cowgirl, I think your response is very articulate and intelligent, especially with regards to the importance of using words accurately.
I am just wondering if you would give an example of non-consensual sex that you don’t feel should be called rape? I am having trouble working out your definition of ''non-consensual."
If “without enthusiasm” means rape, then most of us married guys are going to need good lawyers, fast.
I think there are grey shades. I can’t find it right this moment, but there’s a Dan Savage column where a woman writes in to say that she and her boyfriend were making out, she didn’t want to have sex, he was rubbing up against her and ended up ejaculating on her, later they broke up and she felt violated. Dan said she was right to feel violated, but certainly shouldn’t consider herself raped and should definitely not press any charges. A lot of people wrote in to tell the letter writer that indeed, she was a victim. It’s a good example of an ambiguous situation. (His column often is, though.)
No, it’s not.
No, I can’t.
Yes, there is.
We clearly have wildly divergent definitions of “consent”. Mine is that if you didn’t say no, you consented. “Nonconsensual” does **not ** mean “bad” or “indifferent” or even “unwanted”. It means that you did not agree to it.
The word “rape” is undefined in my world. The only time I would use it in regards to a specific situation is if one of the people involved in the situation used it to describe it. (I’m pedantic that way.)
If the term hasn’t been introduced by someone else (who presumably has their definition for it), I will use the term “sexual assault.” (In Canadian law, as I understand it, this can be modified with words like “aggravated” or “with a weapon” or whatever). I feel that term is much less loaded with the kind of baggage that has been listed above. To my ears, “I was sexually assaulted” has a different connotation than “I was raped.” The former is more neutral with regards to violence and victimization, and it puts the focus on the assaulter, rather than the victim.
There are lots of cases where I’d be more comfortable using “sexual assault” than “rape” - for instance, a stranger groping me on the subway; a drunk and horny guy at a party who needs powerful reminding that “no means no;” an intimate partner who has sex with me when I don’t want to because of the immediate state of our relationship (e.g. “I’m mad at you right now, please let me cool off until morning”); Zoggie’s example from Dan Savage. I would call these things “sexual assault” because “rape” would carry with it implications that I don’t think are accurate.
Keeping in mind these are my personal definitions, and I live in a country with no crime of “rape,” so YMMV.
It is, though. Yes, you literally consented, but in spirit? A mentally impaired person can literally say “yes”; did they consent?
But I don’t think any of these things you have just mentioned would be considered legal ‘‘rape.’’ Rape generally means forced penetration–meaning you explicitly did not consent, or you were unable to consent (children, for example.) So I see you as being absolutely right in calling the subway incident sexual assault and not rape, and I don’t think you’d get much argument here.
I’m not saying people do not make assumptions when they hear the word ‘‘sexual assault.’’ Even though legally it could mean any number of things, most people assume rape. When I discussed my sexual abuse experience earlier on this board, many people assumed I was raped. I was not, though that doesn’t make it any less painful. It just goes along with yet another useless ‘‘survivor’’ meme that the degree of an assault is somehow concretely related to the emotional ramifications is has on the victim.
What we are discussing are two different issues – the cultural connotations of rape and the legal definitions.
It appears you are talking from a strictly legal standpoint, as such, there is an actual legal definition of rape, and as far as I know, none of the examples you mentioned meet it.
Really? I know Canada only made spousal rape illegal in the '80s, but this is sort of surprising.
In spirit? Are you serious?
Are you truly implying that women, in general, are so fragile that they can’t handle the conflict inherent to simply saying no, and thus aren’t to be taken at their word when they say yes?
Depends on the level of impairment. Anyone who isn’t competent to consent to sex probably shouldn’t be left alone too much.
It means having sex against your wishes. Non-consensual sex. Being forced to have sex when you don’t want it. Someone ignoring your request to stop and plowing on in anyway. That’s rape.
It has nothing to do with these things:
We’ve participated in threads wherein the word “racism” is picked apart to death. To me, the semantic issue is the same. When something is important–like racism and rape are–its causes harm when we start creating distinctions and shades of grey where there are none, just to ease people’s sensibilities. It’s like saying “I’m not really racist since I don’t hate anyone and I don’t own a robe; I just think those people are <insert whatever> .”
It’s funny because I absolutely agree with this, but our conclusions are different. I think both words (rape and racism/ist) are largely meaningless unless defined in context. The accusation “You’re a racist!” can not be proven any more than “you’re a rapist!” can, and will inevitably lead to endless, pointless semantic discussions. (That’s why I never use either word unless prompted to). I prefer to define things contextually, to ensure that you’re not using your definition to describe my circumstances. It just makes communication a lot more effective.
