Why Rape Isn’t One Big Misunderstanding
Here at the Sexist, one of the most persistent rape myths offered up to excuse sexual assault is the idea that rape is just one big misunderstanding. Under this theory, rape isn't a conscious assault against a person who hasn't consented to sex; it's the result of an honest miscommunication that arises from natural communicative differences between men and women.
Today, Thomas MacAulay Millar at Yes Means Yes! pointed to a recent paper that addresses this myth head-on. The report, "If a girl doesn't say 'no': Young men, rape, and insufficient knowledge" [PDF], identifies the "miscommunication model" as one of the dominant theories informing public thinking about how sexual assault actually happens.
In order to identify how the "miscommunication model" functions in everyday conversation, researchers interviewed two focus groups of college-aged men in the UK Australia about their interpretations of sex and consent. The young men who participated in the study displayed "sophisticated and nuanced understandings" of different ways people could indicate sexual refusal. But when it came time to talk about non-consensual sex, these same men were startlingly eager to explain away acquaintance rapes as communication failures instead of deliberate assaults.
* "I don’t think I’d ever say ‘no’": First, researches asked the men how they would turn down unwanted sex. The men displayed a marked reluctance to offer a clear "no" to sex, and instead suggested that they would employ euphemism and body language to communicate their refusal. (Note: I've edited the study for style).
Moderator: . . . the next scenario is, you’re back at your house with a girl. It’s looking like sex is on the cards for whatever reason you really don’t want to have sex with her tonight. How do you let her know?
John: You could come up with one of ya, your cliches, like, ‘I don’t think this is a good idea’, or ah, you know, ‘I’m not ready for this’ or you know one of the cliches. As soon as you come out with that cliche, they know. They know what you’re trying to say because it’s used all the time, whereas if you sort of try and dance around the cliches they might not get the point straight away.
. . . James: I’ve got no idea.
George: I know people that will do anything for a root. If it got to that stage, obviously you’re interested. Well I’d assume that’d be the case so then why would you say no? You always, it’s easier to make an excuse the next day than at the time.
Moderator: Hehe. How do you say no?
James: If it’s a disgusting woman. I mean just a platonic kind of friend but a disgusting woman. You gotta make a face if they’re sort of implying something, then they’ll probably get the picture. . . . I don’t think I’d, don’t think I’d ever say ‘no’
John: You just say—
James: If they were at my house then it’d be for a reason, so.
John: Oh yeah. ‘This isn’t quite what I expected tonight’ and then they’d say ‘what did you expect.’ ‘Not this, I just thought we’d have a drink and then you’d go home.’ . . .
James: And then they’d start to get the, get the idea.
Andrew: I’d call a cab (inaudible) rather sensitive excuse, I guess.
John: Yeah, you don’t wanna say. You couldn’t say ‘no’, could you. You don’t wanna say ‘No, I don’t like you now.' You know you’d come up with some excuse: ‘You looked good in the soft light at the pub, but now . . . ’
George: ‘I’m sobering up now’
John: Yeah hehehe, ‘And I’m having second thoughts.’ A soft gentle excuse would be the best one.
* "There’s always little hints": Researchers then asked the men how they know when a woman is refusing sex. The men indicated that women also often rely on body language and euphemism to relay their lack of consent. Interestingly, even though the men professed to favoring the exact same tactics, they attributed these devices to the way that "women are":
Moderator: Hmm, great, okay so are there ways of knowing when it’s not on the cards? How would a guy pick up that sex is not on the cards that way?
John: Body language.
James: Yeah (inaudible) body language.
Moderator: What’s that, sorry?
James: It’s all put down as body language. . . . Women are pretty good fakers, teasers, no, but it’s body language all the time.
George: The conversation gets shorter.
James: Mhmm.
George: Very abrupt.
John: Start looking at their watch and you know (inaudible) "It’s getting late."
Andrew: ‘How long does the taxi take to get here,’ that type of thing.
. . . John: "I just remembered I’m working early in the morning," you know there’s always little hints like letting you know that "I’ve just uh changed my mind." Yeah there’s always little hints.
* "The perpetrator could actually really be the victim": But then the young men start talking about rape, and the idea that lack of consent can be clearly communicated through euphemistic or nonverbal cues is quickly abandoned. The researchers note that prior to the rape discussion, the young men never indicated that "the explicit use of the word ‘no’ is necessary for a woman’s refusal of a sexual invitation to be understood as such." Suddenly, even "no" is not enough. Once the idea of rape is raised, these men claim ignorance of understanding when a woman is refusing sex, and go on to say that even when a woman explicitly says "no," she can be making a victim of the perpetrator.
Kyle: Um I just, I just had a thought. When does no mean no, when does yes mean yes, I’m just wondering how this type of information ties into rape and stuff like that. Um, with um, common defences of (inaudible) stuff like that. . . . I’m wondering in those situations, what is the thinking of the perpetrator in terms of these signals they’re interpreting that are coming their way, you know?
. . . Jason: If you don’t give a verbal ‘no’ then you’re up shit creek.
. . . Cam: Then again, well as you said, well, when’s no, no when’s yes yes. The perpetrator could actually really be the victim where they’re going ‘no’ and they’re basically throwing themself on you and go, ‘well, I said ‘‘no.’’’
Kyle: Playing hard to get.
* "So both parties are a problem there": Researchers then directly asked the men what they thought about the "miscommunication theory." They supported it:
Jason: If a girl doesn’t say ‘no’ look you in the eye and say ‘no.' Anything else can be sort of miscommunicated so if she looks you in the eye and goes ‘no’. . . Fine. But if she goes . . . if she sort of says ‘no,’ and does the whole look away flirty it sort of like leaves you in the lurch.
Moderator: Alright. Any other ideas?
Cam: Basically, well, it can actually happen to a male or female, like, this myth that I’ve heard females say about ‘oh how could a guy get raped.’ Hey, just ‘cause you don’t want it don’t mean it don’t feel good. Um you know, the same goes for females basically. Whichever sex it is has to be clear about ‘look na this has gone past where I want to go I’m not prepared to go any further’ and make it clear. ‘No more.' ‘Stop there.’ Or you know if they want some of the stuff but they don’t wanna do it all. You know they need to go ‘look,' and be clear, ‘I want it to go here, and just here for now.’ . . . Basically you know otherwise there is misconception and there is, you know miscommunication where one’s going ‘okay well they’re doing this’ and the other’s going, ‘I wish they’d back off a bit.' So unless each is clear then, you know, it will continue. . . .
