Name That Consent Porn!
Kids today are taking more sexual cues from Internet porn, GQ reports. Parents are frightened because their teenagers are gang-banging and ejaculating on each others' faces. GQ is disappointed because its aged readership can't get in on the fun. Personally, I'm pretty freaked out that "Travis and Cody, typical 21-year-old college students in Florida," find female pubic hair "disgusting." But more than pornography's peculiar sexual obsessions—group sex, mandatory facials, and "porn-star trim" vaginas—I'm worried about what mainstream Internet porn almost never features: scenes of consent.
Recently, the problem of consent arose in two porn-inspired real-life incidents. In one, a teenage girl claims she was coerced into having drunken videotaped group sex with four men in her dorm. In another, a teenage girl apparently consented to drunken videotaped group sex with four men in her dorm, then instantly regretted it. Scenarios where four men have sex with one woman carry obvious challenges for establishing consent. Each sex partner must establish consent with every other partner. Each sex partner must be able to listen to every other partner to establish that each new sex act is OK. And each sex partner must realize that a group power dynamic can be a seriously coercive sexual environment for everyone involved, and discuss the act accordingly.
I don't blame porn for these incidents, but I do think that if enthusiastic, informed, and sober consent were featured in pornography to the extent that gang-bangs are, it might help teenagers clear up consent issues before sex begins—not in the press, through the student judicial process, or in the courtroom.
But how do we make consent porn-ready? Let's start at the beginning: Punny consent porn titles! Here are mine:
ID Check XVIII: Girls Your Own Age
The Mile High Club: Consent From Above
Consenting Adults II: Double Checking
Doggy Style: Consensual Seduction
Safe Word III: When "No" Doesn't Have to Mean "No"
Totally and Completely Legal
Night of Refusal: No Anal Sex This Time, But Maybe Next Week
Sex, Extended Consultation Over Each Party's Feelings, and Videotape
Backseat Bangin': The Honda Accord
Suggestions?
10:12 am
2 girls 1 cup 2 consent agreements
1:16 pm
Ha, "Consenting Adults II: Double Checking" is totally my favorite.
2:01 pm
What troubles me most about the reports of teen girls getting involved with "drunken" sex they later regret is not the influence of porn, but rather that these girls are getting themselves into such dangerous situations in the first place. Young women need to understand that becoming intoxicated puts you in danger, and adding a sexual context to that makes it even riskier.
I agree with you that it'd be nice for porn movies to include some sort of explicit consent. Part of a common porn fantasy involves coercion or force, and it would be helpful if people were reminded that people in porn are actors PRETENDING to be gang raped or whatnot. Legislation is definitely not the answer to this, but I'd bet that some porn companies out there would be willing to put such a disclaimer in their movies.
Btw, I loved your consent-a-porn titles. They're hilarious!
2:17 pm
"Young women need to understand that becoming intoxicated puts you in danger, and adding a sexual context to that makes it even riskier."
If and when I become intoxicated, the only risk that I should have to assume is that of a really bad hangover. That being said, many young women DO understand that binge drinking can put them at greater risk to be victims of crime. But young women get drunk anyway. So what to do?
Maybe we should focus our messaging towards young men. What young MEN need to understand is that intoxication is NOT an excuse to coerce or force someone into having sex (or, in laymen's terms, raping).
______
On to the consent porn: I, too, think it would be nice to see more active consent in porn -- and I'm sure they could find a way to make it hot!
2:40 pm
Rebecca, you said
"Young women need to understand that becoming intoxicated puts you in danger, and adding a sexual context to that makes it even riskier."
While I agree people of all ages and genders should be aware of potentially dangerous situations, I don't think the responsibility should fall on young women, especially if we're not sending the same message to young men. Women should not have to be on constant alert to protect themselves, and it is a sad fact of our culture that that is the status quo right now. That kind of responsibility leads to victim blaming when sexual assault does occur.
4:14 pm
Um, what do you mean by "I don't think the responsibility should fall on young women"???
Men are constantly having to be on alert as well. Where do you think the phrase "beer goggles" came from???
How is a guy getting intoxicated and finding out he had sex with someone he wouldn't normally any different? Its a sad fact of our culture that these poor boys are mocked and teased by their friends when it happens.
4:56 pm
Victor, I know you can rephrase that comment in the form of a Consent Porn pun. Help me out here!
6:29 pm
Ahahahahahaha, and just when I thought this website couldn't be any more hilarious, Victor compares rape to accidentally having sex with an ugly person. Amanda, are you sure these aren't your sock puppets?
How about: Tap THAT Ass?!? 3: Maybe You Shouldn't Get So Drunk.
10:54 pm
I Want Your Consent...All Over My Face
Sign Your Name on this Consent Contract. I'll Dot the Eyes.
No Means No But I'm a Ho So Yes
11:10 pm
Baraqiel,
Victor didn't compare anything to rape. The scenario Amanda and others have put forth is sex a woman consents to but later regrets, or is it your position that sex a woman consents to and later regrets is rape?
And if your position is indeed that sex a woman consents to and later regrets is rape, then why isn't it rape it when it happens to a guy, too?
Finally, as I have said before, sex is to guys what money is for women. Plenty of guys have gotten intoxicated and been raped financially by women in strip club VIP rooms.
11:21 pm
God, you people are so tiresome. And now I will proceed to use a technique that has long been used on feminists. Joke! It's a joke! Get a fucking sense of humor, you lame-ass moron!
1:57 am
great post. i love the sex-positive, fun approach to such a tricky issue!
so, at the risk of being humorless, at DJ: i call false equivalence.
although people of all genders experience sexual assault, the numbers are pretty clear on who does what to whom every 14 minutes in the U.S.
i don't suppose you identify male privilege in our everyday lives either, or see a connection between male privilege and male violence against women?
for me, there can't be consent under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), since consent requires clarity, foresight, understanding, etc.
it seems to me worth asking of men what it says about us (and our culture) that we are so turned on (including myself) by rape/submission fantasy? Or maybe more relevant to this post, what kind of sexy and honest talk could allow us to explore our fantasies with consenting partners? and how do we learn new fantasies?
8:23 am
Ldorado,
"Male privilege." Hmm. Yes, it is our privilege when underqualified women get preferential admission to schools and preference in promotions, like my ass-clown of a boss. Is it a privilege when underqualified women - women, of course, being born into the identical families of guys with the same level of privilege (or not) in their background - get appointed to post after post in the name of diversity. Its our privilege when rich guys pay women all sorts of money to perform menial tasks. Yes, it is our privilege when we are expected to pay for everything we do with women, when, at the end of the day, women, despite your claims of discriminatory economic treatment, manage to get your paws on enough money such that they spend 87 cents of every dollar spent in our economy.
I sure felt privileged when I was younger and the girls got into clubs at 18 but us guys had to wait until 21, and boy I am privileged when I pay more to get into the club, and on ladies night when they drink free on their way to sleeping with the band, bartender, and bouncer, while I underwrite the cost by paying for my drinks before, like most guys under 6'3", I almost inevitably go home alone and ignored. I'm most privileged when it comes to swingers parties and the single girls go in free while I'm not allowed in at all (actually, sometimes they make an exception for me, but...)
You write, "although people of all genders experience sexual assault, the numbers are pretty clear on who does what to whom every 14 minutes in the U.S." So, does that mean women seek out the kinds of guys that are respectful toward them? No, of course not - women crap all over guys that are respectful of women - the types of guys that worry most about consent- and go out of their way to date hyper-aggressive guys.
You write, "for me, there can’t be consent under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), since consent requires clarity, foresight, understanding, etc." So, as has happened numerous times, when I go out with a girl, we have a couple of cocktails, she comes over to my side of the table, sits in my lap, starts rubbing my cock, and starts making out with me, and I take her home and have sex with her, that, in your book, is rape. Or, as happened on Sunday, when a girl invites me over, explicitly stating she wants sex and I should bring some ecstasy for us to do, is it your position I have to wait 8 hours for the drugs to wear off or I'm a rapist? (actually, the invitation was for a threesome, so I guess in your book I was going over there to rape both of them). Is it still rape if we add the (true fact) the girl is a sex worker and also told me to bring money? Now I know how you come up with your once every 14 minutes statistics. Sounds like you're a budding false accuser.
