From Roy, I found this great study that shows that the sexual assault rate at the University of New Hampshire saw a decline from 1988 until 2000, and then it held steady after that. The reason for the decline appears to be more education and better services.
Overall, UNH has found that the number of unwanted sexual experiences on campus declined significantly from 1988 to 2000, during which time the university established a crisis center and put a number of prevention programs in place. However, there has been little change since 2000 — prompting a need for more creative, broad-based responses, said Victoria Banyard, an associate professor of psychology and a co-author.
I find this interesting, because the reduction in the rape rate that’s been national and somewhat continuous ever since feminists made rape a big issue shows that the primary criticism feminists have—that ours is a “rape culture”, i.e. that rape is a product of a culture that is tolerant or even approving of it—was right, and when you change the culture, you change the rate of rape.
The traditional, conservative explanation for rape is that it’s built into men’s biology, and therefore the only way to slow it or stop it is to put the onus on women to avoid being a temptation or to keep yourself out of harm’s way. Obviously, the facts do not support this contention, because if anything, women are more and more flouting the rules that have always been put on us with the ostensible purpose of stopping rape and the practical effect of limiting women’s freedom of movement. Women go about unaccompanied by male protection more, live by themselves more, and probably spend more time alone with male friends and dates than they ever did before, and instead of seeing a spike in rape, we’re seeing a slow decline. Turns out the feminists were right after all—the best way to stop rape is for men to stop raping, not for women to try to get men to stop raping. Men, it turns out, were equal to the task, largely defeating man-hating anti-feminist nay-sayers who portray men as brutes whose dominance can’t be challenged, much less stopped.
Interestingly, the report found that as the victimization of women starts to come down, the victimization of men becomes a larger percentage of the problem.
Overall, 28 percent of New Hampshire women report at least one incident of unwanted contact, as do 11 percent of men. About 7 percent of women and 4 percent of men report unwanted intercourse…..
The report notes that the number of men who report unwanted intercourse is too small to make any comparisons across types of unwanted sexual experiences. Male victims were, however, more likely to have used drugs than female victims (8 versus 2 percent) and more likely to report a same-sex perpetrator (9 versus 2 percent).
This information can probably inform an approach to continuing to reduce the rape rate, perhaps by moving past the “no means no” model that’s been effective, and moving more towards an even broader education initiative about how you should never have sex with someone who isn’t asking you pretty please, an “enthusiastic participation” model instead of the mere consent model.
66 Responses to “Feminism works and men are not animals”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I find the use of the euphemism “unwanted sexual experience” for “sexual assault” or “rape” a little disturbing.
Educating boys that their desire is their responsibility and that girls and women are full humans is key. And we need to teach young women more about their own pleasure, really owning their bodies, and masturbation, so that enthusiasm and full participation is even possible.
Fortunately or unfortunately Rebecca, not all sexual assaults qualify as “sexual assaults” under the law. Argue that how you will, but I think the world is better for treating inappropriate acts of different severity as if they should be punished differently.
It’s stupid and reckless to not stop at a stopsign, but not all missed stopsigns should be punished as reckless driving, should they? Pinching a buttock isn’t the same as forceful penetration, either. The question becomes less a matter of semantics and more a question of what the appropriate punishment should be.
I don’t know how the web questions are set up. but 4-7% out of 2400 people are pretty high.
We are talking about major urban crime rate here.
(tho’ if it includes kissing and touching. )
——
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/08/sex
The university is relatively unusual (although not alone) in tracking, and publicly releasing, campus-specific data on unwanted sexual contact, defined as sexual situations including kissing or touching but excluding intercourse, that students knew at the time they did not want to engage in and communicated that in some way (or otherwise were incapacitated), as well as unwanted intercourse.
There needs to be some way to differentiate degrees for data analysis purposes. Killing another human being is “murder”, but there is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, and both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In each case, someone is dead at someone else’s hands. But there are good reasons to make the differentiations. I don’t think anyone is in favor of equal penalties for each level of crime, even though the result (a dead victim) is the same.
Likewise, I don’t think that the groping college jerk at UConn - who got his ass kicked, as he so richly deserved - is the same level of perpetrator as a serial rapist and killer like Ted Bundy. Their punishments should not be the same, and their offenses shouldn’t be lumped together under one definition either. It not only elevates a teenager with bad self-control and a worse attitude toward women to the level of a serial rapist-killer, it trivializes the profound evil of a rapist-killer as being no worse than that of a drunken frat boy.
