On the Difficulty of “Saying No”
Kathryn Holmquist's little piece of horrific sex advice—sometimes, girls, it's "too late to say no”—has evolved into a more advanced discussion on this blog. The question: Why should women be required to say "no" in the first place?
The "no means no" mantra that Holmquist is railing against is itself pretty old-school. "No means no" operates on the outdated assumption that men are the "scorers," women are the "gatekeepers," and the goal of every sexual encounter is for men to sneak past a woman's line of defense and get her to not say no. In this model, the default setting of women's bodies is "available." Only by verbalizing a "no" can a woman signal that her body is not up for grabs. In recent years, that bullshit has been replaced by more progressive models which focus on raising the consent bar from "absence of no" to "enthusiastic yes."
On the other hand, "no" is still a really helpful tool for women to use when they must quite urgently communicate to a person that, actually, he does not own her body. Mrs. D lays it out:
“no” should be said, clearly, when the first unwanted interaction occurs. A guy starts to get handsy, you push his hand away, and say “no, stop it.” You’re making out with a guy, and he wants more, you stop what you’re doing and verbally make it clear you’re not interested in more. Most women won’t do this…they’ll do a fully choreographed routine to get away from him without directly telling him no. That is social conditioning imposed on women that needs to change.
She makes a good point: Because women are consistently told that their bodies are public property, it can be a pretty transgressive, frightening, and even dangerous move to tell a man "no." Saying "no" communicates to a man that he does not own you, and if you're dealing with a rapist, he may not take too kindly to that suggestion. This power gives "no" its effectiveness, but it also makes the word sometimes difficult to verbalize. (At this point, I'd like to stop and administer another big fuck-you to Kathryn Holmquist for making saying "no" even harder).
When is it difficult to say "no"? Obviously, if a person is passed out drunk, it can be impossible to verbalize a no. It can also be difficult to say "no" when there is a physical and social power dynamic encouraging you to stay silent—when your sex partner is stronger than you, older than you, more respected than you, more confident than you, 0r simply maler than you (remember the part about everyone just assuming that men have a claim on a woman's body?) In other words, it can be difficult to say "no" when you find yourself in a rape scenario.
But acquaintance rapes present a peculiar barrier to saying "no." In an acquaintance rape, the power dynamic is a little bit different—you may be hanging out with someone who is bigger, stronger, and maler than you are, but you know them and you trust them. You're friends. That implicit power imbalance doesn't even enter your brain. A couple of comments left on a Daily Kos piece on rape discuss how that sense of security can make "no" a lot more difficult:
There's something so incredibly surreal about being the victim of a violent attack for the first time. Even growing up female, knowing that rape happens all too often, the first time you're struck, or groped, or your clothes are torn, it's such an incredible disconnect from your normal existence that it's hard for your brain to process. Date rape is even worse, the change in context from normal conversation to violence.
You can end up a "deer in headlights" while your mind tries to process and catch up to what is going on. Going to a high school dance is not like entering a war zone. You don't expect to be the victim of violence when a classmate wants to hang out with you. Because you're not in that mindset, it takes some time to reach the conclusion that there's a threat of serious bodily harm to you. No matter how many times you've been told that the world's a bad place, that first moment of violence directed at you, in a lifetime otherwise characterized by love and acceptance, it is unbelievably shocking and it imposes a lag time in your response that makes it unreasonable to believe that pulling a gun in self-defense would be a viable option. I speak from experience. I was already being violated by the time I realized what was happening.
Another commenter echoes that sentiment:
It was probably two or three minutes before it even occurred to me to scream.
It's good to tell girls that it's never too late to say "no." But we must also teach our kids the importance of waiting for a "yes"—because by the time someone can say "no," it may already be too late.
Photo by smlp.co.uk, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0
1:30 pm
"It’s good to tell girls that it’s never too late to say 'no.' But we must also teach our kids the importance of waiting for a 'yes'"
THIS is the sentiment I have been waiting for in this discussion.
For heaven's sake, let's start communicating about sex with our partners and listen to their cues.
1:30 pm
I thank you for the Daily Kos piece. It is an incredibly awful place to be when you realize that your friend, someone who you would NEVER think would take advantage of you, would assault you. In my case, it wasn't so much a violent act as it was simply an unwanted act. I said, "No, please stop," several times. That's pretty clear to me. And yet, he didn't, and I froze. Literally. I couldn't even muster up the strength or wherewithal to push him off of me. And what ended up happening? I questioned MY actions, not his.
Folks talk about there is no such thing as victim-blaming and slut-shaming. Well, it's so ingrained that women do it to themselves. I know because I shamed myself into not saying anything about it for an entire year after it happened.
2:00 pm
This is somewhat inconsistent Amanda. In the previous article, you lambasted Holmquist for saying "when it's too late to say no", but in this article you are clearly describing situations where it really did become "too late". If you are so willing to blame men for their "overwhelming maleness" silencing any possible protest (really? overwhelming maleness?) then women should be careful to avoid situations where "overwhelming maleness" is thickest and has the greatest chance of silencing them. I usually recommend a 50ft perimeter around my overwhelming maleness.
I'm going to assume that "overwhelming maleness" is something which males can't control. Same with significant differences in position and strength. If we cannot control these differences, and these differences are going to automatically "silence" all protests from women, then by default you have to train women to avoid any situation where they are around "maleness", "bosses" and "men stronger than them".
(granted the above is an exaggeration for effect, but please, show some consistency)
2:14 pm
Yo, victor, you really had me worried for a second that I had actually written "overwhelming maleness." I'll keep that one in my pocket for later!
You're deliberately simplifying my argument. Homquist argued that after a certain amount of drinking and kissing, girls shouldn't be allowed to say no. Actually, it may not be possible for girls to say "no" immediately---or ever---and that's why "no" is not a very good standard for consent. It's not the victim's duty to stop a violation, it's a violator's duty not to violate. I'm not sure what's inconsistent about this, but I'm open to considering that I'm sometimes inconsistent.
Males don't have to control their "overwhelming maleness," or work to make themselves weaker, or even attempt not to silence women. All they have to do is not rape anybody! And the way they can not rape someone is by not having sex with someone without their explicit consent. If you wait for a "no," you're violating a person's body without their consent. If you get a "yes!," good for you!
2:49 pm
Amanda, thanks for addressing some really little-known facts about rape, that rape isn't committed most often by "evil icky criminals", but rather by someone the victims knows and trusts, and also that rape is a traumatic, violent attack and the victim cannot be expected to immediately react in the perfect way. I mean, how many muggings just happen, with the person standing there shocked without their wallet? An attack is always unexpected and terrifying by definition, and sometimes that terror hijacks our response systems. This is something I've heard from my friends who have had the experience of being raped.
It does strike me that our cultural approach to the word "consent" is a misnomer. If consent means "not saying no," then why does the word consent by definition mean "yes"? Without a "no", there still is no implication of consent. What our culture implies is that without a vehement refusal, the person advancing is still free to assume that, by default, they can do whatever they like.
2:50 pm
amanda - I had thought you'd said it myself... can't find it now, I must be hallucinating.
Anyway - I think you and Holmquist are actually making the same arguments. My interpretation was not that holmquist was saying women don't have the RIGHT to say no, just that the guy isn't going to be listening. You constantly talk about "aquaintance rape", but you miss a VERY important facet of it. Aquaintance rape is RARELY an accident. Rapists are predators, and like any good predator they will go where prey is at its most vulnerable, and they will stalk it. They will find ways to make themselves seem "safe". These guys aren't that hard to spot. My interpretation was Holmquist was simply providing advice on situations which these predators thrive in.
As for the "don't rape anyone" thing... honestly, you are making it more and more difficult not to. If my overwhelming maleness (remember, any woman within 50ft of me is unable to say no) has the ability to silence women, then what's to stop you from saying that it also forces them to give me an "enthusiastic yes"? You pidgeonhole women into a position of weakness based on traits which neither party has any control over, a position I find unacceptable for the women in my life.
2:57 pm
At least part of the issue is our cultural environment where women are still expected to play “hard to get” and men are leery of women who are “too easy.” If a woman felt free to say “let's get it on” when she felt like it, men would jump through hoops to hear the magic words and they wouldn't imagine that their absence implies consent. Women would need to say “no” less often if men were listening for “yes.” I'd like to know whether date rape/acquaintance rape are as common in cultures where sexual roles and expectations are more balanced. France? The Netherlands? Scandinavia?
4:06 pm
Rather than being about yes or no, non-stranger rape is about someone viewing themselves as having the right to cross someone else's personal boundaries. This directly opposes the view of sexual contact and activity as needing to be fully and constantly mutual.
This is aided by those who make declarations which use the premise that girls and women don't have any personal boundaries unless they verbally declare them or that girls and women's boundaries are generic -- if she will have sex with one boy or man not designated as her partner with exclusive rights then she's available to all boys whether she likes it or not.
For some people consent is viewed as the point at which what the other person wants or doesn't want no longer matters. She consented so it is now okay to be brutal. Those who hold this view will reject the truth that consent can be withdrawn at-will.
4:34 pm
Victor, If these guys "aren't that hard to spot", then why are most women raped by people they know and trust? You really buy into the cultural myth that rapists are different from every day people--but they're not. They're just not. It's part of what makes rape so taboo--a woman is more likely to be believe if she was attacked while walking down the street than if she was date raped, which is why way too many women don't report acquaintance rapes--and why one of my friends was actually told by a medical doctor that she wasn't raped.
