Gender roles and acquaintance rape — alarming new survey findings
By; Kaimi
[trigger warning — this post discusses in moderate detail the facts of a well-known court case on acquaintance rape]
She’s had one drink and she stops by a friend’s dorm room to talk. Her friend isn’t in, but his roommate invites her to stay and chat for a while. After they’ve talked for a few minutes, he sits down next to her, then leans against her, and then begins kissing and touching her. She repeatedly tells him no and that she needs to leave. He does not physically restrain her at any time, and she does not yell, struggle, or physically resist his kissing or touching (according to his later court testimony, she “kisses back” when he kisses her). As he leads her to his bed, she repeats, “no, I’ve got to go.” Instead, he removes her clothes and then has sex with her. She repeatedly whispers “no” during sex; and according to his court testimony, she also “moans passionately.” She does not scream or struggle at any time in the process, nor does she physically resist any of his advances.
Has a rape taken place?
An eye-opening new study suggests that your answer to this question may depend on
whether you believe in hierarchical gender roles.
The facts come from the high-profile case of Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, a 1990s rape prosecution in Pennsylvania. The jury found that the victim had indeed been raped; in the closely watched case, the (all-male) Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and found that no rape had taken place, because there was no evidence of force. (The defendant’s conviction on lesser charges of indecent assault was not affected, and he served several months in jail.) The court’s decision was (and remains) highly controversial, with significant portions of the populace viewing it as clearly a rape (she said no, didn’t she?), while significant portions disagree and call it a clear non-rape (she never struggled or yelled, no force was used). This we’ve known since the early 90s, when the court decisions made headlines and drew widespread controversy.
The new angle is a fascinating study that Kahan used to determine whether opinions on the case differed in systemic ways — whether they corresponded to other views or psychological factors. The experimenters surveyed 1500 participants, asking them a range of questions about their views on gender roles (among other things). They then asked the survey participants to review a set of facts (the facts of the Berkowitz case) and to answer whether they thought a rape had taken place.
The results were eye-opening. A belief in hierarchical (rather than egalitarian) gender roles corresponded to a belief that no rape had taken place. That is, people who believed in hierarchical gender roles (men in charge, women in the home) were more likely to say that there was no rape. And the effect was greatest among women. That is, women who believed in hierarchical gender roles were especially inclined to view the acts as non-rape.
Why? Kahan suggests that women who ascribe to hierarchical gender roles tend to believe that women should safeguard their chastity against men, and they give approval to a woman who does so. However, they are inclined to give little weight to “token resistance.” A woman who is serious about protecting her chastity will take greater steps; “mere words” on the other hand are a sham of seeming to comply
with the values favored by hierarchical women favor, without actually making the effort required. As a result, hierarchical women are not inclined to view such token resistance as a true denial of sex. Instead, they see it as a woman who is trying to “have it both ways” — pretending to deny permission, while not engaging in effective
actions of denial — who should not be excused from culpability for the sex act, the way that one would excuse a woman who truly sought to deny sexual access through physical struggle.
This finding (and proposed explanation) is quite frightening. Mormon culture is among the most gender-hierarchical in the country. Are we, by instilling a belief in gender hierarchy, raising a generation of children — especially girls — who will be inclined to doubt victims in acquaintance rape cases? Are we raising a generation who will be unwilling to accept ideas like “no means no”? Can we combat that correlation? How?
If the Berkowitz jury were entirely drawn from your own ward, would the result have been a conviction, or an acquittal?
Please provide your definition of consent?
Comment by .... — September 3, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
He did not have her permission. NO mean NO.
He violated her.
Just because the victim didn’t struggle, doesn’t mean she wasn’t intimidated by the perpetrator.
I don’t see what gender roles may have had to do with it, but an all male court that ruled against her sounds biased. (How about at least one female?)
Comment by S. — September 3, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Thanks for bringing this up, Kaimi.
Are we raising a generation who will be unwilling to accept ideas like “no means no”?
I guess I’m hoping that the encouraging movement of prevailing societal norms toward accepting the idea that “no means no” will spill into the Church in spite of our hierarchical tendencies.
I suspect you already made this connection, but the idea that “mere words” don’t count as resistance fits nicely with some of President Kimball’s much-discussed thoughts in The Miracle of Forgiveness.
Comment by Ziff — September 3, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
There have to be standards for rape that go beyond he said/she said. Otherwise, a person who has consensual sex can wake up in the morning, change their story and have the other person wrongly charged with rape.
While the supposed rape victim is protected in the media, the accused male is tried in both the court of opinion and the actual courtroom. Men’s lives have been wrongly destroyed. Their lives are of equal value to those who are rape victims.
When is Crystal Mangum, the alleged victim in the Duke Lacrosse rape case, going to be taken back to court for providing false testimony? How is she going to repair the damage she has caused those she accused? What about Tawana Brawley?
“To my considerable chagrin, we found that at least 60 percent of all the rape allegations were false.” –Dr. Charles P. McDowell, Supervisory Special Agent, U.S. Air Force, Office of Special Investigations. Cited from www.falserape.net. Note: I have not done a due diligence on this site, but is rather easy to see that the site defends men who were accused.
No one wants anyone to go thru Rape; however, imperfect our justice system, it needs to protect the accused. Just as the victims are our daughters, the accused may be our sons.
Comment by .... — September 3, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
I would say it’s rape. She said no and he has to take her at her word. However, I still am a little confused by the situation. Why didn’t she get up and leave? Why didn’t she more forcefully stop the situation from progressing? Was it intimidation? Was it feelings of low self-esteem? Was it that she just didn’t know what to do?
So maybe the issue as far as society goes needs to not only be about making NO MEAN NO the norm, but also about educating young women/girls in what they should do in a situation like that.
Comment by Katheryn — September 3, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
I’m not sure I like the idea that my opinion on this would say something about my belief in the roles of gender, but here goes…
Based on the recounting alone, I would say I think it’s unwise to call that situation rape. It just doesn’t sound like the girl was unwilling or even frightened. That may not be the case, but I would be curious to know if she ever claimed that she struggled, or if her story matched his as far as the visible facts go.
I had a friend in college that was convicted and sent to prison for 7 years for raping a girl he was dating. To know this guy, it was clear that he was a womanizer, but not a rapist. I know we can’t really know people completely, but virtually everyone believed that she had given in and consented and then regretted her choice (thank you LDS culture) and decided to claim rape to keep her chastity somehow intact.
I hope my feelings about people like this doesn’t make me sexist. It’s unfortunate that women who do want to “have it both ways” may end up making it difficult for us to trust the women in real situations that felt truly helpless. I’m not discounting the real issue of “no means no”…I just wish we could know whether all the women that claim it actually meant it.
As for my daughters, I’d like to think I will probably teach them to struggle and protect themselves and know what they want so as not to be passive in what happens to their bodies.
Comment by corktree — September 3, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
If we were all omniscient, and could know this woman’s mind, it could be considered rape. Maybe she was truly petrified, or maybe she has extremely low self-esteem. Who knows.
However, in the court of law, there is simply not enough evidence to conclude that this was rape. The argument boils down to “he said, she said,” and that is simply not enough to prove guilt beyond a doubt.
Is it rape in a hypothetical sense? Yes. Is it rape in a practical sense? No.
That’s just my take on it.
Comment by Hay — September 3, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
http://books.google.com/books?id=AMeuZnmBX1kC&lpg=PA341&ots=GY7gsEKfPA&dq=Commonwealth%20v.%20Berkowitz&pg=PA341#v=onepage&q=Commonwealth%20v.%20Berkowitz&f=false
@4 That link goes to a book which lays out in more detail (the technical legal details) what constitutes rape and additional case studies.
@5 That link also has a little more details on this particular case. Additionally, this next link claims that:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1994/06/06-10-94tdc/06-10-94dnews-5.asp
It reminds me of a letter I read once (to a mrs manners knock off) describing being at a party where an ex-boyfriend was and when she went out to her car he followed her out and kept trying to take off her pants. She kept saying no and pulling her pants back up. But she was more worried about causing a fuss and embarrassment and didn’t call for help. Eventually she gave up and just got it over with. (She was writing in for relationship advice because her boyfriend was upset she “let” him and the manners person had to actually *tell* her that was rape).
I don’t think I would have reacted the same as them in similar situations, I’m not afraid to express myself, but it sounds like other people due to their socialization or due to concern for their victimizer might not be so assertive.
Comment by barnetto — September 3, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Like no. 5, I didn’t understand (based on the factual recounting) why the girl didn’t just stand up and walk out of the room.
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 3, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Assuming the details as stated, I’d say this is clearly rape. If somebody knocks on the door, walks in past you when you answer, ignores your queries as to why they’re there, starts searching your house, finds your ipod, and ignoring your request to put it back walks out with it, it’s theft. Period. Doesn’t matter if you opened the door, didn’t tackle the guy, and didn’t yell.
I fear most Mormons might not agree with me. However, just because the study correlates hierarchical gender values with likelihood of acquittal doesn’t imply a cause and effect. I think it’s more likely that the two correlate with another value — namely, one of expecting people to take personal responsibility. Mormons have that in abundance. I think most would expect the woman involved to put up resistance — that it’s her responsibility to resist. If she doesn’t, they’d say it’s like giving consent.
In other words, I don’t think an acceptance of “hierarchal gender roles” has anything to do with it, other than that it correlates with expecting people to take personal responsibility — to take a stand.
Comment by Martin — September 3, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
I say yes. I can absolutely see how a woman would distance herself and have distance (like looking down on the situation from somewhere else). Not knowing her mind I say rape. No real man would continue if he is in ANY doubt that his partner is unsure.
Comment by britt — September 3, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Legal definition of rape aside, I agree with Kaimi that the results of Kahan’s study regarding gender roles and rape are troubling in the context of Mormon culture, which requires deference to an all-male leadership.
I’m curious whether the study ascribed the hierarchical gender roles held by the interviewees to religious influences or to familial influences or some other sociological influence?
I’d wager that religious influences were the strongest indicator that the interviewee said no rape occurred.
Comment by ECS — September 3, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
I would actually like to revise my comment.
I would like to know if the man in question denied that she said “no.” I think the case hinges on this one question.
If the man admitted that the woman did indeed repeatedly say “no,” then it is unquestionably rape. However, if he denied that she said “no,” the case would become a typical case of “he said, she said.” Due to the lack of evidence of force, there wouldn’t be enough to prove that the man was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Comment by Hay — September 3, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
I agree with Martin. This was rape.
Many women who have been victimized in the past will dissociate in such a situation, and may be physically or emotionally incapable of struggling. If a man is attempting to have sex with a woman and the word “no” passes her lips, that should be a really big, huge, massive hint that she may very well come back the next morning with the police in tow and accuse him of rape. He needs to stop right then and there.
Comment by Lorian — September 3, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Well I just shocked myself. When I read the description of the girl in a friends dorm room I didn’t consider it to be rape. My reaction was along the lines of it appearing to be a girl who thought she should say no because she wanted to be a ‘good girl’ but also liked what was happening and didn’t put up a ‘fight’.
I am disgusted to observe this reaction from myself!!! I am very bothered by the fact that I have been raised since birth in an environment of gender hierarchy. I definitely have noticed its effects on me. I am very mad at myself for blindly accepting these ideas for so long. Thank you everyone at fmh for re-educating me.
To be clear, I consider the situation to be rape as the girl said ‘no’ and men need to respect that word no matter what.
I once had to yell at my husband and push him off me because he wasn’t listening to ‘no’ and thought he could convince me if he just kept going. I know that made him stop and think about his behaviour and his way of thinking in this area. He is now more respectful and considerate when I say that I am not in the mood. He is a wonderful husband, in this area he just needed to adjust his ideas of what is appropriate. I think the incident scared him a little too, he would absolutely hate to think that he had in any way violated me.
Comment by Maureen — September 3, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
I cannot call it rape. She kissed him back. She did not take any action to leave. She has to have some obligation here. I would not see her “no”s by themselves as determinative. Because there was clearly also other conversation, moaning, reciprocity etc. It doesn’t sound like the guy thought it was rape… he was under the understandable impression that it was consensual. We women want to be treated as equals to men… yet we want to be able to be rescued when we don’t want to take any action to protect ourselves. Which is it? I can appreciate that she may have just had sex without really being that into it. But rape is a very serious crime with very serious consequences. If things like this qualify for rape, I feel that it dimishes those who have been victims of violence and assault.
Comment by StillConfused — September 3, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
I’m not that young anymore, but I was definitely raised with the idea that no means no, no exceptions. I think it’s just a matter of being open and talking about it (like we often talk about with young LDS women and sex in general).
That being said, I do find it really strange that she didn’t resist. I’d be interested in hearing her testimony, and I was unclear from the OP if the man was admitting to all the no’s or if he claimed it was completely consensual.
Comment by Enna — September 3, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
In his testimony, the man admitted that she had said no several times. However, he argued that her statements of no were mixed with other signals (kissing him back, passionate moaning) which indicated consent.
I condensed the facts into one paragraph; the Kahan article (linked in the post) spends about three pages on more detailed court testimony from both parties about the facts. (Including the ironic fact that earlier in the year the two had attended a sexual-assault awareness lecture together!)
Comment by Kaimi — September 3, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
The defendant’s testimony, cited in the article, is:
Comment by Kaimi — September 3, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
That’s really difficult. No does mean no, but man, she’s doing everything else she can to say yes. The whole situation is a shame.
Let’s just teach our girls that no means no, and a well placed kick doesn’t hurt either.
Comment by Enna — September 3, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Well, I guess it does hurt, that being the point
Comment by Enna — September 3, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
The complainant’s testimony in court, also cited in the article, differs in some ways:
[Just pasted straight in from the article, sorry about the wonky formatting.]
Comment by Kaimi — September 3, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
I think that both Hierarchal gender roles and likelihood of acquittal are both symptoms of a transactional model of sex where sex is something men get from women (either by force or by agreement) as opposed to a collaborative model where sex is something you do with someone like dancing.
People who view sex as collaborative tend to be egalitarian and draw the line for rape at proceeding with less than active consent (if she didn’t say yes, it’s rape). People who have a transactional view of sex, tend to be hierarchal and draw the line for rape at force, (if she didn’t fight him off then it’s not rape).
The thing about the transactional view of sex is that it makes all women prostitutes– the only question is what price she sells herself for (lifelong affection with room and board, or dinner and a movie?). In this worldview the difference between moral women, and immoral women is a matter of degree, and so women who wish to be considered moral will most vociferously decry those who sell themselves too cheaply, (or as in cases of rape, don’t defend themselves thoroughly enough) in an attempt to distance themselves from the sinners.
Comment by Starfoxy — September 3, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
OK, Martin, I’m going to have to upgrade my idea of you. This was clearly rape. But….this also dovetails nicely with the earlier discussion on sleepovers that turned into a discussion of how much responsibility child sexual abuse victims have for their, uh, victimization. There were those that thought that the victims could be responsible. This study by Kaimi is asking the same question with a different fact pattern.
In Anthropology, there’s actually a “rape society” scale. What makes a rape society? Patriarichal organizations, those that segregate men, give men ceremonial power over women, control how women dress, control women’s access to outside work, and who demonize women that are sexually abused (slut, asking for it, a victim that still bears responsibility). Mormonism rates at least a medium (if not higher) on such a scale.
Comment by djinn — September 3, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
In fact, what Kaimi calls “the belief in hierarchical gender roles” correlates nicely with anthropological work on the same subject. It’s cross-cultural. Interestingly enough, an easy way to tell whether a society is “pro-rape” is to see how they treat rape victims. If poorly, then high rape; if with outrage at the perpetrator, then low rape. Interestingly enough, as I recall the colonial US scored much lower on the rape scale, in that women were treated much more deferentially when accusing someone of rape. As I recall (research not quite at my fingertips.) Also, the occasional out-of-wedlock child was allowed as well. Something I didn’t mention, but women’s control of their own bodies, including sexual partners, no matter how distasteful you find that, correlates with low rape.
Comment by djinn — September 3, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
There’s a big difference btwn the victim’s version and the defendant’s version. In the study, which version was told? When I read the defendant’s version, it sounded completely consensual except for a few half-hearted “no’s”. The victim’s version sounds like there was much more pressure and some intimidation involved - that things didn’t lead naturally too far and they got carried away together, but that he had an agenda and was going to pursue it. Anyway, version 1 doesn’t sound like rape, version 2 does. I think it’s unfair to blame it all on “belief in gender-based hierarchy” if only the more innocent version was told. The defendants version sounds like more of a case of taking personal responsibility.
Comment by JES — September 3, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
This conversation makes me think the situation must be just dreadful for women in a society like Saudi Arabia. Imagine how prevalent rape must be in a place like that.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — September 3, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Yes, MikeInWeHo, rape is worst of all in Pakistan, as far as I can tell–women who accuse others of rape are themselves convicted of unlawful intercourse. Mormonism is way way way way way way way down the scale when compared to such heinous behaviors.
Comment by djinn — September 3, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
I was raped in a similar situation. I was at an acquaintance’s (or new friend) house with a friend. There were 2 other people there. The other 2 people and my friend left at the same time. They lived together and near my friend so gave her a lift home. I stayed a few minutes then asked the guy to call me a taxi. He said he didn’t know the number but the phone was in the room over there. I felt uncomfortable at that point but I thought if I just left I might have to go quite a distance before finding a taxi so I went to find the phone. The room turned out to be the bedroom. I couldn’t find the light or see the phone and then he was in back of me. He pushed me down on the bed and started kissing me. I laughed, a bit and asked for the phone saying I really had to leave it was late. He said ya ya in a minute, 1 more minute wont matter. I really wasn’t at all interested or attracted to him but kissed him back figuring I would humour him. I figured after a few minutes he would stop. I then said no really I do have to go, where’s the phone. Then said never mind I’ll just walk. At the time he was laying on top of me. He said no no I should call a taxi just wait a few minutes. I remember distinctly thinking what could I do? There was no object with in reach I could use as a weapon, he would not get off of me, if I yelled no one would here me. I tried to resist a little testing out how he would react and he became more forceful. Saying no had no effect. I out right said I did not want to do this. He continued. I just laid there. He raped me then and only then got off of me. I could have screamed in vain I could have fought and gotten beaten up and I know if all of that happened the emotional trauma would have been more serious too. As soon as he rolled off he passed me the phone and see that was pretty good wasn’t it. I took the phone called a taxi and left sating nothing to him. I never reported it, never told anyone until now. I guess part of me thought I should have not gotten into that situation and that since I didn’t fight and have marks etc no one would believe me. I also was better able to block it out by just ignoring it.
No means No.
Comment by Lizzy — September 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Yes, it is rape! Sadly, 1/4 of young women and 1/7 of our young women will be sexually assaulted. We need to train our youth in self-defense techniques, in prevention methods and recovery principles from sexual abuse. Many of our adults and youth have been victimized. They deserve our compassion, and church leaders need to be aware that sexual abuse is a serious problem. Many of our youth and adults suffer with PTSD and other issues because they have been abused.
Comment by Carol — September 3, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
I have the same question as JES - what description of facts did the people in the study see?. Just reading Kaimi’s summary in the OP, I wasn’t sure what to think. But, the woman’s account of events screams rape. It makes me sick to my stomach that a man could so completely disregard a woman. It’s as if she wasn’t even there.
Lizzy, I was heartbroken to read your story right after that. I am so sorry you went through that.
Comment by Stephanie — September 3, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
Long time reader, first time commenter.
I was nearly raped in the same way when I was 19. I thought (naively) that we were just going to kiss, nothing more. Then he started taking off my clothing. I kept saying no, over and over again, even though he was still kissing me and I was kissing back. I thought I had the situation in control, but I clearly didn’t. Finally, I said “you can’t do this, you don’t have a condom and I could get pregnant.” Some how those words got through his mind and he stopped and I could make my way to the door and leave.
With regards to the woman in question, moaning and kissing back, there is new biological evidence that says women experience physical arousal even when they do not want sex emotionally as a means of protecting their bodies from physical damage during a rape. I have linked to a NYTimes article about this research, though warning, it does get a little graphic about the scientific experiments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?scp=10&sq=female+sexuality&st=nyt
In sum, no means no, always. And if we are worried about our sons being accused of rape, they should always remember that mantra.
Comment by NB — September 3, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Carol, we do enough to teach girls self defense. We do not teach boys enough respect.
I can understand how victims might feel embarassed, intimidated, and fearful that fighting back might only make it worse. No means no.
Comment by Char — September 3, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
This cannot be said enough. And on the other side of this we have turned ‘rapists’ into unspeakable monsters, so much so that when a person we know is accused of rape we compare that person to the bogeyman and say “Oh no, he’s not that kind of monster. She must be lying.”
If huge numbers of women have been raped (perhaps not 1 in 4, but certainly far more than go to trial) then chances are very good that you know a rapist. And chances are very good that he doesn’t even think that what he did was rape.
Comment by Starfoxy — September 3, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
Lizzy, I am so sorrry for what you’ve endured. Have you yet found a good therapist to guide you through recovery?
Martin’s analogy should help clear it up for anyone that doesn’t believe this case is rape. Defendant admitted in testimony that she said no. I don’t care how erotically it may or may not have been said, because NO MEANS NO always.
Comment by MchllChndlr — September 3, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
I have a good friend who was practicing piano one day, in one of those basement, soundproof, music practice rooms at BYU, with the door open, when a guy comes into her room and compliments her piano playing, saying that her music had “beckoned” him. She was startled by the entry of this man but thanked him. He asked if she would please continue playing her beautiful music. She was nervous about suddenly being alone with a strange man in a soundproof room, but she didn’t want to jump to conclusions, or be rude after he was so complimentary, and was too timid to tell him to leave. She started to play again, and the guy closed the door, and started rubbing her shoulders while she played, telling her that music really “moved” him. She was extremely uncomfortable at this point, but continued playing, hoping he would leave. He then started groping her. At this point she was terrified, knowing that he could easily over power her, that no one would hear her if she started screaming. He never asked permission to touch her. I’m not sure if she ever actually said the word: “no”, but it’s important to note that this friend is not at all a typically shy, timid or mousy person. The whole situation happened so quickly and when she had realized that she was suddenly extremely vulnerable, she just froze in terror.
When she told me what happened there were several things going through my head. Embarrassingly, my first instinct was to wonder why she didn’t have the door locked in the first place, or why she didn’t ask him to leave when he first came in, or why she didn’t resist more. I dismissed those thoughts immediately, knowing that hindsight is 20/20. I listened to her and encouraged her to go to the police. She did, but it didn’t go anywhere because they needed her to ID him out of a line up, and it was too overwhelming for her to think that she’d have to see that creep again.