There needs to be some way to differentiate degrees for data analysis purposes. Killing another human being is “murder”, but there is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, and both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In each case, someone is dead at someone else’s hands. But there are good reasons to make the differentiations. I don’t think anyone is in favor of equal penalties for each level of crime, even though the result (a dead victim) is the same.
Likewise, I don’t think that the groping college jerk at UConn - who got his ass kicked, as he so richly deserved - is the same level of perpetrator as a serial rapist and killer like Ted Bundy. Their punishments should not be the same, and their offenses shouldn’t be lumped together under one definition either. It not only elevates a teenager with bad self-control and a worse attitude toward women to the level of a serial rapist-killer, it trivializes the profound evil of a rapist-killer as being no worse than that of a drunken frat boy.
The biological view of men raping women, or just of masculinity in general, is so laughable to me because, if true, the solution would not be to train women how to “protect” themselves, but basically to follow Valerie Solanas’s recommendation: to cage and imprison or flat-out kill every man who isn’t completely submissive. Since I doubt that response would fly with conservatives, their “solution” just proves how contradictory their arguments are and how they are only concerned about retaining power, ie., perpetuating patriarchy.
They use the term to get more accurate results. If you ask people if they were assaulted, many who were will deny it. So you get descriptive to get accuracy.
If you ask people if they were assaulted, many who were will deny it.
Well, yeah, that’s because I have experienced unwanted sexual contact but do not perceive that I’ve therefore experienced rape.
Am I in denial?
Not to threadjack, but I think that if almost a quarter of college students are reporting having had unwanted sexual contact, that’s too many, but your conclusion that what is being done is working is probably correct.
If OTOH twenty-some percent of college women are reporting rape, someone should be setting the dean of students’ office on fire.
but the data mask the possibility to figure out if there is change or not over time..
simple example. these two sets of data will show the same percentage and no progress, while if separated obviously show big difference.
—- 1—2—3—-4—5
rape 5—-4—-3—2—-1
gropping 1-1–1—1—-1
kissing 1–1–1—1—-1
versus
rape 5—-5—5—-5—-5
gropping 0-0–0—0—-0
kissing 0–0–0—0—-0
obviously on the first case, the program is a big success, while the second case big failure. The step needed to address each cases are entirely different.
well. I mess that one big time, but you get the point. (make the total add up to constant percentage)
If men aren’t animals, what kingdom are we? I’ve never thought of myself as a protist.
Even if the biological explanation were “right”, there’s always selection pressure.
And in a way, that may be part of what’s happening here. It’s not just what a university does with the people there, but also whom it chooses to admit. (I’d be interested to see, for example, data by year of perpetrator and complainant.)
You can find the same explanation for rape coming from some feminists. I run into is occasionally at Twisty’s pad. I don’t like no matter who says, tho.
It would be ‘biologically correct’ if Amanda had asserted that men are not beasts.
I don’t think so. Sometimes she gets into pseudo-psychoanalysis as a half-joking (but still half-serious) explanation, but I don’t think she has ever said men are biologically inclined to rape. And she’s never ever said that the “onus” to prevent rape is to be placed upon women.
Further evidence that Amanda’s right and the conservative explanation is wrong: As far as I know–and I am paying attention–there was no increase in punishment for rape during the period in question. By “no increase,” I mean that (1) rapists did not face higher odds of being sentenced to prison, and (2) the tiny minority of rapists sent to prison did not face longer sentences. I don’t expect rightwingers to give up their fondness for market explanations, but we’ve seen a drop in the rape rate even though we haven’t raised its prison “price.”
Biology doesn’t explain the change, as Amanda said. Cost-benefit analysis and deterrence don’t explain it either. That leaves culture.
Not to threadjack, but since feminism can and does work, can somebody please explain Michelle Duggar to me?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_re_us/18_kids
perhaps by moving past the “no means no” model that’s been effective
i’m not sure the “no means no” model has run its course yet. i just wish it were more understood that it applies no matter -who- says no.
basically, every (straight) woman but one i’ve ever slept with has, at some point, pressured me into having sex when i didn’t want to - including the last two times i’ve had unprotected sex. it’s always the same textbook line that men use, too - “it’s not fair to get me all excited and then not follow through”, etc - even if i’m willing to follow through in any number of other ways.
grumble. i don’t mean to get all “what about the menz”, but i wish more people understood that an erection doesn’t equal consent.
hbsweet: The Venn Diagram of Circle A “Feminism” and Circle B “Quiverfull” depicts two adjacent but not overlapping circles?
