Before Dr. Koss published the results of her national study on college acquaintance rape, therapists like myself used the Chloe Madanas ’s intervention of having a family perpetrator in incest cases get down on his knees to beg forgiveness from the victim and to MAKE AMENDS, particularly pay for therapy, college, etc. (I can’t even remember if that’s her name, she was Jay Haley’s wife, Jay being one of the fathers of family therapy).

Restore seems to be essentially that.

I used it many times and it has been extremely therapeutic.

I’ve since done quite of bit of academic research into sexual assault and acquaintance rape. There is no question B.B. was raped. Hers was not informed consent, it was concent by coercion.

Thanks for this blog, Linda Freedman, LCSW, LMFT, PhD

I don’t advocate “giving up even before trying.” I advocate thinking differently about solutions to the rape crisis and punishment for rapists, because the way we’ve been doing it isn’t too great. And I’m not sure rape can or should be handled be handled like other crimes, given how it’s been historically minimized. We need to put extra provisions into our justice system to make sure victims get some satisfaction and rapists get some justice.

And I don’t, for the record, think an apology is sufficient punishment for a rapist! I do think it’s worth looking into RESTORE-like programs, however, because in some cases they might be helpful to the victims and might lead to discovering other avenues of justice beyond the conventional method of prison time.

Even if she finally says yes, consent is not a given when any sort of threat/coercion is involved. Some stranger rapists demand that their victims say yes, but hopefully we all understand that she didn’t truly change her mind.

Most definitely.

I was trying to say that (even assuming the laws have changed to include coercing someone to agree to sex as rape) a jury may have a harder time determining rape - beyond a reasonable doubt - in the scenario where she says “yes” at some point than in the scenario will she doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that all scenrarios where she says “yes” at some point are hard to determine as rape, or that the fact that the jury may find it difficult to determine means that rape probably didn’t occur or that they will never arrive at a guilty verdict.

I was just trying to point out that reviewing the details of each persons actions does not indicate that the responsibility is suddenly on her to make consent/non-consent clear. Knowing what she said is important in determining if he took the necessary steps to be sure she was in agreement. If she never said yes and said no several times, the issue is pretty clear-cut. If she said no several times but said yes at some point, further review is needed. The fact that further review is needed does not mean he’s not guilty, it just means a responsible jury will take more time determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the second scenario than the first.

OK, here’s what I think is the flaw in your reasoning. Suppose Joe Asshole puts arsenic in someone’s coffee. In scenario a, the coffee drinker has been exposed to arsenic before and built up a tolerance, so Joe Asshole’s dose doesn’t cause significant harm. In scenario b, the coffee drinker has never been exposed to arsenic and has no tolerance, so he drops dead. In a, Joe Asshole is not guilty of murder, but he is guilty of attempted murder, or endangering life or something. And in b, he’s squarely a murderer.

What does that mean when we’re talking about pressure instead of poison? Well, trying to harm someone and failing because they didn’t succumb may not be as bad as trying to harm them and succeeding, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be criminal behaviour.

For instance, if you substitute an iPod for sex in BB’s scenario, I think everybody would agree that the male person extorted the iPod from the female person (I can’t remember now how BB wrote it - if it was man and woman or boy and girl), and I believe the discussion would then cover the cost of an iPod and the appropriate punishment for extorting an iPod. We would not be having a discussion about who was at fault for a situation where someone coerced someone else into handing over an iPod, or whether or not it was really a gift, or how the original owner of the iPod could have avoided the extortion or responded to the initial extortion attempt.

Bottom line is, rape is stealing sex. (It’s other things, too, of course, just as other kinds of theft have multiple components, but for the sake of clarity, I’m just limiting it to one element.) If our legal system treated sex the same way it treated money, boys would be (hopefully) taught that getting to put your penis in a woman’s vagina when she is not enthusiastically cooperating is wrong the same way they are (hopefully) taught that stealing material objects and money are wrong.

I’m confused–that’s not a definition, so I don’t understand your reply….?

If it wasn’t a definition that makes the difference between rape and consensual sex in BB’s scenario, why did you use it?

And in fact, women seldom do get anything from the criminal justice system.

And sometimes they do. So why advocate giving up even before trying? And isn’t this the same type of argument that conservatives make for school vouchers - that the public schools suck, so parents should be able to choose a different school for their children. So, we give up on the public schools and make them worse instead of improving them.

Legislating harsher penalties for rapists won’t change that. I don’t know what will, but the mere fact of harsher penalties will not.

My suggestion would be to focus on *implementing* the penalties that are already on the books (which would be effective deterrents if they were implemented consistently) rather than giving up on the legal system and moving towards a system that has practically no penalties serious enough to act as deterrents, and which trivializes rape as something that can/should just be redressed with an apology or compensation.

Which brings us back to Ampersand’s point that the real battle is over the culture, not the law.

