This comes up in threads that discuss rape all the time, but I still don’t understand where it is coming from. Is there any state in the US where consensual sex that one participant lates comes to regret is legally considered rape? Do any politicians or respectable social activists argue for changing the law to make this so?
I don’t doubt that there have been a few sick people who tried to get out of next-morning guilt by attempting to convince themselves and others that they were really raped, but I’ve never known anyone to say “If a woman in her right mind gives uncoerced consent, but regrets it later, it was rape!”
I don’t think it’s people claiming that such things are rape that has weakened the word “rape”, because if such people even exist they are a vanishingly small and apparently not-very-vocal (I’ve never heard them, and I pay attention to these things) minority. I think it’s people claiming that there are people who use the word “rape” so casually that has made some people suspicious of the term.
I suspect that if you think you’ve heard that, you were misinterpreting what the other person was saying. For instance, it is obviously rape to engage in sexual activity with a person too drunk or drugged to know what is happening or make an attempt to resist it, but I can easily see how this could be stated poorly so it would sound like “If someone gets drunk and has sex, then feels bad about it when they sober up, it’s rape!”
I wouldn’t consider it necessary for a rape victim to clearly express dissent in cases involving assailants who are unknown to the victim or those who begin their assault with surprise or force and are clearly are not interested in whether the victim consents or not. But in situations where things are less clear-cut and there is some chance that the assailant might mistakenly believe that the victim has given implicit consent, it is the responsibility of any unimpaired adult of normal mental capacity to help avoid confusion and make a clear refusal. A single “no” or “stop” or “I don’t want to” should be sufficient.
On the other hand, it is also the responsibility of anyone about to engage in sexual activity to take reasonable measures to ensure that their partner is both consenting and capable of legally giving consent. There’s no need to prepare a contract or anything, but there’s also no reason to assume that the other person is consenting. This holds true even if the other person is dressed a certain way, made an ambiguous remark like “Gosh, it’s hot in here”, has a reputation for being easy, only pushed you away but didn’t actually say “no”, or whatever other bogus rationalization a rapist might come up with to make it seem as though his or her victim was “asking for it” or “really wanted it”. Just as we should all know enough to know that we should say “no” when we mean “no”, we should also all know that a partner who has not expressed consent (either by saying “yes” or by physical participation) might decide to press charges.
If anything I feel less sympathy for a person who ends up accused of rape because they didn’t make any effort to be sure that their partner was actually consenting than I do for someone who ends up feeling that they’ve been raped because they were too spineless to resist a partner who really would have taken “no” for an answer. The latter person might genuinely, if unreasonably, have felt too frightened to refuse, but the former is just being selfish and inconsiderate. That’s not a crime, and I wouldn’t want to see anyone convicted of rape just for being an insensitive lover, but I wouldn’t shed too many tears for them if they did find themselves having to explain things to a judge.
To me, your attitude speaks volumes about the disconnect between real life sexual relationships and political correctness run amok to the point of near insanity, where a man is required to read a woman her sexual Miranda rights and obtain some sort of verbal affirmation that sexual congress is desired other than the woman’s non-resisting, non-complaining acquiescence to sexual relations. If women want to be fully empowered they need to take some degree of responsibility for their actions. This notion that a woman has any business bringing charges against a man, because post coitus she realizes she wasn’t sexually Mirandized, infantilizes women and assumes them to be spineless, brainless, bovine victims, powerless against the irresistiable power of male seduction.
To be accused of the absolutely horrific assault crime of “rape” because some unassertive loon makes an after the fact, post coitus determination that she really wasn’t all that comfortable with the way things panned out, and for you to sit there and say “but I wouldn’t shed too many tears for them if they did find themselves having to explain things to a judge” as an accused violent criminal, because they were what …an insensitive lover?!, is simply, IMO, a vile and unspeakably disgusting attitude.
This society places some degree of responsibility on adults to be adults and say “No I don’t want to” if they do not wish to engage in sexual relations. That unassertive women should be given a pass on this requirement, and be allowed to consider themselves rape victims because the man did not ask specifically if she wanted to go to bed, but she did not resist physically at any time or say “no” at any time is simply and utterly insane.
I did not specify that consent must be verbally expressed; in fact, I quite plainly said that it did not. Physical participation is a perfectly sufficient sign of consent. I also did not specify the sex of the parties in my post. I am aware, if you are not, that both the victim and the assailant in a consensual sex act or a rape may be of either sex. And I think that if either party, regardless of their sex, is “non-resisting” and “non-complaining” in the sense of lying still and silent then the other party has a responsibility to put a little effort into determining whether or not that actually indicates consent rather than something else entirely, such as paralyzing fear or a drunken stupor.