Later on that year, I was taking an illustration class at UVSC. My professor came over to look at my drawing. He said I didn’t have the lighting quite right and invited me to come into another room so he could set up a lamp and show me how the light would naturally fall person’s face. I went into the room, which was dark and he locked the door behind us with a key. He came closer and started touching my face saying he was showing me where the light would hit if it were lit from below. Immediately alarm bells went off in my head, but I didn’t want to jump to conclusions, yet I wasn’t sure about why he felt the need to lock the door, or about his intentions. I immediately could empathize with how my friend must have felt when that guy had first entered the practice room. Luckily, at that moment another student came knocking on the door looking for the professor, giving me a good excuse to leave. I was surprised at how overwhelming that short experience was while it was happening. I always imagined myself being more combative and assertive if someone crossed a personal boundary. I think I would be if it was more blatant, (like a strange man barging into my room at night), but being unsure about what the intentions were, and being in a more nuanced social situation, I froze, just like my friend.
Comment by Meisha — September 3, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
For me that situation described in the original post is rape. I have taken some self-defense classes and that what I have been taught. No means no, but I think sometimes in our culture guys get the impression that no means yes especially if the girl is giving some physical response.
Girls and boys need to be taught about self-defense, but I have to wonder about what boys are taught in regards to consent. For example I have a friend who has all boys and some how we got on the subject of date rape and she said she was so glad she didn’t have to worry about that or talk to her kids about it because they are boys. I wasn’t exactly sure how to respond, with trying to make it sound like I thought her sons were going to date rape someone, but I said have you considered talking to you boys about consent and what that means. I wonder if we as society were better at this if it would help.
I mean really we talk a lot about telling our kids to not let someone touch them and tell us if they do, but how often do we tell kids that they themselves should not be doing this.
If I ever have any sons, I plan to tell them no means no and that cannot share the intimate parts of themselves with anyone without mutual consent and I already do this with my daughter on an age approriate level.
For me in YW I was taught that men just can’t control themselves after a certain point, like you neck too much or start petting. So it was up to us young ladies to keep the rules in the relationship and if we didn’t we might go to far. What a scary lesson? That men just can’t control themselves after a certain point?!?!? and are not accountable?!?!? What would that be like for the YM listening to the same lesson? It was like we girls were responsible for the YM’s behavior. I was told this more than once in YW, college and in settings with girls and guys as part of chastity lessons.
That type of chastity lesson would seem to me to create situations in which a girl could get raped (they start kissing and then she says no, but he keeps going anyway because he can’t control himself), but the guy doesn’t realize he did anything wrong in regards to rape or the girl blames herself completely.
I know this is long, just my thoughts on this topic.
Comment by Violet — September 3, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
I meant to say without trying to make it sound like her sons were going to date rape someone. Oops!
Comment by Violet — September 3, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
I’m with those who say No means NO.
Comment by Dan — September 3, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
The people questioning if the victim fought back or not clearly do not understand what it’s like to be physically intimidated and culturally indoctrinated from the time you’re born as a girl to always “be nice.” I believe the victim.
My heart goes out to all the women reading this who have been raped. Lizzy, you are so brave to share your story. I highly doubt that if you had gone to the police anything would have happened. I was just discussing a similar situation involving someone I know with my brother-in-law, who is a police officer in a large city. He highly doubts any rape cases and said that most situations are just a girl regretting something she has done and cries rape to get out of it. Needless to say this sickened and saddened me.
Comment by Risa — September 3, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
the “he said, she said” is definately a problem. If we KNEW the facts it would be different, but because likely no one else was there and there was probably no physical evidence to back up the claim it was rape I worry that by stating that such a situation is rape would be giving the “go ahead” to those who want revenge on ex-boyfriends etc etc. While a think that if there was a way to KNOW that these things happened then it would be rape.
Comment by April — September 3, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
The summary left out the part where he was using the weight of his body to hold her down. Her statement makes more sense than the summary does — the summary made her behavior sound really strange.
With that piece added, it’s easier to call this a rape. I’m great with “no means no, ” and that going ahead when told “no” is rape. I get that. I have no sympathy for the jerk roommate under any account. But I couldn’t wrap my head around just sitting there saying “no… no…” and doing nothing to stop it. Having the guy using his size not only as an intimidation tactic, but as a physical force — yeah, it makes sense.
It’s rape.
Comment by Blain — September 3, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
It’s not “he said, she said” when they both claim she said “no.” No is no. It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think this wasn’t rape.
I appreciate having this brought to my attention so I can make sure that my son never believes that “no” can mean consent.
I can see how a patriarchal society could add to the problem.
Lizzy, thanks for sharing your story. I am so sorry to hear about what you went through. My words don’t sound like enough, and they really aren’t, but I still feel like I want to tell you how sorry I am for you.
Comment by The Milk (of the gospel) — September 3, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
Blain, we posted at the same time. I wasn’t specifically responding to your post.
Comment by The Milk (of the gospel) — September 3, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
I have many thoughts swirling about my mind right now. My older sister was a victim of rape a number of years ago. My parents woke me in the middle of the night to wait for her phone call as they made the trip to Utah to pick her up late on Halloween night. The aftermath of the experience was very difficult, namely for my sister of course, but also for my big Mormon family who didn’t know how to deal with it. The subject was closed not even a month after it happened–as if it never happened at all. In my short 25 years of life, I’ve never experienced as much heartache as I did when I listened to my sister recount the horrendous rape in every detail over the phone. I was completely shell-shocked and coming from the sheltered (hierarchical gender roles included) background that I did, I was overwhelmed with the gravity of the situation. Lizzy, my heart aches for you as well.
After years of advocating for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault on campus and in the community (some way of channeling all of the pent up anger I had for my sister’s perpetrator) I can say confidently that the scenario illustrated in the OP was rape (in both the defendant’s and victim’s account). I am bothered to read comments that so easily place the onus on the victim and which seem to have such unending compassion for the [alleged] perpetrator.
A number of the ideas floating around on this post seem to be the type of myths that continually perpetuate victim-blaming in college campus culture, courtrooms and elsewhere. I was a close advocate on a number of 1st degree rape trials in Albany County, WY. Mind you, the county has never had a 1st degree rape conviction. I was the hospital responder to a rape case in which the evidence could not have been more clear (we’re talking hard, physical evidence) yet the defendant walked away from the trial completely free. Meanwhile, the life of a young girl was irrevocably damaged. I believe the closing defense argument went something like this “Can you [the jury] rest well with the weight of this falsely accused young man’s future on your conscience?”
It was all about him. Let’s forget about the future of the young woman who is undoubtedly still dealing with the demons of her experiences, much like my older sister. Just the other day my younger sister informed me of a recent campus orientation “skit” that was performed in which the moral of the story was “Don’t sleep with anyone when you’re intoxicated, she will probably cry rape and ruin your life.”
What gives? Why is there such a strong notion that women so often change their minds in the morning? Or worse that they are responsible?
Sorry for the long-windedness…
Comment by jlucero — September 4, 2009 @ 12:01 am
It’s rape. Just reading the OP I was angered that anyone would think this girl wanted it. When I read her account I wondered why only his version was given in the OP.
I had my wisdom teeth out between winter and spring terms at BYU in 1974. I was 18 and had never even been kissed. I took a pain pill and stayed home from FHE to sleep. My sister came home to find her boyfriend’s roommate on top of my marginally conscious body kissing, grinding, and undressing himself. She screamed, other neighbors came. Fortunately, I was still dressed. She called the bishop and the cops, who came. Both of them glossed it over, when the charismatic returned missionary claimed I had enjoyed it. Bishop even tried to talk to me the next Sunday about my worthiness. I wouldn’t even go in his office without my sister. She gave him an earful. He apologized, but took no action with the creep.
I couldn’t be alone in a room with a man , even with the door open until I got some good counseling. I am still terrified of anesthesia and pain meds. I have arranged to have my husband, or a trusted girlfriend, present during procedures. Lizzy, the counseling helped me a lot. No one imagines me as a victim anymore, not even me. I married a convert whose parents have a great marriage. My daughters are strong, and my sons are respectful and have egalitarian marriages.
I’ve been posting long enough that many of you know the axe I sometimes grind is the gulf between Mormon culture and the gospel of the Church.
Comment by Karen — September 4, 2009 @ 12:01 am
On the surface from the OP, I would say it was rape.
Yet, I would like to know how drunk she was, for she may not have been able to put together a better defense than saying “No” if she was really far drunk. Was she drugged at the bar? That’s also quite possible. Those would make it look more like rape to me.
I also think back to the movie “The Accused”, based on a real event. First, their was more of “he said, she said” issues. Then, the attackers got off lightly, due to her “loose” character. Then, she targets successfully those who were cheering them on.
WARNING: Somewhat graphic below!
Then, there was another real incident, in 1989 in NJ, that launched a local firestorm. It’s in the book & movie, “Our Guys”, where a mentally challenge 17 year old girl was conned into going into a basement game room by fellow high school boys, then asked/forced to do several sexual acts, then raped with a broom, then a small baseball bat. 5 boys were involved in the acts/assaults, but only one of them had sisters. 8 boys had started watching at the start, but did not actively participate, and 6 of the 8 left during all this.
At the trial of the 5 (unlike “The Accused”, those watching were not tried), the girl’s reputation was smeared as part of the defense. She was said to be a Lolita type, but the Jury convicted the 5, and after many appeals, they went to the Youth Authority system. Some of the locals felt it was the girl’s fault for not trying to stop them. The father of 1 of the 5 felt community service would be enough punishment, not the YA system.
Some of the 5 got into further Legal scrapes after their prison release, with one accused involved in another rape case.
Maybe this was a slight hijack, but the “he said, she said” contentions keep going on in a variety of ways. And, with a variety of excuses.
Comment by Mike H. — September 4, 2009 @ 12:04 am
44 — NP. It didn’t seem to be directed at what I said anyhow, but thanks for clarifying.
Comment by Blain — September 4, 2009 @ 12:07 am
(haven’t read all the comments)
When you said that belief in hierarchical gender roles influences how you see the case, I was confused — I actually thought that someone who believes men are in charge would be MORE inclined to consider it rape bec. if the victim in this case were also a believer in hierarchical gender roles, she would feel less empowerment to say “no,” right, and so whatever physical and verbal intimidation were brought to bear in the rape would be augmented by the “belief in hierarchical gender roles.”
If I believe, instead, in egalitarian gender roles, then I feel ashamed of this woman, and more inclined to think she might not really have been “raped” because she was so passive in her “no.” If she’s an equal, why did she let it happen?
Comment by Jane — September 4, 2009 @ 12:23 am
I see what you’re saying, Jane, but I think the missing factor which plays in here is the tendency to assume that the only way to get raped is either by putting oneself in an “unsafe position,” implying personal responsibility for going where one “should not” have gone, or by pushing a good man beyond his ability to control his own actions (”leading him on…”). Both of these concepts assume that women bear more responsibility for their own safety than do men. They assume that women have an obligation to avoid any situation where a man might be tempted to rape them — either because they have “deliberately” gone to an unsafe location, or because they have behaved in a manner which was too seductive and caused the man to “get the wrong idea.”
Men are relieved of responsibility in these situations by the fact that the woman “asked for it.” We know that “good girls” don’t “ask for it.”
Women who view gender relationships as hierarchical tend to also be women who view themselves as “good girls” and tend to buy into a sense of hyper-responsibility which would lead them to believe that going out alone after dark is “asking for it,” and being alone with a male colleague is “asking for it.” (Speaking in generalities, here — no offense intended and your mileage may vary.) Therefore, they would be more likely to judge a woman who was raped in such a situation more harshly, and to relieve the man of some or all of his responsibility.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 12:38 am
One fascinating portion of the Kahan article was its argument that the real difference was not between men and women, but between traditional women and the nontraditional women who they see as a threat. For instance, the Kahan article notes:
.
Really, don’t just rely on my short summary, take a look at the whole Kahan article (free download from SSRN), it’s a very interesting discussion.
Comment by Kaimi — September 4, 2009 @ 1:23 am
I found this blog post written by Harriet Jones to be extremely powerful- the reason women don’t fight back? Especially in a tenuous social situation? They have been socially conditioned not to, their entire lives.
I can’t talk about this because it makes me feel physically ill, but I thought this was very pertinent from the comments as well
Comment by L — September 4, 2009 @ 3:18 am
Jane,
It is a different thing to believe in egalitarian gender roles, and to believe that we live in an egalitarian society. In other words, one can believe that we should be egalitarian, that we’d all be better off in an egalitarian culture, but still acknowledge that we actually live with all kinds of inequalities.
Thus the mistake in saying of a woman “she’s an equal, why did she let it happen?” assumes not that she’s of equal worth or potential (which is true of you believe in equality) but that she has equal power and equal opportunities (which is just not true).
Comment by fMhLisa — September 4, 2009 @ 3:52 am
If the guy is worried she might change her mind in the morning, they’re obviously not in a secure enough relationship to be having sex.
The whole egalitarian thing…maybe that would help her say no-maybe-it’s still shocking and people react differently to shock…but it wouldn’t magically change a man’s and woman’s bodies. Men are just stronger. It’s frighteningly true if you’ve ever been in a situation similar to this. You can work out all you want, feel strong, be told you are strong, and some idiot who’s never been inside a gym can muscle you anywhere.
I think sometimes we SO don’t want this kind of thing to happen to us or people we love that we like to think we could have more power over the situation than we really EVER could. If I just don’t do x, y, or z…than I can avoid that horrid awfulness. Parents do that when they hear of other parents struggling with their children. It absolutely ads to the suffering of the already suffering party and protects no one.
Comment by britt — September 4, 2009 @ 4:18 am
Women are at an added disadvantage in our society because of the unspoken cultural tradition that suggests that “Men have control over women’s sexuality and reproductive process”.
This case was clearly a discriminatory one against the victim, especially with an all male Supreme Court justices deciding the case. Hello?
How are they possibly going to see it from her point of view?
Also, one point that seemed to be missed by the justices is that she was intoxicated. This should have also influenced their decision towards finding him guilty. He was the one who initiated it, and she told him no. He is guilty as *@#$%.
Unfortunately it is true that women are taught to be submissive, its part of the culture. Men are cultured to be assertive. It needs to change. Violent crime in America is perpetrated by men, and the women in most cases are the victims.
Unfortunately, women’s programming from birth makes them vulnerable to such attacks. They need to be programmed to recognize a sexist attack when they see it. Perhaps if they were schooled on the importance of asserting their dominance towards men rather than there submissiveness maybe more of these attacks can be thwarted.
The social construction of her gender obviously did not help her in:
1- thwarting the attack
2- winning the trial against the perpetrator
Unfortunately women are programmed more to “fight each other” rather than the sexist men they encounter.
Also, the devaluation of women in leadership positions is going to continue to be a stumbling block towards overcoming women’s sexist oppression. Why weren’t there any women justices available for this case?
Comment by S. — September 4, 2009 @ 5:26 am
In both cases, that is clearly sexual assault. The summary might lead one somewhere else, but that is sexual assault. And Lizzy’s example made me so sad.
One of the problems with studies is that they tend to be written to support their conclusions. I was curious as well once you made that point.
Let me add that most counties in the United States have rape crisis centers you can call for help, referrals to good counseling and for someone to listen to you. Most serve the entire population (including gays and lesbians who have been raped or beaten by each other) and a good number of calls are from people whose rapes occurred a significant period of time in the past. If you are under eighteen, there are Child Advocacy centers (I use capital letters since that name is used just about everywhere) you can call.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 4, 2009 @ 6:40 am
I’m more than mildly horrified at the commenters who are citing her physical response as “evidence” that it wasn’t a rape. That’s incredibly sexist.
Our bodies can orgasm and respond during even an incredibly brutal rape, and it’s not our fault. Period. I can’t imagine anything as horrifying as having an orgasm from a rape, it would give the man who did it “proof” that I was enjoying it.
Also, I see this situation as a rape, full stop. She was probably scared and intimidated. Women are socialized to be polite to men, which is problematic in so many ways - there was a post at this very site about it months ago! She probably felt like she couldn’t leave, and then when he started abusing her, she really could do nothing.
Comment by Moonbeam — September 4, 2009 @ 7:23 am
Britt, thanks for making this point. I hadn’t really thought of it that way, but I think I find myself doing that. I want to believe that I’m independent and in control, and therefore can protect myself. I can see how that would easily turn to also feeling like it’s my fault or responsibility is someone else does something to me that I simply don’t have the power to stop.
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 8:03 am
I think it has a lot to do with the conflict between what women feel: we actually like sex, and what women are taught: good girls don’t like sex. So we assume (wrongfully) that the girl liked/wanted to have sex but then felt guilty later.
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 8:07 am
If, as the post states, the legal definition of rape requires force (I’m assuming physical force rather than coercion), then based on the facts, this cannot be rape. Kaimi made it clear that no physical force was used. I don’t know the applicable laws, it seems that rape requires physical force and indecent assault does not.
If you want it to be rape whenever a woman says “no” and a man still has sex with her (even if no physical force is used), then you have to change the law. It’s easy to claim a bunch of men are biased or bigoted, but that may be a gut reaction to a disturbing scenario rather than an unbiased application of the law. Based on the info Kaimi provided, it seems that the all-male court applied the law as-written, just as they swore an oath to do.
Comment by adam e. — September 4, 2009 @ 8:53 am
I hope that having a desire to raise strong daughters would help me teach them that they should fight like hell for whatever they do or don’t want to do, whether that be someone they sleep or don’t sleep with, what they do in their careers, and anything else they want to accomplish in their lives. However, I have never been in that situation so can’t speak accurately as to what I would do.
I am disturbed that on one side we seem to assume that a woman would change her mind after consensual sex, and on the other that it would never happen. We seem so intent on proving our points that we seem unable to realize that both scenarios happen.
Comment by Emily — September 4, 2009 @ 8:54 am
If the Berkowitz jury was filled with women from my (Utah) ward after reading #22 comments I am confident he would be found guilty, but I think this has more to do with our experiences with sex abuse than our view on gender roles. I will be reading this next time we get together and can’t wait to hear what they think. Thanks Kaimi for the great post and thanks #22 for clarifying.
Out of five girls in my family 4 of us were the victims of childhood sex abuse. The effects this had on us as women and how we see men is striking. I learned to say yes, it isn’t until now that I am even beginning to learn to say no. My younger sister became very shy. She wore her shirts buttoned all the way to the top and long sleeves, she also wore a oversized coat all of the time, regardless of the weather. The summer after she graduated from high school she went on a blind date with a man who had came into the place she was working. Instead of taking her to dinner he took her for a drive up a lonely canyon. When he pulled over and tried to kiss her (she had never been kissed) she got out of the car to walk home. He followed her and ended up raping her off of the side of the road. She said No, but never fought back. She was alone no one would hear her. After he was finished he drove her home. At the time she told no one. She ended up pregnant and a had an abortion, on her own with no support. Eventually she went to church counseling. She was encouraged to begin her repentance process by confessing of her sins to her bishop. She left the church, God must be a cruel God if this is what he believed was how she summed up the situation. Eight years later she is just beginning to talk about the effects this has had on her. She has since had her first baby, a girl.
Comment by just me — September 4, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Personal experience from the male side: I was a convert in my late teens, and my first girlfriend (LDS) was convinced that just kissing was sinful, let alone other behaviors. So I didn’t have a lot of sexual experience. When I went to (a non-BYU) college and had my first non-LDS girlfriend, she wanted to move *very* fast, and although I asked that we slow down the physical affection a little, she didn’t listen and we went to “second base” at her initiation. Faith in the church notwithstanding, I was a red-blooded teenage boy and it was a lot of fun fooling around (especially after my cold fish of a first girlfriend).
Later in our relationship, there was a specific incident in which she had removed most of her clothing, we were fooling around, I was prepared to go further than second base, and suddenly she said “Stop!” It took about 5 seconds for it to sink in, at which point I stopped what I was doing and said, “Whoa, sorry, sorry, I’m stopping.” I apologized, we mutually agreed to slow things down. She was a bit traumatized for a few days, then she once again initiated pretty intense physical affection. Shortly afterwards, I dumped her both because I was confused and because my Mormon conscience had finally woken up and told me to knock off the “necking and petting.”
I’m not sure why she had set that limit, but she did, and although it had taken me a second to switch gears I respected it. But in that short time where my, uh, second head was doing the thinking, I was inarguably acting without her consent. She could very easily have destroyed my life by leveling charges against me, and she wouldn’t have been 100% wrong in doing so. To this day I’m grateful that she didn’t, and I’m sorry that I screwed things up.
But I don’t know how she’d tell this story. And that’s why I have no idea what to conclude about the story in the OP.
Comment by anon — September 4, 2009 @ 9:40 am
#54 britt ~ Men are just stronger. It’s frighteningly true if you’ve ever been in a situation similar to this. You can work out all you want, feel strong, be told you are strong, and some idiot who’s never been inside a gym can muscle you anywhere.
This is so true, and it annoys me to know end.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — September 4, 2009 @ 9:47 am
*no end
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — September 4, 2009 @ 9:48 am
This is a fantastic example that correlation is not causation.
Comment by Matt W. — September 4, 2009 @ 9:52 am
I think the post and comment L quoted in #52 make great points. It’s easy in hindsight to say a rape victim should have done this or that or the other, but especially in date rape cases, the lead-up to the rape is likely to differ little from lots of other come-ons a woman may experience. And if she reacts strongly to all of them–which would be the best response from the perspective of rape prevention–she’s going to be perceived as overly touchy and emotional. But if she generally goes along to get along like women are so much socialized to do, she is at risk for the times when the come-ons turn into rape.
Comment by Ziff — September 4, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Something I found very surprising when I took my HEPE class at BYU when we got to the section on rape and sexual assault (and forgive me, the writings on it put it much better) : One option for dealing with that sort of situation is to simply take it. You can fight back, you can scream/yell, you can try to talk him out of it, but if you feel like you cannot safely fight back, you should NOT feel guilty about ‘letting it happen’. The important thing is that you survive the encounter, however you can.
If our laws do not reflect this, than they should be changed.
I’d like to think I’d also “fight like hell” if I was ever in that situation, but I just don’t know — I’m lucky enough for this never to have been an issue.
Here’s the thing. It’s NOT her job to fight back. It’s HIS JOB to NOT RAPE HER. It doesn’t matter what she’s wearing, or how much she’s had to drink, or what their relationship was like before the incident, or who she’s had sex with before. She didn’t want it, and he did, and he took what he wanted from her.
We can argue about egalitarianism all we want, but the idea that women are objects designed to please men is all over our culture and our media and is imprinted in our minds.
Comment by Ashley — September 4, 2009 @ 10:03 am
I also had a similar experience but managed to take it to the next level of insanity all on my own. I was only 20 and thought the friend I was visiting abroad was a real gentleman. When he started kissing me, I tried to be polite. I didn’t want to embarrass him or spoil our friendship. As he proceeded, I said “No. I don’t want to,” repeatedly. As he continued, my mind raced but was numb at the same time. I could not grasp that this was actually happening. I could not get a grip on reality. I was absolutely not capable of screaming or fighting. I later realized that during the event I had been very afraid that if I resisted more aggressively, he would have tried to cover my mouth and ended up smothering me. And part of me deep down inside must have felt I wasn’t worth the fight. I had very low self-esteem.