In fact, the law is very much a part of the culture that we need to address. Restore trivializes rape, IMHO, and will take us in exactly the opposite direction that we need to go in changing the culture to take rape seriously. The effort of educating people about rape and rape myths is necessary for improving the implemention of the law against it. It’s not an either/or choice.

Have you read the works of Peggy Reeeves Sanday? Relatively rape-free cultures have severe penalties for rape which are applied consistently. The idea of an apology/compensation as being sufficient redressal for rape sounds more like a feature of the rape-prone cultures she describes (so I’m not surprised that the idea would sound good in a culture like USA).

I’m confused–that’s not a definition, so I don’t understand your reply….?

Perhaps we can start over by agreeing on the scenario.

1) She does, in fact, say “yes.”

2) The “classic” exhibitors of rape (violence, physical force, inability to consent, etc) are not present.

3) The reasons that she does not leave are (duplicate statements omitted):
a) she doesn’t really know where she’d go anyway.
b) She has no car, how is she going to get anywhere?
c) She doesn’t want to try to call her girlfriend who may or may not have a car.
d) She knows that she’ll just make her boyfriend angry at her even if she DID do that. What if he kicks her out?
e) She lied to be there and if she goes back home she’ll get in trouble for lying.

Are we in agreement?

Where’s her “I like it” in BB’s scenario? I see no evidence that her not liking it made the slightest difference to his plans. That means that under this definition, he’s a criminal.

Yes, of course. I wrote on that issue at some more length in my own post on my blog (you might like that post, BTW).

However, it’s also true that rape is far from a given when any sort of “yes” is involved. That’s because we think that these two things are quite different:
1) “I intend to have sex with her, like it or not.”
2) “I intend to try to convince her to have sex with me.”

Re the “paralysis” thing: Neutrality can often be viewed as consent in our society. I’m not saying that’s an especially good thing, but it is true nonetheless. The characterization of her actions as “paralysis” is adding a subtext which doesn’t exist in the original post.

it’s not at all reasonable of him to assume that consent has been granted if she repeatedly said “no”, but never said “yes”.

Even if she finally says yes, consent is not a given when any sort of threat/coercion is involved. Some stranger rapists demand that their victims say yes, but hopefully we all understand that she didn’t truly change her mind.

“So, is every guy who asks for sex more than once an asshole?”

Yes, any guy who wants to have sex with a partner who is not fully willing is an asshole.

People do change their minds on their own sometimes. A husband or boyfriend who asks his wife or girlfriend when she has just come home from work, but is rejected because she’s had a shitty day, is not an asshole if he asks again a little bit later when she’s had a chance to unwind.

That’s kinda more what I meant by not being an asshole.

A first date who aks more than once? Asshole who won’t be getting a second date (I hope).

Your position is that her paralysis in the face of his unwanted behavior equals consent.

Sorry, it doesn’t.

Exactly. If we applied the same logic (that inaction at the time of the event in question equals consent) to sexual harrassment, it seems to me that practically no cases would have ever been won.

The real life case that inspired North Country - :p…..no way

My manager being an ass and deciding that putting his hand on my neck was the proper way to greet me - well, I only moved away and gave him a dirty look. If he had ever done it again, one could argue that my not making a formal complaint right then is the same as inaction……so even my employeers couldn’t take action against him……

And yeah, those sound like really arbitrary lines to draw as far as what constitutes action and what doesn’t - but that’s the point.

While it is the prosecution’s job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an alleged rapist did not have consent, it should be the legal responsibility of the person requesting sex to make sure that they have consent at the time. It should not be a legal responsibility of the victim to make sure that the other party knows if consent has been granted. It’s not like it’s my job to make sure my boss knows it’s not ok to touch vulnerable parts of my body without my express permission. It’s his job to ask like a reasonable person by a) realizing that the back of my neck is not a place he gets to touch without asking, and b) paying attention to my obvious body language - like moving away from his hand.*

Consent always needs to be active, not passive. One can’t assume that just because I’m not pushing you away that I’ve granted consent. It would be especially stupid to assume so if I’ve repeatedly said “no” beforehand.* Sexual assault will often induce a state of shock in which the victim can either do nothing or feels like she isn’t in complete control of her own actions.

(Besides, seriously, how difficult is it to ask for a clear yes?)

I didn’t stop at moving away and throwing a dirty look when my supervisor put his hand on my neck because I thought that was all that was needed, I stopped there because I was in shock that he would ever do such a thing and because I was instantly bombarded with talk of how I’m “touchy” - as if I was the one at fault.