I don’t think that Twisty has claimed that men are inherently rapists (could be wrong; links?). She does seem to view biological maleness (and not just male gendered behavior in our culture) as disgusting. I suppose that would be a problem if it were a widespread cultural phenomenon (disgust at biological femaleness, likewise). However, since it’s her personal, idiosyncratic perspective, and I think she recognizes it as such, I suppose I’m inclined to say she’s entitled to it. No one should be held accountable for their personal aesthetic preferences. At least, they shouldn’t be held accountable morally: holding them accountable aesthetically is another matter, but one on which I don’t feel terribly insightful on;).
“You can find the same explanation for rape coming from some feminists. I run into is occasionally at Twisty’s pad. I don’t like no matter who says, tho.”
I think you are WAAAY misreading Twisty, here. She actually goes out of her way to show the opposite. That men do not have biological differences and thus justifications for rape and that women should not have to be responsible for policing men’s desire. Perhaps you read her when she was being sarcastic?
I think sometimes she might overgeneralize the tendency for every man to be a rapist, but that is because of his indoctrination into the patriarchy, not for biological reasons. I think that every man is affected by the patriarchy, but I do think that there are a lot of men out there who go out of their way to ensure that they have consent. (”out of their way” being the more socially understood term I’m using here for “doing what they are supposed to do.”)
I have to agree with the “unwanted sexual experience” tag — I had a guy grab my junk on a subway, but it was more confusing and unpleasant than actually traumatizing.
I usually find the anti-feminist position to be closer to “Somebody’s going to get raped, honey, better make sure it isn’t you” rather than “Stop that boy before he rapes you,” but I might be misreading your intention there…
Since someone brought it up, here is the thing about the Duggars that I don’t understand:
Everytime that woman gets pregnant, there is an outcry on the feminist blogs. And for all the obvious reasons. Having that many kids is bad for the environment, overpopulation, starving children, etc. etc. The whole quiverfull thing treats women like god-mandated baby factories, etc. Clown car vagina and all that mocking.
All good points. God knows I don’t agree with her decision to have all those kids or the reason (especially the reason) that she decided to have all those kids.
But it also seems hypocritical to me for pro-choice-ers to really condemn THE ACTUAL FACT that she had those kids. (Reasons for it, okay. That she had so many kids in and of itself and clown car vagina and all that? Problematic for me.) If women are going to have agency over their reproduction, then as much as I disagree, it has to go both ways. A woman should be able to decide to terminate a pregnancy, use birth control, morning after, etc. And she should also have the right to pop ‘em out like rabbits, I suppose.
I don’t mind the whole discussion of the criticism of the quiverfull thing and how all of her kids seem to have traditional gender roles within the family, because–yuck. But when it gets into making fun of her for actually physically having the kids, I think that gets into unfair territory. Are we advocating that there should be a limit on how many kids a woman should be allowed to have? One? as in China. Or three or five or what? Limiting pregnancy seems just as bad as forced pregnancy. Thoughts?
Not that anyone did it in this thread, but generally out in the feminist blog world, I see that a lot.
Sorry for the interuption, and now back to your regularly scheduled rape discussion.
Isn’t that why it’s called a ‘blaspeme’ button?
And as someone who’d been spiked with ecstasy on three different occasions, ie, not, would you like this ecstasy, but, perhaps we should put this ecstasy in that goth guys drink becasue he never puts out, yeah.
This is a distinction without a difference. If the patriarchy exists, has always existed, will always exist and includes every man then biology and environment are not operationally distinct. And unless you are an actively researching biologist performing careful experiments you have no way of saying whether something is biological or societal in nature.
If every man has a tendancy to be a rapist (lol, let’s not get into how stupid and unsupportable that is) then how do you know that is because of the patriarchy and not biology? Or not because of something in the air or water?
And the end result is the same: you are blaming rape on something outsides the man’s control. “Men are rapists because of biology” and “men are rapists because of the omnipresent patriarchy” amount to the same thing, men rape because of some sort constant external force and the only solution is for women to run and hide.