Moderator: . . . do you think it’s necessary for a women to say ‘no’ clearly and effectively for her to be understood as not wanting to have sex or are there other ways of knowing that she doesn’t want to?
Mike: You can always take the physical signs, but like I said before they’re generally really ambiguous, you never know if they are definite. I reckon verbal's probably the best way to get round it. . . . If she says ‘no’ I’ll stop, you know.
. . . Cam: Yep, but they really need to make it clear in both physical and verbal. There’s no point them saying ‘oh no I don’t want it’ and then for you know, they’re basically they’re guiding you in, so to speak. Well, gee, do they really not want it?
. . . Jason: There’s plenty of opportunities for all women to stop it, assuming the boy’s being honourable and stuff but um they can not sort of get into that sort of situation the flirty situation in the first place or they can not go home with you an’ they can not go into the bedroom an’ they can once you’re there they can sort of like go ‘no you’re not allowed to take my clothes off’ and they can—I think it’s what’s that 30 second rule they had in America where the guy was having sex with her, and she goes ‘na this is a bad idea,’ says ‘no,’ he finishes, and she goes ‘oh that was rape’ and sort of like—so there’s plenty of opportunities for a girl to avoid the situation, and um, so, but if a girl looks you in the eye and says ‘no’ then that’s sort of the end of it.
Mike: Um back on that note I think I think things progress I’d say from the age of say maybe eighteen, or maybe even twenty onwards. Generally you find people being more sexually active, generally like they’re sort of coming out of the later stage of adolescence and that the sign is generally that if you go out with someone I think from that age on, you’re, that’s sort of what’s going to happen, that’s pretty much what the plan is, but then to back out, like if it gets to a situation where like, you can end up in a situation where it, like, becomes date rape. Generally you’re given the signs that to that point it is okay, you know, like it depends on the age (inaudible). Probably eighteen onwards I’d say.
Kyle: Um, sorry to interrupt, but I just realized that, um, that statement is kind of putting the blame on women almost. She fails, something she did—
Jason: He misinterprets her—
Kyle: She fails to say ‘no’ clearly. Well, what about the guy?
Cam: Yeah, he’s also, he’s failed to actually interpret what she means, so it’s actually both parties.
Mike: So both parties are a problem there.
. . . Jason: Women often seem to forget that men don’t deal with subtleties. If we want something, we tell you.
. . . Mike: Men deal in yes and no, whereas women deal in a vast array of options, so, yeah. . . . Like I think i-if the situation is ambiguous the male is going to lean towards the positive side of interpretation of it.
Jason: Hehe, of course.
This is where things fall off the rails. Suddenly, men don't deal with "subtleties," even though the men have previously reported that they would turn down sex in the same way they'd expect women to—subtly. Suddenly, a person misinterpreting lack of consent is completely understandable if "she fails to say 'no' clearly," even though the men had previously never invoked direct refusal as a way they know if women don't want to have sex with them. Suddenly, a woman is required to engage in a very specific behavior—looking her sex partner in the eye and saying "no"—in order to not be responsible for her own rape. And suddenly, in order to neutralize the misogyny a little bit, both men and women are equally as likely to be in a position where they must deter sexual advances with eye contact and a firm "no," even though the men had previously indicated that they could never even conceive of a situation where they would be expected to do such a thing.
As Thomas MacAulay Millar notes, these men are likely not rapists. So why is it so natural for them to make excuses for them? "The gist of it is that these young men evidenced an understanding of and even a preference for nuances and diplomatic communication to refuse sex, but then when discussing rape, reversed course and began to argue that anything the least bit ambiguous was unintelligible," Millar writes. "What gives? Why create a social framework where rape is accidental if they don’t have to cover their own asses?"
I don't have an answer to that, but the study does suggest one way we to address this problem: Show people studies like this. "[I]n presenting this research, and its’ associated transcripts, to young men and women," the study claims, "we have found that by drawing attention to our shared commonsensical knowledge of how everyday refusals are normatively done, and then to how this knowledge is often then patently discounted in favour of the interpretative repertoire of miscommunication . . . young people become engaged in an active discussion of how it is that both sexual consent and sexual refusal are actually negotiated."
4:56 pm
This reminds me of the dude investigating whether or not Ben Roethlisberger should be put on probation or not--regarding the two accusations of rape against him, he said he would ask Roethlisberger why he continued to "put himself into these situations"...my first thought was, what a strange way to put it. But when you think about it, it really takes all of the blame away from him and makes it into some kind of ambiguous misunderstanding.
5:14 pm
I think the explanation for the difference is born from the sexist construct of the male being the seeker and the woman the protector. Under that construct, nothing is going to happen without the man wanting it to. When they engage in nuanced subtleties, they're not doing so to protect themselves from rape, they're just protecting themselves from awkwardness (particularly if they're English). But under this construct, women have the responsibility to stop the seeking male. Yes, they should try to first avoid the awkwardness of a clear no, but if that fails, he will continue. So it is their responsibility to put their foot down.
Yes, it's a reflection of our sexist society, but I think this is probably what underlies their thought processes.
6:58 pm
While the whole bullshit idea that men are outspoken and confident and women are shady, demure, and complicated is definitely sexist, I do kind of wonder about the whole concept of rape (as beyond FORCIBLE sex).
Sure, if someone says "I'm tired" or appears disinterested and you continue having sex that makes you a selfish asshole, but is it rape?
I'm especially thinking about couples with power imbalances, where it would be difficult to distinguish from someone genuinely being uncomfortable and not expressing it clearly and between someone who is just being submissive or something.
8:09 pm
I feel cruel saying this, but reading these conversations, it really seems like these guys know what consent is and should be. And yet at least in theory, they want to cling to notions like "a girl coming over to my house should automatically equal sex". Maybe these are really decent guys who would never use the social license to rape in certain situations, but they still feel squeamish about the idea that that shield could disappear entirely?
8:25 pm
look
just posting this implies that there is "reasonable doubt" about what is rape, and that you need to get the opinion of a bunch of kids to make progress on the issue
so admit that you've made progress.
When the man wants to have sex, it's not rape.
Fair enough?
9:48 pm
The study, which entailed an interview of nine men that the researchers acknowledge were hardly representative of all men, despite the implication of the post, simply shows what should be common knowledge: people alter the rules to fit their own needs. What is acceptable and reasonable for them will often conveniently not apply in the reverse, which is not unique to any one group of people.