I’m so embarrassed to admit it but, I continued to stay with him for a couple of weeks and he did it again and then I just started to try and participate. And somehow, I worked it into my mind that we were a couple and we should get married (who else would want me?) and he hadn’t done anything wrong. Eight years later, this is beyond ridiculous to me. What the hell was wrong with me?!
He was so happy. When I left for home, it was with the understanding we were engaged. I went home and discovered I was pregnant. Then I started to get angry. Hindsight is 20/20. He couldn’t understand this 180. I broke off contact with him and went on to have my child and later marry someone else. This man is heartbroken. He doesn’t understand what went wrong and why he lost his fiancee and child. And I feel so sick about it all. No one understands why I did what I did. I don’t even understand it. I have an exceptionally high IQ. I AM an intelligent person. How did I manage to bleep my life up so royally?
Well, I can’t accept all the blame. I have my upbringing in the church to thank as well.
I certainly will not be teaching my daughters that “their virtue is worth their very lives.”
Comment by Shamefacedly Anon. — September 4, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Why, WHY should women have to scream, slap, yell, cry in order to emphasize their “No’s”??
Why isn’t no enough?
I can completely empathize with this girl, I’ve been there. You realize that you can’t fight this person off. You think “ok, I’ll just tell him no, put up with a kiss or two, God he’s annoying, what an @$$”. But when it comes down to it? You can’t fight off a man. And sometimes that fear just makes you shut down, you think “if I don’t fight, maybe he won’t hit me… maybe it won’t hurt as much.. maybe it will be over faster”.
No is no. Women shouldn’t have to add on to no. It’s no.
Comment by sophia*rising — September 4, 2009 @ 10:30 am
I just wanted to second what moonbeam said. The orgasm response is part of the autonomic (involuntary) nervious system. How a woman’s (or a man’s for that matter) body behaves during a sexual assault has nothing at all to do with whether or not the sexual assault took place.
Comment by djinn — September 4, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I find Kahan’s study extremely disturbing in the context of our Mormon culture, especially the pronounced differences between hierarchical and egaliatarian women (lots to think about). However, since women really don’t have any institutional power to pass ecclesiastical judgement in the church, my concern lies more with the men who subscribe to hierarchical gender roles. If this young woman were discussing this rape with her very traditional bishop, what would his response be? My best guess of what his response would be makes me shudder.
Comment by Bree — September 4, 2009 @ 10:38 am
If it really was just token resistance, and the woman was actually willing, then it would be good for a people to doubt the accuser’s claims. The accused shouldn’t be convicted unless there’s solid evidence that the act was indeed non-consensual.
Defendants should be “innocent until proven guilty,” not “guilty until proven innocent.” Thus, the default position for any case in which someone is accused of committing a crime should be doubt.
Comment by The Celestial Heretic — September 4, 2009 @ 10:44 am
I’m afraid the bishop’s response might include something like “well, if you hadn’t had that one drink…”
Comment by Bree — September 4, 2009 @ 10:44 am
There are such good comments on this post. We women are so trained to mistrust our feelings, not make a scene, get along….
I worked in the Library a while back. The police came to give us a talk about predators. (There was a stalker/rapist on the loose in town at the time). We’d had some really creepy guy come in to the library fairly often - either crazy or drugged. The policeman said “why didn’t you call the police?” The librarian said she’d thought about it, but was
afraid she might be wrong about him being a threat. The cop said “Well! How about being afraid that you might be right!!”
An “Ah So” moment if ever there was one.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 4, 2009 @ 10:58 am
as a little girl, i was molested. i didn’t say no because i didn’t know what was going on, only that it made me feel yucky and dirty and naughty. it wasn’t until my cousin was molested by the same person that I realized that I had been violated.
fast forward a few years and there I am consenting to parts of sex but realizing that it was dangerous and saying no. i couldn’t fight back, i had already agreed, right? but i still said “no”, crying “please stop” but he didn’t.
he was in control, i wasn’t but i guess it’s my fault because I was the bad girl who let him get that close to begin with, right?
the same persons who would never say a child is accountable for being molested are quick to point the finger at a 19 year old college girl because she chose to be there or she didn’t fight back.
i don’t know about you, but 19 is hardly a grown woman with all of the competence and history as women such as ourselves.
but… even though i think i’d fight like hell to get away from the guy that attacks me in the parking lot , i might not be so quick to flee from a socially awkward yet potentially dangerous situation because i’ve been conditioned to not be uptight, uppity, bitchy [insert any one of thousands of words designed to degrade women here]
Comment by mfranti — September 4, 2009 @ 11:04 am
also,
does anyone else here think it’s a bit weird that a girl would go visit her boyfriend but end up f*&ing her boyfriend’s roommate that she just met 15 minutes prior?
god, if that’s not assuming the absolute worst about a girl…
(unless it was their daughter, of course)
Comment by mfranti — September 4, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I think that he said she said rape cases are really hard to pass judgement on. I wanted to share a story that one of my close very conservative LDS friends shared with me.
He was serving on a jury in a major US city as a jury foreman on a rape case. It was a classic he said she said case. The prosecuters/victim claimed it was rape and the defense and defendant claimed it was consensual. The defendant was a good looking male whose wife attended the trial. The defense did a pretty good job claiming it was consensual at trial.
The jury went back to deliberate and most of the jurors including my friend was leaning toward aquittal. Then according to my friend the spirit whispered to him to take a closer look at the trial transcripts and police reports. After the jury reviewed the transcripts they decided he was guilty.
Once the verdict was announced my friend was approached by a very happy prosecuter. This man informed my friend that this was the third time in the last decade that this man had been on trial for rape and had been found not guilty twice before by juries. The prosecuter then said that the DA’s office considered him a dangerous predator and had been keeping tabs on him waiting for another chance to prosecute him.
Comment by bbell — September 4, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Women are in a frightening position in these situations. We know from being told again and again that rape and murder often go hand-in-hand. We know that struggling against a rape can lead to further violence. We know that threatening to report the rape can cause the attacker to panic. He might even kill us to prevent being exposed.
I remember growing up that it was common for girls to be counseled that, should they find themselves in a situation where a man is about to rape them, they should just “go along with it,” and then try to get away safely afterwards, rather than struggle and provoke more violence against themselves. The point was not so much to stop the rape — that was going to happen one way or the other, because the man is nearly always significantly stronger. The point was to survive the rape and be able to go on living.
I think that many women who find themselves in a situation which turns out to be a bit more than they had calculated it to be switch into survival mode. Like Lizzy, they evaluate their options — can’t get away, yelling for help won’t likely bring help, struggling increases the use of force by the attacker — and find that shutting down and getting it over with may be their best (safest) option.
And then they get blamed.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 11:49 am
mfranti, I’m so sorry.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Does anyone else remember Hillary Clinton saying something along the lines of a woman being raped should just lay back and enjoy it? Or was that an urban legend? I remember hearing that when Bill was in office and found it so offensive.
Sometimes it seems like you just can’t win as a woman. You can be aggressive and be hated for it, or be submissive and be a slut. Pick your poison…
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Re: #81
That was definitely an urban legend. People love to hate Secretary Clinton, largely for highly misogynistic reasons. That rumor you heard is an excellent example of such.
Comment by Moonbeam — September 4, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
I realized late last night what it was about this post that really bothers me. Kaimi’s entire summary is essentially from the perspective of the man. Did you write it that way on purpose, Kaimi? Because that is also one of the defining characteristics (or effects) of a hierarchical society: that everything is defined by men. Women’s opinions and feelings aren’t considered. So, reading just the man’s account seems to set up the potential for the reader to sympathize with the man.
But, the woman’s account adds many more details: she was there to visit her boyfriend, she wasn’t really interested in having a conversation. When you read her account, it becomes clear that, from his perspective, his thought process was, “A girl walked into my room. I’ll have sex with her”. So, why in the world are we assessing the situation from his perspective?
That’s what really bothers me. It clearly wasn’t a case of two people getting carried away. He treated her like an object. Since when is the prevailing assumption, “A woman wants to have sex with any random man unless she shouts out no and fights”? Reading this thread has really opened my eyes. That IS the prevailing assumption in our society, and it is sick and scary. The prevailing assumption should be “Don’t touch or even get too close to a woman without her permission”. That needs to be the starting point. And when a man crosses that line, he needs to be held accountable.
I agree with several commenters above that we need to teach our sons - this is about the men in our society. They need to respect women and women’s bodies and stop assuming that women are their sexual objects unless the women fight back.
Comment by Stephanie — September 4, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Of course it was rape: she said no. It only takes once! He failed to respect her explicit rejection of his advances. And everyone who claims there was no force didn’t read the actual testimony, where it is clear he is using the strength and mass of his body to control her actions.
If being accused of rape is so awful for the poor men, why do they choose to make this kind of thing happen? She said no, and he admits he heard her say no. A man who had a sensible fear of being accused of rape would stop right then and make her give explicit verbal consent, or escort her out of the room. If I were a man I’d carry around a pad of “consent to sex” forms and ask the women to sign them before a disinterested witness before going to a private place for the intimacy.
Comment by Kai Jones — September 4, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Exactly.
Comment by Stephanie — September 4, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
When I was about 21 I was working at a camp one summer. I had already realized that I was gay but had not had any relationships, with men or women either one (I didn’t date in high school or college). I was still very torn over my sexual orientation because I knew how horrified my family would be when they found out, and I wanted very much to be able to “change” and just be like everyone else. My strict religious upbringing made me hate who I was and fear eternal damnation.
So when a young man who played drums in the summer dance band at the camp expressed an interest in me, I was excited to finally maybe have the chance to explore a “dating” relationship and see whether it would even be possible for me to “escape” my sexual attraction to my own gender. He was good looking, but I didn’t find him particularly attractive, but thought, “What the heck?” So I spent some time with him, dancing and talking.
After the dance this particular night, he asked if I’d give him a ride back to the camp, and then, without my realizing what he was doing, arranged it so that we were the last to leave, and were alone in my car in the parking lot (very isolated, out in the woods). He started kissing me and touching me, and trying to get inside my clothes. I didn’t know what to do. I wanted to see if I could develop a relationship with him, so I didn’t want to drive him away, but I was not up for what he was doing. I had never even kissed anyone before. I told him to stop. I tried to tell him kindly that I’d like to spend time talking and getting to know each other before doing stuff like that, but he just kept going back to kissing me and trying to slide his hands where they didn’t belong.
I started resisting him physically, and that’s when I felt him becoming forceful, and realized how much stronger he was than me. I’m nearly 5′11” and had always considered myself a very strong girl, but he clearly had the advantage. I started to panic, realizing that if I didn’t do something right then, I would very likely end up with no choice in the matter at all. I opened my car door and the light came on. I got out of the car and grabbed my things. He got out, too, and I started walking back to the girls camp area. He followed me the whole way, trying to convince me to come back to his room, but he stopped touching me, most likely because we were in a more populated area.
I realized that, had I been smaller, or had I not gotten out of the car when I did, things could have been very different. I was angry with him and angry with myself. I’m sure he felt like I “led him on” because I let him kiss me, but I kept pushing his hands away and telling him to stop, and he wouldn’t stop.
It seems so often in dating relationships between men and women that there is this complicated price that women must pay in compliance and acceptance of physicality in order to find out if there is any relationship to be had at all. The woman has to “give” enough that the man will continue to be interested. She is looking for intellectual and emotional connection, but he’s looking for physical gratification.
I think this is why women often find themselves in “acquaintance rape” situations, because they feel they must allow a certain level of physical intimacy in order to gain access to the emotional intimacy they are seeking. But in so doing, they find that the man’s idea of when to stop is far different than their own, and a point is quickly reached where they are unable to stop what is happening. It is frightening and makes us feel very powerless and helpless.
For some species, sex IS rape. Females come into season, and are forced to accept whatever male successfully drives away the competition. Or, worse yet, are forced to accept male after male after male until they have successfully conceived (anyone ever go to a duck pond in the spring and see a female duck near drowning from a gang attack?). We have an incredible number of instincts which come into play during sexual encounters, and for women, they tend to involve submission and compliance, where for men they often involve dominance and even sometimes violence. The emotional and hormonal processes we struggle with are powerful, and, of course, are designed to cuase our species to continue to proliferate and flourish.
But in a society where we accept that women have rights over their own bodies, and the right to control their own sexuality, we have to find ways to overcome these instincts, both our instinct as women to comply and submit, and the instincts of men to take and have and dominate. One of the ways we do this is by legally supporting a woman’s right to say “no.” Not placing any greater onus of responsibility upon her than simply refusing consent. Physical actions which transgress beyond the point where she has verbally refused consent must be punished as violation.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
60 — Then read her testimony summary in 22. There was force. He used his body mass to restrict her movement.
Comment by Blain — September 4, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
#71- going along with your statement, isn’t there actually some evidence that women will lubricate and orgasm as a defensive measure? If a women is raped but is more physically open to it, she suffers less injury then if she was not.
I had a roomie in college who had a bf for 2 weeks. She said that she was not comfortable having sex right away and that she wanted to get to know him a while first. He seemed ok with that. They were at a party, she got drunk and passed out. He put a blanket over her and carried her to a private room and had sex with her, her waking in the middle, but still out of it. The judge ruled that she never said no and he did not drug her or force her to drink so much, therefore it could not be rape. The state’s law clearly state that if a woman is incapable of saying no, it is rape and yet this judge still let the jerk off.
Comment by Tami — September 4, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
I’d really love to hear from the men on the blog how they feel about this statement. Because I totally agree with it, and my experience completely supports it, but I just really want to believe that it’s not 100% true. That some men also want an emotional and intelligent connection.
I have, thankfully, not ever found myself in a date-rape situation, but I have found myself in a number of situations where I am fighting off advances and being told that I “wanted it” or was “leading him on”. I have never been able to strike a balance between being friendly, or even flirty if I’m interested in someone, and permission for sex. I find now that I’ve swung entirely the other way and am hardly friendly at all with single (or even married, for that matter) men, because of what inevitably happens.
Has anyone else had that struggle? What did you do? For me it’s never led to rape, but I can see how it easily would…
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Enna, you’re right, and I actually had formulated a paragraph stating that I’m sure that there are many exceptions, but cut it due to the length of my post. I don’t like making blanket statements that all people of a gender behave in a particular way. But my point was to make a generalization about the way the two genders tend to interact. I do realize that there are many men who don’t, though, and I do not wish to offend them in any way, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Lorian,
I guess I don’t mean that ALL mean ONLY want physical gratification, but do most have to really work at focusing on their sig other’s other qualities? Is there an effort required to be able to push past that first desire and look for something deeper? In generalities it seems like women seek a connection in sex and don’t always find it. Men seek sex, and then maybe find a connection as a bonus.
Again, that’s only based on my experience and it’s likely I just have a penchant for dating particularly horny men. (Meaning they never bothered trying for anything deeper regardless.)
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Enna, in answer to your question about
I think it’s a serious oversimplification. Do you really think no men want to be intellectually and emotionally tied to the women in their lives? I know my boyfriend does (and, as a side note, I am generally more assertive in the physical side of our relationship); he’s not always good at being emotionally open, but I know he wants those deeper connections.
Comment by Minerva — September 4, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
I think one of the best gifts we can give to our daughters is the permission to not have be polite all of the time, to let them know it is OK to cause a scene when the situation calls for it, it is OK to tell someone who makes you uncomfortable NO both as children and as adults.Countless studies have been done that illustrate how accomadating we, especially women, can be.Ted Bundy relied on this when he would ask his victims to help him get to his car on crutches. Abductors often rely on a child’s blind unquestioning of authority figures. We can break that cycle by teaching our children, our daughters TO question that authority.
So what if I hurt my boyfriend’s friends feelings when I don’t come in for a visit, I don’t know him and I shouldn’t be alone with him in that situation.
Rape is NEVER the victim’s fault ofcourse, it doesn’t matter how she is dressed, how late it is, even if she has had sex with the man prior. That being said, it is up to us to educate our daughters as best we can about situations to avoid and to learn to pay attention to those warning signs.When you are trained on how to react in a situation you are less likely to be paralyzed by fear which is a perfectly normal human response.
More than a few times in highschool, college and even as an adult I have avoided uncomfortable, potentially dangerous situations by being just a little bit rude (bitchy) at times and I don’t lose any sleep over it.I want my daughter to be equipped with this tool/knowledge as well.
Comment by Travelin' Pants — September 4, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Minerva, no I don’t believe that, but I do sometimes wonder how often it actually starts out that way? Again, I can only talk from personal experience, but when I hear women (I’m not talking about you personally, this is an in general sort of thing) talk about how glowing their husband is, and compare that to my relationships, it only reinforces the idea that it must be my fault. That I really must be asking for it.
I guess that’s what my real question is. I don’t think all men are jerks that only want sex. I wonder why I can’t find a balance between having a normal relationship with the opposite sex and fighting for my virtue, literally…
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
I tried this out with my wife last night, and it didn’t go well. I asked her politely for sex, and she said she didn’t really feel like it. So I presented my case to her, being as nice as possible. I was being very careful because I didn’t want to do it with her if she really didn’t want to. I was doing all the negotiation verbally instead of physically, in order to demonstrate respect for her.
She didn’t like the approach. She told me it was like a child asking his mother for permission. She told me to stop being such a girl about it. A better tactic would have been to just start into the foreplay and hope she doesn’t tell me to stop.
So, as a man, that puts me in kind of a paradox. On the one hand, women like for men to be confident and assertive. They want men to awaken desire in them–to “sweep them off their feet.” Sometimes their stance is “not affirmitively interested, but willing to become interested.”
On the other hand, in cases of rape, women are neither willing nor interested. I imagine that it can sometimes be difficult to read the cues which differentiate these two attitudes, especially if the man and the woman don’t know each other well. I am sympathetic to the men and women who occasionally make mistakes negotiating this difficult territory.
In my particular case, last night, my wife didn’t say “no”, but she didn’t say “yes” either. After a long discussion, we ended up doing it anyway, FYI.
The moral of the story is that clearly and dispassionately asking for consent seems like a pretty sure-fire way to get rejected unless you are both very patient and understanding with one another. It’s kind of a mood-killer. For a young man wanting to make it with a young woman, especially if the woman is expected to put up a token resistance, it’s likely to be an unsuccessful strategy.
So, what is a man to do? He risks being wrong either way–either by being too assertive or not assertive enough. We can’t read your minds.
In summary, sometimes a woman might say “I don’t want to” or “I don’t feel like it”, but after some negotiation, she changes her mind. So “no” can either mean “I’m not interested yet,” in which case it’s OK to try a little more; or it can mean “I’m not willing,” in which case the man had better stop immediately. How are we supposed to tell the difference?
If a woman uses an assertive tone, or she slaps the man, or kicks him or screams or whatever, then she obviously means “I’m not willing.” But if she just kind of weakly moans “no” while her body is saying “yes,” then her meaning is not very clear. I can totally understand how a man might read the second case incorrectly.
Comment by Anon for this one — September 4, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Enna, man here; but before I get to your question. The OP question under any retelling of the facts is rape. In my book until she gives consent, not silent consent, but affirmative let’s do this consent; it is rape.
On to your question, I think it is just priorities (I hate generalizations so I will probably even disagree with my own answer) The women I have been around tend to want the intellectual and emotional connection as first priorities, then the physical connection as a second priority. On occasions those priorities flip, and a woman may just want the physical connection
The men I have been around including myself, often want the physical connection as a first priority, and an emotional or intellectual connection as a second priority. Once again on occasion those priorities flip.
I also think it is the way in which we get our priorities met. Women often want the emotional and intellectual which may lead to the physical need. Men want the physical connection, which may lead to the emotional and intellectual connection.
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
I was molested through my jeans when I was about 10 by a stranger in the greeting card aisle of K-Mart. It was scary and embarrassing, and I ran away to find my mom. I remember feeling very ashamed because it felt good. I didn’t tell my mother until after we left the store. We went back, but he had already left. We filed a police report. So yes, your body can respond to physical aggression. I doubt anyone would think that a 10 year old girl finding a birthday card for her friend could be said to give an adult male stranger signs that she wants him to grope her.
Comment by anon — September 4, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Re comment 60:
I agree that the law should be changed. If we teach girls that “no means no”, but the boys are hearing, “Well, if she doesn’t put up a fight then you can get away with it”, then we’re just setting up the stage for more date rape. I also think that the current law that appears to put the burden of proof on the victim to prove they fought back against force is likely a product of our hierarchical culture that views the situation from the man’s perspective. We should change the law to put the burden of proof on the man to prove that he received an “invitation” (not because she agreed to be alone or because she agreed to kiss or she let him put his hand up her shirt - that she agreed to sex). Can you imagine the difference this kind of law and burden of proof would have? I suspect that if men knew they had to prove that the woman wanted to have sex, we would have a lot less date rape. And a lot more men who are attempting to actually consider the woman and her wants and needs - not just treating her like his own sex object.
As a sidenote (threadjack), I think this makes a good case for why we need diversity in leadership and on things like the Supreme Court. At first glance, I am someone who believes that the most qualified person should always get the job. But, if our society sets it up that the most qualified person is always a man, that ensures that men will always run things from their perspective. Not that I believe that less qualified women or minorities should get the job, but if both a man and a woman have the same qualifications, I can see how nominating the woman would be a bonus for diversity and to ensure that the feelings and perspectives of women are included in the decision process. And, we need to ensure equal opportunity for all, so that women and minorities have the chance to get the qualifications.
One last thing - it seems that the use of the word “moaning” is what is causing some to believe that she wanted it or that her body was having a sexual response. I don’t really think so. In Kaimi’s summary in the OP, the “moans passionately” is from the man’s perspective. He heard her moan, he assumed it was passionate. In her description, she says she said “no, no to him softly in a moaning kind of way … because it was just so scary”. It makes me think of a person lying on the street who just got beat with a baseball bat and is moaning. You wouldn’t assume that they were moaning because of some sexual satisfaction. I think it’s a mistake to take the man’s interpretation of events as fact.
Comment by Stephanie — September 4, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I was a victim of “aquaintance” rape. I was also raised in the Mormon church. I was not active in the Mormon church during my teen years. I was raised by an authoritarian, physically abusive, hierarchial, short-tempered father. You did not question him and when you did his response was angry and you were made to feel stupid. My father was also “active” in the church and held many important callings.
As a teenager I did many things with boys I really did not want to do, but felt like I could not say “no”.
When I was raped I had told the guy several times I did NOT want to have sex. When he penetrated me I asked him several times to “please stop”. I did not scream. I did not hit or kick him. I felt powerless at the hands of a male twice my size.
It took me a while to realize I had been raped. I blamed myself for being drunk and getting into that kind of situation in the first place. And, for not doing more to stop it, such as kicking and screaming.
Comment by Anonymous — September 4, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Anon for this one (95),
I had the same response when I read the idea that a woman must give explicit permission. What a mood killer.
