Is rape that big a deal?

[Galt]

<<They're looking for little Miss Pleaser. What about them? What do women have to do before any man would agree it was clear, they definitely didn't consent?>>

The problem here is that there are a lot of little Miss Pleasers who want sex but they put the onus on men to initiate it.  That's true to a high extent with the initial phases of a relationship.  I realize that between Mr. and Mrs. Goldblatt, who have been married for 35 years, Mrs. Goldblatt may initiate and Mr. Goldblatt may say, "Edith, I have to finish pasting my stamps in the book".  Or he has to wash the car first, and then he's tired.

Aside from that ...

I have come across a lot of women who simply take the passive role and assume that the man will initiate everything.  There must be a whole lot of aggressive men out there, because I have had the experience of simply getting up to go - OK, she doesn't want to - and then all of a sudden she does the absolute minimum to show that she DOES want to, with a bit of surprise that I actually took "No" to mean "No".  All of it ultimately deniable, of course.  One foot in and one foot out.

The problem is that men are the ones who initiate sex - if nature turned it around, feminists would be complaining about THAT.

[Galt]

There are a whole lot of women out there who do something for society, work, think, contribute etc.  And there are also a lot of women who get by on the mere fact that men have a sexual urge for women.  I'll tell ya ... feminists complain and complain about the fact that men have a sexual urge for women, but there would be a whole lot of women in a really sorry state if men didn't have this.  Anne Nicole Smith and Ivanna Trump come to mind.  If they had to find a cure for Polio or start a software company to earn their money, or even do the smallest whit of anything useful for society beyond ... taking ... for their material pleasure, they'd be SOL.

[Phebe]

and then all of a sudden she does the absolute minimum to show that she DOES want to, with a bit of surprise that I actually took "No" to mean "No". All of it ultimately deniable, of course. One foot in and one foot out.

Well, of course. Well described. Hey, this is how the world spins, Galt.  

But it doesn't answer my question --- given that men think they need to keep pushing or they'll miss out on a "yes," what does a clear "no" actually look like? Because when she says to the judge, "I TOLD HIM I needed to wash my hair!!!! Can't he take a hint??" the guys get all mad.

Though I must say, that sounds plenty clear to me. But I'm a woman. So what would be clear to a man?

Or are you saying nothing would be enough because it's the man's job to keep pushing until success is achieved? I'm not saying you are saying that; I'm asking.

[Galt]

<<There must be a whole lot of aggressive men out there, because I have had the experience of simply getting up to go - OK, she doesn't want to - and then all of a sudden she does the absolute minimum to show that she DOES want to, with a bit of surprise that I actually took "No" to mean "No".>>

And what's really silly is this notion that ALL women have grown up in a nunnery and they have NO IDEA how men behave or think.  NO IDEA.

------------ [From "Casablanca"]:
"Rick, I'm shocked to find out that there is gambling going on here".  

(Up runs a man in the casino to the police chief): "Your winnings, Prefect".
--------------------------------------

A whole lot of women get it.  A whole lot of women orchestrate things based on the man's initiation of sex.  It exists, and it should be part of a discussion of reality.  Feminists will just ignore all of that - because it serves their purpose.  But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Galt]

<<Or are you saying nothing would be enough because it's the man's job to keep pushing until success is achieved?>>

I'm saying that especially among young people (my foggy memory of the process), men initiate sex.  That's how it works.  I don't know if God or nature or whatever is responsible for that.  I'm not responsible for that.  Maybe it's the omniscient Patriarchy.  I haven't paid my dues, so I haven't been to the meetings - I don't know.

But women - on their side - have an idea of how things work.  This is always ... completely ... ignored.

[Phebe]

A whole lot of women orchestrate things based on the man's initiation of sex. It exists, and it should be part of a discussion of reality. Feminists will just ignore all of that - because it serves their purpose. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Okaaaay......I agree totally. Except for the feminist bit. Of COURSE men usually initiate sex in our society! And what's more, you'd probably be very startled and start to call it "rape" if the women suddenly took out after you.

I'm not ignoring any of that at all. I am saying, given that everybody here knows men keep pushing, and what is more, we LIKE that men keep pushing because we expect that is how sex is supposed to be initiated ----------

Given all that, still, sometimes we don't want sex with man X or Y who somehow has ended up on our couch with apparently eight active hands at his disposal. How can we communicate this clearly, and yet keep social options open for a later date, in the context of the very reality you have so well described?


Whoops! We have reservations.   :shock:  I do NOT think that hanging out with you all is going to fly as an acceptable excuse for why I am late ------- anon.