It's not an obvious "predator/prey" relationship, and a lot of these guys don't need to stalk. They rape friends, girlfriends, acquaintances. Date rape a totally different issue than the one you're portraying, and a lot more common than the one you're portraying (though I'd have to admit that our media seems to be far more comfortable with the serial rapist leaping out of the bushes than a girl who gets raped by a friend in her own home).
4:59 pm
"You really buy into the cultural myth that rapists are different from every day people–but they’re not"
They are different in the same way that a murderer or thief is different. I could just as easily say you are buying into the feminist myth that every man is a rapist.
"If these guys “aren’t that hard to spot”, then why are most women raped by people they know and trust?"
Because getting women to trust them is their goal. I watched these guys as a bartender. They go to the same bar every week, they generally stay sober, they actually make an effort to be friendly and "harmless". They know all the girls that go to a bar regularly by name, they work hard to become aquaintances with as many as they can. And they are ALWAYS there when a girl is so drunk she can barely stand. They are always trying to separate the drunkest girl from her friends.
"It’s not an obvious “predator/prey” relationship, and a lot of these guys don’t need to stalk. They rape friends, girlfriends, acquaintances"
Ummmm.... what do you think "stalking" is? Take "girlfriends" out of that, and you have your answer. Think about this logically. If a guy has so little respect for a person that he will rape them, then do your REALLY think they are their friend or aquaintance? Or is it more likely that they developed this relationship with a different motive? I don't know anything about "girlfriend" rape, that's in a category I honestly don't completely understand. That falls into the whole "if you aren't having sex, why are you dating, if you are having sex, why would you rape, if you want to rape for power, why not date someone who wants to be a sub" category for me... I don't disagree that it occurs, I just think it fits a different profile than your average "aquaintance/friend" rape.
5:03 pm
Amen Em. On top of everything Em says, I'd like to add that by suggesting that "these guys aren't that hard to spot," Victor is placing the blame on women for not being able to spot them. That's grotesque. If they were so damned easy to spot, rape wouldn't really be a problem, would it?
5:11 pm
??? really chanda??? are you going to use that old trick?
Because I think rapists are predators, I'm blaming women for being raped?
5:14 pm
Acquaintance rapists aren't just the guys at the bar, victor, trying to separate drunk girls from their friends.
They could be your best friend's brother, your teacher, your best friend, your study pal, your roommate's boyfriend, your boyfriend's frat brother.
Although the dialogue started a few posts ago over the classic "drunk at a bar" aquaintance rape situation, let's remember, when we say that most rapes are at the hands of people the victim is acquainted with, it doesn't just mean that dude she/he just met at the bar.
It could (and very often is) someone they know well and trust. A young woman is raped by her best friend's boyfriend. She has known him for three years. By Victor's standard, he should have been pretty easy to spot.
Sigh.
5:32 pm
Emily, how is a girlfriend's friend any different?
You can use the same basic concepts.
Guy is a predator, could have been using his girlfriend as a method of getting close to a number of girls. Probably frequently would offer up situations to be alone with them (rides home, invites them over when the gf isn't around, offers to bring things to their home, may get drunk and call them for "help" getting home...etc etc).
Likely doesn't do anything to the gf, because they are the "watering hole", they bring the prey to him and give him an aura of "safety".
My entire point is that rape is an anti-social activity, and to engage in this behavior usually requires some impetus (stealing because of poverty, killing out of rage) OR it requires a pathology (serial killers). Since it has been well established that rape is NOT about needing sex, that puts rapists solidly in the "pathological" category. This makes them by definition different. I'm not saying they look different, or are some imaginary boogeyman. I'm saying that your average joe doesn't wake up one day and decide to rape someone.
6:49 pm
@victor, if you recognize these sex predators where you are or were an employee did you inform the management about what you saw? If so, did the management ban them? If not, would the bar ownership ban obvious predators working to rob other patrons?
Recognizing predators and doing nothing to stop them from preying on your other customers sounds like gross negligence.
11:49 pm
Well,abyss2hope,obviously these women kind of deserved what they got for ever trusting a man, and not assuming every male acquaintance, relative, teacher, co-worker, employer, and neighbor is waiting to rape them. Of course, the flip side is that being wary of men makes a woman an hysterical, man-hating feminazi.
I think what guys like Victor are saying in these familiar arguments about how rape is all the woman's fault (for not being psychic and clairvoyant) are "Rape happens. Suck it up. Men can't control themselves. All men know this, but if you're female you're a frigid bitch for saying the same thing. And remember, whatever bad thing happens, it's all your fault."
That's pretty much the discourse on rape in our culture, in a nutshell. And it's why we have people debating how a fifteen year old girl going to a school dance and hanging out on school property with her fifteen year old classmate at nine p.m. near a public crowded area is somehow responsible for being gang raped by a dozen boys and men. She should have known her classmate was likely to rape her. God, she was so naive, huh? Couldn't she tell he was predatory and violent?
1:08 am
kvsm: I know! If only all of us had victor's knowledge of male psychology! Then rape would never be a problem!
Why has no one ever thought of this before? Oh wait. Because it's not that simple. That's why there are ENTIRE BOOKS AND ESSAYS AND THESES ON THIS TOPIC. I took an entire class in journalism school on how to cover rape cases, and I feel like the stuff we learned in that class should be learned by everyone. There are so many cultural myths about rape that everyone buys into, and it's why it is so prevalent in our culture. The media perpetuates it, but only because so many people are undereducated. That's why I appreciate this blog--because it opens up discussion into things that most people aren't comfortable even discussing. Because if most rapes are acquaintance rapes, then we have to erase the myth in our minds that rapists are seedy-looking criminals that can be spotted on the streets. Subsequently, we might have to stop blaming victims or accusing them of lying if their narrative doesn't fit the perfect profile. Then, we would have to face the problem of rape as a cultural education problem that's widespread and needs to be fixed. It's all too much work! It's easier to just tell us lady-folk to stay indoors and not show too much ankle.
5:44 am
The idea that rapists are easily spotted is disturbing on so many levels, what does that say to victims of rape? That they were stupid or to blame for failing to spot them, for falling prey to their tricks? Worse, if they are so easy to spot, then that means many people HAVE spotted them and then done nothing to either stop them or alert potentiol victims. Lovely, so basically these guys are easy to spot but not prevented from raping women. It's just aswell I don't believe rapists ARE easy to spot, because if I did I'd have to assume that somewhere along the line, the majority of people had decided that the women (and children, and men) who fall prey to them weren't worth protecting.
6:56 am
“If a guy has so little respect for a person that he will rape them, then do your REALLY think they are their friend or aquaintance? Or is it more likely that they developed this relationship with a different motive? I don’t know anything about “girlfriend” rape, that’s in a category I honestly don’t completely understand.”
See, this is your problem, Victor, right here and I would also add that this precise mentality is one of the main reasons that guys in general have a problem computing the whole concept of acquaintance rape… They simply don’t understand it and therefore factor it out of their concept of reality, instead choosing to believe only in the “creepy guy in bar with a stamp on his forehead saying RAPIST” scenario, simply because that is the one that they can comprehend and rationalise. But here’s the reality: nice guys (and I mean *genuinely* nice guys, of the kind you would easily hang out with and go for a few beers with and trust and willingly be alone with) can suddenly turn around a try to rape you and the reason for this is, as far as I can tell, that they don’t actually realise they’re doing anything wrong. They don’t name their actions “rape”. They simply think a man has a right to sex and is entitled to be a bit “persuasive” when he comes across resistance, because women are naturally inclined to avoid sex at all costs and blah, blah, blah *insert every worn-out trope about the differences between the sexual desire and acceptable sexual comportment of the two sexes*
“That falls into the whole “if you aren’t having sex, why are you dating”
Because you don’t want to rush into it, because you don’t believe in sex before marriage or maybe –hey – because you actually *are* having sex, but that doesn’t make you incapable of being raped, given that consenting once doesn’t equate consent to every sexual act at any future moment in time forever don’t-ya-know, and sexual deprivation of the perpetrator is actually *not* correlated to desire to rape.
“if you are having sex, why would you rape”
Because people have sex because they want to have sex and people rape, because they want to rape, i.e. degrade, hurt, terrify, objectify. I’m really tired of this whole meme according to which men rape because they couldn’t get any any other way, especially since it simply translates into another way of blaming women for the violence visited against them: “If you didn’t want to get raped, you should have just slept with him to begin with”
“if you want to rape for power, why not date someone who wants to be a sub”
Again, totally different experience. Somebody who enjoys being subjugated in sex is still in control (that is if you’re doing it right), they’re just indulging in the fantasy of losing control. If you don’t respect their boundaries however, if you don’t respect their right to say stop when they want to stop, it’s no longer a consensual sexual act, but, yes, rape. People with healthy sexual desires might freely engage in the first activity, but this is incompatible with the idea of raping – it does not grant absolute control, just the delusion of absolute control.
9:17 am
@ abyss - yes, I personally threw guys out for "being creepy". The manager threw others out. We can't see everything though, and are only able to act when we start to recognize patterns. We aren't around for any crimes, so we can only assume what these guys end goals are. We are never told of any crimes that actually may be committed. We just would make assumptions that they are eventually going to commit one.