But after reading your post I’m reminded of an experience a friend of mine told me about some time ago. She was kissing and in general messing around with her date at his place. When he started to get a little more aggressive with her, she knew she should stop, and wanted to, but was torn between feeling insecure and feeling physical pleasure (she thought that made it harder for her to think clearly).
Anyway, it’s not a case of date rape, I don’t think she felt intimidated, but he asked her “Is this okay?” and that kind of knocked her to her senses and she said no. He stopped. If she had said yes, I don’t think it would’ve killed the mood at all.
Not that I think we need a script for intimacy, but I think asking permission is possible.
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
I don’t think so. If it is that difficult for a guy in a dating situation to differentiate whether the girl wants to or doesn’t, maybe he should assume she doesn’t. And maybe he should try to get to know her better first instead of just going for it without knowing if she wants to or not. That would demonstrate respect.
Regarding the rest of your comment, I would rather not go into your bedroom.
Comment by Stephanie — September 4, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
To all the women on here who have shared very personal and scary stories on this thread. I just wanted to say that your posts are eye-opening, thought-provoking, and crushing. My heart goes out to each of you. And the equally crushing fact is that for each story told there are thousands more untold.
I sincerely pray that you can one day feel free from the harms that have been done to each of you.
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
96, thanks for the post. I actually think your wording of “the way we get our priorities met” makes a lot of sense. Men and women certainly have striking differences in brain chemistry, and sometimes it’s hard to remember that some differences are socially engrained, but some are pretty natural and normal.
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
I’ve encountered some very fuzzy views of rape. Some believe that if a woman has consensual sex, then decides she regrets it the next morning, then it’s rape. If she has consensual sex but isn’t really “into it,” then it’s rape. How can this be true? Rape is a horrible thing, and the word shouldn’t be applied to every situation.
Comment by AnnaJ — September 4, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
One of the difficulties is the problem of interpreting unstated cues. It can be awkward to get stated consent for every step, and many people see that as an unreasonable requirement. But what happens when she’s tacitly saying no, and he’s not picking up the signal?
(One humorous take on the stated-consent-at-every-stage is this video from a few years back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V_7u7zuiEM ).
Comment by Kaimi — September 4, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
In regard to the OP case, I think a pretty obvious cue this guy should have picked up on is that he had known this girl for 15 minutes and she was waiting for her boyfriend.
Comment by Minerva — September 4, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
I remember reading a news article in the past few years about a man who hired a dominatrix. She began to penetrate him with a strap-on, and he said no and told her to stop. She didn’t. The amount of people who said it wasn’t rape, it was his fault since he hired her, and that and he needed to “man up” about it was astounding.
Comment by AnnaJ — September 4, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
i.e. this was a rape.
Comment by Minerva — September 4, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Perfect, one-sentence summary. Thank you.
Comment by sare — September 4, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Make that two sentences….
Comment by sare — September 4, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
In my experience, women generally do not want men to ask for permission.
Comment by Howard — September 4, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
What a day to have missed out on the discussion. I’m only skimming through the comments, and will mostly address the OP.
Whether or not this fits the technical legal definition of “rape” I’m not qualified to judge. Those who have talked about the important concept of innocence until proven guilty and evidence certainly raise legitimate points. But I think the entire course of the discussion is a bit skewed. I really dislike the concept of women as gatekeepers, forcing upon them the responsibility for avoiding sexual misconduct. I strongly believe that predatory men can use a great deal of pressure and implicit intimidation to frighten and coerce women into sexual encounters. That is entirely ignored by reducing the issue to whether or not she physically resisted. It seems to suggest men aren’t responsible for their use of pressure and their sin if women allow it to happen, and that really bothers me. It is a perspective which really favors men. Even within the Church, where society doesn’t generally dismiss the sexual adventures of boys, judgment comes much more strongly on the woman for not resisting. The use of the Duke example highlights the issue; even if the Duke students didn’t rape this woman, it hardly seems appropriate to depict them as innocent after eagerly engaging in debauchery.
As it seems several people have mentioned, no means no. If men persist in pursuing sexual activity once a woman has declined, they have committed some sort of violation of trust/sex. That should not be diminished. There must a much stronger emphasis on respecting women and their boundaries.
Regarding the relationship between gender-hierarchical attitudes and definitions of rape, I can see the connection. I’ve mentioned here before that it was within the Church that I heard someone voice the opinion that husbands cannot rape their wives, because the marriage covenant itself automatically implies consent. I’ve never heard such an opinion stated elsewhere. I believe he is a bit of an outlier, but I did find it revealing that this person, one of the most critical about the way feminism challenges traditional gender roles and standards, would make such a statement.
Comment by Derek — September 4, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
it was my impression, howard, that you are an upstanding lds man. i wonder how much “experience” you have…
Comment by mfranti — September 4, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Derek,
not trying to diminish your point, which I think is a good one, but I have heard the marriage-implies-consent line before during a book group discussion. 2 women (women, not men) took that stance and both belonged to the Church of Christ, and are extremely conservative (no birth control, no abortion in any situation, strict modesty rules, etc.). None of the LDS women agreed. But then this is Texas and we are mostly heathens down here
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Howard it should be clear from the varying impressions, guesses at legal standards, and stories shared on this post that there is no definitive standard of “rape”.
My point being, if you are planning on getting additional experiences of sex in your life; I would suggest you ask for permission.
This is one area where it is FAR BETTER to ask for permission rather than forgiveness.
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Mfranti,
I spent 35 years outside the church.
Some women considered it a mood killer others were concerned that voicing permission might leave the impression that anything goes.
Comment by Howard — September 4, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
[…] Wenger, as a guest blogger at Feminist Mormon Housewives, recently posted about a paper written by a Yale law professor. A belief in hierarchical (rather than egalitarian) gender roles […]
Pingback by Our Thoughts » Blog Archive » Gender role belief affects how we define rape — September 4, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Looks like Stephanie and Ashley (fantastic summation!) already addressed the issue of the skewed nature of the perspective much better than I did.
Comment by Derek — September 4, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
“The fact is that men, relative to women, are more aggressive, sexually assertive and eager to copulate, and less discriminating about mates’ traits that contribute to the existence of rape. When social scientists mistakenly assert that socialization alone causes those gender differences, they ignore the fact that the same differences also exist in all the other animal species in which males offer less parental investment than females and compete for access to females.” see http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm.
Comment by .... — September 4, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
And Howard, what is the worst case scenario of you asking? She says, “of course; don’t ask”? Then everyone is happy.
What is the worst case scenario of you not asking, and misinterpreting a “moan”? You are a rapist; no one is happy and there is another crushing story.
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
I think this is the big picture point - it’s not so much about sex as it is about respecting women and their boundaries. This is where I see the tie-in to the hierarchical/egalitarian views. The egalitarian view is that both men and women are equally worthy of respect. Like it or not, a hierarchical view places men as more important than women, and this leads to disrespecting women and their boundaries (or, at the least, an acceptance of disrespecting women).
Comment by Stephanie — September 4, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Dietcokelover
I agree. Asking is a necessary step to protect oneself.
Comment by Howard — September 4, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
re: 114
I doubt most of the LDS people I know wouldn’t accept the line either, but then most of the LDS people I know are more in the perspective of chicken patriarchy than true patriarchy (Chicken patriarchy isn’t as good as true egalitarianism IMO, but I have to concede in circumstances like these that it’s better than true patriarchy).
The fact that those people were conservative still supports the contention, as conservatism largely endorses gender hierarchy.
Comment by Derek — September 4, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I’m not worried about protecting myself. You are protecting others
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I hate discussions like this (mainly the conversations in the comments) because it forces me to see the ugly reality of what it is to be a woman. It forces me to see how far we truly have to go in sexual issues, and how common and casually some of the most disgusting and tragic of crimes are. I am so pained to see all these accounts of rape and other violation which have happened to women I consider good friends. It makes me wonder whether we as a species (at least one half of us) are worth saving. I’m so sorry.
Comment by Derek — September 4, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Derek;
amen
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
that’s fair Howard. my apologies.
Comment by mfranti — September 4, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Maybe I just watch too much Law and Order: SVU, but when I read this I never thought it was anything but rape.
I’ve also been lucky not to be in a “date rape” situation, but I’ve felt traumatized by some experiences. I went on two dates with a guy I still strongly suspect was a drug dealer. We watched a movie on the couch, cuddling a bit. He told me some colorful stories about how he once “sprained a girl’s tongue,” and made “jokes” about being a serial killer in high school and various drug trips he tried to kiss me. I said no. He tried to guilt me into it saying he’d told me so many things about himself. I said “I still don’t know you that well,” and I left.
For the next 2 years in college I was afraid of running into him, always somewhere in the back of my mind that he would make me feel as uncomfortable as I did that night. It could have turned into an ugly situation, especially because he was into “mixed martial arts” and “cage fighting.”
If something had happened, would I have said something? Or would I have been too surprised? Let’s be honest, if a guy isn’t worried about pleasing a lady it could all be over before you really know it.
Comment by Bug — September 4, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
# 95
Well, if it was my husband I would want to respect my initial “I don’t feel like it” and let it go at that without trying to convince me or cajole me. Because then it becomes a chore, and Thats a mood killer!
re: the OP. It was rape. It took me years to realize why I did things I didn’t want to to do. To “keep the peace” and such. I have boys, onee a teen who we have had this discussion with. How he needs to respectful, never pressuring, always certain that consent is there. For EVERYTHING.
Comment by Samantha — September 4, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
I love you, Derek. :weepy-hug:
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
I’m sorry, is this a fMh thing? What is chicken patriarchy?
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
Well… humph.
The results of that study are interesting.
I have to say I am stumped on your final question when it comes to my ward so I will change it and ask myself if he would have been acquitted if I were the sole person to decide.
And although I do think I qualify as the diehard feminist type (i.e. I do not think I have a belief in hierarchical gender roles) I don’t think I am comfortable calling this rape. At least not with these details alone. I would want to know if he did anything that she perceived as a threat if she resisted, and if could have known that she felt she was not free to resist.
I think it’s a very scary idea that we should enforce laws and consequences based on the perception of the “victim.” I think the real question (and I know there are various points to be made on variables to this too) is whether the guy knew she felt she must permit him to have sex with her against her will.
She may very well have felt that, and as one person stated in a comment earlier, it’s peculiar she would go to see her boyfriend and then have sex with his roommate she met minutes before, so it may well be that she felt she would be harmed if she did not. But there are some people who would, obviously the guy in the case would and did, so he may well have been operating under the belief she had the same desires. If she did not attempt to walk out, he may have not known she did not feel she could walk out.
This is where rape/not rape becomes a very messy issue because the courts have to figure out:
Did she feel threatened?
Did he give her a reason to feel threatened?
Did he deliberately give her a reason to feel she was not safe to say no, or was there something in her psyche that made her feel that way?
If it was her perception and not a reality that she was threatened, was it somehow his responsibility to know that was how she felt?
Could he have known? Should he have known?
Does walking to the bedroom unforced and “allowing” him to do it equal consent or at least create a valid argument that he believed he had her consent?
Does a woman have to meet a certain level of “assertiveness” before her no is valid?
To that last question I think I have to say the easy answer should be “No” a woman should never have to do anything to NOT have sex if she doesn’t want to, she shouldn’t have to ask NOT to be violated. But on the flip side, is it a man’s responsibility to triple make sure it’s ok?
Should a man on a date who is kissing a woman and begins to slide his hands up her blouse slowly, who would stop if she merely said “ok stop”, be expected to stop and get a legally binding “yes this is ok with me” somehow or else be accountable for rape because of what was in her head? And if so, isn’t this also an enforcement of some gender bias?
The slope is really slippery and I think there is a fine line between rape and consent (in some cases like this, in others, I am sure it’s very, very, very clear).
The sad thing is, if this woman really did not want to, and did not believe she COULD stop it, then she experienced rape and the degradation, violation, pain, fear, and long term damage that comes with it. But I don’t know if he is legally responsible for that if he HONESTLY and REALLY believed she was consenting.
Comment by Z — September 4, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
re: 131: Yes - what is chicken patriarchy? Is that like when Mr Brewster the Rooster sidles up to those hens, all fluffed out, handsome and inviting and sometimes one of the hens turns, raises her hackles at him and says “back off you young whippersnapper!” and he backs off, says “oops, ok…” and saunters away pretending it was all a misunderstanding?
Comment by Betty Jo — September 4, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Enna and Betty Jo:
Chicken Patriarchy
Comment by Chandelle — September 4, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Umm… you know, I agree that marriage vows don’t constitute consent. And I agree that a person shouldn’t have to say anything to not have sex. But, if the criteria for rape is simply sex without an explicit “Yes”, I think my wife could have me sent to prison…. Shoot. I could have her sent to prison!
Comment by Martin — September 4, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Martin; I agree. I think once you are in a consenting relationship, the standards are lower, but that is because you can read each other’s body language, and make informed decisions as to how your spouse is feeling based on their reactions.
But when it is the first time, second time, etc. And especially if it is not on a date, after 15 minutes of talking; a simple “Is this okay?” Is not asking too much.
Comment by dietcokelover — September 4, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
maybe it would help a woman to say: “no and if you go any further it is rape!” i guess, saying this will not keep a guy from raping you if he waited behind a bush to attack you. or it wouldn’t stop the guy who already has the rape all planned out . but maybe it would help in the situations where the rape “just kind of happens”. i bet a guy could get scared or woken up hearing such a strong word as “rape”, not realising before what he is actually up to.
Comment by Rahel — September 4, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Z #132 - Just to clarify the situation a bit, let’s try on some different roles. What if the man who is making the sexual advances is doing so to another man? What if that man is not interested? Assume for a moment that there is a power differential of some sort between them, because there is a basic subconscious power differential between women and men, both a physical one based upon relative size and strength, and a social/emotional one based upon gender roles, early indoctrination, and proven societal mores.
Suppose the man upon whom the sexual advances are being made expresses verbally that he does not want to engage in sex. He says, “No,” and “Please stop.” Because of the power differential, he is afraid or uncomfortable about being actively confrontive with the aggressor. But he does say, “No.”
The other man has sex with him anyway, and he does not fight, scream or physically resist. He just keeps saying, “No.”
Has he been raped?
I have a feeling that quite a few people who would not consider that the woman was really raped would still agree that the man in the above situation was raped.
Think about it honestly for a few minutes and just see if it changes your perspective.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
There’s something about this statement that I don’t quite like and I can’t quite put my finger on what it is.
I think there’s something in that last statement, is it a man’s responsibility to triple make sure it’s ok, that still implies to me that we’re talking about a situation where men want sex, and women give it when it’s worth it to them. (Like Lorian was saying earlier, be it for a date or a lifetime commitment.) I think we can all agree that’s not what sex is about, it’s about two consenting adults, not one giving in when the “price” is right…
Thanks for the reference Chandelle.
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
I hear quite often that asking kills the mood. I find that to be a poor excuse. Certainly glancing over the top of the paper and saying “Say dear, would you fancy some coitus this evening?” isn’t going to get you anywhere and would be annoying. But no one who is really invested in their partner saying ‘yes’ would do it that way.
If you’re trying to seduce her it can be done with words, and to avoid rape it should always start out with words.
I’m of the opinion that the people most opposed to asking are the ones who would rather not know what the answer is, because then they might feel bad about themselves.
Comment by Starfoxy — September 4, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Yes, Enna. That’s kind of what I was going after in my last post. Sometimes people who believe that a man should not have to be responsible for obtaining direct unmistakable consent from a woman, and should not be held responsible any doubts about her consent, will find that if they think about the same situation with a man as the subject of the sexual advance, they may set the bar for consent much higher.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Starfoxy, yes. If asking “kills the mood,” then perhaps perhaps the answer was “no.” “No” is, and should be, a real mood-killer.
Comment by Lorian — September 4, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Interesting. I asked my mom (as an adult) why she never talked to me about sex. She told me on the day she got married her mom told her sex was something she’d hate but she just would have to learn to suck it up because men needed it. Since I’ve never been married, there was no reason for us to have the conversation.
It’s pretty obvious that women are often trained to view sex as a commodity to be sold, putting the case in the perspective of two men does change it quite a bit. Good point.
Comment by Enna — September 4, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
#112 Derek ~ I would suggest that the notion that marriage implies sexual consent is actually rooted in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 7:3-4 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (NRSV)
Not that the passage explicitly teaches that, but I think that’s what some people took from it.
Here’s some other quotes on the subject to get your blood boiling:
“The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract,the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” ~ Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice, mid-17th century, England
“But if you can’t rape your wife, who can you rape?” ~ Senator Bob Wilson, Democrat, California, 1979
“It’s a waste of the court’s time to get into that area…a woman who is in marriage is presumably consenting to sex. Maybe this is the risk of being married, you know.” ~ Charles Burt, President, Oregon State Bar, 1979
“Damn it, when you get married, you kind of expect you’re going to get a little sex.” ~ Senator Jeremiah Denton, Republican, Alabama, 1981
The guy in your ward was not the first to have that idea.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — September 4, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Agreed. I’m pained to hear what mfranti, Lorian, & others tell about here.
I think the molestation/rape statistics is probably 1/3 of women will have experienced sexual abuse at some point in their lives.
#97- I think you are about the only molestation victim I’ve heard of who said it felt “good”. I thought the sexual response of women would shut down in uncomfortable sexual situations.
Comment by Mike H. — September 4, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
This is not a subject I really want to take on while recovering from surgery, and I’m betting everyone else has covered the obvious ad naseum, but I’m going to reiterate the fricking OBVIOUS thing those morons on the court seem to have missed with their deduction that:
My conclusions is this: the absence of consent constitutes the presence of force. Period.
Comment by Janet — September 4, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
re: 144
No doubt; one of the topics which Marriage: A History tracks is the right of participants in marriage to refuse sexual relations. While I’m aware of the historical aspects of the issue, it was quite a shock to be presented with the position in the first person, by someone alive today.
(this same man has subsequently blamed feminism both for the rise of porn and promiscuity, and for some supposed trend in wives refusing husbands–which seems like mutually exclusive charges to me. But I’ve decided I really don’t have any interest in associating with this gem of a person, as I don’t need the aggravation…)
***
On subsequently pondering (aka stewing) on this topic, I remembered that my wife confided a near miss to me before we were married. She was on a date with a high school wrestler friend, who took her back to his house. He eventually started to kiss her. She was not at all interested in making out, but he was very insistent, and she was scared. She’d been raised to be very deferential, and so didn’t know how to react. The guy was much bigger and stronger than her, and she froze up for awhile. Luckily, when he started to move down her chest, she had a moment of courage and was able to run out of the house. I don’t think she was any more brave or more virtuous than any of the women here who have been violated without active resistance, she just found that one moment. What if she’d missed it? There but for the grace of God…
And I think it’s relevant that she never talked about it until she sobbed the story to me. She was afraid of telling her mom or church leaders. Why? Because she’d been raised with the gatekeeper model. By the logic of that model, the failure to stay pure, the “necking,” hadn’t been the fault of this guy who was pressing himself upon her, violating her, but hers for not making it stop earlier. She felt guilty and dirty for years.
That has got to end. Dammit, women don’t need or deserve that pressure. Boys (I hardly think they deserve to be called men, whatever their age) don’t deserve that free pass the gatekeeper model provides. I get so furious when I hear about boys who violate women and then with little trouble are allowed to progress in the Church (missions, priesthood, whatever). Not because they had sex; I have no qualms with extending forgiveness on individuals (of either sex) who had completely consensual sex and then repent. But my God, those who violate another’s free will and conscious choice, taking something so private, so sacred, something which should only be experienced in shared trust and giving, and who then are given the benefit of the doubt and the violation glossed over…is anything more profane?
This is perhaps the most important reason to fight for egalitarianism with all our hearts, giving no quarter…so that women can finally, truly own themselves, and can boldly demand justice when they have been robbed.
Comment by Derek — September 4, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
Well put, Janet.
Comment by Ziff — September 4, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
edited for content
Comment by .... — September 4, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Mike H. –
Your is a perfectly logical assumption and I’m guessing that our bodies do shut down a significant portion of the time–but certainly not always. Jack Weyland may write formulaic novels, but he remains a personal hero because he weathered censorship and general outcry from the Mormon community when his book *Sara* not only dealt with the issue of a teen pregnancy conceived through rape, but had the step-daughter of the rapist admit, in an angst and guilt-ridden session with her therapist, that she felt guilty because sometimes what her stepdad did felt good physically even while it felt terrible in every other way. The therapist explains that our bodies sometimes betray us and that the girl is in NO way at fault and that a sexual response did not constitute consent considering, especially, all the other factors. A lot of people got het up about Weyland including this; Deseret Book pulled the novel from their shelves and called in pornography. Weyland held firm, and for that he shall remain one of my heroes forever.
Date rape poses an especial complication since someone could be completely into, say, making out–and then the other party goes past the boundaries of comfort. The body doesn’t shut down all of a sudden all the time. I had a two-day experience being locked in a room by an acquaintance. Most of the time I felt like my nerve endings had simply died, and felt guilty enough about that since it seemed as though they should be screaming out in pain to match the psychological agony of such an experience. Worse, some moments involved bodily response, a fact I felt morally obligated to admit to the powers-that-be at BYU when I reported that man. They interpreted this fact as did the court in Kaimi’s case and it took many many months as well as the involvement of, eventually, the honors dean and the university president, to convince some people at the honor code office that I wasn’t a crazy lying feminazi. IT was bad. What was worse, and is still worse to this day, is the memory that for a few seconds here and there, my body responded. I plan on having a chat with God about it when I die.
I have read the same is true for children, though my childhood experiences with molestation did not involve response.
Yours is such a logical assumption and really such a kind one–we want our bodies not to respond; we want to believe God would at least spare a child that, if not the rest of the hell they endure. This is as good a forum as any to clear up the notion that “body gone nerveless” isn’t always the case. Sometimes it feels pleasure, and when it does, it causes even more pain.
Comment by Janet — September 4, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Everyone, I suggest we not waste our time jumping at the bait offered in #148. Unless, of course, it is to offer references for the plethora of evidence which runs contrary to his accusation of poor science. I’m recovering from surgery a hundred miles from our libraries both feminist and scientific, so I can’t do it.
I’m off to the morphine sleepy-call.
Comment by Janet — September 4, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Enna, I feel sorry for your Mom and your Grandmother, what a horrible way to view this part of a relationship *shudder*. Be assured not everyone feels this way.
Lorian, Thank you for your point in 138, if that does not make people pause I do not know what will., no should mean NO.
I don’t know about legally but, morally it is his job to know for sure that she is consenting.
A disturbing trend I have seen in Utah is one female teacher after another being charged with rape of teenage boys. Has anyone else noticed this, or have any thoughts why it is happening at a new alarming rate. Sometimes when someone says YES,an adult should be smart enough to know the answer should be No. Maybe a down side of the sexual revolution is people do not take the act of sex as serious as they used to. We know everyone is doing it, maybe the bottom line is everyone should not be doing it. Make the act too casual and people are not even sure if they need consent to precede, sad for everyone involved.