[Q]

Okaaaay......I agree totally. Except for the feminist bit. Of COURSE men usually initiate sex in our society! And what's more, you'd probably be very startled and start to call it "rape" if the women suddenly took out after you.

Cry rape?  Unlikely.  More like I'd go into shock, pure and simple.  Phebe, you have to understand; sex is a commodity.  I see this everyday.  I organise the phone bill at my student accomadation.  The day before yesterday, the bf of one of the students paid me some £62, for her phone bill.  Why?  Because of sex.  

She does not push for sex, because she knows she can sell it.  There is no profit in a women pushing for casual sex with a male.  
-------

How can we communicate this clearly, and yet keep social options open for a later date, in the context of the very reality you have so well described?

This is simple.   You say no.  You get up, and walk away.  Tell them that today is a very bad day.  But as he leaves, give him a half smile; say that if he should ask you for a date in <insert time>....

The problem Phebe, is mixed messages.  If your in that situation, you must have done something to say/indicate "This is ok".  At the least, at some point you let him into your room(s), onto your couch.  Communication is the first part of the problem.

Or are you saying nothing would be enough because it's the man's job to keep pushing until success is achieved?

Well, in the uk, YES.  Either that or untill the female in question gives a sufficiently convincing rejection.  If the male says nothing, nothing will happen.

what does a clear "no" actually look like?

Lets see.  It's presented as a "No."  No prevarication, excuses or lies.  The body language should also underline this.  It rarely does - but it should.

It should also be given at a reasonable point.  The earlier, the better.  

As to the second part - rape.

Rape will usualy boil down to a he said - she said scenario.  There is nothing you can do to prevent this.  It's the nature of the aqusation.  This does not make it any less a crime, just harder to prove.  

Just because it's hard to prove does not mean you should change the burden of proof.  It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.  

I don't suppose anyone here will care to defend the use of Rohypnol to drug a woman.

Strawman - no one here would support this practice.

I guess I'd support a woman making a charge on this basis of being overpowered, overpersuaded

No...really?  So if a girl is persuaded to have sex, then it's fair to acuse the persuader of rape???  Either consent is or is not given.  You can't have it both ways.

<Edit>  As usual, all errors are to be blamed on either drunkenness or fatigue </edit>

[LSBeene]

Wow Phebester,

That was a well thought out, fair, analytical, and reasoned response.  

No, no sarcasm, I'm just going to humbly admit that I was wrong about you on this one.  PERIOD.

I think you took my alcohol example 3 steps further along than I meant, but that's a fair and rational  extrapolation of the situation.

Ok, so let's deal with that: Using "roofies" is date rape.  It's an intentional means of drugging another person to deprive a person of their ability to consent.  If some guy uses "roofies" to have sex he's raping a woman.  That's obvious and fair.

I disagree as far as the whole "maybe she's passive and he missed the signals" idea though.

If a guy is getting mixed signals and sex happens I don't think he should be charged.  I mean, guys and gals both send mixed signals, and if sex occurs that's not "forcing" someone, it's mixed signals.

But besides that I have to say, again, that your post was very fair.

Steven

[Galt]

The Pheb-ster isn't all that bad, she's just misguided and has to learn the truth from us.

LOL

[Phebe]

Thanks, Steven, I appreciate that.

Gaa-alt.....

Q, wonderful post. I give up; you are right, of course. Notably on this problem point:   "So if a girl is persuaded to have sex, then it's fair to acuse the persuader of rape??? Either consent is or is not given. You can't have it both ways."

I'd say it's not precisely a question of consent -- it's a question of not-consent. I understood that issue a few years ago when thinking about physician "consent" forms: they are actually about a right of refusal. So the problem is not that the girl consents, she never consents ---- she just somehow omits to say no. 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.

The only time that happened to me I called it rape while yelling at him on the phone a couple days later. He said, "Should I be talking to my lawyer instead of you?" I said, resignedly, "No." Because morally, you know, it just wasn't rape. It was him overpersuading and me getting very confused and losing out. Hey, sometimes in life, we lose. It's not a problem -- It was very educational and I learned a lot. The relationship, obviously, did not prosper.

[LSBeene]

Phebe,

What happened to you was regretable.  I would also ask you to consider something. I am going to drop the usual banter and use an example out of my own life.

I have a bad physiological reaction to alcohol: my "friend" doesn't want to cooperate when I am beyond being tipsy.  But, of course, my desire is still there.  There were a few times when I got a woman alone and realized I was too wasted to "do the deed".  Now I am not one to be selfish and would offer to use my hands or mouth to plz my partner.  I didn't usually bring up WHY, but I equate this to how some women have a problem with lubrication.