It is unfortunate that the researchers operated in prejudice and bias though, but such was the intent of their research to began with.
1:31 am
Amanda: Thank you so much for posting this. I really needed to read it, and I'm thankful you brought it to my attention. As happens so often with your posts on rape culture, I read it and thought, "Finally! Thank you!" And then I made the mistake of reading the comments...
To those of you who, even after reading all of the pieces that Amanda does on rape culture, STILL INSIST on defending what you damn well know is rape: why? I truly don't understand. I've tried to understand. I thought I could. But I just can't. If somebody isn't really into having sex with you, why are you SO DESPERATE to protect your ability to have sex with her anyway? As the guys at Yes Means Yes point out all the time, that's really, really awful. Why all of these comments defending the guys in the study? Why all of these comments "wondering" about the "concept of rape"?
Rape exists. And guess what? Women who have been or will be raped DID NOT CREATE IT. You know who did? Rapists. So if you have a complaint to file about the "concept" of rape, that's who you should be talking to. And if you want to protect yourselves from being accused of rape, you know what you can do? Don't rape anyone. It's very simple. Very. Try it! You might like it.
This whole business makes me want to cry.
7:16 am
Thanks for posting this. Just a small point: the study was done on young Australian men, not British ones (although I doubt the findings would be significantly different here).
8:47 am
Um, Toysoldier, just what is the "prejudice and bias" in this research?
And don't people get that it is totally acceptable to do an exploratory social science study which clearly has no statistical relevance, but is all about documenting individual attitudes and experiences?
Shit, I did 4 interviews for my bachelor's thesis, and nobody got all snippy about my methodology - since they were intended to be CASE STUDIES, not a freakin overview of the entire human race. And saying that is not an indication of a problem with the quality of my work.
9:40 am
@evie Thank you! I've corrected the post.
@ToySoldier: Nowhere have I implied that the opinions of these young men are representative of the opinions of all men (although the men themselves generalize a good deal about men and women). I do suggest that these case studies shed light on the opinions of people who believe in the miscommunication model of sexual assault.
11:26 am
This is a scenario that happened to me and I'd like your thoughts: In college, at a party, drinking, a girl came into my room and suggested we have sex. We did, and in the morning she said she didn't remember saying "yes" and thus reported this to the school as a rape. Subsequently I was expelled from school. Am I a rapist, even though it was her suggestion?
11:44 am
Hess, the implication lies in the statement "I don’t have an answer to [Millar's questions], but the study does suggest one way we to address [rape against women]: Show people studies like this." You concur with the researchers' conclusion which does use the results as representative of all men, along with another blogger's position which also applies the results to all men (although that blogger acknowledges only a small subset of men commit sexual violence).
As for people who believe in the miscomunication model of sexual assault, it is hardly limited to men or to male-on-female sexual violence.
11:51 am
Charles,
I'm going to take your story at face value. The question then is, how drunk was she? If she was drunk enough not to remember, she probably was too drunk to consent, and it should have been pretty obvious to you that she was drunk. Have you read any of the "Yes means Yes" stuff? Because it isn't just about words, it's about active participation.
If all the action is on your side, you need to stop and make sure that everything is all right. If she seems to be passing out, you need to stop and make sure she knows what is going on. If you didn't bother to check how drunk she was, if you took lack of resistance as permission, then you were taking a risk that you would be raping her. Do you really want to be that close to the line?
This is the huge issue I have with guys that go forward in that situation: if rape is such a big deal to you, if you understand that it's awful and wrong, shouldn't you be very very sure that you have real, meaningful consent? Alcohol is not consent. Alcohol is the opposite of consent.
11:54 am
@ Charles:
Legally, yes, you are a rapist. Whether she suggested having sex or not has no bearing on whether she wished to continue. Whether she recalls giving consent or not has no bearing on whether she wished to continue. Whether she informed you of her withdrawal of consent has no bearing on whether you are culpable. Likewise, depending on the state you are in, having sex with her while she was drunk constitutes rape. Unless you have evidence demonstrating that she did say "yes," was not completely inebriated or never indicated she wanted to stop, you legally committed rape. One should note that the legality does not directly apply in the reverse, so if you wanted to argue that you never gave consent, were also drunk or at some point no longer wished to continue the sex she would not be legally culpable.
12:26 pm
Charles,
Assuming your story happened *exactly* as you related it here, she would be in the wrong. As we have said over and over again here, a person is responsible for what they do while drunk, but not what is done to them. So, if she really did initiate the sex, and was physically making the sex happen, then no it wasn't rape on your part.
On the other hand, if she was too drunk to know who you were or what was going on when this was happening, then you would be responsible for taking advantage of someone who couldn't make their own decisions (especially if you were the physically dominant party during the sex). If a very drunk person handed you their wallet, would you assume you had any real consent to spend their money, or would you see that person safely to a cab or their group of friends? Why should sex be any different?
Frankly, given how rare it is that colleges actually pursue charges of rape (much less leading to expulsion), I find the scenario very unlikely statistically speaking. How did the university officials respond to your claims that she started the encounter and stated her desire for sex? For that matter, how did she respond to your account that she was the sexually assertive party?
12:32 pm
Toysoldier, you are totally full of shit. Taking a case study as food for thought is nothing at all like claiming it is totally representative of everyone. However, given surveys about the attitudes about rape and the fact that something like 25-33% of people report victim-blaming attitudes depending on the situation and wording of the survey, are these attitudes really that anomalous? Also, the study isn't referring to men who COMMIT sexual violence, but to the attitudes of the rest of society (or portions thereof) which wittingly or unwittingly enable it. You are so desperate to try to discredit anything you see as feminist that it gets seriously ridiculous.
And, you are totally, completely, and absolutely wrong on post #14. We have told you over and over again on this blog that women do have the responsibility to get consent from their partners, and that it's wrong to take advantage of anyone--male or female--under the influence of alcohol. Why do you keep whining over and over again that feminists claim the rules of consent don't apply to women, when we keep saying that they DO? Aren't you able to read? Do you not understand our comments?
12:37 pm
I wonder how the responses to the "how would you refuse sex?" question would change if it weren't a single-sex group setting. There's this myth that the setting is more "honest" (because it's not "mixed company," I suppose) but really? It read like a lot of posturing to me. Note how the only reason offered for not wanting sex is "if it's a disgusting woman." And laughter (with the moderator laughing too) - the idea of not wanting sex is treated as a joke.
