Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

144 Responses

  1. David Thompson
    David Thompson November 17, 2005 at 7:02 pm |

    The agreed-upon scenario was that they would both use condoms; when one didn’t, he violated the original agreement, and changed the scenario into something that Nick never agreed to.

    Correct so far as it goes. However, Nick Kiddle was a brain-dead moron to expect that a pair of drunk paratroopers, solicited for casual sex, would be mindful and attentive to (insert pronoun of choice) wishes in said encounter. (This leaves aside the issue of possible statutory rape on the Kiddle’s part.)

  2. liza
    liza November 17, 2005 at 7:09 pm |

    When did rape go from the use of sex as a weapon of physical and psychic destruction to being non-consensual sex?

    I feel these discussions diminish and trivialize one of the oldest means of torture in the book used in times of war –whether political or cultural war.

    Legally speaking, I think that there has to be a distinction in the dgrees of this thing American feminists call rape. If we have different degrees of intent in killing another person –from homicide to murder–; then we have to start speaking legally of the difference between sex gone bad to the use of sexual penetration to torture or kill another person.

    And yes, I think the way this discussion was framed was very American. I come from south of the border, where rape has been used by Latin American governments for toture or anybody smelling of political or cultural dissent.

    Rapings of homosexuals –both men and women– are common in Lat. Am. Rape has also been used to quell dissent of people on the left during military dictatorships and pseudo-facist republican governments. Doesn’t anybody remember how in Argentina and Brazil rape was used for harvesting of babies from desaparecidas who’d then be killed right after giving birth? In Puerto Rico, where I come from, there was a time you could not say you were a feminist because since feminism equaled lesbianism, you were fixing for a raping.

    So, sincerely, I do think this whole debate, the way it is framed triviliazes rape.

  3. elissa
    elissa November 17, 2005 at 7:14 pm |

    “Drunkeness is not an excuse for law-breaking.”
    Here, here!

    Interesting that “my drunk client was not a rational agent” would still be used as a defense in a sexual abuse case. Imagine a similar scenario in a DWI case: “Your honor – my client isn’t responsible for running over the old lady. You see, he was drunk at the time.”

    The quoted text about female arousal is interesting. There have been similar studies of men finding other men arousing (physically and usually below the level of conscious arousal). I wonder how Nick would justify that according to evolution. *laugh* I reckon that we’re just wired weird. No explanation needed.

    Anyhow, thanks for a great article.

  4. Karol
    Karol November 17, 2005 at 7:14 pm |

    I don’t see how it’s feminist to encourage and support someone dumb enough to not know that sex with (2!) strangers can take a nasty turn. I hold women to a higher standard than that, and I expect them to be smarter than this chick.

  5. Amanda
    Amanda November 17, 2005 at 8:09 pm |

    God, I can’t believe another rape apologist has used that poem. That’s a beautiful poem that’s not about forcing yourself on a woman who’s resisting. It’s about taking pleasure in life because life is short. He’s asking his mistress to enjoy herself, something that’s not happening when you’re being raped, I can assure you.

  6. Amanda
    Amanda November 17, 2005 at 8:11 pm |

    I feel compelled to point out, as I have one million times before, that if the victim-blamers are sincere about helping women reduce risk, they would encourage women to go to sex clubs and sleep around and refrain from going on dates or entering relationships. Most male-on-female violence is in a dating/relationship context, not casual sex.

  7. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 17, 2005 at 8:38 pm |

    Ya know, maybe this will come as a surprise to some, although I don’t see why it should, but as a conservative who plans (for now anyway) on being a prosecutor someday, I have zero sympathy for any sort of blame-shifting onto the victims of sexual assault. No, I’m not saying it’s smart for anyone, male or female, to go around and having lots of random, anonymous sexual encounters. And yes, of course, it goes without saying that women shouldn’t be encouraged to take unnecessary risks because we live in an imperfect world, etc., etc.

    But having said that, no amount of risk-taking can justify, even in the slightest, any sort of sex crime. End of story.

  8. La Lubu
    La Lubu November 17, 2005 at 8:40 pm |

    There has to be a better way than the word “no” to communicate to the man that he has crossed the line, and that better way must be widely agreed upon.

    Why? What’s so hard to understand about the word “no”? It’s short, quick, and to the point. There isn’t any ambiguity in the word “no”. If someone is having trouble with the word “no”, it isn’t because there is any ambiguity to the term—it just isn’t what that person wants to hear.

  9. Arjet
    Arjet November 17, 2005 at 8:45 pm |

    Ok. This whole thing is fucked up in just so many ways. I was horrified enough to see the “but it’s not really rape if…” argument over on the janegalt blog. I didn’t expect to see it on this blog.

    Yes, Liza does have a point. A half-drunk fratboy deciding not to hear his girlfriend’s “no” is a very different thing from Serbian rape/death camps in Bosina. But. It’s. Still. Rape.

    Feminists aren’t trivializing rape by insisting that all forms of non-consensual sex are rape. They’re just insisting that there’s no room for the “but it’s not really rape if…” argument.

    To extend the murder analogy: if someone commits a brutal and sadistic John-Wayne-Gacy-style torture killing, we all agree it’s murder. No question.

    But if someone slips their wealthy grandfather an overdose of Nembutal and he dies peacefully and painlessly in his sleep…well, it’s still murder. No one’s going to say that it’s “not really murder.” No one’s going to accuse the DA of trivializing murder by prosecuting the case. Will the murderer get a lesser sentence? Quite possibly. But absolutely no one is going to say “it’s not really murder.”

    If I don’t want you to touch my body in a sexual way, you don’t get to. Period.

    OK: Fucked-up #2. This whole flap about whether Nick was stupid, or taking a foolish risk, or whatever really, really highlights just how much people want to blame, or at very least question, the victim. Because if you go back and read Nick’s original post, she never, ever says anything along the lines of “I think it was a wise and prudent thing to do” or “omigosh, I’m shocked that a drunk paratrooper might behave that way.” No, what she ends with, and what I took to be the point of her post, is:

    “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.”

    That’s what the original post was about. Now, other things may have been said afterwards, but the basic message of Nick’s post was “these types of situations all count as rape.”

    And somehow, the very first thing that everyone wanted to know was not “Are those vaild definitions of rape?” or “Are you sure rape is defined that way in your jurisdiction?” or “How does this relate to the Texas Condom Rapist case?”

    No, the one question everyone immediatelywanted ask, answer, and debate was “did she somehow deserve it?”

    That’s just wrong.

  10. R. Mildred
    R. Mildred November 17, 2005 at 9:00 pm |

    Correct so far as it goes. However, Nick Kiddle was a brain-dead moron to expect that a pair of drunk paratroopers, solicited for casual sex, would be mindful and attentive to (insert pronoun of choice) wishes in said encounter.

    Umm, yeah because paratroopers lack self restraint more than anyone else…wtf?

    You were not there, You did not know whether they seemed like okay guys, and if you’ll pay close attention they didn’t actually rape her, one of the idiots managed to stupid his way out of sex, and you call HER a brain-dead moron?

    Unless people come with magical idiot detecting radar where you’re from, nick did exactly jack shit wrong or dumb.

    God Forbid a woman should actually have some faith in humanity for ten seconds instead of going around like a paranoid loon expecting every man in the whole world to rape her.

  11. Thomas
    Thomas November 17, 2005 at 9:03 pm |

    (This leaves aside the issue of possible statutory rape on the Kiddle’s part.)

    David, there you go trying to show your “intellectual independence” again by saying something virtually guaranteed to get most of the readership to tell you your view is not only wrong but offensive. The last time you did that was the Rosa Parks thread. Do you have some fetish for getting yourself pounced on? Because, frankly, if that’s what it was, I could respect that.

    There are four threads on Alas about Nick’s post, totalling over 600 comments. Since yours was the first comment here, I’m guessing you’ve read none of it.

    Nick did not commit “statutory rape,” a term which historically has referred only to consensual sex with a child, but which apparently you are using to refer to facially consensual sex which is unlawful because intoxication voids consent. Now, Nick lives in Lincolnshire, England. I have no idea what the law is there. But 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).

    I have had occasion in the past to look at the federal statute, and it is largely the same.

    Moving on to your assertion that Nick’s conduct is stupid; as between methods of choosing partners for anonymous sex in Lincolnshire, I’m not sure Nick’s method was worse than any other. She had a chance to sit, sober, with these guys for some time in the pub and evaluate them — sort of like a first date. If she had met them over the internet, she almost certainly would have been criticized for it: who knows what kind of people solicit sex on the web. And I’m not sure there are sex clubs in Lincolnshire. So, after she sat with these guys, they were comfortable enough talking frankly about sex to agree to a MMF threesome and to agree to wear condoms.

    Of course, she didn’t have to have anonymous sex. She could have tried forming a relationship — but that’s a lot of work, and then the guys might want to hang around and get sex when they want it, or to tell her how to live her life (hir, actually — Nick presents hirself as a woman most of the time and is biologically female, but sie is gender dysphoric). So, anonymity has value for Nick. And anyway, I’m not sure it is possible to demonstrate empirically that strangers are more dangerous than acquaintences. Sure, we may know our close friends well, but our coworkers, people we’ve been on two dates with, etc., these people may be much more dangerous behind closed doors, and may in fact look specifically for victims among people who come to trust them.

    Further, Nick could have foregone an MMF threesome altogether. But if you’re saying that, you’re just telling women to do without what they want or you’ll call them stupid if they get raped. I view that as an unacceptable answer.

  12. piny
    piny November 17, 2005 at 9:07 pm |

    Correct so far as it goes. However, Nick Kiddle was a brain-dead moron to expect that a pair of drunk paratroopers, solicited for casual sex, would be mindful and attentive to (insert pronoun of choice) wishes in said encounter.

    Yanno, men do this shit all the time, drunk, sober, and high. It’s why craigslist exists. And given the number of them who are repeat customers–and the number I know who are healthy, sane individuals not terribly inclined towards risk-taking–it’s not that dangerous. Funnily enough, no one seems to be horrified at the rape risk they’re taking.

  13. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 17, 2005 at 9:10 pm |

    Arjet, it most certainly is.