And no, I am not going to be crying for the poor, insensitive clod who thought that the sexual consent of an unresponsive partner could be safely assumed, as if consent were some sort of default state. Someone who cares that little about consent is a rapist waiting to happen. If being accused of rape by some weirdo who consented in his or her heart but never showed any outward sign of it is what it takes for such a person to change their MO of having sex with anyone who doesn’t resist, then so be it. All the better for the potential victims who wouldn’t resist because for whatever reason they couldn’t, and the better for the potential rapist who is spared becoming an actual rapist.
**
That’s a very peculiar notion indeed, and you certainly didn’t get it from my post. You may misinterpret me as you like, but I think it should be clear that your response has more to do with the baggage you’ve already got than anything I have actually said.
It is obvious I am not talking about women who are unconscious or in an absolute drunken stupor where they cannot react. Things done to women in such a state is taking advantage of an incapacitated person and is rape and should be prosecuted to the extent of the law if the charge is valid.
It’s this “paralyzed with fear”, frightened fawn notion of an adult woman not being physically or verbally threatened in any manner whatsoever, not saying “stop” or “no” or “I’ve got a headache” and yet going through the motions (quite possibly with little gusto), and then after the fact deciding that he never really asked her specifically if she wanted to have sex, he just was just so persistent and insistent in his desire to want to go to bed that she was too scared and intimidated to do anything else but acquiesce to his desires.
This puts the onus on the man to divine her state of mind beyond his assumption that she is agreeing by taking off her clothes and opening her legs at his suggestions to have sex. In the context of real world sexual relationships this is an absurd duty to impute to the man, and assumes every adult women he is going to bed with is an incipient mental defective. A woman is the gatekeeper to her own sexuality and it is her responsibility to say “no” in some form or fashion if she does not want to have sex and not expect the man to offer her some verbal pre-flight checklist of her willingness to have sex.
Again, it is simply beyond belief that you would not mind putting someone through the horrific process of being an accused violent criminal for essentially the crime of seducing an adult woman who never resisted the suggestion to have sex and never said “no”. Then to specify further that prosecuting him legally is a good thing because he was insufficiently attentive to her state of mind and that insensitive lovers of his ilk are incipient rapists that should be taught a lesson. My God… that you apparently seriously believe that a person can and should be prosecuted in this context is literally among the most frightening things I have seen a rational adult post in the three years I have participated in this board.
Hmm, anyone here been unfortunate enough to see the movie “40 Days and 40 Nights”. Be warned that this post contains spoilers, but it is pertinent to the discussion.
Anyway, near the end of the film, the main character is quite clearly raped by his ex-girlfriend, and the movie happily places the blame on the guy who was raped (in that he blames himself and the girl who likes him blamed him too); at no point does anyone consider the actions of the ex to be anything more than devious.
So it seems that rape can be a male victim’s fault, if it serves the purpose of a movie.
And suddenly here we go again with you making women out to be victims. I never said a person had to be a woman to be “paralyzed with fear”, so why are you interpreting my statements that way? I think it is possible, if fortunately very rare, that a person of either sex who has a history of serious sexual abuse might be so terrified by aggressive sexual advances that they would fail to resist because their past experience has taught them that resisting only makes things worse. I feel sorry for such people, but you seem to believe that everyone else in the world should feel perfectly free to take advantage of them.
**
I’m not putting any onus on men. I am saying that if anyone of any sex feels that there can be any doubt as to whether their partner is really consenting then they’d damn well better try to find out.
In the absence of any verbal or physical indication of consent, what do you think is the best way to disinguish between someone who is unresisting because they are an utterly passive lover and someone who is unresisting because there is something wrong with them that has left them unable to resist? My brilliant solution to this problem is to talk to the other person. This isn’t just the nice thing to do, it’s the only way to be sure that you are having consensual sex with a very passive partner as opposed to raping someone who is unable to put up a fight.
**
Have you somehow failed to miss the two previous times I have specifically mentioned physical participation as a form of consent? Are you reading my posts at all?
That you are so blinded by your prejudices that you would attribute this belief to me when I have quite obviously said nothing of the sort is rather frightening to me, although it’s not going to keep me up nights.
My apologies for posting again before anyone has responded to my last one, but I have been thinking that in the interest of avoiding any possible confusion it would be best to present a clearer summary of my position.
k2dave asked about the difference between expressing dissent and simply failing to express consent. I think we can all agree that both dissent and consent may be expressed verbally or physically (e.g. pushing someone away for dissent or taking off your own underwear and hopping onto the bed for consent). I think we can also all agree that if one party expresses dissent then the other party is both morally and legally obligated to stop. If both parties express consent then it’s all systems go, provided there aren’t any other complicating factors such as one person being below the legal age of consent.