A neighbors dog wandered in to my yard today. He casually started coming on to my Pug, she said no twice by sitting down, and wandering off. When he presisted she bit his nose off with a fury I have never seen before. The darn thing didn’t get it and had to be escorted off the premises before she drew blood.
Thank you to everyone who has shared their very personal stories. I hope you have all found the healing you need to become whole after these horrendous acts.
Comment by kandi and salt — September 4, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Janet thank you for you point in #150, how unfair for a child to feel pleasure from something that causes them so much emotional pain. How confusing when no one is protecting them or giving them explanations or cleaning up the damage of a dysfunctional life.
I will be next in line to have that talk with God.
Comment by kandi and salt — September 4, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Force can be persuasive power, physical coercion or violence. Janet 146 makes an excellent point; the absence of consent (and presence of its verbal antonym) constitutes the presence of force.
How did they find that no rape had taken place, because there was no evidence of force? Is the legal definition of force more narrowly defined?
Comment by Howard — September 4, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Lots of good comments, y’all. (Thanks Janet & Lisa & mfranti & Chandelle & Lorian & Derek & Enna & Stephanie & Ziff & Jack & sorry folks I missed, going quickly.)
One point — the spousal rape laws are *NOT* a thing of the distant past. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but spousal rape exceptions have been on the books in many jurisdictions until very recently, and I believe they are STILL on the books in a number of jurisdictions.
The _Berkowitz_ court cited the then-current Pennsylvania statute (this was in 1994!) as follows:
The Penn legislature modified the statute after Berkowitz in various ways — legislative and case law now provides that the force requirement includes psychological coercion; and the spousal exception was removed.
But still, it was then-extant case law, for a 1994 case. Spousal exception statutes are _not_ irrelevant dusty old relics.
Comment by Kaimi — September 4, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Janet: I was basing that from the book “Light Her Fire”, where it said that being too rough or going too quick will cause a woman to “shut down” sexually. Plus, my experiences with my wife. I’m sorry. That must make this even more confusing to victims.
Comment by Mike H. — September 4, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
One thing many men do not understand is just how much stronger they are than many women. I remember when I was first married, my wife wanted me to play wrestle with her. What she didn’t tell me is that she intended to go full force.
I never noticed, thought she was playing, a little weakly, the whole time. It was a sobering experience for both of us.
Read some of the details of the Mike Tison rape case that ended his career, including his statement to the judge when he was trying to get bail on appeal.
I was on the board of a rape crisis center for a couple years. It was very difficult, though luckily we did not deal with the details of the mission very often (fund raising was a core concern), as I would have trouble functioning after that would happen.
There is a lot of misunderstanding going on. And a lot of abuse.
My sympathy to everyone who has survived.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 4, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Our culture does not reward women for being assertive about their desires. I’ve seen women play along with creeps, because they didn’t want to appear to be impolite.
Case in point: in college I had a roommate who had creepy guy keep calling her. He had seen her at her job in a tanning salon. He told my roommate that he was a stripper and he wanted to strip for her. So, what did she do? She told him that she already had a boyfriend, but maybe “My roommates might be interested.” He had already made other lewd phone calls to her but she wouldn’t do anything to get rid of him. My roommate finally got uncomfortable and instructed us to say that she wasn’t home. I answered the phone. He offered his services and told him to get lost and hung up. He called again. I told him to get lost again and that I would call the police and then hung up. Some of my other roommates saw this and said. “You hung up on him. . .but that is rude.” I want to slap some sense into these women and say, “That is the point!!! You don’t have to be polite if your safety is in question!!!” I did not owe him anything. Men with bad intentions exploit a woman’s “niceness.” I cringe to think of the risk my roommate was taking by not being assertive with this creep. BTW, she never heard from him again after that.
We need to do a better job teaching boys that “‘No’ means ‘no.’” In the book the “Gift of Fear,” Gavin De Becker comment that our culture and in films and other media teaches that when a man says ‘no’ he ‘no’ he means ‘no,’ but when a women says ‘no’ its the beginning of a negotiation. I encountered men that really believed that.
Comment by rk — September 4, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
This thread is very sobering and thought-provoking. I too thought that naturally I’d fight, but not I’m not so sure. It makes me recall a time when I was working for a chiropractor. We had a patient come in that my boss warned me could be sexually harassing. Sure enough, he pinched me on the butt. Even forewarned, I was completely shocked that he did it and didn’t say anything to him. When I told my boss, he said I didn’t have to do anything further with the patient (I would have said as much, but didn’t need to), but the whole situation was just…ugh.
And wow, now that I mention that story
, on my twelfth birthday, a boy I thought was a friend called me up and propositioned me, telling me in some detail what I “did” to him physically. I was extremely innocent and Molly-the boys had tormented me all year because I refused to “go out” with any of them, to give you an idea of what I was like, and the situation was horrifying to me. Despite the way he sickened me, I didn’t hang up, I didn’t tell him off, I was just very nice, even reassuring him when he cried that we could still be friends (even though I had no intention of the sort. I think I spoke maybe half a dozen words to him over the next six years until we graduated). The shock, the horror, the shame…I didn’t tell anyone about it for years, and being called up and begged for sex and told you turn someone on barely registers on the scale of the things many of you have experienced.
As for the physical response, in the past month or two, someone did a post here about an article talking about the physical responses of women. In the study the article discussed, men and women were both monitored and asked about their feelings of desire when shown videos of intercourse ranging through the various sexual preferences as well as a video of chimps. Men only reported desire when watching those of their preference and their bodies backed that up. Women, on the other hand, only expressed desire about the video that went with their preference, but showed a physical response for /every single video/, including that of the chimps.
In other words, it’s a natural physical reaction if you do have such a reaction during rape. The scientists hypothesized it was a protection for women, as the physical responses include natural lubrication that obviously makes the vaginal walls less likely to abrade or tear. So, while I’m sure some random person on the internet telling you this doesn’t help much, but it’s not your fault and you have /nothing/ to be ashamed of.
I’m surprised and rather horrified by some of the discussion. Heck, I’d say I tend to agree with m&m more than just about anyone else that posts or comments here, but as soon as I read that she’d said no, it was obviously rape to me. No means no means no.
Comment by Firebyrd — September 4, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
This wasn’t an urban legend but she didn’t say it. It was the infamous Bobby Knight the bball coach. He may not be the originator of it but he definitely said he agrees with the philosophy. His point (although said crude and unfeeling) was if the situation is inevitable, make the best way to get through or survive it.
I’m not much a Hillary fan but you can’t pin this one on her.
Comment by Member — September 5, 2009 @ 12:33 am
@BJM-
You forgot one of the most egregious quotes in recent history by Nick Eriksen , the British National Party’s London leader, Nick Eriksen.
“To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that force feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offense.”
And this was in 2008!
Comment by Katie M. — September 5, 2009 @ 1:26 am
I was posting something very personal..but I deleted it. Here is a shorter less detailed post..
The story is scarily familiar.. I had relations with a man who I was seeing and then he raped me afterwards. This blog has been very hard for me to read and the replies are something that I’ve just skimmed..not out of disrespect but I don’t know if I want to know how many of us women/men have been in similar if not identical situations.
One of my bf’s in high school had been raped when he was at work..and it left him terribly scarred and homophobic.And yes your body responds even if you don’t want it to. I’ve known a few men who have been raped by other men etc. It does happen , just like women can be batterers too..
what scares me is the general lack of respect for other peoples boundries and the understanding the No means No..whether you’re a woman or a man.
No one should feel responsible for their instinct to survive…Chances are if they have managed to get you into that position they are prepared for violence and not afraid to use it.
Comment by Jillian — September 5, 2009 @ 2:26 am
As far as the “she should lay back and enjoy it” comment, kids were saying that on the playground when I was in elementary school some 40 years ago. It’s not by any means a new idea, and I’m sure it wasn’t a new idea back then. It is, however, just as tasteless now as it ever was.
I do believe that a woman being raped should do everything she can to survive the experience, but, physical response or no, there is nothing about rape to be enjoyed. Every woman I’ve known who has suffered a rape (some of them more than once) has been terribly, and in some ways irreparably, harmed by it. They survive and they recover and they move on with their lives, but they are never quite the same again. The shame and the fear and the destruction of trust can last a lifetime.
Comment by Lorian — September 5, 2009 @ 3:10 am
Reading the OP, I really think that the case is not clear-cut at all. (Of course, later information did add a lot to consider!) This case would have been a difficult one to judge. Part of me wants to say, if “no means no” than it should have meant no for the victim as well, who (according to the account in the OP) really looks like she’s sending mixed messages. Some physical resistance, even just a shout of “stop!” would have made her case much stronger, legally speaking.
Imagining the situation at a campus like BYU, I think that there is an added wrinkle when dealing with people who come from a culture with powerful social mores re: sex. It is expected that BYU students might engage in sexual behavior with mixed feelings. It isn’t unimaginable that someone (even a male!) might say “no,” meaning “no, we shouldn’t,” and then proceed anyway.
As freshmen, we were all required to attend a meeting with a police officer. Part of that meeting covered sexual behavior and the law. We were told that if there was not explicit verbal permission from a potential sexual partner––even if no one ever said “no”––under the law at the time, it could be considered rape. He also called BYU the “date-rape capitol of the world,” and said that some of these cases were likely just the result of “morning-after regret” being misrepresented, but that did not matter to the law.
Later that year there was something of a scandal involving several members of the football team being accused of rape. As it turned out the accusations were false. In a community in which any sexual behavior can carry painful consequences (through the church or a church school), it is not surprising that this might become a factor in cases involving rape (real or otherwise).
In any case, after the freshman meeting, a neo-axiom became popular for a short time: “Before you get some, get some in writing.”
In a more general vein, and as someone who has been a victim, it goes without saying that sexual abuse of any variety is horrible, and must be prevented when possible, and pursued when it occurs. But human sexuality is not an uncomplicated business, and it is difficult to give due consideration to all the forces at play, at times.
RE: 139 “I think we can all agree that’s not what sex is about, it’s about two consenting adults, not one giving in when the “price” is right…”
Dream on, Enna. Your comment is clearly prescriptive, not descriptive. It is not uncommon at all for sex to be precisely about “one giving in when the “price” is right.” It’s not nice, but it is reality.
Comment by another anon — September 5, 2009 @ 7:10 am
(Just in case it was unclear, I do think that the case cited in the OP constitutes rape. I just think that the circumstances––as explained in the OP––would not have been easy to judge.)
Comment by another anon — September 5, 2009 @ 7:11 am
Clayton Williams made the “relax and enjoy it” remark when running for Texas governor about 20 years ago (twenty years? man, I’m getting old). That helped swing the election to Ann Richards.
Maybe “Clayton” got conflated with “Clinton.”
Comment by Left Field — September 5, 2009 @ 7:16 am
I can’t call this Rape as a criminal matter wherein the guy is branded a sex offender and likely published on a website for all to see. If she wanted to pursue a civil action maybe that would be a different story.
Comment by StillConfused — September 5, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Re: 155 I found a legal definition:
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 11:18 am
No does not mean no. If you use this as the standard, every male will have a criminal record, even the beloved Derek. Please tell me that you haven’t said no with your boyfriend or husband and meant yes. (Good luck trying to write such exceptions into the law.) People do enjoy sex and enjoy the chase/hunt.
Lower standards put male clergy, teachers, mentors, and others in a very dangerous spot. Women and girls do lie about rape. (Isn’t sexual victimization popular these days?) Situations such as:
-”Mr Jenkins, if you don’t give me my A, I will say that you touched me.”
-”Coach Jones isn’t going to start me? I will show him.”
-”The LDS Church has a lot of money. I will say that the Bishop molested me at my birthday interview.”
I am sure that the lies are related to hierarchical gender roles and thus the fault of males.
I would enjoy hearing from this group about changes to the law that assist rape victims while still protecting the presumption of innocence for the accused. Some forms of evidence are too subjective and do not clearly point to rape.
Many of you have sons. Our sons need just as much protection as our daughters. Even the son of a feminist can be falsely accused of rape. Would the injustice to her son cause her to part with her ideology or would she sacrifice him for the greater cause?
Comment by .... — September 5, 2009 @ 11:42 am
As I (mostly) mentioned on another thread, the bodies physical response to sexual activity is a part of the autonomic nervous system. That is, it’s totally involutary. So the fact that a woman seems to respond (by lubricating, to get overly clinical) only means that her body is protecting itself from even greater harm. Orgasm is a reflex. A rape victim that orgasms is no more at fault than a rape victim that continues to breathe (another autonomic nervous system reponse) during the attack.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
This was not consensual sex and it was not rape, it was something in-between.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Howard, when a woman has been acculturated all her life to be ‘nice’ (scare quotes because it is scary, and I have the scars to prove it) and to also believe that the sexual response of the male is her very own fault (and I have the young woman’s lessons to prove it, but such teachings are endemic in our wider American culture) then it is rape. And it’s heartbreaking. And it may possibly destroy her.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Why is it rape? Because she is being violated, but more than that is being damned, but does not have any of the skills necessary to allow her to fight back. She doesn’t have the strength for starters, she’s been taught that mouthy woman (”get the fuck away from me”) are really bad people, she doesn’t have any authority, lacking the priesthood… she’s just sunk.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
I cannot imagine having an orgasm from non-consensual sex. Maybe some people have orgasms that are 100% anotomical… but I don’t. Mine have to have some emotion in there.
Comment by StillConfused — September 5, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
I agree with Howard.
I am woman, a feminist, assertive, not LDS, not deferential to men, never been abused.
I also don’t believe that gender is the result of sex organs nor do I believe that sex organ should be the basis of hierarchies.
I think the above situation is very ambiguous; the world is more often a multitude of shades of grey and seldom black or white.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 5, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Djinn,
The Pennsylvania statute requires forcible compulsion. See 155.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
SC, there’s evolutionary biology behind the orgasm.
so yeah, it’s sounds crazy but our female bodies evolved to lubricate/orgasm to protect our vaginas because virtually all sex in the last 100,000+ years that we have been around has been forced upon women. it’s not until recently that (western) women have had control over their bodies.
that’s not saying all women have orgasms during forced sex, obviously, countless women are permanently physically scarred after rape, but in general, the body responds to protect itself.
think of it like this, if you fell off a cliff and broke your leg, you couldn’t imagine not feeling the pain, right? or had a car accident and smashed your head, there’s a really good chance your body will react in a way that will cause you to not feel any pain until you reach safety. it’s a preserving mechanism.
it’s similar in forced sex. the body’s goal is to protect itself so it can make (i now this is going to sound weird coming from me) more babies.
and remember, that just because you haven’t experienced something or can’t imagine something doesn’t mean that it’s like that for everyone else. bodies are amazing machines–you’d be surprised at what they can do only you don’t know about it.
Comment by mfranti — September 5, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Stillconfused, your example is just that, a single data point. Can you have orgasms on demand? I suspect not. It’s involuntary. Even if you need specific stimuli does not mean that your selection of behaviors is the same as others. Orgasm is a reflex and out of personal control, whether you believe it or not. This means that various diseases, which affect the autonomic nervous system, also modify the orgasmic response. That’s just the way it is.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
173 - Does this fall under the category of tasteful profanity by FMH?
Comment by .... — September 5, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
…., if the mere appearance of a certain set of shapes (into something understood as a word denoting a physical reaction to sexual activity, but otherwise devoid of sexual respose upsets you sufficiently to make comment 179, perhaps you should change your reading sites. Oh and Howard, perhaps you should read up on more states’ laws concerning rape so you know how far you can violate a woman prior to the state getting involved in a messy way.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Plus, …., I can’t believe I have to spell it out, but the word in question has several opposite and apposite meanings. It was word play. Swoosh.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
180 Djinn, that was rude and uncalled for.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Howard, yours was the comment that was rude and uncalled for.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Otherwise, Howard, why call the specific definition out in the first place?
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Which comment and how was it rude and uncalled for?
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Because, wasn’t your point that the woman wasn’t raped because she didn’t fight back with sufficient force, neverminding the fact that it wouldn’t help? Your statement sounded to me like an implicit approval of the no rape judgment. However, I might have misjudged you.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
If so, a) I’m sorry, but b) before I go there, I’d like a bit more explanation.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
“why call the specific definition out in the first place?” To better understand how/why the court came to this conclusion
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
“Because, wasn’t your point that the woman wasn’t raped because she didn’t fight back with sufficient force”
No.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
No. I never said no and meant yes. I don’t get a kick out of playing mind games with my husband. And all the men/boys I dated, stopped at no.
Triple Dot, here is how I will protect my sons. I will teach them to respect women and their bodies. And to wait until they are married to have sex. Would that protect them from some random girl crying rape? No, but I think it would help prevent them from getting into sticky situations.
Comment by Stephanie — September 5, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Agreement with 190, have never said no and meant yes.
Two data points, for the no’s don’t mean yes.
So far…no one coming out saying their no’s have ever really meant yes?
Not that its a settled point. The idea that women say no when they yes must have come from somewhere…that somewhere might be real women doing it or it might come from some men’s wishful thinking.
Comment by barnetto — September 5, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I’ve never said “no” and meant “yes.” I sincerely doubt that very many women do, unless they are involved in a pre-established roleplay game of some sort, where both partners have agreed in advance as to the outcome.
Comment by Lorian — September 5, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
This whole threadjack on this thread that sex is something that husbands have to negotiate with their wives, with the not so subtle implication that if they didn’t beg and press a) they’d never get any and b) their wives wouldn’t find themselves desirable I find both in line with my own experience, such as it is, and for the men who have bravely spoken out unspeakably sad.
Why unspeakably sad? Because it means for both the man and the woman that no doesn’t mean no. It means no sometimes, but other times it means, from the point of the woman “your insistence is proof of your desire and your love.”
So how does a reasonable man, with such an experience of women know when no means no and yes means yes? I don’t know and have no answer.
To say “no” always means “no” is not what some women in their life have taught them, if I’m reading these posts correctly. Such a huuuuuuggggge problem. The reason why would take a book, but a precis, djinn style follows.,
Some repressed women who will not ask for what they want are sometimes horny (sorry, …., if that gets your unmentionables in a twist. These women know perfectly well that they are not allowed to be horny. But sometimes (and who knows when these times are) these women want sex but feel that they can’t directly ask for it because if they did, then they’d be considered sluts. Hence, men thinking that women saying “no” may mean “yes.” Even though this is being written on feministmormonhousewives, this is not a Mormon problem, but rather a culture-wide problem, it seems to me.
But there are plenty of woman out there who mean “no” when they say “no.” And also mean “yes” when they say “yes.”
I have never in my life said “no” when I meant “yes.” Likewise, I’ve never said “yes” when I meant “no.” I have no idea how I managed to get that part of my life right, (but not other parts, let me assure you). I, unfortunately, somehow, married a man who had been indoctrinated in the whole “women lie through their teeth about sex” dichotomy, well, I’ll leave the rest to your imagination. So, guys, I’m way more on your side than you might imagine.
How to live your life with all these complications? The only possible way I can imagine is to treat No as meaning no and yes meaning yes. It’s a start.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Djinn 186: Your statement sounded to me like an implicit approval of the no rape judgment.
No, I was not judging the judgment; I was attempting to understand it.
In 154 I wrote:
I agree with Janet’s comment. Had there been no force, given the woman’s apparent state of mind there would have been no sex.
So, how did the court find no rape? At least part of the answer is the legal vs. common definition of force.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Hey …., I have never said no and meant yes. Never. I’m beginning to feel that most women are like me. in the sense that no means no. We don’t say no when we mean yes. We (they) say no because we (they) mean no and then are guilted-talked into saying yes when we (they) mean no. Of course, I (me) don’t get enough chances to say ‘yes,’ so ‘no’ would be pointless, but I understand that I’m an outlier.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
I think it comes from some men’s wishful thinking, and that some women play along. But, that is a fantasy that makes me extremely uncomfortable because isn’t the fantasy itself about rape? That a man gets turned on by a woman who says no but really wants it?
Comment by Stephanie — September 5, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
#171: If it wasn’t consensual, then it was rape.
If my wife or I say no, that’s the end of the story. There’s no “thrill of the chase” after no. Even when I was dating, I never had to be told no twice.
However, I do have a problem with mixed verbal and nonverbal messages. Perhaps verbal always trumps nonverbal, and–particularly when attempting to initiate a new relationship–one should wait until verbal and nonverbal coincide. I have no problem with “no means no,” but I do have a problem with “yes also means no if it’s nonverbal and if the woman has been socialized to be polite.” How is one supposed to know if a verbal yes also might mean no if a woman has been so socialized? And how is one supposed to know what her socialization has been and take that into account in evaluating the response?
I’ve told the story elsewhere of an occasion when I was getting a verbal yes and a nonverbal no in a dating context. I had no idea what to do except ask directly for clarification. That was no help at all because I still kept getting a verbal yes and a nonverbal no. I (at least initially) took the verbal yes to mean yes. As it turned out, it was the nonverbal no that I was supposed to be listening to. I can take no for an answer, but it seems like I ought to be able to take yes for an answer too. In this case, I do think the woman was socialized to verbally lie by saying yes so she wouldn’t “hurt my feelings.” Ironically, the experience left me angry and hurt precisely because she lied. This is difficult territory to negotiate. Sometimes one gets both a yes and a no. Sometimes one is supposed to understand that no really means yes or yes really means no.
I’m for abolishing all of these games and using yes and no according to their plain English meanings. Wasn’t there something like that in the Sermon on the Mount?
Comment by Left Field — September 5, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Left Field: #171: If it wasn’t consensual, then it was rape. Sure, but the court apparently disagrees.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
My youngest asked me to throw him on the bed. As we did this, I roared like a monster and as he was laughing he was saying, “No. No. Don’t get me.” No meant yes.
We have all been tired only to have our spouse persist with a little foreplay that does lead to sex. Even men say I am not in the mood or I’m not for sex tonight. I guess both myself and my spouse need to turn ourselves into the authorities for spousal rape.
It is easy to paint this issue as black and white, but it isn’t. Look at all the cues you deal with when dating.
If lower standards of rape are introduced, my sons will need to keep the family laywer on speed dial and also carry legal papers that need to be read and signed before having sex. This is going to put a real damper on things.
Comment by .... — September 5, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
A few things to remember-
1. A failure to convict does not mean that a crime didn’t occur. (cough cough OJ Simpson)
2. Withdrawal of charges (or victim recantation) does not necessarily mean that a crime didn’t occur- this is the only way to remove oneself from the criminal investigation a process which is notoriously hard on victims of sexual assault.
3. When a case is dropped due to a lack of evidence (unfounded) that does not necessarily mean that a crime did not occur. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything).