I think by throwing customers out on the supposition that some day in the future or some time in the past they may commit a crime, we did our part.
9:19 am
@ kvsm - you put any number of words in my mouth. Please don't do that, you devolve any conversation into bumper-sticker mottos and make your entire argument moot.
9:24 am
@victor, did you read my comment? This was a friend of mine that I had known for over a decade. I knew his family and friends, and he had never had a history of being a predator. He just never figured (Fuchsia, thank you for making it clear) that he was assaulting me since we had gone there in the past. We even had some aggressive sex in the past, but I was in control because I could say when he needed to soften up with the aggression. See the difference? In the past, I CONSENTED to whatever sexual act. I clearly said "no" that one time when he wouldn't stop. In his eyes, he felt justified because we went there in the past.
So there is your example for "girlfriend" rape, victor.
9:35 am
@ Fuchsia - I think before we go any further we need to establish what we think the drivers are for rape.
do you think rape is usually "accidental"? Because what you describe certainly sounds like it. A guy who is genuinely nice, respectful etc suddenly rapes a girl? What, did he have low blood sugar that day?
In my mind, the only time rape can be "accidental" is if there is a serious miscommunication, or a blatant refusal to acknowledge any refusal by one party (I'd lump all this together under the heading "consent issues"). In theory, these guys don't "mean to" rape a girl, they just are assuming that the girl actually wants it, despite her protests. (no, I'm not minimizing any of this, I'm just trying to classify it).
I'd have to assume that every other instance of rape is "intentional", as in "I want to rape that girl". If you really think that a "genuinely nice guy" also can "really want to rape that girl", then we have other issues as well.
As for the rest of my post, I think you misinterpreted. I was trying to explain my perplexion over "girlfriend rape", as it fits into a strange category, I was trying to explain the lack of clear motives.
9:39 am
TJ - an interesting example, so would you call this guy a rapist? What I'm getting at is, do you think this was a one time "oops, didn't mean to rape you there", or do you think this guy has done this in the past, and will likely repeat these actions with other women in the future?
9:41 am
Here's another example of 'girlfriend rape'. A friend of mine met up with her recent ex to talk about the possibility of getting back together. They had previously been going out for two years and had been engaged in a sexual relationship. The evening they met up, he told her that he wanted her back and used the fact that he had refrained from sleeping with anyone since they broke up as proof of his devotion. She admitted to wanting to start up the relationship too but also confessed she still had some doubts and wasn't quite ready to take that step. They agreed to start dating again and see how it went and she kissed him goodbye. They met up a few more times with groups of friends, going bowling and to the cinema, then a week later they went out alone on a date. They ended up at his place talking and drinking until the early hours of the morning, something they used to do quite often without any hint of violence. This time, they ended up kissing again but my friend asked her ex to back off as she wasn't ready to take any further steps in their relationship yet. His repsonse? To tell her to stop playing games. He then proceeded to rape her. When confronted about this later he insisted that it was impossible for it to be considered rape because he wasn't a rapist. He loved her, she loved him and by sleeping with her - even after she said no - he was simply proving that his intentions towards her were serious. It was, in his view, an act of love that got a little out of hand because they were drinking. He did not and still does not consider himself a rapist, despite the fact that his actions not only caused a permanent rift between him and the girl he supposedly loved but also contributed to her having a serious break down not long afterwards.
9:47 am
@Victor: 'What I’m getting at is, do you think this was a one time “oops, didn’t mean to rape you there”, or do you think this guy has done this in the past, and will likely repeat these actions with other women in the future?'
Do you really think it matters whether this was the only time the guy did this, or if he was a repeat offender? ANY time somebody has sex with someone without their consent is rape. Maybe I have misunderstood you here and if I have I'm sorry, but it seems like you are suggesting that whether the guy raped his girl because he loves raping women and set out to do so from the start, or if he instead set out to enjoy some quality time with her but then let his feeling of entitlement overide her right to say no alters whether this or similar cases should be regarded as rape or not. As I said, I recognise I may have misunderstood the point you were trying to make so this is just a request for you to clarify your view on what constitutes rape.
10:30 am
victor - No, I wouldn't call this guy a rapist, but I would say that what he did was technically rape. And yes, I think that this was an "oops" moment (although "oops" seems a little insensitive), especially since his response to me was sincerely apologetic and he was genuinely disgusted with himself when I brought it to his attention. This issue, in my case, was that he took for granted that he could go there since we had gone there in the past.
And no, I honestly do not believe that he will repeat those actions with any other woman.
10:33 am
"do you think rape is usually “accidental”?"
No, I certainly don't and apologies if my position came across as such. What I mean to say is that I think a lot of men don't consider the woman's experience of the situation to be as real as their own or her objections to be a valid reason for them not to get what they want. I don’t think they “accidentally” do what they do, they just don’t call it rape in their own mind. To understand your actions as “rape” you have to be able to understand that your victim’s experience of the situation is as valid as your own, that it is her (or his) lack of consent that qualifies your actions as rape. If you don’t really care about their experience and consent though, you’re not going to see that – you might repeat the lesson society has taught you in the abstract (“forcing somebody to have sex with you is bad”), but you fail to apply it to your own situation. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance: “I’m a good guy and good guys don’t rape, so this can’t be rape, even though I’m forcing a girl to do what she clearly doesn’t want to do, because the important thing is whether I am a rapist or not and that characterisation depends not on my actions but on the quality of my character, which is definitely not one of a rapist”. Even though, I would add, actually, turns out, it is.
And yes, TJ’s example is definitely one of rape (thanks for sharing, TJ!) – you need consent *every single time*, obviously! I don’t think that it was a case of “oops, didn’t mean to rape you there”. No, it was a case of “I want what I want, what do you mean you won’t give it to me, your lack of consent doesn’t even register with me.” Also, you don’t have to be a repeat offender to be a rapist (again, why is this so difficult for so many people to grasp? – it’s obviously easy to comprehend that somebody might be a one-time shop-lifter or murderer…)
10:58 am
Coming back to your comment I guess what I am describing is what you mention as a “blatant refusal to acknowledge any refusal by one party”, I just don’t think that I can write this off as something as innocent as “assuming that the girl actually wants it”. I think the rapist in such situations might *want* to assume that the girl wants it and possibly that is what they will tell themselves the next day – but, you know, I don’t think anybody really gets to decide for anybody else what they really want. I think that if you’re making such assumptions in absence of supporting evidence, you’re simply the kind of person that doesn’t respect other people’s wants and experience of the situation as much as your own, the kind of person that likes explaining to people what they really desire, think and feel. Believing that this could just be a problem of miscommunication is simply wishful thinking – it’s a problem of refusal to communicate, or refusal to recognise that communication is even possible, because you don’t register the other person’s ability to decide what they do and do not want.
Also, why does any classification have to take place? I mean I understand that you want to assign different psychological profiles and motives or whatever to different “categories” of rapists, but in practice it’s still rape, right? And the point is whether acquaintance rape possible or not, which started from your whole assertion that “If a guy has so little respect for a person that he will rape them, then do your REALLY think they are their friend or acquaintance?” And I’m just saying, yup, I think it is easily possible that the victim did think they were their friend or trustworthy acquaintance… It’s hard to know how somebody will react to a refusal to sleep with them, until you actually refuse to sleep with them.
“If you really think that a “genuinely nice guy” also can “really want to rape that girl”, then we have other issues as well.”
I think a “genuinely nice guy”, (i.e. somebody who doesn’t troll bars or give off obvious creepiness signals, I’m obviously not referring to somebody I’d be BFFs with even after finding out that they’re capable of this kind of behaviour) can “really want to have sex with that girl whether she wants to or not”…. But will not call that sentiment “desire to rape” in his own mind, because he knows that rape is bad – but also (and here’s where society messes its signals up big time) that a strong libido is a sign of manliness and something to aggressive prove.
11:08 am
Fuschia - I'm simply trying to make sure we are all on the same page. Rape is a broad category of actions as it is, with a number of motivations/situations and it seems to be in flux (at this point in time, the term "rape" seems to encompass everything from a stranger jumping out of the bushes, to my overbearing maleness driving women to uncontrollably, enthusiastically say "yes"). This makes for a confusing set of motivations.
TJ seems to honestly think that her rapist was not a "rapist" and is likely not continuing their activities. I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, then that person wouldn't really be a "predator" now would they. Is this the most common type of "rape"? The "oops, didn't mean to rape you there, won't do that again"?
Others (I believe you are included) believe there is an "I'm not raping you, but I'm raping you" group. Since you are clear that these people don't believe they are raping, then their motivations HAVE to be different from the "rape for the sake of rape" group, since they don't think they're raping. What are their motivations? Is it simply sex? And is this the dominant form of rape? would one classify this group as predatorial? One would argue this is a "repeat offender" group, and that would imply that you could find/identify patterns of behavior.
I think we can all agree that there is a clear group that rapes because they want to rape. This is the classic, whether it is violent or "non violent". But this is a clear predatory group. This is the group I am usually talking about, not because I don't believe the other groups don't exist, but simply because I would never have any reason to come across them. I'm not going to be "accidentially raped" by a "nice guy", and I'm never going to hear about anyone in my life being "raped by a guy who's convinced he's not raping her". There simply are very few opportunities for those instances to enter into my life.
So, the real question is, what is the most dominant form of rape? Do you think 80% of rapists are doing it accidentally? 40%?