As far as your closing questions, "Or maybe more relevant to this post, what kind of sexy and honest talk could allow us to explore our fantasies with consenting partners? and how do we learn new fantasies?" Ldorado, if you have to ask such questions, maybe sex just isn't for you, or maybe you should just get yourself a vibrator and leave guys out of it. Or would the vibe be raping you if you had a couple of cocktails first?
8:34 am
Safe Word IV: When "No" means "Yes" and "Banana" means "No!"
Anal exploration: Are you really really sure this is okay?
8:35 am
Wow... "there can’t be consent under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), since consent requires clarity, foresight, understanding, etc. "
So, Ldorado, you're saying that if a guy drunkenly had sex with a woman who he would not think of touching sober, that there was no consent and therefore she raped him?
.... hell, most of the guys I knew in college were practically doing that on purpose.
Inebriation (NOT unconcsiousness) is a tricky grey area, and it seems to me that many of you are VERY willing to call situations rape which, when it happens to guys, we tend to call "beer goggles" or "coyote morning" or any other colorful names. Is that just our way of covering the pain of being raped the night before?
If you want women's sexuality to be equal to that of men's, then you have to play equally. When some ugly chick gets us drunk and screws us, we get up the next morning, dust ourselves off, leave a fake phone number and hope none of our friends saw us last night.
(oh, and for the record, Dirk's off in left field with that sex=money crap... sex=sex, money=money)
8:39 am
"raped financially"? Jesus Christ.
Consenting to sex and later regretting it is not rape, but it's a problem, and sometimes a related one. It sometimes means that gaining full, enthusiastic consent before sex is not a priority, or not a concept that the sex partners are even familiar with. It sometimes means that the sex partners say "yes" and don't realize that doesn't mean they have to do everything their partner wants. It sometimes mean that coercion was involved. Men can be coerced into having sex, too. And I'd argue that society teaches men to pursuing sex at every opportunity, which leads to problems for men and women. Hey, if understanding the concept of "beer goggles" reduced the incidence of regrettable drunken sex across the board, that's a good thing.
But. If you regret sex because the person you wake up to ain't as hot as you thought she was, I'm not exactly weeping for you. Because regretting sex ALSO sometimes means that the sex partners don't know that they have been raped, don't know that they can say no, feel like they cannot say no, or fear the consequences of saying no.
Want to hear a sad story? I track the google searches that bring readers to my site (mostly "penis"), and last week I got this one: "if someone has sex with me when im passed out drunk and asleep is it rape?"
YES. It is rape. It's important to know that not everyone reading here---and not everyone who may end up in bed with you, or who ends up in high profile sex cases---is as sexually experienced and informed as we would all hope. And that's why teaching consent in places teens will see it (porn!) would be a really swell thing.
9:39 am
So now I'm going to further muddy the already murky waters surrounding drunken, regrettable sex.
I rememeber realizing at one point that many of the guys who were getting drunk and having sex with women they wouldn't have sex with sober, were doing this on purpose (not me, I was a slut and didn't care). The phrase "keep drinking until she looks good" comes to mind.
So, if we are going to assume that these men are PURPOSEFULLY drinking to make themselves want to have sex with someone they wouldn't do sober (for whatever reason, looks, personality, etc), OR are potentially creating a pre-emptive alibi ("dude, I can't believe I actually slept with her... I must have been SOOOO drunk"), and if we are to assume that men and women are on an even playing field sexually. Then we must postulate that there are also women out there who are PURPOSEFULLY drinking so that they will have sex with someone who they wouldn't sleep with sober (ummm.. women want to get laid sometimes too, and Fabio isn't always at the bar) OR creating a pre-emptive alibi for sleeping with the dude who still is wearing a sweater after he takes his shirt off.
So... at what point is it no longer a drunk person purposely reducing their standards/inhibitions (or giving themselves an excuse for low standards/inhibitions) so they can get laid? When does it officially move into non-consentual sex?
10:22 am
When does it officially move into non-consentual sex?
You're right Victor...it is a super grey area. And we've probably all been there. So, play it safe. By all means, get drunk. Hell, get wasted! Just don't get so annihilated that you can't ask a girl "Are you sure you want to fuck?"
And if you are too drunk to ask, and she's too drunk to respond, just go home. It seems like it'll be something you'll both regret, even if the woman doesn't view it as rape.
10:24 am
The best of facials VI: Ask first!
10:37 am
But you missed the point jules. If I'm drunk, then shouldn't she be making sure I consent to her having sex with me?
You're still treating it like some sort of un-equal playing field. That's not very "pro-woman" of you to assume that even if I'm wasted, it's HER consent we need to be worried about. What about poor, virginal, taken-advantage of by the girl with a hairy back, me? I swear, if I were sober, I would have said "no" the instant she took her shirt off. But she got me drunk first, so I really wasn't of sound mind.
(the above is just a dramatization. I never was drunkenly taken advantage of by a hairy woman.... )
10:41 am
Hirstute IV - Make sure he wanted you when he was sober!
nonono... that's not very catchy.
Hirstute III - The sober lay
nonono.... that's just boring.
Hirstute II - Just shave your back for christ-sakes and then you can have sex with sober guys!
Ah... that's better....
11:28 am
Victor: You're right, sex should be something both parties consent to doing (in porn, and in life!) If people are too drunk to have a consent conversation, then they are too drunk to take on the responsibility of fucking.
And FYI, you're right, I don't think consent is always an equal playing field. Someone has the responsibility to seek consent in every situation...perhaps the more sober person, in this instance? Or the more physically powerful person in another instance? See what I'm saying? Its not always an equal playing field. When it is equal, consent is so much easier to garner...
11:57 am
Man, I wish Fabio were always at the bar.
12:18 pm
Victor, I believe the word that you were looking for -- three times -- is "hirsute". But, um, nice try, I guess.
12:30 pm
damn! need spell check... I knew I was close! :)
12:38 pm
Consent Bloggers III: Triple Spell-Check
1:00 pm
"Drunk, But Not So Drunk they Can't Give Consent, Men II - Revenge of the Hirsute"
Oh, and jules: "If people are too drunk to have a consent conversation, then they are too drunk to take on the responsibility of fucking."
That's no way to go about living...
I've done some really stupid stuff in my life... but I don't regret any of it. Does one want to go through their entire life too drunk to speak? no.. Should one's sex life consist entirely of companions who you're too drunk to remember, or care? no.
but I wouldn't want to have a life that didn't have it's share (more than it's share) of skeletons in its closet.
1:09 pm
I mean, a lot of people wouldn't want to have a life that didn't have its share of drug usage, for example. And in the vast majority of cases, there are no legal repercussions for using most drugs. And yet, they're still illegal, and it's still a pretty bad idea to do illegal drugs, especially often. In most states, people who are inebriated are not legally able to give consent and in a situation where both people are inebriated, as Jules said, the one who was more sober, or acted as the aggressor, or was on top in any number of other inequalities that could exist is legally vulnerable to an assault charge. If you think that having sex =with drunk people is a big enough positive force in your life to make it worth the risk, then fine, it's your life -- but the risk does exist, and for good reason.
1:20 pm
"If you think that having sex with drunk people is a big enough positive force in your life to make it worth the risk"????
See, you're making assumptions as to who and what I am. I was reminiscing about my past in the first place. I don't have that life any longer. However, no where did I mention the state of inebriation of my partners. I didn't say "having sex with drunk girls", I stated that >I< was too drunk to know their name, remember their face. They may have been stone cold sober for all I know.
If anything, there are women out there who, according to the definitions set out by many on this blog, "raped" me. Ah well, no hard feelings. I put my pants on, tried to figure out how to get home (or how to get them out of my home) and tried to piece the evening together.
1:25 pm
Re: Amanda...
"Fabio at the Bar: A film for women who want to be asked if and how they'd like to be fucked."