The rest of it just kind of makes me feel sick. We get one of them beginning to suggest that maybe *they* should be the ones to get definite confirmation of consent, rather than relying on "she didn't say no in a way that I understood," and that gets co-opted by the other guys into "maybe it's both their faults" before the conversation gets dragged back to how women aren't clear enough.
12:40 pm
ColdHeartedBastard, I see that you live up to your screen name! You are amazingly misinformed and misogynistic!
To deconstruct a few of your logical flaws:
If the situation says “yes”, if her actions combined with the situation imply consent, it isn’t going to be seen as rape.
Absolutely not. No situation WHATSOEVER "implies consent." EVER. Under any circumstances. A girl could be naked and blowing you, but still not want to have penetrative sex. And you know what? That is a perfectly valid choice to be interested in some sexual activity but not all acts possible. You don't know what someone wants unless you ask. Moreover, why would you want to do something TO someone instead of WITH someone?
It’s going to be seen as consensual or at least passive sex between a man and a woman, one of whom wants the booty and the other one who is at least lying there letting him get it.
This is so incredibly disgustingly wrong! "Passive" IS NOT an acceptable justification for having sex with someone!! All ethics and morals aside, why would you even WANT to have sex in this scenario?!?! Just because the woman is not able to resist for whatever reason (fear, shock, intoxication, intimidation, etc.) does not mean you get to have free access to exploit her lack of resistance. The standard for sex acts is positive, full consent.
12:50 pm
You women are dreaming if you think that you can define rape around the concept of "vebal consent". This is nonsense.
You act like women never willingly have sex with a man without saying "yes, you can fuck me" first!
I will bet on one thing: you sure as hell aren't going to agree that a man has raped you every time you have sex with him without saying "yes" first...UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACCUSE HIM OF RAPE.
And the question is why. Why are you doing that. That's the $5M question. Are you saying that because he actually raped you...or just because you have "buyers' remorse" afterwards?
And if you think that I for one am going to be a part of you railroading some guy just because you regret what you got after you got it? You've got an eye-opening experience coming to you.
Carry on with your delusions and your extrapolations and see how far they get you in the real world.
12:51 pm
I was raped once in something that could have been considered a "misunderstanding" so these sort of attitudes towards communication as indicated above make me really upset.
I agreed to have consensual protected sex with a guy and he slipped the condom off not once but twice. The first time I figured it must have been an accident. He was a friend. I gave him another condom and asked him to be more careful and he agreed. Of course the second time it happened I became visibly upset. He kept trying to touch me and I ended up leaving the room. He must have known what he was doing but of course he could justify it away b/c I consented initially.
I was raped but a lot of people might say otherwise. Guys need to stop making excuses and start being respectful of boundaries.
12:51 pm
Leftsideofpositive (and really anyone else that was reading about my situation) - I will clarify with a few more details (at the risk of air personal shiz on the internet). This person came into my room, suggested we have sex, undressed me, and put a condom on me. I was seated throughout this entire situation.
After we finished, she left my room (as did I) and we returned to the party that was going on outside. She stayed at this part for another two hours, suggested we have sex again, and I declined. After this, she left. Three days later I summoned to the dean's office and told there was an accusation of rape against me.
Despite the fact that I think the dean believed my side of the story, the fact is that the school itself had been receiving negative press for a higher than usual number of rapes on campus prior to my accusation.
Rather than take my side and explain to this girl (and I'm sure her parents) that they were not going to pursue any disciplinary action on my part, they conveniently expelled me, but without a specifically sexual charge ("inappropriate contact with another student" how nice of them), thus washing their hands of the matter and any related bad press/angry parents.
I have not spoken to her since that evening. I'm not really sure what motivated her to bring the accusation against me, other than potential embarassment (I lived in a frat house at the time so many people knew what was happening in my room at the time, plus the refusal at the end of the evening). Anyway, knowing the rest of these details I would like to know again whether people would consider me a rapist?
I don't even like bringing this dark part of my past into the light, but sometimes when I read rape related articles, people seem to be on some moral high horse (toysoldier) about men's culpability in these situation and I like to explain to them that sometimes people are accuased of rape when they don't think what they did was rape and have their lives ruined (at least temporarily in my case as several years later I am finally back in school to finish my degree).
12:53 pm
ps
you can rewrite what I say
you can change it around completely
you can even delete it
but you can't change it.
And when you get through trying to fight it, deny it, argue against it?
It'll still be there waiting for you to deal with it.
Good luck with that when it inevitably happens.
12:53 pm
jfpbookworm, I think you raise a very valid point...but also, the "group dynamic" on display here is hugely relevant to how sexual attitudes are formed and enforced. The fact that these guys are (or might plausibly be) afraid of looking less manly if they're not always interested in sex, or express concern for a woman's state of consent, has HUGE implications for how they talk about sexual violence in their social lives, and what messages they send to women who may need help and to men who need excuses.
These guys, who seem--if somewhat inhibited and uneducated about interpersonal relationships--overall conscientious and respectful of others' wishes in their own lives, probably don't intend to excuse or condone rape. They probably look at this kind of talk from the point of view of how it reflects on THEM to their male peers (e.g. "do they think I'm 'manly' enough?") rather than on how it reads to other men who take these attitudes as signals that they can exploit women and still have these guys' support and social connections.
And that's why open communication about these issues--and education that addresses consent and mature sexuality directly--is so important, especially sharing studies like this and encouraging discussion among young people as to why these attitudes are contradictory and damaging.
12:56 pm
'Absolutely not. No situation WHATSOEVER “implies consent.” EVER. Under any circumstances."
Bullshit.
Period. Plain and simple.
People know what rape is. They're not stupid, they don't need some effing "Ph.D" in Behaviorial Sciences or some wanna be judge with a JD to tell them.
People are out there fucking right now, while I write this. How much you want to bet that the overwhelming majority, 99.9999% of them are doing it without the woman having said "yes" first, and neither one of them is going to think of it as rape?
Get a grip on yourself!
What planet did you come from, anyway?
1:01 pm
"It’s going to be seen as consensual or at least passive sex between a man and a woman, one of whom wants the booty and the other one who is at least lying there letting him get it.
This is so incredibly disgustingly wrong! “Passive” IS NOT an acceptable justification for having sex with someone!! "
LOL who needs "an acceptable justification" besides "she's hot and I'm horny and we both want it".
