The Limits of Consent Part 2
The Four Corners episode brings up so many different questions about consent, I am breaking this into two parts in the hope of steering two different conversations about the same topic.
The experience of Charmyne Palavi, who engages in consensual sex with rugby players but was raped by one Australian Rules player, is worth mentioning:
CHARMYNE PALAVI: Why would you go forward? You’re about to be ridiculed and your name dragged through the mud and you will be made out to be something that you’re not and that you asked for it.
Is it possible to consent when to say no would be to have this happen to you?
The varying responses of a rugby team after watching a depiction of heterosexual rape v. homosexual rape is also interesting:
SARAH FERGUSON: In the first scenario, a young woman goes home with two men and agrees to sex with one of them, not both.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: What do you think of the girl’s role in this ah scenario? Anyone? Throw it in.
PLAYER 1: She put out first.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: She what?
PLAYER 1: She put out first.
N
IGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: She put out first. Yep, put it up there. Anything else?
PLAYER 2: She flirted with both of them.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: She flirted with both of them. Yeah. What about ah this guy right? He’s going to get in trouble. You think he’s going to get in trouble?
PLAYERS: Yep.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: What about the birthday boy? Will he get in trouble too?
PLAYERS: Yeah.
PLAYER 3: Depends how good his lawyer is.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: Depends how good his lawyer is. We’ll watch another one.
(End of Excerpt)
SARAH FERGUSON: In the second version a drunken man is subjected to homosexual rape, the responses are very different.
(Excerpt continued)
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: All right, boys, um birthday boy, what do you reckon? What do you think? How’s he feeling? What happened? What happened to his night?
PLAYERS: Shattered.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: Shattered. Do you think he had too much to drink and asked for trouble?
PLAYERS: Yeah.
NIGEL VAGANA, RUGBY PLAYER: What else? What about how he got into that situation and all that sort of stuff?
PLAYER 4: You don’t really asked for trouble if you have too much to drink and get raped by a bloke. You don’t ask for ask for that.
MARK O’NEILL, RUGBY PLAYER: Can we see that there’s some sort of double standard that may apply here? The girl’s gone out to have a drink. No one said that she didn’t ask for it but yet the male goes out and has a drink and it’s crystal clear that he didn’t ask for it.
What do you think accounts for the differing attitudes towards rape?
Well, that’s what women are for, after all, doncha know? (See me rolling my eyes here and my blood pressure rising in extreme frustration. Argh.)
Comment by Lorian — May 13, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Wow, that’s pretty sad. I have nothing to say other than “ugh”. Can’t think of a devil’s advocate line for this one.
On a completel different much less mature note, I pity the fellow with the last name “vagana”. That’s rough.
Comment by Jen — May 13, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
I agree there is almost definitely a double standard. But this example wasn’t even a good anecdotal account.
First, most men find the idea of sex with another man to be incredibly disgusting, regardless of the partner. Even with a rape in both scenarios, the second adds the weight of gay sex, adding to the emotional impact of the story on men.
A perhaps more fair comparison would be a drunk man that goes to a woman’s place to have sex with one woman and doesn’t consent to sex with a the second. I betcha the reactions to that as an alternative would be less sympathetic than the reaction to the scenario given with the woman. A double standard again, but this time in favor of the woman victim.
Second, the reactions weren’t incredibly different:
Scenario 1: She put out, flirted, and the man will get in trouble. No sympathy expressed, but also no statement that is was her fault.
Scenario 2: Victim’s night is shattered, then that he did and did not ask for trouble by drinking too much.
And third, the questioner is obviously very biased:
Scenario 1: “What do you think of the girl’s role in this ah scenario? Anyone? Throw it in.”
Scenario 2: “All right, boys, um birthday boy, what do you reckon? What do you think? How’s he feeling? What happened? What happened to his night?”
Until they ask what the woman is feeling and how her night went, this is not a fair comparison..
Comment by minnie mouse — May 13, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Good point, Minnie. I didn’t think about the different nature of the questions.
Comment by Jen — May 13, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
I think comparing a woman being raped to a man being raped is a very fair comparison. And men are rarely ever raped by women. The physiological aspects make it difficult-to-improbable. Rape is a crime of violent penetration, so, unless a woman uses an object to forcibly penetrate a man, there is really not much of a comparison between a woman being raped and a man having drunken sex with a woman he did not originally intend to have sex with.