I agree that one can ask repeatedly, eventually get a yes, and simply be and asshole and not a rapist. But that’s not what happened in BB’s story,

*the issue isn’t that she said “no” - and therefore her actions matter in the sense that she’s legally obligated to provide a clear indication of consent/non-consent, - it’s that it’s not at all reasonable of him to assume that consent has been granted if she repeatedly said “no”, but never said “yes”. It’s a question of the prosecution being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was rape: a reasonable person would have waited for a “yes” after so many “no”s. It’s not a question of if she did her “job” and made her wishes known.

From studies listed on the RESTORE site, as well as from my own experience working in a rape crisis center. And I’m not sure where you’re getting the evidence that facing the rapist is a “mistake.” For one thing, it’s not really 100% true that people with empathy can’t rape. But more importantly, the point of the confrontation is not inducing empathy in the rapist, but in giving the survivor the right to face him and say things to him if she so chooses.

Instead of providing support to victims to be strong and fight for justice what RESTORE does is tell them “here is the easy way out. You’re not going to get anything from the criminal justice system. So, why not settle for an apology and find inner peace?” and what it tells perpetrators is “all you have to do is apologize and you can get away with it”.

“Be strong and fight for justice”? What justice? For one thing, I’m not sure there can ever be “justice” in the “eye for an eye” sense when it comes to a crime like rape. And for another…”be strong”? So a raped woman who doesn’t want to put herself through the criminal justice system is “weak”? A woman who wants to confront her rapist face-to-fact is taking the “easy way out”? Sorry, but I don’t buy it.

And in fact, women seldom do get anything from the criminal justice system. This is a fact that must be faced. Legislating harsher penalties for rapists won’t change that. I don’t know what will, but the mere fact of harsher penalties will not. Which brings us back to Ampersand’s point that the real battle is over the culture, not the law.

many victims want to be able to confront their rapists in a RESTORE-like situation.

I don’t know where you’re getting this (from the RESTORE site?) but what I’ve heard from people who work with sexual assault victims is that the experiment with allowing victims to face their rapists was a big mistake, that facing the victims does not really generate any empathy in the rapist as was hypothesized. People who are capable of feeling empathy for their victims aren’t very likely to rape in the first place. But sociopaths are very good at *acting* like they empathize.

Instead of providing support to victims to be strong and fight for justice what RESTORE does is tell them “here is the easy way out. You’re not going to get anything from the criminal justice system. So, why not settle for an apology and find inner peace?” and what it tells perpetrators is “all you have to do is apologize and you can get away with it”.

Your position is that her paralysis in the face of his unwanted behavior equals consent.

Sorry, it doesn’t.

Laws and juries recognize that there are many, many gradations with other crimes. Manslaughter is not the same as first degree murder, right? So, they guy who premeditates a rape is guilty of a worse crime than the guy who spontaneously rapes, right? So, instead of examing her behavior, let’s find out more about him: did he deliberately set the date up so that he has the car and she doesn’t? did he deliberately bring her to a place that was isolating? does he know there are no taxis available? did he tell his friends that tonight he’d be getting laid? did he lay in a supply of condoms?

I don’t think a few paragraphs can properly present a case with no ambiguity whatsoever. There was a time when it was perfectly okay for a husband to rape a wife. A time is coming when coerced sex by dates will be just as clearly wrong.

Absolutely agree with this. We really do need more gradations for sexual assault and harrassment so we don’t get this “either he raped her at gunpoint (black end of the spectrum) or he is just an asshole but not accountable for his behaviour”. A lot of coerced sex in situations of power differentials can come under the heading of harrassment and should be actionable. The case described by BB would come under this category and the type of questions to ask in this case are exactly of the sort that you suggest.

Would you still want to convict him or punish him for his behavior, if she had continued to say “no?” Imagine the exact same hypothetical–except that it ends with her leaving (feeling just as upset).

If she leaves, having continued to say “no”, with her just as upset, but without the sex, then there is no crime to charge him with, that I am aware of. There are a lot of crimes on a spectrum of rape and coercion, and they vary with locality, so I’ve no idea that this is absolutely true, but in most places, him presurring her to have sex isn’t a crime, unless he goes ahead and has sex with her.

I think this RESTORE sounds like an excellant idea, but reading through all of this, the important thing is education. Clearly too many people still believe that anything less than penetration and a beating or being threatened with a deadly weapon are necessary for it to be rape.

Laws and juries recognize that there are many, many gradations with other crimes. Manslaughter is not the same as first degree murder, right? So, they guy who premeditates a rape is guilty of a worse crime than the guy who spontaneously rapes, right? So, instead of examing her behavior, let’s find out more about him: did he deliberately set the date up so that he has the car and she doesn’t? did he deliberately bring her to a place that was isolating? does he know there are no taxis available? did he tell his friends that tonight he’d be getting laid? did he lay in a supply of condoms?

I don’t think a few paragraphs can properly present a case with no ambiguity whatsoever. There was a time when it was perfectly okay for a husband to rape a wife. A time is coming when coerced sex by dates will be just as clearly wrong.