11:23 am
Fuschia - One quick response to your second post. The point of my "aquaintance rape" comments is that IF the guy's motivation is rape (in whatever form we want to define it) and the guy has a habit of repeating this activity (ie, get to know a girl, then rape her when an opportunity strikes), then I think we can safely say that the guy isn't "getting to know her" for altruistic reasons. It is part and parcel with the later rape. He didn't "get to know this great girl, really got along with her, then accidentally raped her". If he does it over and over again, it is much more likely that he's "getting to know them" so that he later has an opportunity to rape them. Whether he thinks its rape or not is irrelevant. This is a predatory action, and honestly isn't that surprising to me. (and before all of you jump on me for "blaming the victim", blah blah blah... i'm not.)
11:30 am
“at this point in time, the term “rape” seems to encompass everything from a stranger jumping out of the bushes, to my overbearing maleness driving women to uncontrollably, enthusiastically say “yes””
Um, no, it doesn’t. The latter possibility was something you made up.
“TJ seems to honestly think that her rapist was not a “rapist” and is likely not continuing their activities.”
Hm, TJ should please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what she meant what that her attacker was not somebody who routinely rapes and will continue to do so in the future. She made this statement in answer to your question. I would say that I don’t really understand the question in the first place and that the very fact that it was put out there is proof of our society’s messed up ideas about rape and rapists… I’m afraid that somebody who rapes (even once) is a rapist, coz that’s kinda what the terms means. Again, we wouldn’t wonder whether somebody who committed one murder is a murderer, would we? To the contrary, we have special terms for people who commit lots of murders, such as “serial killer” or “mass murderer”.
“Is this the most common type of “rape”? The “oops, didn’t mean to rape you there, won’t do that again”?”
Yes, although again, I take issue with this description of the situation.
“I’m not going to be “accidentially raped” by a “nice guy”, and I’m never going to hear about anyone in my life being “raped by a guy who’s convinced he’s not raping her”. There simply are very few opportunities for those instances to enter into my life.”
You don’t know any women or gay guys? (the majority of victims although straight guys are not entirely immune either). FYI, you probably already know such people, they just aren’t in the habit of casually analysing such stuff in a social setting.
“So, the real question is, what is the most dominant form of rape? Do you think 80% of rapists are doing it accidentally? 40%?”
Again, I don’t think that for the most part they are doing it accidentally at all, I think they simply don’t care about consent. And yes, the vast majority of rapes are committed by family members, friends or acquaintances. This is not what “I think”, there are statistics out there. I can’t remember the numbers off the top of my head, by I believe it’s somewhere around the 90% marker.
11:47 am
“I think we can safely say that the guy isn’t “getting to know her” for altruistic reasons.”
You still have not understood the situation. “Acquaintance rape” isn’t limited to situations where the guy has had the prospect of rape in his mind all along – in fact I would suppose that these are the rarer instances. It will usually involve a situation where you know somebody and then he rapes you, although he maybe wasn’t even planning to do so half an hour ago.
“IF the guy’s motivation is rape”
The guy’s motivation is sex with or without consent, which, absent consent, ends up being rape. Again, though, this doesn’t have to involve some sort of elaborate, meticulously laid plan.
11:47 am
You folks are all talking past each other, with more effort on trying to be 'right' than actually communicating.
Sadly, reflective of the greater debate, and lack of progress thereof.
12:44 pm
Fuschia -
RE- "overbearing maleness" of course it was, I'm trying to inject a little humor. still doesn't change the fact my "overbearing maleness" silencing someone's objections (an actual example used in this thread) is a significantly different situation than a stranger jumping out of the bushes.
"but I think what she meant what that her attacker was not somebody who routinely rapes and will continue to do so in the future."
agreed. That's why I put "rapist" in "quotes", to separate it from some sort of serial rapist, consciously trying to be rapey all the time.
"You don’t know any women or gay guys?" of course I do. But honestly, my partner and I are not close with other people. It is unlikely to come up in our interactions with them. As for it striking my partner, our social interactions are such that the only person with ample opportunity would be me. I am sufficiently certain, based on our discussions, that if that were to happen my nipples would be cut off with a bread knife. I'm okay with that.
"And yes, the vast majority of rapes are committed by family members, friends or acquaintances. This is not what “I think”, there are statistics out there" Just because the rape is committed by family members, friends or acquaintances does NOT mean that it fits into your view of "oops" or "accidental" rape. I'm trying to make my point as clear as possible, but I'm apparently not successful. A guy who wants to rape a girl SPECIFICALLY to violate an individual (not some sort of consent-less sexual gratification) would be just as likely to perpetrate this act on a friend, aquaintance or family member. Statistics of "friend, family member, acquaintance rape" are not synonymous with statistics of "accidental rape".
" It will usually involve a situation where you know somebody and then he rapes you, although he maybe wasn’t even planning to do so half an hour ago."
???? Step 1, collect underpants. Step 3, PROFIT!
Do you think there is a magic rape switch or something? It seems clear as day to me. In those situations he certainly was planning on having sex. He certainly doesn't care what the victim's opinion is on the matter. So, WHY WAS HE THEIR ACQUAINTANCE? Do you think he likes and respects this girl (or guy) except when it comes to their opinion on whether they can be violated?
This isn't "meticulous planning", this is just making sure you are in the right place in case the "opportune moment" comes along.
1:13 pm
i am really confused because people seem to be talking about different things. the way i see there are two types of rape. rape and "date rape"
rape is simple: sex without consent. doesnt matter if it's a stranger, friend, brother's friend, boyfriend's friend, stalker, whoever. if they stalked out your house and got ahold of your weekly planner, that is no different than a friend surprising you on movie night. no matter what the victim does to communicate her desire not to have sex, the rape happens. there is a clear line between right and wrong.
date rape is sex when the desire not to have sex is lost in translation. a verbal "no" is the most definitive way of communicating this. if you say "no", it is no longer date rape, but rape as defined above, unless the rapist does not speak english. if you rely on body language or other vague methods of communication, you run the risk of those messages being misinterpreted by the the other party. both people are at fault.
everything in society is geared towards having sex/ based on the assumption that everyone wants sex. this is probably why you have to say "no" as opposed to "yes". this is the convention society and the COURTS have adopted, whether you personally believe it is right or wrong. that means you should base your choices and actions on the idea that not saying "yes" means "no" regardless of your personal beliefs.
think of it as a permanent legal contract with the rest of society. it reads "i want sex unless i say no."
1:53 pm
edit^ "that means you should NOT base your choices and actions on the idea that not saying 'yes' means 'no'...."
2:14 pm
Victor, whatever nick might say, I think we’re making progress in understanding each other here! That being said:
“It is unlikely to come up in our interactions with them.”
Your life circumstances might change and in any case, I still don’t see the point you’re making. It’s unlikely to happen to you or your girlfriend, so it’s not worth discussing? (not saying that that’s what I believe you’re actually saying, just that that’s what it sounds like…)
“Just because the rape is committed by family members, friends or acquaintances does NOT mean that it fits into your view of “oops” or “accidental” rape.”
It might make things easier if you stuck to terms your interlocutors actually used in their posts… I don’t remember having a view of “oops” or “accidental” rapes, these are terms that your first came up with and I objected to. Nevertheless, I obviously agree that brutal can rapes committed by family members, friends or acquaintances with the exact purpose of causing physical pain, humiliation and fear and not simply through refusing to acknowledge an inconvenient lack of consent. But my point was not to deny this, but simply to explain to you how it might be possible to end up being raped by somebody you wholly trusted and who does not moreover actually have extraordinary violent tendencies – without, I should point out, although I did think this was obvious, believing that the one scenario I painted is the only one possible, but rather a single example of how things might transpire. If anything, your example shows even more emphatically how difficult spotting a rapist actually is. Quite frankly, I don’t think there’s much merit in making a distinction between types of rape based on the rapist’s motive (which will always be rather obscure). I think it is important however to emphasise that rape can be committed by somebody you trusted (whether violently or not) and who otherwise has a mild personality and is completely integrated in society, because so many people think of a rapist as a being a definite sociopath that moreover they could pick out in a crowd or learn to avoid. Not so.
“Do you think there is a magic rape switch or something?”
Well, yes, I do think that sometimes it’s crazy how otherwise quite inconspicuous people fly off the handle when they are denied something they wanted. But actually what I am saying is that these people probably didn’t care much about their partners’ consent all along – there’s just no way to know this until you say “no” and they ignore you.
“So, WHY WAS HE THEIR ACQUAINTANCE?”
Because it’s impossible to spot this guy and women can’t deny themselves all interaction with all males for fear of being raped.
“Do you think he likes and respects this girl (or guy) except when it comes to their opinion on whether they can be violated?”
No, I don’t. I also think that there are certain ways we are conditioned to act in public – nobody (or at least few people) is about to go around declaring “I really don’t care if my sex partners consent or not, it’s all the same to me”. That however is no guarantee that they would actually respect their partner’s wishes, even when contrary to their own.
“This isn’t “meticulous planning”, this is just making sure you are in the right place in case the “opportune moment” comes along.”
Or maybe you just happened completely by coincidence to find yourself in a situation where it was easy to override your partner’s wishes and you thought “hey, why not?” (Again, not saying that the kind of rapist you’re describing doesn’t exist, just trying to point out that is not the only way for acquaintance rape to take place).