Very few men, I think, would find that scenario as objectionable as a woman would feel who was forced to have sex while drunk.
Since rape IS a crime of violent penetration, whether by penis or by object, and since it is most generally committed with a penis, with a man at the other end of the penis, the most fair comparison would be that of a woman being raped by a man vs. a man being raped by a man. If the homosexual “ick” factor is a problem, well, so be it. We need to reach a point in this society where it is EVERY BIT as offensive to each of us, male or female, to conceive of a woman being raped as it is a man being raped, regardless of who is committing the rape.
Comment by Lorian — May 13, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
Stuff like this makes me cry and cry and cry.
Comment by jddaughter — May 14, 2009 @ 12:23 am
Lorian: I agree it is every bit as offensive for a woman to be raped as for a man to be raped. Actually, I’m very biased and think it is considerably worse, on average, for a woman to be raped.
But just because women raping men is rare doesn’t really make it valid to throw it out in a comparison. Men raping men is likely much more rare than men raping women, but we don’t throw that out (I suppose because it is more common than women raping men). And a woman raping a man (vs a man raping a man) does carry the extra burden of possible pregnancy, though obviously the male victim wouldn’t bear the physical/hormonal/daily reminder burden that a female victim would have.
Comment by minnie mouse — May 14, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Lorian,
I’m confused by your reasoning. Can you explain how on one hand your discussion of rape requiring violent penetration makes rape “worse” for women while on the other hand saying we need to be equally offended about rape?
Are you saying rape is less severe when its female on male (as long as the male isn’t penetrated, but doing the penetrating?) while at the same time saying we need more equality in terms of “offense”?
And not that I’d take this attitude, but based on your reasoning, if I am reading you right, it would be just as appropriate for someone (who is wrong) to suggest that, “because men don’t abhor female on male rape, we need to come to a point where women don’t mind male on female rape”. Naturally that line of thought is very wrong. And if I’ve misunderstood you I apologize.
Comment by huh — May 14, 2009 @ 6:00 am
I agree that rape is horribly offensive, no matter the parties involved, but this scenario is very biased. The 2 storylines that they discussed were so different, that they can hardly be compared. If they had shown them a video where a woman has too many drinks, is clearly intoxicated, and is then clearly raped, the rugby players may have had the same sympathy for the woman as they did for the man in that situation. Or if they had shown the man going home with, and flirting with 2 different men, then having consensual sex with one of them, and calling the second guy a rapist, the rugby players may have had the same sympathy for the ‘rapist’ (i.e. hoping that he has a good lawyer) as they did in the heterosexual scenario. Again, I agree that rape in any form absolutely horrible, but trying to make comments about these men based on these very biased scenarios is unfair.
Comment by odc — May 14, 2009 @ 8:10 am
Society, culture and media account for some of the differing attitudes towards rape. Consider this scenario. When a female who is under the age of consent is coerced or forced into sex with an adult male, society clearly calls it pedophilia and the expectation is that this should be swiftly dealt with legally, while ensuring the victim is given supportive care. However, if the table is turned and the male is the one under the age of consent the statements sometimes turn to things like, “He’s a boy, he’d like that kind of thing,” when in reality the issue needs to be addressed in the same way.
Men and women view the act of sex so differently. Until we as a society accept the fact that there is way to little education and discussion going on about sex, its meanings and the implications involved more women will be victimized because they didn’t realize they needed to clearly say no and more will men will perpetrate because they were too stupid, horny or impaired to realize they need to have clear consent.
Does a contract need to be signed every time you have sex stating that every act performed is being consented to? I would hope not. But I would also hope that there would be enough discernment on both parties part to read each other and see if the path being taken is agreeable or not. And if no is ever mentioned on either persons part then stop the action. Thus my argument that being impaired and having sex does not mix because judgment is the key thing affected.
Comment by Desert Rat — May 14, 2009 @ 11:16 am
So of a man rapes a man it’s as bad as a man raping a woman, but if a woman rapes a man it’s not as bad? I don’t get it. Non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex whether it involves men, women or children.