    And, as Amanda brought up, if the victim-blamers are sincere about want to help women not get raped, they’ll start offering very different advice. I remember seeing a while back, either on here or Pandagon, a discussion of “rape-avoidance tips” (at least, stranger-in-dark-alley rape avoidance tips) that have come out of Feminist research. If memory serves, it boiled down to projecting confidence no matter what you’re wearing or where. Traditional advice (don’t wear this, won’t walk there, don’t do whatever) advice tended to make women appear nervous, which is the opposite of what you actually want to see. Anybody remember this? This is all from memory, and I’d rather not get it wrong.

    Of course, even more important is to spread the word about acquantaince/relationship rape. It’s far more common than stranger rape, and virtually ignored (maybe cause it’s “not really rape”) by the conventional-wisdom crowd.

  14. David Thompson
    David Thompson November 17, 2005 at 9:14 pm |

    No, the one question everyone immediatelywanted ask, answer, and debate was “did she somehow deserve it?”

    So, it’s wrong to call out stupid people for their stupid actions because something bad could have possibly happened to them as a result of those stupid actions? You can put that shit back where you found it.

  15. Lesley
    Lesley November 17, 2005 at 9:25 pm |

    Oh feh, of course it would have been rape. I had a similar experience when I was in my mid-20s. I was all ready to have sex with a man when it turned out he didn’t have a condom. So, silly me, I thought I would be responsible and protect myself against sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancy; I told him to stop. I was quite clear. I said “No, I won’t have sex if you don’t wear a condom. I don’t want to risk getting pregnant or getting AIDS.” We were both naked; he was laying on top of me and had me pretty well pinned down. I could barely move. The jerk kept me there for nearly an hour arguing with me, trying to convince me to have sex without a condom. Luckily for me, he was ultimately decent enough to let me leave and not rape me. But if he hadn’t been, it would unequivocally have been rape. It makes me spitting mad when I hear/read people defending rapists in these situations.

  16. Linnet
    Linnet November 17, 2005 at 9:28 pm |

    So, it’s wrong to call out stupid people for their stupid actions because something bad could have possibly happened to them as a result of those stupid actions? You can put that shit back where you found it.

    Bullshit. It’s wrong to say that women have to lock themselves away in closets and never have any fun or else it’s their fault they’re raped. Nick’s standards of safety don’t have to dovetail with your own in order to make her hypothetical rape a serious crime.

  17. Hugo
    Hugo November 17, 2005 at 9:33 pm |

    Yes, it made me angry too. Look, I’m happy to say that Nick’s decision was risky. I’m happy to say, even, that it falls short of the mark for an ideal sexual relationship. But poor decisions don’t justify rape. She may well have been too trusting — but “too trusting” doesn’t mitigate the paratroopers responsibility to continue to hear her. A randy woman still has the right to her “No”, her “Stop, please” and even her “I’m sorry, I’ve changed my mind.” It doesn’t matter what she’s done up to the moment she utters those words — like all human beings, she doesn’t forfeit her bodily integrity and autonomy just because she’s been a willing and even enthusiastic participant in every prior act.

    California law is happily clear on this — my favorite state supreme court decision of the last three years is this one:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1039054552695

    Has a bearing on this discussion, it does.

  18. APF
    APF November 17, 2005 at 9:35 pm |

    I don’t think it’s reasonable for someone to suggest that, if at any point one person decides a sexual encounter is unwanted, that desire is rightfully ignored given “mitigating circumstances.” It seems bizarre to me that this is even a question, regardless of how those people got into the situation, or how drunk or how aroused/etc they are/were at one point. IMO it’s not even about the way Jill cast it above–that of an agreement being violated. If one person simply has second thoughts and communicates this to the second, where is the ambiguous ground?

    There have been plenty of times in my own relationships/encounters where one or the other of us wanted to stop for whatever reason, and I can only think of one time (where they thought I was joking) that anyone’s even needed to say it twice. I think this has less to do with people not understanding how-and-when to say yes and no, or how-and-when to listen to and understand what those words mean, then it has to do with people not really understanding themselves, their needs, and how to adequately fulfill those needs.

  19. EricP
    EricP November 17, 2005 at 9:38 pm |

    What is interesting here is that these macho men who were drunk didn’t rape her. Let’s keep that in mind.

  20. EricP
    EricP November 17, 2005 at 9:42 pm |

    But 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.

    That is interesting. Under New York law I could go to a bar/club find a woman/women who are already drunk, take them home and do anything I want as long as they don’t say no (I could of course talk them into it as long as I don’t serve them any alcohol) without it being raped. I wonder how many times I could repeat this before getting charged with rape.

  21. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 17, 2005 at 10:06 pm |

    Under New York law I could go to a bar/club find a woman/women who are already drunk, take them home and do anything I want as long as they don’t say no (I could of course talk them into it as long as I don’t serve them any alcohol) without it being rape.

    Well, yeah…it sounds like the situation you describe is completely consensual.

  22. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 17, 2005 at 10:20 pm |

    Given that description, I can’t tell if it’s consensual. There wasn’t a no. But does silence imply consent? If you have iron-clad balls of steel, make that implication on here and see what happens.

  23. Arjet
    Arjet November 17, 2005 at 10:45 pm |

    So, it’s wrong to call out stupid people for their stupid actions because something bad could have possibly happened to them as a result of those stupid actions?

    Please note that I didn’t say that. Nor did I say that what Nick did was or wasn’t a risk I would have taken. My point was that although that’s not what Nick’s post was about, that iswhat everybody immediately wanted to talk about.

    And it wasn’t even like, “Hey, Nick–that’s a really good point about withdrawal of consent. Oh, BTW, (not that it’s any of my business) I don’t think you should have taken that risk.”

    It was more like “Well, what the hell did you expect, you stupid slut?” And the vehemence with which questions like that were asked makes it very hard for me to believe that people were honestly concerned with Nick’s safety and well-being.

    What I was remarking on was how the “You stupid slut” leitmotif both immediately and overwhelming drowned out the points that that Nick raised about rape and consent.

    Do I think it’s wrong to call people out for stupid behavior? It depends. Are we doing it out of concern for their safety and well-being (and the safety and well-being of others who might otherwise follow their example)? Or are we doing it because sexually-assertive, risk-taking behavior is still considered completely unacceptable in women?

    I guarantee that had the risky behavior in question been scuba diving without a partner or motorcycling without a helmet, the reaction would have been more like “Hmm. Not sure I would have done that, Nick. But you sure do raise an interesting point…”

    Oh, and Jon C.? Thank you for restoring my faith in conservative men.

  24. EricP
    EricP November 17, 2005 at 10:50 pm |

    Well, yeah…it sounds like the situation you describe is completely consensual.

    Given that description, I can’t tell if it’s consensual. There wasn’t a no. But does silence imply consent? If you have iron-clad balls of steel, make that implication on here and see what happens.

    I’ll assume that the second quote, KnifeGhost’s, is a response to my post although it is vague.

    Personally I would feel that taking advantage of a drunk woman to be wrong. I guess I don’t have “iron-clad” balls. Maybe not rape but wrong (rape is a legal question). I wouldn’t do it. Granted, at 30, I have more self-control than I did at 18, so I can look at things differently.

    Now if I were equally drunk, then it is a bad decision nothing more. She may feel taken advantage of, I may get an STD or spend the next 18 years paying child support. In the best of situations, people wouldn’t have sex when drunk but real life steps in….

  25. Anne Merril
    Anne Merril November 17, 2005 at 10:58 pm |

    You may be interested to know that a woman in Australia recently lost a rape case on those grounds. She had agreed to sex with a group of men. Partway through, she began to hurt and asked them to stop. They didn’t, and she charged them with rape. She lost.

    I wish I could find a link, but I’m afraid this isn’t high profile enough to be considered news by the media.

  26. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 17, 2005 at 11:21 pm |

    Oh, and Jon C.? Thank you for restoring my faith in conservative men.

    Not a problem; I don’t see this is a political issue. Blaming the victim is just wrong. I don’t think that silence implies consent, either.

  27. Olive
    Olive November 18, 2005 at 12:22 am |

    I think skiing is way to dangerous for me to go doing, but I don’t tell people they’re stupid for skiing, or that no one should ever do it. Just because going off alone with two stronger people is riskier than staying home with a cup of tea doesn’t make it stupid or ill-reasoned. Nick thought that was an acceptable risk for the benefit.

    Just like I would still visit a friend in the hospital if they broke their leg skiing, I would support Nick’s complaint if those men had attacked. Just like I wouldn’t say “Yeah, see why everyone should stay in the lodge? That’s what you get, I hope you’re not dumb anough to try that again,” I wouldn’t say “Well gee, what did Nick think was going to happen?” There’s no reason that the risk is stupid for Nick just because it would be unacceptable to me. There’s no reason to believe that Nick didn’t take the risk of being assaulted into account at the time, and it doesn’t mean she has to be okay with it when it happens.

  28. APF
    APF November 18, 2005 at 12:32 am |

    Or are we doing it because sexually-assertive, risk-taking behavior is still considered completely unacceptable in women?

    I think sexual risk-taking behavior is socially unacceptable for everyone, not just women. Unless you feel it would be empowering to hear stories of how I’ve gratified myself with “anyone with a pulse” as a means to fulfill as much a psychological need as a physical one. If there is a double-standard in how members of one’s own sex treat one’s sexual risk-taking, it’s not the men’s side people should be trying to emulate, IMO.

    Personally I would feel that taking advantage of a drunk woman to be wrong. I guess I don’t have “iron-clad” balls. Maybe not rape but wrong (rape is a legal question). I wouldn’t do it.

    I think you can have perfectly great intoxicated sex that doesn’t involve “taking advantage” of anyone; you’re begging the question f/e by assuming someone who is drunk isn’t in reasonable control of their actions.

  29. FoolishOwl
    FoolishOwl November 18, 2005 at 12:55 am |

    Part of what gets me here is that the man without a condom in Nick’s story backed down when Nick made it clear she withdrew consent. That hardly makes him a hero, but it does demonstrate that a drunk, stupid, horny young man is still perfectly capable of self-control and of respecting another person’s autonomy.