When cases are investigated and and claims are reliably proved to be false then the rate of false accusations for rape is between 2 and 8 percent- just exactly where it is for other crimes. [pdf]
Comment by Starfoxy — September 5, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
My wife’s never said “no” & meant “yes”, either, Lorian. Yet, I’ve said no a few times, truth be told.
mfrant: What you say about instinct & sexual response makes a lot of sense now. I guess that’s how Cro-Magnon Women survived Cro-Magnon Men.
Too bad so many men still have Cro-Magnon thinking about Rape!
Comment by Mike H. — September 5, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
…., you’re playing with a child. You are playing. Even dogs know the difference between play and fer reals. (Dogs start with the play posture, where they make something like a bow and then the larger dog handicaps itself so as to play with the smaller dog on an even playing field.) I know that you understand the difference between playing with a child and overpowering someone against their will.
Comment by djinn — September 5, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
#199 -
Maybe it should.
Comment by Lorian — September 5, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Stephanie #196
Exactly. Playing out “rape fantasies” between two people who know one another well might be fine and dandy, but playing out a rape fantasy between two people who’ve never met before or only know one another casually puts both parties in a danger zone — the woman of actually being raped and the man of being accused of rape.
The lesson here, I think, would be that if her lips are saying “no, no, no,” then don’t worry about what you think her eyes might be saying. Just keep your pants on and get the heck out of there. Whether she means the “no” or not (and quite likely she DOES), guys should learn a little self-preservation and start taking those “nos” at face value.
Comment by Lorian — September 5, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
I don’t recall any women who mean yes when they said no, but I know several women whose no meant maybe.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
are you kidding me?grown men (and women) can’t tell when their partner is saying no? my god, if i went to rub my friends back or shoulders or feet, and she pulled away, i would not pursue the activity. it would be obvious to me that i’m invading her space.
same with sex, if i put the moves on mr. franti and he did whatever he does to give me the cue that he’s not in for it, than i roll over and pout.
but i don’t keep pestering him.
and by the way, if you are constantly getting the “no” message from you partner, perhaps you need some counseling?
and triple dot…are you interested in a conversation here or “showing” us the error of our thinking? every one of your comments has been condescending and i don’t like the tone of your comments.
be a little more thoughtful before posting here. you area guest. don’t forget that.
Comment by mfranti — September 5, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
I am a woman - and a small one - 4′-11″, 103 lbs., and there is no way on this earth that I would not fight with all my strength against a rapist. Being a woman does not excuse you from doing what is in your power to control what happens in your life.
Comment by mryj — September 5, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Another thought. I heard from an acquaintance (not the kind of person I would call a friend). He had met some gal on the internet who invited him to her home. He went. He gets there and the lights are off and the door is open. He goes in. She is in her bed waiting for him. They make out all hot and heavy. No intercourse but apparently he did ejaculate on her sheets. He leaves. Never saw her face. Didn’t even know her name. At no point did anyone say no. He does not contact her again and doesn’t return her messages.
He finds out what her name is when he gets called in to his bishops office. The gal has written a letter to his bishop (she knew his address and from that was able to get his name as well as his ward). It was a very ugly letter about how he was a dog etc.
She attempts to contact him more. He continues to rebuff the advances. This upsets her even more and she files a police report for sexual assault. She tells him she will get him back for not continuing to see her.
Is the guy a dog? Sure? If you could get arrested for stupid, should he be? Of course (who knows what could have been waiting for him in that dark home). But did he commit a sexual assault? Nope.
He asked me what he should do. I told him the only way to make all of this go away was to date the gal. He was not up for that.
In the end, the police investigated and declined to prosecute. But this was a huge lesson — do not engage in “hookups” with people that you don’t know well. Something bad is most likely going to happen.
Comment by StillConfused — September 5, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
mryj, go back and read all of the posts by the women who have been violated.
i know you truly believe that you would do everything you can to stop an attacker and i truly believe you, but please please please be careful in how you say it. you do not really know how you’ll react in any particular situation and you can’t suggest that everyone woman would do the same as what you “think” you’ll do.
i’m 5′7″, very sturdy, athletic and I could kick someone’s ass if i had to but…
but in scary situations i might find myself frozen in fear. i say that because I don’t know how the situation will play itself out.
it’s that simple.
Comment by mfranti — September 5, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
This touches on something that seems to be an undertone to all these sorts of conversations. It seems that if there is any misunderstanding around a sexual encounter the first step is to see if the man’s point of view is reasonable (”well sure, I can see how he would think she was into it”) and if it meets some low standard of reasonable, then we act like there’s nothing to be done for it. If she was unhappy about it then oh well, what can we do? This leaves the entire burden for sex, it’s dangers, risks, and costs on women.
Sex is dangerous, more-so for women than for men. A large part of that danger for women is strictly physical, but our society is set up to make sex almost completely risk free for men, including very very soft rape laws. Many men could rape a woman and expect to get away with it.
“…” is right that stricter rape laws (with enforcement to match) would make sex more dangerous for men than it is now. To be honest I don’t think that is a problem. Making sex a little safer for women and little more dangerous for men would level the playing field out a little bit. We’ve had to teach our girls to be cautious about sex, about who they trust, and how they act, why can’t we teach our boys the same thing? Would that really be so awful?
Comment by Starfoxy — September 5, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
I feel rather sorry for both Mr. Ellipsis and the women in his life.
Comment by Derek — September 5, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
I remember that. It pretty much ended William’s comeback into politics.
I must admit that to have that as your experience would be unspeakably sad.
Much that has to do with sex and with rape is culture-wide, and a serious problem, and one that causes much sadness.
We need a lot more education.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 5, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
I remember the joke that went around at the time.
Sadaam Hussein’s wife told her husband, “You’re the stupidest man in the world. We had a good life. Everything was going fine. Then you had to invade Kuwait. Now we’re being attacked. We live in a bomb shelter. Everybody hates us. How could you be so stupid?
“I am NOT the stupidest person in the world”
“Well why don’t you just go ask your magic mirror who’s the stupidest person in the world?”
Hussein goes into his room and come back out a few minutes later.
“Who’s Clayton Williams?”
Comment by Left Field — September 5, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Some more about Clayton Williams:
http://everything2.com/title/bad+weather+is+like+rape
It is without irony that he went back to work in the oil and gas industry after losing the Election, if you out there get what I mean.
Comment by Mike H. — September 5, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
I urge everyone to read the victim’s account on comment #22 and not just the OP before coming to a conclusion.
I would ask all the people, especially the men, on here commenting that it’s not rape to ask themselves after reading #22 if this happened to their daughter, wife, or mother, if it still wouldn’t be rape.
Comment by Risa — September 5, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
I just have to chime in about the evolutionary reasons behind orgasms. Okay, the theory that women orgasm as a means to protect themselves from rape is *highly* speculative.
The leading hypothesis among evolutionary biologists is that the clitoris (and therefore female orgasm) is a vestigial organ. Kind of like men having nipples.
Another hypothesis involves comparing the female orgasm to that of the female bonobos’. Male bonobos will often kill the offspring of other male bonobos. Female bonobos will therefore mate with as many male bonobos as needed until they achieve orgasm. The result is that the male bonobos are reluctant to kill the offspring, because they are unsure if it’s paternity.
Nobody has any clue as to why women orgasm. Really. Not a clue. There are lots of interesting ideas out there, but they are extremely difficult to test (if not impossible).
Just trying to keep the science behind this debate as accurate as possible!
Comment by Hay — September 5, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
When read just the op I thought… huh.. why didn’t she do something to fight him off… maybe he shouldn’t have been convicted. Then I read how she felt about the situation in post 22 and then thought… well, why wasn’t this in the op. This gives much more detail as to why she did what she did.
And I’m with mfranti… you say you are a great driver until a dog crosses the road and you swerve to miss it even though you know in your brain you should just hit the dog… then you get in a bad accident because you swerved instead of doing what you knew you should have done.
There is no way to know what you would and wouldn’t do in any life threatening situation and to say otherwise if foolishness. This was rape!
I’m not sure that by teaching women to fight, or men to respect a no will solve the problem. I’m not sure it can be solved it is much more complex than just teaching, it’s more like completely breaking down everything that you are programed to do and then reprogram yourself. Some people can and do accomplish it, but most can’t and don’t know how.
Comment by Sunshine — September 5, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
Derek - What are you going to tell Sara when you are married to multiple women in the life to come? Will you confront your God who created this hierarchical gender based world by refusing your additional wives? You’ll need more than 25-45K to support all of them.
Stop by the U of U where young folks are having sex, even Mormons. (They may be having sex in your library.) Take a straw poll and you will find that there is foreplay. Ask the women if they do flirt with the men and say no when they mean maybe and even yes. (Have you ever heard of don’t hate the playa, hate the game.) People don’t go from yes to sex in 60 seconds. Between alcohol, playful gestures, and many other things, there is a lot of gray before a penis penetrates. The whole no thing is a denial of what occurs between men and women all of the time on college campuses and many other places. This academic discussion lacks any real world shades of gray.
Comment by .... — September 6, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Hey, hey; you’re talking about a subject that I actually know quite a bit about and you couldn’t be more wrong. The leading theory (backed up by an astonishingly large amount of DNA evidence) behind women’s orgasms is that women choose their own sexual partners. Women (a bad bad word is coming up all of you) I said women f&^%g choose. There is nothing vestigal about the clitoris. I suggest you look at recent (within the last 20 years) research concerning not only humans but also chimps (paying special attention to bonobos) deer, walruses, birds, etc. Women choose their own sexual partners. We choose the ones that make us feel good. We choose.
You see, all those male researchers though we grrrls (of whatever species) were just victims of whatever big strong boy came around. Then along with dna sequencing came identifying specific fathers. It wasn’t, often, the big male in the herd, rather when big ol’ boy was defending his dominance, the girls were sneaking off in the woods with the boys they liked.
Women choose. Clitorises (clitorii?) not only have a perfectly fine evolutionary function, but are one of the main forces for evolution.
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 1:07 am
mrjy, that’s a fine sentiment but one lacking in empathy regarding the breadth and scope of both 1) what you may find yourself capable of in an unexpected event and 2) what others may or may not have “in [their] power.” You also gloss over the sometimes very real difference between fighting and getting seriously injured/killed and choosing a more difficult to prosecute route that would, perhaps, offer a better chance at survival. And then there’s the whole subject of date rape drugs.
IF it is within a womans power and fighting seems to her the best route, then I’ll back any fight up, all the way. But it’s not always an option, and it’s not always the best option.
Comment by Janet — September 6, 2009 @ 1:12 am
Oh and Hay (sorry about the previous misspelling) it’s not bonobos that kill females’ offspring, its pan troglodytes, normal chimps, that kill offspring. When a new male becomes dominant, some of the females’ offspring are killed so the moms will begin estrus and have his (or someone’s) babies. Same is true of lions, by the way. Bonobos bond by having sex with each other. They’re matriarichal, and the main bonding ritual seems to be lesbian sex, and they’ve figured out oral sex too, so they’re going to hell, fwiw. But bonobos don’t kill babies.
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 1:19 am
Mr. Ellipses. I don’t think anyone has occluded the vast territory around date rape for gray, although most of us would locate its boundaries in vasty different places than would you, I think (and hope).
I think as the father of boys you are perhaps worried by cases such as the Duke lacrosse instance: rest assured, if you think such a case infuriates you, it infuriates most if not all actual rape survivors I know (probably) a great deal more. Since you’ve already imagined the hell she put those boys through–and no matter how boorishly they behaved, they certainly didn’t deserve the hell she dished them–try now to Imagine how much more difficult that woman’s actions made the already difficult prospect of successfully prosecuting a rape that has actually occurred.
And yes, the “he said/she said” nature of date rape renders it a fraught legal game, albeit one in which the legal cards are still heavily stacked to the man’s advantage. Yes, some women make the terrible, horrible, vengeful and to me unimaginable mistake of expiating their own sexual guilt by rewriting history and accusing of rape a man to whom they clearly and readily acquiesced. It is not, however, as you imply, a gigantic problem. The false reporting rate is nearly identical to that of other crimes, around 3%.
You fairly ask from what liberal rag I plucked such a surprisingly scanty statistic? That scandalously feminazi, anti-machismo organization, The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Comment by Janet — September 6, 2009 @ 1:28 am
Oh, and …., as to whether or not this is an academic discussion, my guess is that a huge percentage of us have been in the trenches.
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 1:30 am
Hay, not to beat a dead [deleted] but there’s been actual studies on the benefits of the female orgasm for conception. Hint–it helps.
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Since Janet brought it up, one might recall that the Duke lacrosse team was completely exonerated.
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 1:48 am
re: 225 “Since Janet brought it up, one might recall that the Duke lacrosse team was completely exonerated.”
of rape. but not exonerated of holding a drunken orgy with hired strippers. Isn’t that a lot of what we’re talking about here? Cultural norms that encourage young men to objectify women as sexual objects only, that encourage drinking to excess such that normal inhibitions against inappropriate behavior are suppressed, that create precisely the conditions and environments at college parties where date or acquaintance rape may most likely occur?
Comment by Betty Jo — September 6, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
I think … is jealous of Derek’s popularity with the ladies of FMH…
Just sayin’. 
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
I also have to say, …, that I feel a little concerned for your wife. If you truly believe that the clitoris and the female orgasm are just some kind of vestigial left-over from the change of primordial organisms to sexual dimorphism, I wonder how you could possibly explain the fact that they still exist after billions of years of evolution.
There is solid scientific evidence, as Djinn mentioned, that women orgasm at very specific times in relation to coitus depending upon how procreatively viable and desirable they consider the male with whom they are copulating. The woman’s orgasm when she is with a male who is less evolutionarily desirable, comes at a point where the contractions are more likely to expel his sperm than to assist it in reaching her egg. When, however, she engages in intercourse with a male she instinctively feels is desirable for procreation, her orgasm will occur at the point where it will be likely to assist the travel of the sperm to the egg, encouraging conception.
This process is instinctual and not under the voluntary control of the woman. She still orgasms either way, but one encourages conception and the other helps to prevent it.
You should probably research a bit more before you assert that women’s orgasm is irrelevant, pointless, vestigial, whatever.
Not to mention the fact that if sex is not pleasurable for women, they’re a great deal less likely to engage in it, and a great deal less likely to conceive and carry your offspring for you…
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Sorry - the previous comment #228 was meant to be directed to Hay (and is premised upon the presumption that Hay is a male).
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Nope! I’m a girl! Granted, Hay is a very poor nickname, but it’s the only thing my family could come up with for Haley!
Comment by Hay — September 6, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Re: 226 - More things to teach my sons: don’t drink alcohol and don’t hire strippers.
Comment by Stephanie — September 6, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
There was a College Football Coach (not just a player!), who woke up in bed with a stripper, and remembered nothing of how that happened.
He was fired.
Comment by Mike H. — September 6, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
You know what all you “no means yes” advocates? There’s a way to handle this. You and your partners all need safe words; when invoked, the safe word means “no.” I suggest you and your partner/wife/whatever choose one. Then there’s no confusion. My preference is for “poodle.”
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
For the rest of us, we can stick with “no” meaning, wait for it…. “NO.”
Comment by djinn — September 6, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
re: 226
That is exactly what bothers me when I hear talk about those “poor” Duke lacrosse players. You expressed it beautifully.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Ellipsis, you’re right, there actual game of courting is very complicated. There can be quite a bit of verbal jousting and teasing during the seduction stage. But here is a very extremely simple rule to follow to keep everyone safe: if your partner is still saying no by the time you want to start moving into touching, keep your damn hands off.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
I’m still not entirely convinced that the stripper in the Duke case wasn’t raped. I understand she recanted and the case was dropped, but this very much plays into the common conception that, even moreso than wives, strippers and prostitutes CAN’T be raped. That by the very nature of what they do, they are “offering” their bodies for sex and can be assumed to have consented whenever a man has sex with one of them.
I can’t claim to have any inside knowledge of what really went down in the Duke case, and I realize that the young men have been exonerated, but I still have my doubts.
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
re: 226., 235
OK, hold on a just a minute. We constantly and rightly insist that date-rape victims who drink to excess or go into a bedroom with a strange man or make other unwise decisions nonetheless do not deserve to be raped. Don’t the same principles apply to the Duke lacrosse players?
In other words, are drunken orgies with strippers a fairly disgusting example of American college entertainment? Yes. Do they demean women? Yes. Would I want my daughter to date one of the Duke lacrosse players? No way.
However, does those lacrosse players’ participation in a drunken orgy featuring strippers make them deserve to be the target of false rape accusations? Absolutely not. I don’t see how our commitment to justice can allow us to give any other answer.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 6, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Good rule, Derek.
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Hay, not to gang up on you with djinn, but your information is clearly faulty when you say that things like the clitoris and male nipples are vestigial. Male nipples absolutely are not vestigial (nor are clitorises, as XY women and various other versions of intersexed people attest). If given the same hormones as a lactating female, a man can produce milk.
Body parts that have a function in the other sex cannot possibly be vestigial. They come from the same developmental tissue, and if conditions in the womb were changed, they turn into the same part the opposite sex has. The only way such a body part would become vestigial is if the whole species evolved to not use it at all. While most birds have moved away from penetrative intercourse, mammals don’t seem to be taking the same route.
And hey, even the much-maligned appendix is now suspected of having some subtle immune function.
Comment by Firebyrd — September 6, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
The excuse that “she wanted it” is often given as a defense in rape cases. We have heard “she liked rough sex” when girls say no and fight back and are killed for their resistance.
We have heard “she said no but sounded as if she meant yes.”
Women are blamed for being in the wrong place, time of day, wrong outfit, talking to the wrong person, etc.
The idea that this girl could do anything to control his sexual assault is just putting the responsibility of a sexual attack on her, not the aggressor. Blaming the victim is an old ploy to direct the responsibility away from the aggressor.
The message our society gives to women about rape is not consistent or clear. This is why it is underreported.
Comment by Jo — September 6, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Here is a good article talking about the female orgasm being vestigial.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E0DB1F30F934A25756C0A9639C8B63
Seriously, y’all, evolutionary scientists have been debating this the past 60 years (and longer). I am not asserting that the clitoris is vestigial, because there’s really not enough evidence to make that claim. That being said, there’s really not enough evidence to make *any* claim. There are lots of interesting ideas floating around there about why women orgasm, and none of them are scientifically proven.
All I wanted to say is that stating the purpose of a clitoris as a fact is really quite a dubious claim.
Comment by Hay — September 6, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
For anyone interested, the article I just posted mentions many of the theories behind female orgasm.
As a final word, let me just say that evolutionary science is a difficult field in which to test theories. The debate about female orgasm is far from over, but I don’t believe that diminishes the importance of the clitoris. Long live the clitoris! Hurray!
Comment by Hay — September 6, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
I agree with you, Eve — those guys acted incredibly boorishly but didn’t deserve to be accused of rape unless, of course, they raped someone. The evidence strongly suggests they did not, though I think Lorian makes a good point: our society still struggles with the notion of prostitutes being rape-able at all. Ironically, it’s not that far off from the cognitive struggle some people here have expressed regarding the impossibility of marital rape, since it’s a wife’s job/role to acquiesce. On this one, both the whore and the virtuous wife get . . screwed. Lovely.
djinn, I’m with you. “NO” works fine for “no.” If someone really wants to over-play slavic (whoa, what a racist term) sex, they can pick a safe word. But “NO” really ought to work.
Comment by Janet — September 6, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Hay’s points about the vestigial clitoris aside, her overall point was that the theory that female arousal and orgasm during rape is an uncontrollable, evolutionary response to protect oneself is is in fact only theory. It’s certainly a very comforting theory and one that makes a tremendous amount of sense, but it should not be presented as fact from a scientific standpoint.
Comment by Katie M. — September 6, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Doing a particularly convincing study of women’s sexual response patterns during rape would be enormously prohibitive due to ethical factors alone. The only thing we have to go on are anecdotal reports of women who have been raped (and, less desirably, their attackers). While you are essentially correct that there is precious little strictly clinical data to formulate a truly scientific study of the issue, I do think it can be quite reasonably determined that, in all likelyhood, the physical response of rape victims is autonomic and, therefore, most probably involved in protecting the body of the victim from damage or, at the very least, promoting conception.
The fact is, though, that there are two areas of scientific study surrounding female orgasm and sexual response that quite clearly support the concept of orgasm being an automatic protective response in such situations. One is the earlier-cited study which shows that women experience physiologic responses to a variety of different sexual situations, despite the fact that their cognitive responses are limited to those situations which appeal to their sexual orientation and species. This demonstrates a likely purely autonomic response to sexual input which is lacking in the males, who only exhibited physiological responses to their cognitively desirable sexual input.
The other study is one that demonstrates that female orgasm takes place in specific relation to the inherent desirability of the sexual partner as a mate and sire for offspring. The less desirable the partner for reproductive purposes, the more likely the woman will orgasm at a point during coitus where her contractions will work to prevent conception, rather than encourage it, as is the case for a desirable partner.
Both of these facts combine to scientifically support the idea that female orgasmic response to rape serves basic biological and evolutionary purposes, which are very likely protective of the woman’s reproductive potential — one by preserving the integrity of her reproductive organs and the other by increasing the likelihood that, if she does conceive from a rape, at least the offspring will more likely inheret desirable genetic traits from the male progenitor, also contributing to the woman’s “reproductive success” (i.e., having the maximun number of her genes reproduced successfully in the next and future generations).
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
“inherit.” Sorry for the typos. I’m tired.
Comment by Lorian — September 6, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
re: 238
I get what you’re saying, Eve, and you are right that the Duke players deserve to be falsely charged with rape (if the charge was false; Lorian makes a good point about that). What I’m saying is that it is a stretch to treat them like innocent victims. They really don’t equate with a woman who is given too much to drink and foolishly allows herself to be put in hazardous situations. These boys were actively and eagerly involved in activities which objectified women in the worst way; even if the final verdict was accurate and they weren’t violating this woman, they were certainly actively taking advantage of her. They were the aggressors. They may not deserve to be charged with rape, but they don’t deserve to be treated as innocent victims either.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Janet, I think you put it really well in #222. (Sorry, I meant to refer to that in my earlier comment!)
Derek, yeah, I agree that their behavior was pretty disgusting. (It was also, I think we’re all afraid, relatively routine behavior for frat boys and college athletes.) And I agree that it was degrading to women and morally problematic in a way that the behavior of a woman who simply drinks too much or makes imprudent choices isn’t morally problematic.
Perhaps a hypothetical scenario might clarify my question about this issue. Suppose a woman goes out one night and does something morally loathsome but legal, or something that constitutes only a minor infraction of the law. Maybe she’s a white, wealthy privileged woman who taunts and publicly humiliates a man of color with racial epithets. Maybe, in the company of mocking male admirers, she steals his car and defaces it with racial epithets in front of his friends. Let’s say, for the purposes of argument, that one of those friends is so enraged that he subsequently tracks this woman down and rapes her.