Comment by jjohnsen — May 14, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Humorous video about sexual consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f–u_puzhGs
Comment by minnie mouse — May 14, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Huh #8, I never said that a man who was raped by a woman would be any less traumatized or that it would be less of a crime than a man raping a woman. What I said is that:
1. It’s far less common because of the physical impracticality of forcing a man to maintain an erection against his will.
2. It’s far less common because women, by nature, do not tend to use sex for domination.
3. When unplanned sexual encounters occur between a woman and a man, it is far more usual for the woman to be an unwilling participant than the man. Even if the man was drunk and did not count on having sex with, say, a second woman in the room, the likelihood that he would do so UNWILLINGLY, or by force, is far less, by orders of magnitude, than the likelihood of a woman doing so unwillingly or by force if the situation were reversed.
But, my point stands that people find male-on-male rape more shocking and horrible than male-on-female rape, probably because of some little tic inside that says, “Well, that’s what women are for, after all.” And that’s wrong. A woman’s vagina is no more appropriate place for a man’s penis than is another man’s rectum, if the penetration is not desired and consented to.
Comment by Lorian — May 14, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Point taken. I still think your on unshaky ground when you get into comparisons and parsing things. That something may be considered unlikely (I have no idea), does not make it a good reason to offer statements that seem to discount the act.
But I don’t think the vast majority of people think “that’s what women are for after all.”
I do get the impression from your post that your general opinion of men is seems rather low, even in your second post regarding a male being less likely to respond a certain way toward a second woman who might sexually assault him.
For me I’d just leave it at all cases are wrong. All cases should be severely punished. Everyone should be educated and helped to understand the trauma involved for all sides without getting into probabilities, or who might have been more likely to enjoy it.
Comment by huh — May 14, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Actually, male rape is more common than we think, the sexual abuse however tends to happen when the male is younger, more impressionable and then it has psychological effects on him for life. It is scarring on both genders, and even on homosexual abuse. To suggest one is worse than the other is entirely insensitive. There is that age old double standard, where if a woman justifiably calls “rape” she will be second guessed, and assumed lying until proven otherwise in several cases. Its sad, and though the double standard may be worse on women, it isn’t fair to say that rape is also.
Comment by Julez — May 14, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Re #5: “Rape is a crime of violent penetration…”
Uhh, no. Many rapists are permanently impotent. Rape is an unwelcome sexual act meant to degrade, humiliate and terrorize the victim, regardless of the type of sexual act being perpetrated. Here’s a hypothetical: imagine a woman spikes your bishop’s drink with GHB and then mounts him while he’s incapacitated. Is that not rape?
Comment by Steve — May 15, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Re #7: “…a woman raping a man (vs a man raping a man) does carry the extra burden of possible pregnancy, though obviously the male victim wouldn’t bear the physical/hormonal/daily reminder burden that a female victim would have.”
It certainly would if the rapist successfully sues her victim for child support.
Comment by Steve — May 15, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
16: “Uhh, no. Many rapists are permanently impotent. Rape is an unwelcome sexual act meant to degrade, humiliate and terrorize the victim, regardless of the type of sexual act being perpetrated.”
I think the term rape has, on occasion, been informally used for what you describe, but that isn’t really the dictionary definition. Nor is it the legal definition.
For example, in Utah rape must involve sexual intercourse (i.e. vaginal penetration) without consent. Intent to degrade or terrorize is completely irrelevant, though in some lesser crimes, such as object rape or sexual abuse, intent does come into play though the intent still doesn’t have to be to harm the victim as it can be the intent for sexual arousal of the perpetrator.
Comment by minnie mouse — May 15, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
There is a lot more to this story than what Four Corners presented. Already the woman’s friend has come forward to say that she bragged about making out with several footballers in the weeks after this back in ‘02
To assume that it is ‘rape’ now 7 years later, especially when only the TV presenter was mentioned by name (now that he’s famouse) should say a lot to many people here. Plus the NZ police investigated this and didn’t charge anyone.
While Johns adultery should be condemned, crying rape today is a bit much imo!
Comment by Charlie — May 16, 2009 @ 4:43 am
minnie mouse #18 (and Steve #16), minnie’s right. The crime of “rape” involves penetration, whether with a body part or with an object. No penetration - no rape. Doesn’t mean a crime has not been committed — maybe assault, or sexual battery, or sexual harrassment, or something else, depending on the circumstances, but not rape.
