My rape story
| November 8th, 2005The discussion about the man who claims he can’t be a rapist because his penis is too large set me thinking about my own near-miss a couple of months ago. It feels odd to talk about rape in connection with an experience that was more irritating than traumatic, but technically I came close to being raped and escaped more through luck than through anything I did “right”.
I’d gone out looking for sex: a division of paratroopers were camping in the village for the weekend, and I knew one of them should be willing to give me sex with no strings attached. I met a couple of likely men in the pub - they’d been drinking all evening, while I stayed completely sober because of my pregnancy - and went with them back to their camp.
For a while, everything proceeded in a way that satisfied us all. In the darkness, I didn’t realise immediately that one of the men was no longer wearing a condom - whether accidentally or by design I had no way of knowing. I told him to stop, and offered him two options: he could find and put on another condom, or we could abandon the idea of having sex. For myself, I preferred the first option, but it did depend on the availability of another condom.
Neither of these possibilities suited him. He made several suggestions of his own, none of which adequately covered my objection to unprotected sex. I tried to reason with him, but I found that I had to keep my hand over my crotch throughout the conversation to prevent his attempts to penetrate me without wasting time on discussion.
At that point, I started to worry. He was physically stronger than me, and drunk enough to be deaf to reason. If he decided to force me physically, there was little I could do about it. I began to imagine the recriminations I would face if I had to report him for raping me. “You went in the pub looking for sex, you left with two soldiers and went back to their camp - what did you think would happen?” And although I believed my answer - I thought a grown man would be capable of using a condom properly - was a satisfactory one, I wasn’t sure it would satisfy others.
The fear killed my desire to have sex and I started to put my clothes back on. Luckily, he made no protest; perhaps he was too drunk. I left without incident, and the fear receded once I was away from the danger.
If he had persisted, if he had penetrated me despite my objections, that would have been rape. I had consented to sex, but I had made it clear that condoms were part of the deal. When the condom vanished, so did my consent.
It can still be rape even if she wants to have sex with you. It can still be rape even if she’s sexually aroused and apparently ready for sex. If she consents to this but not that and you make her do that, it’s rape. If she consents to any kind of safe sex and you make her have unsafe sex, it’s rape.
I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, but I hope that by telling my own story I can convince anyone who isn’t sure.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Word.
And I can just imagine the defense: “But how was I supposed to know she’d stopped consenting?”
-Because she told you so, dumbass.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Thank you. This is a critical point. Men have no rights to have sex with us. Always and at every moment consent must be had. People have no rights to sex with each other. Always consent must be had.
And so many women have gone through the similar situations with so many different outcomes.
This comment was written by marsha.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:17 am
If this guy had decided to overpower you, this would have been rape. No contest. And if he had subsequently been arrested, tried and convicted he would have deserved it.
But you were damn stupid to put yourself in such a situation.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:25 am
But you were damn stupid to put yourself in such a situation.
How so? Are you saying that it was stupid to find somebody to have sex with? Or do you just disapprove of her actions on a moral level? This may very well be the most atrocious thing I have seen you write to anybody.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:32 am
I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir here
Not quite: there’s always RonF.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Thank you for telling your story, Nick.
I used to get myself into situations like this regularly and I consider myself extremely lucky I never got raped. Once when I was 17 I went off with two young men to fool around and I stipulated there would be no vagina-penis penetration.
After a time I saw from the corner of my eye that one man ‘made eyes’ at the other man carrying the meaning of , “you know what we could do, don’t you?” The other man subtly shook his head, “no”, and that’s how close I came to being gang-raped that night.
As with Nick, my sexual desire deflated fast and I asked to be taken home. I got home after a verbally abusive 10-minute car ride where every time I spoke the would-be rapist shouted at me, “Shut the fuck up, whore!”
I will never forget the look on that man’s face as he asked another man to help him rape me.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:46 am
So Ron, you believe grown men are so immature and stupid that they really don’t know how to use a condom properly? And that Nick should be wise to this?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:12 am
these words echo in my mind because of a “situation” i put myself in several years ago. the words come from inside me, even though intellectually, i know that they are false.
i was walking from my apartment to my car - maybe a 10 yard stretch, when this guy rides by on his bicycle. we started chatting, and after a while, i invited him into my apartment for coffee. frankly, i thought he was kinda cute, and meeting him like i did was quite different from my usual fare for meaningless sex, the local club scene. yes, i freely admit that i was interested in sex with him.
after fooling around for a while, i decided that i wasn’t having as good a time as i had imagined i might. at some point, i told him to stop. he was on top of me, and stronger than me, and i found myself unable to push him off of me. he had my arms pinned down. he was using his finger, as he was quite drunk by then and was unable to use his, ummm, other body part, and he was hurting me.
after yelling for him to stop, and a bit of crying, i finally managed to position one of my legs inbetween us, and pushed him off of me. i suppose that snapped him out of it, and soon after, i managed to get him to leave.
i totally blamed myself.
the incident was the topic of several therapy sessions, and even though my therapist tried to convince me it wasn’t my fault, i never believed her. in my heart, anyway. as i mentioned, intellectually i know she’s right. i also know that i probably got off easy - the incident could have been much, much worse, especially if he wasn’t so drunk.
i’m not so legally enabled that i know if this incident could be called rape. i tend to think it wasn’t, though a few of the people i spoke to about it thought otherwise. certainly, it was assult, and it remains as one of my most unpleasant memories. i’ll never forget the feeling of helplessless and violation with that guy on top of me, and unable to do anything about it.
i’d like to believe we live in a world in which a woman can say no, even after she says yes, and have that respected. and have the rest of society support her choices, and put the blame where it belongs - on the person engaging in the violation. unfortunately, i feel i have to be “smart” enough to avoid “putting myself in certain situations”.
thank you for sharing your story, nick. perhaps eventually, we can all believe that it wasn’t our fault.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Can I go out on a limb and see if I can guess what Ron is suggesting?
Let me preface this by stating that you are right, Nick, if he had decided to penetrate you without a condfom it would have indeed been rape.
I’d guess Ron’s point is that your statement of assumption “I thought a grown man would be capable of using a condom properly” isn’t completely accurate. The more complete statement describing the assumption you made would be “I thought a random, drunk, grown man, whom I’d never met, and about whom I knew nothing other than that he was willing to have No-Strings-Attached sex with a random woman, would be capable of using a condom properly, and would not attempt, once he had me alone, naked, and away from any accesible help, to try to force me to do anything that I had stated in advance I didn’t want to do in any ways that I had initially stated I didn’t want them done.”
Should you be able to make such an assumption? Of course. Does anyone have the right to force you to do anything you don’t want to do, no matter what situation you put yourself in? Of course not. But, is it a particularly wise assumption? I’d go out on a limb and say no. THIS IN NO WAY NEGATES YOUR RIGHT TO SAY NO. IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU RESPONSIBLE IF SOMETHING IS DONE TO YOU AGAINST YOUR WILL.
Still, it’s not a situation I’d ever advise anyone to put themselves in.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:28 am
and I would say to you ADS is that you assume men just can’t help but rape women, given the right mix of circumstances. But if we were to say that all men benefit from rape… oh, lordy how the mens would howl. Your de facto standpoint is that all reasonable women should expect to be raped, and because the expect this, they are reasonable. You do realize that, don’t you? You’ve completely excised male responsibility from the scenario.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Who is doing the acting here? Who is the subject? “Something” cannot be done without there being a someone doing it. How can you have so neatly removed the man and his actions by the time you got to the end of your post?
And for the record, nothing, ever, ever “negates” a woman’s “right to say no.” Nothing.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:39 am
No, I never said any such thing. Nor do I believe it. All I said was that it’s not a situation I would ever advise anyone to put themselves in. And I’m not sure how you can take my oft-repeated and capitalized statements about how if anything were to have happened to Nick, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND RAPE, AND NOT HER FAULT, as excising male responsibility from the scenario. She SHOULD be able to assume that nothing would happen to her. However, it’s not an assumption that I would personally feel comfortable making, if it were me.
If you want to discuss what this means for women, and male privilege, etc., then by all means, let’s discuss it. But please don’t suggest that I must be saying the exact opposite of what I actually did say.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Yes, Q. I agree with you. That’s why I said that it doesn’t negate a woman’s (or anyone’s) right to say no. I’m sorry if I phrased my statement too passively: it was not my intention. However, I think I made my point very clearly, and I think you’re ignoring it.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:56 am
ADS, I’ve seen dozens of commenters on lots of feminist blogs try to do what you’re trying to do: to disclaim, “I’m not saying she would deserve it .. it would still be rape”, but couple it with helpful advice about how not to get raped.
It’s a fool’s errand. It can’t be done. Any time you presume to tell women what they could do better or smarter to avoid rape, you’re going to run smack into the wall of how many women get raped in how many circumstances by how many men — and there’s no magic peice of advice to avoid it all except living in a fortress without men.
So here’s my advice … to you. When you get the urge to tell women how to do better for their own good, just don’t. Keep it to yourself.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Never make assumptioms about anyone else’s abiltiy. You stated
I wouldn’t trust someone drunk enough to be deaf to reason to hold my book but you trusted him to put on a condom correctly. You may think he’s had sex before but maybe no one wanted him before. He might not have known, or he, being too drunk to be reasonable, may not have cared.
Just because it would have been rape doesn’t mean that it wsan’t foolish on your part to have acted that way.
Look, if I turned my car over to a complete stranger and they stole my car, it would still be theft. But it would still be pretty stupid of me to give it to them. And if they crashed it, objecting that I thought an adult knew how to drive is equally foolish. I first should have at least checked for a license.
Or if you want to make it a more virulent crime; I hand my child over to someone else without checking references to see if they are a reliable person or not. They harm my child. They are guilty, but I was still stupid.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
This story, and the comments, make me really, really angry. Stories like Samantha’s — woman goes off someplace secluded with two guys to fool around, because she thinks she can trust them to accept limits — are the story of my life. So many of my good sexual experiences have been either BDSM or multi-partner, some with women who had never had PV intercourse (calling them “virgins” would convey the wrong impression), etc. So many of these experiences required that everyone involved respect limits. Lots of women, despite obvious awareness of some risk, are willing to trust male sex partners to listen.
And some guys are doing their damnedest to fuck that up.
I don’t know Samantha, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that experience at 17 put her off mmf threesomes for good, and might have scared away some of her friends, too. Who is better off for that?! Certainly not Samantha, and not any of the men in the world who might have been parties to those experiences.
Q Grrl has pointed out above that men don’t like to talk about how the culture of rape benefits them — and it sure does. But it also costs us. (I don’t want to go into a general PHMT digression here, because it’s off topic.) I’m focussed on one effect of rape and the fear of rape: it destroys the sexual culture that I want — one of enthusiasm, consent and experimentation.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Look, if I turned my car over to a complete stranger and they stole my car, it would still be theft. But it would still be pretty stupid of me to give it to them. And if they crashed it, objecting that I thought an adult knew how to drive is equally foolish. I first should have at least checked for a license.
Or if you want to make it a more virulent crime; I hand my child over to someone else without checking references to see if they are a reliable person or not. They harm my child. They are guilty, but I was still stupid.
Yes yes. THERE ARE BAD PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. That’s not your fault, but that’s the fact of the matter. If you don’t want to be raped, murdered, beaten, robbed, there are things you ought to do to protect yourself. If you don’t do them and get raped, murdered, beaten, robbed, whatever, the perpetrator is still a bad person, and you are the victim. You’re morally right.
But is that supposed to make it OK?
If you’re more interested in preventing bad things from happening than being morally right necessarily, you’ll take precautions.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
I wonder how much of this we’d hear if a guy went off with a woman for a one-night stand, and ended up getting forced into performing specific sex acts he didn’t want to. Like maybe he thought he was just going to get missionary-style sex, but she pulled out a gun and forced him to go down on her?
Would we tell him that he was stupid for being in such a situation? I’m thinking no, since it’s seen as totally okay for men to fuck casually.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Okay, here is the problem that I have with the, “It would have been rape, but that was a stupid thing for you to do,” answer. What would you suggest that Nick do differently in order to have sex? Remember, that was her goal. Any time a woman is going to have sex with a man she will be placing herself in a vulnerable spot. So, is your answer that she shouldn’t have had sex? If so, you are making a moral judgement.
A person has the right to seek sex without rape being a consequence of that search. Gah! It’s infuriating to hear the same thing again & again. “Not to pass judgement, but…”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Yeah, Sheelzebub, one day I’ll write out the story my ( mild, but extremely frightening to me) sexual assault story & we’ll see the reactions I get. I bet you that none of them will tell me what a stupid thing I did. Maybe later this week when I have the time to write it properly…
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
And again, Susan and Rachel Ann seem to think that men just *have* to rape, given certain circumstances. And that women are responsible for men’s inability to control their wild sexual natures. And that women should just keep their legs together, because, well, that’s reasonable and doesn’t send the wrong message. Because we all know that men are incapable of parsing out the subtle nuances of the word “no.” Whatever.
Which part was foolish? That Nick insisted on a condom? That Nick DISCUSSED options with this man but still had to hold a hand over hir crotch? Nick was actively talking with this man and he was attempting penetration the entire time. Wouldn’t you say instead that the man was foolish, and not Nick? And damn foolish at that? Didn’t he even *think* for one minute he could get prosecuted for that? Serve jail time? Risk repurcussions to his military career? He put a damn lot on the line just to try to get a leg up… he indeed was the fool, not Nick.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Not seek out to drunk fools who are too drunk to reason with.
Find or found a club that supports that life style so anytime she wants it she can have it.
Set up a couple of partners that she can call anytime free of conditions.
Yes Sheezlebub, if a man goes off with a woman who he doesn’t know and the woman robs him or ties him up or does something untoward to him he was still robbed or assaulted or whatever, but it doesn’t mean because he was the injured party he wasn’t the stupid party either.
I can make moral judgements but Nick would neither care nor want to hear them. We don’t live in a perfect world. And I didn’t say I wasn’t passing judgement, I obviously was: He was a jerk, and she was stupid. Or is it that I can only judge him and not her?
The perfect world isn’t out there, though it would be nice to have. In a perfect world I could put my purse down on the table in the food court and go off to the bathroom and come back and I’d still find it there. I wouldn’t expect not to. But that isn’t the world we live in.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Sheelzebub, I’ve got a better example for you. I’m a sadomasochist. I’m often a submissive bottom. I like to do things that are sometimes near my physical or emotional limits. I have to be able to trust my partners to respect my limits. If I meet some woman at a BDSM club, and I spend an hour or so talking with her, and we have the same things in mind, I might say, “you know, I like to have a knife traced over my body, but I don’t want to be cut,” or “I can take a 2″ dildo in my ass, but only with a lot of lube and warm-up.” So, if she takes me back to her place, ties me up, makes hamburger cuts all over my chest, rams a dildo into me with no lube and tears my rectum, what will I get?
“You know, I’m not saying she was right to do that to you, but you are an idiot who brought in on yourself.”
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
No Qgirl, that she assumed drumk men she didn’t know at all were reliable sex partners.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.And where is it that I stated that men have to rape? That some men do rape is a given or we woudln’t be having this disucssion. That any man could be a rapist is another; friends can be foes. Drunks are not reliable. And again, she feared he was to drunk to listen to reason. And yet it doesn’t seem foolish of you to trust this type of person with one’s body?
Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
>Would we tell him that he was stupid for being in such a situation? I’m thinking no, since it’s seen as totally okay for men to fuck casually.
Speaking just for myself personally, and just describing my initial emotional reaction, rather than a well-reasoned logical one, I think I’d probably be more willing to tell a guy friend that he was being stupid about this than a female friend.
I’m sure that there are a few reasons for that, fair and unfair, that I’m trying to puzzle out.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
There’s reliable and then there’s putting on a condom. Especially when there are condoms in the room/setting. Nick made no assumptions about reliability; Nick did, however, explicitly state to both men what the parameters were. I still do not see where she was foolish. The man was foolish to think that he didn’t have to listen to her.
You have a very low threshhold for reliability if it can be summed up by a man putting on and keeping on a condom.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Yep, he was foolish as well. But drunks are not relable people in general. And they were unknowns to her. Being a paratrooper in no way guarrantees good ethics. Turning up dead could have been another outcome.
Thomas, I would think that one would need generally a bit more than an hour for such an interview, but I wouldn’t call you foolish if the woman weren’t drunk/drugged and you and she had reached such an agreement. Also, if you were part of a club that vetted people to some extent that would also suggest to me that the person could reasonably be deemed reliable.
Now if you had gone into a pub and picked out two drunk women I’d give you the same answer that I gave to Nick. A crime, an appaling crime, but you were acting stupidly.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Thomas,
The only reason I said anything at all is because people were attributing what I felt to be unfair of implications to Ron’s statement. I would normally not have said anything, because if a person shares a personal story about an attack or a near attack, I’d consider it bad manners to tell them that they’d done a stupid thing. I was just frustrated by people’s reactions to Ron’s statement (which I did feel was also in poor taste, but not as atrocious as some people seem to be suggesting).
My ultimate point is simply that the fact that a person has a right to refuse anything at any point does not mean that I’d recommend to my little sister that she do what Nick did. If people feel that I can’t make that statement without suggesting that Nick would have deserved being raped if it’d happen, then I’m sorry, but I’m not the one who’s suggesting that “less than wise decision = you deserve what you get.”
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
You have a very low threshhold for reliability if it can be summed up by a man putting on and keeping on a condom.
As I said earlier, I’m still trying to figure out precisely what my reaction is to all of this, but I do feel that this statement is rather an unfair summing up of their stated position.
I am a tall, healthy, physically imposing man, and I don’t go to bars.
One of the reasons is that I don’t trust drunk men and women I don’t know not to harass me or my wife, start a fight with me or my wife, or attack me or my wife physically due to some slight real or imagined.
Not engaging in random belligerency or physical violence is such a basic precept of society, and yet . . . that’s not something I can trust drunk people I don’t know not to do.
I found the operative part of the objection to be the “drunk/I don’t know them” part as much or more than the “male” part.
Ignoring that part in summing up their position seems intellectually dishonest.
I’m NOT saying that that puts any responsibility whatsoever on Nick for what happened . . . or that it doesn’t. Like I said, I’m still thinking. I’m just saying that to argue and ignore that seems like arguing against a straw man.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
But here’s the thing, ADS: we are always, always getting a lecture or a sermon on what we should have done or shouldn’t have done. What we could have done differently. Whatever.
Look, I know plenty of people who have done things that were unsafe, and I told them my concerns before they did it (or after the fact–and nothing bad happened). It went along the lines of “I’m really worried that something awful could (have) happen(ed) to you when you do/did X because of Y. It scares the heart out of me.” And they’d either take heed, or they wouldn’t and tell me I was being too uptight (or once, that I was a manhater). But I sure as fuck wouldn’t go telling them that they were being stupid if they got assaulted. They’d be telling themselves that.
My definition of reckless or stupid doesn’t include having a casual sex fling. It doesn’t include thinking that a guy who said he’d wear a condom and who understood you abseloutely wanted that–or no nookie, period–would keep trying to penetrate you after his condom slipped off.
The time someone ripped off $60 from my purse–I didn’t get any preaching about what I should have done. I didn’t get the third degree about what I had done to encourage this. I didn’t get the “you were really stupid for putting yourself in such a situation” lecture. Or “you were really stupid for leaving your purse out/leaving your locker key accessible for fifteen minutes/having that much money on you/working at a place with total degenerates” blah blah blah.
You know what I heard? “Holy shit, that sucks.”
And for all of the insistence that of course we don’t blame you, and of course we would hold someone in a different situation just as responsible, I have yet to see it in real life.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Not seek out to drunk fools who are too drunk to reason with.
Find or found a club that supports that life style so anytime she wants it she can have it.
Set up a couple of partners that she can call anytime free of conditions.
I will guarantee you, if she was assaulted under those conditions, she’d still be told she was being stupid. Because after all, if she didn’t want to engage in a sex act, why join that kind of club? If she didn’t want to engage in that kind of sex act, why get with these partners?
Jeez–do you think that strangers are the only ones who push the limits? Do you really think that a partner you know–or a boyfriend, or a husband–is automatically safe? Do you really think that following these “rules” would put her beyond reproach from the peanut gallery if she got assaulted anyway?
Think again.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
People, and overwhelmingly women, get raped all the time, in too many different circumstances to describe. In each of these cases, there are a dozen things that could be called “but for” causes — necessary conditions without which the events would have gone differently. We could all pontificate about what we would have done differently — for every rape. I wouldn’t have been with a drunk. I wouldn’t have been alone at night. I know self-defense. I wouldn’t have been in jail. I would have known the person better. I would have had someone standing guard while I slept it off. Whatever.
That’s always 20/20 hindsight. If every women did everything she would have to do to avoid being raped in every situation, she’d have to live in seclusion. And then, if someone hiked up to her cabin and raped her, people would ask why she didn’t live in a neighborhood where neighbors could come to her aid.
Rachel Ann, I don’t drink alcohol and I don’t have sex with partners who are drunk, so if you could sell your argument to anybody, you ought to be able to sell it to me. I’m not buying. This guy was apparently sober enough to talk to Nick at the pub, go with Nick, agree to use a condom, take one out and put it on (or at least attempt to do so). He obviously understood what was required of him. As far as I can tell from the story, he was only drunk enough to be disinhibited and to consider taking what he wanted without consent (I took “deaf to reason” to mean willing do what he wanted even over protest, and not to mean literally unable to understand what Nick said).
Alcohol is the social drug of choice in most of the world. If the standard folks want to create is that no woman can seek sex unless both she and her partner are sober, that’s as radical a change in the world as the one I’m asking for.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
And by “that sex act” I mean unprotected sex, or any specific sex act that she didn’t want and/or changed her mind about.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
One thing that disturbs me about a lot of these comments is that many people are assuming that you can protect yourself from rape by not putting yourself in stupid situations. Personally, I was almost raped by someone very close to me who I completely trusted. When I was 17 I had been dating a guy for about 7 months, one time when we were having sex he said he wanted anal sex, when I said no, he pinned me down forcefully and tried to force himself on me. I only escaped by throwing burning candle wax in his face. So please… rape isn’t the fault of the victim, it can happen to anyone in any situation, and I think everyone needs to be a bit more compassionate. There are a lot of shitty people who do good things, and there’s a lot of good people who do shitty things. We’re all people and you never know what you’re going to get.
This comment was written by kcarmd.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
The sad thing is, that Nick probably thought she was “preaching to the choir”, and yet, look at the number of people just on this thread who think that if a woman is sexually active, it’s her fault if a man rapes her. (Well, okay: four, maybe five. But some of them commented more than once to tell Nick that.) Urk.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
My first reaction to the story of a women agreeing to go off with two strangers was to be startled. I mean, it’s risky behavior. Then again, if we never, ever went off with strangers or even people we sort of know, none of us would ever experience the fun of making out in the dark with a new guy (that’s about as risky as I ever got, but whatever floats your boat).
I think that all of us, men and women have put ourselves in stupid, dangerous situations where something terrible might have happened, and for most of us, it didn’t. I mean, if we women didn’t take the leap and trust men in a lonely dark room every once in awhile, no one would ever have any fun.
This happens to men too: I know a gringo who was robbed blind in S America because he invited a woman he had met once into his apartment for a drink. She gave him the date rape drug. And yes, everyone said what a dumb ass he was for inviting a woman he barely knew in.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Nick, I have questions.
First, did you present as unambiguously female when you went looking for a guy for sex? I know your gender is neither binary nor congruent with your female anatomy, but you didn’t say anything about the trans aspect.
Second, you went back to camp with both men, but then you only talk about one. Was the other guy present during the crisis? Was he a participant at all? Did he understand what was going on?
I don’t mean to pry, but these were things I’m not sure I followed.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
RonF - I’m probably not the first to call you out on this but hey, judgemental much? What exactly gives you the right to tell Nick that her behaviour was “stupid”? And why is going out looking for sex “stupid” anyway? Because they were soldiers? Because she went back to their “place” rather than taking them to hers?
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Bottom line is, there’s a sexist double standard at work here. Men who go out looking for sex may be called a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them. Women should not have to assume that every guy they meet is a potential rapist. If the guy in question does turn out to be a potential rapist, that doesn’t mean the woman is stupid to have trusted him, it means the guy is an asshole. End of story.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Nick,
I am glad you and your baby were not hurt.
This comment was written by Rock.I spend tons of time in “risky” urban areas with folks many think of as dangerous; never been hurt or threatened. I was abused as a kid by a family friend on a ride in the country. Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Judging another’s behavior as “stupid” and “too risky” is setting your life choices as the only acceptable standard for smart behavior. What makes you so special? We all make different choices in life. I make the choice to leave my windows open at night. If you close your windows, should you call my behavior stupid? Or should you be called stupid for not locking your windows as well? Who decides? Getting out of bed in the morning puts me at risk for thousands of things. Eating at a restaurant puts me at risk. We make choices that work for us. Closing my windows is not worthwhile to me. I would miss the breeze, run up the energy bill, all just to avoid being called stupid after an outcome that somebody else did not experience.
This is why I oppose risk-reduction education. It implies that there are smart and stupid behaviors as opposed to different options that will fit some lives and not others. It also assumes we should mold our lives around those who would cause us harm. They are not worth that to me. I deserve the freedom to save money on a cab by walking home. I deserve the freedom to feel the breeze coming through my windows. These are not stupid behaviors, despite what some may judge. They are a result of a rational choice not to allow rapists to dictate how I’ll live. Why should they get that power? And relating back to the original post, why should they get the power to dictate how we choose our sex partners? Besides, if I could somehow live a life that would get everybody’s “smart risk-reduction” approval, rapists would simply find somebody else. I guess then I could call that somebody else’s behavior stupid, right?
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
[...] Nick Kiddle on almost being raped: can the comments on such stories ever devolve into a dead-horse-beating-fest about the (potential) rapist’s poor decisionmaking? No. Assholery is unquestionably present at a constant level in the population, and there’s nothing we can do to change that, but imprudence can be eliminated from the human race by the simple process of hectoring. [...]
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
The problem is, in terms of many social problems, risk reduction *works*. The term is most familiar to me in the context of STD prevention, especially HIV. Yeah, saying “use a condom” passes judgement on those who don’t, but if we want fewer people getting sick and dying prematurely of a disease that can be prevented by condoms…duh.