  30. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 1:24 am |

    I think sexual risk-taking behavior is socially unacceptable for everyone, not just women. Unless you feel it would be empowering to hear stories of how I’ve gratified myself with “anyone with a pulse” as a means to fulfill as much a psychological need as a physical one. If there is a double-standard in how members of one’s own sex treat one’s sexual risk-taking, it’s not the men’s side people should be trying to emulate, IMO.

    Socially unacceptable? Craigslist.

  31. Arwen
    Arwen November 18, 2005 at 1:29 am |

    Okay, that essay made me barf into my mouth a little. We evolved to be aroused while raped? Ugh. (Besides, stupid study: watching rape porn is not equivalent to being raped, arousal or no. At best, the theory could go that we evolved to enjoy watching other women get raped. What it *probably* suggests is that there’s a cultural discussion between sex and violence that we’ve internalized. So bite me.)

    What I don’t get every single time this comes up (and it does come up a lot), is the easy acceptance of non-rapist men that other men are “unable to stop”. Seriously: This is the man-hatingist shit around, and it’s said by abusers to slam the majority of good men and make everybody complicit in these crimes. Dudes. You’re men, not rapists, and most of you would pull back thirty seconds before orgasm if your partner was hurt or uncomfortable – being stung by bees, say, or having a horrible foot cramp, or maybe just suddenly not into it. Perhaps you would go masturbate in the bathroom, I can’t say.

    As for the “can’t stop” bullshit, it’s entirely specious: what if the chick dies? If the male train can’t stop till it reaches the station after a certain point, are we dealing with necrophilia? How about if the woman barfs? Craps herself? Bull shit, I tell you. Man hating bullshit, and anyone spreading that belief has been lied to. Somehow, men accept that they’re inherently criminal, or that most *other* men are.

    It’s true. There are rapists. There has also been a horrific system of marriage and female sexuality shaming that’s made it hard for men and women to talk about sharing their sexualities (see patriarchy). But men don’t have biological, built-in, unthinking criminality, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex. It makes more sense to murder your frustrating boss than it does to rape a woman who you are attracted to/like/love.

    This makes me sad:

    …but the feminists on that web site actually believe that they can engage in consensual sex and say no at any time and the male is just supposed to stop. Sorry for maybe being old-fashioned, but that’s not rape to me if the guy keeps going at that point.

    Mmmm. The author’s experience speaks, and I’m really sad for her. Because she’s right: it is old-fashioned, and wow. Doesn’t that suck for both? Her partner/husband might be “let off the hook” for utterly not giving a shit about who she is, and the trade off is that she sees him as some unthinking beast when aroused? I mean, beast fetishes are fun, but when they’re fantasy. How can love enjoy the hurt of a lover?

  32. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 1:49 am |

    What I don’t get every single time this comes up (and it does come up a lot), is the easy acceptance of non-rapist men that other men are “unable to stop”. Seriously: This is the man-hatingist shit around, and it’s said by abusers to slam the majority of good men and make everybody complicit in these crimes. Dudes. You’re men, not rapists, and most of you would pull back thirty seconds before orgasm if your partner was hurt or uncomfortable – being stung by bees, say, or having a horrible foot cramp, or maybe just suddenly not into it. Perhaps you would go masturbate in the bathroom, I can’t say.

    Seriously, are there women on this thread who have not asked their partners to pause or stop at some point? I’ve done it, and it’s never been a problem.

  33. Kyra
    Kyra November 18, 2005 at 1:49 am |

    “Or are we doing it because sexually-assertive, risk-taking behavior is still considered completely unacceptable in women?”

    “I think sexual risk-taking behavior is socially unacceptable for everyone, not just women.”

    Thing is, a great many more things are considered “risk-taking behavior” for women than they are for men. If a man and a woman meet and go off somewhere for sex, more people will say the woman took a risk than will say the man took a risk, and people will say the woman took more of a risk than the man did. This means that women’s “acceptable behavior” is far more limited than men’s is.

  34. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 18, 2005 at 2:06 am |

    EricP: My comment was in reference to Jon C’s post, and it was intended more facetiously than it sounded.

    I tink your post did point out a legitimate flaw in the law as it’s laid out. This phrase: “as they don’t say no” muddies the issue, though. Had you said “as long as they drunkenly consent”, then you’re exactly right, that’s law as written. But “as they don’t say no” implies that silence is consent. I know you’re not trying to make that case, and wouldn’t.

    That’s not to say silence implies _lack_ of consent. It’s just to say that it’s probably a good idea to get a straight answer before proceeding to get your sex on.

  35. Auguste
    Auguste November 18, 2005 at 2:11 am |

    Part of what gets me here is that the man without a condom in Nick’s story backed down when Nick made it clear she withdrew consent. That hardly makes him a hero, but it does demonstrate that a drunk, stupid, horny young man is still perfectly capable of self-control and of respecting another person’s autonomy.

    You might read Nick’s account again.

    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.

    As a man who’s ‘stopped on a dime’ before, and would/will again, I’m certainly not challenging your overall point; I just don’t want us to get too impressed with this guy at the expense of the justification for Nick’s concern.

  36. Arjet
    Arjet November 18, 2005 at 4:56 am |

    I just don’t want us to get too impressed with this guy at the expense of the justification for Nick’s concern.

    No, we certainly don’t want to make this guy out to be a hero. But I think FoolishOwl’s point:

    it does demonstrate that a drunk, stupid, horny young man is still perfectly capable of self-control and of respecting another person’s autonomy.

    …is that this guy is living proof that a guy can be a horny, drunk, macho paratrooper right in the middle of hot three-way sex and still be able to somehow restrain his “inherently beastly male nature” or whatever the fuck the rape-apologists use to excuse fucking someone against their will. If a horny, drunk, macho paratrooper right in the middle of hot three-way sex is capable of stopping, so is every single man on the planet.

    Provided he actually wants to.

  37. Mari
    Mari November 18, 2005 at 5:04 am |

    The obsession some people have with blaming the victim might in part be founded by a wish to believe that rape can be avoided. If you place the blame on the victim it implies that you yourself (or anyone you know -daughters, girlfriends etc) hold the power to prevent this happening. A “reassurance” that this is something that only happens to a certain type of girl, and definitely not in this neighbourhood, not a (sometimes) random act of violence that can affect anyone… We’re assured of our safety as long as the victim takes the blame, and many people will go to great lenghts, blaming anything from poor choices to clothes, to protect this sense of security.
    As for the scandinavian study, that dealt with images of rape -visuals (and as such not a threat to the viewers personal safety), not the real thing. As such it is an interesting study in the sexual fantasies of humans, but not an indicator that women like rape. A video comes with a stop button after all.

  38. Ron O
    Ron O November 18, 2005 at 8:10 am |

    3 times women have stopped me naked in bed when I thought we were going to have sex. Twice I was drunk. I stopped without argument, but not without disappointment. The first time it happened I was 19. It wasn’t that difficult for me, I don’t see why it would be for others. I’ll bet many of the men here have been in similar situations and stopped too.

  39. ginmar
    ginmar November 18, 2005 at 9:43 am |

    You know, I find it kind of disturbing that feminists demanding that women get credit for all the self-protection they do gets referred to ‘as not protecting themselves at all’ or whatever or a ‘feminist Utopia.’

    And it’s kind of disgusting that people think a woman seeking sex is disgusting while men get to do it any old way they want to. Why? Because men aren’t in physical danger from women, really.

    Also, it’s not ‘only men rape.’ It’s that men made up a culture that justifies it, encodes it into our sexual values, and commit such a vast majority of rapes that they deserve the blame for the culture that results.

  40. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler November 18, 2005 at 10:09 am |

    I think incapacitated due to alcohol is the condition colloquially known as “drunk off her ass.”

    Otherwise, the number of rapes committed in New York in the past 24 hours alone is bound to be in the high four figures at least, and the reporting ratio is minuscule.

  41. rabbit
    rabbit November 18, 2005 at 10:12 am |

    Is it some weird military culture thing to remove a condom halfway through sex? Because this is exactly how one of my friends got pregnant. (and then she MARRIED the guy, which is a whole different story)

  42. Thomas
    Thomas November 18, 2005 at 10:47 am |

    So, it’s wrong to call out stupid people for their stupid actions because something bad could have possibly happened to them as a result of those stupid actions? You can put that shit back where you found it.

    David, I addressed this point above. Your two-sentence remark fails to respond to what I said.

  43. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 10:50 am |

    It’s that men made up a culture that justifies [rape], encodes it into our sexual values, and commit such a vast majority of rapes that they deserve the blame for the culture that results.

    Hmm…once on this blog I brought up the contention that “all men are responsible for all rapes” as an example of a feminist notion that many non-feminists find off-putting. I was roundly taken to task by many feminists who said no one seriously thinks such a thing. Apparently not “no one”, however.

  44. Philoillogica
    Philoillogica November 18, 2005 at 11:19 am |

    Amazing, Jill, I was just thinking about this blaming-the-victim mentality myself:


    When the media presents your hometown as a riotous place of people doing dreadful things to each other, you just don’t tempt fate. In your desperation to keep yourself safe, you engage in a blame-the-victim mentality to offer yourself the illusion of control: “She shouldn’t have been walking there alone at night. I don’t walk alone at night, therefore I am perfectly safe.” “I don’t let my children out of my sight. Therefore my children are perfectly safe.”

    And feeling like you can guard against the bad things is comforting. Blaming the victim is comforting, because it means that violence isn’t random or systemic, and that you have some sort of control over your undiscovered future. It usually means that you don’t have to do anything – you don’t have to shift paradigms, or consider your own privilege, or speak out or draw attention to yourself. In fact, blaming the victim often means not doing things out of your own perverted self-interest – not walking alone, not using an mp3 player, not living in St. Jamestown. When visibility becomes criminal, you’re willing to modify your behaviour to a grave extent just to avoid being conspicuous, as if the sale of your personal liberty is able to buy you “perfect safety”.

