assaulted. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If I use “common sense” and refrain from being alone with a man, I’m a man-hater who assumes all men are rapists. If I am alone with a man who rapes me, then I’m being irresponsible.
Echidne was advised to not go out “unnecessarily” when there were serial rapes happening. I don’t think that putting women under virtual house arrest is the same as being responsible. I think it’s shifting the blame to women for the actions of criminals.
“Having drinks with a guy in a bar and then going to his hotel room alone with him is a bit different. No, you’re not “inviting rape” but certainly it’s disingenious to pretend you didn’t realize getting tipsy and going to someone’s bedroom wasn’t at least a tacit signal that you were willing to engage in sexual behavior.”
I don’t see as there is any pretending or disingenuousness going on at all if after a few drinks a woman goes with a man up to his room. I think the assumption of sexual interest merely because a woman goes to your room is reasonable. However, (and this is the big however), if at any time the woman says no, even after having drinks with the man, even after going to his room, then that assumption of interest MUST end. Yes, women should even be free to go to a man’s hotel room without worrying about whether they will be raped, and without the stigma induced when somebody asserts that their very act of going to a man’s room was an implied yes.
“Sorry to double-comment, but I just had to add this. I’m a bit concerned about discussions of “changing men’s behavior.””
Well, now, men are the larger part of the population of rapists. So we talk about changing the behavior of men. There isn’t any assumption in that statement that ALL men are rapists or even that most men are rapists–just an understanding that by and large the rapist is more likely to be male than female.
Of course, the stance that questions why men’s behavior is focused on, yet still thinks that women should hold to common sense notions that entering a man’s hotel room is a high risk behavior seems contradictory. On one hand, women are directed to see every man as a potential rapist, and on the other that very assumption is questioned.
What is at question here is the idea that women’s behavior needs to be restricted while men are often given a pass, if only in our internal judgements (ie, when women restricting their behavior is seen as merely common sense).
Response to Anne’s 8:20am comment:
Yes, there *is* a huge psychological difference between the serial rapist lurking in the bushes and the acquaintance rapist who seems nice but isn’t.
I think that prescribing defensive behaviors for women, such as not walking alone at night, is going to be more effective for reducing the incidence of stranger rape, and that changing men’s attitudes about sexuality is going to be more effective in reducing the incidence of acquaintance rape.
Since acquaintance rape is far more common, and since women already know that we can be (marginally) safer through defensiveness, changing men’s attitudes strikes me as the more urgent project.
Question for people saying women need to be “more cautious”. What about sexual assault against children? Do we hold the child responsible because he or she should have known not to get into the creepy guy’s van? Why is it only rape where the responsibility is beared on the victim?
If someone named Rapey McGee invites you to his hotel room, then I’d advise you not to go into there, since his name being Rapey McGee, same as I would advise someone not to get into a dark alley with Stabbey McGee and his brother Muggy McGee. But real-life rapists aren’t that clear cut.
Having drinks with a guy in a bar and then going to his hotel room alone with him is a bit different. No, you’re not “inviting rape” but certainly it’s disingenious to pretend you didn’t realize getting tipsy and going to someone’s bedroom wasn’t at least a tacit signal that you were willing to engage in sexual behavior.
Okay, so having a drink and then going up to a guy’s room is inviting RAPE?! Suppose she’s just interested in SEX? There is a difference you know.
I remember my mother ripping into two young guys at work over this after the Mike Tyson case. One of them made that comment: “Well, she went up to his room — what did she want if she went up to his room?”
My mother (my little 4’11” tall Italian grey-haired mother) rounded on him and said, “Maybe she wanted SEX. Women are sexual beings. What she didn’t want was to GET THE SHIT BEATEN OUT OF HER.”
But to too many men (let’s face it, damned near all, and if you aren’t in that category I’m not going to kiss your ass and reassure you, you can figure it out for yourself), a woman who agrees to mere sex has tacitly agreed to have her head put through a wall, her bones broken, her eyes blackened, to get stabbed, thrown down a flight of stairs, anything at all done to her, anything he wants.
(And too many women, as your comment illustrates, are perfectly willing to agree with this.)
By agreeing to sex with a male, a woman signs away all ownership of her body. She can agree to sex, and if he promptly picks up a baseball bat and nearly KILLS her, no jury in the world will convict him. It’s wonderful for males — as long as a woman agrees (or seems to agree) to sex, he has a complete carte blanche from every society in the world to commit acts of savagery that he would never ever get away with otherwise. In what other situation does this sort of blanket exemption exist? None. Even war has rules. (Then again, war is between men, which means it matters.)
Sex with men == he can KILL you if he so desires. And no jury in the world will convict him.