Doesn't sound "incredibly disgustingly wrong" to me. In fact it sounds pretty good. Women do little more than lie there as it is. If she wants to just lie there and let me have at it? I can deal with that...and in my experience, a whole lot of women like it that way. And I'd much prefer that to her screaming "yes, yes, yess!" the entire time.
Besides if she says "yes" and that makes it not rape, then why can't a man beat the crap out of a woman until she says "yes", or at least threaten her with violence or some sort of negative consequence, and then it's not rape? Oh suddenly that isn't all there is to it? LOL
1:05 pm
...seriously when you base your position on unrealistic, nonsensical illogical irrational and highly-biased arguments, especially where men take all the risk and women have none if any at all?
You just expose your true nature. And you exemplify why men don't take what women say or do seriously. When men have sex with women, they are left to hope for the best: that she won't have a disease, won't get out of bed with him and hop into bed with another guy, won't run to the cops and accuse him of rape, won't badmouth him to their friends or on the Internet, won't have his kid and then want him to pay child-support while she's sleeping with other guys. It's all a big looming "negative" for the guy except for the immediate gratification of the pussy.
And if it wasn't for the pussy most guys wouldn't even deal with women.
1:16 pm
Charles,
No, based on the situation you described, that is not rape. No one here is saying that false accusations are impossible, just that they're very, very rare (and there are false accusations for lots and lots of other crimes, that somehow never get discussed as often!). For what happened to you, there are probably literally hundreds of girls (and boys) who were raped and had no means to bring their accuser to justice. Naturally, the statistics aren't very comforting when you're the one whose life has been uprooted, and I'm truly sorry for what happened to you. My best advice would be to see if you can pursue legal action against the university.
Another point I want to make about this scenario is that it seems that the school had a lot of dirty laundry when it came to its sexual violence policies. I don't know if I'm interpreting you correctly, but I gather that these other rapes were not prosecuted? Or that the school's behavior was seen as leading to a perpetrator-friendly environment? It seems that they overreacted and felt they had to make a "sacrificial lamb" for their own image, and that unfortunately turned out to be you. I expect that if the school had been consistently responsible with addressing rape accusations prior to your incident, and worked towards creating a safe atmosphere on campus all the time, they wouldn't have felt the need, politically, at that time to expel the next person who came along.
This is another indication that it is in everyone's best interests--men as well as women--for universities (and society in general) to be firm and consistent in how they deal with sexual violence.
Good luck with getting your degree and I wish you all the best.
1:20 pm
Thanks, TakesTwoToTango, for showing us so vividly how much rape apologists hate women, and are incredibly un-talented in bed.
2:27 pm
Toy Soldier, as long as you're playing lawyer, do you want to name a jurisdiction where what you said to Charles is true, and not just shit you made up?
3:25 pm
@Charles, thanks for providing more information in your question since "we had sex" gets used to describe everything from passionate mutual sex to rape so violent the victim has permanent injuries.
From your description it sounds like she was capable of giving legal consent, at least the time you said yes. I don't know what your student conduct rules are and whether consensual sex under those conditions was considered a violation.
The handling of your case shows a different side of the same problem in how colleges fail students in response to rape allegations. Many times administrators and those they assign to oversee reports of rape don't have the skills to do competent investigations and instead simply look for a way to protect the institution.
This sloppiness helps all who are guilty and can hurt many innocent students.
6:11 pm
Yeah, Charles, from what you described you were definitely falsely accused. I agree with the people who said that it sounds like your university was making a mockery of justice in general when it came to dealing with sexual assault. It sucks that that girl decided to do such an awful thing to you, and it sucks that the university decided to make you their scapegoat.
6:12 pm
Also, TakesTwoToTango, if that's how you feel, PLEASE go get yourself a Fleshlight and some lube, and leave women the hell alone. Sounds like it would be better for all parties concerned.
6:23 pm
Dear readers,
Please don't pay any mind to ToySoldier- he's a notorious bigot. His remarks are analogous to a B.N.P. member writing to complain about an article on racist attacks ("There's no such thing! Everyone knows those people just make it all up!")
@ TakesTwoToTango,
I suggest you check out ToySoldier's blog, as you two have similar outlooks.
1:14 am
"Also, TakesTwoToTango, if that’s how you feel, PLEASE go get yourself a Fleshlight and some lube, and leave women the hell alone. Sounds like it would be better for all parties concerned.'
...I'm feeling the "love", babe :)
Luckily for all women they've got you looking out for dem, doncha know...of course, you know what they want and need so well, and what's good for them...and you know what I know: that deep down a woman just wants a big cee oh cee kay...
Eventually she gets tired of hearing herself and her friends yap, and just wants to get down to bidness LOL
But you know that better than I do, being a woman yourself, love :)
1:19 am
Certainly my man Charles knows all about it, having run into a woman who just wants to do the nasty, and then after the party is over and the sunlight hits her eyes she wakes up to the new day and sees that a mess she made of herself...and she had 'ta make that call...unfortunately for him...that is why a wise man is nowhere to be found in the mornin' LOL
Else he makes sure that he has her slut ass on tape, beggin' for it. Den dere won't be none of that "he raped me!" talk...none of that "I was too drunk to remember what happened, so it must have been rape" either...none of that shit, you know what I'm sayin...
1:22 am
...true but a *really* wise man would have punted her bitch-ass out of the room the moment that he had the slightest doubt about whether she would be calling the police about him the next day.
Of course you can never know for sure until you give her the opportunity to show her true stripes. And even *then* you can never know for sure. She can always claim rape. Best to not deal with such bitches in the first place, but again, how do you know until you know?
2:37 am
these men are likely not rapists.
Logic fail. Of course they are. They just don't THINK they are.
3:07 am
Great article. But wow, the comments. Scary, seriously. Was just reading a piece that talked about the fact that recidivist rapists tended to have substantially lower opinions of women then the average man. A warning that if a guy expresses a very low opinion of women, he probably has one.
It also gives an average of each rapist as having victimized 6 people. If one in six women are raped at some point in their lives, this means an average of 1 in 36 guys will at some point rape.
It's been said that the one thing all rapes have in common is the presence of a rapist. I think instead of public messages telling women to take extreme cautions about how we dress, where we go, whether we are alone, whether we drink, whether we are armed or know how to defend ourselves, perhaps another message could be more valuable.