All you’ve done is taken “men rape because the sight of women’s hair gives them uncontrollable lust” and repackaged it in psuedo-feminist lingo.
Also…
Glad to hear feminism works, and hopefully will continue working to reduce sexual assault of any kind.
Leora:
Believing that someone should have a choice available to them doesn’t mean agreeing with their choice. (Cue Voltaire.) And it seems to me in this particular case that the decision to physically have the kids is at this point inextricable from the really skeevy decisions about what to do with them once they’re here.
Margalis: Not at all. The crucial difference in biological reductivism and, er, patriarchal reductivism is that even if you believe every man is trained or at least encouraged from birth to be a potential rapist, you’re still talking about something that can be reversed or reconditioned. Rather than suppressed, which is the biology party line: men are barely tamed animals, so don’t do anything to provoke the wildness.
To make an admittedly imperfect comparison (comparing race with gender is tricky business, since you can’t actually separate the two)… I was born with white privilege. Actually, I can’t do a whole lot about my whiteness or the privilege (both social constructs, in my opinion), but I can at least choose to be aware of how my privilege works, and let my awareness help me choose not to oppress, and choose to educate about it. That’s my teaspoon, in the Shakesville lingo, to help the waters even out. That’s the awesome thing about society - it evolves.
If you replace “white” with “male” there, it still works… and whether or not that’s Twisty’s stance I can’t say, but it’s a possibility that I prefer to think most people are aware of when they refer to patriarchy.
Keep in mind that researchers often have data with much finer resolution than two categories … they ask a bunch of questions and do some statistical work that describes the data and the distributions before proceeding with certain types of analysis.
For example, we had a questionaire data set that asked about pain in pretty much every joint in the body. I ended up grouping that data by leg, back and neck (spine) and arm because the resulting data were too dispersed. It also made functional sense, as one person jumping off a crane might end up with knee pain, another with ankle pain, and a third with hip pain and it would likely have far more to do with jumping than with the ankles, knees and hips per se.
I suspect they have finer data, but it was too dispersed. Thus they examined it in aggregated larger categories. It doesn’t “obscure” anything as there would be nothing to see at the finer resolution. You only get that luxury when you have 200,000 people to work with.
A man and a woman are making out in a bedroom. Both are slightly intoxicated and highly aroused. Without her permission, the man mounts and penetrates her. She does not want to have sex, but does not resist him. Rape? If so, how much should he be punished?
A man and a woman are making out in a bedroom. Both are slightly intoxicated and highly aroused. Without HIS permission, the WOMAN mounts HIM. He does not want to have sex, but does not resist her. Rape? If so, how much should she be punished?
Legally, the answer to both questions is that it depends on the jurisdiction. (Realistically, neither case will probably ever be prosecuted.)
The term “gray rape” is a dirty word on this blog, but the large majority of rapes fall into this category, i.e. sex that is non-consensual, but non-forced.
You are right that these should be treated as crimes of an entirely different character than bad-man-in-the-dark-alley types of rapes, but how should the law deal with them? Can the law deal with these cases effectively? If so, how?
I think/hope loneoak was referring to some of the commenters. Twisty, bless her soul, has gathered a handful of women who’ve been broken down and are full of hate and seem to think her humor-laden blog is a good place to hang out. It’s kind of bizarre, if you think about it. Maybe they just really like the word “blame”.
loneoak, a lot of the women who hang out at Twisty’s are fine, upstanding citizens. That a couple of broken souls who’ve been worn down by male cruelty also hang out there shouldn’t make you generalize about anything but what happens to a few women under crushing pressure. After you’ve been sexually assaulted, it’s hard for a lot of women to get any kind of respect or trust back for men, and I can imagine some women never make that journey for various reasons.
If you’ve suffered a lot at men’s hands, it’s tempting to wonder if it isn’t just biology. But we have mountains of evidence on the psychology of power, and its corrupting nature, so I blame the patriarchy. Interestingly, for all the shit Twisty gets, that’s her blog’s name, and it’s not “I Blame Men’s Biologically Ordained Impulses”.
Leora, I wouldn’t call it an “outcry”. I would call it “howling with laughter”. Dude, if you can’t make fun of the fundamentalist moronic misogynist theology that demands that women stay constantly pregnant, what can you make fun of? By god, I worry about the day someone gets upset because I’m not respectful enough of polygamists.