2:13 pm
"Ironclad entry III: Signed in triplicate"
3:03 pm
You know, I originally wrote "having sex while drunk or having sex with drunk people", but I figured that you were much more concerned about getting charges brought against you than having your bodily autonomy totally disregarded and your personhood denied. But hell, maybe I'm wrong -- fine, both having sex while drunk and having sex with drunk people is extremely risky for a lot of reasons, especially if your partner is someone you don't know well. I agree with Jules: if you're too drunk to talk about consent, you're too drunk to give it or accept it.
3:08 pm
Jules,
Yes, when the playing field is equal, consent is much easier to garner - its also a lot harder to get, unless you're the likes of Fabio. Lets not forget the contorted logic so many women use to find "power disadvantages" that they deem to nullify what any objective observer would deem consent. That's why us guys need our own right to choose.
Women have a constitutional right to choose willing sex partners, which allows them a legal way to eliminate a lot of the downside risk those encounters can bring. Why not us? Why should we have to worry that the Ndonye's and Ldorado's might decide, or at least tell the world, it wasn't consensual?
So, for the rest of us who don't want to spend our lives chasing women in bars and such for that once in a blue moon hot encounter, I propose this: "Real Craigslist Adult Services Date #3,546,759"
DirkJohanson
star of "Snatch'd Stolen Home Videos 23"
4:13 pm
baraqiel, you miss the point of the comments. In fact your assumptions say more than anything else.
Why is it instinctively that we assume 2 things:
1 - a man's primary concern when dealing with situations in which people are drinking is whether he's going to be liable for rape
2 - a woman's primary concern when dealing with situations in which people are drinking is to make the decision to have sex when under the influence of alcohol.
There are a lot of assumptions built into those two statements, assumptions which suggest YOU do not think the sexes are equal.
You assume that men will have sex with anyone willing
You assume that women cannot be sexually aggressive
You assume that if a woman has sex when drunk, it can't possibly be because she wanted to have sex.
You assume that women couldn't possibly purposely use alcohol for the same reason men do, to lower their own inhibitions.
Not once did I hear you express any concern over any incident in which I may have drunkenly had sex with a woman who I could regret having sex with later. Yet you show a great deal of concern for women making the same poor decisions. You seem to be unwilling to treat the sexes equally.
Now, I'm not talking about anyone passing out here. If I drank to unconcsiousness and woke up with my buddy screwing me in the ass, I'd be pretty miffed. But if a girl drinks enough that she thinks she's going to bed with Fabio, and wakes up next to Danny Devito... well, I have a real hard time calling that rape, no matter how hard it is to get him to stop calling. The same thing happens to guys all the damn time and I don't see any of you shedding a tear over it.
4:42 pm
Because regretting having consensual sex with someone a) isn't illegal, b) isn't something I care about for either gender, and c) isn't the same as rape. Certainly women can be sexually aggressive -- that's not at issue here. Certainly women can want to have sex while drunk and use alcohol to lower their inhibitions. That's also not at issue. What's at issue is what you're risking. By and large, women are risking not being able to react quickly or forcefully if they find themselves in a situation where their safety is compromised. Men are risking not having enough impulse control not to rape someone. (Men are also risking not being able to react to danger well, actually, which is another reason not to get that drunk -- men are the primary victims of violent stranger crimes, the vast majority of which are male-on-male. But this isn't a conversation about mugging, it's a conversation about rape.)
I've had female friends of mine who were raped while drunk by men who were drunk. The men were too drunk to understand the word "no". Alcohol and arousal both operate to lower impulse control. When men get drunk and turned on, they put themselves in a state where they are at risk of becoming rapists. There are numerous studies that show exactly this (one was recapped at length in Predictably Irrational). We as a society like to talk about how women who get wasted are putting themselves at risk for assault, but that's not true. The number one predictor of an assault attempt -- the one factor that predicts when an assault will occur more strongly than any other -- is male inebriation. When men drink or get high, and especially drink or get high in a situation in which they are sexually aroused, they put themselves at risk of raping a woman. Personally, were I a guy, I wouldn't think drunkenness was worth that risk.
5:23 pm
... sigh.
What's that statement about lies and statistics?
First off, why is drunken sex that results in regret in the morning suddenly "consensual"? This entire comments section, people have implied that inebriation will influence consent and I (as a male) should never have sex with a drunk woman because we cannot establish consent. That is my fundamental point. If I'm drunk enough that I think chewbacca looks like a supermodel (or Danny Devito looks like Fabio for the ladies) then I'm theoretically too drunk to "consent". Yet you suddenly say it isn't rape, isn't illegal and isn't something you care about. That moving target really bothers me.
Second, while I'm sure the studies you read were performed with the best of intentions, statistics are dangerous. First off, you ASSUME that the reason alcohol is the primary regressive variable is because of impulse control. I'm willing to bet that this was never actually tested (control for all other variables, adjust a guy's impulse control, and see if he rapes someone). I'm willing to bet that, because it can't be tested. "Impulse control" is such a vague concept that it would be chewed apart. Let alone the fact you'd have to create a controlled "rape experiment". This isn't even counting the fact that you are using "assault" statistics to predict rape. These are two VERY different crimes.
Those statistics could just as easily be interpreted as "Rapists find drunk women to be easier targets, therefore they choose a bar as a location to find their victims. They drink while they're there, for no reason other than they want to blend in with the crowd." To extrapolate that to assume that alcohol puts all men at risk of being rapists is not only poor science (even for fluffy social science) but also indicative of other problems.
So, lets look at the other problems. You refuse to treat men and women as equals. As I mentioned previously, you have a number of assumptions you make regarding male and female sexuality. You clearly seem to be unable to treat women as men's sexual equals. In fact, you seem to be unable to break out of the stereotypical roles of woman as passive partner, male as sexual agressor (apparently only 2 drinks away from taking it by force).
7:37 pm
I meant sexual assault -- I thought that was implied, but I guess not. I used the phrase assault because the category of sexual assault includes rape and related crimes.
As for the experimental design, I told you a book that the experiment was in, go read it yourself. Then once you read the methodology, maybe you can come back with criticisms of it. That experiment tested impulse control related to sexual arousal, actually. Alcohol is known to lower impulse control through neurology, not social science. Alcohol is a neurological depressant. It affects the function of the prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that controls decision-making. People with elevated blood alcohol contents are less able to evaluate the consequences of their actions than sober people. That's why people drink it to reduce inhibitions in the first place.
"“Rapists find drunk women to be easier targets, therefore they choose a bar as a location to find their victims. They drink while they’re there, for no reason other than they want to blend in with the crowd."
That would be credible if there was any correlation found with women's inebriation. But there isn't. There is only a correlation with men's inebriation.
"First off, why is drunken sex that results in regret in the morning suddenly “consensual”?"
There's a difference between a feeling of regret and a feeling of violation. If you wake up and feel that you've been violated, then yeah, maybe you've been raped. What I'm talking about is not women waking up and saying, "That guy doesn't look as hot as I thought he did, I regret sleeping with him." I'm talking about women who wake up and think, "I wasn't in a fit state to consent to what happened to me, I didn't feel like I had control of the situation, I feel violated". Those are VERY different feelings. They're not easily confused.
"As I mentioned previously, you have a number of assumptions you make regarding male and female sexuality. You clearly seem to be unable to treat women as men’s sexual equals"
Do I? Really? Quote me. Because I'm pretty sure that all I've been doing is recognizing the fact that the vast, vast majority of rapists are men and the vast, vast majority of rape survivors are women. That doesn't mean that women can't be sexual aggressors, or pursue a man, or initiate a sexual encounter, even while drunk. I totally believe women are able to do so. Hell, I'm a woman who initiates sexual encounters. Recognizing the realities of who rapes and who gets raped is not the same thing as portraying women as always sexually passive.
9:42 am
bar -
I meant sexual assault as well. This is also a much different crime than rape. From what I understand, rape is more ofted perpetrated by someone the victim knows. I'm willing to bet that sexual assaults are more often someone the victim does not know. That suggests two different pools of "perpetrators".
As for the study, you're putting two loosely related things together. A statistical study, which correlates alcohol to sexual assault and an experiment in which "impulse control" is related to alcohol. Nowhere in these two studies is "rape" tested. For the first study, as with any statistical study, correlation does not equal causation. Your second study, is measuring "impulse control" (I'm guessing brain activity by area) regarding sexuality. Again, this doesn't actually ever link to "rape" AND you are going down a very dangerous path.