2:48 pm
There's a great book called "How dangerous men think" which details what to do in a situation where your "no" is ignored, if you find yourself in a situation where you are being coerced. It also discusses some of what you've said here, how girls are taught to be quiet and accomodating and how you can adjust your attitude so that you are empowered and safer. It's more a practical guide than a feminist text but I still recommend it.
4:30 pm
Y'all are being way too nice to Victor. I had like a page-long response to him, but really, why bother? Look at the language he's using: all this "oops" and "accidentally" bullshit, and responding to TJ's story with "that's an interesting example" instead of "I'm so sorry that happened to you." This isn't the Clever Boys' Puzzle Club; it's a discussion of RAPE, which is a violent crime. If Victor is really interested in rapists' motivations (spoiler alert: he's not) that's why prison psychologists publish books and papers. Instead of actually trying to learn the answers to his dumbass questions, he's hassling a journalist for suggesting that maybe "Well, did you say no?" is putting the burden of rape prevention on the victim, and the question we should be asking is "Did she say yes?" Who on earth could have a problem with that? Oh yeah: dudes who don't really care that much about rape victims. And this guy, A: 'think of it [by "it," he seems to mean "existing"] as a permanent legal contract with the rest of society. it reads “i want sex unless i say no.”' Creep.
5:00 pm
Jess: Agreed.
5:26 pm
jess -
a couple highlights: 1 - "accidental" is the best word I can come up with to easily identify what has been described. It came about when I asked fuschia if she thought rape was an accident or a premeditated act. If you don't like it, come up with a better one.
2 - Why am I obliged to provide empty lip service to someone I don't know just because they described some trauma they endured? Why is sympathy even a factor in an intellectual discussion?
3 - I'm "harrassing a journalist" because I believed she was being inconsistent in her positions (a fault she seems to consistently have). This led to a discussion of motivation and a parsing of the categories of rape, please try to keep up.
4 - again... why am I obliged to actually care about the victims? I am not generally inclined to have feelings for strangers, victim or not. If this happens to a friend/family, I care, but only because I already cared about them. The act of being a victim does not entitle a person to additional warm and fuzzies.
5:27 pm
Fuchsia - I don't think we disagree on fundamental points. I don't have time right now to put together a full response though.
9:12 pm
@Jess I totally agree. I've seen dudes do this in other posts, and usually it seems to boil down to splitting hairs on what is and isn't "real" rape. Dudes like to derail these discussions with semantic arguments. You nailed it with pointing out Victor's frankly belittling and minimizing language. "oops"? "accidental"?
C'mon, give me a break.
Reading between the lines: acquaintance rape isn't really rape, because it's all a big misunderstanding, since the dude who did the "accidental" raping didn't set out with a plan in mind and bring a rape kit with him. Because that's what "real" rapists do.
Notice how he hasn't picked up at all on the discussion of male privilege and how that plays into ignoring consent issues. Instead, it's all about his weird terminology, which ignores all the established terminology we have to discuss these issues. Which as far as I know, aren't esoteric feminist jargon at all, but widely known.
9:25 pm
@A In fact, there really aren't 2 kinds of rape. Stranger rapists and date rapists are both uninterested in their victim's wishes about the whole thing and don't actually see their victims as full people at all. It's about power: they want something, so they take it. One might (not always) be more violent than the other, but when you boil it down, it's the same thing. Date rapists don't magically turn into "real" rapists the moment their victim verbalizes a clear "no." You're basically saying that if a victim is unable, through shock, fear, intoxication, whatever reason, to clearly verbalize a strong "no" than she deserves what she gets. In fact, you say "both parties are at fault."
Uh, no.
The concept of enthusiastic consent is really not that hard to grasp, people. We are not all walking around in a state of willingness to have sex at the drop of a hat unless we clearly declare "No." Instead, the default should be seen as we are all not interested in having sex with a given person unless we clearly and enthusiastically say "yes."
I'm pretty sure someone above already said this, but it is apparently in need of repeating.
11:22 pm
@A, I disagree that there is any difference between rape and date rape except in how people define the same crime based on the context of rape or how they refuse to accept certain rapes as real rapes.
@victor, there is no such thing as accidental rape. For example, An ejection from a Halloween party in Chicago preceded the murder of a DePaul student. If the person who got angry over this ejection then goes out and gets a gun and kills 1 person that is not an accidental murder. It would be premeditated murder even if the shooter weren't a gang member and had been a fellow student who had never before shown any signs of violence.
What makes the action non-accidental is the commission of the crime itself not the whole personality profile of the criminal. You seem to be trying to define rape only by the overall profile of the rapist. With estimates for the number of forcible rapes in the US between 200,000 and 800,000 for one year no one personality profile can account for all those rapes.
Some men are predatory, but they will not rape. They might come close to that line over and over again.And everyone who sees them in public with women may assume they are a serial rapist. But what makes someone a rapist is actually committing rape. Likewise, the man who is seen as a devoted husband may rape his wife whenever he has a bad day at work and comes home feeling powerless.
12:02 am
@Victor: "Why am I obliged to provide empty lip service to someone I don’t know just because they described some trauma they endured? Why is sympathy even a factor in an intellectual discussion?"
You are not required to give anybody empty lip service. However, genuine empathy is a needed element in any discussion of rape grounded in reality because without it you are reading about this subject with emotional-deafness.
When people are tone deaf they cannot have competent discussions about the rightness or wrongness of what they do not hear. Their discussions don't magically become intellectual because they can't feel the rhythm of the music.
Without empathy for rape victims you will be unable to understand why rapes you call "oops" or "accidental" are no such thing. Without empathy the reality of rape is stripped away and you have to look for artificial markers such as the rapist's overall character.
9:28 am
First of all, thank you to all that offered their sympathy. Although I did not share to elicit sympathy, abyss2hope, you are absolutely right in saying that there has to be a bit of empathy when discussing this subject. With that in mind, we can have an intelligent conversation AND have some feeling, too.
NOW. The many posters have a very valid point when they say that the words you have chosen, victor, demean the act of rape. Saying it was "accidental" and an "oops" moment is completely missing the point. Even from early childhood, we are taught the difference between "yes" and "no" so that is not debatable. As a matter of fact, "no" is one of the first words that children use very often in their vocabulary. Once you hear that two-letter word, you know that you are NOT to do something. Once you follow through with whatever you were told NOT to do, YOU ARE KNOWINGLY DOING SOMETHING WRONG. Even dogs know that. You don't trip and somehow fall into raping someone.
At the same time, I believe in redemption. Just because you have done an act does not mean you are the act. As a perfect example, I drink alcohol (and like it), but that doesn't make me an alcoholic. Or, you could have very well been in a play when you were in the 5th grade, but that doesn't make you an actor. As such, if you have done a reprehensible act in your past, in this case rape, it doesn't automatically make you a rapist.
These may be the parts of the equation that you are missing, victor. There are no "oops" moments when it comes to rape. At the same time, you don't have to BE what it is that you DO.
9:57 am
In a strange twist of irony, I disagree with everything you just said TJ.
I have no problem with you, and others, disliking the term "accidental". It is a term I find convenient to the conversation. You may change it, as long as you keep my description of it intact.
While I do agree with you that everyone knows the difference between "yes" and "no", the situation YOU described, you specifically stated that the rapist was genuinely apologetic and disgusted with himself when you told him what he had done wrong. Assuming that you are being honest, and assuming that he was genuine, then that to me is a description of a situation where he did not actually know he was raping you. Is it still wrong? Of course it is. but for the sake of an argument about rapists being predatory, we need to differentiate between someone who is knowingly trying to rape, and someone who, according to your descriptions, seemed to not realize they had done something wrong.
On the other hand, I honestly do believe that anyone who rapes is a rapist, by definition. are they a serial rapist? maybe maybe not. For the sake of this discussion I have tried to confine my definition of rapist to someone who is actively seeking victims, but as fuchsia pointed out, raping someone makes you a rapist. I do agree with her on that point.
Redemption is an entirely different subject... I don't think we want to deal with that as well.
10:14 am
Re - empathy -
anyone who thinks that an individual requires empathy to be allowed into this discussion is doing a disservice to rape victims, past and future. This is just another exclusion tactic used to say "you don't understand, so your input isn't valid on this topic". Well, that's fine. But if you are going to state (as it has been said in this thread and others) that "it shouldn't be the victim's responsibility to not be raped, MEN should be responsible for stopping rape"... great. You want us to be involved. Hell, you want us to solve the entire problem. Fine. But you cannot exclude men from the discussion of rape AND expect us to do something about it. It is through this method, as well as the "you're just contributing to rape culture" and any other bumper sticker statements which are thrown out there any time a male tries to question any statement about rape, that you actually exclude them and try to minimize their involvement.
TJ is clearly not trying to solicit sympathy. If I were in a similar situation and individuals I didn't know were pretending to care about my past trauma, I'd personally be disgusted with them and with the idea that I became an object of stranger's pity. I provided TJ with the same respect I would have wanted in that situation. If this is your entire basis for excluding my questions/comments, then you really aren't trying to work towards preventing rape, you're just looking for men to scapegoat.
10:16 am
@TJ, you make great points. One of the ways that those who have raped 1 or more times but who don't fit the stereotype of rapist can commit this crime is by their giving toxic messages they've heard, such as the idea that it can be too late for a girl or woman to say no, priority over someone's actual lack of consent.