I’m not sure I’ve ever read anyone mock the actual fact of pregnancy. Where’s the joke there? “How dare she push a baby out of her vagina?” The jokes and outrage centers 100% around the dogma.
I would also dare you to find a respectable feminist who decrys her legal right to have as many children as she can, until her husband puts her out to pasture. That’s what being pro-choice is about. It doesn’t mean you have to pretend you find every choice smart, and it certainly doesn’t mean you have to get into splitting hairs where you’re like, “Okay, having one kid after another in service of a scary patriarchal religion is bad, except during those times when you’re pregnant.” Oooooh, my head is hurting thinking about it. This is the sort of rules-laden feminism that draws criticisms about how it’s a religion unto itself.
Wayward, since the majority of sexual assaults on men are performed by other men, I find your choice of the gender of the rapist in that scenario interesting. I suspect it’s because if a man stuck his penis up your ass against your will, you wouldn’t be using terms like “gray rape”.
f men aren’t animals, what kingdom are we? I’ve never thought of myself as a protist.
Personally, I consider myself - wait for it…wait for it - a Funguy.
Once again, I apologize to everyone here.
Further evidence that Amanda’s right and the conservative explanation is wrong: As far as I know–and I am paying attention–there was no increase in punishment for rape during the period in question. By “no increase,” I mean that (1) rapists did not face higher odds of being sentenced to prison, and (2) the tiny minority of rapists sent to prison did not face longer sentences. I don’t expect rightwingers to give up their fondness for market explanations, but we’ve seen a drop in the rape rate even though we haven’t raised its prison “price.”
Biology doesn’t explain the change, as Amanda said. Cost-benefit analysis and deterrence don’t explain it either. That leaves culture.
Isn’t violent crimes rates going down all across the board? I think that the reframing of rape by femminst has been a contributing factor whatever the causes of the number of sexual assault is going down, it is connected with the same factors that caused violence to go down. Or maybe - just to make my whole comment completely pointless - the factors that had made violence go down across the board (to make up an example, the internet and increased communication capabilities) caused feminists to be more successful.
well. national crime rate across the board also decline in the past 2 decades or so.
national crime rate chart (violence)
www.publicagenda.org/issues/images/crime/ffcrimeViolentCrimeRate.jpg
NYC crime rate
criminaljustice.state.ny.us/crimnet/ojsa/crmtrnd01/ctrtfall.htm
My writing was kind of unclear squashed, but what I was wondering was how much of a contributing factor feminist narratives played in bringing down rape rates if other violent crimes where gong down too.
As a woman who lives on the very edge of the UNH campus (about as close as you can get without actually being on campus), this is close to home.
Granted, I don’t attend frat parties or walk alone at night on campus because I’m a 33 year old married woman with kids, but still, it’s in my neighborhood.
My son (now nearly
is learning that no means no, even when it’s horseplay with his sister (as is she, because she has a hard time listening to “No” too). I’m pretty sure it’s standard in his school, too; zero tolerance to the side, most administrators out here are taking bullying and related actions far more seriously than they used to. I have hopes that when he’s in college, the rates will be even lower than they are now.
That article needs graphs.
Emotionally I like the article, but I can’t help thinking of questions about it that don’t seem to be answered very well by the resources available.
For example, if you ask a group of people over a long period pf time their attitudes to various sexual incidents, will it shape how they think about those experiences and perhaps give them the tools to process them in a different way?
I mean, the information isn’t an indication of cultural change in wider society, so much as a change in the community created by the process of questioning, and therefore raising awareness.
Which scenario? I had two of them. The two situations were identical except for the partner who was initiating the non-consensual sex.
So are you saying that it is rape if the man initiates non-consensual sex, but not if the woman initiates it, rare though this may be? If so, why?
If you still don’t understand my point, let’s take gender out of the equation and try again:
Two gay men are making out in a bedroom. Both are slightly intoxicated and highly aroused. One sticks his penis up the ass of the other. The penetratee does not want to have sex, but he does not resist. Rape? If so, how much should he be punished?
Two gay men are making out in a bedroom. Both are slightly intoxicated and highly aroused. One sticks his ass on the penis of the other. The penetrator does not want to have sex, but he does not resist. Rape? If so, how much should he be punished?