    I’m never surprised when I see people blaming victims, but what continues to amaze me is the way that victim-blamers can fail to see that they’re only doing it to make themselves feel better. Do they not realize that they’re only engaging in their own “utopia-building”, where bad things can only happen to bad people? How naive is THAT?

  45. ricia
    ricia November 18, 2005 at 11:44 am |

    Mari, thanx, I find your comment really interesting…

    Gee whiz, the majority of the debate here is about whether or not the woman took an “asking for it” risk or was behaving stupidly… Totally absurd. I haven’t had a male partner or friend whom hasn’t remarked upon the fantasy of threesomes or recounted a story from their younger years. They never used the word risk. Never mentionned any risk factors. Not a word indicating that there would have been any cause whatsoever to question whether or not their consent was or was not an issue.

    I’ve known three men close to me in my life, whom experienced sexual molestation when growing up and countless women whom were a variety of ages when they experienced the same or were victims of rape. These same men were among those whom recounted the above stories in the manner I described. What this presents to me is the concept of power differences and imbalances and the way that it shapes and forms our perspectives . Though these men will struggle in many ways throughout their lives due to those experiences, the experiences have not nurtured a fear or cautiousness rooted to the physical (emotional, psychological – for sure).

    Where (many / most) adult men live in the world with a subconcious awareness of their physical ability to contend with unwanted attentions/engagements, it seems (in these cases) that it does not occur to them that there is risk in their sexual ventures, explorations, and experiments. Add to it the matter of pregnancy and (illusional) detachment from that experience naivity about STDs.. It could be said that some fella’s might be ignorant to the implications of their own and others actions.

    So in these cases, are the assumptions and naivities of men in such situations considered stupid? If something horrible had happened to them in their threesome experience – would we be debating the logic of their judgement? Would we judge them to have a certain morality and imply that this morality quite naturally resulted in their harm? Would this be the nature of the debate, or would the comments section consist of one or two statements about the evident psychosis of the women involved?

    By assuming that because women are more physically vulnerable they should inherently carry the wieght of responsibility – aren’t we then simply supporting and propping up the ignorances and irresponsibility of (some) men?

  46. ginmar
    ginmar November 18, 2005 at 11:44 am |

    It’s called a rape culture, JonC, where do you think it comes from? There are lots of women who call themselves feminists but cut and run when it comes time to spit in the eye of the patriarchy. I’m not one of them.

    Let’s have a little quiz, shall we?

    Who does a rape culture benefit? And if you think it doesn’t benefit men, you’re either a fool or a liar.

  47. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub November 18, 2005 at 12:06 pm |

    Legally speaking, I think that there has to be a distinction in the dgrees of this thing American feminists call rape. If we have different degrees of intent in killing another person –from homicide to murder–; then we have to start speaking legally of the difference between sex gone bad to the use of sexual penetration to torture or kill another person.

    There is, Liza. There are degrees of sexual assault and rape, just like in murder.

  48. NMH
    NMH November 18, 2005 at 12:54 pm |

    “So, sincerely, I do think this whole debate, the way it is framed triviliazes rape.”

    I am not American, and I’m not white. I was raped by someone I knew. And it wasn’t because I was a lesbian or a dissenter. It was because he could and I was a woman and I didn’t count. From your post I see that I still do not count, even among my “sisters”.

  49. TallDave
    TallDave November 18, 2005 at 2:16 pm |

    What about a woman who says she’s using birth control but isn’t? Is she “raping” any man she has sex with?

  50. TallDave
    TallDave November 18, 2005 at 2:19 pm |

    Who does a rape culture benefit? And if you think it doesn’t benefit men, you’re either a fool or a liar.

    It benefits rapists, not men. To say it benefits “men” is a grave insult to every man who has ever defended a woman from the unwanted attentions of another man.

  51. Dianne
    Dianne November 18, 2005 at 3:02 pm |

    TD: Rape culture both benefits and harms men. Men benefit because it gives them an advantage over women in personal and professional relations. You may never have noticed this because it is harder to notice inequalities that are to your benefit (I’m using the generic “you”, BTW, not suggesting that you personally are particularly oblivious.) Women are taught to be “nice”, back down, don’t take certain risks in order to avoid sexual abuse. That gives men an advantage in that it makes them look stronger, tougher, etc and gives them more freedom. And, if the assumption is that a typical man will rape then any intimate partners of yours have to be grateful if you’re a “nice guy” and don’t assault them, even if you’re drunk or they previously agreed to sex then changed their minds. That puts you at an advantage in the relationship: you can, for example, demand that your partner quit her job and move because you got a better job somewhere else. Who would leave such a “nice guy” over such a little thing as a job? After all, she’ll never find another guy so attentive to her desires, right? (Of course, I’d be very suprised if any man put it in so many words, but that implication is there in the background, because of rape culture.)

    On the other hand, men suffer from rape culture too. Men and women can not be equals in a culture where men are perceived to be prevented from rape only by their extraordinary self control. If women are afraid of men, they will never really trust or love them. I don’t think I have to spell out why I think that this is a loss to men.

  52. Thomas
    Thomas November 18, 2005 at 3:10 pm |

    TD, I don’t think twice about working at a strange office until the wee hours, and walking several blocks through deserted streets to a train station. That’s a professional advantage. If I’m stuck at a document depository in a strange city with a stranger, my biggest worry is that the stranger will be someone I don’t get along with. That’s a professional advantage. If I take a car home at 3:00 in the morning, I can keep thinking about the case while I wait on the dark street for the car, and I can keep thinking about the case when I’m in the car, because I don’t think twice about the dark street or the car. Et cetera.

    They are lots of small advantages, and one has to be aware of them to even notice them. But like small advantages in markets, over time they add up.

  53. ginmar
    ginmar November 18, 2005 at 3:24 pm |

    Td,if a woman isn’t using birth control you should be. Period. You don’t have any excuse not to, nor any reason to complain if you don’t.

  54. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 3:26 pm |

    once on this blog I brought up the contention that “all men are responsible for all rapes” as an example of a feminist notion that many non-feminists find off-putting. I was roundly taken to task by many feminists who said no one seriously thinks such a thing. Apparently not “no one”, however.

    Indeed, all feminists are disingenuous AND liars.

    Feel better?

  55. TallDave
    TallDave November 18, 2005 at 3:27 pm |

    Women are taught to be “nice”, back down, don’t take certain risks in order to avoid sexual abuse

    As a decent man that does NOT benefit me. It hurts me. Women who might otherwise be comfortable in taking risks with me might instead avoid them, just in case I turn out to be one of the bad guys. I’m also negatively affected by rape because honor dictates that I defend any woman being raped or otherwise inappropriately treated by a man, thus putting myself in physical danger. Again, rape culture only benefits rapists, and hurts decent men.

    I don’t think twice about working at a strange office until the wee hours, and walking several blocks through deserted streets to a train station. That’s a professional advantage.

    Why wouldn’t you think about it? You’re at just as much risk of violent assault from dishonorable men as an unarmed woman would be.

  56. ginmar
    ginmar November 18, 2005 at 3:28 pm |

    Yeah, TD, that’s honest. Except not. men aren’t at risk for getting raped and for getting called lying sluts if they do get raped. Try again.

  57. TallDave
    TallDave November 18, 2005 at 3:33 pm |

    gnmar,

    Ah, but the man only consented to sex under the understanding that she was practicing birth control. Why is the man automatically responsible? That’s like saying “Well if Nicky wanted him to use protection she should have had her diaphragm in, and she has no reason to complain if she didn’t.”

    If we’re going to be honest, we should agree that if a man says he’ll use a condom and doesn’t is raping a woman (performing sex in a way she did not consent to) then the same goes for the reverse situation.

  58. TallDave
    TallDave November 18, 2005 at 3:35 pm |

    ginmar,

    men aren’t at risk for getting raped and for getting called lying sluts if they do get raped.

    Men get raped in prison all the time. And women aren’t at risk of being called lying/whining pussies when they get beat up.

  59. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 3:37 pm |

    Indeed, all feminists are disingenuous AND liars.

    Well, there’s no need to put words in my mouth. I don’t know how you can possibly construe what I said to suggest that “all feminists are liars.” My point, and I think that ginmar’s statements have borne me out on this, is that there is a radical/crazy strain of thinking amongst SOME feminists that holds all men responsible for all rape. I apologize for not including a huge, all-caps disclaimer making that perfectly clear, but I guess I just assumed my comments would be read reasonably and in good faith.

  60. TallDave
    TallDave November 18, 2005 at 3:39 pm |

    My overall point is just that any culture that condones abuse of any kind only benefits the abusers, and hurts all decent people as well as the victims of abuse.

  61. Thomas
    Thomas November 18, 2005 at 3:39 pm |

    Dave, that’s just horseshit. The chances of me being attacked by an acquaintance or coworker and harmed are virtually nonexistent. The chances that I’ll be beaten by the driver that takes me home are so slight that it would be the only assault of its kind that year in this state. And the chances of a man or a woman being assaulted in deserted midtown Manhattan at night are slim — but men are reasonably not taught to fear stranger assaults in unlikely circumstances, while women are told over and over again about all the things they have to do to avoid starnger rape.

    Do you look in the back seat of your car when you get it, or walk to your car with your keys in your pocket? I don’t. That’s more security than I need, and has little chance of making a difference. But lots of women are told over and over to take these precautions.

  62. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 3:53 pm |

    Do you look in the back seat of your car when you get it, or walk to your car with your keys in your pocket? I don’t. That’s more security than I need, and has little chance of making a difference. But lots of women are told over and over to take these precautions.

    Lots of women are smaller and weaker than lots of men. It is logical that people more vulnerable to assault will be given more conditioning on avoiding assault.

    I don’t look in the back seat of my car when I get in it, because I always lock it when I park, and broken glass is generally obvious. If it is night time, I always have my key in my hand. I am not particularly paranoid or fearful; I simply do not wish to engage in physical violence, and basic bad-guy-avoidance is a cost-effective means of expressing that preference.

    It seems clear to me that “rape culture” does provide men, as a class, with some competitive advantages. These advantages are small, but as noted, small advantages can produce large differentials in outcome. Rape culture provides rapists with very large advantages. And it provides some women, depending on their situations, with advantages or disadvantages vis a vis other women.