In a perfect world, no one would have to curb their reasonable behavior because of the unreasonable behavior of others. But we’re not living in that world and I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask people to use their brains and their education to avoid as many bad situations as possible.
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
The “what do you expect” people are off their rockers. Last time I went off with a man just to have sex with him, I ended up being with him for nearly 5 years. I took the risk of rape, ended up with a case of being in love. No one likes to talk about that “danger” of casual sex.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Thanks for telling your story.
This comment was written by mark.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
So, Lilith, does that mean you’re going to accept getting your ass handed to you because you chose to be a self-righteous, judgemental fuck to an almost-rape victim? Because you had a choice and you picked the one that enabled you to be cruel, thoughtless, judgemental and just plain fucking assholish. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have expected it or anything
For fuck’s sake already. So, what do you bet it’s like for women who aren’t on feminist blogs? Because the reception here has been so fucking sensitive
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Virginia expressed distaste for *all* risk reduction schemes, in general, on principle. I’m all for seeing the social factors for what they are, but I am also all for those who are able using their goddamned brains as needed.
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Um, what exactly did Lilith say that was so offensive? It seemed to me that she was speaking in general, not blaming Nick at all for what happened to her. I don’t think any of the commenters on this post, except perhaps RonF, have blamed Nick or implied that rape is a woman’s fault. In fact, most of them have bent over backwards to make clear their sympathy for Nick and their belief that rape is never a woman’s fault or justified in any way, yet they are still getting attacked.
Many of the commenters here seem to be missing the concept that a person can make a bad choice yet not be at fault for the result of that bad choice. Nobody deserves a crime to happen to them, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try to avoid situations that would make a crime likely. It’s just common sense, and it applies to both genders. Of course different people have different views of what constitutes a bad choice, but that would be another discussion.
This comment was written by sparklegirl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
I would like to share my story as well, because I think it bears some resemblance to Nick’s, and I think it points out a key fact that many people here are missing (despite its having been explained to them repeatedly).
When I was 16 I was at my boyfriend’s house. We had been together for about a year and that point, and had been having sex for quite some time. The afternoon in question we were fooling around on his bedroom floor. We weren’t having PIV sex at that moment, not out of any desire/need not to, just because we weren’t. At some point he goes to put his penis in my vagina. I say “wait”, again not out of any objection to the act in general, just because I didn’t feel like it at that moment. He ignores my asking him to wait and just goes ahead with it, before I even have a chance to move. It’s not that he didn’t hear me, he just chose to ignore it. How do I know this? Because after he’s finished he asks me if something’s wrong. I just give him a look, like “oh, give me a break”. His response? “Yeah, I know, but I really wanted to.”
Why did I tell this story? Because I think that aside from the trappings, it is exactly the same story as Nick’s. Being with someone who I loved and had reason to trust, and who I thought loved me, did nothing, NOTHING, to protect me from being raped by a man who thought his wanting to have sex outweighed my right to control my body.
Telling Nick that hir behaviour was stupid is ignorant and counterproductive.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Well, I guess that answers my question. When in doubt, be an insensitive ass because those opportunities to stomp on someone when they’re down in real life would get you a lot more than a verbal bitchslapping. If it’s so okay to do it to a rape victim, I guess we’ll just have to apply the principle all over.
Now, about those guys that refuse to wear condoms and still whine that they can’t force women to have abortions or give up the silly concept of child support….
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
I’d also like to add my thanks.
Count me as one of the “choir” who is always grateful when someone shares such a personal story in order to help show how ridiculous so many of our attitudes and assumptions are.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
I don’t think anyone here is denying that rape can happen in totally unexpected situations, with people you know well and trust. The stories shared on this thread are horrible, and oof course none of the victims are to blame for what happened to them.
But the possibility that someone you know and trust could hurt you doesn’t make it smart to put yourself in a position where a stranger could do the same. The goal is overall risk reduction; of course one can never be safe from all risk, but that doesn’t make it wrong to try, and that doesn’t make it blaming the victim to suggest that in general, people should try to avoid risky situations.
This comment was written by sparklegirl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Uh huh. And if the vast majority of rapes are committed by people who are known to their victims, what does that say about the usefulness of your risk-reduction techniques?
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
The fact is that situations like mine are the rule, not the exception, and “advice” that cautions women to be careful is in fact very harmful. I can’t believe I have to explain this here, but here you go:
When you tell women to be careful, and counsel them in risk-avoidance you:
1) create a heirarchy of women, some of whom deserve to be raped, and some of whom do not. Whether you intend to create this heirarchy or not is immaterial
2) create a culture of fear among women whereby women’s lives are restricted in ways that men’s lives are not
3) create a false sense of security among women who do follow your rules.
Why can’t you understand? This kind of advice is HARMFUL.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
I don’t think we’re ever going to get anywhere because some people are talking about personal experiences, and other people are talking about generalities. I have things I would like to say regarding the general discussion of risk reduction, but I don’t want to come across as insensitive to all the people in this thread who have suffered rape or attempted rape, so I’ll just shut up now.
This comment was written by sparklegirl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
I’m not sure that it is every appropriate, when somebody tells you about their victimization, to tell that person that their actions were foolish or stupid. It is one thing to say to yourself, “Oh, I never would have done that/put myself in that situation.” It is another thing to say, “Oh, that’s so terrible. I’m sorry this happened to you. But, still, that was a stupid thing to do.” As somebody noted above (it’s too late & I’m too lazy to scroll back up - sorry), the victim is most likely blaming themselves already. It is not something that you say to a person that you don’t hate if you have any social skills at all.
If you’re having a discussion about risk reduction for a particular form of victimization, that is something else. But, as mentioned by Jake, risk reduction as rape prevention functions mainly to create a (very large) class of (overwhelmingly) women who deserve what they got & a (miniscule) class who were merely victims (although w/ risk reduction theory you can blame almost any victim). Risk reduction as rape prevention also functions to put limits on one-half of the human race without appreciably reducing rape.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 8th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Jake:
1. The vast majority of rapes are by aquaintences as opposed to lurkers in bushes. I don’t know where these men (who I think are vile) would fit.
2. Risk reduction doesn’t mean risk elimination. If I look both ways before crossing the street, cross at a cross walk etc. etc. I’m more likely to avoid getting hit by a car. I haven’t eliminated that risk completely.
3. I don’t think risk counsling does create a hieracrchy of women. A crime is still a crime. It doesn’t reduce the crime, and it doesn’t mean that “some women deserve to be raped.” it means it lessens ones chances of being victimized. That is giving someone strength, not weakness. If you can assess the risk value and act accordingly you can achieve your goals and are less likely to come to harm. Women who think that means they won’t get raped are also being foolish.
4.Perhaps I shouldn’t call her stupid. I know that is mean and usually I am not a mean person. And if Nick were a stupid person I wouldn’t have done that. It doesn’t appear to me that she is stupid. We all act stuppidly from time to time. There are ways to achieve her goals if she wants sex without strings to reduce, not eliminate, another rape story. I don’t get how that isn’t a desireable goal. If a woman just wants to hook up with whoever and wants to do it as Nick did, she could also call on someone to ring her doorbell after 1/2 hr or have a panic button or some other mode to receive help if the situation warrants it.
Men rape. Women rape as well. Being raped or almost raped isn’t fun. It harms, and the ezxtent of the harm differes from person to person in character and degree. That doesn’t negate, imho the following statement:
Counting on the other person to be moral, especially a person one doesn’t know and one hasn’t vetted and who is impaired by drugs/alcohol, is not intelligent. Having some sort of plan to get out of a negative situation is.
I think it is a greater disservice to people in general to tell them just act like the next person is smart and moral and reasonable than to tell them “treat the other person fairly be protect yourself.:”
We drive defensively, , imho it isn’t wise to do that in fulfilling one’s drives?
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:19 am
And what have we learned here, boys and girls?
A sad truth. To mesh generalities and personal stories; the single best action women could take to reduce their risk of being raped by men is simply to never be alone with them or to enter into intimate relationships with them.
That’s a pretty fucking sad statement if you ask me. That men, even “liberal” men are so unwilling to place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the men who commit it and thus are the ones who have to *stop it* is even worse.
I mean, really, more broadly a woman can do no two things in her life that will increase her risk of sexual assult, violent assault and murder than entering into an intimate relationship with a man and getting pregnant. That is fucked up.
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:21 am
“the single best action women could take to reduce their risk of being raped by men is simply to never be alone with them or to enter into intimate relationships with them.”
Unfortunately i’m starting to come to that conclusion.
This comment was written by Nella.I could list a great number of examples of behaviour that would also be ’stupid’ in terms of exposing onesself to physical danger. Trouble is, my own list seems to involve ‘walking to work in broad daylight’.
Whatever you think about anyone’s actions - provided they aren’t hurting anyone - there is no justification for implying that they deserve to come to harm from it.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:29 am
Confucious say, She who lie with dogs not permitted to complain when she gets fleas.
This comment was written by BillyBobBoJack.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:37 am
“We drive defensively, , imho it isn’t wise to do that in fulfilling one’s drives?”
We also drive even more defensively around semi’s - and yet most people’s reactions to the fact that we must do so is to not only complain about it, but to be more restrictive of what semi’s can do, not what everyone else can do. Driving extra defensively around semi’s is a temporary solution to an immediate problem. Anyone with a brain understands that without strict regulation - and enforcement - the semi’s would take over even more of the road than they already do; that we would be in more danger, not less, if we concentrated on defensive driving - or even gave equal weight to both.
So why is the logical response to rape then to focus on what women should do and not to discuss what we expect of men? Why does every goddam discussion of what behaviour we should be able to expect from men turn into what defensive tactics women can/should take?
“Risk reduction as rape prevention also functions to put limits on one-half of the human race without appreciably reducing rape.”
Exactly. If such advice actually did jack shit to stop rape in general, rather than just decrease one’s chances at a particular point in time, I might let it slide more often. But it doesn’t, just like talking about defensive driving saves much fewer lives (in terms of semi’s vs. cars) in the long run compared to effectively restricting semi’s speed and available lanes compared to that of cars.
And again, if every godamn discussion of what behaviour men should be held to did not devolve into “how you could be so stupid as to think that you would be safe in that situation!?!” I might have more patience for all the silly driving, stealing, etc. analogies. But they do, so I don’t.
And no, “but of course what he did was wrong” does not count as discussing men’s behaviour. Especially not in this case. As far as I can tell, Nick’s purpose in sharing this experience is not to proclaim “I have the right to dance on tables naked and not get raped” (although she does) but to illustrate how consent is an ongoing process, something that society is far too often confused about. To take a story whose purpose is to edify the clueless about reasons why women may withdraw consent and to turn it into a lecture on what is somewhat safe and what is less safe goes beyond defeating the purpose, it is insulting.
Relationships are always a process of explorations and negotiation, whether you go slow or fast, whether sex is involved at all or not. Yet, for some reason society seems to think that once a woman gives a yes to sex that negotiation has ended. Whether, given this reality, certain actions are “safe” or not is beside the point. The point is that if we ever want to get away from the idea that we must (to extend your painful driving pun) stick to surface streets to stay reasonably safe from those that are larger and more powerful than us, then we need better discussions about each party’s moral and legal responsibilities. And better discussion does not mean rehashing to the ten thousands time what is “safe” behaviour and what isn’t.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Rachel Ann: If you can assess the risk value and act accordingly you can achieve your goals and are less likely to come to harm.
So, have you arranged your life so that you are never alone with men and never enter into intimate relationships with them? If not, do you accept that your foolish behavior means you stand a fair risk of being raped, and that if you write about it afterwards, people like you can point at you and say “Yes, but it was a stupid thing to do, wasn’t it? Being alone with a man, getting involved with a man: you knew that put you at high risk of being raped.”
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 3:03 am
What I have learned from this thread is that I was an extremely stupid four-year-old. ^_^
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 3:20 am
Jesurgislac:
Getting raped, which did not happen to Nick, is a horror and should never occur. She also noted in her post that it was more irritating than traumatic. I took her at her word. If she had asked for no comments just support I could have done that easily.
She wrote a post. I responded.
I responded that rape is a crime period and I don’t care what the woamn does or doesn’t do she doesn’t deserve it.
That still doesn’t mean there aren’t certain thing one can do to minimize the event from reoccuring. Emphasis on minimize which I think I spelled wrong.
There are ways to assess risk and stating “You have a chance” isn’t the same as saying “You have a high degree of risk.”
I don’t put myself at a high risk of rape because I havee vetted those I’m alone with in some form or other. I have a low risk. I am cautious among unknown men. I am more cautious when my “instincts” tingle. And being an Orthdox Jew, which hasn’t entered into this discussion, meanss that I don’t close myself off with any man but only close relatives. (there are all sorts of laws and I think it would take away from the discussion to speak about them too much here.). That doesn’t mean there isn’t some risk involved. My husband could go looney. (A friends husband did, do to a brain tumor. She had to institutionalize him.) I could feel safe with a particular man and find him a dog. I could go to a friends house to wait for my friend and it turns out that really, unbeknownest to me, they are killers and I’m the next body.
The likelihood of that occuring are slim.
Ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away.
The questions that need to be asked of any situation are:
Was this outcome the one you expected/desired?
If not, what could YOU (or I) have done to bring the event closer to the ideal?
You (or I) and not s/he it because one has limited control on the actions and thought patterns and moral/legal behaviour of another.
If in fact one of those men who I have vetted and whom I have been alone with acts in a manner which makes me fearful of them, I have to rerasses my behaviour and figure out a way to make myself safe.
That might mean distancing myself forever from said person. It might mean reassessing my vetting system. It may mean a lot of things.
It might mean that this event is so rare that it probably won’t occur again and I can strike the action of the man in queestion up to “meteor dropping on you”.
It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have the right to call the police or press charges if a rape/assault occured
It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have right to counsling and help and love and someone putting their arms around me and feeling glad I’m okay.
Now I’ve given several, not give up sex spontaneously suggestions, which go against my moral thought process, as suggestions to make sex safer, not safe. If you don’t get the fact that my concern is for the life of another human being, then don’t get it, get angry, decided I’m trying to force you to walk in my path and get snarky.
I can’t come up with a perfect solution on the spot. I think that without properly vetting who comes into your private space is a foolish behaviour, especially if one has no back up planned.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:03 am
I don’t put myself at a high risk of rape because I havee vetted those I’m alone with in some form or other
Which is precisely what any woman who has been raped by a man she thought of as a trusted friend would have thought… right up to the moment she realized she was wrong.
It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have the right to call the police or press charges if a rape/assault occured
It would, however, mean that the police would advise you that pressing charges would mean your public humiliation in court, and your rapist being acquitted.
It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have right to counsling and help and love and someone putting their arms around me and feeling glad I’m okay.
Of course not! Just because you’ve been smug and unsympathetic towards women who have been raped wouldn’t mean that if you were raped, you shouldn’t get counselling and help and love. You would need it, though I cannot say that I think you would deserve it, but I think people should get the help they need, not the help they deserve.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:58 am
1. Nick wasn’t raped. She stated she wasn’t raped. She stated she wasn’t even traumatized by the incident. I took her at her word. If she actually stated she was raped or traumatized by the incident I would have responded differently. She did not. She was irritatated. You are irritated by my words. Maybe she was irritated by my words. Maybe I find you irritating. I don’t expect sympathy for that.
2. You have difficulties with the word “high” don’t you. As in a “high” versus “low” risk. What you take as smug is fact. By not being alone with a man I have a lower risk of rape/sexual assault. Not NO risk. But a lower risk of rape.
3. Most likely I would feel humiliated by any court proceeding, closed or open. I didn’t say that anyone who acted stupidly should be humiliated in court, This is not court. The statements aren’t meant to be legislative and the morality or wisdom of the victim shouldn’t enter the court’s decision. If it did I would state that is wrong.
4. Cruelty seems to be your domain. I had made no statement as to the help Nick should or should not get if she had in fact been raped and or traumatised by the incident. She was not raped and did not feel traumatized but irritated. This is not a rape counselors office. Furthermore, rape counselors might very well advise a client to find various other solutions to meet their needs and to raise the level of, not assure, their safety. MIGHT. Depending on the circumstances. There might not be anything at all one could do under a particular set of circumstances. Raising one’s level of safety is a good thing, not a bad thing.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:22 am
By not being alone with a man I have a lower risk of rape/sexual assault. Not NO risk. But a lower risk of rape.
If that were true. But you’ve admitted that you DO let yourself be alone with men: so you DO put yourself at risk of rape.
Most likely I would feel humiliated by any court proceeding, closed or open.
My point was that by “making yourself safer” by only being alone with men you think you can trust, if you are ever wrong - and I refer you to the point that any woman who was raped by someone she knew thought that she could trust him - you have ensured that if you press charges, you will see your rapist acquitted. Because you have ensured that any man who rapes you will have the defense of claiming that he knew you socially, you had consented to be alone with him, and any protest by you that you had not consented to sex with him will be ignored. You are right in that trials of rapists are invariably humiliating or the principal witness: by “public humiliation” I meant “in the presence of the man who raped you”, whether open or closed.
I had made no statement as to the help Nick should or should not get if she had in fact been raped and or traumatised by the incident
No: you merely asserted, smugly, that it was her fault if she had been, and that you had taken sensible precautions to assure yourself that it wouldn’t happen to you. Like wearing galoshes in the face of Katrina.
Raising one’s level of safety is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Being smug about your galoshes in hurricane territory is foolish, not “good”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:45 am
So many comments overnight (for those that don’t know, my internet access is limited to UK daytime hours). I’ll try to respond to some of the points that came up.
I don’t like to assume that all men are rapists or assholes or anything else unpleasant. I do like to assume that if a man wants to have sex with me he will comply with a reasonable request like “use a condom” rather than trying to get round it because he doesn’t feel like bothering. It strikes me as blackly amusing that feminists are the ones accused of seeing all men as rapists when in any discussion it’s the rape-apologists that come out with the “what did you expect” attitude.
I freely admit that being alone with two people I had only just met, who had consumed more alcohol than was conducive to good decision-making (and yes, that is what I meant by “deaf to reason”) and who were both physically much stronger than me increased my vulnerability. But, as Jake’s story illustrates, the same thing can happen with someone you know well and believe you can trust.
I think a world in which a woman can safely go out and pick up a couple of guys in a bar to have no-strings sex and not have to worry that one of them will ignore her clearly-stated wishes would be a far better world to live in than the one we currently have, and the only way that world can come about is through a change in men’s behaviour.
For the people who suggested alternative ways of getting no-strings sex, I have very few practical options. I could explain them at length, but I’ve already laid out as much of my life as I’m comfortable with in this area, and it shouldn’t matter what my reasons are. If I assess my options and decide that the best of them is to pick up soldiers in a bar, I don’t have to justify that decision.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:49 am
Thomas asked a couple of specific questions way upthread, here are the answers:
1. I did present myself as female, which is my usual decision in the offline world.
2. The other man sort of wandered off once he’d got what he wanted from the encounter. I can’t remember whether he was physically present or not by the time the trouble started, but he certainly didn’t intervene in any way.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 6:13 am
First off,
The colors of this blog are aweful and need to be changed (off topic).
Secondly, what happened to personal responsibility? Is it any wonder men are marrying less and less. Sure it could have been rape by current legal standards. I won’t argue that.
But I think women need to recognize the BS they are putting men through because in the long run, in the big picture, women are only hurting themselves.
We already know men are dogs. That hasn’t changed over time. So what has changed? Women.
Women are now dogs. For equality sake - that is fine. But think of it this way. Women have now lowered their standards to the level of men. We now have both genders in the gutter. Quite frankly, this women is a whore. Already pregnant and looking for additional partners.
How about this for your “reasonable request”. You are the person making demands that a stranger won’t know about prior to meeting you. How about since you demand that condoms be used, that you make sure there is a supply available by bringing them with you. Once again, we have female putting all responsibility on the man without taking responsibility herself. Pure BS just because she thinks her vagina is gold.
If you don’t like the message, tough.
This comment was written by dogma.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 7:02 am
Christ, the thing about the smug Rachel Anns and the other “I told you so!” people is that you have to expect there’s more than mere cluelessness going on here. There’s more than an element of boasting going on there, too. “Oh, I wouldn’t do that.” And of course it’s damned stupid to compare a rape to a car accident: a driver who injured a pedestrian would be blamed and fined and arrested for it, all of which most rapists manage to avoid. The damage done to the victimfor so simple an error in judgement—jaywalking, say—would drive judgement from the mind of anyone apprised of the accident. Christ, you’d men would be the most determined to bitch at these rapists: women are doing them a compliment by trusting them. Instead we get this response by alleged women. In effect, they’re defending guys’ right to rape. Sorry, but saying “But I’m NOT blmaing the victim!” does not mean you’re not blaming the victim. It means you know exactly what you’re doing and you’re trying to dodge getting nailed for it.
And I reiterate what I said above: what about those guys that don’t wear condoms and then whine about babies? Unlike rape victims, there’s a cause and effect there, but if you even hint at such a thing OMG you’re a manhating bitch. Well, if that’s the case, in rapes where there’s no cause and effect on the victim’spart then I guess it’s clear that these people are woman-hating whatevers. Their defensiveness ought to be a clue.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Nick and Jake,
Thank you for your stories.
Regarding the various strands of “what were you thinking?!”:
The issue is not how any person (male, female, trans, etc.) presents themselves or the types of situations they put themselves in. If that were true, indeed, if that were the answer to solving the rape, then rape would end when all people stop putting themselves in risky situations.
This supposition cannot, however, address what Jake’s boyfriend did.
Why?
Because rape is always about the rapist. What sucks about the responses of RonF et. al. is that you don’t say to the guy, “what the fuck were you doing????”
Instead, you shrug, roll you eyes, sigh and offer various strategies to avoid stranger rape. But since you cannot place the responsibility where in needs to be placed, you can offer no strategies against intimate/acquaintance rape.
To RonF et. al. ~ women are not fucking stupid. Every woman I’ve every met, and the few that I’ve had the pleasure of dating, and the one that chose to marry me, ALL have strategies for staying safe.
But rape still happens because rape is about the rapist.
For whatever it is worth: (and I say this for the folks who are not familiar with my story) I lived the first 30 years of my life as a woman. The last eleven as a man.
The biggest, saddest, change: women are sometimes, afraid of me now. Those that aren’t, put me in a contested arena, until I’ve proven that I’mnot a dick head.
Now, according to the RonF et. al. cabal, their fear is their problem. But you see, it is my problem,too. Because their fear diminishes MY life. And after a few women have shared their stories of their rapes with me, I understand why women are afraid of all men.
Yes, I know it sucks. But I’m a good guy too, I can certainly whine.
But if I can’t say to a rapist, or attempted rapist, “What the fuck are you doing?” then I should just STFU.
In the end rape is about the rapist and their need to control. Drunk ornot, soldier or not, boyfriend or not, rape is always about the rapist.
Men rape women. And until we can shift the action of the verb away from the passive (”women are raped”) form of the verb to be, to the active voice of the verb rape, we, as a society, will be fucked.
Thank you again Nick and Jake.
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 7:44 am
Can you all do me a favour and not pile on Rachel Ann? She’s contacted me privately to explain her views, and I appreciate that she’s motivated by concern for women who put themselves in dangerous situations.
I’m with those who think that concern is misguided, but some of the invective being thrown in her direction is unfair and over-the-top. Surely we can argue that the advice is bad without implying that the offerer is somehow morally at fault?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:10 am
It is morally wrong. That’s the problem. It needs to stop. People need to stop attacking rape victims for what someone else did to them and start attacking rapists. It’s incredibly cruel to do this to rape victims and then hold one’s self up as an example—which is what she did.
Getting criticized for this, frankly, is better than the way she treated you or, I bet, other victims. Unlike the situation you described, there is a cause and effect when Rachel Ann gets ‘piled on.’ She’s getting a taste of her own medicine, in effect.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:31 am
I don’t put myself at a high risk of rape because I havee vetted those I’m alone with in some form or other. I have a low risk. I am cautious among unknown men. I am more cautious when my “instincts” tingle. And being an Orthdox Jew, which hasn’t entered into this discussion, meanss that I don’t close myself off with any man but only close relatives.
Rachel Ann, you are a true specimen of naïveté. Close relatives can rape you too. Unless you completely close yourself off from society you will never, ever be safe from it.
So do we get to call you stupid when (probably not if) rape happens to you?
How much of a risk you have is completely immaterial, and you truly cannot judge your amount of risk by resorting to stereotypes. I could walk through a bad neighborhood alone at night, completely naked, and never be attacked once. Meanwhile, my stepmom was in danger from her own father. Constantly. Until she ran away from home.
I’d love to see you tell her that she was at “low” risk of rape because it was her father. Put it this way, she was lucky to be able to have my brother.
This comment was written by Dana.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:35 am
Oooh looky, a troll. What fun!
I don’t see what my pregnancy has got to do with anything. I know this may come as a shock to you, especially if you have your madonna/whore complex etched deep in your psyche, but pregnancy doesn’t stop you from being sexual and wanting sex.
You know what - I did. I supplied a condom and he, whether through carelessness or a desire to put one over on me, “lost” it.
And while we’re on the subject, I didn’t demand condoms be used. I offered a choice of two options: sex with condom or no sex. The only way to read this as a demand that condoms be used is if I somehow owe him sex.
Yeah, because making a man responsible for a) something staying on his dick and b) his dick staying where it ought to be (did you read the bit about him trying to stick it in me while I was negotiating with him?) is soooooo unfair on the poor ickle man.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:50 am
How about this for your “reasonable request”. You are the person making demands that a stranger won’t know about prior to meeting you. How about since you demand that condoms be used, that you make sure there is a supply available by bringing them with you.
The way women oppress men by expecting them to put on a condom before they have sex! It’s terrible! Don’t you know–if a woman gets pregnant, it’s because it’s her fault since birth control is her problem. And STD’s aren’t men’s problem at all–they have a Magic Penis Shield.
I’ll take it further–not only should women bring the condoms at all times, but she should also bring snacks, beer, and a comfy pillow. And she should wipe his ass when he poos. Because men are just expected to take too much responsibility.
Is it any wonder men are marrying less and less.