Jeez, I’m sorry. I should have been much clearer. Twisty doesn’t say that. I usually agree with most of what Twisty has to say and think that blog is bee’s knees. I see that crap in the comments from time to time. Probably mostly from sophomores who just realized the world sucks, which I was at some point. Apologies, Twisty.
RE: Patriarchy vs. Biology. What Margalis said. Patriarchy can be modified and changed. Society evolves, albeit slowly. This article supports that. Biology cannot be changed, at least not by the individuals it involves (meaning, not without medical or genetic intervention), thus one could argue that a biological predisposition to rape could be excused, whereas a patriarchal acceptance of rape just means that society has to change.
Don’t mean to derail the thread, but I take your point, Amanda, about the Duggars. I guess I’m trying to separate the choice to have children with the reasons for the choice. For example, if a woman let it be widely known that she keeps getting pregnant but keeps having abortions because her crazy religion doesn’t believe in birth control or pregnancy. (or just like that artist who supposedly(?) induced abortions for her art) we might not agree with the reasons, but we would fully support her in the right to make the choice. Some things I read about the Duggars are definitely mocking or criticizing her reasons in and of themselves, but others seem to go further to simply criticizing the fact that she has 18 children. I think “clown car vagina” (which, by the way, I think is a Twistyism) although I laughed, I admit, I also felt like it sort of crossed the line into territory of criticizing the right to choose.
Wayward, I can’t speak for Amanda but I think your scenarios are rape.
My browser has issues and apparently doesn’t let me highlight HTML links so all I can do is paste this URL:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1027927.ece
It’s the 2005 story of a woman in Norway who was convicted of sexual assault after performing oral sex on a man while he slept. You ask about the degree of punishment to impose: she drew a nine-month sentence (quite heavy by European standards; triple it for comparison purposes) and a fine equal to just over $6000 US.
VERY rare, of course, for male victims to call the cops. I think it would be healthy if they did.
Hope no one minds me continuing the thread jack, but I just also have to point out that while, as Amanda said, you’d be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actually thinks the government should prevent The Duggars from having another child, the Duggars do think that the government should prevent the rest of us from using technology that prevents us from having children. What I find especially grating is that they argue against birth control pills because contraception is “unnatural” and against God’s plan. Yet, she would never have been able to have this many children if it wasn’t for modern medical science (just conisder how much more likely women were to die during childbirth before modern medicine).
I think maybe that’s part of the weird fascination people have with the Duggars; they take the idea of the “natural” to this excessive and completely unnatural extreme. And yes, I think to the extent that you can define “natural” at all, having 18 children is, for a human being, unnatural. Case in point: supposedly she quits breast-feeding after three months because while you are breast-feeding you are much less likely to get pregnant. So the fact that they have 18 children isn’t some natural miracle. It’s completely purposeful and enabled by modern technology. Which wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, except that, they and other “quiverfulls” oppose contraception and abortion on the grounds that they are “unnatural.”
Both of your proposed scenarios are rape. The main difference is that men have not yet been taught that they can call something that happens with a woman “rape,” so they end up feeling sick and dirty but don’t really have many places where they can talk about it or identify what’s happened to them. Not to mention the still-prevalent social norm that dictates that men ALWAYS want sex, even if the individual man in question says he doesn’t.
The two perps should be punished the same way, because they’re both rapists. There should be different punishments for conscious rape (”S/he said no, but I knew s/he didn’t really mean it, so I went ahead”) and stupid rape (”I didn’t realize s/he was passed out because I was too drunk”) and in most states, there are.
Both of your proposed scenarios are rape. The main difference is that men have not yet been taught that they can call something that happens with a woman “rape,”
hmmm, … both slightly drunk, both horny, the guy didn’t say a thing, the girl initiated it … (both party are sober enough to know what goes on and able to control flow of event)
I don’t think the guy can say “rape”. I call them both horny bastards. If both want to sue each other, they should.
Men love imaging scenarios where arousal leads to sex without explicit consent, I see once again.
Upthread you can read a man imagining several scenarios of rape, and challenging us contemptuously to admit they are not rape, since from the standpoint of a man, none of them are rapelike for various legal reasons, all of which center around the concept of “How was I supposed to know she didn’t want it?”
When everything you know about sex comes from porn, sex is always something that happens in a state of mutual arousal, and sometimes with resistance from the woman. The woman gives in, and to a guy, that’s consent. Oh, well, he’s in there anyway. Girl blames herself, boy feels the pride of successful seduction.
