I’m not interested in doing this, and if anyone thinks they should do this, then I disagree with them.
Jumping in to agree, it was rape.
Indeed, rape is rape regardless of the throws of passion or not. If consent is withdrawn so should the act withdraw. BTW for what it’s worth I’m a baby boomer of the 2nd wave born in '59 and for years I was horrified about how cavalier the discussion was about sex that wasn’t mutal. I hated when my parents and grand parents would snicker at the thought of women’s rights. I didn’t understand it, but I knew that I didn’t want to live like that. What I saw was a long suffering mother who was the traditional 50’s housefrau raising 5 of us while my Dad spent long hours away from home. There was no equality in their relationship, but my mother was determined to make the idea of perfect gender roles her reality. This doesn’t have much to do with rape, but it does have to do with a mind set.
Although my first boyfriend was a jerk, (habitual liar) he didn’t ruin my first experience with sex because he actually respected my decision to stop. To be fair, that would have been I think very difficult being teenagers and highly charged. Regardless he would have been a rapist if he continued, even though I had romantic feelings towards him. Sometimes we need to be very exacting in our language because emotions will try very hard to dissuade us from what is really happening.
Three questions, or at least, three question types:
- What is rape?
- How should the law define rape?
- If [situation X] is rape, what should people do about it?
There’s been some attempt above to allow an answer to questions 1 and 2 be simply stipulated for Stoid’s scenarios, and to attempt to concentrate on question 3 instead. There’s some validity to doing that! But there have been far too many subsequent slips of the typing-hand that showed that really, what everyone is really thinking about, is question 1. People keep–accidentally or not–slipping back into the question of whether this or that scenario really “is rape” or not.
Let’s just cut to that chase then.
What is rape?
If Stoid’s first scenario isn’t rape–technically or wholeheartedly or whatever–then what is?
I define rape as having sexual intercourse with a person absent their consent. What do you define rape as?
If you define it in the same way, why is there any question at all in anyone’s mind here as to whether Stoid’s scenarios constitute rape? Of course they do!
But if you define it in some other way, I’m interested in hearing about that.
Meanwhile, if we’re all agreed about what rape is, and that the two scenarios are indeed rape, let’s clearly and steadfastly hold to the project of just answering question number three–what should be done about such a situation?
My answer is, we ask the person who was raped what that person wants done about the situation. And if it’s feasible and legal, we give serious weight to the idea that we ought to do that.
Which leads to the legality question, question number 2 above. How should the law define rape? Why not simply as sexual intercourse without consent? And then anyone who does this runs the risk of being punished by the law. This seems a simple solution to me, and one that puts the power where it should be–in the hands of those who are raped.
What is the worry?
What if someone is merely mildly annoyed by being raped, but is later convinced by others to feel much more strongly about it? What should we do in such a case? My answer is, since rape is defined as above, and since the law (in my hypothetical, and basically in real life albeit with complications) defines it that way as well, it is perfectly reasonable for the person who was raped to pursue charges. So that person changed their mind about how they felt about it. What relevance does that have to the question of whether the crime was committed or not? The definition of the crime does not include a clause about the victim’s state of mind.
Should it? How would we legislate such a thing? How would we enforce it?
If you genuinely, really do think (as everyone seems to have stipulated here) that feeling horribly and deeply wronged by the acts described by Stoid is a reasonable reaction, then you must infer that when the man in those scenarios did what he did, he did something he could reasonably be expected to understand was reasonably to be felt as a horrible, deep wrong against the person he was raping. Given that fact, I cannot see how you could think it unjust to prosecute the guy. What he did not only breaks a law and fits the definition of rape, it also was the kind of action which we all understand a reasonable person can feel horribly, deeply and fundamentally wronged by.
Don’t we?
Jesus fucking christ, lady. Fucking propaganda. Look in the mirror. What I’d like you to do is read somebody else’s posts every now and then. We all want things, I guess.
At no point has anyone been telling you how people should feel about their own experiences. I had a girl climb on top of me, rub my crotch and put her tongue in my mouth once, and I wasn’t into it and hadn’t at all indicated that I was into it. I don’t feel like a shitty person or that I don’t belong in my own skin as a result. I never think about it. Nevertheless, we use words to talk about things. The words that apply to that scenario are “sexual assault.”
I think we’re all talking past each other now.
I agree–my last post was intended to clear that up.
Yes, the '50’s were a set back period before the second wave took hold, and that mindset we grew up with was a large part of what drove second wave feminism. My early childhood wasn’t as rigid as you describe because my parents were beatniks (!), but I remember watching those sitcoms where women lived that way and thinking I never ever wanted to get married if that’s what it would be like.
I agree, but it’s a problem because emotions are the driving force when these scenarios occur, and there’s an element of injustice if one party decides it wasn’t consent after the fact. I think we need to educate both young men and young women about the possible repercussions when these scenarios play out, and not just assume it is the men who should know better and behave accordingly. I don’t think that qualifies as blaming the victim if it is done as a way to prevent anyone from becoming a victim. But it’s difficult to get that point across without getting shouted down or misunderstood.
Help clear that up, I meant.
Okay, but you still asked three questions in one post. This part of it is a sticking point for me:
My bold.