Damn bitches, expecting men to be appealing before you want to be with them! You’d better stop it or the self-centered men will not marry you! THEN where will you be? You’ll be off sipping mojitos with your girlfriends and completely relaxed from not picking up some entitled asshat’s dirty socks, that’s what. You’ll be married to a guy with a brain who treats you well and respects you. And you may THINK you’re happy, but YOU WON’T BE. Because–because–er. . .because some random troll said so.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:54 am
Nick: Can you all do me a favour and not pile on Rachel Ann? She’s contacted me privately to explain her views
Fair enough.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Nick, out of respect for your thread, I’ll shelve further counterattacks on Rachel Ann. However, I agree with Ginmar on this one.
You posted a story of near-rape on your own feminist blog and the third commenter called you stupid and victim-blamed you. This is so pervasive and so predictable.
This problem, I think, is best addressed by behavior modification. Whenever someone on this blog victim-blames, you can count on a bunch of us, including Ginmar, and me, and Jake Squid, and BritGirl, and Sheelzebub, to gang-tackle the offender. Maybe if folks see enough such commenters pounded into the turf, then at least on a feminists blog, women will be able to talk about their rape experiences without getting “what were your mistakes? Let’s list them.”
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Thanks, Nick and Jake, for sharing your stories.
I think part of the reason we’re getting all of the blame-the-victim posts is because the perps are nowhere in sight. I have yet to see a blog by a guy that contains anywhere in it a version of “Man, I was so stupid last night - I let my dick do the thinking and now I’ve raped somebody and I feel really bad about it.” THEN maybe we would see the posts about rape prevention with what really ought to be out there: “Going off with a girl when you’re really drunk is really stupid, man.” or “Dude, stop when she says no!” But until that fateful day, we’re going to get comments on what we can see, which is the victim’s side of things, and that’s going to drive the discussion.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:39 am
What Lee said.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:44 am
A number of years ago, my partner and I decided that we wanted to have a threesome with another woman. Not knowing a woman who was interested in us that we were both attracted to, we placed a personal ad online, which was quickly answered by a lovely young woman who lived in a nearby town. We met her, chatted for an evening, and retired to our bedroom, where we had vigorously unprotected sex. This continued, to our mutual satisfaction, for the next month or so.
During our chatting that first evening, we’d discussed our sexual health status, and had all avowed that we were all STD free and tested regularly, which was true, at least, for my partner and I. It came as an unwelcome surprise, then, when we began to feel the telltale burning sensation while peeing. Luckily, we hadn’t contracted anything that couldn’t be cured with megadoses of penicillin, so all’s well that ends well, but my mind is drawn to this true life story by this discussion.
Was contracting this STD our ‘fault’? No. Absolutely, 100% not. Someone we thought we could trust lied to us and deceived us, and infected us with a disease due to her own carelessness and selfishness. She either knew she had an STD and did not disclose it, or, more likely, didn’t know she had an STD, but didn’t bother to get tested and lied about having been tested. This STD was the fault of the liar who infected us, and nobody else.
Did we do things that made it more likely for us to contract an STD? Yes. Yes we did. We could have used barrier protection that would have protected against STDs, and we didn’t. We should have. Not doing that was stupid, and it involved putting more trust into someone we’d just met than was very smart to do. She wasn’t drunk. She wasn’t a one night stand. This was someone we’d been with for a month. In the end, though, I strongly feel that it’s my job to take whatever precautions I need to in order to ensure my own sexual health.
Is this the same as saying we ‘deserved’ to contract an STD? No, read the first question again. I believe it’s possible to say both “What we did wasn’t very safe and was likely to lead to that sort of consequence, not because ‘all women are liars,’ but because it’s hard to know who is and who isn’t, and it’s a good idea to be careful” AND to say “but that’s not exculpatory in any way towards the people who do lie about their sexual health status and infect their partners, and that’s not the same as blaming the victim.”
Are there people who do blame the victim for this? Yes, and those people sure suck ass. Whether it’s a moral judgment punishing women for enjoying casual sex or a moral judgment punishing anyone for participating in non-standard sexual practices, there will always be these sorts of assholes out there. These are the people who believe that, “AIDS IS GOD’S PUNISHMENT FOR THE GAYYSS!!1!!!1″ They’re wrong (and evil and stupid) but that doesn’t mean that having unprotected sex with an IV drug user you just met 15 minutes ago isn’t a goddamn suicidal thing to do. Most of the critical comments I’ve read here, I’ve seen as being more in the second category than the first.
Am I putting all the responsibility for change and restriction of behavior on myself and my partner? Is this unfair? No, I’m not. Our playmate should have been more honest, and should have been responsible for her sexual health. Her behavior was reprehensible, and, was it a different STD, could well have approached murder. Nonetheless, my actions are the only ones I can reliably control, and thus, when I enter a situation, my actions are the ones I must rely on. Is that unfair? It’s not about whether or not that’s fair. In fact, it’s goddamn unfair, but it is what it is.
What kind of response do I have a right to expect to discussions of my behavior? I think that depends on who I’m discussing this with. With my friends, I expect “Oh god, man, that’s awful! I’m so sorry.” With a doctor, I expect some combination of “This is NOT your fault” and “Here are the things you can do to make it less likely,”(which is actually what I got when we went to a doctor). With random people on a blog floating in cyberspace? I don’t know. I would hope for something similar to what I’d expect from a doctor, with the understanding that there are always people who take the opportunity to troll. I’m not sure I have a right to expect a blank “Oh god, man, that’s awful! I’m so sorry” from strangers, especially when I’m specifically opening the topic for discussion.
I guess the only other question that I’ve been mulling over is how well this translates to the issue of pregnancy. If our playmate had been lying about, say, being on the pill . . . and she’d become pregnant . . . would most of the commenters here believe that that’s a situation I have no responsibility in? Before I get involved with any sexual partner, I always discuss what will be done in the event of a pregnancy, and make clear that I’m not ready to be a father, and make sure that we’re on the same page regarding abortion and our mutual desire to not have a child any time soon. What if she’d been lying about that, and actually wanted a child . . . and despite our mutual agreements, decided, after becoming pregnant, to keep the child? Is that a situation I’d have no responsibility in?
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Maybe in your family.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Oh, and I apologize for not posting this earlier:
Oh god, Nick, I’m so sorry. That must have been really scary and infuriating and horrible. Fuck that guy. What a fucking asshole.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Rape is a terrible thing and if things had continued on I’m a firm believer that the rapist should have been punished and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Yup, NICK should have been sentenced to serious jail time.
By every legal definition of the term Nick is the attempted rapist here. Nick is the one who went out looking for sex, plyed them with so much alcohol that the could no longer make informed decisions, and then tried to make the victim perform a sex act that they didn’t want to. Just because the man here appears to have consented and appears to be enthusiastic in his participation doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape.
Now before you begin the insults I ask that you look at the scene layed out before you and take away the sexes of the participants and simply examine the facts, look at them as party A and party B. One person gets another drunk and attempts to do what they want to them while they are too drunk to be able to control themselves. Many cases have been won and “rapists” locked away in just this scenario.
I personally have gone out and wound up with a drunk woman in a secluded place who was quite focused on getting what she wanted and not caring how I felt about it. (though if anything had happened I would have been the one most likely charged with a crime if the police had become involved)
Now, for all you hypocrites who are going to say it’s not the same thing, remember this the current legal definitions being pushed for do state that providing, endorsing or enabling another person to drink heavily and then having sex with that person while their judgement is impaired makes their consent ambiguous and if they decide to withdraw that consent upon sobering they have every rate to claim rape then.
And yes I am a man.
This comment was written by Legal eagle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Hm. So, I’m a bad guy because I said picking up a drunk in a bar and taking off with him for some sex was stupid. Nick (the only person I owe anything to on this), I’m sorry if you were offended by my bluntness. I think I’m a reasonably smart guy, but God and my wife both know I’ve done some pretty stupid things in my life, too, some that nearly cost me my life. So if you think I think you’re stupid, I don’t. You express yourself quite intelligently on here; in fact, more so than many of the respondents.
But it was a dumb thing to do. Look what almost happened. Some asshole almost raped you. And the world abounds with assholes. There are entire social and educational structures to eliminate assholes, and there’s an entire legal structure to take assholes out of circulation once they demonstrate who they are. But, to paraphrase Jesus, “assholes will always be with us.” We’ll never get rid of them all.
A number of people here apparently have the viewpoint that advising someone to avoid risk equates to placing blame on that person for any bad outcome if they don’t adopt the risk-avoidance behavior. It doesn’t. I own a home. I don’t have a fence around it. I don’t have a burglar alarm. And I don’t own a guard dog. It’s in a reasonable neighborhood, but for sake of argument let’s say that I live in a high-crime area. If someone breaks into my house, it’s their fault, not mine. But that doesn’t mean that if I have a lot of valuables, I wouldn’t be wise to go the fence/alarm/dog route, or move. I have no expectation that society will be able to convince everyone to stop stealing, nor that the law enforcement structure will be able to stop burglaries.
All of us; male or female, black or white, old or young, constrain our behavior in part on the basis of what we or others have a right to do. But we also constrain it on the basis of what other people may do that they have no right to do. It’s not fair. It’s not right. But it’s real, and you ignore that at your peril.
Yes, women get raped by people they know and should be able to trust. Limiting yourself to having sex with someone you know and trust can still result in rape. That doesn’t mean that someone isn’t acting foolishly if they seek sex from people they have no reason to trust. Risk cannot be eliminated from life, and I don’t think it should be. Acceptance of risk often presents a growth/learning opportunity. But it can be reduced.
Morals? I never mentioned morals. But since others have opened the subject, let me ask everyone this; where do you think moral rules come from? Are you all convinced that the origin of moral rules are to justify one group or class of people dominating another? Or could it be that in many cases, they’re just formally encoded forms of very practical advice?
Nick, it isn’t your fault that this guy almost raped you. I’m glad you weren’t; in no way would you have deserved it if you had been. However, based on your experience, I’ll ask this - are you likely to try this again? I hope not. I would be very sad to read a posting from you later on how you did get raped, or a posting from Amp or Kim or Pseudo-Adrienne about something worse happening.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:31 am
A number of people here apparently have the viewpoint that advising someone to avoid risk equates to placing blame on that person for any bad outcome if they don’t adopt the risk-avoidance behavior.
Well that’s a convenient way to label saying, and I quote from comment #3, “But you were damn stupid to put yourself in such a situation.”
How often do you advise people to avoid risk by saying, “You were stupid to do such and such?” See, that is blame. Advice would be more along the line of, “It would be foolish for you to do such and such at some point in the future.” Do you see the difference. You, in comment #3, did not advise. In comment #3 you blamed. That is what I am taking you to task for.
If you want to have a discussion about risk reduction theory as it relates to rape, that is a seperate issue. An issue on which I think that your opinion is demonstrably wrong, but it is not a rude and shitty thing to say - like your final sentence in comment #3 was.
Is it more important to you to justify your rude and callous statement by attempting to rationalize it as “advice” than it is to apologize for it and move on? Justification of a rude, callous statement is certainly what your comment (#82) appears to be.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:43 am
I’m sorry if you were offended by my bluntness.
What a classic non-apology.
I can’t, of course, speak for what might offend Nick, but what certainly offended everyone else who was offended was that you blamed Nick for her behavior, not the man who nearly raped her. You could have blamed Nick bluntly or tactfully: it is the blame-the-victim mentality that is offensive.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:44 am
You have a point, Lee. While it would be nice if men called men more often on sexist behavior in a broader context than you suggest, there’s limited scope for that here—outside of answering sexists who post.
That said, what anyone of good intentions but a desire to criticize Nick’s behavior should really take away from this that criticizing the victim’s behavior is . . . er, damn stupid. ^_^
* It doesn’t map to statistical realities as well as the average person thinks.
* It makes light of the rapist’s responsibility.
* It reinforces the victim’s shame—in this case, moot, since the rape didn’t happen and Nick didn’t express shame, but often important.
* It reinforces the idea that people who get raped get raped because they did something wrong, when you can’t actually live life without going through huge numbers of risky situations.
* It reinforces the idea that men are, well, dogs, which either means that they should be kenneled or that they can somehow get away with anything (”Ooh, Fwuffy, so cute, you ate that girl’s face! Good boy! Good boy!”)
* No matter how good the advice is, the chance of it preventing the rape that already happened is 0.
* No matter how good the advice is, the chance of it preventing future rapes is potentially smaller than the chance of it causing future rapes by making the victim more afraid and less confident.
* This goes double if the victim gets convinced that it was her fault.
It’s easy to want to do it. It’s easy to feel like it would help. But it’s a lot like trying to cheer up someone in a hospital bed by juggling torches and chainsaws for them—the potential damage somewhat exceeds the expected reward.
Rebecca
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:56 am
RonF, you had all the warning in the world to keep your head down, but you just had to return to the scene of the crime.
Ron, what you did was wrong.
1) there is no problem with a social dynamic of victim-blaming people whose houses are burglarized. However, every woman I know who has been raped has gotten “well-meaning” lectures on what she could have done differently — whether she was raped by a stranger or someone she knew well. As long as the prevailing dynamic is victim-blaming, the marginal benefit of any such advice pales in comparison to the harm it does by instilling fear in other women.
2) you are wrong that you owe nothing to anyone but Nick. Every woman who is potentially a victim of rape (that’s all of them) or who has been raped suffers from the social dynamics that surround it. You’re participating in it. In fact, you initiated it.
3) Let’s look at what the marginal benefit of your “advice” is, anyway. You think Nick ought not to go looking for anonymous sex with a couple of guys down the pub. So, what would you have Nick do, then? Nick could meet men on the internet — but then Nick’s ability to vet them fact-to-face like in a pub would be diminished. They could easily come of as sane and respectful only to lure Nick into their clutches — and then you might just as well be telling Nick how stupid it is to meet sex partners on the internet. Or, as Rachel Ann said, sie could have joined a club for people seeking anonymous sex. I’m not sure there is one in Lincolnshire. Assuming there was, you might just as easily criticize Nick for seeking sex partners in a pool of known deviants who possibly cannot be trusted. Or, Nick could just try to happen across friends who are interested in a threesome with Nick and another man. If Nick can find two such men by looking in, essentially, the general population, then Nick is very lucky or very patient. And then it wouldn’t be anonymous, so these people might get attached and want to have a say in Nick’s life, etc., which is not what Nick was looking for — and hey! They could be rapists, too, as Samantha pointed out above.
Of course, you may say, Nick could simply forgo the kind of sex sie wants. And that’s the real answer, isn’t it? When you said “[morals are] just formally encoded forms of very practical advice”, you suggested that. But that’s not materially different from saying that if Nick does things the patriarchy finds morally objectionable, sie runs the risk of the patriarchal enforcement mechanism. “I’m not defending the enforcement mechanism,” you may protest, “I’m just saying if you step out of line, they’ll get you.” I’m sure you’ll protest that you didn’t mean it that way, Ron, but that’s how it works out in the end. If you say, “do the disapproved thing and you’re taking a risk,” no disclaimer can remove the structural approval of that consequence.
Ron, no matter how many times you say that you’re not making excuses for rape, what you are doing does, in fact, have the effect of excusing rape. If that’s not the effect you want to have, stop doing it.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
RonF.
If what Nick did was stupid then how do you explain what happened to me? Was I stupid, too? If not then how can you claim that not being stupid can protect one from being raped? If I was stupid then how can women expect to live their lives while living up to your standards of not being stupid. My point, which you, Rachel Ann, and a few others don’t seem to be getting is this:
Avoiding certain behaviours (like going home with drunk men) does NOT reduce your likelihood of being raped. Therefore, those behaviours can not resonably be said to be stupid. Saying it was stupid blames the victim. Full stop.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
NO ONE has said that avoiding certain situations will ELIMINATE the risk of being raped. What HAS been said is that avoiding said situations will REDUCE the risk of being raped at that moment in time. Just like wearing my seat belt won’t eliminate the risk of my getting my skull fractured in all cases, it will just greatly REDUCE the risk of that happening on that particular outing in a car.
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Avoiding certain behaviours (like going home with drunk men) does NOT reduce your likelihood of being raped.
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
If it is true, it is a counsel of resignation for women. The only variable we control is our own individual behavior; if modifications to one’s own behavior does not reduce the likelihood of negative events, then we are helpless, and fatalism is the only appropriate response.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Yeah, but what you’re missing is that a car accidnet is an accident. A rape is a deliberate act and it’s not the act of the victim. Sober guys rape. Drunk guys rape. Friends, sons, brothers, uncles, cousins rape. How do you avoid all men? Get a fucking clue already.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Oh, Jeebus. Stop it with the car safety comparisons.
When you compare rape,women’s choices in life, car accidents/crime, and completely leave out reference to the behavior of rapists/men you are absolutely, without doubt, not helping and are most certainly, without doubt blaming the victim.
Re: car accidents and the stupidity of that argument. We pave roads. We have yearly inspections. We have speed limits. We widen roads. We create sidewalks. We have relatively inexpensive places to go to fix your car for safety related issues. We, as a society, work together to reduce the overall risk of driving, both for individuals and for the general good.
Re: rape. We focus almost exclusively on the person raped. We, as a society, sit back and give her advice and comparisons and we don’t do a god damned thing about the rapists and their behavior. Our society does little to nothing to reduce “risk”, because strangely enough when it comes to women’s well-being it becomes an issue of personal choice and the woman’s own personal ability to assess or reduce risk.
Want a safe car ride? Chances are the state has covered the majority of the risks that could occur. Chances are your community has voted for lower speed limits, stop lights, crossing guards for children, etc., etc.
Want to reduce the chance of rape? Our society tells women to be smarter, dress better, don’t do this, don’t do that… and then turns its back on women.
Our society tells women that the risk of rape is a personal problem, not a social one. That. is. fucked.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I just realised that my above comment gives the impression that if a certain behaviour *did* increase your likelihood of being raped then it would be okay to call you stupid for doing it, and that’s not what I meant at all. I was just trying to emphasise the fact that in addition to being mean and harmful, the claim of stupidity is nonsensical.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Lillith, note that I didn’t say “eliminate”. I said “reduce”.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Robert, since most rapes are acquaintance-or-family rapes, i.e., most rapists know or are related to their victims, then women avoiding certain “risky” behaviors does not (I would say significantly) reduce their chances of being rape victims.
All of these comparisons to car accidents or property crimes are misleading, IMO, because these are relatively impersonal incidents, while rape is a very personal crime. Maybe mugging would be a closer analogy; I don’t like the comparison, though, because muggers rarely attack people they know. Does anybody know how often people get mugged when they already have their wallets out and open and are ready to hand over the money? ‘Cause that’s the closest I can come to comparing another crime to rape.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Robert, the evidence for the proposition that “risk reduction” strategies for rape are ineffective is the multitude of situations in which women are raped. See also comments 31 and 32 above. Do you have evidence that any of the proposed risk reduction strategies actually do reduce a woman’s risk of being raped? Especially since approximately 85% of raped are by acquaintances of the victim?
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Lilith:
Just like wearing my seat belt won’t eliminate the risk of my getting my skull fractured in all cases, it will just greatly REDUCE the risk of that happening on that particular outing in a car.
That’s probably true (provided you’re not going home to a husband/boyfriend/uncle/father, etc). The question is, how is saying that relevant or productive? It does nothing but push the responsibility for the instance back on the woman.
How’s a woman supposed to go about her life if she has to avoid every situation in which there’s a reasonable chance she might get raped?
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
If it is true, it is a counsel of resignation for women. The only variable we control is our own individual behavior; if modifications to one’s own behavior does not reduce the likelihood of negative events, then we are helpless, and fatalism is the only appropriate response.
Robert, you do understand!
No matter how I control or modify my own behavior, no matter what situations or places or people I avoid, no matter how isolated and insulated from the world I might keep myself, if I get raped someone will blame me for allowing it to happen. No matter what the circumstance, one more rule will be added to the list of things I should or should not have done in order to prevent it. Rape is the only crime I know of where the victim and not the perpetrator is blamed.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Jake: How’s a woman supposed to go about her life if she has to avoid every situation in which there’s a reasonable chance she might get raped?
She’s not supposed to go about her life: that’s the whole purpose of these blame-the-victim advices. A woman is supposed to take from them that she ought to avoid all men except the one man who will “protect her” (and if he rapes her, tough: he’s protecting her, she owes him sex, so it’s not rape).
No, I’m not saying that everyone who tells women what they should do to avoid rape (and those advice lists never include “Divorce your husband, leave your boyfriend, and go live in an all-woman commune which lets in men only under armed guard”) is directly thinking about keeping women from going about their normal lives by putting all women into a state of fear that if they do, they could be raped: indeed, the success of the “women need to avoid rape” meme can be measured by how many people pass it on with ever thinking about what this meme says.
Someone (Ginmar?) should do a reciprocal advice list of Things Men Should Do To Avoid Rape.
I mean, to avoid raping. That would be amusing, in a bitter kind of way.
Short, though.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
I know that Jes. It was a rhetorical question.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Would anyone here, when advising their six-month pregnant sister, daughter, niece and friend, RECOMMEND Nick’s actions. Seriously, if someone you loved complained of being horny, would you recommend that they find a couple of drunk strangers to satisfy their sexual desires? Take the pregnancy out of the equation — would you recommend her actions?
You can argue sexual rights, male patriarchy, and risk management all you want, but I have a hard time believing that must people here want someone they love to make the same choice as Nick. You don’t have to be a moralizing religious fundamentalist, to be a little concerned about her decision-making.
It’s the decision of a woman who doesn’t love herself very much, and that’s a sad thing, not something to be championed.
Nick, would you recommend your actions to the prospective daughter you are due to deliver next week? If a son, would you recommend drunken encounters with strangers as an ideal?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
There was a list somewhere, 50 Things men can do to stop rape. It was pretty funny, full of things like
If a woman is doing X, DON’T RAPE HER.
This comment was written by Jake.If a woman is doing Y, DON’T RAPE HER.
If a woman is doing Z, DON’T RAPE HER.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I find this conversation very interesting. As I am not a woman, have never been raped, have never counselled anyone following a rape or near-rape (and, incidentally, have never raped anyone), I don’t really have a good view of how “society” treats rapes/ rape victims.
From my perspective, I have young daughters, and among my paternal responsibilities is to keep them from getting killed/kidnapped/raped/hitbyacar etc.
At my younger daughter’s childcare centers, there is a strict “never alone with one adult” rule, to the extent that a (female) childcare provider was once suspended for two weeks for (accidentally, I assume) closing a bathroom door while changing the diaper of a one-year-old (male) baby. There was never an allegation of abuse/improper conduct. She broke the never-alone rule, and was suspended.
Now, I have no illusions that I am eliminating all risks, but I am doing my best to reduce them. As my daughters get older, I will feel responsible for teaching them how to stay as safe as possible when I am not there screening every person they come into contact with. One of the pieces of advise I would give them is, “Always be careful when you are alone with men. Try to minimize those times, and more so the less you know the man.” That sounds like sound advise to me. Right up there with “Don’t take candy from strangers.”
Now, Jake says, (in all caps, no less), “Avoiding certain behaviours (like going home with drunk men) does NOT reduce your likelihood of being raped.”
That certainly surprises me. It may very well be true — I don’t have any facts one way or another. It seems intuitive to me that not going home with drunk men would reduce (not eliminate) your risk of being raped, just like not lending your keys to drunk men reduces (not eliminates) your chances of having a dented fender.
While I have no pretensions that I have any rights to act paternalistically toward Nick, I certainly feel like I have the right to act paternalistically toward my children.
Do any of those of you (such as Jake) who so emphatically feel that behavior modification will not have positive results in this area (i.e., will not even REDUCE the risk) kindly explain why my intuitive sense is incorrect?
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Robert,
In response to the following:
Avoiding certain behaviours (like going home with drunk men) does NOT reduce your likelihood of being raped.
You wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
If it is true, it is a counsel of resignation for women. The only variable we control is our own individual behavior; if modifications to one’s own behavior does not reduce the likelihood of negative events, then we are helpless, and fatalism is the only appropriate response.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But until men such as me and you start holding other men accountable for rape and attempted rape, then no, behavior modification on the part of women probably won’t do much for women’s overall safety.
The problem, as I see it, is the _men_ rape. So _men_ need to stop doing that for women to feel safer.
We as men can aid, assist, and do everything in our power to make other men stop raping.
I don’t see anything fatalistic about that approach.
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I would, Emmen. If what you want is anonymous, no-strings-attached sex, then what better way to get it. We can argue the merits of such sex until the cows come home, but surely you admit that women are as entitled as men to *want* it.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Would anyone here, when advising their six-month pregnant sister, daughter, niece and friend, RECOMMEND Nick’s actions.
Hmmm. That’s an interesting question. The most interesting part is how you leave out brother, son and nephew. Why is that glaring omission in your post?
Aside from that… No, I wouldn’t recommend it because I wouldn’t do it myself. But if I had a friend, brother/sister, niece/nephew, grandmother/grandfather who wanted to do that I would advise that they make sure condoms are used (as Nick did) to prevent contracting inconvenient, painful or fatal diseases. By the same token, I would never recommend that a friend, brother/sister, yadayadayada go skydiving because I wouldn’t do that myself. But I don’t think that either seeking anonymous sex or skydiving are inherently bad things.
But that’s just me.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
“Would anyone here, when advising their six-month pregnant sister, daughter, niece and friend, RECOMMEND Nick’s actions.”
If they wanted to have anonymous, morality-free sex, then yes.
My question to you is: when your son, father, brother, nephew, uncle, etc., is getting ready to go out for a night on the town, do you recommend he get drunk and then refuse to wear a condom during sex and still try to penetrate the woman who has just told him “no”?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
And yet, at the end of the day, men can go out and have casual sex and not get moralizing lectures about it. Here’s the thing–they aren’t urged not to do so, or told they must not love themselves if they go out and fuck around or have a threesome. Hell, they get cred most of the time.
The day that men are told they don’t love themselves because they fuck around, that they are whores and sluts for having sex (not in this thread, but out in the world, yeah), and that they are “stupid” for having one night stands because who knows what could have happened–well, then I might start buying everyone’s insistence that they don’t have any double standards. But I’ve yet to see this on a societal level, frankly.
