The reality of course is that most humans actually can sort this out. For one, any man with half a brain wouldn’t make a move on a woman he barely knows. For two, most men with half a brain learn to read signals and know when it’s okay to make a move.
Thirdly, when it’s not a case of some random creeper at a party making a move, but someone who at least may have had some reasonable expectation of it being desired, and the woman isn’t interested, and brushes you off then that usually isn’t seen as a big thing by anyone. The person in the anonymous story was confronted with a man who didn’t accept that first brush off (and even further, even making a move wasn’t really acceptable in that scenario since they barely knew each other and presumably he also knew she had a boyfriend since she was at the party with him), and that’s when it crosses a line. Not to sexual assault, but absolutely to inappropriate (and likely criminal in some jurisdictions) behavior.
So then how the hell are we supposed to express that we don’t want to have sex with someone? If the words “stop” and “no” aren’t considered useful indications, what is? Should we just start biting and scratching at anyone who comes on to us? Or are you still going to argue that heya how are you supposed to know they meant she’s not in to it?
Or are you really just arguing that if there is any possible chance a woman might possibly give it up, you should be able to forge on ahead because god forbid you miss a chance for some pussy, no matter how unenthusiastic and unhappy the human that pussy is connected to may be. Is the occasional rape the price that women have to pay because men really want to have sex and some of them don’t feel like they should be responsible for making sure the feeling is mutual?
Consent is not hard. It’s really easy to get unambiguous consent, even from women playing out rough-sex fantasies. Nobody is saying if a woman says “no” you should turn around and walk out the door without a word. Just figure out if you are about to rape her or if you are about to have consensual sex and proceed accordingly.
Her take on it is the topic of the thread. We’re taking what she says happened and discussing whether the situation she described constitutes sexual assault. Treat it as a hypothetical if you want; it makes no difference to the discussion.
As for the rest of your post, I disagree with your views on what women want. Women generally like a man who’s self-confident but they generally don’t like a man who’s intimidating. The problem women face is some men can’t tell the difference between self-confidence and intimidation.
My personal opinion is the men who are using intimidation lack self-confidence. A self-confident man has no problem with giving a woman a choice; he’s sure she’ll say yes. An intimidating man is trying to take away a woman’s choice; he’s afraid she’ll say no.
Actually they weren’t. Walter White noted in Rope and Faggot: A Biography of Judge Lynch that only about 1/3rd of lynchings involved any accusation of assault on a white woman.
Oh, oops, missed this earlier. Yeah, obviously in cases of false accusations the accused person is the victim.
My argument is that since instances of rapists escaping prosecution are vastly more common than instances of women making false rape accusations, if we’ve got a situation where a woman is claiming she was raped and there’s no real evidence one way or the other, I will err on the side of believing that the woman is telling the truth.
The thing with the “kangaroo courts” is that given the nature of acquaintance rapes, it is very common that there isn’t enough evidence to reliably secure prosecution in a criminal court, but that doesn’t mean the university has to just pretend the rape didn’t occur. In fact it would be somewhat negligent to just let a suspected rapist continue to hang around the campus.
A recent directive from the Department of Education* has said just that. University disciplinary hearings about sexual assaults are required to use a preponderance of the evidence standard which means that they only have to determine that it was more likely than not that a rape occurred, as opposed to “beyond a shadow of a doubt” in a criminal hearing. This means that in the all-too-common case where there isn’t enough evidence to actually prosecute an acquaintance rape but still some evidence suggesting the rape occurred, the university can at least expel the rapist.
Which is rather unfair - it’s somebody’s future you’re talking about here -
And “more likely than not” is, in my mind, a pretty low standard for the damage that you’re inflicting. Especially for something that could be genuinely down to a poor reading of signals, or something that may not have had “the intent to rape” behind it.
Note: I have had the experience before – I was around 19, a drunk girl came onto me, and we snuck away for happy time. Later she was upset about it. By the standard being applied here I would be guilty of rape and kicked out of university had she wanted to pursue it. However, nothing would have been further from my mind, I would not and could not force myself on someone. I was young and foolish - but I was not forcing her. Now, quarter of a century later with better understanding and experience under my belt I know - no doubt as does she. But back then? I was just young and naieve
Why is it our job to absorb the occasional rape so that people who are “poor at reading signals” don’t have to worry too much?
