In college, I presented a paper for my philosophy of violence course concerning rape. It dealt with various aspects of rape, how society views rape, and the laws it makes concerning it. Noting Illinois revised laws concerning sexual violence, I made a simple suggestion. I suggested that immediately before the initial sexual encounter with a new partner, everyone should obtain verbal consent. Basically, I asserted that just before you are about to have sex for the first time with someone, you should ask them if they really want to have sex. I made it clear that I did not think this should in anyway be the law, but that it should be adopted as a personal standard and that we should teach our sons and daughters to adopt it as well.
I came to this conclusion after months of reading about rape and rape laws. In Illinois, the law states that a lack of resistance does not imply consent. It does not specify exactly what does constitute consent, but I reasoned that uncoerced verbal consent would be sufficient and clear. Since this was only a suggestion for the first sexual encounter, it did not seem too burdensome. I added the immediately prior because people do changer their mind in the course of an evening.
Is this a good standard? Is this too much to ask of people? Would it make any difference? If it is too much to ask of people, then explain why.
but one that’s already been implemented. At VA Tech, at least, and I think other schools as well. According to the school’s code of conduct, verbal permission must be obtained for . . . er, each and every step of the process.
I don’t think it should be mandated, but it might be helpful if you are ever accused of rape. Assuming, of course, that you can prove that your partner was not drunk. Oh, and that you taped everything. (Thinking about it, the sale of those tapes might provide you with a little extra pocket money, too . . . hmm, that might come in handy.)
Let’s see…hormones are a hoppin’ - I’m throbbing - she’s grinding against me telling me how wet she is for me and the next step is …that I stop, look deep into her eyes and say “Do you really want to have sex?”
Is this a good standard? Liability wise probably, but it’s hardly practical.
Is this too much to ask of people? It’s not “too much” it’s simply a silly conceit to think that people are going to do this in the midst of pro-ceative passion.
Would it make any difference? If followed “yes” but as those chances are slim and none the answer is “no”.
Your intent is well meaning but the real world patterns of dating and mating since time began do not bode well for this “seductus interruptus”. The only environment strange enough in which something this contrived would even be entertained is a University setting, and in point of fact, there have beeen at least one or more universities over the past several years that have attemped to require this sort of sexual Miranda warning and been subject to withering ridicule because of it. Some may be requiring it still.
When I made this suggestion while reading my paper, i was shouted down and could not continue. When I tried to explain my position, I was talked over and ignored as if i were not speaking.
How exactly would you prove that she said yes? It doesn’t seem to me that it would actually make any difference. Most rape cases already come down to his word against hers, why is adding this going to make a difference? Are there really that many “mistake” rapes, meaning the guy thought she wanted it and she really didn’t? I doubt it would have any effect at all, unless you recorded it(and who the hell is gonna remember to do that?) or got it in writing(same problem).
You have no idea how much fun this can be with very trusting friends: you just start something and keep asking until they’ve had enough and shout “RED ZONE! RED ZONE!”.
Lee, I did exactly this when I was 20. This girl and I were deep in the throes of passion. Making out, heavy petting, I had her top and bra off, her pants unzipped, she was putting her hands all over me. Then I stopped and asked her if she wanted to have sex. She goes cold, pulls away and says she wasn’t that kind of girl. The thing is, she was that kind of girl. It was my asking that nixed the deal.
Now I realize I could have had better technique in asking, but it doesn’t change the fact that I was basically penalized for asking. I don’t know if things would play the same way the way things are today, but the problem is asking spoils chemistry. My philosophy now is not to ask, but to listen for no. What I mean is when I seduce a woman I don’t ask for permission but I stay sensitive to her wishes and would quit if she told me to stop.
The problem is that consent prior to the act assumes consent during the act, which may not be the case.
Say I’m rolling around on the couch with Jane, and just as we’re about to start to undoing each other’s buttons and snaps, I ask (in a throaty voice meant to indicate a near painful lust) “how ‘bout a steamhosin’, baby?” She says yes, and we proceed.
Ten minutes later, she’s getting freaked out because I just went to the fridge and returned with a tub of margarine, a bag of oranges, and some mosquito coils I found on the cupboard. She decides she’s not so into it, and says she wants to go.
Does the fact that she already consented to a good steamhosin’ mean that I may now force her to submit to my particular brand of pleasure? Of course not. If I continued in the face of her rejection, I’d be guilty of rape. Her earlier consent means nothing if she changes her mind in the middle. I’m still under a moral and legal obligation to desist. The same goes for half-serious proposals I’ve heard about signing a contract beforehand.
Like it or not, there’s no safety for a man from a charge of rape, beyond paying attention to signals, avoiding sex with girls who are drunk or stoned (and thus can’t be considered to consent in the same fashion as they would if they were of a clear mind), and stopping at the first “no”. Morally and legally, a man is obligated to stop even if he’s on the cusp himself (as I’ve had to do in the past, and done); it sucks, but it’s the right thing to do, and no prior guarantee will prevent that.
Actually, there seem to be some rapes that are clearly rapes form the point of view of the law and the woman, but not from the rapist.
Not my own but, Anecdote alert: One case I found was that of a woman who went out with a co worker who raped her on the date she reported it, but the cops said it was he say she say, but if he would admit to doing what she said he did it was clear cut. She wore a wire and met with him to talk about what happened. The police promptly arrested him and he was convicted on the basis of his own statements, all the while never believing he had done any thing wrong.