And here’s the other thing–they aren’t likely to be the ones raped. It could happen, but it’s not nearly as common as women getting raped. And in that way, it’s an issue of power and privilege. When women are supposed to watch their behavior because of the choices of certain men to rape, and those men aren’t held accountable, that’s sick. It does not hold the men accountable. This is not a car accident (victims aren’t normally held accountable for the at-fault driver’s actions), preventing illness (viruses and bacteria don’t make concious choices), fending off animal attacks (not people, no rationality). Rape is the result of bad choices–the choices of the perp. Period.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Emmentropia, why on earth should only Nick be the one whose actions are being scrutinized? Why aren’t you holding the paratroopers to the same standard? C’mon - how hard is it to say, “Yo, guys, don’t pick up one-night stands when you’re really drunk because your judgment is impaired?”
The accident comparisons for risk reduction are also irrelevant in the sense that rape is not an accident. Nobody ever said, “Ooops, my bad, my penis slipped into your vagina by mistake, here’s my insurance card.”
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Emmetropia, I don’t think what Nick did was risky. Nick met two men with whom sie had the opportunity to sit and talk face-to-face. They understood what Nick was looking for. They were reasonable enough to hear and accept Nick’s stipulation that condoms be used.
I’ve never agreed with those who claim that many rapes spring from misunderstanding — but even if that were true, Nick eliminated any such risk. Sie was going to have sex with them. They were required to wear condoms. No misunderstanding. In fact, Nick put hirself in a position where the only thing that could likely go wrong was an intentional, criminal act by one of the men.
Looking for people on the internet is probably riskier. I’m not sure that doing this sort of thing with strangers is any more dangerous than with acquaintances, based on the prevalence of acquaintance rape. And, in fact, being in a room with two horny guys with the intention of fucking them may put a woman at less risk of rape than being in a room with two horny guys with the intention of not fucking them. If one postulates that these are men who will, if denied consent, penetrate the woman anyway; then in the latter case, the circumstances where the woman will not want to have sex with them predominate, while in the former case, those circumstances are comparatively few (such as Nick’s story, where one of the men got a good fuck and the other inexplicably blew it by refusing to wear a condom).
In short, as modes of seeking sex with two male partners goes, I think what Nick did is about as sensible an approach as any.
Now, if what you’re suggesting, Emmetropia, is that my pregnant sister, daughter, niece or friend ought not to be looking for sex with two male partners, I have already addressed that in the penultimate paragraph of #86, above.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Someone better start talking about positive things we can do as a society to reduce the incidence of rape. The world is not perfect! If you accept the worlds imperfection and attempt to make it a better place you will live an infinitely more fruitful than if you act like it should be and get insulted when it surprises you.
I stumbled on this blog/thread this morning and came back this evening to see what sort of solutions would have been posted. Reading through the posts, I can only say that I am exhausted: why all the quibbling and minutiae?
This comment was written by Martin.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
I think all the rhetoric of risk analysis and saying that Nick was stupid or foolish in the situation plays right along with the discussion of rape-prevention, and blaming the victim, and what the victim could have done differently. . . and it’s the big circle which seems utterly senseless to me.
The way I see the situation, if a man has the mentality to be a dog, to be a rapist, to be disrespectful against women’s bodies, and disobey common sense and decency . . . at some point in time, he will eventually commit an act of rape. And all the rape-prevention rhetoric is trying to do, is “empower” women, so that it isn’t them, so that they don’t become a victim, so that they aren’t the foolish one . . . which in turn only ends up failing.
When I was a child, my grandmother never allowed me to ride in a car alone with a man or be alone with a man in general, it didn’t matter if she knew him for years, if he was a member of the church, or a complete stranger. She didn’t want me to go over friends houses and visit them. Then finally one day when I was in my teens, after a heated discussion, she told me she had almost been raped by her friend’s brother. Her “friend” told her to come over to her home, and then she lured her into a room with her brother, who almost raped her. So in essence my grandmother was applying rape-prevention strategies so that the same thing would not happen to me.
But it didn’t stop an older adoptive cousin from molesting me before I was a teenager, in the backyard of her home where she told us to play while she talked to my aunt inside. But I guess it was foolish of her to send us to the backyard to play, if only we had played indoors, or maybe if someone had been watching us, it wouldn’t have happened.
If my grandmother hadn’t gone over to her “friend’s” home, yes she would have avoided being a victim, but I can guarantee that it wouldn’t have stopped the rapist, it wouldn’t have stopped a rape from occuring. All the risk analysis does is possibly stop the rape from happening to you, but it doesn’t stop the rape from happening at all. And perhaps, I also wouldn’t have been a victim, but seeing as how my cousin already had the mentality, wouldn’t he have just preyed on someone else? So how in the hell can you suggest that someone is foolish in any situation involving rape? If a woman says no, no matter what the situation, she could be a prostitute, a stripper, a wife, a girlfriend. . . she could be in a dark alley, in her home, butt naked on the table top. . . if she says no, it’s NOT HER FAULT, all the stupidity and foolishness belongs to the rapist, not the victim.
This comment was written by MiaMarie.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Richard: “Always be careful when you are alone with men. Try to minimize those times, and more so the less you know the man.” That sounds like sound advise to me. Right up there with “Don’t take candy from strangers.”
Well, it does sound like sound advice, superficially, and especially it must if you’re the kind of guy who would never rape anyone and who would never molest his own daughters - and I’m sure that you wouldn’t, before you take offense.
Statistically, however, “Don’t take candy from strangers” is not the best advice to give small children on how not to get sexually molested. The best advice to give small children on how not to get sexually molested would be “Stay away from your father, uncle, grandfather, stepfather, and older brothers, and any adult male your parents have introduced to you as a trusted individual, such as a priest or a minister.”
Statistically, women are most likely to be raped by a man they know well. Your advice to your daughters to avoid being alone with men in order to avoid being raped is backwards: they are less likely to be raped by a complete stranger than by some man they know socially, just as children are more likely to be molested by an adult man they know than they are by a stranger.
Better advice to give your daughters is that they should be independent, strong, active, self-confident, able, and have absolutely the right to make their own decisions at any point in any sexual encounter - and if the man doesn’t listen to her, it’s his fault, not hers. When a man rapes a woman, it’s not because she did something stupid: it’s because he did something wrong.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
There was a list somewhere, 50 Things men can do to stop rape.
50 Things Men Can Do To Stop Rape
This comment was written by Phaeton.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Statistically, women are most likely to be raped by a man they know well. Your advice to your daughters to avoid being alone with men in order to avoid being raped is backwards: they are less likely to be raped by a complete stranger than by some man they know socially, just as children are more likely to be molested by an adult man they know than they are by a stranger.
But isn’t that because they are more likely to BE with someone they know well? I mean, if we are talking statistics, then I will agree that a person is more likely to be raped by an uncle (who she sees every day) than by the stranger at a bar who she goes off alone with. But that is because she’s only going to be with the one-night-stand guy for ONE NIGHT, giving him a relatively short time to rape.
Not to overdraw the car-accident metaphor, but when we hear “95% (or whatever) of accidents occur within a mile or two or home”, that is because that is usually where we are when we are driving. The “moral” isn’t “Drive to Nebraska, because the statistics say you’re unlike to get into an accident there.”
While I will agree that, statistically, rapes by close aquaintances are most common, I would also assume (again, intuitively) that if Person A spends every one of her nights in a month alone with a close “trusted” acquaintance/relative, and Person B spends every one of her nights in a month alone with a different stranger she met at a bar, Person B would get raped more often. A more “normal” person, Person C, who spends 29 nights with a close acquaintance, and one evening alone with a stranger, is probably more likely to be raped at some point during the 29 days — but not 29 times more likely!
Better advice to give your daughters is that they should be independent, strong, active, self-confident, able, and have absolutely the right to make their own decisions at any point in any sexual encounter - and if the man doesn’t listen to her, it’s his fault, not hers.
Certainly good advice. Other good advice to take from this is to state explicitly that it’s okay to “rat out” someone who acts inappropriately — even if it’s someone they think is a “trusted adult.”
But I still feel like the “most rapes are acquaintance rapes” argument is mis-leading. It smells too much like “Why are so many closets I open full of my clothes?” Because 99% of the time, you are opening your own closet!
If the choice for this evening is “trusted acquaintance” or “stranger”, stranger is still the riskier option for any given period of time.
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
If the choice for this evening is “trusted acquaintance” or “stranger”, stranger is still the riskier option for any given period of time.
Only if you assume that all strangers are more likely to be rapists than all trusted acquaintances. The real problem is that you can never know that a trusted acquaintance or family member will not rape any more than you can know that a stranger will not rape. Truth be known, none of us have the skills to make that determination - no matter how long or how well we know a person. We can fully believe that our best friend/father/uncle/grandfather would never rape but that belief doesn’t make it true.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Richard, Jake Squid has got it right. While the predominance of people with the opportunity (acquaintances) among rapists may only speak to their opportunity, you don’t seem to have anything but a hunch to show for the proposition that trusted acquaintances are less likely to be rapists. In fact, one could theorize that, for some rapists, “familiarity breeds attempt,” so that the more time one spends with such a man, the more at risk one is.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Richard: But isn’t that because they are more likely to BE with someone they know well?
And how do you suppose that someone who wants to molest a child will best arrange to have his desires fulfilled? Why should he go out and take the risk of offering candy to strange children, when he has daughters (or sons) at home who can more easily be manipulated into keeping quiet?
While I will agree that, statistically, rapes by close aquaintances are most common, I would also assume (again, intuitively) that if Person A spends every one of her nights in a month alone with a close “trusted” acquaintance/relative, and Person B spends every one of her nights in a month alone with a different stranger she met at a bar, Person B would get raped more often.
And your intuition is wrong. Person A is alone every night of the month with an acquaintance or relative, who can rape her as he pleases: she might be raped more than 30 times in the month, and she might even believe that “it’s not really rape, he’s my husband” or “it’s not really rape, because he just pestered me till I gave in” or “it’s not really rape, my uncle just makes me do stuff to him, he doesn’t screw me”. Person B is making a judgement each evening about a man she just met: she might make a wrong judgement, but she’s unlikely to think that she owes a man she just met sex, or that it’s not “really” rape. Person B is probably as wary as she’ll ever get each night. Person B might get raped - one man she picks up might appear to be a nice person and turn out to be an asshole like one of Nick’s picks, or might turn out to be a sociopath - but Person A is stuck with her rapist and his betrayal.
A more “normal” person, Person C, who spends 29 nights with a close acquaintance, and one evening alone with a stranger, is probably more likely to be raped at some point during the 29 days … but not 29 times more likely!
Only if the acquaintance Person C spends 29 nights with is the kind of guy who doesn’t commit rape. If he is, Person C is 29 times more likely to be raped during the nights she spends with him - a lot more than 29 times more likely.
If the choice for this evening is “trusted acquaintance” or “stranger”, stranger is still the riskier option for any given period of time.
You’re still assuming that men known to be “trusted acquaintances” don’t usually commit rape. Statistics show you wrong.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
i suppose some people see how men benefit from rape in the institutional sense that fear of rape allows men more social freedoms than women. but i most definitely am harmed by men who rape. every time, every-every-every-every time, that sit alone with a female student to help her with math, i worry that something i say or do will be misconstrued in a way that could cost me my job. the fact of rape makes me less able to do my job (provide safe, friendly, helpful advice on math or life to all students equally, male or female).
and if we just remember that rape does not equal sex, then there is simply no question about blaming the victim. the victim of rape may have asked for sex, but that’s not what she (or he) got. the main reason i enjoy sex is that my partner has chosen to be with me. her arousal and willingness to be there and to do what we’re doing is what makes it fun, intimate, erotic. the instant she doesn’t want to do something, i lose all motivation to try to do that…it’s just not sex (by definition a mutual act) anymore.
there is nothing wrong with Nick for wanting sex or for doing what she calculated would be the way to get some. and clearly the guy she was with was part asshole for persisting after she said no, but ultimately, it looked like his decency (or maybe drunknness, but okay) won out.
what’s terribly wrong is that there are guys out there who can even maintain an erection in the presence of an unwilling partner. putting aside the atrocity of the actual rape, just for the moment, the fact that some men’s psychology enables the mere possibility of (penile) rape is abhorrent to me to the point of true lack of understanding. (seriously…some guys can get it up when she’s resisting??)
there’s the appropriate place for blame, right there. on the men who pervert the sex act so much that they can imitate it (since it’s not real sex) even when a woman is resisting. don’t put it on rape victims.
This comment was written by Polymath.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
One of the pieces of advise I would give them is, “Always be careful when you are alone with men. Try to minimize those times, and more so the less you know the man.” That sounds like sound advise to me. Right up there with “Don’t take candy from strangers.”
Translation: Men can not be trusted. Avoid any “alone” time with a man. It is your job to keep yourself from getting raped.
But I guess at the same time, you hope they will date and eventually get married? Or do you plan to cut out the dating part and simply choose a suitable man based on how he acts around you? Knowing that how a man acts around you might have no relation to how he might act alone, with your daughter?
Trying to keep your daughters safe shouldn’t mean teaching them to limit themselves, it should mean you, out telling men that rape is not OK and that you are not going to passively support the concept that “men rape and if you get raped you are at fault” by putting the burden on your daughters to avoid it.
When I was young, my father told me that boys were only after me for one thing, sex. I was told it was my job to keep them from getting sex. But at the same time, I was encouraged to date and find a guy to marry. How contrary is that? Men only want me for sex and I should avoid them, but I should find one to marry so I can have sex. And if in the mean time, I get raped, I am at fault. For either not following a list a rules that don’t help, or for simply wanting sex.
It must be nice to be a guy, getting to go out looking for sex and your only worry a girl saying “No”. And heck, if the circumstances are right, you can ignore the “No”. It is hard to be a girl. We aren’t supposed to want sex at all. And if we do, and go looking for it, we are whores and deserve what we get, we are asking for it.
Richard, if you had sons, instead of daughters, would your ‘keeping child safe’ list be a long list of things to avoid? Or would it consist of ‘wear a condom’.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
As long as there are rapists, there will always be victims. You can’t solve the problem by learning not to be a victim. That’s senseless.
The only way that risk-analysis/prevention will truly work, is if the man/woman you plan to go off with doesn’t have the intention to rape you, or doesn’t have the intention of raping anyone period.
The car analogy is truly senseless. If you got into an accident, you can cry all day long of how if only you had left the house two minutes earlier, or if only you had checked your mirror a third time, or if only you hadn’t been distracted by the kids passing you the popcorn you would have had more time to react, if you weren’t so foolish as to take this particular street instead of a different route. . . blah blah blah. But the fact is, there was nothing you could do to change the situation.
This makes being victimized by rape even more ludicrous to imagine saying you could have done something differently. Because the fact is, the rape was intentional. The only way the crime would be able to be stopped, is if the perpetrator decides not to rape someone. If the rape doesn’t happen to you, it will inevitably happen to someone else.
This comment was written by MiaMarie.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/474570.html
List of things to do to stop rape. Car analogies need not apply.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
This is very much like my rape story, when I consented to one thing, but didn’t consent to unprotected sex. And she knew that, but got on top and started humping me, despite me saying “no, don’t!” She had already gotten me quite close, so it was very urgent: I pushed her off me rather violently. I didn’t report it for the same reasons you didn’t, and I wouldn’t have been able to force her to abort anyway, so what good would come from that. I just blamed myself for being naked with a crazy woman.
Did the guy know you were already pregnant? That might have lessened his own incentive to use a condom, and it makes your story a little different from mine. But regardless of pregnancy risk, and even std risk, penetration requires consent, or at least requires there to be no “NO!”.
This comment was written by John Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Great list, Ginmar. There’s a new addition to the list, at the top of this thread: If she picked you and your friend up, fucked your friend, spread her legs and said she’d fuck you if you had a condom, but you tried to put your penis in her without a condom, you’re a rapist.
(Honestly, folks, Nick could not have been more clear or straightforward: if X then Y, if not Y then not X. This guy either had the temerity to take off the condom and try to do the one thing sie said sie wouldn’t do; or the entitlement to somehow lose the condom and think sie was obligated to let him fuck hir anyway. What a gigantic asshole!)
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
But I still feel like the “most rapes are acquaintance rapes” argument is mis-leading.
That may sound like common sense, but considering the well documented way that abusive behaviour in intimate relationships tends to escalate, and the way in which rape and abuse is different from other crimes, it’s really not.
Eliminating risk of getting caught is about more than just picking victims from the people around you, it’s about getting to know when the intended victim is most vulnerable and biding one’s time. When it comes to people who abuse their partners this often involves constantly testing boundaries. Few abusers come straight out and say that they are going to hit you, very few even get physically violent within the first year. Once it starts, the physical violence is often, at first, broken up by long periods without violence. Very few abusers think of themselves as abusive.
Likewise, very few rapists come out and say they will treat you like less than a person. They usually wait until you, and those around you, trust them to some extent. (If they didn’t, they’d get caught more often and we wouldn’t have as much of a problem.) They often don’t think that they are rapists either. I doubt the guy that Nick fooled around with would have if he had raped her. (”Hey, she said yes…and we were already doing it!”)
Besides, the big difference between rape and abuse on one hand and murder and theft on the other is that the former cannot be done without creating a witness to the crime. Thus, it’s to the rapists/abusers advantage to establish a relationship that gives them a measure of control and to adopt a persona that makes everyone around them trust them (and consequently distrust any accusers). Commiting stranger rape, unlike stealing from an empty house or store, is in some ways riskier than raping ones partner or date. The former only leaves the question of who the perpetrator is, the latter also brings up the question of whether a crime was commited at all. The way in which we focus of what women should do rather than what men do only makes this worse.
Blasting people for using Nick’s story as yet another example of What Women Shouldn’t Do is not unwarranted. Telling people to put on their selt belt does not feed into the non-existent idea that semi’s have the right to rule the road, but saying that a woman who does not always avoid men she hasn’t known for ages feeds into the idea that men can’t be trusted, and that most rapes are stranger rapes (or would be if women routinely engaged in “riskier” behaviour).
Tell your daughter or niece - or son or nephew - whatever you wish, but don’t be surprised if people get pissed when you choose to lecture an adult on her “risky” behaviour while also ignoring the social constructs that make the behaviour risky and failing to offer any advice on how to change them.
oh, and what ginmar said
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
A trifold hypothesis:
There is very little a woman can do to protect herself from acquaintance/family-type rape. These rapes are a betrayal; they are someone who was thought to be trustworthy, proving themselves unworthy. Aside from going off to live in an all-woman commune in the woods, there is generally nothing that an individual woman can do to preclude or prevent these rapes.
There is a lot a woman can do to protect herself against stranger rape. These rapes are not a betrayal; while monstrous, there was no trust established or taken advantage of. They are simply a power dynamic at play; a man who wanted to exert power over a woman had the opportunity to do so with someone not in his circle of friends and acquaintances, and took it. Women are significantly capable of avoiding this type of assault by restricting or modifying their own behavior so as to not provide openings for the opportunistic criminal; not walking drunk through the park at night, etc.
Women act rationally, and concentrate their strategies for harm reduction in the area where it can reduce their instance of being raped: strangers and dangerous situations. Can’t do anything much about Uncle Ollie if he starts raping, so don’t worry about it; can prevent the stranger rape in the park by not going into the park.
If all three prongs of this hypothesis is true, we would expect to see what we actually do observe: large quantities of acquaintance rape (which cannot be modified other than by cultural change, and individual moral choices by men), and relatively smaller quantities of stranger rape (which can be avoided, and often is, by women modifying their own behavior).
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Okay - alternate ending to Nick’s story:
Let’s say after Nick’s initial objections, she finally concedes and has sex without a condom. What she didn’t tell the man is that she had a case of herpes, which is passed to the man. The next few weeks, the man inevitably will complain to his friends about “that whore who gave him herpes.” Would anyone say, “hey that sucks, but you were dumb.” Cos it is dumb to have sex with a stranger without a condom. Still, I doubt anyone would say it. The proper thing to do would be to commiserate over a pint of beer.
Which is just why this “you were dumb” pisses me off so much. What benefit does it give to say that? The reason why rape is so common is that men feel they can get away with it, that the woman won’t confess. And that feeling is reinforced when someone like Nick or Samantha talk about their rape or near-rape experiences and are immediately punished for speaking about it.
So here’s what you do. If a woman tells you she’s been right, you console her. If your only response is “well that was dumb of you” or something of the like, then kindly shut the fuck up. You’ll be doing her a favor.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
False analogy. Car accidents, being accidents, aren’t maliciously seeking easy, available victims. Rapists are. That is why the real danger to children and women is from close to home. And it thrives on fear, shame and secrecy, so if you really want to do your daughters a favor, teach them to TALK if someone hurts them sexually. And then take it seriously. If you could get a room full of women talk about the myriad ways male realtives, teachers, friends of the family and fathers of friends got their sexual jollies by touching, pressing, propositioning, etc. when they were too young and insecure to stand up for themselves, you’d probably freak out and then maybe you’d realize that “stranger danger” is a dangerous, red herring.
A lot of us probably are taken aback by the casualness of Nick going off to have a threesome w/ two strangers. For me this has nothing to do with her being a woman, or with the fact that one of the men was assaultive. It’s just not how I’m put together- I can’t fathom ever doing such a thing. I’m not sexually adventurous. It doesn’t fit in with how I see myself, and a lot of men and women are like this.
So what? There are cultures where a woman is foolishly “risking rape” by showing her hair, or going to school or leaving the house. It’s the wrong way to think about it.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
You know I’m reading through at all the speculation of whether being with men we know or being with men we don’t know is more of a risk factor for rape or assault. (FTR, I’m in the “at higher risk with men I know” camp, based on general statistics). But what’s not mentioned are the characteristics of men who rape. I would posit (though there is no way to test this) that men who rape (fine! People who rape) are more likely to rape someone that they know than to rape a stranger. AND they are more likely to not be incarcerated it, because it seems to me that raping people that you know is less likely to be associated with the kinds of crimes that are more successfully prosecuted (assault, robbery, etc) and more likely to be associated with crimes that are far less prosecutable, like intimate family violence or intimate partner violence.
This of course is all speculation, but damn if I wouldn’t rather the pundits speculate about the characteristics of the rapists than the characteristics of people who are raped. Because the only thing that has been proven (or as close to proven as possible) is that when looking at the characteristics of people who are raped there is as much variation between them as there is in the total population. The ONLY thing this group has in common is in being in physical proximity to someone who raped them.
Now, if the ONLY thing this groups has in common is centered around the perpetrator, doesn’t it make a whole lot more sense to talk about, speculate about, spend tax dollars in think tanks researching, punditing about and what not, the people who rape?
I know, choir and all that, but I had to chime in.
This comment was written by sailaway.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Would anyone say, “hey that sucks, but you were dumb.” Cos it is dumb to have sex with a stranger without a condom. Still, I doubt anyone would say it.
If the jackass were my friend, I would almost certainly say that. Oh, I’d say it all nice-like, and I would certainly mix in more “that sucks” than “you’re dumb,” but I’d still say it.
And, in fact, I have.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Robert, you’re still missing it and that’s becuase you’re going after this ass backwards. You know who stops rape? Men. Men rape. IF a guy sets out to rape a woman, any woman will do. The only way to protect all those women is to stop those men, not restrict those women. It’s a choice. Who do we impose the curfew on? The women men are raping? Or the men who do the raping? IF we lock women up in their houses, the men will break in.
Furthermore, telling women they have to protect themselves ignores the fact that women DO protect themselves, and that they get no damned praise or recognition for it at all. When one woman gets attacked, though, it’s assumed that she failed not that she did everything a reasonable person could do. A reasonable person. Women should not have to make huge sacrifices for safety.
See, the thing about rape is that men are not doing their share at all. None. They’re not doing one damned thing to end it all. Instead, they’re bashing rape victims with polite phrases and passive rape acceptance. Rape isn’t like the weather or some force of nature that you avoid, like puddles. It’s an act committed by men who don’t think they’re rapists. Their denial that it’s rape and your denial that it’s men’s job to end it leave women always in the postion of having to react because the intransingence of so-called reasonable men leaves women no choice. Try thinking about it before you repeat the same old shit.
Women are doing all they need to do to end rape. MEn are not. Pick up the slack or shut the fuck up. If men aren’t out there, bashing men who rape, then, no, they’re not doing shit, and they have no damned place in the debate at all.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Ginmar, I agree with you about what has to be done to stop rape.
I did not post a prescription. I posted a description.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
I mean men in general, not guys like Jake and so forth. If men as a group did their share, women wouldn’t have to do it all.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
There is very little a woman can do to protect herself from acquaintance/family-type rape.
No, there isn’t. So why is it anytime a woman is raped she is presented with a list of things to do, or avoid doing, that “might” prevent rape?
There is a lot a woman can do to protect herself against stranger rape. These rapes are not a betrayal; while monstrous, there was no trust established or taken advantage of.
They are a betrayal. I do not expect my car to be stolen, my house to be burgled, to be robbed, mugged, or harmed in any fashion. I would do none of those things to any others, so it would be a betrayal if they happen to me. It is like a social contract. I don’t hurt you, you don’t hurt me.
They are simply a power dynamic at play; a man who wanted to exert power over a woman had the opportunity to do so with someone not in his circle of friends and acquaintances, and took it. Women are significantly capable of avoiding this type of assault by restricting or modifying their own behavior so as to not provide openings for the opportunistic criminal; not walking drunk through the park at night, etc.
Women should watch what they do, how they act, where they go. Women should modify their behavior. Women can avoid rape if they follow the rules.
And I don’t need to say anything else. Ginmar, post #125 said everything.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Someone else said this, too, and it needs to be repeated: WHY ARE YOU TELLING A WOMAN WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE?! What is she supposed to do, get in her damned time machine and go back in time and prevent the rape? The thing is, if it wasn’t her that guy raped, chances are the guy would have moved onto another target. As long as you focus on any one woman, you’re leaving all other women out there undefended. Harden one target and you’re just ensuring that they go after other targets. You can only do so much with a target. Eventually you have to realize that the simplest thing to do is go after the person doing the attacking.
Think about it in terms of shooting a weapon. You can move the target great distances but if you’re the one firing that weapon it only takes a tiny bit of movement to keep the sight trained on the target. So why are we going through all this crap when all we have to do is disarm the shooter? The victim is not shooting themselves. The shooter has all the advantages. Why don’t we go after him? Instead we’ve got victims doing all this incredible labor. It’s not like they’re running after the bullets and trying to catch them.