Some of those who rape will see the truth of the harm caused by their intentional actions and rid themselves of those toxic beliefs. Others will glimpse the truth and the pain they caused and respond by rejecting that truth and declaring their rape victim a liar.
1:20 pm
@victor, When actions which are not accidental are labeled as such then objecting to someone who repeatedly insists on being inaccurate has nothing to do with silencing men. That you find an inaccurate label convenient is not a valid reason for others to find this acceptable.
You say you care about preventing rape but do you care enough to drop the defensiveness when you are challenged on the specifics of what you say and how you say it?
You wrote: "anyone who thinks that an individual requires empathy to be allowed into this discussion is doing a disservice to rape victims, past and future."
The problem is you are trying to do more than discuss rape, you are positioning yourself as an authority in this discussion when you are not. If you don't have empathy then you don't understand the full reality of rpae. Your responses to TJ make it clear that you don't understand the example she gave yet you cling to the label you have applied to that example.
If what you are claiming to be true is wrong and people have firsthand knowledge which disproves your claims then it isn't anti-male bigotry which causes women to tell you are wrong or to view you as someone with little or no credibility.
Falling back on the claim that you are being intellectual is a lame excuse because failing to fully understand reality is not intellectual. Same goes for falling back on the excuse that your statements are being challenged only because you are a man. Finding examples of other men who have gotten the same response means nothing if those other men take the similar approaches and positions as you are taking.
I'm actively involved in sexual violence prevention with many men and I've only heard 1 or 2 statements from any of the men involved in this work which I'd challenge. They have worked to gain understanding, empathy and intellectualism and I have praised both their words and their work. So this idea that I reject some of what you say because you are a man is nonsense.
4:15 pm
@ abyss
"You say you care about preventing rape " no, I didn't. I said that I continually hear people on this thread DEMAND that men prevent rape. What I want has not been discussed.
" you are positioning yourself as an authority in this discussion when you are not" no, I have never positioned myself as an authority. I have stated specific instances where I simple patterns can be seen. To imply I consider myself an authority is again, to put words in my mouth.
"Your responses to TJ make it clear that you don’t understand the example she gave yet you cling to the label you have applied to that example." Again false. I clearly stated twice now, that you or others can feel free to chose another word, as long as we maintain the definition. No one has proffered one.
"Finding examples of other men who have gotten the same response means nothing if those other men take the similar approaches and positions as you are taking."
Gee.... so you don't use exclusionary tactics when the men agree with you? Good to know.
"I’ve only heard 1 or 2 statements from any of the men involved in this work which I’d challenge. " Great. So you agree with them all the time. This again goes back to why you never try to use any exclusionary tactics with them.
In fact, pretty much the only two declaratory statements I've bothered to stand by are: 1 - rapists who are starting their day with the idea "I want to rape" are predators; and 2 - If a guy you know rapes you, odds are he wasn't really your friend.
I think its really funny that these are concepts you really have a problem with.
4:45 pm
Oh, Victor, you are such a moron. Rape is a terrible, violent, traumatizing crime. If you aren't interested in preventing it, then you are either a criminal yourself, or completely amoral. Nobody has asked you what you want because none of us care what you want. We care about preventing rape, which is what this article is about, and what this discussion was about before you derailed it with your pseudointellectual bullshit. Also, of course we demand that men prevent rape. We also demand that women prevent rape. But since men are the ones doing the raping, it's a hell of a lot easier for you all to just NOT RAPE than for us to spend our whole lives in a state of fear, constraining ourselves with elaborate security precautions. Which is the current state of things.
Look, you comment on practically everything Amanda writes, yet you seem totally uninterested in learning the basic tenets and vocabulary of feminism, and instead you whine at Amanda and your fellow commenters for explanations of simple things like "acquaintance rape" and "enthusiastic consent." We're not inventing feminism from scratch, over here: spend ten minutes on Google, or even Wikipedia, and learn some fucking rape statistics and rape prevention techniques before you flounce in here and tell us we're being "illogical" and "inconsistent."
5:11 pm
@victor, if you don't care about preventing rape then I'm not the one excluding you from this effort, you are.
The difference between you and those other men I mentioned is not that they agree with me on everything and you don't but that they care about preventing rape, they care about me and others who have been victims of sexual violence, and are willing to listen and learn when they make assumptions about sexual violence which are incorrect.
Because they care deeply and empathise with victims and survivors they can bring their own experiences to the work of preventing violence and their unique insights in turn can help me learn more as well.
5:45 pm
@ jess...
"If you aren’t interested in preventing it, then you are either a criminal yourself, or completely amoral." again, I have not said I don't care about preventing it. I have said nothing about what I want. It isn't even part of the discussion, yet you and others seem so willing to pidgeonhole me one way or the other. And then after doing so, you call me a moron for a stand I have never taken. cute.
"Nobody has asked you what you want because none of us care what you want." thats perfectly acceptable.
"and what this discussion was about before you derailed it with your pseudointellectual bullshit" no, your discussion was stroking each other's egos over amanda attacking some other journalistic piece in a manner which was completely inconsistent (in my mind) with something she had written just a day earlier.
"But since men are the ones doing the raping, it’s a hell of a lot easier for you all to just NOT RAPE .." That's going to have just as much impact as telling people "just don't murder". Reasonable people don't, but hey, every now and then you find a dude with 35 bodies under his house. If you think telling men "just don't rape" is going to solve your problem your cause is already lost. I'm asking questions about motivation, ideas which if an individual knew the answers to, would help them to segment a population of rapists/potential rapists and identify methods of either educating some and isolating the others from society. But I'm sure just telling them all not to rape is just as good.
"Look, you comment on practically everything Amanda writes, yet you seem totally uninterested in learning the basic tenets and vocabulary of feminism"
I comment when I find something interesting or inconsistent. If you are what constitutes a feminist, I honestly don't want to learn your "tenets" and "vocabulary", I think you make a piss-poor feminist. Why should that stop me from reading Amanda's blog? Hell, it just gets her more hits/popularity.
"whine at Amanda and your fellow commenters for explanations of simple things like “acquaintance rape” and “enthusiastic consent."
Interesting, since I've never asked for explanations regarding "enthusiastic consent" or "acquaintance rape", but since you mention it, I have yet to see one of the commenters provide a consistent description of "acquaintance rape". Funny you should accuse me of not knowing when those you support seem so inconsistent.
"learn some fucking rape statistics and rape prevention techniques before you flounce in here and tell us we’re being “illogical” and “inconsistent.”"
ummm... great, so if I say you are inconsistent from statement A to statement B, I am told to go to google and look up information on statement C. Hey! That's illogical!
5:55 pm
@abyss -
As jess pointed out, my "caring" is not the issue, and I have not stated one way or the other (nor will I).
however, any ultimate rape prevention policy or law will ultimately impact me and every other male. As such, you need to recognize that the public is going to view these from a much different set of experiences than those of you who are so close to it. The feminist "vocabulary" that jess is so proud of having is absolutely useless when you have to communicate an idea to the general public. It is only effective if you are going to be communicating an idea to your insular group.
I would like to point out that you have yet to tell me why you have a problem with my two statements. Your criticism of me seems to be that I'm not a warm and fuzzy person. I'd personally rather stay on topic, and I don't believe my warm and fuzziness was on topic until someone criticized me for not shedding crocodile tears.
6:25 pm
The topic, as summarized at the end of the article: "It’s good to tell girls that it’s never too late to say “no.” But we must also teach our kids the importance of waiting for a “yes”—because by the time someone can say “no,” it may already be too late."
Victor, you are WAY off topic, in more ways than I care to count. Your "two statements" are both so ridiculous, in the face of basic knowledge about rape and rapists, that nobody is bothering to address them. And if you believe, as you stated above, that research into rape statistics and effective rape prevention is irrelevant to a discussion about who rapists are, what their motivations are, and how to prevent them from raping, then you are clearly someone who needs to return to high school before attempting to engage in serious debate with adults.
11:17 pm
@victor: "I have yet to see one of the commenters provide a consistent description of “acquaintance rape”"
Here you go:
stranger rape - stranger + acquaintance
12:06 am
"In fact, pretty much the only two declaratory statements I’ve bothered to stand by are: 1 – rapists who are starting their day with the idea “I want to rape” are predators; and 2 – If a guy you know rapes you, odds are he wasn’t really your friend."
Victor: Your second point is true. If someone you previously considered a friend rapes you, he wasn't a true friend at all. For him to commit this rape indicates that he considers what he wants to be more important than your ability to consent, or to choose NOT to consent.
But where I have a problem with what you've been saying is the first point, which does touch on the second. The impression your comments give is that only predators rape, and that predators consistantly think "I want to rape someone."
Most convicted rapists don't self-identify as such. When interviewed, they honestly don't believe that what they did was rape. Instead, they insist that something about the victim's dress or actions conveyed a message of consent. Even if the victim said "no," something else about them had indicated a "yes," so the rapist felt he had a green light. Even if his actions were predatory, he didn't start out thinking "I want to rape," he started out choosing to believe that something about the woman had given her consent, regardless of what she was saying. (I'm not saying that there aren't rapists who consciously choose to rape, but most do use this line of reasoning to excuse themselves.)