Have you really thought through your statements? I certainly hope no defense lawyers are reading this. "Your honor, my client pleads not guilty by reason of reduced impulse control. The lady in question offered him a drink, and as he IS male, she should have known better. It immediately lowered his impulse control and caused him to rape her."
And lets not forget to include societal constructs. Perhaps this tendency for lower impulse control has other impacts on male brain function. Perhaps it naturally makes us better leaders, better at math, smarter, etc etc etc. Women have been fighting for a long time to be treated like equals, and now you're trying to suggest that all men as a gender are different. That's a dangerous suggestion, as it can easily lead to assumptions that "different" = "better than".
Now on to the meat of your statement: "There’s a difference between a feeling of regret and a feeling of violation" NO. NO there is NOT a difference. This is actually at the crux of the issue surrounding rape's "grey area". Rape is a crime. For a crime to be committed, the criminal has to perpetrate the act. What the victim "feels" about the situation is actually completely irrelevant. If a person is violently raped in an alleyway and just "regrets" it, does it negate the rape? no. Still happened. If a guy lies through his teeth to get his girlfriend to sleep with him, then breaks up with her immediately after, and she feels "violated" does that make it rape? No. Feelings are irrelevant. Crime is based on the actions of a criminal. There needs to be a clear line which is VISIBLE to the potential criminal. How is a potential rapist supposed to know whether the victim feels "vague regret" or "violation"?
So where's the line? Your "I wasn’t in a fit state to consent to what happened to me, I didn’t feel like I had control of the situation, I feel violated" girl was drunk (for the sake of argument, we'll assume conscious, as lack of consciousness is clearly rape). If we take out the "I feel violated" part, then what is the difference between her situation and any other drunk person's situation? I knew a guy who would appear completely lucid, but was in a blackout state almost every time he was drinking. Did every girl he have sex with "rape" him? I know some that purposely fed him alcohol to "loosen him up".
10:55 am
"I meant sexual assault as well. This is also a much different crime than rape."
It's really not. For example, from wikipedia: "Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent." The difference between the two crimes varies by state and often has to do with the amount of force involved, or whether or not the crime involved forced sexual intercourse or some other form of sexual violence. The two crimes are not very different at all, according to our legal system.
"Your second study, is measuring “impulse control” (I’m guessing brain activity by area) regarding sexuality. Again, this doesn’t actually ever link to “rape” AND you are going down a very dangerous path."
Actually, the second study specifically asked men about things they would do while aroused and not aroused. As in: would you push a woman to have sex if she didn't seem interested, would you drug her drink, etc. The results were quite consistent: the men tested had fewer qualms about pursuing behavior that either could be construed as rape or could quite easily lead to rape when aroused.
"Have you really thought through your statements? I certainly hope no defense lawyers are reading this. “Your honor, my client pleads not guilty by reason of reduced impulse control. The lady in question offered him a drink, and as he IS male, she should have known better. It immediately lowered his impulse control and caused him to rape her.”"
Nice try, but our legal system has already taken care of that. If you are an adult, you are the only person responsible for you drinking. When you drink, you are still legally responsible for your actions. Sexual arousal is also not an excuse for criminal activity. The courts have been very clear on this: your proposed scenario would not be a legally viable defense.
"Perhaps this tendency for lower impulse control has other impacts on male brain function."
When did I say that men as a class always have lower impulse control than women as a class? I'm talking about lower impulse control when drunk or sexually aroused, not in general. Alcohol lowers everyone's impulse control, not just men's. Only men were tested in the study regarding arousal that I mentioned. It's a good bet that women also have lowered impulse control while aroused, but as I've mentioned sooooo many times, women aren't the group that's at risk of becoming rapists.
"NO. NO there is NOT a difference."
Do you understand the concept of subjectivity? You don't see a difference between two feelings: fine. But you have absolutely no grounds to say that other people don't see a difference. They are feelings. They are subjective.
"Rape is a crime. For a crime to be committed, the criminal has to perpetrate the act. What the victim “feels” about the situation is actually completely irrelevant."
That's not legally the case. There are a number of crimes that depends entirely on the victim's feelings or perception of an act. Harassment, for example, is completely subjective and yet it's still a crime. What defines rape is consent. In the absence of the word "yes" or any other statement of enthusiastic consent, the victim's statement whether or not she consented defines her consent. In other words, "yes" is always consent -- anything short of "yes" should be assumed to be a lack of consent.
"If a guy lies through his teeth to get his girlfriend to sleep with him, then breaks up with her immediately after, and she feels “violated” does that make it rape?"
No, although she might have a fraud case. Again, this has been covered by our legal system already.
"There needs to be a clear line which is VISIBLE to the potential criminal."
There is: the word "yes". Consent is a "yes". Consent is not the absence of a "no". If a woman says "yes", that means that she's consenting. If she doesn't say "yes", she might not be consenting and it is the potential rapist's responsibility to determine whether or not she is consenting before he proceeds and potentially commits a crime. As we have already discussed, in cases of inebriation, there are any number of inequalities that might lead one participant in an act to be legally vulnerable -- this is why drunken sex with people you don't know very well is a terrible idea, especially for men.
11:24 am
Dirk,
I didn't totally understand your comment or what you were saying. So let me just say this....if you want to have sex with someone TELL HER THAT YOU WANT TO FUCK HER, and then MAKE SURE SHE SAYS THAT SHE DEFINITELY WANTS TO FUCK YOU TOO. I imagine this will save people a lot headache. I really don't think its that hard guys, come on! Is it that hard to get a yes from someone? Really?
11:29 am
"“There needs to be a clear line which is VISIBLE to the potential criminal.”
There is: the word “yes”. Consent is a “yes”. Consent is not the absence of a “no”. If a woman says “yes”, that means that she’s consenting. If she doesn’t say “yes”, she might not be consenting and it is the potential rapist’s responsibility to determine whether or not she is consenting before he proceeds and potentially commits a crime. "
Then why the disparity? Assuming both partners are equally drunk, and both partners are equal human beings, why is it never the woman's responsibility to ensure that the male says "yes" to ensure consent? That's really what the entire thing boils down to. Hell, lets even assume the woman is sober and the male is drunk. Why is she never responsible to ensure that he verbally states "yes" to consent to sex? What assumptions are you automatically filling in there? Do you see how you are setting up a situation where women are NOT equal?
" If you are an adult, you are the only person responsible for you drinking"... yeah yeah yeah... still seems to be a revision of the "PMS defense".
"Do you understand the concept of subjectivity? You don’t see a difference between two feelings: fine. But you have absolutely no grounds to say that other people don’t see a difference. They are feelings. They are subjective. "
Exactly. They are SUBJECTIVE. You cannot base a criminal act (especially one like rape) on a subjective concept.
"There are a number of crimes that depends entirely on the victim’s feelings or perception of an act. Harassment, for example, is completely subjective and yet it’s still a crime. "
No, it isn't completely subjective. There are very specific rules surrounding it. and even with the rules surrounding harrassment, it still becomes a very murky law. do you see a pattern?
Hell, a woman may even say "yes" but feel violated during or after the act. Does that suddenly make the act rape? I honestly don't care what a victim's "feelings" are about any situation. If they never expressed them, I have a great deal of trouble feeling sympathy. It's the equivalent of that horrible little game some women would play, where you're supposed to guess what they're angry about...
so this brings us back again to the central theme. As you stated: "What defines rape is consent." And what we have already established is that if someone is so soused that they cannot tell the difference between sasquatch and Angelina jolie (pre-midget collecting), they are in no condition to give informed consent. Therefore, if I wake up next to sasquatch, when I thought I was going to bed with Angelina Jolie, Sasquatch raped me. Even if I said "yes". Is that correct? Because up to now, us men have just been calling it "beer goggles".
Heck, I remember I had two friends. One with a tendency to black out, and one who was a... less than attractive woman. Well, the woman and I had a good chuckle one morning, because the one with a tendency to black out had done so, and didn't remember having sex with her in his car. We told him about it... we all laughed... he was a bit embarrased. Who knew she raped him. I should have turned her in.