It’s incredibly stupid to go after victims in the name of crime prevention, and yet somehow we only do this when it’s females. Or gays, in some cases.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
The victim-blamers, as a rule, seem to believe that bad things only happen to people (women) who have been bad or stupid. I’m sure it’s a very comforting idea for some people to believe that rapes mostly happen to women (=not me or my sister/daughter/wife) who have been stupid. Unfortunately, it is bullshit. And like Raznor asked, what does it help to declare people stupid, (except possibly) to maintain a sense of control, a sense that it won’t happen to me or anyone I care about?
And I suppose someone might now call this “fatalism” or “resignation”. However, let me just say that I don’t aim just for a society (in a broad, global sense) in which all public places feel to women like places where they are safe from rape, I’d go as far as to demand a society in which NO place would feel like a safe place for a rapist to rape. No cop-outs like “yeah, but until that happens, women need to…”, they’re just distractions and insults to women who are currently doing much against being raped. I think an almost rape-free society is a possibility (same goes for other crimes) but it sure won’t be achieved by victim-blaming, or the attitude that rape victims first have to prove their “innocence” in not having been stupid, tempting, too vulnerable, too in-the-wrong-place or whatever the hell people want to hold rape victims liable off.
Just adding my voice, others have been saying the same thing (ginmar most vocally), but the idea “No woman (or a man) is to blame for being raped at the least, the fault is 100% with the rapist” is such good stuff it bears repeating. Oh, and it’s a good thing the title “My Rape Story” wasn’t what I was expecting. Phew.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
can prevent the stranger rape in the park by not going into the park.
And not going around or into:
* the grocery store
* the gas station
* the movie theater
* the restaurant
* the pharmacy
* the pub
* the coffeehouse
* the bookstore
* the library
* the post office
* the doctor’s office or clinic
* the dentist’s office
* the hospital
* the city hall
* the department store
* the record shop
* the clothing store
* the bakery
* the sporting goods store
* the gym
* the auto repair shop
* the home supply store
* the florists
* the nursery
* the pizza joint
* the video rental store
* the bank
* the house of worship
* the health food store
* the daycare facility
* the bus stop
* the subway
* school
* work
And don’t stay home alone, either.
Robert, do you have any clue at all why most women find this “advice” completely repugnant, not to mention unworkable?
and ginmar? I am wholly in your amen corner!
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Perhaps it’s just me, but I would tell a male acquaintance who got herpes from unprotected sex that he was stupid.
I have, in fact.
This comment was written by winna.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
[...] There’s an incredibly heated, passionate and fascinating discussion going on over at Alas on the topic of rape, rape culture and so on. Rather than sum it up for here for you, as I could never do it justice, I’ll just let you read it for yourself (the whole post and all 121 at last count comments in response). Reading through all the comments gave me a tension headache, but this is a topic that merits such discussion and thus is more than worth such an ailment. [...]
This comment was written by S A U C E B O X - where nice is optional.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
“There is very little a woman can do to protect herself from acquaintance/family-type rape.”
Actually, sometimes there is a lot one can do - you can get the hell out of a relationship the moment he starts to test those boundaries. Or you know, you could become a nun. But the fact that you can do something about this doesn’t mean that the focus should be on telling women to be overly sensitive about what their partners do (or avoiding men altogether) - at the expense of discouraging such men from such behaviour.
There is a lot a woman can do to protect herself against stranger rape….while monstrous, there was no trust established or taken advantage of.
It’s ridiculous to say that there was no trust established in Nick’s story. It may not be the same level of trust as in a decades old marriage, but it’s still trust. At what magical point do you think trust is established? A few hours? A few dates? A few months? A few years?
But then, technically, if Nick had been raped, it would not have been stranger rape. Which leads me to:
If all three prongs of this hypothesis is true, we would expect to see what we actually do observe: large quantities of acquaintance rape (which cannot be modified other than by cultural change, and individual moral choices by men), and relatively smaller quantities of stranger rape (which can be avoided, and often is, by women modifying their own behavior).
Gee, that’s a neat trick - taking what is known to be true, hypothesising about why, and then taking what is known to be true as proof that your hypothesis is correct as well.
I do wonder though, should we women modify our behaviour to protect ourselves from acquaintance rape (in direct violation of your hypothesis) or does being raped by a guy (or two) that you’ve hung out with for a few hours not count as acquaintance rape?
Besides, if your hypothesis were true, and stranger rape decreases in direct proportion to actions taken by women - and is unaffected by societal norms, then we would expect global rape stats to be in direct proportion with women’s modesty and lack of freedom rather than their political and economic power.
Cultural norms still strongly affect rape stats worldwide. Women’s individual choices only affect their individual safety in limited ways. Culture plays a large part in defining what is “risky” behaviour, and consequently, the rates of both stranger and acquaintance rape.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
With apologies, Robert:
I’ve been raped and not by a stranger.
I spent decades blaming myself, which is kind of silly, because I was a kid at the time and really couldn’t have prevented anything, but kids are silly and I was a kid when I started blaming myself.
Eventually I got a little better on that.
After I got a little better, I spent six or seven months thinking that it really was in some way different from people who got raped by strangers, or as adults. That because I was young and didn’t have options, it was less my fault than theirs.
Then I got smarter.
Robert: Listen. What you are describing is a fantasy. Everyone who was raped was like me. Even if it was by a stranger. It’s all the same. It’s always about the rapist’s cruelty. It’s a sin carried out against, not by, the victim’s body, mind, and soul.
And let me add this.
This is not a fatalistic philosophy. It’s an optimistic one. It is clear and it is bright like the morning sun. Because I am not interested in cowering from the world and from morality and saying, “Nothing to be done, nothing to be done.” I’m saying that it has to be fought, not lived with, not accomodated. I’m saying that every woman and every man who is abused or raped or hurt deserved better, because they are my siblings and my allies in this world.
I reject your frame. Too much has been given up already. If it is a risk to live in the world instead of hiding then it’s just civil disobedience against the unwritten laws; and I admire people like Nick for that heroism of actually living.
I’m not very good at that kind of heroism. But please don’t suggest that it’s somehow worthy of praise that I’m afraid.
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
I’d be interested in finding out the age of the posters to this thread. I’m wondering if there’s an age gap here. I’m 49 and most of my female friends are 45 - 65. Between us there’s a whole host of real world sexual experience — long- and short-term marriages, annulments, divorces, affairs, one night stands, a few swinging experiences, and lots of battery operated toys. Probably half of us were born into pretty traditional homes, with rigidly defined roles for men and women. All of us have tested those roles, and I suppose one of the reasons we’ve remained friends is because all of us are kind of considered rebels by our families. There’s not a lot of moralizing going on within the group, but we have all come to a point where we acknowledge that our first responsibility is to ourselves, — that as we have gotten more healthy and self-possessed, we have made better decisions and have been less likely to put ourselves in risky situations, physically, emotionally and financially.
None of my peer group would recommend Nick’s actions to another, and those who have made similar choices in their younger days, recall these stories with both a chuckle and sigh of relief that things didn’t go bad. I think the difference is, is that all of us have been caretakers at some point, and rather reflexively look out for others, and so err on the side of preventing pain when possible. It’s a view that you’re not going to find in any feminist graduate seminar. I’ve taken a few. Although they can be great for helping to conceptualize the power dynamics within relationships, systems and organizations, they’re of little help when one is in a risky situation.
Nick exposed herself to a whole host of dangers, quite apart from sexual assault. Men will nearly always be stronger then women, and two men against a pregnant woman is pretty bad odds in my book. Sex with two drunk strangers was not the only remedy to her situation.
Frankly, when it comes to talking to loved ones about the best way to protect themselves, I really I don’t care whether a women is more vulnerable to stranger vs. acquaintance rape. I’ve seen and lived both sides of the equation. There are predators and there are prey in the world, and while we’ll waiting for everyone to evolve, let’s make sure that everyone has a way to protect themselves. At nearly fifty years of age, and having lived in the real world, I think it’s better to equip people with actual tools and skills, over statistics and discussions of male patriarchy. Slogans are little comfort to someone who’s actually been raped or killed.
I escaped two attempted abductions by strangers at age 14 and 17, when I was out walking, in very low risk areas, back in the bucolic 70’s. What I learned from the first attempt, saved my life the second time around when two men tried to force me into a car at knifepoint; I knew what was coming, and was able to respond the moment he grabbed me and put the knife to my throat. I never felt I was to blame, but retrospectively, realized that I had let myself get way too close to the point where I couldn’t protect myself. I had ignored my intuition that had been screaming danger in my ear, let him keep stepping into my personal space, and kept trying to accomodate his request for directions (I was raised to be a “nice,” helpful girl). Later, I worked as a bartender for several years, as I worked myself through school, and witnessed a whole slew of potentially dangerous situations that people got themselves into, usually fueled by alcohol and depression. I have referred to those instances when talking to my nieces and nephews, and the homeless women I’ve worked with, and don’t care one whit if that makes me a moralizing snob, if I reduce their chances of assault by even 2%.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
You know, Emmetropia, you can use a lot of words and still blame the victim. Also? Sneering that ‘while we wait for eveyrone to evolve’ means you’re on the side of the rapists. You don’t end rape by going after the victims. The victims have done all they can. It’s about damned time we started nailing rapists for what they do. You don’t want to deal with that, fine. But don’t expect anybody to tolerate the same old crap with a fine new gloss on it.
PS; The only thing we’re missing is somebody whining that we don’t want women to protect themselves.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
grrr….sorry about the italics (must remember to preview)
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Ginmar, your powers of interpretation, leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t know where you get that I’m “on the side of rapists,” or where I’m “going after the victim,” but frankly those are cheap shots. I know rape isn’t taken seriously enough. The police refused to go after the two men who held me at knifepoint, despite the fact that a witness had taken down their license number, and that they had been implicated in three other attempted abductions around the county. The father of the driver swore the car had never left the driveway that day, and the police said, “besides, you really weren’t hurt.”
They were young and inexperienced. I’m sure they went on to commit other successful assaults. In the 30 years since that happened, there have probably been millions of rapes worldwide. If every known rapist was locked up, there would be more rapists to take their places. I’ve yet to hear of any idyllic culture on this side of the veil, that was free of sexual assault. Now in the interim, I suppose we can just encourage people to endanger themselves, and then raise them to sainthood when they’re victimized. But the people I know and love are actual flesh and blood beings, and I prefer that they not sacrifice themselves for the “cause.”
So I will continue to encourage them to protect themselves as best they can, and you can make icons.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Now in the interim, I suppose we can just encourage people to endanger themselves, and then raise them to sainthood when they’re victimized. But the people I know and love are actual flesh and blood beings, and I prefer that they not sacrifice themselves for the “cause.”
Oh good grief. Project much? Who is advocating for rape here?
Look. I understand that some people here have an issue that Nick left a bar with two men, with the intent of having sex. Fine. Have an issue with it. Try to make it all about “morality”—separating the “good” women from the “bad” women, as if that’ll make you either feel or be any more “protected”, or “less at risk”. Just one question….
How does the scenario surrounding Nick’s experience differ from that of the typical date? Surely I can’t be the only person on this thread who goes out on dates before a lengthy getting-to-know-you period (which, is kinda what a dates are for, no?)? And dates amongst non-teetotaling adults usually involve a certain level of imbibing alcohol, right? And a certain amount of alone-time out of the public eye, right? So, what was physically different in Nick’s scenario? (for a younger crowd, even the other guy isn’t so unusual; where rent is expensive, roommates are common). What was different? ‘Cuz from where I stand, the only thing that was different in this picture was that Nick was up-front about wanting to have sex. And I think that if Nick told the same story, but without the candid admission of wanting to have sex, no one would have found fault with hir actions.
Emmetropia, in no way, shape, or form do I want women raped for a cause. I firmly believe every woman should train in martial arts and carry a weapon (many everyday objects make excellent weapons!). I think we should all be aware of our surroundings and prepared to defend ourselves if necessary. I believe we should be prepared to kill if necessary. However, I am not under any illusion that “good girl” behavior is going to protect me from rape, or from the harsh criticism that would come my way if I ever was raped. You mentioned age. Well, I’m thirty-eight….old enough to know that if I was raped on the way home from work or a trip to the grocery store, or even at home behind locked doors and locked windows, raped by an assailant who broke in—-I would receive the exact same blame, the same dirty looks, dismissive attitude, the same “she should known better” bullshit as if I were a crack-smoking prostitute assaulted while turing tricks. Simply being female makes both of us targets. I’m not under any illusion that I would be treated better by either the police or the State’s Attorney than the official “bad girl”, the prostitute. And I’m not under any illusion that rapists are making “moral” assessments of their targets (”oh, I couldn’t rape her, she’s too nice”). Oh, and I’m also not under any illusion that, in the rare event of a rape conviction, let alone arrest, that my rapist would do any more time than the official “bad girl’s” rapist.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
weird. my earlier comment is still awaiting moderation….
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Sorry, I spent most of today on planes (returning to Oregon from Florida) and so didn’t have internet access; hence, slow approval of comments stuck in moderation.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Emmetropia,
It’s nice that you think your approach is more practical and worldly.
I don’t think you’ve actually tried to demonstrate it.
Look. Respecting women’s choices and not blaming victims—these are both strategies for both preventing and mitigating rapes.
Respecting women’s choices, incidentally, means neither advocating “go have sex with strangers” or saying “don’t do that! You’ll get raped!” If they’re a kid or if they ask your advice, help them hone their own risk factor judgment rather than superimposing your own.
It’s not ideology to me. That’s just how I talk about it. It’s about stopping the endless broken human lives. It’s about someday maybe meeting just a few more people who have never been raped. Just a few more people who were raped and bounced back because nobody dogpiled on them for their errors. Just a few more. I have a long life ahead of me. Just 2% would be good.
. . .
And it’s hard, because so many people are, in their opinions on rape, so comfortably smug.
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Robert: There is a lot a woman can do to protect herself against stranger rape. These rapes are not a betrayal; while monstrous, there was no trust established or taken advantage of. They are simply a power dynamic at play; a man who wanted to exert power over a woman had the opportunity to do so with someone not in his circle of friends and acquaintances, and took it.
So, basically, Robert, in YOUR view of the world, no man owes any human feeling or respect towards any woman who ISN’T inside that man’s circle of acquaintances? Every woman OUTSIDE that circle is fair game and can be raped - there’s no “betrayal” involved, it’s the woman’s responsibility to avoid strange men, not a man’s responsibility not to rape women he doesn’t know?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:49 am
Final try it probably won’t work and probably people will call me names but that is life.
1. Risk reduction means reducing not elimiating. It is not blame the vicitm. It means that one is less likely to become a vicitm, not that if one doesn’t follow these procedures one is asking for it, or to blame for it. It means that the behaviour increased the risk of becoming a victim. At least that is not how I believe.
Many here seem to think risk reduction is pointlesse. I disagree. We make risk assessments in our life all the time, on many issues.
2. This is not a court of law; . In a court of law the prosecution (not Nick, legaly) would need to prove the case against the man, and the man’s lawyer would need to show teh court didn’t have enough evidence to convict (not that the man wa innocent). Nothing needs to be proved to me. I accept everything Nick has told me without querstioning.
Because it is not a court of law issues, such as intelligence of a certain act, or the morality of a certain act, or the relative likelihood of a certain act leading to another act, can be discussed. I would be opposed to them in a court of law. If I were a juror in a court of law and the case was presented to me with a less pleasant ending, I would disregard issues concerning (my views) of morality and intelliegence. Nick would not be on trial. Nick would not have to prove anything; that would be the prosecutions job. Finding the man not guilty because the prosecution couldn’t prove its case would not mean to me that Nick lied, or was imagining the situation. It would mean that based on the evidence I could not find for guilt. I think when these issues are wrong if raised in a court of law to try and prove the defendent is not guilty. They have no place in a court of law. I would fight against them being used in a court of law.
This is not a court of law.
3. Nick wasn’t raped. She states she escaped rape but came close. She was initially upset and frightened but later it was merely irritating to her. I am glad it came to that in the end and that she did not feel traumatized and was not traumatized and she and her child were safe. I should have stated that. I perhaps should have stated things in a more polite way.
I presumed that Nick was an adult and therefore could take someone she didn’t know and hadn’t real reason to care much about saying her actions were stupid. I presumed she was big enough and adult enough that if my remarks upset her she’d come and tell me that. And we could talk about that issue as well. Or not, as either of us wished.
You can call me smug and I can tell you why I think you are wrong. Or not. I can care or not. This is part of my responsibilty to myself. I don’t think discussion of risk reduction are an anthema to the freedom of women, nor, in my mind do they have anything to do with the responsiblity of the man for rape. A woman could stand naked in front of a man. do the dance of the seven veils, in front of a sign that says “take me, I’m yours” and go off with him to a distant corner where no one can hear. The moment she says stop he must. Period. If he doesn’t he has raped her. Period.
I still contend that what should be, as can be plainly seen, is not what is, and wanting it to be a perfect world is not the same thing as operating in it as if it were.
Now it may be that Nick has evaluted the risk/benefit ratio differently than I have and we come to different conclusions on the intelligence of the behaviour. And that is fine.
If you want to conclude that I am wrong that is fine. If you want to conclude that risk analysis does no good, that is fine. If you want to conclude that rape falls into the “earthquake catagory” (no abiltiy to predict or prevent) instead of perhaps the “hurricane catagory” (some prediction possible, some methods of protection possible—evacuate etc, not a sure thing,) I think you are wrong. I think it is more like a hurricane and there are preventivtive steps to avoid dying in one, but that there are no guarrantees. And I intend to take those measures.
But that is not blaming the vicitm.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 1:51 am
Jesu, that seems unfair to me. Robert called stranger-rape “monstrous”; that’s not compatable with considering women outside the circle “fair game.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 4:21 am
Wow, hot stuff going on here. Have to admit I was pretty astonished when Nick said she went off with these two complete strangers alone, but, anyway- it was better than taking the ‘all guys are rapists’ mentality, and as someone else said here (can’t remember who)- being more precautious about rape doesn’t neccessarily reduce the number of rapes considerably.
This comment was written by Cho.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:12 am
Since women today are bold enough to admit to wanting sex, why not just pay for it. That way you get a professional with professional ethics to go along. Clean and fun.
When paying for a man, he’s your toy under your command. You say start, he starts. You say stop, he stops. But that’s no fun isn’t it. You want him to be spontaneous and dominate you, don’t you?
Well girls, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
This comment was written by Lucipher.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:27 am
Nick, would you recommend your actions to the prospective daughter you are due to deliver next week? If a son, would you recommend drunken encounters with strangers as an ideal?
I like to think I would raise my child to make the choices that were right for hir. I also like to think that by the time my child becomes sexually active, we will have made enough of an impact on sexist behaviour that should sie choose anonymous sex, sie wouldn’t suffer from that choice.
Maybe I’m just being hopelessly idealistic though.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:28 am
Legal eagle - telling someone to put a condom on is not equivalent to raping someone. Don’t fudge the issue.
This comment was written by Nella.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Emmetropia, I am calling bullshit on your ageism. I am in my mid-30’s with a spouse and a child and a mortgage. Your speculation that the folks who disagree with you are some kind of kids, is without foundation. You’re wrong because you’re wrong, not because your detractors don’t “live in the real world.”
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 5:55 am
By every legal definition of the term Nick is the attempted rapist here. Nick is the one who went out looking for sex, plyed them with so much alcohol that the could no longer make informed decisions, and then tried to make the victim perform a sex act that they didn’t want to.
Isn’t it wonderful how you can change the whole complexion of a situation by leaving out a detail or two? I didn’t ply them with alcohol; they’d been drinking for hours when I met them, and I can only infer how drunk they were based on their behaviour.
But much more importantly, I gave the asshole a choice. Either he could get a condom, or I was getting dressed and going home. I wasn’t forcing him to perform any sex act, unless you mean that he would be “forced” to wank off his frustration after I’d gone if I didn’t give him exactly what he wanted.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 6:48 am
Rachel Ann:
Risk reduction, or at least the version of risk reduction that is preached in the conservative part of the U.S. that I live in, assumes a high degree of financial and social privilege on the part of the potential victim. For example: “don’t go in parking garages by yourself”. Well, if you work for a living, or have any business to conduct downtown, you’re going to be entering parking garages—and it’s probably going to be by yourself, and half the time it’s going to be after dark. “Avoid bad neighborhoods.” Well, you live in the neighborhood you can afford. “Install exterior safety lighting around your house.” For what? So intruders will have an easier time seeing how best to break in? In my neighborhood, the houses will all the fancy lighting are the ones broken into most often!
Yes, it irritates me that you are speaking on this issue, when it is clear that you lead a life far more insulated than that most of the rest of us do. I am alone with men often in the course of my work. I am usually the only woman on a crowded construction site—and tradeswomen have been raped on the job. Some folks take the opinion that women who put themselves in an all-male environment, or even a depopulated envoronment where they may encounter men, that those women are tacitly accepting rape risk by that action. No. That is flawed thinking.
I don’t have the privilege of quitting my job. I don’t have the privilege of finding someone to be with me all the time as I go about my business. As a single, adult woman, I simply cannot function by the “rules” that are supposed to keep my life rape-free. Whether you want to admit it or not, the woman who goes off alone with a man she doesn’t know well in order to have sex, isn’t really at any more risk of being raped than any woman who finds herself alone for any reason with a man she doesn’t know well. Most of us are continually in the presence of men we don’t know well. At work. At school. Walking home. Running errands. At the park. We are at risk—-why? Because we are around the people most likely to commit rape. Men.
Why isn’t the focus on stopping men from raping? To me, it seems painfully easy to avoid raping someone. It isn’t easy to survive without a job, or to survive without ever leaving the house. And your advice translates pretty much to exactly that where I live. Every time a woman is raped around here, the chatter is, “well, she shoulda done….” or not done, whatever. The focus is never, “that man should have listened to the word “no”. It’s disingenous of you to not recognize that we, as women, are still to this day blamed for our rapes, regardless of our behavior. We can have impeccable, “good woman” behavior, and still end up blamed for our rape, or called the same names (stupid, whore, etc.) as the “bad” or “naive” woman.
You think you have a life that is more sheltered from rape than mine. You may not. Regardless, my life would be recognized as “more risky” in terms of rape where I live, because I “put myself” in positions where I am either alone with men, or alone on the street (in a parking lot, parking garage, park, wherever). Where I live, minds have not been changed—not enough minds. I can’t survive following your protocols. Your protocols are not available to me. So, in order to survive, I have to engage in the “risky” behavior that will get me blamed for my rape. There are many rapes here, yet few arrests. What the fuck do you suggest that I do? Why is the burden on me to prevent rape? I’m not the one raping!! I already engage in all the “risk management” I can. So do the women I know. Most of the women I know have been raped, anyway.
What the fuck do we do?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 6:48 am
Rachel Ann Writes: Final try it probably won’t work and probably people will call me names but that is life.
Rachel, I agreed not to “pile on” you any more, because Nick asked us to: does this mean you feel free to come back and tell us, again, that it’s a woman’s fault if she gets raped? Evidently so.
Ampersand: Robert called stranger-rape “monstrous”; that’s not compatable with considering women outside the circle “fair game.”
Then Robert needs to rethink his definition of “monstrous” or his definition of “fair game”, since he asserted (as I quoted) that a man who rapes a woman outside his circle of acquaintance, a woman he doesn’t know, has committed no betrayal of trust - presumably because Robert thinks no woman should expect any man to behave with any humanity towards a woman he doesn’t know.
Or is Robert arguing that all men are monstrous?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 7:04 am
Emmetropia, I’m calling bullshit as well. As it happens I’m 42, and a soldier part of the time. I spent a year in Iraq and I’ve forgotten more about self defense than you’ll ever know—and I’ve used it, too.
It’s really simple. Men have to hold up their end of the bargain. They have to work just as much to end rape as women do. They’re not. As long as they’re saying one word about the victim, they’re not. Rape victims don’t commit rape. We could get rid of every rape victim there is and there’d still be rapes becuase we hadn’t gotten rid of the rapists. Maybe then men would give a shit if it started happening to them as often as it happend to women.
I think the persistance of the victim bashers is pretty damned disgusting. They keep fighting for their ‘right’ to blame victims instead of shutting the fuck up and opening their minds. It’s the attitude that you see on too many rape juries.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 7:17 am
That’s a claim about the law. I don’t know what the law is in Lincolnshire, England. I know what it is in New York, and for alcohol to negate consent the intoxicated person must be passed out, as a practical matter. Legal Eagle, can you point to a statute or decision that says that simple intoxication negates consent?
Or are you making things up?
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 7:24 am
La Luba,
You stated:
I agree with you that if your profession requires you to go off alone with men you don’t know, regardless of why, you probably are more at risk than I am, and you know what? (BTW, I was addressing the issue of going off with two drunks, not why she was going off. I would have stated it foolish to go off with two drunks to buy a puppy as well).
That sucks. It plain sucks and I wish I could come up with a suggestion that could help you make yourself safer. It isn’t that the burden is on you to prevent the rape. It is my hope to find ways to help keep you safer until such time as men who are nothing more than dogs no longer exist.
I don’t like the world we are living in. I haven’t been to the dentist in three years because we don’t have the funds for the dentist and my teeth are begining to hurt. That is a different issue, obviously, but it is a fact. By the time I can afford the dentist a can’t imagine the cost of the work. Lucky me.
I want solutions. I would never place the blame on the woman for the rape. My only goal would be to help make that a less likely event. I will try and think of things you could do to even out the score as things were. Aside from carrying mace and a personal alarm I really can’t think of anything.
Again, your right about me life. I live on a yishuv (settlement) with about 350 families in our particular area, 1,000 in the area above. The walls are fairly thin and in the summer the windows are never closed. There are almost always someone in the street: kids playing and what not. And there is a security person at the gate. Because of my lfie-style, men rarely come to my house unless my husband is here. That doesn’t mean I’m never vulnerable.
Again as an Orthdox Jewish woman I would not take a job where I was the only woman among many men; and personally I don’t like working with a bunch of men anyway. But that’s me.