That message is, what does a rapist act like, how do you spot one? A message to both men and women. To women as to who to avoid, who to be wary of. And a message to both men and women as to what men to watch like a hawk. Namely, any guy who seems to have a seriously negative opinion of women, who seems to harbor resentment, who talks of women as sex objects, who engages in victim blaming and rape apology.
And who says things like "if it wasn’t for the pussy most guys wouldn’t even deal with women.'
3:19 am
@Toysoldier, in #14
There seems to be 2 ways one can interpret what you are meaning here by 'legally'. Either the written text of the actual law, or the manner the law tends to be dealt with in court.
By the first definition, the answer would likely to be 'need more info'. The scenario Charles had sketched up till the point you wrote is missing a lot of important detail that would determine it's legal standing. But by the literal definition of the law, gender is not a factor, so the latter part of your statement is nonsense.
By the second definition it is quite true that gender plays a part. But considering the tiny fraction of rapes that actually get reported, and the equally tiny fraction of those that are reported that actually lead to conviction, I'd say the first part of your statement is a bit ridiculous.
By the manner the law is actually used in court, it's virtually impossible to get a rape conviction unless there are provable signs of violence, or a witness to testify the victim was literally screaming no, or something similar. And even in such cases, a conviction isn't assured.
In court, it eventually comes down to a situation where the victim must actually prove the she(or he) did not consent. This tends to be virtually impossible in most cases, so there are few convictions. There are some cases where this deviates, usually intersectionality situations, involving race or class. A black man is far more likely to be convicted then a white man, especially if the victim is white.
So by the second definition, no this generally wouldn't 'legally' count as rape, since there is almost no way for her to prove non-consent.
3:33 am
@LeftSidePositive
"No, based on the situation you described, that is not rape. No one here is saying that false accusations are impossible, just that they’re very, very rare (and there are false accusations for lots and lots of other crimes, that somehow never get discussed as often!). For what happened to you, there are probably literally hundreds of girls (and boys) who were raped and had no means to bring their accuser to justice. Naturally, the statistics aren’t very comforting when you’re the one whose life has been uprooted, and I’m truly sorry for what happened to you. My best advice would be to see if you can pursue legal action against the university."
And you know this, how? If your going to pull something out of your ass I seriously suggest you back it up. It is really difficult to prove false accusations because guess what? It is an accusations and unless the person admits it isn't true (very unlikely) it is going to be deemed as true. I just read an article today where a 10 year girl (yes 10) in Los Angeles Times front page of March lied about being kidnapped. Charge? Oh nothing since she is a little girl.
Feminism: Being Equal when it suits us.
Now this who article is ridiculous and slanted from a Feminist point of view. But I do want to propose that rape is a biological occurrence that happens in the animal kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape#Rape_as_an_adaptation_among_animals
Rape can mean anything to women. God women have so much power these days.
9:42 am
About this:
"God women have so much power these days."
Yeah, that's why Kobe Bryant is in jail and not playing basketball. And why Mike Tyson has never been given an positive media coverage since his conviction, and every attempt to make a documentary about him has been shelved. And why the Duke Lacross team are all in prison and the prosecutor is not the State AG. And why those guys at Hofstra were all expelled. And why women are now a majority of both the House and the Senate, half the board seats on Fortune 500 companies and a whopping seventy one percent of all chief executives of Fortune 500 companies.
Except none of that has happened. And rape still has the lowest conviction rate of any violent felony.
Wait, what were you talking about again?
10:01 am
I think the reason why is pretty simple. They may not be rapists, but they have an interest in rape culture. Rape culture is linked to male privilege, and so men perceive maintaining privilege as predicated on maintaining rape culture. In specifics, there's also the problem of them not wanting to hold other men accountable for raping. That doesn't seem to make sense, unless you realize that rapists are often their friends or role models, such as professional athletes who rape.
Thinking about the cases I've seen where people snap into place to defend a rapist or domestic abuser, which often requires abandoning the victim, I'd say that the way rape culture protects male privilege becomes obvious. Men have higher social status than women. Therefore when people feel they have to choose a side---which is how rape or domestic violence is experienced by people in the social circle where it happens---they pick the guy and cut the girl loose. And when his guilt is undeniable, they often react by cutting them both loose.
The social privilege that allows men to rape and the victims get blamed for it also allows men to do all sorts of things and be praised for it. Things that even non-rapist men want, like the right to be an asshole, or even the right to be assertive. For women, the idea of "bros before hos" is demeaning to our very humanity, but for men, it can often seem like a warm blanket of protection.
10:04 am
God, I shouldn't have hit submit, because I had another example. Sady's awesome essay on 500 Days of Summer is another example of how the social privilege accorded to men that creates rape culture. Non-rapists don't want the "right" to rape. However, they benefit from what is the #1 teaching of rape culture, which is that women don't own themselves. So while you may not want to rape, you probably do want a world where, if some girls dumps you even though you thought you were nice to her, everyone will immediately think she's the worst monster alive, because being a woman, she owes you her love simply because you wanted it.
1:52 pm
Ben,
What the fuck is your point? I love how guys think they can bring up one or two high-profile false rape cases (why is it that the FALSE ones are always so high profile? Hmmmm?) and think that has any statistical relevance?
Considering that there are an estimated 1,871 rapes PER DAY, you trotting out one false accusation doesn't really do anything to address my statement that false rapes are very, very rare.
http://www.rapetraumaservices.org/rape-sexual-assault.html
And what the hell is up with your "biological occurrence" bullshit? Really? Well, guess what! Murder is a very common occurrence in the biological kingdom, as are theft and violent assault. Just because some chimpanzees do something does NOT have any relevance to its ethics!
1:52 pm
"They may not be rapists, but they have an interest in rape culture. Rape culture is linked to male privilege, and so men perceive maintaining privilege as predicated on maintaining rape culture. In specifics, there’s also the problem of them not wanting to hold other men accountable for raping. That doesn’t seem to make sense, unless you realize that rapists are often their friends or role models, such as professional athletes who rape."
Funny how the same holds for women, in reverse. They don't want to actually get raped but the fact that men do rape women gives them the feeling that they can now define who is and who isn't a rapist, and we can guess that from there they do so in a way which furthers their personal agendas. One must wonder, do such women actually want to reduce the number of incidents of sexual assault, or increase them? What would the neocons do if bin Laden declared a cease-fire with the West? Where would the Israeli chickenhawks be if the Palestinans renounced terrorism? Why, then they would be just another small, dirt-poor Middle-Eastern country. Face it: some women need to be at war with men just like some men need to be at war with women. That's how you all get your Jones off.