11:54 am
"Assuming both partners are equally drunk, and both partners are equal human beings, why is it never the woman’s responsibility to ensure that the male says “yes” to ensure consent?"
It absolutely is her responsibility. Women *can* ignore the consent of men. It's just that men ignore the consent of women so much more frequently that the rate at which women *do* ignore the consent of men is negligible in a discussion of rape.
"Exactly. They are SUBJECTIVE. You cannot base a criminal act (especially one like rape) on a subjective concept."
Re-read what I said about harassment: our legal system disagrees with you.
"Does that suddenly make the act rape?"
No, if a woman has already given consent, it is her responsibility to vocalize her subsequent lack of consent if her feelings change. If she says "yes" before the act and then "no" during the act and the man doesn't stop, then yes, it is rape.
"I should have turned her in"
You couldn't have -- legally only your friend can. But if your friend in that situation had felt like pressing charges, he certainly could have. I haven't heard of any such cases because our society tends to discourage men from allowing themselves to feel violated in such situations (the patriarchy hurts men, too...) but, yeah, it's definitely possible. Men can be raped, and women can rape. But the fact is that the difference in the rates is so huge that when talking about the phenomenon of rape as a pattern in our society, it only makes sense to talk about men raping women.
12:19 pm
"It absolutely is her responsibility. Women *can* ignore the consent of men. It’s just that men ignore the consent of women so much more frequently that the rate at which women *do* ignore the consent of men is negligible in a discussion of rape."
no... this is incorrect. I can tell you, as a male who has had a very sordid history, not one of the women I had sex with has EVER asked me for my consent. Of course they aren't ignoring it, they aren't even asking. (granted, there are some instances where I don't remember much at all, so they MAY have asked for my consent. but if I'm to drunk to know their name, I am in no state to be giving informed consent).
"Re-read what I said about harassment: our legal system disagrees with you"
For any harrassment (sexual or "vanilla"), while the wording is broad, you still have to prove that there is conduct which is essentially outside of normal civilized operating parameters. If I smile and say "hi" to you, and you feel violated, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone I'm harassing you. If I show up in your apartment at 3am and do the same thing, it becomes much easier. Your "feelings" aren't what drive the case. I still have to act outside the parameters of a normal individual.
"But the fact is that the difference in the rates is so huge that when talking about the phenomenon of rape as a pattern in our society, it only makes sense to talk about men raping women."
But that's where you are getting side-tracked. If we were talking about actual clear cut "rape", then you'd be right. But some individuals have broadened the definition of rape so far that what they are calling "rape" now, is essentially the same thing men have been calling "beer goggles" for years.
If drunken consent is NOT consent, then even the implied consent of being the aggressor isn't valid. That means that any time a sober(ish) woman has sex with a drunk man, she's raping him. Even if he's the one initiating the contact.
I really have a problem with these assumptions you are making. Its interesting, and in some ways VERY anti-feminist. If the women you describe were all that existed in this world, I'd probably turn gay. You assume that without consent being discussed, men MUST default to "granted", while if it isn't discussed, women MUST default to "I'm a virginal little flower don't touch me". What does this say about your views of the genders and how they interact?
Oh, and I neglected it in a previous post, because it wasn't particularly relevant, but while LEGALLY sexual assault and rape may be codified the same, they are two distinctly different issues from an experimental standpoint. Legal is only interested in crime and punishment. If you're trying to find out causation, then you need to take into account whether sexual assault and rape are perpetrated on/by the same groups. I think you'll find that incidents of sexual assault have a much higher "stranger on stranger" percentages than rape. This suggests a different causation and makes comparisons apples and oranges.
12:22 pm
"Sober Screwing VII: Jumpin' Jehose-FAT"
12:31 pm
"For any harrassment (sexual or “vanilla”), while the wording is broad, you still have to prove that there is conduct which is essentially outside of normal civilized operating parameters."
Yes, but it's the feeling of harassment that defines harassment. If I see you on the street and you follow me for 8 blocks calling me a whore, and I don't feel harassed, congrats, you haven't harassed me. If I do feel harassed, sorry, you're getting some charges pressed against you.
" You assume that without consent being discussed, men MUST default to “granted”, while if it isn’t discussed, women MUST default to “I’m a virginal little flower don’t touch me”."
Again, quote me. Both genders default to "don't touch me" without consent being discussed.
"while LEGALLY sexual assault and rape may be codified the same, they are two distinctly different issues from an experimental standpoint"
What standpoint are you talking about? The words "rape" and "sexual assault" only have meaning within a legal context. They are crimes. Their definition changes from state to state. Again from wikipedia: "The term sexual assault is closely related to rape. Some jurisdictions define "rape" to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. Other jurisdictions define all non-consensual sexual activity to be rape; but the terminology varies, with some places using other terms. For example, Michigan, United States uses the term "criminal sexual conduct".[6] In some jurisdictions, rape is defined in terms of sexual penetration of the victim, which may include penetration with objects, rather than body parts.[7] Some jurisdictions also consider rape to include the use of sexual organs of one or both of the parties, such as oral copulation and masturbation."
So what definition of rape and what definition of sexual consent are you even using? And then what experimental data are you citing here?
"I can tell you, as a male who has had a very sordid history, not one of the women I had sex with has EVER asked me for my consent."
Did you say yes? Or yeah? Or "I like that"? Or "keep going"? Did you ask her to do anything to you? Because all of those count as consent.
"If drunken consent is NOT consent, then even the implied consent of being the aggressor isn’t valid. That means that any time a sober(ish) woman has sex with a drunk man, she’s raping him. Even if he’s the one initiating the contact."
Um, not if she doesn't consent either -- then he's still raping her, because you're responsible for criminal actions that you undertake while inebriated. Also not if he consented within a reasonable time period before getting drunk and then didn't say anything to contradict that consent (according, again, to our legal system). But arguably, yeah, if the guy's really drunk and the woman's sober, and he only consented while drunk, and she consented as well, then he'd have a case.
1:09 pm
"Yes, but it’s the feeling of harassment that defines harassment. ...If I do feel harassed, sorry, you’re getting some charges pressed against you."
We're going to probably circle this forever. But again, the actions themselves have to extend beyond that of normal human interactions, or the charges won't stick. You can charge anyone for anything... whether the actual violation occurred is more significant. That's the entire point of the legal system, a person HAS TO DO SOMETHING WRONG before they can be punished. your "feelings" are only going to initiate the process, not actually drive the outcome.
"Again, quote me. Both genders default to “don’t touch me” without consent being discussed"
Really, then given the lack of consent discussions, I would challenge your assertion that women are raped much more than men. I'd bet my left nut the number of sexual encounters without a "consent discussion" far outstrips the number of violent rapes. And since I've never been asked my consent, I'm willing to bet most men haven't either. If a lack of a consent discussion is all that is required, or inebriation when consent is discussed, then the number of violent rapes is absolutely negligible when compared to the number of "consentless rapes". So, to determine who actually gets raped most you'd have to establish who is the drunker party at each sexual encounter...
"What standpoint are you talking about? The words “rape” and “sexual assault” only have meaning within a legal context..." I was using general terms. By definition, assault doesn't necessarily even require physical interactions. "Sexual Assault" can range from a dude grabbing some random woman's butt to any of the above acts. "Rape" implies an actual sexual interaction, and generally requires more control over the situation by the perpetrator. I'm not using any experimental data, just general observations, which is why I said "I think". But, as is often quoted by people discussing rape, "most rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows"... While if you are going to read a police blotter, you'll find a huge number of sexual assaults which appear to be crimes of "opportunity". women grabbed on a metro... women licked in a bar... the sheer number of these random assaults by strangers, would drive the "sexual assaults" percentages to being largely perpetrated by strangers. This makes two separate pools of people you are trying to study, and two different causations.
"Did you say yes? Or yeah? Or “I like that”? Or “keep going”? Did you ask her to do anything to you? Because all of those count as consent."
Surprisingly enough, I'm not very vocal. :) One could argue that putting the condom on is consent, however there was that case many years ago where they tried to say the woman implied consent by requesting her rapist use a condom... I don't think that worked then.