    The real issue concerning “rape culture” isn’t whether it exists, or who it helps, but how a particular set of prescriptions will reduce the importance/prevalence of that culture. I think some feminist prescriptions might actually help; eliminating the “shame” of being raped, and shifting the causal responsibility squarely onto the attacker, would certainly be one such change. Other elements of the feminist program would be valueless or counter-productive. Punitive approaches – making rape severely, swiftly, and certainly punished – seem the most likely to be of use.

  63. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 4:06 pm |

    Ah, but the man only consented to sex under the understanding that she was practicing birth control. Why is the man automatically responsible? That’s like saying “Well if Nicky wanted him to use protection she should have had her diaphragm in, and she has no reason to complain if she didn’t.”

    If we’re going to be honest, we should agree that if a man says he’ll use a condom and doesn’t is raping a woman (performing sex in a way she did not consent to) then the same goes for the reverse situation.

    Nick wasn’t lied to in that sense. Ze told the paratrooper what circumstances ze’d consent under. The paratrooper violated them in front of hir and attempted to penetrate hir anyway, even though ze was demanding that he stop. It would have been rape if he had penetrated her. There’s a difference.

  64. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 4:08 pm |

    Lots of women are smaller and weaker than lots of men. It is logical that people more vulnerable to assault will be given more conditioning on avoiding assault.

    Plenty of men are smaller than most men. They aren’t given these instructions. Some women are stronger and taller than most men. They are given these instructions.

  65. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 4:12 pm |

    It would have been rape if he had penetrated her. There’s a difference.

    Sure. What happened to Nicky was attempted rape – he tried to penetrate her after she told him not to.

    But that wasn’t the point. The point is a simple question: if it is rape for a man to stop using a condom halfway through sex, when condom use was a precondition of the woman’s consent, then is it rape for a woman to falsely claim the use of birth control when that usage was a precondition of the man’s consent?

  66. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 4:15 pm |

    Plenty of men are smaller than most men. They aren’t given these instructions. Some women are stronger and taller than most men. They are given these instructions.

    Seems a bit broad. My own experience doesn’t confirm it. When I was a kid, I was spindly and weak, and I got a lot of conditioning/training on how to avoid fights and assaults. I hit puberty late and sprouted very quickly into a regular-size guy, and the conditioning stopped cold. My sister was a jock, and she was tough; she didn’t get told the things I got told.

    YMMV.

  67. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 4:21 pm |

    YMMV.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. All of the women in my family are big women, and I still wasn’t supposed to walk around at night in my brightly-lit suburban neighborhood.

  68. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 4:23 pm |

    Sure. So there’s some variation in what happens to folks. You made a blanket statement; I merely point out that there are a lot of holes in that blanket.

  69. Thomas
    Thomas November 18, 2005 at 4:31 pm |

    Jon, there is a difference between saying what I (speaking for myself) think, and saying what you said. You said that “all men are responsible for all rapes” was a feminist notion that was off-putting. I don’t believe that all men are responsible for rape, and I don’t think you’ll find many feminists who agree with that. I don’t think men become rapists by proxy or by association. Rapists are responsible for rape.

    I do know that I am both benefitted and harmed by rape. I don’t want to derail the thread into a cri de coeur about how much damage rape has done to women I care about or the the sexual culture I live in … so suffice it to say that I think on balance men would be better off by a mile if there were no rape. But that’s not the same as saying there are not benefits to all men from rape — and they are benefits that it is tough not to participate in. As I said to TallDave above, there are a lot of little limitations on women’s behavior that I don’t experience, a lot of fear I never feel. There’s a lot of intimidation about offending men that I’ve never been conditioned to.

    By way of analogy, certainly you would agree that the lynching culture of the Jim Crow South benefitted all white people, right? Now, some of these folks never participated in lynching, or even approved of it, but they still benefitted from the increased political power that came with the absence of realistic opportunities for a whole sector of the population to vote, and from the increased economic power of using lynching to enforce an inequitable distribution of resources.

    Does that make all white folks responsible for lynching? Not on my account. But it does mean that the burden for changing it is in their lap, and that they come in for criticism for tacitly approving of it if they benefit from it and don’t lift a finger to try to stop it.

    Likewise, rape, and importantly, the fear and social dynamics of rape, mythology about rape, and the function of rape as an enforcement mechanism, benefit men. Most men don’t rape. Lots of men realize some of what rape costs our society. But women can’t stop rape (they’re doing what they can already). Only we can stop rape, and it’s by taking apart the social structures that allow men to excuse it when they do it; and that allow men to excuse it when their friends do it.

    I don’t think all men are responsible for rape, but if we’re serious about stopping it, then we have to take responsibility for making change.

  70. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 4:37 pm |

    You pointed out one hole, one family, after making a blanket statement of your own.

  71. Thomas
    Thomas November 18, 2005 at 4:41 pm |

    Robert, I was momentarily disoriented when I realized we agreed on significant matters. You said:

    The real issue concerning “rape culture” isn’t whether it exists, or who it helps, but how a particular set of prescriptions will reduce the importance/prevalence of that culture. I think some feminist prescriptions might actually help; eliminating the “shame” of being raped, and shifting the causal responsibility squarely onto the attacker, would certainly be one such change. Other elements of the feminist program would be valueless or counter-productive. Punitive approaches – making rape severely, swiftly, and certainly punished – seem the most likely to be of use.

    I agree almost entirely, and I only quibble because swift and severe punishment is difficult: accelerating the criminal justice process is a great idea, but not at the expense of accuracy in adjudication; and making punishments too severe where the crimes are already subject to lots of juror equivocation can reduce their willingness to convict — imagine for example if the Orange County rape case, which IMO is a slam dunk, had carried with it a capital sentence. Already, the jury was reluctant to ruin the lives of these young men; how much more so to take them?

  72. Thomas
    Thomas November 18, 2005 at 4:50 pm |

    Robert, on the subject of consent induced by fraud, I say that’s not rape. It’s fraud.

    The horror of rape is the violation of bodily integrity: to be penetrated against one’s will. The immediate, physical loss of the ability to defend the borders of one’s own body is not just a theoretical matter.

    Certainly, it is wrong to procure consent by false pretenses: whether by a representation that one is using contraception, or by a representation that one is the 1997 winner of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Hot-Dog Eating Contest. It will likely leave the person so defrauded feeling used and angry — but I doubt that it could bring with it the PTSD and other symptoms of rape. It’s wrong, but it’s not the same thing. So, if these guys had misrepresented their HIV status to Nick, for example, I think they would have done a grievous wrong; but not the same wrong.

  73. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 5:17 pm |

    That California case is interesting. The women first consented, then told the guy she “had to leave.” He continued for four or five minutes saying he wasn’t done yet. The majority held that it was rape because she was telling him to stop. The dissent held that there wasn’t enough evidence because she could have meant “hurry up and finish, I have to leave”.

    What’s interesting to me are these more subtle cases. Obviously, dark alley stranger rape, raping a passed out person, and continuing after someone unequivacally says “No”, “Stop”, or “Get off me you dumbfuck” are clear cut examples of rape. But there are often more subtle exchanges. Like Jill’s example, “you’re huring me”, or body language that says that. What about a married couple. The man is trying to convince his wife to have sex. She first says, “not tonight”, but he continues writhing on her, kissing her, and finally nquezzing between her legs, saying “c’mon honey, I’m horny”, and she doesn’t say anything else or physically stop him?

  74. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 5:19 pm |

    Robert, on the subject of consent induced by fraud, I say that’s not rape. It’s fraud.

    So if Nick hadn’t noticed the condom was off (or had noticed, and the guy had felt his penis and said “no, it’s still on”, and she had believed him) it wouldn’t have been rape?

  75. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 5:20 pm |

    I guess I just assumed my comments would be read reasonably and in good faith

    And vice versa, but you seem to enjoy making sport of our posts and comments yourself. I merely provided an opportunity for you to receive what you seem to want.

    Since you enjoy lambasting Feministe so much, I would assume you also enjoy the time you spend at this website. It would be interesting if you would admit as much since all you regularly offer are nyah nyahs and “I told you so.”

  76. ginmar
    ginmar November 18, 2005 at 5:49 pm |

    Me: men aren’t at risk for getting raped and for getting called lying sluts if they do get raped.

    You:Men get raped in prison all the time. And women aren’t at risk of being called lying/whining pussies when they get beat up.

    Christ, TD, could you GET Any more dishonest? I’m not even going to waste time on dignifying that with an honest response. You’ll just come up iwth something else dishonest.

    Rape in prison versus rape in the culture.

  77. Pax Nortona - A Blog by Joel Sax
    Pax Nortona - A Blog by Joel Sax November 18, 2005 at 5:56 pm |

    Rape and Human Rights

    Human rights are not about countries. They are about individuals.

  78. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 6:12 pm |

    Ginmar, prison is part of the culture and part of the society.

    You don’t get to ignore the elements of society that don’t support your view.

  79. slayer
    slayer November 18, 2005 at 6:20 pm |

    Oh, how very libertarian to say that it’s natural for human beings to act like animals. Must be why libertarians do oh-so-well in national elections.

    Jane Galt is the ultimate affirmative action case.

  80. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 6:23 pm |

    Prison is a special situation with special circumstances. Men who are not in prison, that is, the overwhelming majority of men, do not suffer sexual victimization at the rates he tried to use as support for his PHMT argument. Men are more likely to seek out other men for sex in same-sex-only environments; does that mean that those numbers can be extrapolated to society in general?

  81. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 6:25 pm |

    “But men get raped too!” is one of the most frustrating aspects of these conversations. Sure they do, but who is more likely to get raped during normal, daily movement through the world? And why the fuck won’t you engage that idea?

  82. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 6:44 pm |

    Women are more likely to get raped during daily life. What’s to engage? It’s true.

    That doesn’t mean that men don’t get raped. It certainly doesn’t add weight to let’s-pretend feminist analysis of rape that try to ignore the reality.