Legal, cut and dried, morally rigid excuses for coercion are the norm; men actually understanding how women can feel confused, overwhelmed and conflicted all too rare.
Men, being the dominant sex in actual irrefutable fact, are less likely to be able to understand the way anyone feels who is oppressed by them. More men than ever seem to be trying to put themselves in women’s places, and that’s where we hope this is going. Until finally you stop even wanting to identify yourself as male or female, and at that point, you’re a full-blown radical feminist.
that’s not full blown radical feminism, that’s can’t make up one’s mind. Say “NO”, and the court and legal system can go in and does the job.
without that word (or some other equivalent) there is no case.
There is nothing to imagine if integrity of free will exists (a person can say no, freely)
the function of those fictional cases, clearly to test if all the rules are still fair. (you can see them as erotic exercise, but I doubt it’s useful) Arousal alone is not consent. Yes or no is the consent.
You know, in any scenario, I’m not really following how the arousal matters in the slightest. Are you saying that it’s OK to rape somebody if they’re horny? Or that it’s perfectly acceptable to take any outward sign of arousal as a go–he had a hard-on, Your Honor, how can you blame me for using it? I can’t fathom why, other than victim-blaming, you’d bring it up.
ehrrr, I said that with ambiguous signal, where both parties are “conscious” and able to control the flow of event, not saying “no” doesn’t mean “no” nor “yes”.
Both parties play the game, that implied consent.
Only clear “NO” (again, assuming free will is intake) means NO.
Or to put it another way: STOP DATING DUMB people who can’t say “I am in” or “I don’t want it”. STOP making out while drunk.
You deserve all the dumbest thing in the world if you making out with a drunk and don’t say no.
christ, squashed, is this really the best place to be all “you deserve it”?
i take back what i said earlier upthread - maybe no-means-no isn’t enough, if people are going to use your mentality. i’m starting to get why one of my friends insists on explicit verbal consent for EVERYTHING. “yes” isn’t and shouldn’t be the default.
thanks, squashed. your blatant dickery helped me see the light.
sure, then change the law. I mean what it comes down to is evidence in the court of law right?
What will the court ask? (probably something along the line “did you say no? were you alert/aware enough to control event? why did you continue? etc.)
I personally think, this sort of question is pretty dumb, since this probably will involved one night stand type of thing. (If both couple have already dated, they wouldn’t be in such ambiguity when it comes to consent + drinking)
so one night stand drunk horny bastard who don’t know when to say no, let the police sort it out and both can duke it out in the court. Let both party bash each other to their heart content. Endless entertainment to human folly.
probably what it will come down to is “a recording device” + a series of questions, just so both party can cover their behind in the court.
Specifically woman, feminism isn’t going to protect any and all dumb moves. If the guy is drunk, making out with a guy, then humping him without clear consent. One is going to sue the other. On the other hand, If a guy do it, he gets it. Let him learns and explain in the court.
So lawyer up. And have high definition recording device to cover your ass. Otherwise don’t hump somebody while doing one night stand. “But I was so confuse” is pretty pathetic excuse for college student in the 21st century. Specially after everybody suing everybody.
This statement only makes sense if you think that feminism is entirely about women and preventing sexual assault. Patriarchy excuses most violence against people lower in the hierarchy than the perpetrator, and rationalizes (though it does not explicitly condone) a great deal of violence against people perceived as being higher in the local hierarchy. So a narrative such as feminism that dismantles the idea of violence as a measure of self-worth (and the idea of being a victim of violence as a cause for shame) will have its effects throughout society.
And of course the most obvious example: the decline in homicides of men by women who were shackled to them by law or economic necessity.
In some states, yes, in others, no, in others, they are for the man, but not the woman.
In order for a woman to have sex with a man, consensual or not, he must have an erection.
The reason arousal is important in the other hypothetical is to create a situation where the sex would be non-consensual, but not physically traumatic. (Emotionally and psychologically, that’s another story) It is necessary to make the two hypotheticals as equivalent as possible.
Anus, meet Strap-on. Strap-on, Anus.
Squashed is just too funny sometimes…
And have high definition recording device to cover your ass.
You know, I’m pretty sure THAT’S going to require affirmative consent as well.
Sure, plenty of folks will think to ask “Hey, I’m going to videotape us making out, ok?” but WON’T think to ask, “Do you want to have sex?”
