Is rape that big a deal?

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

Phebe-

Which is the whole stragegy and tactics of the guy's seduction, I realize. But if that's all it is, it isn't rape: it's him scoring and her losing, that's all.

That statement reflects either confusion over sexual orientation on your part or some kind of borderline depression. If you hate sex with a man so much then why would you want to consider having it at all? I really wish lesbians would simply quit meddling into heterosexual affairs by imposing their bullshit statutes onto our culture.

[Phebe]

Phebe, no. Either debate the post or go away. Sarcasm won't get you anywhere, and simply annoys.

Hmmm....miscommunication. I meant what I said, Q, I thought that was a wonderful post and you see that I took it seriously: I gave up supporting women who make a rape charge though they weren't clear about saying no.


it's him scoring and her losing, that's all.

So a women looses if she has sex. What is it she looses, exactly? Limbs? Power? Please, do tell.

Control over her own body. That's what we're discussing, right? Whether men have a right to use women's bodies for their own pleasure whether we like it or not. If she hints, looks worried, tries to get up, says no but is ignored, etc., etc. it may be "overpersuasion" rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens: THAT is why she's mad, of course!

Is overpersuade a word? From dictionary.com: o·ver·per·suade tr.v. o·ver·per·suad·ed, o·ver·per·suad·ing, o·ver·per·suades

To persuade (someone) to act contrary to inclination or choice.

[Phebe]

That's actually an interesting topic - how men and women behave in private with the opposite sex vis-a-vis in public.

I don't believe Wellesley women or any other college-educated women talk quite like that, frankly.

Or any other women I've ever met, on reflection -----------

Migod. In fact, I suspect the only place ANYONE, male or female, talks like that is on these types of forums.

[Q]

Hmmm....miscommunication. I meant what I said, Q

Quite possible; again mea culpa.  Probably different standards of sarcasm.

[She looses] Control over her own body.

How so?  This would be rape, not sex.  Your position is equivilent to saying that if a wife persuades a husband to buy her something, he's lost control of his financies.  

This is not the case.  He might have been persuaded, but in the final analysis, he had a veto.  If this was used or not matters little; he has the final choice.  In the same way, the women in our scenario has a final choice.  She could say no, and mean/implement it.

Whether men have a right to use women's bodies for their own pleasure whether we like it or not.

Hmmm.  No, this is not what we were talking about, as I understood it.  The scenario we were discussing was the more or less consensual sex currently in vogue (as we seemed to have moved off strict rape some posts ago).  This is the case where women agree to have sex, or are persuaded to have sex.  

Your statement would allow me, if true, to knock on the next door along, and force myself on the girl living there.  This would be rape, no question.    

If she hints, looks worried, tries to get up, says no but is ignored

Phebe, please.   Believe it or now, pretty much every female past the age of 16 I've met since since I became remotely interested in the sex has had the capability of make her desires perfectly clear in a very cutting manner, with words alone.

I've seen it (and suffered it) enough times to know this.  To say that "she hints, looks worried..." is equivilent to a single "No" is like saying that bondage is tying someone up with spiderwebs.  It's just not strong enough.

Rape is not rape, very simply, if the female in question is in the postion to say "No" (within some limits, see below) and does not do so.

Seems harsh, hmm?  Well, untill until society (and women) in general accept equal responsiblity for sex and women drop the act of "All women are virgins and don't want sex" men will have to use some form of verbal persuasion.

They will have to ignore minor "no" signals in some situations.  It's impossible to tell if she means them, or if she enjoys the attention and just wants you to try harder!

Anything short of a firn "No" or something as clear, anything that would require serious interpretation is not enough.  

"But we've an exam tomorrow" could mean "I don't want to have sex" or "Make me forget about it...please!"  or "And after this, we can revise together" or......

Is overpersuade a word? From........

So it would appear that it's an American word, not and English one.  Fair enough.  However, it would appear to be a synonym of persuade; indeed, from the dictionary entries on dictionary.com, the two mean the same thing.

Would you be willing to use persuade, not overpersuade?

In which case....

it may be "overpersuasion" rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens

becomes "it may be 'persuasion' rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens".

Which makes no sense.  If your persuaded, you (eventualy) choose to say yes.  Which would make her mad.....why?

[Bagu]

The true meaning of rape is to use physical force or threat to have sex. If a woman is persuaded to have sex by a man who's playing mind games with her (which she herself should be good at), then it's not rape. It's time women start taking responsibility over their own brains.

If someone with a fast tongue convinces you to give him all your money, it's not robbery. If he didn't lie about anything, it's not even considered cheating.

[Pat Kibbon]

I'm going to have to say "No" - rape is not such a big deal.  I was never actually raped, but someone made an attempt once ...many years ago...

I did not own a TV and I was visiting a neighbor to watch a show.  There was a guest also visiting the neighbor, someone whom I had not previously met.  The guest was thouroughly inebriated and suddenly, without warning lept across the couch upon which we were both seated, tackled me, pinned me to the couch and attempted to force me to have sex.  