Unless, of course, the world is willing to put some muscle behind the supposed claim that there IS any difference between sex and rape.
The older I get, the more I become convinced that Andrea Dworkin was right — and that men and women agree with her. That’s why the reaction against her words was so strong — no one ever makes friends by being right about something unpleasant.
I think that prescribing defensive behaviors for women, such as not walking alone at night, is going to be more effective for reducing the incidence of stranger rape …
I resent being restricted if I’m not the problem. I think arming women would go a lot further toward reducing the incidence of strange rape. I’d much prefer that solution to a solution where I’m punished through restriction of my actions because of something someone else did.
Having drinks with a guy in a bar and then going to his hotel room alone with him is a bit different. No, you’re not “inviting rape” but certainly it’s disingenious to pretend you didn’t realize getting tipsy and going to someone’s bedroom wasn’t at least a tacit signal that you were willing to engage in sexual behavior.
Okay, so having a drink and then going up to a guy’s room is inviting RAPE?! Suppose she’s just interested in SEX? There is a difference you know.
I’d also like to know how your comment is different from mine.
“By agreeing to sex with a male, a woman signs away all ownership of her body. She can agree to sex, and if he promptly picks up a baseball bat and nearly KILLS her, no jury in the world will convict him. It’s wonderful for males — as long as a woman agrees (or seems to agree) to sex, he has a complete carte blanche from every society in the world to commit acts of savagery that he would never ever get away with otherwise. In what other situation does this sort of blanket exemption exist? None. Even war has rules. (Then again, war is between men, which means it matters.)
Sex with men == he can KILL you if he so desires. And no jury in the world will convict him.”
I don’t agree. I think there is a lot more to that than the scenario you’ve given. If a man beat his wife to death after having consensual sex with her, he would be charged with murder. In fact, it has happened, so there has been a jury in the world that has convicted guys like this. There are other juries who won’t, but I don’t think it’s constructive to paint this in abseloutes.
Also, about the war comment: Women fight in wars. Women are killed in wars. And women (and men) are raped in wars.
Here’s another question about the hotel conundrum:
What if she goes up thinking of sex, and he really wants to be spanked because it’s a turn-on? If she doesn’t agree, is she a tease? Who’s to say what sex is, or what acts can/should even be implied? What if she’s expecting penile-vaginal intercourse, and he’s just hoping for oral sex? Does he have the right to force her to go down on him? What if *she’s* hoping for oral sex? By inviting her up to his room, is he giving a tacit signal that he’ll perform oral sex on her? And if he doesn’t, is he being provacative?
What sex acts are we supposedly agreeing to by going up to someone’s hotel room? And if we can agree that it’s not okay to force someone into doing something that’s outside the realm of the missionary position, penis-vagina sex (or oral sex), why can’t we agree that forcing someone into penis-vagina or oral sex isn’t okay?
Another way of looking at this is that this “women should avoid going to mens’ hotel rooms,” is just another way of blaming the victim. She wears tight clothing, she’s asking for it. She goes to a man’s hotel room, she’s asking for it.
Get real. She might not be asking for it.
If a woman actually obeyed all those “common sense” rules, it would be an awful lot like a life lived under house arrest, wouldn’t it?
or under fundamentalist theocratic law. [i am not specifying which theology i am referring to. it could be one of many currently extant or longingly imagined for the future.]
speaking as a man…what the fuck is wrong with us? just askin’. [and shaking my head]
it is absolutely incomprehensible to me to have sex with someone who was even slightly bored, much less unwilling. even to the slightest degree. so who the fuck are these guys?? no wonder i don’t have any goddamned friends.
“What we have here folks is a breakdown in communication”… What I’d like to know is why men have to rely on freaking non-verbal “cues” to know if a woman means “yes” or “no”. TLC’s “Let’s Talk About Sex” were bloody genius – a shitload of these misunderstandings would go away if a man would just go to the trouble of *asking* a woman, out loud, in a language she can understand – whether or not she wants to have sex; and then what *kind* of sex she’s willing to engage in. But then (and here’s the tricky part, folks) the guy has to RESPECT her wishes.
I agree that most men aren’t willingly rapists. But I think a lot of them are, perhaps unwittingly because they’re so damned quick to buy in to whatever locker room wisdom they’be been blessed with by other guys who are looking for any kind of justification to allow them to “get laid”.
All “the guys” say that “No means Yes”… or “if she comes to your hotel room she’s asking for it”… or “you’ll die from blue balls if she doesn’t let you finish”; etc. The problem with all of this “everyone knows” kind of knowledge is that THEY DON’T!! And even if it is common knowledge, a man cannot assume that his prospective partner either also knows, or agrees with that “common knowledge”.