"Um, not if she doesn’t consent either — then he’s still raping her, because you’re responsible for criminal actions that you undertake while inebriated. "
See! There's a very interesting preconception here. If the guy is drunk, and the woman is less drunk, then HE is RAPING HER if there is no consent discussion??? What is driving you to this preconception? She drank as well, she never asked his consent, and in fact HE is more incapacitated (and less able to even give informed consent if requested) yet you state that he is raping her.
It is ONLY in a situation where the guy is "really drunk" and the woman stone cold sober, that you believe a woman could rape a man. Way establish an equal sexual playing field.
Oh, and for the record.. .who has "consent discussions" before getting drunk??? The point of the drinking is to go out and meet someone to have sex with... you're supposed to be drunk enough that she looks good before you even meet her...
1:29 pm
"By definition, assault doesn’t necessarily even require physical interactions. “Sexual Assault” can range from a dude grabbing some random woman’s butt to any of the above acts. “Rape” implies an actual sexual interaction, and generally requires more control over the situation by the perpetrator. "
So, basically, you're using definitions that you made up and have no relation to the definitions in the law. Great! You can prove anything with a faulty premise!
"See! There’s a very interesting preconception here. If the guy is drunk, and the woman is less drunk, then HE is RAPING HER if there is no consent discussion???"
Honestly? Be logical. If a woman who's sober doesn't consent, then she understands herself at that moment to not consent. A man who's drunk can understand himself to consent even if the law doesn't see his consent as valid. (This is also true with the genders reversed -- remember, we're talking about a situation in which the sober person is clearly not consenting.) The law doesn't understand drunk people to be able to legally drive, either, but if you are driving drunk and get into a collision with someone, the law doesn't blame the sober person, it blames you.
"Really, then given the lack of consent discussions, I would challenge your assertion that women are raped much more than men."
Okay: were you an enthusiastic participant in these encounters? Did you initiate actions? I believe it to be the case that true consent requires a verbal affirmative statement, but under the law, if you are an enthusiastic participant *and* there is no negative statement indicating lack of consent ("no", "stop", etc.), you are consenting.
"It is ONLY in a situation where the guy is “really drunk” and the woman stone cold sober, that you believe a woman could rape a man. Way establish an equal sexual playing field."
...aaaaaand quote me. I've said multiple times that I think that women can rape men, under various situations. But it is a fact that men rape women at much higher rates than women rape men. This isn't a difficult fact to ascertain. But I'll keep repeating it for as long as you keep suggesting that both genders are equally culpable for sexual violence, because that's just plain a lie.
2:09 pm
"So, basically, you’re using definitions that you made up and have no relation to the definitions in the law. Great! You can prove anything with a faulty premise!"
True, but I'm too lazy to bother looking up the study you refer to in order to find out how they defined sexual assault. If they did it differently, that's fine... how did they define sexual assault?
"Honestly? Be logical. If a woman who’s sober doesn’t consent, then she understands herself at that moment to not consent. A man who’s drunk can understand himself to consent even if the law doesn’t see his consent as valid....."
Do you understand the context of the statement here? Let me break it down again: 2 drunk people. Male is more inebriated than female. No formal "consent" discussion occurs. They have sex. From this, you assumed that he raped her. Why would you make that assumption? We are NOT talking about a situation where ANYONE is clearly not consenting. It is a given that the instant someone is clearly NOT consenting, that a rape is occurring. I wouldn't waste my time with such a clear cut situation. I'm talking about the million of sexual encounters that occur every day between people, where consent is never discussed. Where one or both parties are drunk, and where one or both parties may be ultimately very disappointed with who their partner actually is come morning.
"Okay: were you an enthusiastic participant in these encounters? Did you initiate actions? I believe it to be the case that true consent requires a verbal affirmative statement, but under the law, if you are an enthusiastic participant *and* there is no negative statement indicating lack of consent (”no”, “stop”, etc.), you are consenting."
See... now we're getting to the interesting meat of it.
Now, you say that an individual who is an "enthusiastic participant" is consenting. Since everyone is drunk, how is "drunken enthusiastic participation" any different than drunken consent? According to many posters on this blog, a woman's (and we will imply man as well) consent isn't relevant if she's drunk. So enthusiastic participation wouldn't be relevant either.
If I'm drunkenly enthusiastically participating/initiating some sex with a sober woman, and SHE is enthusiastically participating as well... well, MY consent isn't valid because I'm drunk. Right? Doesn't matter how enthusiastic I am.
"aaaaaand quote me"
Victor - "If drunken consent is NOT consent, then even the implied consent of being the aggressor isn’t valid. That means that any time a sober(ish) woman has sex with a drunk man, she’s raping him. Even if he’s the one initiating the contact.”
Bar - "Um, not if she doesn’t consent either — then he’s still raping her, because you’re responsible for criminal actions that you undertake while inebriated. "
BOTH individuals are drunk. So consent is not valid from either individual. She is LESS drunk than him. Yet you defaulted to "he is raping her"
"But it is a fact that men rape women at much higher rates than women rape men. "
I'd believe you... if this tricky consent discussion wasn't telling me I was raped every weekend night and many weekdays for a number of years... boy it's brutal out there. I hope you see the point I'm trying to make through a little hyperbole. When the definition of rape is broadened too much, you're going to make the number of actual rapes (situations where consent is actively denied, or situations where the victim is unconscious) statistically insignificant. There is a LOT of drunken sex out there. I mean a LOT. When the definition is so broad a bad case of "beer goggles" can qualify, then the percentage of "rapes" perpetrated by women goes way up.
Just to play with numbers, lets say there are 10 rapes this year... real rapes, where the victim clearly said no. 9 of those were perpetrated by men. 90%. Now, lets say there were 100,000 drunken sexual escapades in which consent was not discussed. While both parties were enthusiastic, in 50,000 of these cases the man was very drunk... and realized in the morning that he was so drunk the woman doesn't look anything like he thought she did. That implies he was too drunk to give consent. In the other 50,000 cases, the woman feels the same way. If you add all 100,010 incidents together in this situation, 50% of all rapes are caused by women.
Obviously, I'm just pulling these numbers out of my butt... but do you see what I'm getting at?
2:17 pm
To clarify - when I state "is the agressor" I am simply implying "enthusiastic participation"... or that they could be initiating the sexual activity.
2:41 pm
"Do you understand the context of the statement here?"
I will copy and paste the context of the statement for you. It is this: "That means that any time a sober(ish) woman has sex with a drunk man, she’s raping him. Even if he’s the one initiating the contact.”
Um, not if she doesn’t consent either"
The context to which I was responding was: A drunk man and a sober woman have sex. She does not consent. That is the context: a drunk man having sex with a sober woman who does not consent. I defined that context in comment #45. That is the context. You're talking about a situation in which both people are drunk -- that's not the situation I'm talking about. That is not the context of my statement.
Regardless: in a situation where one person verbalizes a lack of consent and the other person continues, regardless of the genders involved or the levels of inebriation of either partner, the person who continues past a verbalized lack of consent is committing rape.
"Now, you say that an individual who is an “enthusiastic participant” is consenting. Since everyone is drunk, how is “drunken enthusiastic participation” any different than drunken consent? According to many posters on this blog, a woman’s (and we will imply man as well) consent isn’t relevant if she’s drunk. So enthusiastic participation wouldn’t be relevant either."
Well, this is the problem. There are various definitions of consent. True consent requires enthusiastic verbalization (aka a "yes" or something equivalent). According to the law, in order for consent to be absolutely not present, a negative verbalization is required (aka a "no" or something equivalent). There is an area in between these two extremes, which is where enthusiastic participation, inebriation, threatening language or body language, etc. come into play. This is also why someone's understanding of their own consent is so important, as well as clear communication. The best possible circumstance is a circumstance in which all people in a sexual encounter verbalize clearly their consent. But it's much more common, as you say, for people to implicitly demonstrate consent through body language. It isn't necessarily the case that if no consent has been verbalized, then there is no consent -- most "drunken sexual escapades" that you describe fall into this category. But it is the case that if no consent has been verbalized, you cannot know for sure if a person is consenting or not. That is why it is everyone's responsibility to verbalize consent to their sexual partners, and to seek verbal consent in turn.