The same logic applies to those who commit acquaintance rape. The rapist chooses to ignore the victim's verbal non-consent or lack of consent, and instead chooses to focus on something about her that he feels enables him to continue. It's not about him wanting to commit a rape, it's about him feeling that the victim's non-consent is irrelevant in light of something she said, did, or wore earlier.
Both stranger rapes and acquaintance rapes are about the rapist believing that he has the right to decide whether someone wants to consent or not. The circumstances may differ, but the mentality is the same.
And while the acquaintance who rapes you may show that he's not a true friend when he does that, it's not unreasonable to think that a woman would have considered him a friend up to that point. It's impossible to know how someone's going to react in a situation until they're in it. You don't know how someone will react to being denied consent in a sexual situation until it happens. Some of the nicest, gentlest people I know also love horror movies. Does this love change the way the act in day-to-day situations? Not at all. If I hadn't learned that they loved horror films, I wouldn't have expected it. Similarly, a man can seem kind until he's denied a sexual act he feels he has the right to.
5:24 am
@ Victor:
"I said that I continually hear people on this thread DEMAND that men prevent rape. "
Since it is mostly men who do the raping, who, in fact, are we supposed to ask (or demand) that they stop doing it? Other than the men who do?
Regarding "rapists who are starting their day with the idea “I want to rape” are predators", that's been addressed upthread. But no-one is disagreeing per se. What they are saying is that not all rapists (perhaps not even most) are "predators" according to your definition. A lot of rape is opportunistic - hey, the chick has passed out at the party, I might as well fuck her - it's -still- rape.
As for the "feminist vocabulary", I'm very sorry, but what on earth is so hard about the message "don't have sex with people unless they explicitly say yes to it"?
I really fail to see the arcane terminology there, although perhaps you have a more nuanced perception. But what we are mostly trying to say here is if you haven't said "yes", you're not consenting. If you're not consenting, it's rape. Simple.
5:51 am
Many thanks to Niveau for voicing very clearly exactly what I set out to say. Other than that there are two points I would like to make:
1) Re: the whole rapist question. My understanding of American criminal law is hazy at best (I studied law in Europe and moreover am not specialised in criminal law), but I would like to point out that for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime it is indeed not sufficient merely that the actus reus be committed (the guilty act in other words), but the perpetrator would also have to be found to have the correct mental state, the corresponding mens rea. If the perpetrator did not have intent, he is not found guilty of the crime. I think this is what TJ is getting at above by stating that raping once does not necessarily make you a rapist and also possibly what Victor means when insisting on the term “accidental rape”. I stand by my original position that a rapist is simply defined as somebody who is guilty of rape, even if they only committed the act once and have since seen the error of their ways – in order however to be guilty of rape both the actus reus and the mens rea have to be present. If either one or the other are absent (either you did not intend to commit rape or you thought you were committing rape, but as it turns out you had consent all along), you have not committed rape and are accordingly not a rapist. Having said that, I think that once the word “no” or other phrasing to that effect have been uttered by the victim, proving the lack of mens rea is very difficult, no matter how much the rapist might regret his decision at a later point in time.
Whether you fit the stereotype of the rapist is irrelevant to the above – you can both have committed rape in the past, and therefore be a rapist, and nevertheless not fit the stereotype, or you can fit the stereotype and still have managed up till now to avoid actually committing rape, meaning that you technically are not (yet at least) a rapist.
The word rapist however is very different to the word alcoholic and in this I disagree with TJ. Alcoholic refers to somebody who not merely consumes alcohol, but abuses it and is addicted. The repetitive nature is an essential part of the definition. To the contrary, I’d be very hard pressed to define “rapist” as “somebody addicted to rape” and know of no dictionary or legal literature that would accept such a definition.
2) Victor is very right in stating that there is value in engaging men who are not already sold on the whole concept of feminism. How else do feminists ever expect to make their (very correct IMHO) opinions of the world mainstream? Alienating and pooh-poohing people who are merely repeating the prevalent sexist and rapey messages our society has consistently taught them from an early age does not get anybody anywhere. I don’t know about the rest of the people taking part in this conversation, but yes, I do remember the time when I realised that a woman has a right to say no to a man at any point before or during intercourse. It was not something that I considered obvious or natural however, not a lesson I heard repeated around me constantly around me growing up, but one I had to reach by pitting my own logic against society’s narratives around sex and rape and challenging the conventional wisdom.
8:48 am
@niveau
I actually don't disagree with a single thing you said. I have never claimed that the group I was describing defined all rapists, just a subset. I honestly don't know what percentage of rapes are committed by which groups.
Ultimately, what I was trying to get at (and what apparently I failed at completely) is that the entire "enthusiastic consent" concept ignores whatever percentage of rapists who rape BECAUSE they want to dominate and defile their subject (as opposed to thinking the subject is giving consent because of they way she dresses etc.). This means that no matter how successful feminists are at promoting "enthusiastic consent", the tips provided by Homquist are still going to be valid (at least the ones which seemed to be avoiding situations you can't get the hell out of quickly) because there are still f*ed up people out there.
8:49 am
@ fuchsia
I do believe we are coming to some sort of accord here. Frightening, isn't it. :)
8:59 am
@Fuchsia, on mens rea in rape cases the person does not need to intend to rape in the sense of properly labeling their action as such. They need to intend to commit the crime of rape in the sense of violating the criminal statute.
To use a non-sex crime example, someone who intends to steal a car may tell himself all he's doing is borrowing it, but this does not mean there is no mens rea. He knew he had no right to drive off in that car but he did it anyway. His rationalization that what he did wasn't a real car theft is not a valid defense.
The problem in rape cases is that the rationalizations of rapists for why it is okay for them to do something they have no legal right to do is often treated as if it is proof that there is no mens rea when the rationalization indicates that the rapist knew his actions were wrong. Once someone looks for excuses for why their actions don't count as a real crime they know what they are doing is wrong.
9:04 am
@ trix,
My problem with the demanding men stop rape concept is very simple, it's going to fail. It puts blame and responsibility on all men for action they have little to no control over (unless they are actually rapists, or happen to be standing around while someone is being raped). This is going to alienate a huge group of people who you actually need to work with. Can men in general improve the situation? Of course, and the incidences of rape through lack of consent CAN be reduced by working with men to make sure society as a whole comes to an "accord" regarding what consent really is (to BOTH parties, to phrase this discussion as a "men must ask consent of women" concept skews it and does a disservice to women, because it automatically puts them in the submissive/object to be attained role).
But that's not going to stop rape. It will reduce it, but even at 100% success, it isn't going to stop it. As an average guy (actually, I'm really great, not average at all) I would be immediately turned off by a slogan telling me I have to shoulder the blame for any remaining sociopaths who actually do rape for the pleasure of raping. This means you aren't going to get the support that you need from the masses, and the concept (as a bumper sticker type slogan) will fail.
9:10 am
@ abyss
:)
if "stranger rape – stranger + acquaintance = acquaintance rape"
then what does "(stranger rape - stranger + acquaintance * premeditation)/(1/violence)" = ?
9:48 am
@abyss2hope
Obviously! I completely agree! What in my post made you think that I meant the rapist's labelling of his actions was in any way relevant?
10:29 am
@victor
You're being cute. And not in an actual "cute" way. If you need an equation (or in my case, a proof), here it is.
stranger rape = rape
acquaintance rape = rape
Therefore,
stranger rape = acquaintance rape because rape is rape no matter what adjective you put in front of it.
Honestly, that was my point of my original example. It doesn't matter if it was premeditated, someone jumping out of the bushes, someone you just met at the bar, or (in my case) someone you've known for over a decade, it's still rape. And just like abyss2hope and Fuchsia pointed out, it doesn't matter how the person committing the assault views it in his/her mind (we really need to get out of viewing this as only men who rape women. Remember male-male rape , female-female rape, and female-male rape). The action itself is still rape.
I think the tension that you are getting from some of the other commenters is that you are minimizing the act by trying to categorize it. There are no "oops" rapes. You either rape or you don't.
10:52 am
@TJ
Of course rape = rape. That has never been in question, and any individual who thinks it has been is putting words in my mouth. The significance in categorization is in the prevention of future rapes. I don't know why this is not getting through, but categorizing a rape as a type of rape is not actually diminishing its value as a rape. If I is a murder victim any less dead whether the murderer committed a premeditated act, or shot them as a random passerby?
Furthermore, if you refuse to categorize rapes based on the rapists motivation, and treat all acts of rape as the same from a prevention standpoint, you will fail and people will get raped.
And yes, I do act a little "cute" (and admit it, I'm adorable) at times. Would you rather I choose to start calling people morons and tell them to f%k off like some of the more charming individuals here?
1:06 pm
"I have never claimed that the group I was describing defined all rapists, just a subset. I honestly don’t know what percentage of rapes are committed by which groups."
"As an average guy... I would be immediately turned off by a slogan telling me I have to shoulder the blame for any remaining sociopaths who actually do rape for the pleasure of raping"
As every other commenter here has attempted to tell you: average guys commit rape. Rapists are average guys. Most rapists are not sociopaths; most rapists aren't even strangers to their victim. The vast majority of rapist (various studies report a range from 75 to 90 percent) are known to their victims. Crazed serial rapists are about as common as crazed serial killers: that is to say, not very common at all. Which is why "DEMANDING" that "average guys" not rape is actually a highly logical thing to do.