I am an idealist. I picutre in my head a time when the world isn’t as evil as it is, when even has their needs met, and when we stop living in hatred. But we have to work our way up there and until we reach that state we have to try and devise ways in which we are less likely to be harmed.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 7:26 am
This is without foundation in anything Nick wrote, and in fact, to my knowledge, in anything Nick has ever written. Rather, I’m quite sure that if Nick wanted to be dominated in a BDSM scene, Nick is willing and able to find a dominant partner and make hir needs known explicitly.
Lucipher, I read your comment as a veiled admission that you fantasize that you get to rape women as revenge for the loss of male privilege you perceive. You don’t, and you should seek help before you do something you will have to live with for the rest of your life.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 7:43 am
But as long as we put the responsibility on women for men’s behavior, that time will never come.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:37 am
If Mary Koss’ research is valid (and I think it is), that’s simply not true. Being drunk, and being with men who are drunk, are both significantly correlated with rape. Read the book I Never Called It Rape for more information.
It’s clear that rape is caused by the behaviour of rapists, virtually all of whom are male; and that reducing rape significantly on a society-wide level won’t happen until we change the way men think and behave.
Nonetheless, although rape is never the victim’s responsibility or fault, it’s mistaken to say that nothing a woman does will change the odds that she, personally, will be attacked by a rapist. And I’m worried that people are criticizing others so harshly that they’re in effect creating an “orthodoxy,” in which certain things cannot be said without fear of being ostracized from the group.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:50 am
But that is exactly what I’m saying Sheelzebub; I am not responsible for someone else’s behaviour and I have limited control over their behaviour. So all I can do is try and do my best to avoid situations where I’m more likely to get hurt and try and work to alter the law so that if I or another person gets hurt the law will be an actual force against the perpetuators rather than a minor risk, and to change society so that fewer and fewer people think that another person is their tool.
It is like saying that theere are poor in the world, in an ideal world there would be no poor, society would be built so that couldn’t happen, and so any suggestions on how to help the poor until that day comes are delaying that time period.
I also, quite frankly, see the view that there is nothing to do till society changes as very negative. I think there are always solutions, not perfect solutions, not ones that will insure (ensure? one of my I hate this word because I can never get it right) a positive outcome, but one that will more likely lead to a positive outcome.
Maybe I am wrong and it is an earthquake situation. There is little one can do about it so don’t even try. But I don’t think so.
BTW, another thing I disagree with Nick about is that she didn’t do anything right. I think she absolutely did. It is quite probable that her demeanor and her insistence on what the man had to do to go on and have sex with her is what kept her from being raped. That’s a whole lot of right in my book.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:16 am
What an appalling statement! I think you’re utterly confused between what classifies as dominating, and what classifies as exerting power and control over an unwilling victim. When a woman is raped she’s not putting herself into a submissive role, she’s not letting someone “dominate” over her . . . being raped isn’t fun for the victim . . . I think you need some serious reassessment in your thought processes concerning sex . . . .
This comment was written by MiaMarie.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:18 am
another thing I disagree with Nick about is that she didn’t do anything right. I think she absolutely did. It is quite probable that her demeanor and her insistence on what the man had to do to go on and have sex with her is what kept her from being raped.
I didn’t say I didn’t do anything right, I said my escape had more to do with luck. Luck that I got a man who, while an asshole, was not prepared to physically force himself on a woman who was actively resisting. Sure, it helped that I dared to stand up for myself, but it also helped that he didn’t threaten me with physical harm - if he’d threatened to hurt me or the CLP, I guarantee the story would have ended very differently.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Rather, I’m quite sure that if Nick wanted to be dominated in a BDSM scene, Nick is willing and able to find a dominant partner and make hir needs known explicitly.
Since you mention it, I’m muuuuuch more likely to be looking for a submissive ;)
I was active, at least online, in the BDSM scene for a while, and I’ve been wondering whether that’s where I picked up this strange idea sex is more fun when you approach it in a spirit of negotiation rather than some kind of all-or-nothing attitude to consent.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:29 am
One of the reasons I posted the story I did (back at post #81, which just got approved this AM) was that I’m very uncomfortable judging the behavior of someone else, especially in any sort of sexual context. Thus, when discussing something like this, I focus on my past behavior, and how I have judged myself.
So, just taking my past behavior into account, the idea that risk reduction behavior is both ineffective and equivalent to ‘blaming the victim’ rings false to me. What I experienced was not rape . . . and wasn’t even close from the standpoint of violation or trauma or violence or power, AND I’M NOT CLAIMING IT WAS, even for a second. It was, however, a deliberate sexual violation by another person I’d wrongly placed my trust in . . . and one I probably could have avoided by being more careful. The fact that there’s no way for me to be 100% safe doesn’t make that not true. My partner could cheat on me and bring home an STD. I could be infected my unsanitized medical instruments or a blood transfusion. I could be raped and infected with an STD (although, as a man that’s very unlikely). These are all things I can’t control, but it’s important to me to control what I can.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Alcohol is just an excuse, Amp. Every rapist and wife beater uses it. ‘
Risk reduction tips—which occur after the rape—do no damned good at all. What is the victim supposed to do—get in her time machine? Christ on a pony already. IT’s been pointed out over and over that women do protect themselves but they can’t read the rapist’s mind, can they—how are they supposed to know what he’s going to do so they can protect themselves against it? Every time a woman gets raped, there’s this chorus that goes, “You didn’t protect yourself.” They don’t acknowledge either the effort she put into it or the fact that she’s doing this all by her damned sefl, with no help from society at all.
If you guys who are victim-bashing are so sincere, how about bashing the rapist for a change? Where is it? I’m not talking about ‘other bashing’ where you turn the guy into a monster, I’m talking about the personal bashing that Nick has gotten from either the trolls or the self-righteous. Where is it?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:42 am
It is like saying that theere are poor in the world, in an ideal world there would be no poor, society would be built so that couldn’t happen, and so any suggestions on how to help the poor until that day comes are delaying that time period.
I disagree. If we’re going to use an analogy, then we’d have to say the “what were you thinking” argument is like telling poor people it’s their fault for doing something so stupid, and then telling people who criticize this assessment that if the poor would only take the right steps and make wise choices, they wouldn’t have these problems, and that until the world is a more just place, the poor will just have to accept this judgement as valid.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:43 am
ginmar, I like your list.
One repsonsibility I’ve had in raising a son is that I’ve had to impress upon him that sex is something that two people do together (we’ll leave other variants out of this for now); it’s not something that one person does to another. If you want to do something but the other person doesn’t, then NO MATTER WHAT you have no right to do it, no matter how “heated up” you are or what situation you’re in. “I lost control of myself”, “I was drunk/stoned”, etc. are not excuses. There are no excuses. And the same goes for him; he has a right to say “no” as well, at any time. In neither case does stopping mean you’re less than a man; in fact, it means you’re more of one.
I have a question about a couple points.
8. IF a woman you know says she’s been raped, believe her.
9. If a woman you know says she’s been raped by a buddy of yours, believe her.
Do you advocate acceptance of unsubstantiated accusations of violent crime for other crimes? I don’t think that anyone makes such an accusation lightly, and that the odds are that if such an accusation is made, it’s quite likely to be true. But do you advocate having no doubt at all?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:46 am
If your friend told you your other friend ripped him off, would you wait to see all of the evidence before being a friend and providing comfort?
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:51 am
If your friend told you your other friend ripped him off, would you wait to see all of the evidence before being a friend and providing comfort?
Levels of friendship and trust being equal?
Yes, of course. In fact, for me, this is a ‘duh’ situation.
I try not to make decisions based on half the story, and I would never assume any of my friends are guilty of any crime without getting their side of the story.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Ahh, I see I misread the original post and replied half-cocked.
No, I wouldn’t wait to verify before saying “man, that really sucks. I’m sorry that happened.”
Yes, I would wait to verfy before saying “my friend X is a goddamn THIEF!”
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Being drunk, and being with men who are drunk, are both significantly correlated with rape.
At this point, isn’t that a chicken or egg question? Correlation not being causation and all.
The problem w/ risk reduction theory/advice is twofold. First, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, what the speaker calls “advice” has been, for the most part, criticism of past action. Look at RonF in comment # 3 (he certainly didn’t hesitate before blaming) and then look at his comment # 85 in which he calls that “advice.” Secondly, pretty much all women already practice risk reduction. However, no living human being can follow every avenue suggested to reduce the risk of rape. As a result, when a woman is raped, she is immediately criticised for not following every avenue of risk reduction.
All that is without even getting into whether risk reduction is an effective method of reducing rape - clearly a few things are (but they are not always feasible), but a lot of risk reduction techniques are just there so the victim can be blamed for doing something wrong.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Various people have said, “Why aren’t I blaming the guy?” Well, he’s not on the blog here, so I can’t respond to him directly. I led off by saying that he and anyone else who commits rape should be sent off to jail. If he was on here I’d have harsh things to say to him, but he’s not, so I can’t.
I was initially amazed that so many people here equate advising a potential victim that they should adopt risk-reduction behavior as placing the blame on the victim. But in reading later postings, I realize where this comes from; the history in rape trials where the defendant’s attorney tries to shift the blame onto the victim by bringing up things like the way they were dressed, their behavior towards the rapist, sexual history, etc., playing on whatever sexism and specific moral viewpoints that any of the jurors may have.
I imagine that there’s lots of people who look at these things emotionally instead of logically and say, “‘x’ didn’t take what I consider prudent/reasonable/moral risk-avoidance behavior, so they are to blame when ‘y’ did something to them.” Defense attorneys tend to try to fill juries with them. I’m not one of those people. “y” is to blame. It’s pretty simple.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Jake, I’d explain what happened to you by saying that you had reason to expect that you could trust the person you were with, but they betrayed that trust.
However, that has nothing to do with whether or not going out and picking up drunk strangers in bars is a good idea.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:22 am
RonF,
But what you did in comment #3 was not advising a potential victim. What you did was to blame (or criticise) a past victim (or near victim). And then, in comment #85 you called that advice. It wasn’t advice when you wrote it, it wasn’t advice when you tried to call it that later and it isn’t advice now. It is blaming, pure and simple. Aside from that, I’m not sure why you think that what Nick did was any “stupider” than if Nick had gone on a more traditional “date” with the intention of having sex. So, even if we break the physical laws of the universe and consider comment #3 to be advice, it doesn’t seem to be good or useful advice.
Note:
This comment was written by Jake Squid.I have not actually written what happened to me, you may be confusing me with “Jake” of no surname. But, aside from that, I’m not really sure that what happened to me was any more of a betrayal of trust than what happened to Nick.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Nick, you got asked:
Nick, would you recommend your actions to the prospective daughter you are due to deliver next week? If a son, would you recommend drunken encounters with strangers as an ideal?
I think your answer was kind of idealistic, as you basically said, “I would advise my child to do what’s they feel is right for them; hopefully, society will have changed by the time it’s an issue for my child.” That kind of puts the answer down the line, though, positing in part that you would be looking for conditions to change from what they are now. So let me ask this question; given the present condition of society, would you recommend your actions to someone right now?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 11:19 am
i’m curious about what the percentages of people who have been raped or assaulted are on either side of this debate. i can see how someone who had never been raped would think “hey, (since i’ve been able to make my own decisions), i’ve been doing something right- i’ve avoided certain situations, and i’ve never been raped.” this belief may be entirely wrong, but it gives the person (woman, probably) confidence that her actions are keeping her safe(r). otherwise, she might feel helpless- that no matter what, she’ll probably be raped sometime. and if it hasn’t happened yet, it will eventually… that’s a lot of dread to carry around perpetually. it might be easier for her to believe she has some power over the occurrence. is this denial? is this denial a bad thing? does it always negate the experiences of women who have been raped? why is there only a dichotomy: either blame the victim totally, or allow the victim absolutely no control? both of these situations are horrible.
This comment was written by jane.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 11:26 am
I have a question about a couple points.
8. IF a woman you know says she’s been raped, believe her.
9. If a woman you know says she’s been raped by a buddy of yours, believe her.
Do you advocate acceptance of unsubstantiated accusations of violent crime for other crimes? I don’t think that anyone makes such an accusation lightly, and that the odds are that if such an accusation is made, it’s quite likely to be true. But do you advocate having no doubt at all?
RonF, I know you asked a response from ginmar, and I know she’ll probably give you one later, but my take on these two that you listed from the list, is to change the way people have usually reacted in the past. As it’s been stated before, victims often blame themselves in the situation, and don’t reveal that they’ve been raped because of the fear that they won’t be believed and/or because of shame. So for a victim to acknowledge this fact, to tell this information to another person and even have the slightest pause in the person’s reaction which can be seen as disbelief, let alone a person asking them a question about what they may have been wearing, or doing, or if they are sure, or any other verbal signal of disbelief . . . can cause serious damage to the whole situation.
Usually if a victim tells you about what happened to them, they’re putting trust in you, and there are rare situations where people have lied about being raped, and it’s been vicious and malicious, and it hasn’t been right. But the other fact is that most victims who are raped don’t report it to the police, don’t press charges against their attackers, and will only tell a very close personal individual about it. Most of the time when they are telling someone, it’s not so they can get you to rally against the individual or take him/her down for the dirty crime, it’s because they are looking for support.
Plus, you’re not a defense attorney for the defendant, and when the victim tells you, you probably aren’t in a courtroom, so the victim shouldn’t have to prove anything to you about what happened. You job isn’t to prove reasonable doubt. If someone tells you they were raped, even if you have doubt, take a no-doubt stand, believe it when you first hear it, and make that known. For instance:
Let’s say for instance you were witness to a couple at a club who were dancing, making out all night long, all over each other, and at some point they disappeared, left to go somewhere more seclusive. If the next day one of them tells you that they were raped. I’m sure lots of people’s first inclination would be disbelief. Why? Well because it looked like sex would be a likely thing to follow, so why would anyone believe that anyone was raped in this situation? Maybe it was like Nick’s situation and a condom was asked to be used, maybe the victim changed their mind. But since you weren’t there, you can’t know.
It’s like disbelieving a child who tells you they were abused by their parents. Parents that are pillars of the community, who “look” as though they could never lay a hand or a say a negative word to their child. I’m sure there’s a reasonable doubt in anyone’s mind, to the extent of, “I hope it isn’t true.” But when a person divulges something so personal, your first reaction should be to believe the person in all totality.
This comment was written by MiaMarie.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
So let me ask this question; given the present condition of society, would you recommend your actions to someone right now?
RonF: I’d like to ask you some questions. As a woman, my society basically presents me with the view that I should assume that every man is a potential rapist. How does that make you feel, as a man? Do you have daughters, and if so, do you instruct them to view every man as a potential rapist? Do you provide them with rigorous, self-defense instruction, so that they will have the ability to fight off attackers? Do you provide them with a feminist perspective on self-defense, so that they know that even if one of the so-called “good guys” or “nice guys” attacks them, they have the moral authority to resist just as much as if a “stranger” attacked them (see, that’s key. many raped women have gained a certain amount of trust in their rapist, because he’s a friend/neighbor/boyfriend/husband. women are still taught to be accomodating to men).
I’m not a trusting soul. I trust men even less. And I think that’s fucked up. I don’t like having to adopt a hostile attitude when I’m walking down the street, minding my own business. I don’t like carrying a fuck-you attitude around. It’s heavy baggage. But…it’s also lifesaving, like a bullet-proof vest. It adds an extra layer of protection.
You have no damn idea of the various levels of risk-reduction the average woman inserts into her daily life. I urge you to watch the hands of women as they walk, the next time you’re in a parking lot. How many of them have their keys in their hands? How many of them have those keys splayed out in their grip to be used as brass knuckles, if necessary? How many have kubota-type bars (a small self-defense baton, quite legal) as their keyring? How many have mace cans attached to their keyring? I see this a lot. I almost never see a man even take his keys out of his pocket until he is practically at his car.
We are given all kinds of contradictory advice, most of it wholly unworkable. I have yet to see extensive use of rape prevention programs focused on teaching men how not to rape. I haven’t met a parent yet who hasn’t taught his or her daughter how to avoid molesters and rapists, even if the daughter is in grade school. How many parents are having heart-to-heart talks with their son on how to never be a rapist, rather than just assuming that their son would never, ever be a rapist—–even though the culture gives plenty of messages that are quite frankly, pro-rape.
Why should I have to operate under the assumption that it is inevitable that I will encounter a rapist? So far, we aren’t telling men that it is inevitable that they will rape.
Go back to my other post. I’m not kidding about the good-girl/bad-girl operating assumptions. If I go out on a date with a man I’ve met at work, who I’ve gotten along with but haven’t known extensively for years, and we go out for dinner, and I have a couple of margaritas, and we dance for a few late-night tunes with the house blues band before he takes me home and walks me to the door, and nothing else happens, I’m not a slut. I’m a normal adult woman who had an enjoyable evening. If the exact same scenario occurs, but instead of a smooch goodnight at the door, he rapes me in the parking lot of the pub, then I’m a slut, and the States’ Attorney won’t prosecute, even if the cops think I’ve been roughed up enough that I could be telling the truth about it not being consensual.
And even if I have iced tea instead of alcohol, I’ll still be branded as a slut.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
RonF: So let me ask this question; given the present condition of society, would you recommend your actions to someone right now?
By her actions, Nick successfully resisted being raped, Ron. Why wouldn’t she recommend her actions to anyone else? Do you think she ought to recommend inaction, and just let herself get raped? Or are you still pissed that she’s not blaming herself, as you started out blaming her and went on to justify blaming her by claiming that blaming her was “advice” - and are now, apparently, blaming her for acting to resist getting raped?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
MiaMarie, that was partly why I put that on the list. The other part is this: most rapes are acquaintance rapes and most guys are incredibly reluctant to acknowledge this. Not their buddy, their friend, their son, their boss, uncle, cousin, whatever. Oh, no, the rapist is the Other. That prevents them from seeing how rape is woven into the fabric of life for women. By refusing to see the rapists around them men are abdicating their part of the responsibility. More than that, though—Once a guy has decided his buddy couldn’t possibly be a rapist, it becomes equally impossible to believe that the victim is a victim.
There’s a stereotype that women are naturally liars. There’s also the stereotype that men don’t lie—about rape, about wife-beating, about anything. It’s very important to see women as human beings, and if you reject a woman’s story of rape out of hand because your buddy Joe hasn’t raped you—you’re a guy, after all—–then you’re denying her something very basic. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Heres’ the thing, though—Your buddy Joe may tell you he didn’t rape her and he may genuinely believe it. But he’s not entitled to that decision. She is. Both parties may be absolutely sincere. Whose side do you come down on?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Nick, unfortunately my wife and I don’t really get to Lincolnshire …
But seriously: I would never have theorized that all FT_ transfolk practised BDSM, but in my very limited experience, the phenomena correlate at 1. Is my sample totally skewed, or is there a big overlap?
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Jane,
I have never been raped, but escaping two abductions in my teens taught me to be very aware of my surroundings, and more reliant on my intuition — a sense that modern society downplays and asks us to surpress. During the second incident, my mother drove by, and not recognizing me and thinking it was two people in a “lovers quarrel,” she continued driving. I suppose that has both made me more aware and self-reliant.
In both instances I was able to later identify the moment I knew something was wrong — several minutes before the attempts actually took place. I determined that I could have lessened my risk by following my gut, and taken a different course of action from what I ultimately did. My mistake was not chosing to be in the “wrong place,” or of being a “slut,” but in failing to take direct action to protect myself and to get the hell away, the moment I knew something was “off.” Would I have blamed myself if I had been raped? Blame for the assault would have rested with the rapists. Post-rape, would I have evaluated whether I could have taken proactive steps to avert such a situation in the future? You bet. But that assumes I wasn’t killed.
Anything I can do to lessen my chances of being killed, is for me, worth the effort.
I’m not generally a fearful person. But I am cautious. When I go into a restaurant or other public place, I always identify the exits, and position myself so I can get out quickly, or can take some cover if the need arises. I also scan my surroundings when I’m out, and pick up on environmental or situational anomalies pretty fast. My radar about potentially sticky situations and untrustworthy people, goes off pretty quickly. And I’m not talking about just physically risky situations. It’s a skill that comes in pretty handy in the boardroom, and in all interpersonal relationships.
Now when choosing a seat in a theatre, I’m not worrying about rape, but desire to take care of myself in the face of danger, in general. I want to optimize my chances of escaping pain and death from a variety of potential harms. In the face of a host of unknown variables, I’d rather rely on my own abilities, than hope others can rescue me.
Has my intuition and attention to potential dangers, protected me from rape? I have no way to prove it, but I think it has. There have been instances — when far less than my personal life was at stake — where I, or others have regreted not following my gut instinct. Once in huge way.
Do I trust it to protect me in all circumstances? No. It is one skill-set, but why wouldn’t I use it?
Is this a special burden women carry, this hyper-vigilance? In terms of possible sexual assault, it is, although I think some gay men, and certainly children, also carry a special risk. Is it fair that we have to clutch our keys, and walk quickly to our parked cars at night? No. But my first responsibility it to take care of myself.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
People blame rape victims because rape is so ugly that they have to deny that it happens, or can happen to themselves. It’s why airplane crashes are so horrifying: there’s no way to comfort ourselves by blaming the victims. This is to be resisted, as it is unfair and gives rapists a pass.
Robert’s assertion that stranger rape isn’t a betrayal can only be made by someone who either has not been a victim of a crime or forgot how it felt. Just the other day a man off his meds came after me with his fist raised saying “I’ll beat your ass bitch!” and I felt betrayed because I had thought that this stranger on the street in my own town in broad daylight was going to ask me directions. I’m sophisticated enough to know it wasn’t personal and I felt betrayed anyway that someone I assumed was nice and normal almost assaulted me. Crime is always a sort of a betrayal, and rape is 1000x more devastating than most because it is so personal and scary.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Thank you, bean. Well said.
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Word, Bean.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Exactly right.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 10th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
And another chime of agreement with and thanks to bean from this quarter.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 5:31 am
So let me ask this question; given the present condition of society, would you recommend your actions to someone right now?
If someone told me they wanted to get laid and did I think they would be OK picking up paratroopers in a pub, I’d advise them to take the same basic precautions I did, ie insist on condoms and walk out if the paratroopers tried to mess them around. I might even recommend they take less shit and not waste time negotiating. If someone had no interest in picking people up for sex, I wouldn’t try to tell them it was something they had to experience.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 8:21 am
Exactly, bean.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Emmetropia:
ALL of us on this earth learn ways to avoid danger as we grow older. We all grow more sophisticated and less gullible, or most of us do. Don’t give yourself so much credit- and don’t assume that you can somehow pass on your wisdom to the youngsters. It probably won’t work.
Anyway, it’s really just a false sense of security, because the only thing standing between any of us and a violent crime is the violent criminal deciding to attack us. That’s it. Well, that and our justice system.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:10 am
A direct answer. Thank you!
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:15 am
I’d say “stranger rape” is a betrayal. There are certain norms of behavior that everyone is expected to observe. If someone behaves outside of those norms, then they have betrayed society in general and the people affected in particular.
There’s a lot of disagreement, especially in sexual issues, on what those norms are, or should be. But I think we can all agree that non-consensual acts are not part of those norms.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:37 am
The law does not state that YOU are the one to provide the controlled substance merely that you attempt to take advantage of them while they are in that state.
i.e. A man is at a party and sees a woman who is intoxicated, he proceeds to have sex with her, she is too inebriated to make an informed consent to the act, legally this is rape.
Also the only detail I left out was the sex of the parties. If a man had done the exact same thing you did (go looking for sex, found a drunk girl or two, took them somewhere and had his way with them especially when one of them is and I quote “drunk enough to be deaf to reason”, that would be the classical definition of date rape.
As for the “I gave them a choice” argument if they were to drunk to be able to give an informed consent how could they possibly be able to make any kind of choice ???
The above quote is from “RAPE IN MASSACHUSETTS: A Report to the Commonwealth” for further information I would recommend you read “What is consent” @
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/3(2)/wertheimerfinal.pdf
As for statues or decisions I did state at the beginning that this is the definitions that are being pushed for currently, but here are the proposed statues.
(C) when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental deficiency or disease, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender
In the meantime in Kansas this is the law “KSA 21-3502″ and as far as I know it’s the same in new york.
A) When the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; OR
B) When the victim is incapable of giving consent because the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance, which condition was known to the offender or reasonably apparent to the offender.
So I’ll ask you this, if you were on the jury and you were given the description as written (with no genders or excuses) how would you find ?
This comment was written by Legal eagle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Legal Eagle: This is why feminists argue that consent must be sought repeatedly, not just once. For each act that might be ambiguous, consent should be renegotiated. Futher, to try to argue a gender neutral approach to the laws you quoted above is somewhat farcical. Your approach would imply a social and physical status quo that is non-existant.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 9:46 am
legal eagle: Also the only detail I left out was the sex of the parties. If a man had done the exact same thing you did (go looking for sex, found a drunk girl or two, took them somewhere and had his way with them especially when one of them is and I quote “drunk enough to be deaf to reason”, that would be the classical definition of date rape.
Okay, let’s look at Nick’s/the paratroopers behavior as if that of one man/two women.
A man goes looking for sex. He finds a couple of drunk paratroopers (both female) who agree to have sex with him, and he lays down the condition of “no condom, no sex”. They agree. He has sex with one woman, using a condom, and she goes off and leaves him with the other woman. The next time, the man’s condom falls off. The drunk woman insists they should have sex anyway, and keeps trying to get him to penetrate her without the condom, physically trying to get his penis into her vagina. The man resists, tries to argue with her, asks her if there’s another condom he can use, and finally just walks away, because he’s not prepared to have sex with her unless he’s wearing a condom.
That would be a classic example of a man behaving very well, not of date rape.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:14 am
RonF: I’d like to ask you some questions.
O.K.
As a woman, my society basically presents me with the view that I should assume that every man is a potential rapist. How does that make you feel, as a man?
I’d like to think that that’s not true. But it sure seems like rape has occurred between people with every conceivable kind of relationship, doesn’t it?
How does that make me feel as a man? I don’t know how to answer that question “as a man”.