I feel like you are not listening to me. In my jurisdiction, rape has no such meaning, and the “rape means penetration” aspect has no resonance with me at all. It is fine that you define it that way, but you asked me for my own personal definition, which is what I provided, and it is consistent with the definition in my jurisdiction.
No, there is not. I am in Canada.
The story quoted in the OP is troubling to me, because it seems to assume that the guy was totally sober and in control, even though the girl was admittedly so drunk that she was “drifting in and out of consciousness.” Is it so hard to imagine that the guy was similarly drunk and just didn’t realize that she was trying to say no? If so, then the guy is guilty of making the assumption that a girl who gets blind drunk and fools around with him also wants to have sex with him; that it amounts to implicit permission, and he should proceed even if he doesn’t receive explicit permission. I’d say that makes him an asshole, but does it rise to rape… I’m not sure what to think.
I guess I don’t understand what context is needed to understand what “I’ve been raped” means.
To me, the statement means “I’ve been forced/coerced to have sex against my will or without my consent.” And that’s all it means until I get more information.
Question–is there any way to read the Cosmo article itself, referenced in the OP’s link? Do we need to actually buy the magazine for that?
I find it interesting that the author can so vividly remember her refusals while drifting in and out of consciousness due to alcohol.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Suppose you found out that a dirty, drug-addicted stranger entered your house and stole some money from your purse. How would you feel? Would you elicit sympathy from friends for your unfortunate ordeal? Now what if you discovered that your boyfriend took a twenty without explicit permission? Would you feel the same? Maybe you would, and I would certainly not want to negate those feeling. However, I know that in the first case I would feel violated and unclean, whereas in the second case I would feel betrayed, and perhaps that it was time to get a new boyfriend. I hope that there would not be undue pressure on me to report him for theft, and that I would be free to make up my own mind as to how I felt, and to what extent a crime had happened to me.
That is precisely my point. I’m not asserting what is rape and what isn’t, rather, I am saying that in this cultural context, an unproblematic definition is next to impossible. We could argue forever about what counts as “rape” and what doesn’t, and even if you and I found agreement on the subject, I guarantee that someone else would come in and disagree. That’s why I’m saying that we need a more nuanced definition, because the alternative is getting drowned in semantic arguments that don’t get us any closer to understanding.
Well put. I agree.
The legal definitions must be clear and unambiguous, and they vary by definition. (Compare US rape laws and Canadian sexual assault laws.)
The cultural definitions depend very much on circumstances and perceptions and can be argued forever.
Without context it has no meaning. If a random stranger approached me on the street and said that to me, absent any other cues I wouldn’t have the slightest idea what to say (other than “oh honey, i’m so sorry”). If a close friend said to me, all I could do is provide emotional support, and I would have to take the lead from my friend to see what kind she needs. If I provide the support a traumatized victim might need, but she is thinking of it as something unpleasant that she healed from fairly easily, it would not be welcome - see posts above about people not feeling as “victimized” as they felt they “should” have been, according to people’s expectations about rape.
That’s what I mean by defining it contextually. “Rape” is just a label. I find it much more productive to describe what happened instead of just naming it, especially if the name is meaningless without that description.
What’s not nuanced about saying that all nonconsensul sex is rape? it’s clean, it’s easy to understand, it gets the job done, it eliminates ambiguity. Who are you to tell a woman who’s been date raped that she wasn’t really raped?
I guess I’m confused as to the point you’re trying to make, then.
This is where my confusion lies. You seem to think that rape in the U.S. implies any number of vague possibly ambiguous nonconsensual situations. You wouldn’t call some skeezy guy groping you on the subway ‘‘rape.’’ You wouldn’t call an overly aggressive frat boy situation ‘‘rape.’’ WE might do that, but that has no resonance with you whatsoever, because you’re from Canada.
My point is, we don’t do that either. The U.S. legal system does not use the same word to describe all of those situations. Not a single one fits the legal definition of rape. We don’t do it culturally, either. Nobody else on the board has indicated that they personally would call any of those things rape. I cannot think of a single person I know, in or out of the U.S., who would do so.
Therefore, I don’t understand why you made this statement.
Have you actually met people who are convinced that all of those things are rape?
That’s not the end of it though. If someone says, “Someone had sex with me without my consent” that also isn’t completely 100% unambiguous. After all, it could have been plain vanilla sex or it could have been kinky sex. It could have been in an apartment or it could have been in a house!
Edited to add: Am I allowed to use “robbed” or “stole” even if I knew the person? If so, what’s the difference? Why all of these special, super-specific descriptions for rapes but not for every other crime?