So the only question is, what does one do in situations where one party fails to express either dissent or consent? In cases where it should be apparent that the unexpressive person is unconscious or in some way physically or mentally incapacitated then it’s obviously rape to engage in sexual activity with them, but what about when there is no obvious reason why the person is being unexpressive? Legally, I’m not sure what the answer to this question is. Morally, however, I think it should be clear that the absence of expressed dissent does not indicate consent. I’d boil this down to one simple phrase:
Consent cannot be taken for granted.
I don’t know why astro has taken this to mean “If you give consent, but feel bad about it later, you can revoke it retroactively”, especially since in my previous post to k2dave I said that I didn’t think there was anyone out there who seriously believed such a thing. It’s like saying that someone should be allowed to lend their car keys to a friend and then change their mind and call the police to report a stolen vehicle. What reasonable person could possibly support such a claim?
What I do believe is that people who take consent for granted when consent has not been expressed are doing something that is morally wrong and leaving themselves open to rape accusations. They can never even be sure whether such accusations are true or not, since they didn’t bother to make sure that their partner was consenting. For all they know the other person wasn’t consenting or perhaps wasn’t even capable of consenting. It doesn’t require any special effort or supernatural ability to clear up such a mystery ahead of time, all it takes is asking. It’s not hard to do at all. If the other person has done nothing to express consent then there’s no reason to wait for them to start fighting you off, just ask them what they want to do.
If someone fails to do this very simple thing and ends up being accused of rape then I don’t feel sorry for them at all. And I’m not going to let anyone make me feel guilty about that, especially someone who has already said that “real world common sense sympathy for the victims in these scenarios [young women raped after passing out at frat parties, etc.] is likely to [be] as limited as it would be for a man who struts through a dangerous area of town at midnight flashing a large roll of cash and gets mugged”.
In the complex interplay between two people that precedes sexual relations some patterns have been laid down over time that people often (not always) follow. One of these is that in almost all cases the woman is ultimately in control of the seduction process and can (and should) say “stop” and/or physically disengage herself from the process if she wants it to stop even if she initiates relations.
While it would be convenient for sexual lawyers if the man would offer stop/go options at various points during this process, the real world nature and process of seduction is not usually scripted like this, and a man will tend to push ahead if not dissuaded at some point in the process. A woman who exhibits passivity and lack of enthusiasm while getting undressed and spreading her legs at the man’s suggestions (or pleadings) to have sex is not normally seen as the walking wounded by a standard issue man, but someone he potentially will be able to get more involved and excited about the prospect of lovemaking via his mad skillz at the romantic arts.
In this scenario where you have a woman going out on dates or otherwise meeting men who becomes emotionally numb at the prospect of sex, it is going to be difficult to impossible for a man to parse out silent acquiescence to his lovemaking prowess from someone who is emotionally damaged and just going along out of fear or tired resignation, without stopping the process in mid-seduction and having a discussion. To have a real world expectation that an eager man is going to stop a woman undressing and getting into bed and quiz her as to her state of mind is unrealistic. Seduction is a mutually focused act and women are assumed to have volitional control over the proceedings and the process.
It is not morally wrong to take consent for granted if the person you are trying to seduce is going along with your suggestions and has not evidenced any degree of mental dysfunction or disability to date. In the face of a non-threatening exhortation to have sex men usually take lack of resistance and acquiescence to be a default state of consent. This is the way the game has always worked and the way the rules have been understood by both men and women to operate. Sexual seduction is a nuanced interplay of desire, display, intelligence and entertainment binding what is essentially controlled possession of a valued resource. You are now adding an additional duty to make additional determinations when the partner is passive or otherwise unenthusiastic which men usually view as an additional challenge to their seductive powers, not a crippling mental dysfunction.
Our main disagreement comes down to who is responsible for determining consent and despite your protestations to the contrary you are imputing a duty on men to be in charge of determining that, in the absence of any threat or physical coercion, and while the woman is exhibiting behaviors that would indicate acquiescence, they have a moral duty to go an additional step with a passive acquiescing partner and inquiring about her state of mind, and whether she really, really wants to have sex after all. And if he does not, he is not simply guilty of bad sexual manners or being a boorish lover, but he is guilty of rape. People are assumed to be grownups and occasionally it will happen that, for whatever reason, an emotionally fragile person will go along with being seduced even if her heart and soul were not onboard during the process. After the fact the person that acquiesced can determine not to put herself in a situation where she is vulnerable to being seduced again, but she does not have the latitude to consider her clueless seducer a “rapist”. IMO that attitude is what is morally indefensible.