Just wondering - what type of academic institution were you attending where the unpopular idea in class gets such rude treatment? Where was the professor? If such a thing occurred in my class, I’d stop the procedings right there and then and explain the idea of civil intellectual discourse and the concept of courtesy. There are forums and opportunities for heated debate, and times those things are definitely called for - but shouting down a presentation - even in an undergraduate course - is a pathetic excuse for expressing a difference of opinion. It’s a pathetic excuse for education, too. And doesn’t speak too highly about your college.
It depends on what you’re trying to accomplish with the YIP suggestion (Yes Immediately Prior). It certainly wouldn’t hurt, but I’m not sure what it would actually accomplish
If the purpose is to prevent/curtail rape and sexual assault, I don’t think it would make much difference. I just did a quick search and was unable to find data, but how many rapes are of the true “I thought she consented” variety - where she didn’t resist or voice a “no” but truly didn’t want to and felt pressure/coerced, and he innocently went ahead? Very few I would guess. And those men who coerce to obtain sex would likely coerce a “yes” to a YIP question. It’s sort of like preaching to the choir - those men who would employ YIP are the least likely to impose unwanted sex on a woman. If one is of the disposition to be concerned, as one should be, as to whether the sex is indeed consensual, one is unlikely to be of the disposition to coerce in the first place. Men who have trouble understanding “NO”…will still have trouble understanding “NO”. I had a situation years ago with a woman. We got quite involved physically one night, and as we were about to do the deed, I sensed she didn’t really want to - nothing verbal, no overt physical signals, just some…body language, a lessening of passion…something. I asked “You don’t want to do this do you?”, but I didn’t need to ask - I knew. We watched TV.
If the goal is to cut down on false accusations of rape (not a huge problem, I don’t think), then you’d better - as Rosie said - have a tape, something signed…or a long string of sexual partners whom you YIP’d, who you can then trot out to at least establish a pattern of behavior. And there are better ways of assuring against a charge of rape, such as getting to know your partner before bumping uglies (damn I sound old).
If the goal is to “raise consciousness” about consent and sexual assault…it couldn’t hurt to teach sons and daughters to YIP. But the same people who wouldn’t dream of borrowing your lawn mower without asking feel ok about plowing ahead (pun intended) without much concern for consent, especially if they can “plausibly deny”.
Wanderer: Probably a good thing you asked. Any woman who plays that kind of head game, you don’t want anything to do with. I had a thing, it seems, for being attracted to psychotic head-gaming women for a while in my twenties. That “I’m not that kind of girl/yes I am” trip is indicative of far greater problems ahead.
The moral is that, as a man, you have to be sensitive to the possibility that she doesn’t want to have sex, and to any signals, before or during, that she’s not entirely willing, and to stop when you perceive those signals.
For any crime, you have to be guilty of an act, and an intention to commit that act while knowing that act is wrong. If you honestly believe that she is consenting, then you’re not guilty. For a borderline case, you might be able to get off legally on a “he said, she said” case, but if you’re ignoring signals or conditions that say “I don’t want to have sex with you”, then you’re morally responsible for a rape.
Sorry, hansel, but there are situations in which ‘honest belief’ is not enough. You have to check the totality of the situation. If she is drunk or high and says ‘Yes’, it may not get you off the hook.
I don’t quite see the point behind this anecdote. Do you think that I was saying it never happens? I never said that and don’t see anything that could be interpreted to mean that. Are you saying that in this case it would have prevented it? Perhaps, perhaps not. You can’t say what her response to the question would have been. Perhaps it was one of the “changed her mind after the act” false accusations. Perhaps he would have ignored her no and continued, in which case it comes down to he said, she said. A bit of clarification please.
Very true: the possibility that she doesn’t want to have sex includes the possibility that she would not consent under ‘normal’ circumstances, even if she’s consenting at the time. If she’s completely hosed (not steamhosed, I mean drunk), you can’t assume she would normally consent, and you’re legally and morally guilty of rape.
BTW, am I the only one here who’s into mosquito coils?
The anecdote was not a case of he said/she said. Both people agreed as to the facts, he just seemed to think what he did was ok. The law said it was rape. He had used force, but somehow felt it was ok, that she really wanted it, etc. He was not surprised this woman wanted to talk to him, he expected her to continue dating him!
The attitudes of convicted rapists and college age males are remarkably similar. Athletes who are sexual predators are often condoned. The use of drugs and alcohol in order to render women incapable of resistance is common. And despite the acknoledgment of all you dopers that this also renders a woman incapable of real consent, this aspect is still questioned by many.
Part of why I advocated the YIP standard is that if a person is ready to stop without explicit consent maybe some people will finally wake up and realize that what they tell themselves is consent is not. More importantly, maybe if this standard is taught to our sons and daughters maybe we can avoid raising rapists.
Seems to me that, while most rapes do occur with first-time… Well, shit, I hate to use the word “partners” in this case… Okay, first-time encounters.
However, there is such a thing as spousal rape and ultimately, any sex that is non-consensual can be considered rape.
I’m sure everyone here can see the folly of a couple having to give each other permission on their 35th wedding anniversary ceremonial boinking, but at the same time, what is to stop someone who got consensually laid, comes back for more a bit later and rapes her, and in court she gets to testify that she did say yes to him before?
Sorry, but the OP, while possibly something individuals might wish to practice individually, is way too vague, difficult to enfore and opens up too many other cans of worms for me to think it is a viable solution with regard to legality.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, two weeks, four days, 5 hours, 15 minutes and 27 seconds.
4368 cigarettes not smoked, saving $546.09.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 0 minutes.