    Piny says that the “overwhelming majority” of men aren’t in prison. Yeah, OK, if you mean white, middle-class men. White middle-class men aren’t the only people in society. Almost 30 percent of black men will spend time in jail during their lives. Why is it acceptable to ignore the experience of that population?

    “But men get raped too!” is frustrating only if you have an ideological preconception that cannot stand in a world where men get raped too.

  83. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 6:46 pm |

    Lauren:

    Since you enjoy lambasting Feministe so much, I would assume you also enjoy the time you spend at this website. It would be interesting if you would admit as much since all you regularly offer are nyah nyahs and “I told you so.”

    What in the world are you talking about? When have I ever “lambasted Feministe”? If you can come up with even a single quote of mine to that effect, I will happily retract it, because I do indeed thoroughly enjoy the quality of this site and the debate it encourages, as much as I may fervently disagree with some of the opinions expressed here.

    I’m similarly confused as to your characterization of my commenting as “nyah nyahs”. Have I not made substantive contributions to the discussion in this very thread? Did you and I not recently have a long and substantive debate over education reform?

    Perhaps my comment about you not reading me in good faith was a little pissy, and for that I apologize, but I did feel that you were putting words in my mouth- unless for some reason you genuinely thought I was claiming that all feminists are liars, in which case you were simply mistaken. It’s not my intention to be the in-house troll here, and I think that by and large my comments indicate that it’s not my motive to “make sport of your posts.” Perhaps we can agree to wipe the slate clean and be more constructive in our criticism of each other’s ideas in the future. Truce?

  84. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 6:47 pm |

    Truce. Now tell me how awesome I am. :P

  85. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 6:49 pm |

    “But men get raped too!” is frustrating only if you have an ideological preconception that cannot stand in a world where men get raped too.

    No, it’s frustrating when the topic of conversation is “but SHE asked for it” and everyone piles on to point out that men get raped in prison. It ain’t a layer of this onion, it’s a completely different vegetable.

  86. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 6:57 pm |

    Everyone didn’t pile on. One “feminist” (you may not want to grace her with the label) tried to score one of her traditionally cheap points, and claim the moral high ground, by defining rape as something that only happens to men, and thus deny men the right to have opinions on the topic – particularly opinions at variance with her own extremist position. Thus far, exactly two people have mentioned that this is BS.

    It doesn’t have to derail your thread topic unless you have to insist that it isn’t true. If you can acknowledge “yeah, it’s true, Ginmar is a dumbass, let’s move on” then there’s no derailment.

    Of COURSE rape is mainly something that hurts women. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t ever hurt men, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you have to stand in solidarity with someone so obviously out of touch with the facts.

  87. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 6:59 pm |

    Now tell me how awesome I am.

    Awesome you are. There, don’t say a conservative never said anything nice about you. ;)

    To add my 2 cents about the women being more likely to be raped/assaulted debate- of course, this is true, and while prison rape against men is tragic, I do think it is a somewhat parallel issue that doesn’t bear directly on the blame-shifting problem.

    The problem, it seems to me, is how to equalize the security disparity between men and women, not just in terms of rape, but simple assault and battery, robbery, or other violent crimes. I think we could a long way towards that solution if more women exercised, and were encouraged to exercise, their right to keep and bear arms. It’s a lot easier to “take back the night” when you bring along your friend, Sam(antha?) Colt. That doesn’t mean women should become shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later vigilantes, but I can’t help but think that at least some rape would be deterred if more would-be rapists had to worry about their potential victims packing heat.

  88. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 7:06 pm |

    Piny says that the “overwhelming majority” of men aren’t in prison. Yeah, OK, if you mean white, middle-class men. White middle-class men aren’t the only people in society. Almost 30 percent of black men will spend time in jail during their lives. Why is it acceptable to ignore the experience of that population?

    “But men get raped too!” is frustrating only if you have an ideological preconception that cannot stand in a world where men get raped too.

    What Lauren said.

    No one is arguing that men don’t get raped too. The argument is that misogyny is the reason for women’s greater victimization and that it’s not a rebuttal that, in a situation vastly different from the one under which most women are raped and most men are not, men suffer sexual violence.

  89. Medium Dave
    Medium Dave November 18, 2005 at 7:08 pm |

    Actually, Robert, ginmar isn’t a dumbass. She has one of the sharpest minds I’ve come across in the blogosphere. She’s just twice as blunt and agressive as even the average feminist, and has zero patience for the evasive arguments that come up every damn time there’s a discussion on this topic.

  90. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 7:09 pm |

    Also, bringing up that argument in this context is nothing more than PHMT. TallDave was being dishonest.

  91. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 7:12 pm |

    In my case that would be impossible. Despite being raised with a slew of firearms around the house, my father (a champion marksman) rightfully taught me to be scared as hell of guns. To this day I am. My boyfriend, raised my a police chief, has the same aversion as I do.

    While I would, one day, like to go to a shooting range just to have the experience, I don’t see guns as something used for sport or self-defense. I see them ultimately as objects designed for killing. That doesn’t bode well with me even though I logic says they are effectively harmless in responsible hands, thus carrying a firearm is a no go.

  92. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:13 pm |

    I don’t accept the dichotomization, Piny. There’s this tragic problem that horribly damages people. I see no merit – other than in making certain ideological arguments more tenable – in creating artificial distinctions between the sufferers. “This particular subset of the problem doesn’t really count, because it occurs only in East Ruritania…”

    At bottom, certain feminists (maybe all, I don’t know) want to define rape as solely and purely a function of misogyny. The empirical data doesn’t support that, at least not with profound clarity, and so there’s this urge to obscure those portions of the empirical data that are problematic. Obscuring data leads to wrong conclusions.

    I think misogyny is definitely a huge factor in the mix, but it cannot be the sole cause. Rape appears to be a human intrinsic; misogyny appears to be the reason why it is expressed so much more frequently against women than men.

  93. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 18, 2005 at 7:16 pm |

    What Piny said. To suggest prison rape is on par with THE HUGE PART OF SOCIETY THAT ISN’T JAIL rape is disingenuous bullshit. Think for a second — are there any other features of prison culture that are different from society outside the walls? (Hint: yes.)

    About the Jon C controversy: His claim was only that AT LEAST one feminist believes that “all men are responsible for all rape”. Now, this would, in itself, verge on snotty gotcha-ism if it was accurate. However, I don’t think we can honestly say ginmar every made that claim. She said that “[men] deserve the blame for the culture that results.” What does “men” mean in this context? (I should note, she said “they”, but context suggested that mean “men”.) Does “men” mean “all men always”? Jon, when’s the last time you used the word “men” or “women” of “black people” or “redheads” or “Algerians” or “golfers” to refer to general tendencies in the population as an aggregate? Don’t try to tell me you’ve never done it. EVERYONE does it, because it’s a commonly accepted linguisitic shorthand.

    Beyond that, to say that “men benefit from rape” can mean “those that benefit from rape are men”, and not that all men (or even most men) benefit from rape. This ambiguity is common in spoken and written English, and unless the writer goes out of their way to resolve it, it’s uncharitable to assume that she means “all men always” when she coudl as easily mean “many men” or “those that benefit are men, not that all or most men benefit”. Those are all common (if vague) uses of that construction.

  94. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 7:16 pm |

    My most recent comment was in response to Jon’s gun comments, in case that wan’t clear. Quick posters here.

  95. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:22 pm |

    Omnibus responses:

    I just saw that I misread what Piny wrote; we’re in agreement about the role of misogyny. My apologies for misreading.

    Jill, Ginmar didn’t say anything along the lines of what you wrote. (And I went back and checked.) Maybe she’s said that in other forums, or in other discussions, but she didn’t say it here. So I won’t burn bandwidth arguing your points, except to note that saying that prison constitutes an entirely separate culture is itself an incredibly privileged statement. Prison is a damn big part of life for a damn big chunk of our population; maybe not the chunk you’re in.

    Lauren, “I don’t see guns as something used for sport or self-defense. I see them ultimately as objects designed for killing” – where’s the contradiction? Self-defense includes killing, or being willing to kill. If it doesn’t, it isn’t really self-defense; it’s play-acting in hopes that the aggressor will fall for your ruse.

  96. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 7:25 pm |

    I don’t accept the dichotomization, Piny. There’s this tragic problem that horribly damages people. I see no merit – other than in making certain ideological arguments more tenable – in creating artificial distinctions between the sufferers. “This particular subset of the problem doesn’t really count, because it occurs only in East Ruritania…”

    The assertion is that rape disproportionately affects one segment of the population because of cultural beliefs about that segment of the population. Arguing that a minority of another segment of the population is at equal or greater risk under circumstances not inflicted on most of that other segment does not rebut the original assertion.

    Again, no one is saying that men don’t get raped. No one is saying that their rapes don’t “count.” We’re saying that “all women in and out of prison” and “men in prison” are not comparable.

    Lesbians are much more likely to undergo hysterectomies than straight women. Some subpopulations of straight women are, in some circumstances, more likely to undergo hysterectomies than most straight women. Does this mean that lesbians are not disproportionately treated with hysterectomies, potentially unnecessary ones? No.

  97. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 7:25 pm |

    it’s play-acting in hopes that the aggressor will fall for your ruse.

    That’s what bothers me. I can’t lie worth a shit.

  98. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:29 pm |

    Arguing that a minority of another segment of the population is at equal or greater risk under circumstances not inflicted on most of that other segment does not rebut the original assertion.

    It does when the original assertion is a flat “men aren’t at risk for getting raped”. A lot of men are, in fact, at risk of getting raped.

  99. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 7:29 pm |

    The argument is that misogyny is the reason for women’s greater victimization…

    Misogyny is an exaggerated antipathy toward women.

    from Wikipedia.

    Rape is an act of violence but for the rapist it is also act of sex (he just has really screwed up ideas of what sex should be). For the rapist who is nominally a heterosexual, the obvious target is a woman. The rapist is a rapist. In a world with women he’ll target them, in a world without them like prison, he’ll target other men. Calling him a misogynist ignores the fact that when a rapist rapes a woman he doesn’t necessarily hate all women (many probably wouldn’t even think in those terms), he is just being what he is, a rapist who takes his pleasure from the degredation of others.