I did not in any way feel personally violated.  I found the incident rather amusing.  If circumstances had been different I might have even cooperated with the assailant.  This was not the most attractive person I had ever met, but, what the heck, I wasn't having sex with anyone at the time anyway.  Had it been a more attractive person I might have found it interesting.  I had actually forgotton this incident and was reminded of it while reading this discussion.

One of the circumstances that precluded completion of the act was that my wife was present.  No - we are not Massachussettes lesbians; I am a man (the attempted rapist was a woman) - and this is how a man (at least this man) reacts to an instance of attempted rape - and how he imagines he would react to accomplished rape.

Feminists would say that the difference between how I, as a man, would react to being raped and their view of how a woman typically reacts is, as are all gender characteristics, a product of how we are socially constructed; they would not see the different reactions as an essential difference between men and women.  If Feminists are correct, there are implications.   I, as a man, can be constructed by society in such a way as to be immune to the experience of personal violation resulting in severe emotional damage that a woman is said to suffer as a result of attempted or accomplished rape.  Can't women be socially constructed (or re-constructed) in the same way?  Why would a woman want to continue being vulnerable in this way when she dosen't have to be?


You may have noticed that the women participants in this discussion (and in almost every discussion of sexual issues)  tend to be concerned with avoiding unwanted sexual advances from men and seem to be intimidated by them,  while the men tend to be concerned with gaining opportunity to make sexual advances.

Again, why would a woman want to remain vulnerable to emotional damage and intimidated by man's sexual advances when she dosen't have to be?



A man is someone who has the capability to rape; everyone else is a woman.

[Phebe]

They will have to ignore minor "no" signals in some situations. It's impossible to tell if she means them, or if she enjoys the attention and just wants you to try harder!

Anything short of a firn "No" or something as clear, anything that would require serious interpretation is not enough.


I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice. If you are pushing forward even though you know very well she is objecting, I'd say that is obnoxious at best.

I didn't mean women should be clear to deal with this sort of thing! I meant that men claim in court that they were utterly unable to translate her communication: that they didn't know that she meant No. If you understand very well that she doesn't want to but are game playing, that's pretty awful.

The reason for a clear no is to communicate with men who can't understand verbal signals that ANY woman understands effortlessly. Men have long made a case that you somehow can't understand, "I have to leave; I need to wash my hair,"  means "no, I don't want sex with you!" Fine, but if you do understand and are ignoring her, I suggest any relationship will never prosper because you aren't being honest.

Would you be willing to use persuade, not overpersuade?

No; the important connotation of overpersuade is that women don't agree at all: they are persuaded against their will. And are often angry afterward, too. "Persuade" doesn't carry the connotation of overcoming serious objection.


If someone with a fast tongue convinces you to give him all your money, it's not robbery. If he didn't lie about anything, it's not even considered cheating.

Bagu, this is a good example, though incorrect: it's called con games and there are whole police divisions that fight it. Con men steal a lot of money from people everywhere. And I think this IS what we are talking about, an attempt to con women who don't want sex. That's no good. I suppose the similarity to money cons is why courts do try cases of rape that didn't involve a clear no. Because they WERE cons and everybody involved can see that. Maybe we are moving away from that legally, but it does NOT make conning women morally right.

You may have noticed that the women participants in this discussion (and in almost every discussion of sexual issues) tend to be concerned with avoiding unwanted sexual advances from men and seem to be intimidated by them, while the men tend to be concerned with gaining opportunity to make sexual advances.

Again, why would a woman want to remain vulnerable to emotional damage and intimidated by man's sexual advances when she dosen't have to be?

You are saying we should just give it up willingly and not bother to call it rape. Seems a somewhat simplistic point of view! Disease, pregnancy, being married, being in love with someone else, being grossed out by the rapist, not wanting to be controlled, those all come quickly to mind as reasons not to accept rape.

The reason we feel intimidated is that we may lose. Nothing good about getting taken advantage of in such significant ways.

I had the same experience you did, and threw him off and left. So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that. As you did! But you were bigger; I was lucky. It was probably easier for you and chancier for me, so of course women feel anxious. (Though talk about a clear no --- there was no way that guy was getting anything but major, major trouble and injury and loud shrieks in the dorm and trips to the police station if he hadn't given up when I threw him off. What a total idiot! He just plain wasn't going to take anything I didn't want to give. I'd have died first.)

A man is someone who has the capability to rape; everyone else is a woman.

A very unpleasant slogan. But at least you aren't one of these men who somehow think women can rape. This always seemed ridiculous to me.

[Phebe]

BikerDad saying, "The essential point is that the "rape as heinous crime" crowd consider it so heinous because it is an assault on the very personhood of the victim. Operating under that logic, then we must also RESPECT the personhood of the victim, and accord them full responsibility for their own actions. If a person is "overpersuaded", too bad, they're responsible for getting up and leaving. If they have too many drinks, they're responsible for having too many. Many of the same folks who find a sober man guilty of "raping" a drunk woman based on "he said, she said" will send a DUI to the bighouse in a New York minute, i.e., double standard."