However: The fact is that we live in a society where men pose a much greater threat to women's safety -- and to other men's safety -- than women do to men. Almost all violent crimes, sexual or not, are perpetrated by men (note here that I do not think this is something essential to men as a class; it is certainly a product of society. I do not think that men by nature are more violent than women. However, in our society right now, a given man is more likely to be violent than a given woman). On a purely pragmatic level, men are on average stronger than women, so given a random man and a random woman, it is very likely that the man would have an easier time overcoming the woman's physical resistance than the woman would have overcoming the man's. Note that this is on average -- certainly there are situations in which a woman would have an easier time overpowering a man than vice versa. But it is more likely to be the man that can overpower the woman. This is especially true given how much more basis a woman has to feel threatened by a man than vice versa, given the disparities in the rates at which men and women commit violent crimes, and given how many people react to physical threats (a feeling of paralysis, wanting to minimize the threat above all else, etc.). All of this suggests that men are much more at risk of becoming rapists than women are, and therefore have a special responsibility to secure consent.
3:03 pm
Does anyone on this message thread have a job?
3:22 pm
An interesting turn.
First- lets deal with what I suspect is a miscommunication.
"The context to which I was responding was: A drunk man and a sober woman have sex. She does not consent. That is the context: a drunk man having sex with a sober woman who does not consent."
I never outlined a situation where a woman indicated a negative consent. I only have outlined instances where consent was not formally granted (inebriated or not). If you interpreted any of my situations to be otherwise, its a miscommunication. I really have no interest in a situation where one partner or the other says "no". that's too easy. An interesting twist.. what if both drunk partners verbalize a removal of consent, yet somehow sex occurrs. Who raped who? (obviously a theoretical discussion).
"It isn’t necessarily the case that if no consent has been verbalized, then there is no consent — most “drunken sexual escapades” that you describe fall into this category."
Of course they do. That's the point. However, some individuals have indicated that they would like to see this labeled as rape, or dangerous behavior which borders on rape or leaves a male exposed to a rape charge at the whim of a woman. My point, and the entire reason I got dragged into this, was that this is inherently painting women as a passive victim, who's regret over a "drunken sexual escapade" could easily turn into a rape accusation, and that it would be a legitimate accusation. This reduces rape to essentially a bad case of beer goggles.
So here's the kicker -
"The fact is that we live in a society where men pose a much greater threat to women’s safety — and to other men’s safety — than women do to men. ..." etc.
"...All of this suggests that men are much more at risk of becoming rapists than women are, and therefore have a special responsibility to secure consent."
You are again blurring lines. First, you describe men as more violent... that's fine. And men are the main perpetrators of violent rapes and most other violent crimes. HOWEVER, this fuzzy "lack of consent" rape which seems to be absolutely impossible to pin down, is by definition NOT violent. Again, I want to be clear, I am not talking about any situation in which either party says "no", or even implies "no", or is in any way incapacitated.
We are talking about the situations where positive consent can be legally questioned. If she/he is drunk, then does it matter if he/she said "yes" or otherwise indicated an interest in sex? According to some posters on this thread, if she is drunk, then it doesn't matter if she is an enthusiastic participant. I simply suggested that this same situation happens to men all the time.
It is a decidedly non-violent situation, so your argument that men should be have a special responsibility, because of their violent tendencies, is questionable. Heck, the argument itself is VERY questionable, and if you were to apply it to a race rather than a gender you would be called racist.
3:48 pm
"dangerous behavior which borders on rape or leaves a male exposed to a rape charge"
I've been saying all along that having sex with a drunk person, even if you're drunk, leaves you exposed to a rape charge regardless of gender. But given the realities of who rapes and who gets raped, it leaves men more exposed because no matter how hard it is for a woman to prove a rape charge against a man, it is usually harder for a man to prove a rape charge against a woman (and this is unfair -- the patriarchy hurts men too).
" HOWEVER, this fuzzy “lack of consent” rape which seems to be absolutely impossible to pin down, is by definition NOT violent."
But my entire point of describing how men are more likely to be violent than women was to explain how a situation can be perceived as violent by a woman when it is not perceived as violent by a man. Since a man is more likely to be violent than a woman, actions of his can be perceived to contain an implicit threat, even if he doesn't intend for that to be the case. This is why men have a special responsibility. It's interesting that you bring race into it: the analogous situation is actually that white people have a special responsibility to be tolerant and examine our own motivations with regards to people of color, lest we let our privilege blind us into perpetuating oppression.
4:13 pm
"(and this is unfair — the patriarchy hurts men too)."
No... the patriarchy would say "hey, great move, next time get her drunker before you do it". The patriarchy is definitely not creating this vague "if anyone is drunk when consenting to sex, it might be rape, but it's more likely rape if it's a woman" situation. I know, because I was at the last meeting and it wasn't in the minutes. I don't know what this is a construct of, and I honestly don't care. From my point of view, if two people consent (either verbally or through enthusiastic participation) it shouldn't matter how drunk they are (again, consciousness is required here), or how much they regret doing it in the morning, it just isn't rape. And this desire by some women to start labeling it as such is interesting, and paints women as quite the victim (since they are only willing to label it as such when it's women who regret it).
As for "the analogous situation is actually that white people have a special responsibility to be tolerant and examine our own motivations with regards to people of color" you would only be right if we were talking about intolerance. The analogous situation for your argument would actually be: "Because a significant percentage of violent crime is committed by black people, this suggests that blacks are much more at risk of becoming violent criminals than whites, and therefore have a special responsibility to avoid perpetrating a violent crime"... Kinda jackassy, isn't it?
Your second argument, which is that men have to be careful to not be too threatening, or we might scare some poor woman into being raped... is kind of odd too. So now we also have to be worried about actions which might be percieved as threatening by a non-violent woman, and because of this percieved threat it will scare her into dropping her pants and having sex with us? This one is a VERY interesting argument, on a lot of levels. First and foremost being, I'm just too damn pretty to be that threatening... but, secondly, something which I believe is missing in this argument is the concept that rape, (real rape) is supposedly about control and power, not really sex (or at least that's what I've always heard)... I suspect a real rapist would be horribly disappointed if he accidentially raped a girl by an implicit threat so vague he didn't even realize he made it. It reminds me of a time a couple friends of mine went to baltimore. They were mugged by a lone black man who demanded their wallet, in the daytime, 2 blocks from a police station. No weapon was displayed. I had very little respect for them for acquiescing.
4:28 pm
"No… the patriarchy would say “hey, great move, next time get her drunker before you do it”."
You shouldn't talk about things you don't understand.
"“Because a significant percentage of violent crime is committed by black people, this suggests that blacks are much more at risk of becoming violent criminals than whites, and therefore have a special responsibility to avoid perpetrating a violent crime”… Kinda jackassy, isn’t it?"
This is oversimplified, but I'm honestly not interested in having this discussion because I'm getting really bored with you. The short version is that people of color are taught that they have no reason to respect a justice system that is set up to oppress them, whereas men in general are taught that solving problems through violence is a good thing.
"Your second argument, which is that men have to be careful to not be too threatening, or we might scare some poor woman into being raped… is kind of odd too. So now we also have to be worried about actions which might be percieved as threatening by a non-violent woman, and because of this percieved threat it will scare her into dropping her pants and having sex with us?"
I'm just going to copy and paste some stuff from another blog because she said it way better than I ever could:
"Aggressive body language is used to imply violence that could possibly occur if you do not relent. There doesn’t have to be a verbal threat; a verbal threat is documented evidence of assault. Lots easier to just let a victim know you intend to hurt them, without giving them anything that can be used in a court of law. Can you imagine that? “Could you explain what you mean by saying *snigger* he leaned threateningly?”