Many rapists ARE impotent, but the reason (or rather, ONE of the reasons) they rape is because that is the ONLY way they can achieve erection. Rapists who cannot achieve erection even to commit a rape, either commit a different crime which is not rape, or they rape with an object. The whole point of rape is the penetration, and the humiliation it causes. The gratification to the rapist comes, generally, in domination of and power over his victim (and I say “his” quite intentionally, since, as I pointed out earlier, actual rape by a woman is a VERY rare crime).
Comment by Lorian — May 16, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Charlie, don’t you think it’s possible that the “bragging” was more to figure out if it was normal or to try to take control (after the fact) of a situation where she had no control, than because she was actually proud of it?
Comment by Quimby — May 16, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
#21
No.
That plus several other details say to me that she was a willing participant in group sex.
Now soon she will get that $10K/$15K for a ‘New Idea exclusive’ interview or ‘Woman’s Day exclusive’ interview……while John’s wife and kids have to suffer for this all over again.
Sorry but my guess is that if John’s wasn’t a national celebrity she would still be bragging about it. This case also shows why the church is correct in keeping adultery cases private and confidential.
Comment by Charlie — May 17, 2009 @ 7:37 am
If she gets $10 K or more for a New Idea or Women’s Day cover, then I’ll agree with you.
But it’s not uncommon for people to make light of difficult situations (after all, isn’t that what comedy is all about?) or to make out that they were more involved than they really were, just to assume some sort of control after the fact.
Comment by Quimby — May 17, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Quimby- that’s really common in date rape. A few times, we’ve received a young woman in the ER, crying and saying she was date raped and by the time we’ve obtained the rape kit, she’s already talked herself into it not having happened the way she thought. It’s like the concept she was “raped” is too much to take in, so, she’ll rationalize it and explain it in some lighter way than when she first came in hysterical. Upon reflection, she figures, “Well, I really shouldn’t have worn that mini skirt- he kept saying it was turning him on…and if I hadn’t made out with him, he wouldn’t have kept going so he was just proceeding on my signals, even though I was saying no. So, no, I wasn’t raped, it just got a little out of hand and he wasn’t able to stop.” Then, she feels some sort of control after the fact (even if it’s just that she decides not to define it as rape)…but ends up in a shrink’s office 10 years later, wondering why she won’t wear mini skirts or if she cannot seem to have any desire for sex with her gentle husband, who never harmed her in any way.
The truth will come out eventually for each individual. There may be all kinds of explanations, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, the presence of trauma after the fact is the real indicator. It may not even be clear to the woman until she admits to herself that she really did not want to participate in the act and that she really was raped. She could even brag, if that sort of bravado makes her feel like she was in control of the situation instead of victimized- maybe even make some money if she feels it would somehow provide restitution for her services as an object. Publicity may be a form of revenge as well- at the least, the man’s wife or girlfriend will be outraged…or maybe his mother and some discomfort may come his way too. It depends a lot upon the personality of the woman concerned, her maturity level, coping skills, the situation as it unfolded, the perception she had of the man involved, the location, the support she anticipated having if she told someone she was raped.
One of the girls my friend took care of, ended up calling the man who just raped her and asked him to come get her at the hospital. She had convinced herself he couldn’t stop because he loved her so much…that she was “silly” to have even thought he’d raped her. She told my friend, “Even if I didn’t want to have sex with him this soon, if we kept going out, I would have had it eventually.” Yes. This really happened.
Comment by Kimberly — May 17, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
There is a double standard in the questioning. The man would never consent to having sex with another man, but the woman has sometimes consented to having sex with a man. So it’s a little easier to assume the woman’s consent.
#5, I disagree with you about how it is nearly impossible for a man to be raped by a woman. Rape is more than just physiological force; it is often psychological. You can rape someone by holding him at gunpoint, or by blackmailing him, for instance. It would still be forced and it would still be rape, but it wouldn’t necessarily be “violent penetration.”
And as far as the law is concerned, it can still be rape even if both partners are totally willing, such as when one of them is underage.
Comment by Kevin Owens — May 19, 2009 @ 4:09 pm