I think the issue is, is the woman conscious. ABLE to leave, to say no. I agree with you that "overpersuaded" doesn't count. Also lowered inhibitions from drinking. This same guy I told you about who once overpersuaded me? He told me (indignantly) that another woman wouldn't go out with him any more after they once had sex because, she said to him on the phone, "You got me drunk."

This guy was not, somehow, able to get any woman to be really enthusiastic about sex with him. He was always up to some sort of control game and nobody liked it. But this woman, too, did not charge him with rape. She just refused to have anything more to do with him and chalked it up to experience.

Okay, fine. But then we have this issue:

BikerDad said, "Impaired Consent: if a woman gets drunk, and she doesn't remember what happened, tough. She got drunk on her own. She voluntarily vacated her faculties. Ditto if SHE takes drugs.

No, I don't agree with this. The issue is right of refusal, the ability to own control of one's body. If as soon as a woman is unconscious that makes her fair game, drinking wouldn't be the only situation. I fainted at work in March, bad acute food poisoning. Are you saying that a woman who faints, everybody can immediately leap on top of her? The fact that a woman loses consciousness doesn't make her everybody's sex doll!

Let's turn this around to men: suppose you drink a lot and pass out. Does that mean it's okay for homosexuals to come up behind you and have sex with you? Does that mean it's okay for women at the party to take off your clothes and look at you? How about cutting your hair? Why not? If you think any woman who gets drunk and passes out means you get a freebie without asking her, I don't see why she shouldn't get to cut your hair short and shave off your beard. Same thing exactly, after all --- you are unconscious, so you don't have a right to control your own body anymore, okay?

Nope, unconsciousness means the date is over, that's all. If the woman is unable to say no and it happens anyway, that makes it rape. I believe the law is pretty plain about that, am I right?

That was a well-stated post from BikerDad, I thought: very clear presenting of the issues.

[Galt]

<<I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice.>>

So I remember (vaguely) in college that I went back to the dorm room of a woman.  After kissing her for a while, my hands started moving further.

She squealed "Nooooo, doooon't" in a high-pitched, sing-songy voice.  So I sat up and quit, and she asked me if I wanted another beer.  I drank one, talked to her, and then said I was going to get going.  She started taking off some of her clothes, pulled me back into the room and put my hand on her breast.

So if things move on from there is that rape?  Is it rape if I don't call her the next day?  

Did she sexually assault me by going after me? (*Yawn*)  Was she guilty of rape by plying me with a drug - alcohol? (*Further yawn*)  Is she an innocent Mother-Theresa victim who doesn't know anything about what's going on?  Am I the evil user? (*Yawn*)

The sad fact is that many men HAVE been nailed under those circumstances (like Adam Lack vs. Sarah Klein - a Google search may suffice).

This "calling back" thing after a one-night stand - as a criterion for rape - is beyond ridiculuous.  The guy MAY call back and be blown off.  That's OK.  As long as he gets rejected afterwards.  That's not rape (at least - not on his part by the very same definition, LOL).  But she wants the choice, or she may LATER claim rape if she feels she wan't treated as a lady of respect later.  Unreal.  Unreal that any thinking person even considers that to be rape.

[InternetDevil]

I agree that overpersuasion is a crime, but I think that equating it to rape is too harsh.  It is not rape.  In Canada, it would usually carry about a year in prison, while rape carries ~6 years.

In US any sex crime carries life sentence.

[Phebe]

So if things move on from there is that rape?

No................sounds like a fair degree of enthusiasm to me.  


Is it rape if I don't call her the next day?

No. But if you tell her to hurry up and get out because your girlfriend is coming back from work soon, the article on another thread suggests that she might at least play with the idea for awhile. Deliberate humiliation ----- I question the practicality of that. "Not calling" isn't humiliation.

Look, if it's a first night thing, if the guy doesn't want to call again, she probably doesn't want him to call, either! (I won't say how I happen to know stuff like that.)

[Phebe]

In Canada, [overpersuading] would usually carry about a year in prison, while rape carries ~6 years.

Whoa!! Are you serious, InternetDevil? You all had me convinced that it wasn't an actionable crime at all!

[Galt]

Conflict:

This statement:
"I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice."

versus this statement:

"No................sounds like a fair degree of enthusiasm to me."

------------------

There was a clear "No" in the situation I described.

[Galt]

<<But if you tell her to hurry up and get out because your girlfriend is coming back from work soon, the article on another thread suggests that she might at least play with the idea for awhile. Deliberate humiliation ----- I question the practicality of that. "Not calling" isn't humiliation.>>

That has nothing to do with rape.  If he's a cad, that's a whole different point.  It has nothing to do with rape.

As far as the "calling back" thing goes ... that HAS been the criterion for some women to decide that they were "raped".  I suggested "Adam Lack vs. Sarah Klein" as a starter.  That's a famous case.  If he had called her, she would have rejected him, but nothing else.  I really think that.

[Phebe]

There's no conflict.

She said no, and you did the correct thing, which warms my heart.  

And indeed you had another beer and some conversation, in good faith. It is clear to other women besides me that you are good with conversation, because after that, later, at a time well past the No communication ---------

She changed her mind.

Hey, we get to do that!  We're women: it's in the specs.