Do we describe this woman as an innocent victim? Emerging date-rape rhetoric usually erects a wall between a woman’s previous acts, however foolish or morally blameworthy or downright illegal, and a rape that she undergoes after those acts. (Very rightly, in my view.) But here’s the rub: do we maintain that wall in this case? If not, why not? And if so, why would we erode the analogous wall in the case of the Duke lacrosse players–insisting that while not deserving of false accusation they are nonetheless not “innocent victims” because of acts they committed prior to the rape (acts that in and of themselves that, however morally blameworthy, would never, ever have brought them in for the national excoriation they experienced)–?
Comment by ZD Eve — September 7, 2009 @ 12:18 am
I’m coming to this late and there are a lot of comments that I haven’t read yet. I will read them, but first I wanted to say something before I forgot. I’m also kind of ill right now, so I can only hope this makes sense.
Situations like this are why so much of the feminist community is currently trying to switch the paradigm from “No Means No” to enthusiastic consent (in bold because I think it’s cool). Basically, if you don’t know for certain that the person you’re with is really, really into it, then don’t do it. If she says “No,” then that can’t be enthusiastic consent. Likewise, if she seems too intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated to respond enthusiastically, then you don’t go there. If there’s any question at all, then you don’t do it. That’s it. Of course, much of this is coming from feminists who are also seeking sexual empowerment, so YMMV, but I think it’s a great idea. Basically, it’s not “No means No,” but “Yes means Yes,” and anything less than a definite, enthusiastic yes is not worth your time. There’s a Yes Means Yes blog that explains all of this much better than I can in my current state. The blog is based off of the book of the same name. Just wanted to point out a cool feminist concept to y’all.
Oh, and yeah, obviously the situation even as initially described in the OP is rape. The overturned conviction is disappointing, but immaterial to the point of whether or not this is rape. He continued having sex with her after she told him not to; that’s rape. End of story.
Comment by ohmissjulie — September 7, 2009 @ 2:03 am
250 He continued having sex with her after she told him not to; that’s rape. End of story.
The legal definition of rape (see 155) requires forcible compulsion - physical force, a threat or loss of consciousness. Was physical force used? Did he threaten her? Was she unconscious?
Comment by Howard — September 7, 2009 @ 9:14 am
#250 Very cool feminist concept. Thanks.
Comment by Stephanie — September 7, 2009 @ 9:52 am
re: 238 “However, does those lacrosse players’ participation in a drunken orgy featuring strippers make them deserve to be the target of false rape accusations? Absolutely not. I don’t see how our commitment to justice can allow us to give any other answer.”
I don’t believe ANYONE suggested that they deserved to be falsely accused of rape. I for one was just saying that a school, a program, and group of kids who countenance drunken parties with strippers have some responsibility for creating an unsafe environment for young women and well as young men, AND have some responsibility for at least tacit approval of the objectification of women as sex objects that results.
I heard a while back about some college administrations advocating lowering the legal drinking age (because it was too hard to police?) or some such reason. The dangers of combining alchohol with adolescent libidos never seem to be mentioned in such discussions. As long as the kids don’t drive drunk then it seems to be ok with adults who should know better. And, just as Stephanie and her DH shall make sure their sons are properly raised to understand what “no” means, so must every one of us teach our daughters well to speak out and be “rude” (horrors), when the situation so warrants or demands. Gads. When I think of that whole Duke scene, I’m near driven to start looking for cloistered convent schools for the granddaughters!
Comment by Betty Jo — September 7, 2009 @ 10:23 am
“I don’t believe ANYONE suggested that they deserved to be falsely accused of rape. I for one was just saying that a school, a program, and group of kids who countenance drunken parties with strippers have some responsibility for creating an unsafe environment for young women and well as young men, AND have some responsibility for at least tacit approval of the objectification of women as sex objects that results.” Likewise, we women must accept responsibility for putting ourselves into unsafe situations!
Comment by StillConfused — September 7, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Howard
You mean the legal definition of rape in Pennsylvania in 1994. Laws do vary. What may be a felony in one state may not be illegal in another’
As for not being force. did she slip and fall on top of his penis?
If a window is left open, is it legal for someone to enter and remove your property. What if you tell them to stop and they keep removing your property, must they use forcible compulsion for it be illegal?
I recall a case where someone was sitting in their car waiting for the light to change. and a person opened a door and climbed in and ordered the Driver to take them somewhere. The person was charged with kidnapping.
Neither of these cases had ” forcible compulsion”. Yet it seems to be assumed that men have a right to access womens bodies and sexually use them, unless implicitly and emphatically instructed otherwise.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — September 7, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Suzanne:You mean the legal definition of rape in Pennsylvania in 1994.
Yes.
As for not being force. did she slip and fall on top of his penis?
Up thread I stated that force was present. Was it enough force to satisfy the statute?
Comment by Howard — September 7, 2009 @ 11:35 am
That depends on what you mean by “accept responsibility.” Do you mean, “I wish I wouldn’t have contributed to conversations that led people to believe that women are a commodity and our voices should be ignored,” like in an abstract, I didn’t take this seriously until it happened to me sort of way?
I guess I see that.
But if you mean, “I wish I didn’t cause that man to rape me because of what I was wearing/where I stood/ how my “no” was perceived,” then no, I don’t get that at all.
Beyond being a slap in the face to victims of rape, it is beyond condescending to men.
Comment by crazywomancreek — September 7, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I am too lazy to go back and blockquote all of the pertinent lines but I want to defer to ZDEve on the Lacrosse players issue. Paying a stripper to perform for you should never, ever be conflated with being a rapist or even next door to one. They are the exception and not the rule but I have many male friends who have gone to strip clubs, hired strippers etc and they have nothing but respect for the work these women do. If you haven’t already seen the documentary Live Nude Girls Unite!, please do.
It is too complicated to fit into a tidy comment but I want to try and make this point: I know that the vast majority of sex workers are victims of sexual abuse who would not choose that line of work if their lives had more healthy dynamics and less deep dysfunction.
I also believe that the majority of a sex workers clients are going to be the scum of the misogyny barrel.
I totally get that. I do.
BUT I want to leave the door open for those sex workers who choose their work out of empowerment, not dysfunction. I hear you saying, “sure, and I want the Easter Bunny to hop on over too,” but honestly, I know these women. And I know these men. It may be antithetical to second wave feminist sensibilities but all sexually expressive behavior isn’t grounded in a victim/aggressor framework.
A lot of it is, but I feel intellectually dishonest not leaving space in this discussion for men and women who fall on the other side of the divide.
Does that make sense?
Comment by crazywomancreek — September 7, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Howard #256 - If ANY amount of force was present (which you agree it was), that constitutes rape. A little teensy bit of forcing his penis into her unwilling vagina? Please. If there was force or even the threat of force, I cannot see why you are still quibbling about the use of force. Does he have to leave bruises for it to be enough force for you? Yikes, Howard. Yikes.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Your children are listening to “Good Girls Go Bad” by Cobra Starship. Listen to the words and look at the comments being posted by both men and women on YouTube. Boys and girles know how to push both the emotional and physical buttons that can move people to sexual intercourse, even those who wear WWJD braclets, promise rings, et al.
Sometimes good mormon girls have remorse the next day due to the oppresive sexual structure created by the suits in SLC. In some cases, claiming rape is a way to explain their behavior and save face.
Comment by .... — September 7, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Lorian 259 If ANY amount of force was present…that constitutes rape.
I am simply pointing out that the 1994 Pennsylvania statute appears to disagree with you.
Comment by Howard — September 7, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
And I will point out again along with many here that statutes change. As stated earlier, it has not been so long ago that the law in this country was that a woman could not be considered to have been raped by her husband because her body belonged to him to use as he saw fit whenever he chose with or without her specific consent. Her consent was assumed.
Were those women not raped? Of course they were.
In fact, Iran recently passed a law reinforcing this principal that women owed sex to their husbands upon demand and that husbands could not be accused of raping their wives. Does that mean Iranian wives are never raped by their husbands?
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
That’s an interesting point of view ‘…’ #260.
I’ve been following this discussion and have been quite taken aback by the black or white thinking on this subject.
I’m not LDS and with my also non LDS friends with all see a huge amount of grey in the original post.
I have explored my sexuality on my own terms my whole life. I’ve been in situations where I rationally I thought ‘this is not a good idea’ but emotional and physically it was ‘go, go, go’ … and during these sexual situations, I wafted back and forth between saying ‘no, I really shouldn’t be doing this’ to ‘wow, that feels great’. Was I 100% “yes”? No. Was it rape? I think a lot of women above would say yes. I would say, No.
Do I regret these situations? No, cos the yes out-weighed the no. Embarrassments? Yes, once or twice! But I’ve never felt raped, victimised, shame or guilt about my sexual encounters. And therefor have no inclination to cast blame.
Not that I deny that rape occurs but I do think that people who allow their sexuality to be control by religious belief or who have very black and white notions of sexuality, likely have a harder time seeing the ambiguities that perhaps people who don’t have these beliefs do.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 7, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Ellipsis #260
Um… No they aren’t.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
I read the lyrics, btw. Sounds like a case of seduction and consensual sex, by the way, not rape. No one is saying that women don’t like to be seduced. But there is a vast crater of difference between seduction and rape. And the fact that you seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the two concerns me.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
re: Duke fiasco (Janet, Eve, CWC)
You all make some very compelling points. From a strictly rational perspective, you are right. I guess I’m just really loathe to give people like these players a pass because the sorts of things they did (and yes, Eve, it is pretty routine behavior in communities valuing machismo–frats, athletics, military) are the sorts of behaviors that build the foundation for sexual abuse; they generate the atmosphere in which women are dehumanized, reduced to their sexual components, and more easily made targets of violation.
re: 257
That isn’t addressed enough. It is rather condescending and demeaning to men to assume that we are too stupid or too ruled by our testicles to be able to honor women.
re: 258
Theoretically, I get what you’re saying about women who choose sex industries for empowerment. I don’t rule out the possibility. But I’m not sure I get what you mean about the men on the other side of the divide. What constructive/positive reasons are there for men to patronize sex workers? What motivations could they have which aren’t exploitative, which don’t fit into the victim/aggressor model?
Comment by Derek — September 7, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Barmy stoat, the fact that you did not “feel raped” or consider yourself at the time to be violated indicates to me that you were not raped. You had internal conflicts about the rightness of your actions, but you were choosing to engage in the sexual relations despite your conscience suggesting to you that you should not be.
That is also a far different thing than being raped. If you have conscience qualms, or internal conflicts about what you are choosing to do, this has nothing to do with the other person forcing himself on you or doing something to you against your will. It is the same as going to the bakery and buying a dozen donuts and eating them all. Should you have done it? Of course not. Is the guy behind the counter who sold you the donuts, or the baker who baked them that morning responsible for your poor or regrettable choice? Of course not.
However, if the guy behind the counter laid down on top of you and pushed the donuts in your mouth, while you said, “No, I don’t want to eat these donuts,” we’d be talking about a whole different situation, wouldn’t we?
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
You’re entirely missing the point Lorian.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 7, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
adding…
If I had described my experience without stating my ultimate take on that experience, most of you would have cried rape… afterall, I had said, ‘no’ but the bloke carried on.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 7, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Am I? You said that women on this board would consider you to have been raped. I don’t. I DO consider that the woman in the OP was raped, however. She said, “No,” repeately. She told the man who raped her that he had raped her. She reported the rape. She considered herself raped because she did not consent to intercourse.
You consented. You internally debated the wisdom of your consent. You admit it may have been a mistake. But you consented. You did not in the moment or after the fact describe yourself as feeling violated or feeling raped, or as having anything done to you against your will. You made a choice about which you experienced internal conflict. This is far different from withholding consent and yet having intercourse forced upon you against your will.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Barmy, if you said no and the “bloake carried on,” then yes, it was rape. But from your initial description, you simply had internal conflicts, not expressed.
If you do not feel you have been raped, this does imply your consent. That’s purely up to you. But it in no way makes me question the word of another woman who says that she WAS raped, DID feel raped, experienced her violation as a rape. You are entitled to your own perceptions of your own experiences and if you don’t feel you were raped, fine.
Strictly speaking, though, if you verbally denied or withdrew your consent at any point in the process and the man continued to have sex with you anyway, this is rape.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
BTW, your initial comment was:
There is a vast difference, again, between saying “No, I shouldn’t be doing this,” (expressing an internal conflict over consent which you gave but knew you probably shouldn’t have), and, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you. Stop doing this.”
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
You had completely assumed what my experience was and have now completely contradicted yourself, Lorian.
See? It’s not so black and white, it is?
I was not raped. I had moments of saying ‘no’ but then moments of saying ‘keep going’… this ambiguity is the stuff of human sexuality and infact most human behaviour.
You can not pin down the vastness of complexities of two naked human beings into yes/good/consent OR no/bad/rape… life is not like that.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 7, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
barmy stoat - Lorian cannot concede any of the gray. Many people have said no, but they keep going anyway due to overhwelming emotion. Emotion and pleasure can cause even the most rational people to do things that they would not normally do. Thank you for your story.
Given that most LDS boys/men are broken per past FMH posts, I don’t understand why this is an issue. LDS men only have time for video games and breaks for mom to bring down another round ot snacks.
Comment by .... — September 7, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
… most times, I mean. Sometimes it is obvious.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 7, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
barmy stoat
I think we aware of complexities. One reason we have rules of conduct is to prevent misunderstandings.
I myself, would not have sex with a woman unless I talked to her and knew she was very agreeable. If she gave her consent, and was bored by it, I’m not pursuing the encounter.
As we work out our sexual complexities, I think it better to back off from a willing partner, than to mistakenly force ourselves upon another.
So, I think, the law should be that rape occurs where there is not explicit consent to the sexual activity .I am aware that I may choose to proceed on implicit consent, and hope I understood correctly. I can also choose to proceed, even with a empathic refusal and then claim I had consent. But my choice of behavior doesn’t change how I think the law should read.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — September 7, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Barmy stoat
No… You were (deliberately?) ambiguous in your first post about your experience. If you DID say “No. Stop,” to the man in question, then I would classify your experience as rape. However, I leave open the question of whether or not you experienced it as rape. If you did not, then it would seem to me that your consent was given and not retracted.
If you merely said, “No, I really shouldn’t be doing this, but it sure feels good,” (as you said in your first post), then I cannot interpret that as, “No, I don’t WANT you to do this to me — stop!”
You said “I really shouldn’t be doing this,” NOT “I don’t want YOU to do this, please stop.” There is a huge difference between the two. The first is a situation of your consent being given to something you know you probably ought not have consented to. The second is something being done to you without your consent. The first is consensual sex. The second is rape.
If you are going to make deliberately misleading posts and then half retract them, it will probably not serve to advance the discussion. It would appear that you are simply attempting to misdirect and obfuscate.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Aren’t you treating his words in the same manner as the evil prosecutors who interrogate alleged rape victims? If the roles were reversed, you would allow the woman to clarify and further explain her statement(s).
Comment by .... — September 7, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
I don’t understand why she didn’t scream. He didn’t have a gun or a knife and they were presumably in a highly populated area where there was a good chance that somebody would have heard. Most men are deterred by screaming that somebody else might hear. She doesn’t mention that he had gagged her or had his hands round her neck.
So there’s something about the whole description that for me just doesn’t add up.
A man once tried to drag me into a public lavatory in a park, which I escaped from by screaming, resisting and running away. I’m not saying by any means that it’s always possible to get away, but in her description she doesn’t seem to have made much effort to get away and she doesn’t say that she was drunk enough to be comatose or semi-comatose. Nor does she say she was crying.
Quite frankly, it’s bad enough that when women are subjected to assaults which clearly used violence, and which they clearly made vigorous efforts to escape from, they still often have their past sexual history, ‘virtue’ and underwear paraded and discussed in court. I don’t think that this kind of ambiguous situation actually helps to improve the way that rape is perceived; it doesn’t portray the reality of the people I know who have been raped which is of violence, gagging or unconsciousness.
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 7, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
PS. I have strongly feminist views re gender roles.
I just don’t see why she didn’t make more fuss.
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 7, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
I refuse to consign the whole male sex to the nursery. I insist on believing that some men are my equals.
Brigid Brophy
kudos, zd.
278 brother, please. i, too am interested in ensuring that inappropriate doesn’t = rape, that men are held accountable for their actual crimes, not invented ones but you appear eager to convince us that sex is such a morass of shifting definitions that the attempt to categorize rape as anything other than barely surviving the attack is not rape which is nonsense. It’s just a conversation that is not interesting to have, rather like talking to those rabid Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents.
“Yes, I know your beliefs are strongly held, you have data to back up your assertions….”
At the end of the day no one has moved an iota. Or a jot. Anyway, we haven’t moved.
Do you have anything non-obnoxious/ self-aggrandizing to say?
Comment by crazywomancreek — September 7, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
Maybe it’s because I expect women to be able to be assertive with men that I feel this way?
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 7, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Does anyone recall the case of the woman who kidnapped and raped the male Mormon missionary in England in the late 70s?
If I recall correctly and I may very well don’t, she claimed he (who was much stronger and larger) went with him willingly, and even though he was handcuffed to the bed (with mink) the sex was consensual because he had an erection.
I wonder why he didn’t put up more of a fuss?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — September 7, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
#283 Suzanne ~ That case re-surfaced last year, one of the first things I ever blogged about. Here.
For the record, the missionary claimed she had a male friend helping her and that they had a gun.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — September 7, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Thru the work of FMH, we can make the word rapist another easy label that can be thrown at white males when you can no longer make your point or you are frustrated with the hierarchical male world. Rapist will become like the word Racist. Laughable.
You think that I am on one end of the spectrum and you are on the other. This is untrue. I have a daughter, a mother, sisters, nieces, etc… I want them to be able to come forward and make charges of rape in such cases; however, I have sons, a father, a brother, uncles, etc.. I want to assure that they are presumed innocent. There must be high standards for bringing charges and finding someone guilty.
I like to argue any side of a position as it worries me when a group of people come together and push a position without investigating and trying to understand the otherside(s).
I like partisanship. It worries me when the voices of the minority are quieted, even when they are members of the “opposition”. Even Heavenly Father let Satan make his pitch.
Comment by .... — September 7, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
283 - I don’t know the details of that case, and how she was able to overpower him, so I’m not able to comment.
I know that people are often overpowered and in situations that they are unable to escape from. It’s just that in this particular case she doesn’t describe much of an attempt to scream and / or run away. A lot of men are dissuaded by these actions, so it seems a shame that she didn’t give them more of a go.
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 7, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Bridget Jack Meyers
Gosh, if that isn’t crazy.
I find it interesting that under English law that McKinney couldn’t be charged with rape, only indecent assault.
I do recall the whole thing being treated as a big comedy.
I feel for those poor puppies.
And for De-lurked for this,
Did the missionary check to see if the gun was loaded? Shouldn’t he have bullet holes in his body if he was intent on saving his virtue?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — September 7, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
287 - as I said, I don’t know the details of the missionary case, so I’m not able to comment.
The case that we’re all discussing does not include a gun. If it did, or indeed any violence or threat of violence at all then I would completely understand why she was so passive.
People seem to be assuming that if she had started screaming he would immediately have violently assaulted her. But she was in a dorm room, where people would hear what was going on. She wasn’t in a deserted alley or field. The guy would have been aware of this, and the implications for him if he was found attacking a girl in his room (or she was found running from his room).
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 7, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
PS. I think that the women mentioned who was in a sound proof music room with a locked door was in a much more potentially dangerous situation. And no, I don’t think that there was anything she could / should have done to avoid that situation. It is the university’s responsibility to ensure that the resources they provide for studying are safe for students and they should fit cctv etc.
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 7, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
mr ellipses:
The notion that we would cavalierly throw about the label “rapist” is about the most offensive piece of twaddle I have ever read here, and we’ve had plenty of drive-by twaddle. Rape survivors do not appreciate people using the word lightly. Here, I’ll give you an example: I was drugged so I have no idea if I was raped or not since I was all unconscious. Thus, 90% of the time I don’t say I’m a rape survivor because I really don’t know. I say “sexual assault survivor” because I know that to be accurate, and I don’t want to use “rape” too lightly.
Nobody, EVER, should be falsely accused or imprisoned for rape so I understand why the burden of proof is so high. The burden of proof needs to be high. Nonetheless, the obstinate refusal to accept as rape anything short of “snatched and beaten bloody by a stranger while you scream your head off” does not in any way help. Most rapes are not like that, just as most child molestations aren’t perpetrated by strangers who leap from the bushes and nab our kiddos at the park.
May God help any woman in your life who survives one, lest you refuse to believe her. I’m begging you–begging you, to consider your own advice and wonder if this is not as black and white as you suggest. Because, in all statistical probability, some of those women in your life for whom you would gladly fling yourself in front of a truck have already weathered a sexual assault. Chances are. Have you thought of that? Surely. I believe you when you say you love the women in your life. I believe you when you say you would want to help them pursue prosecution if they survived an assault. I’m sure you do love them. Some of them may wish they could share the burden with you but maybe they feel like they can’t. Wouldn’t that be horrible? Really, truly gut-wrenchingly horrible? Wouldn’t risking looking unmanly to a bunch of women on the internet whom you’ve never met and whom you’re resolved to dislike be small potatoes comparatively? Lucky you, we never need to know if you reconsider and wonder if someone you love has survived and needs you to support her. Because, you know, chances are. One in 3, according to the FBI. Pretty sobering.
You started out with a fine point: we need to think about our sons as well as our daughters. IN fact, your second (I think it was) comment, well worded and not yet hostile, has had me thinking about a post I’ll write when I’m over recovering from surgery. one on *how* we protect our sons, I thought you had made a decent point. It’s too bad you didn’t maintain the level of discourse at which you started, because you could have begun a truly useful subthread. Instead, you managed to out yourself as someone who tells others they don’t know how to listen whilst stuffing his ears with cotton, flailing his arms about his head, dancing as though he has to pee, and yelling “la la lalalala I can’t hear you” at the top of his voice. Which is fine and good here in cyberspace–not so fine and dandy to a niece or a sister or a friend. One in three, brother. One in three. Lots of women sitting beside you at church, at work, at the family reunion. I’m all for helping heal those truely falsely accused–all for it!–but we don’t have to choose between protecting our sons and healing our daughters. Raising them to respect each other is the best solution for each.
Comment by Janet — September 7, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
P.S. if, by the way, you are not just trying to poke sticks at people for fun (I try not to assume the worst of people) and you decide to engage in further discourse rather than taunting, you might choose a moniker. ” . . . ” is dreadfully difficult to address.Otherwise, I sincerely wish you well and wish you on your way.
Comment by Janet — September 7, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Ellipsis:
Excuse me, but I didn’t stop her from clarifying (and in fact, changing) her statement. She’s done that just fine. But changing the story also changes the conclusion.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
Ellipsis:
I haven’t noticed you being quieted. No one is stopping you from making your points and stating your positions. If disagreeing with you constitutes “quieting the minority,” then you have a very peculiar idea of “quieting.” In fact, I’d say that it is you who is trying to quiet the opposition with statements such as this one.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Janet #290 & 291 - Great posts.