Show up in court with a surreptitiously recorded audio/video tape at your rape defense trial? Yeah, that’ll go over well.
Everytime that woman gets pregnant, there is an outcry on the feminist blogs. And for all the obvious reasons. Having that many kids is bad for the environment, overpopulation, starving children, etc. etc. The whole quiverfull thing treats women like god-mandated baby factories, etc.
There’s another angle, too, Leora, that I think has been missed. Another reason to consider the Duggars, and other “Quiverfull” families a problem. It is that, by naming their movement “Quiverfull”, they seem to be suggesting that their children are intended as missiles, to be launched at the rest of us if and when necessary.
“Say “NO”, and the court and legal system can go in and does the job.”
Jesus H. Timberlake, are there really people this stupid in the world? Yeah, all it takes is saying “no” and the legal system will take care of everything. I’d laugh, but there’s too much bile in my throat.
Squashed has officially become unreadable for me.
*********************************************************
Michelle Duggar was on birth control (the pill, I believe) and blames it for a miscarriage she suffered. Once that happened, and here’s where the armchair psychoanalysis comes in, she felt extremely guilty, quit using birth control and ended up with the beginnings of her large family. According to statements I’ve read of hers in random articles online, she eventually became so overwhelmed by the rigors of childrearing and all its concomitant domestic responsibility (including homeschooling) she became weak and upset and confused, at which point she gave her life over to God and is now letting Him call all the shots in her life. I interpret this to mean that she basically can’t handle the responsibility she’s brought on herself with the extreme guilt-ridden childbearing she’s doing and wants to place the responsibility for her well-being in the hands of a deity. IIRC, her husband asked her if she wanted to have any more children - reading between the lines I think he was like, um, I’m ready to stop if you are - but she just said that if God blessed her with them [the babies] she would accept them.
I feel terribly bad for her, because it seems like she’s still suffering from very serious trauma resulting from her first miscarriage. She needs therapy, not more children. I make fun of the Duggars not because of any disagreement with wanting women to have the choice to determine when and with whom they have their children, but because her actions seem so clearly based on one of the many interpretations of Christianity that assert that women should not take responsibility for themselves or their lives - that God will provide all. And that’s just CRAZY. I also wonder how much real time parents can have with their other older children when they’re busy raising a new baby every year. What kind of 1:1 time do these kids get with their parents? Probably not much. I can’t imagine I’d feel too special amongst a crowd of brothers and sisters that large.
********************************************************
UNH is my alma mater. The women at SHARPP (the Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention Program) are very hardcore about rape education, or at least they were during my years there (1995 - 2000). There was a great group on campus when I was an undergrad, called “Men Stopping Rape”. It used to meet for an hour at noon once a week. I wonder if that’s still going on.
The trend years ago was that students were moving off campus, due to lack of housing and the increasingly harsh punishments for underage alcohol violations. Plus, I think the UNH frat scene is reemerging. Just a couple houses were responsible for a lot of shit that went down on frat row. For a while the university closed down some of those houses or revoked their charters. (I recall hearing about a serious prostitution and underage drinking incident, and another one where a guy I went to high school with got drunk and fell off the roof of his frat house and died.) These factors might have some affect on the university’s ability to reduce forcible sex or unwanted sexual contact.
Cath May 12, 2008 at 9:48 am
“Say “NO”, and the court and legal system can go in and does the job.” // Jesus H. Timberlake, are there really people this stupid in the world? Yeah, all it takes is saying “no” and the legal system will take care of everything. I’d laugh, but there’s too much bile in my throat.
Well, sure. The statistic can’t even tell if the previous program is working or not at that low number.
So this is obviously not about casual take on hard violence. But the bulk is ambiguous cases.
You can do
a. introduce standard practice of dating. (protocol, questions, legal standard)
b. prevent interaction altogether.
you haven’t given your take of the original number or what one should do to improve the situation realistically.
Propose something and post your idea. Whining and complaining are cheap.
squashed, i am tired of hearing about legal standards on threads like this. yes, some cases are ambiguous from the standpoint of a courtroom. but if we can continue to change the culture such that people think of consent as yes! and not just not-no, then these cases will start to look a lot less ambiguous
Anybody can say “how people suppose to act”, but ultimately it’s about legal arbitration.
Let the dumb fuckers sue each other. Who cares.