Well, most women, and I have dated quite a few, don't take "no" for an answer.  First it's cajoling, then it's "she's offended/hurt", then it's "what's wrong with you aren't you a man?", and then sometimes came a slap or a kick to enunciate the point.

Now, I don't consider myself to have been raped or sexually assaulted, but I was more than just "pressured", and from what I have seen we (society) do very little to teach women that "no means no" at all.

So, what happened to you Phebe was part of seduction.  It sounds like it went further than that into manipulation.  But neither of these is sexual assault.

And men are in jail for less.

Steven

[BikerDad]

Rape will usualy boil down to a he said - she said scenario. There is nothing you can do to prevent this. It's the nature of the aqusation. This does not make it any less a crime, just harder to prove.

Point of order:  The "he said, she said" scenario is an ACCUSATION, not a crime.  A crime MAY have occurred, a misunderstanding MAY have occurred, or a false accusation MAY be occuring (i.e., another crime).  Healthy skepticism is the order of the day, and granting that the "he said, she said" scenario isn't "any less of a crime, just harder to prove", violates that skepticism.

Now, to the subject of rape shield laws and all that:  they are wrong.  Period.  If society and the criminal justice  are going to take the tack that rape is an especially heinous crime, then the correct place to account for the gravity of offense is in the SENTENCING, not prosecution.  Rape shield laws are predicated on the notion that a crime DID TAKE PLACE, which, legally speaking, is not established until "Guilty."  

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.  On the other hand, if a man slips her a roofie then rapes her, AND it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, execute him.  Plain and simple.

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.  The only reason for the double standard is the unspoken contention that women are not fully responsible for their sexual behavior, i.e., they aren't full people.  stoopid, stoopid, stoopid, especially when you consider that in these cases, ESPECIALLY if both parties were drinking, the man is required to be responsible for BOTH.

[LSBeene]

Oh plz Phebe don't decend into "never never land" where all women are virtuous virgins who don't want sex and men are the predatory beasts held in check only by the laws of the land and the threat of prison.

As I said before I lived next to Wellesley College for quite a while.  I even went over there while in High School and said I was in college.

That school was FULL of women DYING to "get some".  I can prove this in 2 ways.
1) there is a bus that takes the women into Boston on the weekends so that the girls can party at other colleges.  Wanna know what the WELLESLEY WOMEN call it: the "fuck truck"

2) It's said that you only need 1 of 3 things to get laid at a Wellesley party:
a) a personable personality (being able to utter a coherent sentence is optional)
b) to show up AT a Wellesley party (optional also, because they'll come to you)
c) a penis (also optional as many women are bi)

Where did I get that "saying" off of a WELLESLEY T-SHIRT that was sold on campus (I paraphrased).

So let's drop the whole "she was some innocent wide eyed virgin caught in his headlights" crap.  I've seen otherwise.  

And Phebe, and this part is critical, women LIE LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER to each other.

What do I mean by that?  Most women who hook up don't go back and tell their friends: "yeah, I got his ass drunk, sucked him hard and fucked him until he was sore."  

Nope, because women love to judge each other.  Drop your feminist guard for a moment and give that some thought.  The thing a woman fears the MOST after sex is other people finding out.  I've saved myself countless grief by telling the woman afterwards: "hey, let's both lie and say that some 'petting' went on and that I was respectful and you weren't a tease"  And the women love it.  Then they prompty go off and "share" about how they hooked up.

While when a guy does it it's called "bragging".

And Phebe, since I have dated a lot more women than you, I can qualify my answers as to how women are different when other women aren't around.

Steven

[Galt]

<<And Phebe, since I have dated a lot more women than you, I can qualify my answers as to how women are different when other women aren't around. >>

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

[Q]

Point of order: The "he said, she said" scenario is an ACCUSATION, not a crime. A crime MAY have occurred, a misunderstanding MAY have occurred, or a false accusation MAY be occuring (i.e., another crime). Healthy skepticism is the order of the day, and granting that the "he said, she said" scenario isn't "any less of a crime, just harder to prove", violates that skepticism.

Mea culpa - your correct.  

Q, wonderful post. I give up; you are right, of course.

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

she never consents

- Right.  Really?  As I recall from my student days (ie last week...), it goes something more like this.  "Would you care to come over to my house?"  "Want a drink or something?"  "<something suggestive>"  "<Something even more suggestive>".

Consent is usualy given about every five minutes.  Not consent to sex every time, but a "Go on, I'm alright with this".  The final consent is usualy silent.  

But if that's all it is, it isn't rape: 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.

It was him overpersuading

- which is what?  At what point does persuading become overpersuading?  Is it actualy a word, or would you care to replace it with another, for clarity?