Common sense would hold that, if a guy doesn’t want to be a rapist, he’ll make damned sure he’s got his partner’s consent at every step along the way. Here’s the problem: Sex is a MUTUAL, COOPERATIVE effort. Like all join ventures, it requires COMMUNICATION. But men are so sociallized that they’ve “gotta have it” and “deserve it” (neverminding for a moment that “it” is not an object… it’s a real, breathing, thinking & feeling person) that *they* are the ones who overlook basic common sense and at that critical moment, start listening to the voices of their buddies or the girls in the music video or porn movie in the back of their heads instead of listening to the voice of the actual women they’re with.
Just thinking more about this. A better analogy would be, if I invite a guy up to my hotel room, you’re saying he assumes I’m asking for sex. Does that mean I get to tie him up, strangle him nearly unconscious with a garotte fashioned from my pantyhose; strap on a dildo and penetrate him anally? Then invite a few of my kinky friends (male and female) who happen to be in the other room to join in (either with their own strap-ons or natural equipment??).
But to too many men (let’s face it, damned near all, and if you aren’t in that category I’m not going to kiss your ass and reassure you, you can figure it out for yourself), a woman who agrees to mere sex has tacitly agreed to have her head put through a wall, her bones broken, her eyes blackened, to get stabbed, thrown down a flight of stairs, anything at all done to her, anything he wants.
Please offer some evidence for this claim. I absolutely agree that some men may think this way. . .and I agree that there are “too many” who do, but then, 1% would be way, way too many.
I do not agree that “damned near all men” think this way, and I find it an insulting and ignorant thing to claim. It’s shit like this that helps bolster the anti-feminists when they say that feminism is about “hating men.” They’re able to quote something like this and attribute it to all feminists. . .and as much as that’s intellectually dishonest on their part, it doesn’t make the original statement any less loathesome.
—JRC
Wow, I hardly know where to start after all this wonderful commenting.
First off, this “if she goes up to the room, she’s at least tacitly signalling” an interest in sex.
1. I don’t care WHAT someone (male or female) thinks they sense (social cues, etc) from someone, unless that person explicits states “Hey, let’s shag”, how can ANYONE assume that sex is in the offing? No does mean no, and everyone -again, male or female- has a right to stop ANY sexual activity at any time. Period.
2. Regardless of what social cues men have allegedly been indoctrinated with in the locker room, common sense and logic should dictate that non-consensual sex is wrong. I think it fair to say that most people who do wrong KNOW they do, but don’t want to admit it. They’d rather plead diminished capacity, retardation, aliens shrunk my brain, whatever.
3. A woman can take as many precautions as possible, and they can still get raped. Self-defense, guns, not walking alone, whatever. It can still happen. A bad choice (walking alone, for ex.) is not justification for a criminal act.
4. The act of sex is NOT “signing away” the rights to your body! EVER! Being in the midst of an intimate act removes neither personal control OR responsibility from the other partner. Here’s where clear communication comes in- expectations, limitations, and cessation if requested.
Just my two cyber cents…
I’m sorry, though all men are not rapists, far too many men get more pissed off about womens’ feelings about rape than they do about rape itself for it to be a coincidence. Men only get pissed off about rape if it happens to some woman they ‘own’. Then it’s personal. I’ve seen too many men who took either a passive approach to rape, or didn’t realize that their best buddy, their son, their brother, or whatever was in fact a rapist. And you know? I don’t think they care, either. They care more about women complaining about it.
It’s always funny to me that men evidently think that they can read womens’ minds with regard to sex, but their telepathy never works on anything else. Nope, they never seem to get it that housework is a much better way to sex than alcohol or rape drugs. Why bother asking a woman what she wants? There’s a chance she might say no.
Hold on just a minute. There is an apathy towards rape. However the statement that JRC objected to was (to paraphrase) “damned near all men think that if a woman consents to sex, they can do anything they want to her body, up to and including murder.”
That particular statement is insane. Even in my most paranoid dreams, I didn’t think that all, half, a quarter, or even a tenth of males believe that, and I have been pretty scared of men sometimes.
-Lucy
Greetings (longish, sorry):
As a newcomer to this blog, I’ve tried to sit back and ‘observe’ as best I could (especially given the topic). But I can no longer do so. I have never seen a larger pile of tripe and misplaced anger towards both genders than I’ve seen here. Sorry, but IMHO, a few of you need some serious therapy.
For the record: I’m white, and male (not that you wouldn’t have figured that out in the next few sentences), and live in Chicago. I’m even ex-military, and from the south (for those of you who might want to apply the common stereotypes of soldiers or ‘southern gents’ to me). And I do have the occasional drink. Age: 42.