How does that make me, personally, feel? It’s a horrible thing, and I feel bad about it. I feel that it is a failure in society to properly teach people how to look at, think about, and act towards others. And since we all make up society, it seems that many parents, religious leaders, teachers, etc., have neglected to properly teach these things. These people are all accountable for teaching and disciplining children in these matters (like when I had to put a stop to my Scouts saying “That’s gay” about stuff they dissaproved of).
I think that in large part, this stems from people saying to themselves “The schools should teach …” or “Parents should teach …” or “The church should teach …” or “Men should teach …” without understanding that we ourselves all have to take the personal responsibility to teach such things. We all also have the personal responsibility to take part in and control of the societial structures we are part of, like our families, our schools, our churches, our clubs, etc., and see that they reflect and further the values we believe in.
I am not going to say “Men should …” when the reality is that we all should.
Do you have daughters,
One.
and if so, do you instruct them to view every man as a potential rapist?
I haven’t put it like that. I have taught her that she should always maintain control over her own body, and that if anyone even remotely threatens that, she should beware and take appropriate action. I have never said, “even if it’s your uncle or your teacher or your coach”, I simply emphasized “anybody”.
Do you provide them with rigorous, self-defense instruction, so that they will have the ability to fight off attackers?
I have not, personally. However, my daughter is strong and athletic and plays a sport and position where she’s used to violent contact. I have personally witnessed that she’s not shy about doing what is necessary to take care of herself.
Do you provide them with a feminist perspective on self-defense, so that they know that even if one of the so-called “good guys” or “nice guys” attacks them, they have the moral authority to resist just as much as if a “stranger” attacked them (see, that’s key. many raped women have gained a certain amount of trust in their rapist, because he’s a friend/neighbor/boyfriend/husband. women are still taught to be accomodating to men).
I’m not familiar with what would be defined as “a feminist perspective” on self-defense. But if the rest of your statement is that definition, then the answer is yes. I have emphasized to her that no one has a right to obligate or compel her to do anything she thinks is wrong, no matter who they are or what their reason is.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Here in New York, Penal Law s. 103.05 defines “lack of consent” to include incapacity. However, that is further defined, in relevant part, as “mentally defective”, “mentally incapacitated”, or “physically helpless.” The courts have, to my knowledge, interpreted intoxication to fall only into “mentally incapacitated” or “physically helpless.” The latter is passed out. The former is defined in Penal Law 130.00(6) as “rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent …” (emphasis supplied)
So, in New York (assuming no major change since my Penal Law was printed — I no longer do criminal defense work and I don’t keep up my books), incapable to consent due to intoxication means 1) unconscious, or 2) drunk against her will — spiked punch bowl, roofie, etc.
So, this guy got drunk of his own free will. After getting drunk, he met a woman who offered to fuck him on the condition that he wore a condom. He went with her to another location, where he either failed to properly apply a condom or refused to do so. She decided not to have intercourse with him, and apparently offered other activities, which he declined. She then left.
Under New York law, did Nick commit anything like a sexual assault? (I’ll save you the trouble — there is no such non-frivolous argument).
Now, that Kansas statute — does it define any of those terms? Also, Legal Eagle, I’m guessing you don’t know much about how actual trials work, but the judge “charges” the jury, instructing them in what all the buzzwords in statutes mean. In order to apply the Kansas statute as the jury would, you would have to supply me with the instruction I would receive from the judge. Now, they vary sometimes, but judges tend to hew closely to the Pattern Jury Instructions. Do you have a Kansas PJI around? I’m pretty sure there’s a pattern instruction for incapable of consent by reason of intoxication. If the Jury is instructed that it means “unable to appreciate the nature of the activity” or “unable to understand that the defendant is proposing sexual penetration,” then there is likewise no argument for your proposition. If, and only if, the statute sets the bar so low that someone’s diminished capacity to exercise judgment is enough, then you have an argument — but that proves to much! If that were the standard, than any sex between any intoxicated people in Kansas would be illegal! Baptists might cheer that, but most of us live in the real world.
Okay Legal Eagle — you picked the name. Now prove you know what you’re doing by posting the Kansas PJI for lack of consent by reason of intoxication.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:00 am
RonF: I think that in large part, this stems from people saying to themselves “The schools should teach …” or “Parents should teach …” or “The church should teach …” or “Men should teach …” without understanding that we ourselves all have to take the personal responsibility to teach such things.
So why was your first reaction to Nick’s story to blame her for the irresponsible and nearly-criminal actions of someone else? Why did you say to yourself “This was Nick’s fault” and pass that on to her?
It looks to me like your feeling that “people should take personal responsibility for teaching that” (for example) men should not commit rape is directed at other people, not at yourself.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Jesu:The drunk woman insists they should have sex anyway, and keeps trying to get him to penetrate her without the condom, physically trying to get his penis into her vagina. The man resists, tries to argue with her, asks her if there’s another condom he can use, and finally just walks away, because he’s not prepared to have sex with her unless he’s wearing a condom.
That’s pretty much exactly what happened to me, though I hadn’t consented to intercourse at all, with or without a condom. (Consenting to sex with a condom is consenting to sexual intercourse, so I’m not sure if it becomes rape if the condom is slipped off unbeknownst to one party. Condoms slip off whether it’s intentional or not. Of course, a person’s consent can change for any reason during sex, whether it’s realizing that there is no condom or maybe seeing how much hair is on someone’s back. But I think once you have consented to sex, and have been having sex, it is harder to claim rape if you start to say no during the process. I never consented to intercourse at all, so my claim is more valid than Nick’s, and my rapist’s crime more clear cut.
That would be a classic example of a man behaving very well, not of date rape.
I’m glad to know you feel that way, because I sure felt like a jerk after pushing her off me. It of course ended our relationship, and though she was remorseful and recognized she had been wrong to mount me, she also seemed to think I was a jerk for not letting her.
This comment was written by John Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
But I think once you have consented to sex, and have been having sex, it is harder to claim rape if you start to say no during the process.
Wrong.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Legal Eagle, the federal statute is 18 USC 2241. It says the same thing as NY: unconscious, or rendered intoxicated either without her knowledge or by force or threat.
How’s it coming with that Kansas PJI?
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
So why was your first reaction to Nick’s story to blame her for the irresponsible and nearly-criminal actions of someone else? Why did you say to yourself “This was Nick’s fault” and pass that on to her?
Because to say “You did something foolish” doesn’t equate to “You are to blame for what happened.”
It looks to me like your feeling that “people should take personal responsibility for teaching that” (for example) men should not commit rape is directed at other people, not at yourself.
Upthread I gave an example of one way in which I have discharged my own responsibility, by instructing my son. And, while the topic of rape has never come up, I have had numerous occasions in my Scouting career to instruct young men that they have no right to force someone else to do something they don’t want to do.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I don’t think there are words for how wrong this is.
It may be harder to prove in a court of law, it would certainly be harder at this point in time to get a conviction, but that doesn’t make it harder to “claim” rape.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
“But I think once you have consented to sex, and have been having sex, it is harder to claim rape if you start to say no during the process.”
It is no harder to claim rape. Having had sex with someone voluntarily gives them no more “right” to assault you than if you’d never consented to sex with them beforehand. But many people will wrongly presume that this supplies your assailant with justification. And a defense attorney will be looking to get some of those people onto your assailant’s jury.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Because to say “You did something foolish” doesn’t equate to “You are to blame for what happened.”
Unfortunately, that simply isn’t true for most people when you are on the receiving end of that statement. Also, you didn’t write, “You did something foolish.” This is what you wrote in comment #3:
But you were damn stupid to put yourself in such a situation.
“Damn stupid” doesn’t equate to “you did something foolish.” Not to mention, you’ve never given Nick a feasible alternative that she could have done in order to meet her goals. What you’ve done is to call her goals (and by extension, Nick) “damn stupid.” And I, for one, think that you owe an apology for that statement & then trying to claim that that statement was somehow “advice.”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
RonF: Because to say “You did something foolish” doesn’t equate to “You are to blame for what happened.”
Actually, you know, yes, it does. Telling Nick she was “damn stupid” does equate to laying blame on Nick, and wiggling around trying to claim that you weren’t really blaming Nick is much less convincing than just facing up to the fact that you thought Nick was at fault for nearly getting raped, and trying to do better in future.
Upthread I gave an example of one way in which I have discharged my own responsibility, by instructing my son
Yes, but in the real-life example on this thread, you made it clear that in fact when a man nearly rapes a woman, you lay blame on the woman. Your son will be picking up messages from that kind of talk, too.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 11th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Some people think that saying an action (or person) is stupid is the same thing as saying they are to blame for whatever happens as an indirect result of that stupidity.
I ride a motorcycle every day. I will readily admit that motorcycles are dangerous compared to cars, and that I am stupid for riding one when I don’t have to. But is there an alternative to give me the same satisfaction as the motorcycle? No. Does that make the stupid go away? No. If I get hit by a car whose driver thought my one headlight up close was two far away, does that mean that I was at fault since it is stupid to take such a risk as riding a motorcycle. NO. Am I still stupid for riding a motorcycle? YES.
Doing stupid things (or being stupid for a short period) doesn’t automatically move the blame for any adverse event to the person doing the stupid thing.
Was Nick stupid to get into that position? Maybe… I don’t know. Probably could have made better choices, but can’t we all? Many people are violent when drunk, so maybe she shouldn’t go with guys that have been drinking. Maybe she’s a good judge of character and can see in a short time whether a guy is going to get violent or not. Who knows for sure? I would think Nick would be the best judge for whether she did something stupid or not. But if it had continued on, it would have been rape, no doubt in my mind, and it was actually kind of close to rape, just losing the condom without telling her… In my opinion.
This comment was written by JayQ.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Problem is, JayQ–and you and others keep refusing to get this—is that a man is not a high-speed vehicle. He’s not a machine. If all men are rapists and women should expect to be raped, then just spit it out. But then that would mean that feminists are right. But stop telling us to protect ourselves. If all men are rapists and all we can expect is rape, then we will start protecting ourselves, and it won’t be pretty.
Some people think that saying an action (or person) is stupid is the same thing as saying they are to blame for whatever happens as an indirect result of that stupidity.
I am so fucking sick of car analogies and motorcycle analogies and all sorts of things which compare mens’ decision to rape as something unthinking and unplanned. I am sick of hearing alcohol being blamed. Alcohol just lowers your inhibitions. It’s not Dr. Jekyll’s magic Id-potion but lots of people would rather think that than realize that men use it as an excuse to rape. I am sick to death of people whining, “Just because I said she was stupid, doesn’t mean I’m blaming her”—excusing themselves for blaming her. I am sick of people not blaming rapists first, foremost, and entirely.
Most of I am sick of people who don’t examine men’s actions in order to understand them. A rape victim is a crime scene: she’s evidence of a crime committed. Blaming her–and yes, whine all you want, but you are blaming her—-but people don’t look at a fingerprint and blame it for the crime committed.
If you don’t devote as much detail, passion, and condemnation to analyzing the man’s behavior and motivations, and spend all your time talking about the vicitm, then you are espousing an orthodoxy, and that’s what men do is invisible and nameless. As long as people go after women who’ve been raped or almost been raped after the fact, it’s a stupid exercise in makign the speaker feel good about himself or his society. But the price of that one-sided blindness is continued attacks on women and continued freedom to rape for men. Deal with it. But be honest about it.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:48 am
But you were damn stupid to put yourself in such a situation.
No, she isn’t. A person has the right to go out looking for sex. Nick had every right to do as she did.
If she had said no and he’d forced her that would have been rape. No extenuating circumstances. No excuses.
Why is this so diffucult to understand?
This comment was written by Seranvali.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:00 am
You know, it’s funny how we’re constantly being told that if we do this, go there or wear that we could be raped and it would be our fault. We’re lead to believe that men have no control over their sexuality and we’re stupid to trust them. Yet with the next breath we’re being told not to be nasty, suspicious bitches and to be nice to men.
No matter what we do we’re going to be wrong.
This comment was written by Seranvali.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:21 am
A person has the right to seek sex without rape being a consequence of that search. Gah! It’s infuriating to hear the same thing again & again. “Not to pass judgement, but…”
Exactly! The moment people qualify, they’ve just contradicted anything they’ve said before.
We can take precautions. Mountains of them, but it doesn’t solve the problem. It won’t protect us and it doesn’t stop men from raping.
It also shifts the focus away from rape in the home by trusted family members and ‘friends’ (by far the most common form of rape), to stranger rape, which is actually far less common. If we can be convinced that all rape is stranger rape the bigger problem goes unnoticed and unreported.
This comment was written by Seranvali.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:33 am
Exactly.
Rape will stop happening - not when women take every precaution possible - but when men stop raping.
All those on this thread dishing out advice to women about ’sensible choices’ are completely missing the point and doing absolutely nothing to end rape.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
I realize I’m stepping into treacherous territory, but does this really seem like a reasonable proposition? For example, if the man is a heartbeat away from orgasm, and the woman withdraws consent, I’m prepared to say that no man on the planet would stop. Any standard that would convict the entire male populace seems like a flawed standard.
The fact is, as men get closer and closer to orgasm, they become less and less reasonable. I don’t know if this is biological or social, but considering it seems completely universal, I’m inclined to suspect biology.
It would be great if we lived in Nick’s ideal world, but we just don’t. So why is it unreasonable to say that women should be careful about being in situations where men are closer to orgasm (ie, sexually aroused), and yet still expect them to make ideal decisions about consent?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we should give men a pass in all ambiguous situations. Every case is different and has to be judged on its own merits. But Nick’s story above seems wildly different from some thug (stranger or relative, it doesn’t matter) ripping off a woman’s clothes and forcing intercourse. Pigeonholing both into the category of “rape” seems to be doing a disservice to the victims of the former.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Dave,
No.
Your extremely low opinion of men’s rationality does a disservice to me and most other men.
And your feeling that raping a woman when she withdraws consent is not really a big deal does a disservice to everyone. In particular, it does a particularly grave disservice to the huge number of women who are raped in sexual circumstances.
Besides which, since your standard, if it is anything other than victim blaming, has no way to distinguish between Nick’s situation and stranger in the bushes rape. As long as the man in the bushes has been masturbating to close to the point of orgasm, then whatever he does is just an expression of the natural irrationality of aroused men.
Your switching from “a heartbeat away from orgasm” to “aroused” as your standard for when men are not particularly reasonable is particularly creepy and leads me to think that you should reflect on your previous sexual experience with some serious care. If you feel that ignoring a refusal of consent or a retraction of consent is just how men are, I suspect you base that on how you are, and I fear for every woman who finds herself in a sexual situation with you. Seriously.
I have refrained from slamming on you harder in this because I think that really need to reflect on what you are saying, and how this relates to the fact that 1 in 20 men rapes and 1 in 4 women is the subject of an attempted rape, and where you fall in that. I seriously think that with your attitude on this, you either have raped (probably without even registering you were doing so) or that you will eventually.
No means No, and it means No now, not once you are satisfied.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Ah, being deliberately obtuse. The hallmark of internet conversations.
I didn’t present a standard. I was questioning one which was presented. And I did so politely, which you failed to do. How dare you make insinuations like that based on a couple paragraphs on a blog comment?
Because I believe that men who are on the verge of orgasm might not listen to reason, I am a rapist. Fuck you.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Dave: Because I believe that men who are on the verge of orgasm might not listen to reason, I am a rapist. Fuck you.
And because you argue that a woman who’s raped by someone she knows and may even previously have consented to sex with, has somehow been not quite as raped as the classic male I-don’t-do-this-so-it’s-not-really-rape “thug ripping off a woman’s clothes and forcing intercourse”. It reads like your average white bigot arguing that it’s not really racism unless it’s actually a lynching: or your average homophobe arguing that it’s not really homophobia unless it’s something like Matthew Shepherd, beaten to death.
Pigeonholing both into the category of “rape” seems to be doing a disservice to the victims of the former.
As 1 in 20 men reported they didn’t think that just pinning down a girlfriend and having sex with her was “really” rape; they too had bought into the myth that “rape” means “some thug” who beats a woman up, not the simple straightforward definition of sex without consent.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
So if you were completely naked and masturbating when suddenly your mum walked in, you’d be unable to stop?
And there was me thinking it was feminists that were popularly assumed to have a low opinion of men…
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
No Dave,
Because you think that once a man is aroused he doesn’t necessarily need to listen to a retraction or refusal of consent, he can just be irrational and ignore it, and what he does won’t really be rape (were you saying something other than that? I find it very hard to read what you wrote and not find that summation pretty solidly in it), you should look very carefully at whether you are ever that man. If you ever are, then you have probably done things that your partner/victim counted as rape.
If instead that is a standard which you only apply to other men, but would never apply to yourself, knowing that you are perfectly capable of acting rationally and respectfully in those situations, then why do you feel the need to apply that standard to others?
And don’t tell me that you weren’t suggesting a standard. That is simply nonsense. And we were both polite, even if we both found what the other one was saying to be deeply offensive. You imply that I, like all men, am a natural rapist. I suggest that since you think we are all natural rapists, you may eventually find yourself fulfilling your beliefs.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Dave, you didn’t just say “men who are on the verge of orgasm might not listen to reason.” That’s the first thing you said - “a heartbeat away from orgasm.” And you’re right, few people are able to completely absorb new information and react to it in the space of a single heartbeat.
I don’t think anyone has said, “if the person you’re having sex with says ‘no,’ and if you haven’t stopped by a single heartbeat later, that’s rape.” I agree that a one-heartbeat-or-less reaction time is probably unreasonable to ask for, especially less than a second before orgasm.
But you then drop the “one heartbeat” standard, and go on to say:
And then you say:
Now, Nick’s story involved someone who was at least several minutes away from orgasm, so you can hardly claim that this is a “heartbeat away” example. The issue isn’t even withdrawal; he hadn’t even entered Nick. So your position has changed, in the course of a single post, from “a heartbeat away from orgasm” to “even if he hasn’t entered yet, if consent is withdrawn and he attempts to force his way in anyway, that’s not comparable to rape.”
As to when men are capable of stopping, as I wrote in an earlier post:
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Charles - I really wasn’t suggesting a standard. I was just trying to point out the flaw I perceived in the suggested standard (consent can be withdrawn at any point). And, for what it’s worth, I’m pleased to say that no woman has ever told me to stop. I am deeply grateful for your concern over my moral well-being. Keep it up!
Ampersand - thanks for the intelligent response. I wish I had seen the “mom walks in” point before, ’cause it does a lot to disarm the whole “point of no return” argument.
Let me try to clarify my point. There is a continuum of sexual arousal. Ampersand and I agree that at the one-heartbeat-away end of the continuum, a man probably won’t be able to stop. I’m saying that to call that act “rape” is stretching the definition, at the least.
I fully agree that Nick’s case is not at that point yet. I agree that any reasonable man would be able to stop, as the paratrooper grudgingly did. But I’m still having trouble seeing these two cases as equivalent:
1. Thug forces intercourse
2. Woman asks for intercourse, changes her mind at the 0 hour, thug forces intercourse.
Yes. In both cases, the thug forced intercourse, and both cases are therefore rape. But do you really think there is no moral/legal difference between the two? I agree they’re both bad, but it seems kind of like the distinction between aggravated assault and plain old assault.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Dave, do you see these two cases as equivalent?
1. Thug mugs me, takes $100.
2. I offer to give the thug $100, but at the zero hour I change my mind. The thug then mugs me, taking $100.
What moral or legal difference do you see between the two? Because to me, the two situations seem pretty much identical, from a moral and legal point of view.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Dave,
I’m glad to hear that you haven’t raped anyone. The other important question you haven’t answered is what will you do when a woman does ask you to stop in the middle of sex.
I’m not so much concerned for your moral well-being as I am for the well-being of the women you date.
I realize I’m offending you. I apologize for the offense. If you are someone who would of course stop before the second heart beat, or at most the third, then obviously you don’t need to continue your introspection any further, and my intervention is entirely unneeded. However, you misread Amp. He doesn’t say you don’t have to stop when told to if you are a heart beat away from orgasm (so you’d continue on for however long your orgasm takes, and cross well over into rape), he says that it isn’t rape in the first heart beat after you are told to stop. 10 seconds later, you have crossed over.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Maybe I’m crazy (any takers?), but I do see a moral difference between Amp’s two scenarios. In #2, when you rescind your offer, you’re going to make the thug Very Very Angry. Very Very Angry people behave unpredictably. He still oughtn’t mug you and take your money, but I’m prepared to cut him some slack compared to #1.
Don’t get me wrong - he’s still guilty of mugging. But yes, it seems like a slightly lesser crime.
It seems to me that you are saying the overall scenario is not relevant to the moral/legal wrongdoing, just the outcome. Is that a fair summary?
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
[...] Through reading the comments in that series, I found a differently interesting exchange on rape on Alas, a blog. The writer shares her close call with what she terms rape, and the comments go nuts with people judging her risky choices, sharing their own close calls and debating the meaning of rape and choice. [...]
This comment was written by breebop.com » Daring discussions of abortion and rape.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
I really hope you didn’t mean to imply that you also cut rapists some slack?
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Maybe I’m crazy (any takers?), but I do see a moral difference between Amp’s two scenarios. In #2, when you rescind your offer, you’re going to make the thug Very Very Angry. Very Very Angry people behave unpredictably. He still oughtn’t mug you and take your money, but I’m prepared to cut him some slack compared to #1.
Yes, Dave. You are crazy. It seems to be that you are saying that it’s OK to hurt people who change their minds and “cheat” you out of a “reward” you were expecting and looking forward to. (That’s a generic “you”, not you in particular, Dave.)
If we were talking about a guy on a date, instead of a mugger, I would think that what you are saying is that a girl who makes out with a guy, but changes her mind about the actual sex kinda, sorta deserves to be forced into it. Or at the very least, the guy shouldn’t be blamed for taking it because he has a right to angry that she is cheating him out of something he thought he deserved. “She kissed me, she let me touch her, she led me on. The little tease should have known what would happen. She was offering, what did she expect?”
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
This happened to me once, but I didn’t notice until was too late. It wasn’t until recently that I realized that it was sexual assult- I just thought that I was stupid. This gives it a whole new perspective.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
November 13th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
I think that Dave is trying to draw a parallel between rape and murder. There is a difference between first degree murder, in which you plan it out beforehand, second degree murder, in which you kill someone without planning, but with intention, and voluntary manslaughter, in which you do something that you ought to have known was lethal, but you didn’t think about it at the time. All three forms of murder are agreed to be monstrous acts that put someone beyond the pale of society, but there is still a matter of degree. There are serious problems with drawing parallels to rape, but it is not completely insane.
The first important thing is that all three of those are forms of murder for which you will be punished. Very rarely will a jury say, “Well, he seems like a good guy, so even though he hit that woman in the head with a 20 pound stone, we think he’s probably sorry, and she kinda deserved to be killed for being so mouthy,” and let someone off for murder. They might say, “Well, we don’t really think he consciously decided to kill her, so he’ll only spend a decade or so in prison reflecting on what he did. Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter.”
Currently, with rape, a rape that starts with a couple having sex (and then turns into rape) will not be prosecuted (unless possibly it also involves overt physical (non-sexual) violence) and the rapist will not be punished at all. If some such rapes were recognized as second degree rape, still had severe penalties, and were actually prosecuted to conviction, then that wouldn’t actually be worse than the current situation. This is not quite the same as 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree rape in Washington, but it seems related.
However, given that such rapes are currently routinely treated as not rape, the more important step is to recognize that they are rape. Saying, “well, they’re not really real rape like pre-planned rape,” is a step away from saying they are rape, not a step toward saying they are a form of rape that should be penalized less heavily. Currently, they are generally not punished at all, so they can’t be any less punished.
The second important thing about the idea of first degree rape versus some lesser form of rape is that first degree murder requires no more than a second of forethought. If, just before you pull the trigger, you decide, “I’m going to kill this person,” then you have crossed over into first degree murder (or at least that is my impression). How can you rape someone (something not done in a second) without ever deciding “I am going to rape this person”? I suppose, horribly, many men do, thinking “Well, she said stop three times, but then she stopped saying it, so I guess she changed her mind.” I suppose such a man never realizes that he is committing rape, and is perhaps equivalent to a second degree murderer.
However, saying that some forms of rape aren’t really real rape is exactly what allows such men to think that.
One of the goals is that any remotely competent man will understand that when a person says stop, that means stop, and that not stopping is rape. With that understanding, nothing but the equivalent of first degree murder is possible in a rape.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 9:03 am
“But do you really think there is no moral/legal difference between the two? I agree they’re both bad, but it seems kind of like the distinction between aggravated assault and plain old assault. ”
Dave, your analysis considers “letting him get close and then telling him to stop” a mitigating factor in the severity of rape. The analysis really ought to be the opposite. The better the rapist knows the victim, the closer their relationship, the more horrifying the rape.
Further, as Charles pointed out, your call for mitigation maps onto the existing practice of not calling some rapes criminal at all. Your whole project is to provide mitigation for behavior which is under-punished as it is.
In other words, the view you express is part of the problem.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 10:04 am
mousehounde :
Spicey:
Me:
I don’t know how this can be anything but a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. How lame. Are my posts really so long that you can’t follow the idea? Charles got it, maybe you can crib the notes from him.
Charles, Thomas - thanks for the thoughts, and thanks for not calling me a rapist. I’ll think it over.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 10:47 am
>>Charles, Thomas - thanks for the thoughts, and thanks for not calling me a rapist. I’ll think it over. >>
And can I just say thank you on behalf of all the women on this thread? I’m sure they’re incredibly grateful for your time and effort.
Apologizing for rapists–like, for example, the kind of rapist who doesn’t stop when you tell him to stop–is not much better than being willing to commit rape oneself. Saying that Nick’s situation is not-rape or less-rape than stranger rape is not much better than being willing to commit rape oneself. Viewpoints like the ones you’ve aired here make it easier for men to rape and harder for victims to get perpetrators convicted of rape. You’re part of the problem.
This “heartbeat away from orgasm” thing is just so much horseshit. I have told partners to stop at particularly inconvenient times and it has never been a problem. Frustrating? Sure. Impossible? Definitely not.
Finally, “slightly lesser” does, too, count as “cutting rapists some slack.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 11:07 am
OK, spell this one out for me, ’cause I’m not getting it.
Imagine, if you will, that a lot of men have thoughts similar to mine. I’m pretty sure we can agree on that point.
One man - me - presented those thoughts in a public forum, discussed them, and is reconsidering.