    Granting him the benefit of a label other than rapist or beast is just wrong. It gives him too much respect.

  100. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:30 pm |

    That’s what bothers me. I can’t lie worth a shit.

    Then make it true.

  101. Lauren
    Lauren November 18, 2005 at 7:31 pm |

    I’m the clumsy loon that would blow off her toes. Hell no.

  102. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 7:36 pm |

    I’m the clumsy loon that would blow off her toes. Hell no.

    That is what practice is for!

  103. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:36 pm |

    Well, you have to set your own priorities in life. I’ll simply note that if the apocalypse comes and it’s eat or be eaten, there’s an easy meal awaiting somewhere in Indiana. ;P

  104. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 7:36 pm |

    I have an honest question. How is there a “rape culture” ? I mean, rape to me is treated very seriously in our culture. We have very long sentences for offenders. We have rape-shield laws. We have remedies previous laws that allowed spouses to rape and that once consent was given it couldn’t be retracted. I don’t think a few comments from Jane’s constitute the larger culture. I mean, even in prison isn’t rape the worst thing to be convicted of? Don’t rapists get abused in prison. Look how we treat sex offenders once they’re released. We treat them like outcasts.

    Also, Jon. No one person has a right to bear arms. I think it was Justice Black that said that notion “is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.” Plus, it will make everyone less safe anyway.

  105. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 7:38 pm |

    A couple of simple questions. Does anyone have an actual solution to this problem. How do you stop rapes from happening? Or at least minimize the risk to the point where it is rare? Is it possible or are people just going to have to live with it as a fact of life?

  106. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:38 pm |

    That is what practice is for!

    Dude. She only has ten toes. That doesn’t give her a lot of room to climb the learning curve.

  107. piny
    piny November 18, 2005 at 7:38 pm |

    It does when the original assertion is a flat “men aren’t at risk for getting raped”. A lot of men are, in fact, at risk of getting raped.

    Yes, but far fewer, in circumstances that are specialized. All women are at risk for rape; no similar population of women is protected. And if you think the generalization was overbroad, remember the context of the discussion: it was clear from what TallDave was saying that he wasn’t talking about prison until it became convenient. He didn’t mention the enormous amount of sexual violence that imprisoned women face, just the life of your average single girl.

  108. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 7:39 pm |

    Dude. She only has ten toes. That doesn’t give her a lot of room to climb the learning curve.

    LOL!

  109. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 7:47 pm |

    OK, Piny. So I can say that “women don’t have to work”, because there are far more men who are willing to support a woman than the converse, and that’ll be A-OK with you. I mean, after all, there are women who don’t have to work, and it’s certainly true that more women are supported by their spouse than the other way around, so my statement is basically true despite the obvious counterexample of “but look at all these women who do have to work”.

    Right?

    Or alternatively, we can agree that universal statements are, in fact, rebutted by specific counterexamples. “All feminists are ugly” is, in fact, disproved by Lauren.

    Although not by her toes, which apparently are gigantic to the point of obscuring gunfire.

  110. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 18, 2005 at 8:01 pm |

    More disingenuous bullshit, and all the comliments to Lauren int he world aren’t going to make up for it. There’s a difference between universal statements and generalizations. Think that one over.

    And this line: “saying that prison constitutes an entirely separate culture is itself an incredibly privileged statement. Prison is a damn big part of life for a damn big chunk of our population; maybe not the chunk you’re in.”? More disingenuous bullshit. It’s a damn big part of life for the damn big chunk of our population that HAPPEN TO BE IN PRISON. The PRISON part is where the difference lies. To counter “women get raped with disturbing regularity in normal everyday life” with “men get raped in prison” doesn’t play. They get raped in prison? Sure. So do women. But they rarely get raped outside of prison.

    Add to that the similarities between the power dynamic involved in prison rape and man-women old-fashioned rape.

    I tink it’s worth addressing Jason’s question about “rape culture”, but I don’t understand it will enough myself to give a good answer. I’ll just vnture that, for all the outwardly anti-rape things we do in our culture, there’s still a lot of rape. Why does it happen? I’ll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with biology.

  111. Rhus
    Rhus November 18, 2005 at 8:02 pm |

    I’m quite disturbed by Liza’s post (#2). It suggests that rape is more cruel and serious if women (or men) are raped in a determined political context. It’s more dignified too, because the experience of a US woman is “trivial” in comparison.

    Well, surely there are degrees in brutality; plus, somebody has answered that the law (at least in some countries) contemplates differences in sexual assault. But I don’t think anybody has denied this before in the discussion. And I cannot see why a rape in Connecticut couldn’t be brutal and violent just because the woman is not a member of the Socialist party or whatever Greater Good ideology she could adhere to.

    “Rape has also been used to quell dissent of people on the left during military dictatorships and pseudo-facist republican governments. Doesn’t anybody remember how in Argentina and Brazil rape was used for harvesting of babies from desaparecidas who’d then be killed right after giving birth?”

    Yes, I do. And of course it horrifies me and far it be from me to dismiss their suffering. But was their experience more worthy of respect than that of a woman in the States? If you represent it as an attack on some exalted ideology, has it been absolved of any “just womanly” complaint? In my own country, a woman was recently gang-raped, ran over with a car and finally burned to death. Is that a trivial experience because she didn’t belong to a political party or was engaged in a war? Is that just “non-consensual sex”?

    Surely we can connect rape to the issues and ideology you were bringing up and analyze it as a powerful war weapon and what not. But there is an ideology hovering about every rape, whether directed to “shut that Marxist up” or “shut that slut up”: patriarchy. And that’s a pervasive political ideology, if there is one. If men rape because of an ideology, this is the one they are truly following, whether they are conscious of it or not.

    I felt very strongly your point, NMH. You said it much better, but I couldn’t help answering too.

  112. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 8:13 pm |

    It’s a damn big part of life for the damn big chunk of our population that HAPPEN TO BE IN PRISON

    Or who used to be in prison. Or who will probably be in prison. Or whose parent is in prison. Or whose child is in prison.

    “Prison” is not an island off in the Pacific somewhere where one person in a million is selected by lottery each year and parachuted into. It’s contiguous to the rest of the culture. Deal with it.

  113. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 8:22 pm |

    Why isn’t it biological? I mean, I know it isn’t solely biological (look at prison rape–probably learned behavior). There is rape throughout history and in every culture, right? Just like murderers and thiefs.

    And on to my favorite biological specific examples:
    Have you ever seen ducks do it? That’s some rough sex. And dogs? Even ruffer.

    Anyway, I don’t know how much biology is involved. Some people do seem to have a propensity for violence. And I’m sure if they were abused as kids probably become a lot more violent.

  114. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 8:32 pm |

    Also, Jon. No one person has a right to bear arms. I think it was Justice Black that said that notion “is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.” Plus, it will make everyone less safe anyway.

    Well, there’s an entire symposium that could been had on this one topic- I’d note that the Supreme Court hasn’t directly spoken on the 2nd Amendment in the past 80 years, but see the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in US v. Emerson for a good summary of the arguments supporting an individual right.

    Justice Black, by the way, was an ex-Klansman. The KKK was very much in favor of limiting the right to bear arms because they were afraid that those uppity blacks might get some ideas about rebelling against whites. I’m not saying that was the ultimate guding factor in Black’s jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment, but it’s food for thought.

    And, also for the record, in the majority of instances where guns are used for self-defense, the assailant is not killed. Usually just brandishing the firearm is enough to ward off a potential attacker. For some strange reason, rapists, robbers, and other assorted miscreants seem to prefer unarmed victims.

  115. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 8:44 pm |

    Correction- it’s been 66 years since SCOTUS directly examined the 2nd Amendment, not 80.

  116. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 8:49 pm |
  117. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 9:00 pm |

    And, also for the record, in the majority of instances where guns are used for self-defense, the assailant is not killed.

    All it really takes to see this point is all the reports of shoot-outs. Even when one side are the cops who train regularly with guns, you’ll still have dozens or even hundreds of rounds shot and only a couple of injuries – some fatal. I’ve never tried;-) but from all accounts it is pretty hard to shoot someone with a hand gun who is actively trying to evade. Most rapists or muggers are looking for an easy victim. Any indication that the victim won’t be easy to get would usually be enough for him to run off.

  118. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 9:05 pm |

    Jason, irrespective of certain SC decisions, for the most part most Americans are legally allowed to own arms. I understand that NY has rather strict rules but most people, and more importantly for this discussion, most women could own a gun legally.

  119. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 9:05 pm |

    Jon,

    You better hurry up and graduate so you can go work for the wingnuts in the Justice Department. We need another good Christian soldier there. Look, even Aschroft agrees with you. Yeah! But too bad about Bush I, Reagon, Nixon, and Eisenhower and every Supreme Court Justice that looked at the issue:

    The first formal written position taken by an executive branch specifically regarding the Second Amendment came in 1954. From that point until 2001, presidential administrations agreed that the Second Amendment, in the words of President Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General, Charles Fried, “guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to. . .a well-regulated militia.'” President George H.W. Bush’s Solicitor General, Kenneth Starr, concluded that “possession of [a] firearm did not fall within the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.” In 2001, the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum opinion stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

    And this:

    The Fifth and Ninth circuits represent two extremes of judicial thinking, having embraced the individual and collective rights models respectively.

    So I don’t think I’ll be looking at the 5th Circuit for guidance. Or Ashcroft for that matter.

  120. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 9:07 pm |

    Of course, in keeping this topic on topic, Nick might have been in more trouble than before if she had pulled a gun on two highly-trained paratroopers.

  121. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 9:08 pm |

    I realize that practically speaking, there are few gun bans. But carrying around a handgun (not many people carry shotguns) is still largely illegal. Less so recently, unfortunately.

    Mace is such a better option. Still incapacitate the person and no one gets killed.

  122. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 9:27 pm |

    Mace is such a better option. Still incapacitate the person and no one gets killed.

    Mace is an option in some circumstances. In Nick’s case it would have affected her too. You can’t use that stuff in an inclosed space without being affected. And it is a rather dicey proposition if there is more than one assailant.