I don’t see how it is reasonable to expect the man to know it was a “horrible deep wrong” if the woman didn’t think so at the time. How could it have been adequately conveyed to him if she didn’t perceive it that way while it was happening? I don’t think “mild annoyance” is a reasonable indication of withdrawal of consent.
This is part of the problem with other people convincing you to feel differently after the fact (there are other problems with it as well, but let’s concentrate on that one now to avoid confusion).
Exactly!
And Frylock, I admire the attempt, but you actually missed the mark. The question is not so much what is rape, but what is consent?
Just as an example of one aspect of the question of defining consent: the reason it was once considered impossible to rape a spouse is because the cultural presumption was that marriage itself was permanent consent.
We no longer believe that there is such a thing as permanent consent. Okay… So at what point must consent be “renewed”, so to speak? In my extreme scenario, it appears many people think it must be “renewed”, as it were, between thrusts. Yes, it seems exaggerated, but if a woman who has been participating enthusiastically up to and including multiple “thrusts” says “stop” and he doesn’t do so immediately, he risks transitioning from lover to rapist in seconds.
I think we have firmly established that we will not find universal agreement about this.
And that is just one of the many issues that keep “sex without consent” from being a simple solution to defining rape.
Yes, consent is central to the discussion, but if I had listed that one, Camille would have accused me of asking four questions!*
What’s your proposal? If rape isn’t sex absent consent, then what is it?
And if it is sex absent consent, then on what basis could we reasonably deny a person in either of the two scenarios the right to pursue charges? And whose judgment should this be left up to?
(Note that in both scenarios, an explicit “no” has been uttered. For that reason it’s not really clear to me why anyone would seize on consent as the central issue to talk about for these scenarios, since I’m assuming everyone agrees a clear and explicit “no” (absent some “safeword” agreement) constitutes withdrawal of consent. Do we not?)
*BTW I didn’t ask three questions. I pointed out that three questions are being confused with each other in this thread. I didn’t take this to be new information to anyone, but it seemed useful to emphasize the fact.
Your comments and questions are thoughtful and intelligent, but I admit not being completely sure what your question is. If it’s:
Then the answer is that any thoughtful, intelligent, moral person would want boys and girls to become healthy, sexually functional adults.
The problem is that college students have become the latest pawns in the culture war between feminists and I guess… anyone feminists consider to be their enemies.
College girls and women are a group of people everyone wants to make sure are safe. Feminists are capitalizing on the fear they might not be safe.
In a quick google search, the oldest law that clearly made consent an element of the crime was from 1275:
There may be older ones, this was just the first one I found.
You might be glad to hear More college men are fighting back against sexual misconduct cases. One recently won his case in Federal Court, though I don’t remember now which one it was.
Consent was very different in the past. Wives couldn’t refuse consent, for the most part, until recently.
A single law from the 13th century against rape doesn’t contradict this at all.
My impression is that date rape is not much different than it is here in the USA.
What I described was my first sexual experience, and if he didn’t stop I would have been hurt both physically and emotionally. Pressure was the name of the game when it came to intercourse, and I felt enormously pressured into the act without being ready. It was the basis of all of our disagreements, regardless if we were together intimately or just discussing the weather, this always came up. It was a constant tug of war, even though I felt romantic towards him, I was not willing to give up my virginity at 15. I was in love with the idea of being in love, but I knew he wasn’t my forever partner. I was a child in a woman’s body, and although I felt in control of an intimate situation, I never thought he would hurt me, I wasn’t sure of what would have happened if he ignored my pleas. Luckily for me he was considerate and was willing to wait. Boys need to be taught to wait and not give in to urges, no matter how exciting or desperate they seem. Our society unfortunately has a different view and would consider my reluctance a “cock tease” Hell, I hardly knew what it looked like, let alone tease someone about it.
What are the basic truths?
I’ll add that there’s no agenda or hostility in the question. I’m curious.
My comment wasn’t confined to the issue of rape, first of all-this thread happened to catch me when I had been spending time listening to (rational) anti-feminists and (reasonable) mens rights activists, who were expressing many things I had been thinking for a long time, as well as things I had never even considered.
I was excited, until I realized how much bickering and snide mockery and dismissiveness so many voices on both sides were engaged in, then I just got bummed.
But as far as this specific area? One example: women DO lie about sexual assault.
Another? Sometimes no DOES mean yes.
And this simplebut really very important truth: sex is a particularly messy, confusing, profound, complicated, intense, emotional and vulnerable area of life. I think its safe to say that it takes up the top five spots all by itself. So it is foolhardy to imagine that we can ever come up with a nice, tidy way of dealing with the issue of sexual assault. It’s impossible, because sex, and sexual assault or not nice and tidy, anythiing but.
Which means, to my mind, that instead of weighting everything for or against one or the other, hopelessly striving for simplicity, strive for workable ways to do our best (and our best will still be imperfect, for the reasons just stated) to be respectful of both parties, without sacrificng reason or the search for truth. Don’t throw him on the fire on her say so, and don’t dismiss her as a hysteric. But on the other hand, don’t coddle her like a child and don’t give him a wink and a nudge.
I read a very good essay today onthe subject that could almost have been written by me, insofar as the content goes. And interestingly it was written 20 years ago, which I find amazing.
Check it out.