If you are so poor at reading signals that you are prone to putting your penis in people against their will, that’s 100% your cross to bear. I don’t care how you deal with it-- seek affirmative consent, learn about body language, avoid women, whatever. There actually are good, workable options.
What you don’t get to do is merrily make your way through life considering the occasional rape as acceptable collateral damage for your social awkwardness.
If young men don’t understand the difference between “this person wants to have sex with me” and “this person does not want to have sex with me” the answer is more education, not just writing it off when they rape people.
The problem here is that for so long, rape was written off as “boys will be boys” and the impact on the victim was completely disregarded (or worse). Maybe one day we will get away from that. But until then, conversations like this are going to look like apologism.
As to whether it’s sexual assault, yes. Pretty clear to me – touching someone in a sexual way when they say “no” is sexual assault.
As to whether names should be publicized, that’s up to the victim. If they choose to talk publicly, that’s fine and that’s their choice. If they don’'t want to, that’s fine and that’s their choice. And in general I think it’s appropriate to trust women, while recognizing that there exists some small chance that the allegations are false.
And in any case, that only links the lynchings and the extralegal consequences of false accusations. This does not make the modern false accusation the equivalent of the lynching. I’m in no way advocating vigilante executions meted out in consequence of false rape accusations. Name-and-shame on a blog isn’t lynching, anymore than unfriending someone on Facebook is the same as Amish shunning. Get with the times.
No that’s not what I’m saying, and when people do what you’re doing right now - it puts ALL of the responsibility back on the guy.
How many times have you heard variations of “I was too scared to say no”?
Or “I was afraid of how he would react”?
And then it’s called rape.
What I’m saying is that as much as it’s the guy’s responsibility to get affirmative consent - it’s also the girls responsibility to be clear and unequivocal in saying no.
Let’s put it this way -
Would you accept, in the case of theft, someone saying “yeah, I gave him permission to borrow my car, but only because I was scared he’d be angry if I said no” absent any specific or clearly articulated threats?
Yet in the case of rape, people like you are quite willing to accept things along the line of “he looked angry” as an explicit threat of force.
Except that in the modern context, name and shame on a blog CAN be “life destroying” if it goes viral - just witness how many people have been fired, chased out of town, etc etc for dumb and ill-considered comments,
You won’t have to look too far before you find some pretty serious consequences of unfounded accusations that have led to people losing jobs, losing houses and on and on
a) None of that is comparable to swinging from a poplar tree
b) anyway, I’m not particularly concerned with odd outliers and exceptional cases. We know the rate of reported rape and we know the rate of conviction for rape, and that’s orders of magnitude more than the sum of all people losing jobs, houses etc due to false accusations (which itself is only a subset of false accusations - and I’d venture to guess a much smaller subset)
Yes, rape is 100% the responsibility of the rapist.
I am with you that not every unpleasant sexual encounter is “rape.” Rape is sex where consent is withheld or where the victim was incapacitated and unable to consent. Consensual sex is, definitively, not rape. It isn’t prosecuted as such, and I think discourse to the effect that it is is patronizing and counterproductive.
But if you walk around having sex with resistant, unenthusiastic, blotto or “only mildly protesting” partners, there is a chance that you’ll end up having sex against someone’s will. The obvious solution to this, if you can’t tell the difference between raping someone and having sex with an enthusiastic partner, is to ask.
It’s the responsibility of both parties to ensure that they get unambiguous, express consent. It’s only “all of the responsibility back on the guy” because historically there were a lot of situations in which society did not require the man to care about consent. Now the man has to care. That’s not unfair.
Yes, we do allow for people to say they have been coerced, and based on implied threats too.
How many women are bringing charges against men for merely touching them against their wishes?
I’m fine with calling this “assault” because technically that is what it is. But before I get worked up in a tizzy about the term “sexual assault” being watered-down, I’d like to see evidence of guys having their lives ruined because they merely touched a girl against her wishes.
I see this as no different from assault in general. If someone makes a move to slap me in the midst of an argument and I duck, I have every right to file a report against them. Because they have committed a crime. But chances are I’m not going to be bothered unless this person actually hits me. Why? Because I’ll have my bloodied nose as proof. Why would I embarrass myself by filing a charge against someone that I can’t prove?
So yeah, it’s sexual assault. I’m not seeing the big deal calling it what it is. It’s a crime that can be avoided quite easily. If a person says “don’t touch me”, stop touching them. Any trained monkey can learn how to do this.