    With a gun you shoot for the body. The head is for snipers and the hand (to knock the weapon out of their hand) is for people in the movies. Unless you empty the gun on a person or shoot them again on the ground, most of the time, they’ll probably survive. Most women aren’t going to carry “big guns”. A 9mm will take someone down but won’t kill with one shot unless you are very lucky/unlucky. Plus even if your don’t shoot, it has an intimidation factor that mace doesn’t have. At the end of the day, we are talking about leveling the playing field between men who have the advantage of size & strength and women. You want the most effective option.

  123. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 9:34 pm |

    At the end of the day, as a man who wouldn’t rape a woman, I don’t want any benefit from the “rape culture”. I want rape to stop or at least reduced enough that it is a shocking thing like a serial killer. Not something that we hear of so often that we don’t even notice. Jason, I used to have the same opinion as you on guns but if it can help the situation… Obviously women arming themselves isn’t the SOLUTION but it may be part of the solution.

  124. EricP
    EricP November 18, 2005 at 9:36 pm |

    I should have capitalized THE instead of “solution” in “the SOLUTION”. Sorry. I’m sure you got my point.

  125. Jason
    Jason November 18, 2005 at 9:52 pm |

    Still don’t know why we have a rape culture. But we certainly have a gun culture.

  126. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 18, 2005 at 9:58 pm |

    Robert, I think you’re trying to get at the point that prison rape doesn’t just affect people while they’re being raped in prison: it affects them after they’re been in prison, and it affects the people closer to them. True, I agree with that. But the rape itself happens in prison, within the highly institutional prison culture. The reason that “prison rape” doesn’t happen (or rarely happens, I’m sure there are instances of male-on-male rape that happen for the same sorts of reasons prison rape does outside of prison, rare though they may be) outside of prison isn’t only because of the definition, but because it generally only happens within institutional prison culture. Institutional prison culture, which arises out of the highly ordered and disciplined structure of prison life, allows and promotes male-on-male prison rape in different ways. This is not to say that what happens in prison stays in prison, but that it can’t be considered equivalent to what happens outside prison, because it happens ina a very clearly and substantively different social context.

    HOWEVER, this is not to say that prison rape isn’t a problem. It most _certainly_ is, and I’ve never heard a feminist say prison rape doesnt happen, or if it does that it’s ok. I’ve never heard that from a feminist. IN FACT, when you aren’t provoking them with disingenuous bullshit, they very often make the arguement that prison rape is part of the same rape culture as man-on-woman civilian rape. I don’t know of any feminist that has any legitimate claim to the term that holds “an ideological preconception that cannot stand in a world where men get raped too.” I haven’t seen it here.

    Look, I think we agree on this ina very real way, but your insistence that we qualify every discussion of rape with an essay on prison rape, or other male-on-male rape, is counterproductive and tiring. It’s a serious issue, but not the one we’re talking about.

  127. Robert
    Robert November 18, 2005 at 10:15 pm |

    your insistence that we qualify every discussion of rape with an essay on prison rape, or other male-on-male rape, is counterproductive and tiring

    I haven’t done that. I challenged a farcical statement, got shit for it, and defended my actions. Please don’t mischaracterize my statements or my history.

  128. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 18, 2005 at 10:25 pm |

    But too bad about Bush I, Reagon, Nixon, and Eisenhower and every Supreme Court Justice that looked at the issue:

    As I pointed out above, no Supreme Court Justice has looked at the issue since 1939. You’re right (or rather, the source you cut-and-pasted from is right) that the lower federal courts have not been favorable to the individual rights perspective, but it’s not as if the only people who adopt that view are “crazed wingnuts.” That well-known right-wing shill, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, supports an individual rights reading of the amendment. See 43 Ariz. L.Rev. 439, 441-2.

    But all this is secondary to the issue of whether or not rape would be reduced by more women carrying guns. And on that point, the statistics are pretty clear. Jurisdictions with more permissive gun laws have lower violent crime rates, and the violent crime rate in America generally has been going down as more and more states adopt concealed-carry statutes. There are far more rapes in places like Chicago, where the gun laws are some of the most draconian in the country, than there are in places where criminals have to worry about their victims being armed. Carrying mace can’t hurt either, unless you live in a jurisdiction that’s outlawed that, as well.

  129. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 18, 2005 at 11:54 pm |

    Alright, I’ll retract that. You have not insisted that we qualify every discussion man-on-woman rape with equal time for man-on-man rape. However, looking back on the thread, I can’t see what you call a “farcical statement”. I’m all for let the issue die here and now, but I would suggest that you have mischaracterized or misinterpreted (whether willfully, through unwillingness to engage openly with the arguement, or out of pure honest misunderstanding — it’s not relevant which) plenty of statements on here. While I recognize that this was an escalated misunderstanding, please have the honesty to admit that you don’t have it all right, either.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’m content to leave it at that.

  130. Robert
    Robert November 19, 2005 at 12:54 am |

    Sure, I’ll acknowledge that.

  131. ginmar
    ginmar November 19, 2005 at 9:04 am |

    Gee, I see Robert has accomplished his objective yet again: We’ve changed the subject from women to men and he’s gotten to call other people various names because they object to his crap. He’s like the new David Byron, except with less froth.

  132. Julie
    Julie November 19, 2005 at 10:10 am |

    I wanted to respond to something way up in the comments. I think that if a woman tells a guy she’s on the pill and she’s not, and he has sex with her anyway that’s not rape, it’s fraud on her part. Along the same lines, if a man tells a woman that he’s had a vasectomy and he really hasn’t, and she has sex with him, it’s not rape, it’s fraud. What we are talking about in the original scene, was not fraud however. She NOTICED he no longer had a condom on and he attempted to penetrate her anyway. This is rape, because he was trying to force her to do something she did not consent to. If you lie about your fertility stauts in anyway wo get laifd, it’s pretty morally repugnant, but I wouldn’t call it rape. You didn’t force them to believe you and you didn’t force them to have sex with you. However, this is NOT what happened here. She said no, you’re no longer wearing a condom and he attempted to have sex with her, despite her saying no. A man, or a woman for that matter, must stop when the other party says no. And it’s not like I have a bullshit double standard either, because if a man were to notice, I don’t know, that the diaphraghm the woman claimed to be using was in fact on the floor and he said stop, I don’t want to want to have unprotected sex and she refused to get off him, I would consider that rape.

  133. Donna
    Donna November 19, 2005 at 11:24 am |

    If I am insufficiently aroused for any reason then penetration is not going to provide maximum pleasure. At best. At worst, penetration might be painful or even injurious. And scary. For my pleasure, comfort and safety and to prevent injury to MY body (you idiots) I, a woman, need to be in control of the pace at which things go. Maybe, if things go well, I might be willing to keep going. But my “no” means “no”. If you, who are supposedly so knowledgeable and worldly, have not created a climate in which I can be specific, then you cannot possibly assume you know if that “no” means “Not for about ten more minutes of this or I need more of that”. Or, “No. Not tonight,” Or “No, not with you ever.’ You can only know that my “no” means you cannot proceed or that you have to stop. You can ask for–not require–clarification. (Since only one of us can kill the other with bare hands don’t imagine that this is a safe point for me to piss you off with the third option.) If things go well and my “No” turns out to have been “No, not for about ten more minutes of your biggest chore’, and we have penetration and I like it and it’s successful, don’t show me how stupid you are by smugly saying afterward that, “Oh you women! You say “no” when you really mean “yes”. You idiots! My “no” did mean exactly “NO!”

  134. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 19, 2005 at 2:46 pm |

    Yes, precisely. No means no, but it doesn’t necessarily mean “no, get your clothes on and leave”. It can mean “No, check back in ten minutes”, “no, maybe after 3 more dates”, “no, never” or any number of nos. But it means NO when it’s said.

  135. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub November 20, 2005 at 5:20 pm |

    WRT to the assertion that men get raped in prison–here’s a newsflash: WOMEN IN PRISON GET RAPED TOO.

  136. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost November 21, 2005 at 1:46 am |

    Yeah, we tried that a few times earlier, but he didn’t seem to get it.

  137. David Thompson
    David Thompson November 22, 2005 at 6:04 pm |

    This gave me something to think about.

    My choices are to avoid men and dating altogether, behave like a 16-year-old and only go on dates where things are highly structured to avoid being alone with a guy, or do what I like knowing full well if I were to get raped, there’s not likely to be any kind of justice for me. I tend to play the odds and go with number 3–act like I’m a free adult in a society that disagrees with me and will look away if I’m “punished” for it–and the theory that life is short and risks have to be taken if you want to live it.

    My mistake was in presuming that Nick Kiddle (and Amanda) had a compelling interest in their sexual security, when it turns out that interest is trumped by their interest in sexual adventurism. I still consider that an exceptionally poor trade, but whatever. It’s not my genitals they’re playing roulette with, so it’s not my problem.

  138. Lauren
    Lauren November 22, 2005 at 8:37 pm |

    David, is “sexual security” anything like “social security”? Is the government trying to shut down “sexual security” anytime soon?

    Oh, yes.

  139. David Thompson
    David Thompson November 22, 2005 at 9:14 pm |

    David, is “sexual security” anything like “social security”?

    No. If it were, the government would provide free prostitutes for the elderly and disabled.

    Security isn’t best word, but it brings in fewer extraneous connotations than integrity, autonomy, or preservation. Sadly, I don’t have a thesaurus on hand to find the best word. Hell, you’re an English teacher; you should have suggested a half-dozen possiblities already.

  140. Lauren
    Lauren November 22, 2005 at 9:19 pm |

    Hell, you’re an English teacher; you should have suggested a half-dozen possiblities already.

    I’m a facilitator, not a hand-it-to-you-er.

    Thesaurus be damned.

  141. David Thompson
    David Thompson November 22, 2005 at 9:23 pm |

    Some teacher you are. You’re just an English pointer.

  142. Official Shrub.com Blog  » Blog Archive   » Think have achieved equality? Think again.

    [...] he has had. We live in a rape culture where many people continue to blame the victims of rape and domestic violence. Wives/mothers are still expected to do most [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.