Consider this scenario: a guy and a girl are having sex. The guy is on top, the girl is not being very gun-ho but she isn’t resisting, has her arms around him, and is kissing him back. She’s not saying anything, maybe because she’s scared for whatever reason or whatever, but in the girl’s head she’s thinking ‘no, stop, I don’t want to do this’.
Now, I don’t know about legally, but in Kezermezer land I would still consider this rape. However, I would take the blame off the guy cause he can reasonably believe she is consenting. But I wouldn’t put the blame on the girl either (I’m sure there are a gazillion scenarios out there I have yet to consider, but so far I don’t believe rape can ever be the victim’s fault). That’s the closest I can come, but it’s still not her fault.
RE a woman wanting to be raped…
Consider another scenario: A woman is walking home by herself late at night. Some guy pulls her into an alley, rips her clothes off, and proceeds to have sex with her. He doesn’t care about her at all so he’s not looking at her to see if she’s consenting-- obviously he’s thinking she’s not. However, the woman happens to be the type who enjoys rape-fantasies, and she’s actually finding herself excited by this and is enjoying being raped.
Are you trying to meaninglessly argue semantics, or what.
The fault of the crime is always the criminal.
The rapist is always to blame.
However, victims can be at fault for not avoiding or for not being able to defend themselves.
Most victims of rape, robbery, even fire, are vicitims because they dont prepare themselves for lifes risks.
A person who loses everything becuase they dont have smoke detectors, fire insurance, and good electrical wiring, is at “fault” for not preventing fire.
A woman who is not aware of her surroudings, who walks alone at night in bad neighborhoods, and who is not well armed, trained and ready to shoot an assailant, is at “fault” for not taking the proper steps to avoid danger and defend herself.
I don’t wish to imply that I speak for all women or that I am the ultimate arbiter in this mater, but I happen to agree with Astro on this. And maybe I am coming to the same conclusion from a different angle.
It so happens that many women don’t show much enthusiasm in the mechanics of love-making even if they genuinely wish to participate in said act. Many a time acting demure is part of the seduction strategy, sometimes a woman just want to be pleased. There are all kinds.
It is the responsibility of BOTH participants to express dissent if they don’t feel like going ahead, obviously it is much easier for a woman to devine the man’s intent (they have that little thingy that advertises their arousal), thus it all comes down to the woman to express dissent when there has been a chain of events that might lead the man to believe she is accepting his advances.
We don’t need to be overprotected. We even have the right to have lousy lovers, and to have sex even if we are unenthusiastic about it. It is the woman’s personal decision and in the same way it HER responsibility to express her intentions if she doesn’t want to have sex.
Rape is a horrible crime. No woman should be subjected to it, and no man should be accused of it just for being a lousy lover. God knows there would not be enough prisons if that was a crime.
I can’t believe that if you are in doubt as to having consent, that asking your partner is too much of a burden. It amazes me that so many seem to think it is.
I say it is merely prudent, especially in a state such as Illinois where lack of resistance does not impy consent, by law.
This is what I have a problem with, being selfish and inconsiderate are characteristics of a lousy lover, but a lousy lover is not a rapist per se. I sure as hell would not like to have sex against my wish, but I don’t want to be interrogated each and every ocassion I have sex. Somebody so spineless to stand up for herself (assuming s/he’s not been coerced) to say no doesn’t have any business acussing anyone of being a rapist.
A person should never put the rest of the world in the position of having to ascertain their true feelings and later feeling cheated if other people were less than psychics, this only help to enforce the stereotypes that women say one thing when they mean another. A sad thing I believe.
Somebody so spineless that s/he don’t stand up for him/herself (assuming s/he’s not been coerced) and say no doesn’t have any business acussing anyone of being a rapist.
Sorry bout that. I was referring to this scenario when I wrote that post. I didn’t realize I hadn’t pointed to it clearly.
Apologies for taking so long to respond, but I’ve been pretty busy this last week or so.
I feel Astro is misunderstanding Lamia… He has mentioned in his last post a woman taking off her clothing and jumping into bed and bemoans that he still must ask for consent? Has not Lamia already mentioned this is an act of consent? So, what’s the problem here?
If I’m taking off my clothing and jumping in someone’s bed…that’s a pretty clear sign that I am consenting at that point in time (if he then tries to hurt me or pushes too fast, and I then resist or say no, that’s another situation entirely).
However, there is also nothing wrong with asking.
‘Is this okay?’ ‘Do you like this?’ and just trying to make the other person feel more comfortable with the situation will not only alleviate any worries of taking advantage of another person, but make the sexual act much more fulfilling for both parties.