1:55 pm
...of course, that assumes that they don't actually want to get raped. Just like we have to assume that men don't actually want to rape women.
But we all know that some women secretly, subconsciously want it just like some men secretly, subconsciously want to do it.
But if we start with the assumption that women secretly want to get raped and men secretly want to rape them, then we're in trouble. Likewise if we allow ourselves to leap to such a conclusion on the slightest circumstantial evidence. Not to mention if we really get off on calling women sluts and men rapists.
1:58 pm
SuchIsLife: Bullshit.
Ooooh, look how much "power" we have!! We get to "define" things! Yay! What an amazing overreach! Dude, because there are murders, our society pretty clearly "defines" who are murderers (and their various degrees). Because there are thefts, our society defines who are thieves. Why should rapists be any different?
And as for "furthering our personal agendas"--really, is it so unreasonable that we expect to own our own bodies and only have sex when we consent? Is that some radical off-the-wall concept?
3:58 pm
......We get to “define” things! Yay!...Because there are thefts, our society defines who are thieves. Why should rapists be any different?
And as for “furthering our personal agendas”–really, is it so unreasonable that we expect to own our own bodies and only have sex when we consent? Is that some radical off-the-wall concept?"
Because talk is cheap, bullshit is even cheaper, and bullshit women talking bullshit is practically free. There's nothing to stop you.
Just like you're talking bullshit right now. First you're operating under the basic concept that you get to define rape "as part of society" and that rapists are not only punished for rape, but they are apprehended before they can rape (under menacing laws, or attempted rape laws)...all laws in which women play a large part in getting passed and enforced...in the interests of "owning their own bodies and deciding who they have sex with".
But in that very process you enhance, reinforce and exploit governmental control over the "corpus" of the American citizen, which DENIES the very concepts that you supposedly want. Even then obviously that doesn't stop women from getting raped. So from a functional perspective and a practical perspective, your actions and your talk expose this to be utter bullshit. If you really wanted "control over your bodies" and "control over who you had sex with", you wouldn't put yourselves into positions where you couldn't control your own bodies or control who you have sex with. You wouldn't even bother to argue that women who entice and provoke men to rape them, either actively or passively, don't undermine those very goals. Those supposedly laudable goals behind which you now try to hide.
You speak of fear for your persons yet exploit the power of the state over men in the same breath. You're no better than Mob enforcers who deals with the threat of attack by hiring more guns and ambushing their rivals. As always, it's the hypocrisy that undermines your efforts. When you try to play a game by a set of rules which favors you and then rationalize your actions on outcomes that are beneficial for you, you are always going to lose track of the ethics of the issue and begin to think in terms of sheer benefit. Simple greed destroys you. And when you find your fate in the hands of others, you are always going to have to deal with the same facts, the same power, in the hands of others. That is why women can screw guys over 99 times out of 100 and argue that they are doing it out of their own safety and peace of mind, not to mention the justice required to punish the guilty, but that 100th time?
That 100th time is going to be a bitch.
Because that 100th time is going to be when a man is in charge of the situation, and you are sitting there helpless, hopeless and hating life. And all those 99 other times are going to be right there in the front of his mind.
If you cannot rationalize your actions in a neutral manner, you are digging your own grave. Eventually they will come rushing back to haunt you and you will realize the full effect and power of Murphys' Law. If you allow self-interest to skew your logic, your own example will come back to screw you when it's time for someone else to examine your situation, when someone else holds your life in their hands. They'll easily be convinced to let your own logic screw you in reverse, in their own self-interest, and you will be left to rely on them to be a better person than you ever were. At least as far as they know, which of course will come secondary to their assumptions about you.
4:44 pm
...just stop being a bunch of man-haters, that's probably the most effective way to "control your bodies and decide who you have sex with".
Women who rationalize behaving like bitches based on what men have done, are doing or could do to them are no different from men who behave like jackasses based on what women have done or could do to them.
And in both cases when push comes to shove, when you stand in front of the court of public opinion, which always happens sooner or later, you are entirely dependent on the opinions, the history, the logic, the socialization the intelligence, the honesty and the empathy of those who sit in judgment of you. You are NEVER solely in charge of your own life not to mention your own body. Dig that hole deep enough and there's no way out of it. There are just too many meters of bullshit lying on top of you and too many skulls buried in the soil around you, for anyone to even lift a finger to save your ass. Hell, they would be happy to push you down.
4:47 pm
I don't know. I was raped. According to Such, I should have enjoyed this as some sort of victory, but in reality it was pretty fucking horrible. I would have far preferred that it didn't happen.
6:34 pm
Expecting not to be raped = getting greedy. Thanks for that.
7:58 pm
@LeftSidePositive
I wasn't trying to make the LA Times article a statistical reference. It was just for people to verify that such things happen. I don't have any resources to prove false accusation exist because a) they are difficult to prove due to the definition of rape (which is what the blog tries to define) and b) any outside influences (drugs, etc) c) not wanting to admit that the person raped due to getting revenge on an ex.
For you to make the claim that false accusations are very very rare with not evidence makes you look like a fool. Your link doesn't show false accusations, which even you consider exist in rare amounts, in the statistics.
Actually, another incident happened to a friend in boarding school where he was accused of rape. And guess what! He would've been screwed if some guys weren't in the other room (shared complex) and the fact that the bitch (no pun intended) didn't tell the police it was a lie. The reason? Well he ditched her to go back to his old girlfriend. The girl didn't like that. They did have sex (evidence was there), so therefore it could be taken as rape.
The biological point wasn't for you. I didn't type the whole post for you. A lot of people believe that rape is a social construct (a big part of Feminism). This simply isn't true. Sure murder exist in the animal kingdom as well as our own. So what is your point? People do murder, regardless of your code of "ethics." Its been going on for thousands of years regardless of "right" or "wrong." The point of Science is to understand why.
Also one last thing that you said to SuchIsLife, LeftSidePositive. You are dead wrong about the fantasies that women don't harbor sexual feelings to be raped. Is it "violent beating rape" that they want, of course not. But they're has been evidence to suggest the coercion and dominance ignites sexual arousal. There is a whole field in psychology that focuses on that. And a thing called BDSM; look into it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy#cite_note-1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m23416637217pm74/
10:16 pm
Um, BDSM is like the opposite of rape. They take consent VERY seriously.
