I'm sorry, but the "gatekeeper model" is far from an "Outdated Assumption".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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Here you go:
stranger rape - stranger + acquaintance

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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."

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

“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).