When you dismiss or ignore these facts, as you have done repeatedly here, or refuse to do basic research on the subject on which you are presenting yourself as an expert (which you are, by dismissing everyone else's contributions as less valid than your own) and when you make "cute" little comments about "oops" rapes and the like, not only do you seem to be someone who very much isn't interested in preventing rape, you also seem to be someone who is new to the concept of intelligent debate.
So, Victor: go read a book, or a decent internet article. Learn what the differences are between stranger rape, acquaintance rape, and partner rape. Learn about rape as premeditated assault (your favorite kind!) as a crime of opportunity, and as a weapon of war. Learn about the legal definition of consent; learn about the feminist definition of enthusiastic consent. Read the piles of literature out there, written by psychologists and sociologists (many of them men, and therefore reliably logical and consistent) about the different types of rapists, what their motivations are, and how none of the motivations matter even slightly when it comes to the trauma experienced by the victim.
I'm sorry if I'm not being nice enough to you. It's possible that in your day-to-day life you're a stand-up guy. But if you are a good guy, you're strong and smart enough to hear this: Victor, in this internet discussion, you are not nearly well-informed enough to be making the kinds of sweeping statements you are making. You have no business attempting to replace well-established and widely-used terms for different categories of rape with bullshit terms you made up by yourself like "accidental rape." By coming into a discussion about how to prevent violence against women and acting like you, a guy, are smarter and more logical than all of the women who are politely trying to explain to you basic shit they already know, you are being arrogant and rude.
In short, come back when you know what you're talking about and nobody will call you names and hurt your feelings. As long as you stop being a dick.
1:09 pm
But men can stop rape. I'm not asking for a bumper sticker.
Don't laugh at rape jokes. Make it clear that you think no rape is ever OK. Know that you have friends and relatives that you think are wonderful people that may need to hear this message.
Unless you witness something, that's all you can do is let people know that it's not cool. But that's a powerful thing. Women who talk about rape are called harpys and crap like that. If you talk about it as a guy, a guy will listen with a different set of ears, he won't automatically judge what you're saying as biased like he would if it was from a woman. And it may sink in and he'll realize his way of thinking is not OK.
I, personally, am a feminist who loves men and I'm not trying to blame any man for a rape he didn't do. But I will be dissapointed if a guy I care about doesn't speak out and against anything that seems to make light of rape or justify rape. You're right, there are psychpaths, who are a very small minority of the people who rape. The majority are guys who think it is normal and OK, and if they regularly got the message from the guys around them that it wasn't OK to rape, it wasn't a cool or macho thing, and that behavior like that wasn't respected...well, they wouldn't do it because they would want to fit into society. that's how men who wouldn't rape can stop rape.
2:48 pm
@ jess...
funny. you keep saying I'm trying to act like an authority, when a number of times I've actually stated things like "I have no idea what the percentage breakdown would be..." or "Do you think this constitutes a majority?". Hell, count the number of question marks in my posts.
But what's even funnier, is I did a quick search to see if there are any easy to find statistics. And guess what? Interviews with incarcerated rapists seem to indicate a very high percentage raped out of anger or power issues, not the "small minority" you claim. Additionally, according to one statistic I found a majority of rapes are PLANNED.
So, it seems I can't be that wrong.
Oh, and by the way, you keep getting stuck on this "most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows" statement... motivation for rape is in no way linked to whether the victim knows the person or not. These are two completely separate variables. And you yourself are caught in some sort of "mythical crazed serial rapist" stereotype. Why must he be crazed? A study of military date rape indicated that these guys planned to go out, get women incapacitated and have sex with them. That sounds like a serial rapist to me. hell, that sounds like premeditated acquaintance rape, and its almost the exact same situation I described in one of my first few posts.
Next time you decide to chastise me for not understanding anything, make sure you're going to be right first.
5:25 pm
Fuchsia, men like Victor who derail discussions about rape with word games and other "intellectual games" aren't arguing in good faith. They're trying to make it all about them. This is a pattern seen over and over and over on feminist blogs without strong moderation. (And, of course, when these special snowflakes *are* moderated out, they whine about "feminist censorship.")
Screw Victor; he's not interested in learning anything. He's just offended that women are having a discussion that doesn't make men the first priority, and he's doing everything to disrupt it.
5:59 pm
@Fuchsia, Sorry, I could have been clearer. I was trying to address how many people misinterpret mens rea when it comes to rape. I wasn't assuming you misinterpreted this requirement.
@Victor, This: "Interviews with incarcerated rapists seem to indicate a very high percentage raped out of anger or power issues" does not contradict anything Jess wrote here as you seem to think it does.
When what the other person wants or doesn't want doesn't matter that's a power issue.
7:24 pm
Wow, Victor is still trolling? That's impressive.
Dudes come into threads like this, get into semantic arguments about something that affects women deeply, and then bitch about how we're not appreciating their (completely uninfomed) intellectual take on the matter and that we just aren't interested in respecting the opinion of a man.
Then they end up dominating the entire discussion for days.
Surprise.
From experience: this isn't a teachable moment for this guy. He's not interested in listening. Maybe someday he will be, but clearly this isn't it if he can't even bring himself to accept the widely used terms of the discussion but must establish his own "definitions" and insist everyone here adhere to his reinvention of the wheel.
7:35 pm
@Victor.
I don’t think Jess at any point claimed that most rapes are crimes of opportunity. I think I might actually possibly have contributed to the confusion on this point earlier myself by trying to explain acquaintance rape through the example of opportunistic acquaintance rape – my bad. What has however been repeatedly stated by commentators on this topic is that acquaintance and partner rape are substantially commoner than stranger rape. Please try to stop objecting to these statements by explaining that what you’re interested is the rapist’s motivation – statistics on that matter are likely hard to find (I personally don’t know of any relevant studies at any rate) because motivation (as opposed, I should point out, to intent, which is necessary for all rapes, regardless of the rapists’ objective in committing them) is an internal process difficult to prove rather than an easily countable hard fact. Moreover, the prevalence of acquaintance rape is essential when discussing whether rapists are identifiable in bars.
The fact that most rapes are planned is likewise irrelevant to what myself and other commentators are trying to explain here: you do not need to be a hardened criminal to plan a rape. If you are just a regular guy, who nonetheless have been raised in a sexist, rape-promoting society, that is more than sufficient and will moreover serve to camouflage you well from prospective victims. If you believe that women do not really desire sex or are (or should be) timid about expressing their desire and therefore have to have their arm twisted to consent, if you believe that men “need” sex and are entitled to regular access to female bodies to satisfy their primal urges, if you think that it is possible for a woman to enjoy her rape, if you believe that getting a woman blind drunk is a good way to get some, if you blame your lack of success in the dating world on demanding, irrational women denying you what is rightfully yours, if you think that being a good kisser or lay makes you incapable of raping, if you think that marriage grants you perpetual power over your spouse’s body, if you’re the kind of guy that doesn’t stop to make sure that the person you’re kissing is kissing you back, then, well, you might also be the kind of guy that does not stop himself in the middle of the action of planning what is in fact rape to say “hey, wait, a sec! What I’m planning is a *rape* and that’s *bad* and not just something that they tell us is bad but actually in certain circumstances – such as my own, right here! – is actually A-ok, but really and truly always *bad*!” It is too much for society to expect that all its members at all moments in time will instinctively do the right thing – that is why we put so much emphasis on teaching people e.g. that murder or armed robbery are bad. The same lesson is of course meted out regarding rape as well, but the supporting explanations as to *why* rape is bad are usually wishy-washy. In fact, when you break down the messages society sends out on the questions of sex and rape, often they can be seen to actually *promote* rape-inducing mentalities, even while rape itself is condemned, thus leading to an astounding level of confusion as to the nature of the crime and failing to limit rape the way it otherwise might be.
Let me try and say this in a language you might understand better: it is possible for somebody to plan a rape and therefore be a “predator” without however thinking of themselves as a rapist and still mostly coming across as a regular guy, because society has failed to transmit the lesson that getting a woman drunk to the point of incapacitation is rapey, predatory behaviour, but has been much more successful in beating in the lesson that when a man’s pride is hurt somebody weaker than himself must pay.
8:57 am
Amanda: "It’s not the victim’s duty to stop a violation, it’s a violator’s duty not to violate." Nice theory, how's it working for the thousands of women who are raped every day across the globe because the violator's sense of duty is either temporarily or permanently on hold? In the real world, it takes two not to tango.
10:48 am
JM, If it takes 2 to keep rape happening then those 2 would be rapists and those who refuse to put the moral and legal responsibility for each rape onto the rapist thereby helping that rapist put his (or less often her) sense of duty either temporarily or permanently on hold.
8:04 pm
"“No means no” operates on the outdated assumption that men are the “scorers,” women are the “gatekeepers,” and the goal of every sexual encounter is for men to sneak past a woman’s line of defense and get her to not say no"
I'm sorry, but the "gatekeeper model" is far from an "Outdated Assumption".
It's how most folks in this country conduct their sexual lives.
Is there a LOT wrong with the "Gatekeeper Model" - HELL YES - it forces men to be sex aggressors (and puts nonaggressive men into a purgatory of sexlessness) and it forces women to be sex gatekeepers (and punishes women who actually like sex).
But - outside of a few pockets of enlightenment in upper class neighborhoods in big cities in the blue states and a few liberal college towns - it is the dominant model, and any attempt to challenge the "Gatekeeper Model" begins with recognizing that it's still how most folks lead their sex lives.