6:34 am
Saying that BDSM is the same thing as rape is like saying that kids playing cops and robbers are taking real guns, robbing real banks, and shooting each other down on the streets.
4:24 pm
@ K and Mellissa
"Is it “violent beating rape” that they want, of course not. But they’re has been evidence to suggest the coercion and dominance ignites sexual arousal."
Apparently you didn't read this part of what I wrote. I never said BDSM is rape.
5:35 pm
What a bunch of nonsense being spouted by some of the people in this thread. Surprise that they're all male. For example, how the hell does a woman passively entice/provoke rape? Talk about a logic fail. I didn't think it could get worse, but the whole diatribe about women using the government to oppress men pretty much speaks for itself...
7:49 pm
Ben, I don't exactly understand what you think the significance of BDSM turning some people on is supposed to be in the context of this discussion. People are into rape-PLAY and some people do get off on feelings of dominance or submission in a consensually negotiated scene, sure.
So what? Some people get off on peeing on each other, and you don't see me running around pissing on people and saying "Um hello there is such a thing as golden showers, so clearly you wanted my pee all over you!"
12:37 pm
@Ben: You obviously are not kinky, otherwise you'd understand that people into BDSM are into power "play", not ACTUALLY coercing and dominating others. Rape is one-sided. It's what someone does to someone else against their will. But BDSM play involves consent, cooperation and a high degree of trust and respect between partners. It's mutual.
Power play relies on explicit consent from both partners, particularly the "bottom" or receiving or submissive partner. All kinksters worth their salt know that, despite how it may seem from an outsider's perspective, the submissive or bottom is actually in control of the scene. The play will only involve acts to which s/he has consented and it ends when s/he wants it to end (i.e. invocation of a "safe word" or gesture). Notice that CONSENT is what separates BDSM from mere violent behavior, just as what separates sex from rape is CONSENT.
The motto of kinksters everywhere is "Safe, sane and consensual." I think this motto would work perfectly for vanilla folks as well. It would prevent people from pulling shithead moves like removing condoms in the middle of sex or thinking it's OK to take advantage of another person's inebriation.
9:03 am
Comments like the one from Em illustrate how fucking stupid some people can be about this issue.
Why SHOULD Ben Roesthlesberger take any blame? Has he been convicted of rape?
How Ben is treated does NOT contribute to our mistreatment of rape as a concept, because he hasn't even been indicted for rape, let alone convicted.
Another way to put it: it's possible that an accused person didn't actually do it. In that case, if the person didn't do it, but was treated as if he did, then that can be called, at the very least, a "misunderstanding," and we haven't devalued women at all, now have we?
1:37 am
LeftSidePositive,
You said:
"Absolutely not. No situation WHATSOEVER “implies consent.” EVER. Under any circumstances."
So.......a woman who engages in foreplay, undresses with a guy, lies back and spreads wide, allows him to penetrate, and subsequently acts in positively toward him in every way but verbally, has NOT actually provided consent?
She didn't say yes, and you say that "yes" can NEVER be implied.
Would you care to paint your picture with a more slender brush in the future?
5:10 am
Getting back to the original article I thi k it did a good job at showing how both sexes would non verbally deny sex, however I don't think it addressed the different stages of the intera toon. Also I think it's fair to say thAt the context of this article is on date rape.
I think either side can do a very good job at interpreting non verbal methods of consent or moving the encounter forward sexually.
Invited to an appartment maybe some making out and then a change of moving forward or no intention of going any further is easier to pick up and interpret here
however I think the further you advance into your sexual encounter the more explicid you would need to be about not wAnting to move further
start kissing
get undressed
giveing a blow job
very close physical contact
privates rubbing each other
just like the non verbal signs of of being uninterested in a person I think it becomes very hard to say that there Are strong signs that sex is not going to happen in a situation like this hence the expression of not wanting to have sex needs to be much clearer
I also this there is still a real stigma for women to have sex without a relationship and a guilt associated with. casual sex. I think, for the most part men need to initiate conversation as well as the first kiss and any sexual advances.
Also, how many times have we heard NO to an advance to a kiss only to try 10 minutes later with sucess. Is NO what they think they should do or what their girlfriends think they should do. Is being intoxicated with the moment and excuse for not giving concent?
Clearly I fully believe that guys need to back off if their advances are not welcome. MixEd verbal and nonverbal signals outside of the bedroom are one thing but inside the bedroom they become more difficult to deal with
2:25 pm
Joe, I think that situation would only be acceptable if the two parties were in an established relationship and had clearly communicated what was and was not ok sexually.
Even someone who engages in foreplay or undresses or "lies back" may be interested in going only so far, or going farther in a certain way. Or, they might just not quite be ready at the moment. Unless you are absolutely sure about how THAT PARTICULAR PERSON communicates their desire for sex, don't proceed without permission. Moreover, none of these actions ENTITLE the other person to obtain sex.
Another very serious concern is what exactly is "reacting positively"?? In reality, I don't think it should be difficult to figure out at all, but rapists regularly claim that someone saying no is "practically guiding them in" (see above) or being "passionate," or "not fighting enough," that someone who is still and silent is "still trying to decide if they enjoyed it," and that offering physical resistance is "hot," "into rough sex," or "part of the dance" or lots of other things. People who feel entitled to women's bodies interpret all sorts of behavior as acting positively.
Bottom line: without positive, enthusiastic consent --> no sex.
10:54 am
so what happens if you turn away and put your legs together? does that mean no?
6:00 pm
H - that sounds like a no.
Ben - how did these 'some guys' manage to detect consensual sex from the next room? Also, is it not possible that this man dumped this woman for another woman, AND raped her?
6:45 pm
LeftSidePositive:
People can consent to sex for a variety of reasons. Miscommunications can also happen (not talking about cases where boundaries were clearly laid out, as in "you have to wear a condom" but cases where they are not clearly laid out). It's important for the law to provide circumstances which people can be reasonably able to avoid in this area short of outright celebacy.
How many married couples fight about sex? Is compromise the answer?
What about states, like New York, which hold that refusal to have sex with one's spouse over a period of time constitutes actionable abandonment (meaning the refusing spouse is found AT FAULT for the divorce)?
Is learning to handle sexual differences in expectations something that prepares one to handle possible compromises of marriage?