This is what I mean when I say a rapist does not have to actually, physically employ violence in order to rape his victim. A rapist does not have to verbally confirm that he will use violence. What a rapist does is place his victim in a position where she knows she is at a physical disadvantage, and violence is not out of the question. Because nobody bothers to put you at a physical disadvantage if violence isn’t one of the possible outcomes in their mind. Then later, it’s much easier for others to justify to themselves that rape did not occur, because violence did not occur. The victim’s genuine perception of the threat of physical harm is considered invalid, while the rapist’s perception of full consent is totally valid."
Combined with:
"[A researcher] discovered that the vast majority of rapists do not consider what they did to be rape. They will describe the act accurately, and their description will match up with legal and common definitions of rape. And if asked to describe “rape,” they will describe an act similar or identical to their own. But they will not admit that the act they committed was rape."
And maybe you will start to see what I mean when I say that men have a special responsibility to obtain consent, because clearly men who rape are not able to objectively evaluate whether or not they are raping someone.
5:03 pm
"You shouldn’t talk about things you don’t understand"
So, what, I'm male, but I cannot understand the patriarchy? Can I say you don't understand the matriarchy and get away with it?
Interesting, I don't dispute your blog posts at all. But what you are describing in the blog post is intentional threats. You imply premeditation: "without giving them anything that can be used in a court of law". but then in your later example, you claim that rapists don't consider what they do to be rape. This is not consistant. and, I'd be very interested in that research, as it goes against everything else we've been told about rape (that it's about power, not sex). You can't have it all. Either a guy realizes he's raping someone, and does it in a manner to minimize legal exposure, or a guy is raping someone without realizing it, and considers himself to be acting in a legal, responsible and moral manner.
It seems to me that someone (the matriarchy, probably) is purposefully making the definition of rape a very challenging moving target. At this point in time, the only way I'm safe from unknowingly raping someone is if I'm drunk to the point of unconsciousness. If I ask for consent, I may be doing so in a threatening manner, either purposefully or un-intentionally, or intentionally but not knowingly. If I have sex with a drunk person, I may be raping her, but that depends on whether my level of inebriation is greater or less than hers, the only way to be sure is to ask consent. But again, I may be asking consent in a threatening manner, either purposefully or un-intentionally, or intentionally but not knowingly. I can be drunk and have sex with a sober girl, but if I black out, then she maybe raped me. but if I don't black out, I may rape her because my reduced impulse control will cause me to do so.
I give up. I'm going gay.
5:10 pm
No, you said yourself that you don't understand it: "I don’t know what this is a construct of, and I honestly don’t care."
And: "without giving them anything that can be used in a court of law”. but then in your later example, you claim that rapists don’t consider what they do to be rape."
You don't consider the complexities of the human mind. People are absolutely capable of doing things for reasons that they aren't aware of and then believing that they're not responsible for their actions for whatever reason. Look up such concepts as cultural cognition and cognitive dissonance.
"If I ask for consent, I may be doing so in a threatening manner, either purposefully or un-intentionally, or intentionally but not knowingly"
No. It's everyone's responsibility to not say "yes" if you don't mean "yes". If you give verbal consent without meaning it, the law can do nothing for you unless there is unambiguous physical intimidation involved, like weapons or explicit verbal threats.
5:28 pm
"No. It’s everyone’s responsibility to not say “yes” if you don’t mean “yes”. If you give verbal consent without meaning it, the law can do nothing for you unless there is unambiguous physical intimidation involved, like weapons or explicit verbal threats."
So I can intimidate a woman into having sex with me, through manipulation of the environment, unintentional (or intentional, or unknowing) threats and my general male violenciness... and it's rape. But if I use all those superpowers to coerce her into saying "yes" first, it isn't?
I understand cognitive dissonance. I just believe in this case it is being used to characterize an entire group of people, and essentially hobble an entire gender in what should be a rational discourse. Using these two statements, you can essentially call any man a rapist, and if he denies it, he just hasn't realized his rapeyness yet.
At least when I go gay, it'll be equal rapeyness all around. I won't have to worry about unintentionally/intentionally/unknowingly intimidating them into sex because they'll be doing the same to me.
5:33 pm
"Using these two statements, you can essentially call any man a rapist, and if he denies it, he just hasn’t realized his rapeyness yet."
Not if the woman consented of her own free will. If the woman consented, no one has anything to worry about. If the woman didn't consent, it's rape. Why is that a difficult concept?
5:54 pm
Oh come on... you should be able to piece all this together.
1 - consent can be verbal or through "enthusiastic participation"
2 - men can apparently unknowingly/unintentionally put women in situations where the threat of violence will cow them into doing whatever is requested
3 - men's cognitive dissonance causes them to not realize they are doing this but at the same time prepare for it and ensure that it is done in a manner that makes them legally safe
You don't see how this can be used to call essentially every man a rapist?
ex 1 - You just thought she was an enthusiastic participant, your inability to recognize your own rapey actions caused you to misremember the event.
ex 2 - Your threatening maleness, combined with your ability to put her in a threatening situation forced her to say "yes".
In fact, a creative woman could probably use these concepts to label essentially every sexual encounter as rape. By taking self awareness away ("I know I'm not a rapist") and taking awareness of the event away ("I was there, I never said anything threatening or violent in any way") you essentially take him out of the equation entirely.
12:40 am
Yo, Vic. All men are rapists and that's all they are.
Didn't you get the memo? It's been up on the patriarchy post for a looooong time now.
11:25 am
Victor - do your fears about every man being called a rapist stem from the idea that women LIKE calling rape? or that, in general, women can't be trusted?
think about the kind of attention, stigma, vilification someone experiences for calling assault.
or maybe we just think men are the victims, right Michael?
11:27 am
so here's the scenario that makes me sad. i deny my power to rape with impunity (which is one of the things male privilege gets me). and i assert that the "playing field" is equal by recounting stories of when individual women took advantage of me, or got into bars when i couldn't.
ignore the big picture. but prejudice is like water to fish, we swim in it, and easily forget that it affects the way we experience everything.
it's sad to hear men being defensive about how they have sex, rather than being outspoken, generous, curious about how to create a safer community. it says a lot about who we are today.
Amanda, thanks for telling the story about google searches. what i haven't heard anyone say, is that WAY MORE people are survivors than we think. chances are that a third (maybe more) of your partners/friends were assaulted. Would that change anything?
btw, Dirk, i laughed at the predictable accusation that i am a female who just shouldn't have sex! i'm a hetero man who loves fucking! i just figured out that my nut doesn't take precedence over my compassion, or her health.
it sounds like you are very comfortable with the kinds of relationships your are having. women certainly have responsibility for the choices they make, too. but have you ever talked about assault or consent or addiction with any of your partners? there's a gray area between clear consent and assault, but the best sex i've ever had has not been in that gray area. it's been dirty and honest, open and slutty. and sober.
12:24 pm
ldorado you got it dawg. I got my rape status card in my wallet right now. Whenever I'm on the street and a woman is like, "yo! It's a man! Is he gonna rape me!?"I'll be like hold on, shorty let me pull out my rape card right quick and see cause I don't know. Yall might wanna get ready to run...survey says...!
1:46 am
First off. No means no. Guy or girl. no means no. It's not worth getting off then realizing you just raped him/her. oh and the guy above me is a cuntfacedickhole.
Second. How about people stop feeling like they have to be drunk to fuck other people? what is up w/ that anyway? drinking makes many ppl hornier..but drunk sex sucks!! lol it really isn't that great. some people would benefit from trying sober sex once in a while insted of pretending like they're from some fucking fraternity/sorority. lame.
4:49 pm
This article is wrong in that a woman (when having group sex in an adult video) is required to give separate consent to each sex act. If she were to state - "I hereby give consent to screw the next ten guys that walk into this dorm"....then she doesn't really need to sequester each of the next ten individuals that walk in.
This article is grasping at straws to try to suggest that there is something almost illegal is taking place. Also, the author suggests that somehow reqreting something that you did in grounds for taking it back.
People should be held accountable for their decisions. This is true in all situations in life (not just amateur porn).
The irony of this article is that it attempts to be somewhat of a pro-woman write-up...but I find it an article that really puts women down. The author doesn't seem to feel that women can make decisions for themselves and are at the wim of what men want them to do. It also suggests that women should not be held accountable for their decisions.....what year is this??? I thought we were more evolved in terms of women's rights than this.