How exactly am I “part of the problem”?
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Dave: But do you really think there is no moral/legal difference between the two?
No, none at all.
One man - me - presented those thoughts in a public forum, discussed them, and is reconsidering. How exactly am I “part of the problem”?
That you are reconsidering your original stance - that it’s not “really” rape if a woman initially offers sex, then changes her mind, means you may cease to be part of the problem.
If, after you’ve thought about it, you still think that once a woman consents to sex, even if she then retracts her consent, it’s not “really” rape, or it’s somehow a lesser crime than if the man was someone she’d never consented to have sex with, you will remain part of the problem.
If, once you’ve thought about it, you change your mind, and decide that at any point a woman has a right to refuse consent to sex, and if a man goes ahead after a woman refuses consent, it’s rape, then, good, we need no longer fear that you might commit rape someday and never realise it.
But, if you decide you’ll keep quiet about this - if when you hear other men talking about committing rape, forcing women when they’ve changed their minds, or arguing that after a certain point a woman has no right to change her mind - if you hear them say this and decide you’re going to keep your head down and not say anything for fear they’ll think you less of a man, or some other reason, then you remain part of the problem.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Those men are also part of the problem. The fact that there are so many men who so believe is why we have this thing called “rape culture.”
And I missed the part where you decided not to apologize for rapists anymore, or to dismiss Nick’s experience as somehow less of a moral wrong. You didn’t describe these views as cultural tropes. You didn’t say that this was how you felt, or that these were sexist ideas you struggled with. Your statements weren’t like the ones bean posted. You argued that men who are aroused cannot be reasonably expected to stop when their partner says stop, that they may even be incapable of doing so. Then, after patronizing the women who reacted with anger to your rape-apologist assertions, you said you were “thinking it over.” You still haven’t taken back “slightly lesser crime.”
Maybe you can come back when you’re finished reconsidering.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Dave,
Stating that if a man is “really aroused” he cannot stop is right next to saying that if a woman is dressed provocatively, or is particularly attractive to a given man in any way, his rape can be excused because after all, she “aroused him” to the point where he was unable to control himself.
If a grown man does not have control of his penis, he shouldn’t have one. It’s a body part, dude. You don’t let your hand steal money out of the next person’s wallet because their wealth was just too tempting for your hand to resist. You control your hand. Likewise, men should control their penises.
You give men absolutely no credit. You make it seem like all men are only one arousal away from raping.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 11:57 am
I don’t know how you expect to get away with such a deliberate misrepresentation of facts!
You said: ‘I’m prepared to cut him some slack’and ‘ it seems like a slightly lesser crime’
Perhaps you can explain how me asking you to clarify your position suddenly becomes a ‘deliberate misrepresentation’?
Several other people who responded got it - maybe you could ask them to share their notes with you?
This comment was written by spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Dave, if you’re thanking me and arguing with Piny, you didn’t understand what I wrote. I said that you’re part of the problem — though I phrased it as “the view you express.”
Even if you were never yourself in a situation where a sex partner withdrew consent during intercourse, your argument that someone who ignores such a withdrawal of consent is somehow less culpable is 100% wrongheaded, and it plays right into the hands of rapists who want an excuse not to think of themselves as rapists. In fact, the slippery slope of “one heartbeat away,” for guys who do not respect women, quickly slides back to “we had already started,” and then “we were about to start.” Then what? “She clearly wanted to”?
We need to be telling men that if their partner wants them to stop, they are expected to stop just as fast as they would if the SWAT team kicked in the door — right away, as fast as physically possible, not“I’m almost done.”
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
>>Dave,
Stating that if a man is “really aroused” he cannot stop is right next to saying that if a woman is dressed provocatively, or is particularly attractive to a given man in any way, his rape can be excused because after all, she “aroused him” to the point where he was unable to control himself. >>
It’s also just not true. “Stop, wait, uncomfortable,” is more than enough for the guys I’ve been lucky enough to see. Adjustments happen all the time, and no man has ever flipped out or stroked out on me. Are my experiences as uncommon as Susan’s?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
bean, that was an awesome excerpt
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
I don’t know how this can be anything but a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. How lame. Are my posts really so long that you can’t follow the idea? Charles got it, maybe you can crib the notes from him.
That is the most roundabout way I think I have ever been called stupid. But that’s OK.
I don’t think I misrepresented what you said. WRT Ampersand’s mugger example, you said you would cut slack to the mugger who took the money after the offer of $100 was rescinded. That his crime was lesser. That because he was not freely given something he was given reason to expect, it was to some degree OK if he took it. That because the mugger might be angry at being disappointed, his anger somehow mitigates his actions. Relating that example to rape gives the impression that you think that a guy who rapes after being denied sex he thought would be freely given should be cut some slack simply because he is angry and has been disappointed.
Charles’s post paralleling murder and rape was very well reasoned. I particularly like the part where he points out that every murder case, regardless of circumstances, is treated as a crime. And he is correct. Regardless of the legal outcome, every murder case is initially treated as a crime, no matter what the degree, no matter who the victim is or their morals, no matter where it takes place, no matter what the victim wore, no matter how drunk the victim was, murder is considered a crime and treated accordingly. No one feels a need to prove a murder victim didn’t deserve to be murdered. Rape is very different. The only time rape is treated as a crime is when the victim can prove a level of innocence, when they can give reasons why they didn’t deserve to be raped. Unless of course, they are murdered in the process, in which case it would be treated as a crime.
I don’t think I misrepresented what you said, Dave. I think we are just talking past each other because we see things differently. I see rape as a crime, regardless of the circumstances. I think you see rape as a crime only in certain circumstances. I see the rape “victim”, while you see the poor guy “accused” of rape.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
All right, one last post, then I’ll kick the dust off my shoes.
Let me just postulate that the following exchange does not help further your cause:
Person A: I’ve been reading this thread, and I don’t agree with this assertion. Here’s why. Blah blah blah.
Person B: RAPIST!
Person C: YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!
Person A: Ummm, ok. Have a nice day.
Seriously, people. If you want to have an impact on peoples’ thinking, you’re gonna have to find a way to do better. If, on the other hand, you want to chase away people who are prepared to consider your viewpoint, keep doing what you’re doing.
Obvious exceptions can be made for, say, Ampersand, who was polite and rational throughout.
Bye now.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Gee, isn’t Dave being civil? Isn’t that just great?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
>>Seriously, people. If you want to have an impact on peoples’ thinking, you’re gonna have to find a way to do better. If, on the other hand, you want to chase away people who are prepared to consider your viewpoint, keep doing what you’re doing. >>
If you want us to believe even for a moment that you’re capable of learning a damn thing, you’re gonna have to stop wailing about your feelings being hurt when people say things like, “You’re part of the problem.” Telling us how best to educate you is disingenuous in the extreme–all it tells me is that you know you don’t have a leg to stand on, and are too immature to care.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
>>Gee, isn’t Dave being civil? Isn’t that just great? >>
You’re just never happy, are you?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, surprisingly enough, my standard ofhappy doesn’t include some guy saying that rape isn’t really rape if the girl changed her mind. I already got that tee shirt, thanks.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Translation…
Person A: I’ve been reading this thread, and I don’t agree with this assertion. Here’s why. Blah blah blah.
This comment was written by spicy.Person B: That way of thinking actually contributes to the problem.
Person A: YOU WOMEN ARE ALL MISREPRESENTING ME! ONLY THE GUYS UNDERSTAND!
Person C: Er… no - we’re actually asking for clarification
Person D: Well I’m using your words…
PersonA: YOU’RE SAYING I’M A RAPIST! BE NICE TO ME OR I WON’T LISTEN! I’M SO TIRED OF EXPLAINING MYSELF!
Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
>>Yeah, surprisingly enough, my standard ofhappy doesn’t include some guy saying that rape isn’t really rape if the girl changed her mind. I already got that tee shirt, thanks. >>
But ginmar! It’s life-threatening to stop when you’re a heartbeat away from getting your rocks off! Men have strokes when they stop prematurely! That’s why so few of them are pro-feminist: the nice guys are all dead!
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
But that doesn’t explain why so many anti-feminist men are so brain-damaged….Oh. Wait.
Never mind.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Duh. They’re all living at home, which means their moms had to have walked in on them at some point, right?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
And it was so awful that every woman has to pay for it!
I swear, if there were some sexual device for men that was as simple as a vibrator, guys would just retreat to their basements and that’d it be it. What gets me is that that dismissive attitude—-”Well, she pissed him off, what do you want?”—-is never seen by them for the contempt for women that it is. They’ve just never thought about it, it’s so natural to them.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Dave: Seriously, people. If you want to have an impact on peoples’ thinking, you’re gonna have to find a way to do better. If, on the other hand, you want to chase away people who are prepared to consider your viewpoint, keep doing what you’re doing.
Well, Dave, you clearly weren’t prepared to consider anyone’s viewpoint but your own, so we weren’t ever going to “have an impact” on your thinking.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
This post is a tease. It’s titled “Rape Story” but there is no rape. In fact, what it describes is two drunken men - made that way by the author - exercising self-control.
But that fact doesn’t seem to matter toward the point of underscoring female victimization by the patriarchy.
The logic goes like this: when women are foolish, and something bad happens, it’s the man’s fault; and when nothing bad happens, that’s because radical feminism has made the world a better place, but it’s the man’s fault too.
Classic.
This comment was written by Richard Bennett.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
This post is a tease. It’s titled “Rape Story” but there is no rape.>>
Poor baby! Did you already have your fly unzipped?
There was indeed an attempted rape–in case you didn’t read carefully enough, this guy kept trying to penetrate the author against the author’s express wishes. If the author hadn’t resisted strenuously, this guy probably would indeed have committed rape. “Finally puts it away after repeated demands to do so,” doesn’t qualify as self-control in decent adult company. I don’t want to know what kind of men you hang out with.
Also, Nick didn’t get them drunk. They were drunk already. But that’s beside the point, since no one would argue that they were too drunk to know where their genitals were.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Poor baby! Did you already have your fly unzipped?
My, my.
This comment was written by Richard Bennett.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Richard, do you realize how creepy and sociopathic it sounds to say that a post about fear of rape is a “tease” because it contained no actual rape? Piny’s right; the clear implication is that you thought Nick was raped and that you ought to use the story for sexual gratification.
If that’s what’s going on, get help now before you do something you can’t undo.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 14th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
In defense of Richard (and I can’t believe I just typed that phrase), I suspect he was just looking for a cute opening line to make his point, which is that in his opinion, no attempted rape happened.
(Of course, it’s also true that the tone of Richard’s opening post was belligerent and arrogant, which pretty much invites insulting replies.)
[Edited to delete needless verbiage]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:54 am
when women are foolish, and something bad happens
Again…..what is the physical difference between (a) a woman being alone with a man with the intent of having sex with him, and (b) a woman being alone with a man without the intent of having sex with him?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:59 am
La Luba,
None really. However, if you are undressed or someone is on top of you it is harder to get out of the situation than if you are standing up or even sitting down.
A lot depends on what else is going on.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Exactly! The difference would be whether or not the man was/is a rapist!
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Yes, that would be one difference.
However, how easily one could get out of the situation would depend on what else was happening. How close one was to people who would intervene. How easily one could get out of the situation. Where could one hide if necessary. What defense (not necessarily physical but psychological) might serve me best.
Look, I know I’m not making myself clear or I’m dense, one or the other. But here is how I see it;
for any given situation there is a way to maximize that situation to one’s benefit— in a way that I would hope wouldn’t negatively impact on someone else unless it was absolutely necessary.
I am not here advocating a change in basic lifestyle (I am on moral grounds but no one has made me their moral teacher so it would fall on deaf ears.) I am advocating looking at each situation and asking yourself; what can I do to make this better for me? If a particular outcome was not favorable, or less favorable than I wanted, how can I alter myself (the easiest person to work on sans force)?
To say “nothing” strikes me as rather defeatist. To wait for society to change seems rather
a long wait. I do think working on society is a must and I do see that by not changing one’s behaviour, by acting despite the risk as if one would act if the risk did not exist could (possibly) change society faster, I do not think the change will come that much quickly, nor do I think the utlimate risk/benefit ratio over the course of time will not show a positive effect from focusing on changing society alone.
I think we are both aiming for the same basic place but have different ideas on the journey.
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
piny wrote-
nick wrote-
Nick seems to acknowledge here that she didn’t perceive a rape attempt had yet occured, “IF” being the operative word — something yet to happen. This does make the title of the piece, “My Rape Story,” a little misleading.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
>>I tried to reason with him, but found that I had to keep my hand over my crotch throughout the conversation to prevent his attempts to penetrate me without wasting time on discussion…>>
Yanno, I can’t speak for Nick, but I would characterize attempting to penetrate a woman when she’s repeatedly telling you not to, under circumstances in which she made it absolutely clear that she would not consent, as attempted rape. He did try to force her. He backed off, eventually, because she resisted so strenuously, but he clearly wasn’t terribly concerned with what she wanted.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
>>This does make the title of the piece, “My Rape Story,” a little misleading. >>
Riiiight. That was what Richard was objecting to. I disagree. The story was a story about rape, about consensual and nonconsensual sex, told to make a point about what is and is not considered violation.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
piny wrote-
So, may I ask, are all “violations,” all attempts at violation, equal?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
No. You’re doing some pretty nasty things to logic and semantics by imputing that meaning to my words, but that doesn’t put you on a par with a rapist, or even with the men who didn’t take Nick’s no seriously.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
How close one was to people who would intervene.
Rachel Ann, you know what I flashed on when I read this? The time my (now ex) husband broke into my apartment after I filed for divorce, with the intent of killing me (lucky for me he had knives but not a gun). See, I lived in an apartment building with paper-thin walls. There were twenty apartments in that building. And yes, I screamed bloody murder for the neighbors to call the police, that my husband was trying to kill me. Where I live, domestic violence isn’t yet viewed by the population at large as a matter to involve the police in. If it comes to actual murder, yes, but getting beaten up badly? That’s just a “family matter”. So, when I was screaming at the neighbors to call the police, their translation of “he’s trying to kill me” was “he’s beating me up.” And since taking a beating is part of what sometimes happens to wives, it wasn’t considered something worth phoning up the cops for.
That’s coloring my view of this situation. I’m having a hard time believing that there is this “special” population of men who rape, with distinguishing characteristics that make them markedly different from the general population of men. Yes, I believe that men with previous rape convictions are more likely to rape, but barring a previous rape conviction, I don’t think rapists behave or express themselves any differently than men in general. The same way thieves don’t express themselves any differently than the population at large—you often won’t know if someone is a thief until you’ve had that thief steal from you.
One of the myths that isn’t a rape myth, but feeds into rape myths, is that of “women’s intuition”. The idea that women have a special sixth sense that is more highly attuned than men, and that we have a special ability to pick up on cues about other people and/or situations that is inherent to our femininity. Back to our thief analogy. Society urges employers to screen employees for their likelihood to steal. Yet, no one blames an employer for having hired an employee who later turned out to be a thief. It is recognized that no matter the vigilance of the employer, if that employer hires enough people, that employer will eventually hire a thief, and be stolen from. And further, that when that employer is stolen from, that the blame rests 100% on the shoulders of the thief, and not of the employer. That employer is not blamed for having faulty intuition.
Yet, that is exactly what we do to rape survivors. Blame them for having faulty intuition. There’s this background belief that if Nick had only “known” who ze was going home with, that hir situation would have been safer. What does that say to the 68% of women raped by men that they did know?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
piny wrote-
I asked you a simple, one sentence question, that sought to flesh out your viewpoint. A usual practice among critical thinkers, and certainly not at all out of line when having a discussion with a group that purports to establish a uniform definition of rape. I’m really unclear what meaning you believe I was trying to impart to your words.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
No. You’re doing some pretty nasty things to logic and semantics
Violating them, even.
This comment was written by Flamethorn.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
ginmar wrote-
Agreed. Neither are women. Neither are children.
The problem is, that the consent model essentially defines human sexual relationships in terms of an simple exchange between consumer and supplier, like video rentals. Each partner seeks to maximize his or her benefit at a cost that they deem is reasonable.
Society does not generally require that consumers consider the needs of the supplier. The consumer need only consider that his or her needs are being met. Such transactions are essentially self-regarding for the parties involved. Each becomes a means to the ends of the other, and objectifies men and women.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Emmetropia, what do you mean by “the consent model”?
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
I can’t speak for Emmetropia, and s/he may have a different take, but:
The consent model is predicated on a view of sex as a transaction or set of transactions between two-plus autonomous humans, who each own and control their own body. It’s transactional, atomistic and temporally limited in scope.
As opposed to (say) a spiritual model, where people are not autonomous, but complementarily paired, and where the sexual act is not primarily a physical coupling, but a spiritual unification. It’s process-oriented and not temporally bound; once joined, always joined.
Rape is a grave wrong under both models, but for different reasons.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
First, thank G-d you are alive.. I’m glad the piece of dirt did not succeed.
Seond:
BINGO!!
I wrote How close one was to people who would intervene.
and you responded with:
The time my (now ex) husband broke into my apartment after I filed for divorce, with the intent of killing me (lucky for me he had knives but not a gun). See, I lived in an apartment building with paper-thin walls. There were twenty apartments in that building. And yes, I screamed bloody murder for the neighbors to call the police, that my husband was trying to kill me. Where I live, domestic violence isn’t yet viewed by the population at large as a matter to involve the police in. If it comes to actual murder, yes, but getting beaten up badly? That’s just a “family matter”. So, when I was screaming at the neighbors to call the police, their translation of “he’s trying to kill me” was “he’s beating me up.” And since taking a beating is part of what sometimes happens to wives, it wasn’t considered something worth phoning up the cops for.
Exactly; you weren’t in close proxiity to people who could intervene or would intervene, in this case because of cultural background.
Now I dont know if you knew at the time the cultural attitudes of your neighbors or the potential risk to you from a husband that one was in the midst of divorcing. Neither do I know if your husband showed a propensity towards violence during the marriage.
But if you had known, how would you have changed what you had done, not that it would change your past, nor is it a matter of placing the blame on you. Alternate histories are mind games without any provable truth; but the information could help you in the future or prove invaluable to another woman in the same situation.
Furthermore, the information you disclose should help us alter the thinking in society. What could bring the message home to the community where you were living that spouse abuse isn’t a family affair? How can we make society as a whole see this? How can we put pressure on the courts that this matter is dealt with more seriously?
Part of the problem is that until the “jury” sees that spoue abuse isn’t a serious crime, the police can arrest the prosecution can do its utmost and the guy can still get off.
One way might be to arrest and fine those who hear but do nothing; difficult because unless you can prove they actually heard the words and knew where the sound was coming from they can shrug and go “well I heard a fight, but I didn’t know anyone was in danger” Or “I heard screaming but I had no idea where it was coming from.”
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
November 15th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
One way might be to arrest and fine those who hear but do nothing
Or shaming. Fear of being shamed is a powerful motivator. I think the people who ignored La Lubu’s cries for help behaved contemptibly. Shame on them.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 6:20 am
Thank you Robert.
I don’t think they did so out of a sense of evil though, even though their action was evil in its effect. They were conditioned to believe that domestic violence is a family matter, and that by involving the police, it contributes to divorce and family breakups. They believed that divorce was worse than getting beaten. I don’t think they really thought he was going to kill me, just beat me up. So, in that sense, shaming isn’t going to have an effect—first, you have to teach them that that view of domestic violence is flawed thinking. Divorce isn’t worse than being punched, or kicked, or spit on, or having obscenities screamed at you all night. It’s not. Divorce is a birthday party compared to that.
But with this pre-existing cultural idea that divorce is worse than family violence, you’re not going to convince them with shame. They really think they were doing the right thing. They thought that their silence was going to keep my marriage together, which in their eyes was the “best thing”. You have to meet people where they are, and work from there. If you start with “a family living under domestic violence is already broken—divorce won’t make it worse” you won’t get there (IMHE). If you start with, “if it was a stranger doing that, would you call the police?” will get you there faster. Baby steps, ya know? And to me, that’s part of what this conversation on these various rape threads is about—-breaking down those mental barriers in order to do something that will make a practical difference.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Yeah, me again. I’m a glutton for punishment.
Ironically, despite the best efforts of some of the commentors here, I’ve been sold on Marsha’s original standard. Piny is absolutely right when e says “This ‘heartbeat away from orgasm’ thing is just so much horseshit.” It absolutely is, and now that I see it, I’m dismayed that I bought into the (near ubiquitous) horseshit. I guess I never put much thought into it, as I’ve never had anyone tell me to stop. Lucky me. :)
I still think you (in general) might want to reconsider your approach to the discussion. Lots of people will just walk away with the first accusation of rape, and then you’ve lost ‘em. Just something to think about.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 10:50 am
>>I still think you (in general) might want to reconsider your approach to the discussion. Lots of people will just walk away with the first accusation of rape, and then you’ve lost ‘em. Just something to think about. >>
I’ll repeat: if someone can’t handle tough criticism, they aren’t capable of evaluating their behavior and their beliefs. The kid gloves have to come off in order for this stuff to be challenged. You can’t call out rape-apologist ideas without using words like “rape apologist.” You were able to listen, and I appreciate that. But if your ego had prevented you from thinking through, “If that’s your definition of consent, I worry about the women you’ve been with,” it would have prevented you from thinking through, “These sentiments make it easier for men to rape women.”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
November 16th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Dave, that’s just going to turn into a discussion about civil debate vs. expecting girls to play nice. :)
People call each out for uncivil language or undue hostility all the time on online discussions, but my personal experience is that when it comes to everything but feminism people are more likely to simply take issue with others’ tone or language and/or use others’ tone or language as an excuse to ignore the actual argument - and leave it at that. It’s only when it comes to feminism that people seem to constantly also feel the need to lecture their fellow debaters about “playing nice” as an argumentative strategy - even once they have been convinced.
It may be that my view on this is skewed because of the types of blogs I frequent, and it may be that feminists are more apt to see hidden meaning in requests to stay civil, but even if there is truth to both of these, I don’t think the problem lies solely with us.
Too often when non-feminists hear accusations of sexism and misogyny they take the accusations personally even when they aren’t meant to be. I mean, really all you have to do is read spicy’s translation of your synopsis of the events to see that most of those who were arguing with you were not trying to call you names just because they were angry or careless. For the most part they were arguing that you were wrong and that your arguments make it easier for rapists to get away with their crimes. At worst they were pointing out that you may end up committing criminal and unkind acts yourself - without meaning to - if you continue to hold such beliefs. No one was accusing you of currently being a rapist.
How else were people supposed to respond to what you said? I suppose you could say we could be less angry, but in my experience that tends to backfire. We are talking about a serious and intimate crime here, if we didn’t sound angry we would come across as simply playing devil’s advocate or arguing with you for the sake of arguing or being right or proving you wrong.
In my experience in discussing sexism and mysoginy, anger can be a very useful tool. It’s true that when we come across as angry others can get the impression that we are taking things too personally or are being too quick to judge, but it can also force them to try to put themselves into our shoes rather than simply attempt to “win” the debate. By forcing others to find arguments that will work against our anger, we also end up forcing them to consider viewpoints they usually would not if all they were doing was looking for holes in our arguments. The New York Times may not be the best venue to attempt this type of strategy, but I do think that informal conversations (online or off) can be - depending on the audience.
Quite honestly - I don’t think most of the people who “walk away” from such anger will be convinced by people like me no matter what tone, language, or strategy I use. I think they will be convinced by people like you - so my job is to convince people like you. Mission Accomplished.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2005 at 7:26 am
Because this thread is getting too long for someone who only has dial-up, and because I may need to go into hospital at any time, I’m declaring this thread closed.
Please do not post any more comments here, and thank you to everyone who contributed to a productive discussion.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
[...] This post by Nick Kiddle over at Alas has caused quite a stir. You can see Nick’s follow-up here. To summarize, Nick went out one night for the express purpose of picking up men for sex. She met two men (paratroopers), and went back to their camp. In the process of engaging with these men (it’s not clear whether or not they were having sex, or what kinds of sexual activities they were engaging in), Nick noticed that one of them was no longer wearing a condom. She told him he could either get another condom and put it on, or they could stop. He didn’t agree to either of her solutions. She put her clothes on and left. Nick writes: If he had persisted, if he had penetrated me despite my objections, that would have been rape. I had consented to sex, but I had made it clear that condoms were part of the deal. When the condom vanished, so did my consent. [...]
This comment was written by Feministe » “She Was Asking For It”.Report this comment to the moderators
November 18th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
[...] There’s a discussion going on over at Feministe on the issue of rape. I can’t believe that after many years of education on the matter that there are still men — and women — who feel that when a woman says “no” the guy can take it for a “yes” and get away with it. The ruckus started when Nick Kiddle posted her own account of being nearly raped by two of America’s finest. [...]
This comment was written by Pax Nortona - A Blog by Joel Sax » Blog Archive » Rape and Human Rights.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
[...] We live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic violence. [...]
This comment was written by Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » Think women have achieved equality? Think again..Report this comment to the moderators
December 12th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Rape, torture, sex and social justice
These men were lynched because a white woman accused them of rape.
Jill over at Feministe has two posts about rape that have unsettled me some.
This comment was written by culturekitchen.The first one, She was asking for it is in response to a post at Alas A blog by Nick Kiddle called My rape s
Report this comment to the moderators
February 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
had put in some kind of weird contraceptive device that has to be inserted well in advance of sex. Ergo, she was planning to have sex (which I can just about grant), ergo she wasn’t raped. At the risk of touching off yet another shit-storm, I haveonly one thing to say
This comment was written by The Iron-On Line.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:21 am
In the wake of the wholeNick/Paratrooper/Rape controversy, I wrote a piece that touched on victim-blaming. One of the comments I got on that bit was from my dad, (hi, Dad), who had followed the link to the Nick/paratrooper controversy, and told me that it was unreasonable that any time someone
This comment was written by Bark/Bite.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Women’s worth goes down according to how many sexual partners people think she has had.Men’s worth goes up according to how many sexual partners people think he has had.We live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic violence.We buy into the myth that all men (even minors) are, at all times, willing to fuck a “gorgeous” woman and any man who would pass up sex with a remotely attractive woman is
This comment was written by Step Inside Me.Report this comment to the moderators