Comment by Lorian — September 7, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
I agree that protecting our sons, brothers, and the other men whom we love from false accusations is very important. I believe that the strength of my above rule is that it helps protect both parties; the women from being violated, and the men from accusations. If you avoid sexual contact without explicit approval, then you needn’t worry much about the “grey” realm of semi-consensual (or interpretively consensual) congress that Mr. Ellipsis appears to be so concerned about. Perhaps this means some individuals miss out on the sex that some women do truly desire, as Mr. Ellipsis claims. So what? Better to err on the side of restraint than violation. Perhaps these women will learn how to come to terms with their sexuality and more explicitly state their consent. Reading implied consent may possibly work in married couples like Mr. Ellipsis’, where the two had the time to learn to interpret each others’ signals. I’m a bit skeptical that such signals can be effectively read in the case of strangers like those in the OP.
Comment by Derek — September 7, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
#251 Howard:
The legal definition is secondary to the social definition in my opinion, since statutes vary from state to state. Reading her testimony, however, I would argue that she was incapacitated by fear and/or in a dissociative state. I would call that a loss of consciousness.
#279 De-lurked
The experiences you cite, while chilling, are not the statistical “norm” of sexual assault. The majority of sexual abuse occurs in an acquaintance situation, usually with someone you trust. Much of the time the victim doesn’t know what’s happening until it’s too late. Did you read the victim’s testimony in this case? Any of the other accounts shared in these comments? To “freeze” or not react is a very common reaction to such an unbelievable situation. I don’t think ignoring part of the realities of rapes is helpful to the rest. Or to anyone. Rape is violent even if little “violence” is used, and it’s scarring (emotionally, if not physically) no matter what. That, I think, is helpful for everyone to understand. Knowing that doesn’t devalue the traumatizing experiences you and your friends have had; in fact, I believe it strengthens them.
For the record, I’m really glad that you were able to maintain the ability and the presence of mind necessary to fight off your attacker. Sexual assault is a terrible thing to experience, even when it’s not a completed assault as in your case, but things could’ve been much worse.
Comment by ohmissjulie — September 8, 2009 @ 1:36 am
Thanks, Lorian! Since I’m on morphine, it’s a relief to know I’m even typing complete sentences
.
Comment by Janet — September 8, 2009 @ 2:04 am
Ohmissjulie 296: The legal definition is secondary to the social definition…
I agree, both definitions are important.
I would argue that she was incapacitated by fear and/or in a dissociative state. I would call that a loss of consciousness.
Interesting point, thanks for bringing it up. I wonder if that would qualify as “unconscious” for the statute. But he stopped when he saw a “blank look on her face,” immediately withdrew and asked “is anything wrong?”
Comment by Howard — September 8, 2009 @ 9:13 am
I think …. has made his/her point clear (annoying pendantic note: his/her name has four periods and so is not an ellipsis) Any women who isn’t beaten bloody hasn’t been raped and so should be shunned as an immoral slut. This attitude make rape easier, because the rapist is protected by two things–the females are socialized out of fighting back unti it is too late (deference to priesthood holders, etc.) and then after the deed is done the females cannot tell because of the attitute that ellipsis + . has so perfectly demonstrated: they’re not believed unless they have visible scars, but telling is admitting to sexual activity — they’re removed from the “good girl” category and become, yeah we all know.
Comment by djinn — September 8, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Lorian in 277
Says who? You? Were you in the bed with the bloke and myself? Do you know anything about me or the bloke? Our relationship? No, you don’t. Yet you feel qualified to make a judgment call about my experience.
I brought up the experience to highlight the fact that when two human beings interact it is often very complicated and nuanced and that notions of ‘if x occurred than it’s rape’ are not often useful for seeing the full picture. Like I said, life is not all black or white.
And what I ought to do in terms of my sexuality is my own decision.
Comment by barmy stoat — September 8, 2009 @ 9:55 am
@288
It was a really windy day once at this fair I was at and one of the structures pulled loose and came flying towards my mom and me. Both of us saw the thing hurtling towards us and I ran for it. My mom froze in place, looking straight at it, screaming.
Should I conclude from this that because my mom didn’t move that she wanted to be struck by the object? I don’t think so. Similarly I wouldn’t be surprised if other women reacted differently to situations than I would.
As another example, Philip Garrido attempted to capture a woman one day and succeeded in handcuffing one of her hands but she got away. He tried again that day and succeeded in capturing another woman using the same ruse. Did the second one want to be driven out to his shed and raped for 6 hours? Why didn’t she do as much to get away as the first woman?
Comment by barnetto — September 8, 2009 @ 11:13 am
- 296
But this is precisely what we are debating; whether this case and others like it qualify as rape.
I don’t know what these statistics are that you’re quoting that show that most people freeze when in these situations.
Yes, people freeze when they are having a gun held to their head, or a knife at their throat. Or if they are threatened with violence.
But the guy in this case was not like that at all.
For people who are used to assertively setting clear boundaries with others through their words and actions, this woman’s behavior seems incompatible with rape.
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 8, 2009 @ 11:20 am
301 - but the guy in this case didn’t use any force! If he had handcuffed her, or even threatened her with that then I would understand completely.
Also, this wasn’t a split second thing. It went on for some time, at any point of which she could have started seriously objecting.
Comment by De-lurked for this — September 8, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Barmy stoat #300:
No, says you, in your very first post about the encounter…
Your post # 263 states:
I have based every comment I have made to you upon your own words in your own posts. You cannot change your story and claim that you told the man to stop what he was doing without changing the entire story. If you misspoke in your initial post then retract it and we can work from there. In your initial post, you said that you did something which you had second thoughts about because you knew you shouldn’t be doing it, but you went ahead anyway and did it because it felt good and you apparently wanted to. You said you didn’t feel raped or violated and that you engaged of your own free will despite your personal reservations that you knew you probably ought not.
That is quite different than someone who
to have sex and who tells the man, “No, I don’t want to do this.”
Now, if you wish to change your account to what you posted in a subsequent post, namely:
…then do so, and we will discuss on that basis.
Did you say “No. I don’t want to do this. Stop,” to the “bloke” in question, or did you say, “No, I probably shouldn’t do this, but go ahead and do it anyway because it feels good?” On that question hangs the entirety of the conclusion.
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Incidentally, barmy stoat:
I agree absolutely. I have not told you what you should or should not do. If you know anything about my history on this blog, I think you would realize that I’d be the last person to tell you what you should or should not do.
Again, my comments to you have been based upon your OWN expressions of ambivalence about the rightness or appropriateness or wisdom of your actions. I’m basing my comments solely upon what you have expressed as being your judgments of your own choices at the time you were making them. I have no interest in judging you for your sexual behaviors. You are quite competent to make those judgments yourself, and you have done so here on this very thread.
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 11:41 am
re: 301
Excellent analogies.
Comment by Derek — September 8, 2009 @ 11:42 am
#302 - De-lurked:
What you are missing, though, is the fact that many women DO freeze in situations of stress or assault. It’s kind of a “deer-in-the-headlights” response and it is well-documented.
Additionally, people who were sexually molested as young children have a much greater likelihood of experiencing dissociative behavior patterns under stress and particularly under the stress of a sexual assault, or almost any sexual situation, even consensual situations with a trusted partner.
Women who have been previously raped or repeatedly molested as children or even in adulthood will often dissociate during sex as a protective mechanism against flashbacks of their experiences. Their minds have come to associate sex with physical and psychological harm, and they experience a conditioned response which protected them in childhood by allowing them to dissociate from the experience — go to some closed off place in their minds where they do not have to fully experience the physical and psychological trauma of the rape or abuse — but which in adulthood makes them not only unable to experience a truly loving, fulfilling, mutual sexual relationship with another person, but also far more likely to find themselves further victimized by rape. The reason is that, the moment someone begins to behave sexually with them, whether in a safe and loving context or in an aggressive and inappropriate context, the conscious portion of their mind flees to some inner “safe place” where they “watch” the subsequent activity as though someone else were in their body and they are floating above looking on.
This leaves these women highly vulnerable (sometimes men, too, but far more frequently women, for a number of reasons) to sexual aggressors, who often have a “nose for victims,” and will hone in on such women and take advantage of their inability (and it IS an inability, not an unwillingness) to protect themselves.
If you do not believe me, do some research on dissociative disorders, most of which are brought about by childhood physical and sexual abuse. Such people are not uncommon. And they are frequently the victims of multiple rapes over the course of their lives. Some do not even remember that they were victimized as children because they dissociated so quickly and so completely during those times.
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 11:57 am
I really need to correct the first sentence in my previous post to read: “…many PEOPLE do freeze in situations of stress or assault…”
This is not just true of women. Many men will freeze when they are attacked without warning.
We took several years of karate training with our kids in which there were weekly practice sessions on how to deal with various types of attacks — a stranger grabbing you from behind, someone approaching you while you are seated on the ground, someone grabbing you by the wrists, etc. The idea is to train the responses into your subconscious, so that if and when you face the actual situation, your responses will be automatic, and you won’t, hopefully, go into a panic mode where you freeze and the attacker is able to complete the attack.
Fear can cause you to react. It can also cause you not to react. This is the basis for all kinds of self-defense training techniques. If you are not prepared to react, you may not react at all.
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
CWC,
Sure, and I want the Easter Bunny to hop on over too.
Janet,
“The notion that we would cavalierly throw about the label “rapist” is about the most offensive piece of twaddle I have ever read here, and we’ve had plenty of drive-by twaddle.”
Amen, sister. Amen.
Derek,
Well said.
Lorian,
“What you are missing, though, is the fact that many women DO freeze in situations of stress or assault. It’s kind of a “deer-in-the-headlights” response and it is well-documented.”
Exactly right.
Comment by Kaimi — September 8, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
And Lorian was correct to clarify that men are just as likely to freeze up when faced with stressful situations as women. Women are just much more likely to face that stress in the form of a sexual assault.
Comment by Derek — September 8, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
When I was 16, I woke up to sounds of my two brothers fighting. My oldest brother was having a lsd flashback (or a reaction to some other drug- he tried all of them at some point). I laid in bed thinking I should do something, my middle brother, who I love deeply, could get hurt. I should go in my parent’s room and wake them up, I should call someone, I should do something. From where the room’s were positioned, it was very possible my parent’s would not wake up. I was honestly worried about my brother seriously hurting my other brother. And yet I laid in bed, frozen, unable to move. So, does that mean I wanted my brother to get beat up? Thankfully, my dad did wake up and him and my middle brother were able to restrain my oldest brother and everything worked out ok (and if I had been out there things would have probably been worse). But I can easily understand how someone in a traumatizing situation ends up frozen, unable to move, fight, speak.
Comment by Tami — September 8, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
#302 De-lurked:
I understand that, but the legal definition is going to vary from state to state. What qualifies legally as rape in some places does not qualify as such in others. And actually, the OP is about whether or not the survey’s respondents perceived this situation as rape. Therefore, I saw the social definition of rape as being the real issue here. And I say it’s definitely rape. She verbally said, “No,” not once but many times. That’s all I needed. Even the alleged assailant in the original case admitted that she said, “No.” That should have been all he needed to tell him to quit. The presence of “force” is arguable as has been stated, and based on her description of the event she felt forced. She also appears to have fallen into a mildly dissociative state, rendering her unable to react as quickly or forcefully as she might have liked. Again, anecdotally speaking that’s a very common reaction to a new, bizarre situation.
I’m sorry if I worded my post confusingly. What I meant was that statistically, the overwhelming majority of rape and sexual assault is perpetrated by someone the victim already knows. “Stranger rape,” or the story of someone you don’t really know who drags you into the bushes or whatever, only occurs in about 10-20% of cases. Here’s some links, with sources attached.
You can also check out George Mason University’s Sexual Assault Services site, though it’s not as clear which references they use where.
Again, please be careful about the way you speak about other people’s experiences. Even assertive, self-assured people can, and often do, freeze in an emergency situation. Have you ever gotten into an accident and had the feeling that everything was running in slow motion but there was nothing you could do about it, that you weren’t really there or able to act? What about the experience barnetto described in comment 301? In some cases, it sounds very similar to shock following physical trauma – you’re aware that something happened to you, but you can’t feel it or react to it properly. Similarly, in a situation you never thought would honestly happen to you (like a seemingly nice person actually raping you), it’s easy to spend a lot of time mentally saying, “What? How is this happening? What’s happening to me? Is he really trying to have sex with me right now? But I know him. He seems like a really nice guy. There’s no way this is really happening,” etc. etc. It can carry with it a feeling of unreality. In the midst of all of this, it’s difficult to also conjure up a physical reaction. It feels too dreamlike. In most cases, you’re not actively thinking, “Well, I should kick and scream, but that seems inappropriate/impolite.” You’re just trying to come to terms with the reality you’re facing. By the time you’ve done that, it’s usually too late.
And that’s leaving out actual dissociative states, which Lorian spoke about very eloquently in #307.
Comment by ohmissjulie — September 8, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Lorain,
I think what Barmy stoat is getting at is, when a women just says “no,” - not “no, I really shouldn’t be doing this,” or “no, stop, I don’t want this,” but only “no”, it can mean either of the above interpretations.
Now, whether or not the rule should be “no means no,” in practice, some women might use “no means maybe.” And some men might interpret it that way.
Personally, I will teach my son that any “no” means “no, stop, I don’t want this” and I will teach my daughter to be explicitly clear and say, “no, stop, I don’t want this.”
Comment by chiquita — September 8, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
One underlying tension is whether consent is an _objective_ test (what would a reasonable person think) or whether it is a _subjective_ test (what did the alleged assailant — or the victim — actually think).
The question came up in the highly controversial _Morgan_ case from England, where a husband told his drinking buddies that his wife was kinky and liked to pretend to be raped. They then went back to his house and gang-raped the wife.
The court found that the assailant’s story was not believable, and they were convicted. However, the court controversially stated that *if* the men had actually believed she was consenting, then they would not be guilty of rape, even if she was not herself intending to consent.
That is, the Morgan court framed the consent test as “what’s going on in the man’s head” — his perception of her consent, not her own view, is what matters.
Comment by Kaimi — September 8, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Chiquita, I understand what you are saying. And if the man in question were telling me the story and saying, “Well, she said ‘no,’ but I thought she meant, ‘No, I shouldn’t be doing this, but go ahead and do it anyway,’” then I would immediately tell him in no uncertain terms that hearing the word, “no,” unaccompanied by the further explanation meant that he should have stopped, and that in all probability he had raped the woman and would be at risk for being charged with that crime.
However, barmy stoat told us from the get-go that what she meant was, “No, I probably shouldn’t be doing this, but it feels good so keep going.”
What I would see ideally happening in such a situation is that if the woman even whispers, “no,” even if the man is unclear about what she is trying to say, he should STOP what he is doing until further clarification can be established. I fully understand that it is difficult for a man to stop what he is doing, but he needs to. Immediately. If he has to excuse himself from the room until he can get himself under control then he should do so. But whatever he does, he needs to get OFF
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Excuse me, my computer glitched at a really unfortunate point in my sentence. Please pardon the blunder.
…he needs to get OFF of her that instant. He needs to not continue what he is doing until he can be certain he has her full and free consent. He should assume that continuing after that point without further clarification is rape. She may not experience it as such, like barmy stoat, but he needs to work from that assumption.
The same would, of course, be true, were a man to say “no” during a sexual encounter. If a woman is having sex wtih a man and he says, “no,” she should stop what she is doing, because she should assume that proceeding would be sexually violating him. I have a feeling this is a much more rare occurence, however.
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
314 Kaimi:
I can see using the man’s (or perpetrator’s) understanding of consent to establish intent, which I think would change to degree of the charge (at least in the US). i.e., is it rape, indecent assault, sexual assault, etc. But even “accidental” assault (”He asked me to punch him in the face, because he likes being punched in the face”) is still some form of assault, just as “accidental” robbery (”I’m pretty sure it was OK with her if I took this”) is still a crime. So if the Morgan case wouldn’t have been a crime at all as long as he thought she was consenting, then that’s just troubling.
Comment by ohmissjulie — September 8, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Lorian (#315-6) -
It’s probably a much more rare occurence because “he needs to get OFF”
just kidding. couldn’t resist
Comment by Jessica — September 8, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Exactly, Julie. “I thought she wanted it,” has been a valid rape defense for far too long.
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Jessica - :blush:
Comment by Lorian — September 8, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Just a few thoughts to contribute after reading most of these comments (fascinating discussion, btw)…
I feel like many people are talking about the ways women act during these assaults as though there’s one “right” way to respond and a certain course of action any woman “should” take. And that seems so contrary to the fact that everyone is different, and while one person may have been able to kick and scream and run, another may be paralyzed by fear or even just shock with the situation, and the differences in those responses does NOT make one woman any more responsible for what occurred than the other. And it certainly shouldn’t make one attacker LESS responsible than the other. I have no idea how I would act in that situation. I have what I *hope* I would do, but really, who the heck knows?!
Another thing: I get so infuriated when I hear anyone talk about men not being able to control themselves after a certain point. As though there’s some magical threshold of turned-on-ness after which someone is no longer responsible for his actions. When the planes hit the twin towers, it became quite clear to me just how much the Lord will allow to happen while preserving the right of agency to all of his children. And yet some would suggest that a hot chick in a mini-skirt or high heels can somehow take away a man’s ability to think clearly about right and wrong? Please.
Comment by Jessica — September 8, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
#321 Jessica
Your last paragraph is absolutely right. A man can and should control himself. About 7 years ago I was serving in the Young Women’s Presidency when we had a “special” fireside combined with the Young Men about chastity. It was given by a member of our high council (now our Stake President) who was a high school football coach and his adult RM son. I expected the usual “women are the gatekeepers of chastity and boys can’t control themselves” garbage and was pleasantly surprised. The son got up and said in no explicit terms that the boys were responsible for their own chastity and their boundary shouldn’t be “I’ll go as far as she lets me” and that they need to have their own set of standards because girls were not responsible for boys’ behavior. I went up to him later and thanked him because it was the first time I had heard it from a church leader even though I knew it was true. I’m sorry boys, but if the girl doesn’t want to have sex, you’re just going to have to suffer through blue balls. Sorry if that’s TMI.
Another time leadership has surprised me is when someone very close to me was raped. It was by her boyfriend. She’s a small woman (5′2″ and 100 lbs soaking wet) and the bf at the time was over 6 feet tall. He basically forced himself on her and she felt guilty like she had committed a sin because she had been making out with him earlier but didn’t want it to go that far. He took her no’s for maybe’s (because we all know that when men say no it means no and when a woman does that means it’s open for negotiation). She went to her bishop and when she explained what happened he told her it was rape. She never considered this because she thought she “led him on” by making out with him. He obviously couldn’t control himself! At least this is what she had been taught in numerous chastity lessons. Her bishop then told her that no one has the right to use her body for their own sexual gratification.
Comment by Risa — September 8, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Risa, thanks for sharing those. It’s nice to hear when leaders do things right, too.
Comment by Stephanie — September 8, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Jessica, I would argue that a man may not be able to control his body climaxing,(just like a woman can’t always control her involuntary sexual response) but he can and should certainly be able to control removing himself from the situation, ie, as Lorain asserted, getting off the woman. But maybe that is where the idea that a man, “can’t control himself after a certain point” comes from.
Lorain, when I read Barmy stoat’s first post, I interpreted the “no, I really shouldn’t” vs “but it feels good” dialog being played out in her head, and I wasn’t even sure if she had vocalized anything to the “bloke.” If a subsequent post, she does say that she told the man “no” but she doesn’t clarify exactly what (else) she said. Thus, I left open the possibility that she maybe just said “no” (maybe in a soft, unresistant, passionate way, I know I am taking license here), but still didn’t consider the encounter rape even though by the simple “no means no” rule, it could be classified as such.
I do agree that if a woman says no, a man should stop and clarify that he actually has her consent before continuing. I think if we promote and encourage that rule, then it will take the steam out of the “but I thought she wanted it” defense. It may also decrease sexual encounters that are on the border between people making a clear decision and people “getting carried away in the moment” (but still consenting) - but in my opinion that is not a bad thing.
Comment by chiquita — September 8, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
I forgot to mention that when she was telling her boyfriend no, he was holding her arms down and told her “there’s nothing you can do about it with my d%&k inside of you.” And she still somehow blamed herself for “letting” him do it.
Comment by Risa — September 8, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
321 Jessica: I’m with you. On both counts.
Comment by ohmissjulie — September 8, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
I’m trying to teach this basic concept to my pre-school age children (and their friends when we’re playing together): When she/he says, “No.”, that means NO. Stop touching him. Leave him alone. It doesn’t matter if he told you already that he wanted to play tag/wear that skirt/have a ponytail/have a hug. The answer is now NO and you need to leave him/her alone.
Why don’t more people understand this?
Comment by ErinAnn — September 14, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Here’s an article about a college student who falsely accused five men of gang rape.
Comment by Stephanie — September 17, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Here’s another account:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/da-hofstra-rape-case-turnaround-hinged-on-video-1.1456015
I have to say, first of all, that I don’t recall anyone on this thread asserting that women never lie about rape. I do have to wonder, though, why these men thought having group sex with a woman who, according to some, “has some problems,” in a men’s restroom, while making videotapes with cell phones, was a good idea. Not saying they deserve false rape charges. Just questioning their good judgment. There are lots of things in this story, from both sides, which don’t quite add up, IMO.
Comment by Lorian — September 17, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Yes, I agree. I think this story is a good example of what we’ve been talking about in this thread. The sexual encounter clearly isn’t meeting the definition of rape as narrowly outlined in the second article (with “force”) and the story that she told. But, could it have been rape based on the criteria that she felt forced or intimidated or scared? Possibly. I don’t know.
At the same time, rape is such a serious charge that it shouldn’t be thrown around lightly. I don’t know what to believe in this case, but I think the men were really stupid to go there at all.
Comment by Stephanie — September 17, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Agreed. Unfortunately, it is the woman who will be the ultimate victim here on several levels - of an “encounter” which wasn’t likely a happy or satisfying one for her; of the subsequent anger of the men after they are released from their few days in jail; of the loss of her student career at the university (even if it only proves temporary, it will probably cost her at least a semester of work and tuition); of a loss of self-respect and esteem as she is compelled to view this encounter as her exclusive responsibility (someone has to be to blame, after all, right?); of the anger of her fellow-students, who feel manipulated and lied-to.
Did she lie? Plainly, she lied about some aspects of the encounter — the tying up, the screaming. Did she lie about feeling victimized and compelled to do something she did not want to do, about being objectified and humiliated? I doubt it.
I wasn’t there and cannot make a definitive statement that this women was raped. I suspect she probably was, and, afraid of condemnation in the court of public opinion, embellished her story when she told it to the authorities (possibly with the encouragement of her boyfriend) in order to try to make the issue of rape more definitive. When video surfaced contradicting her embellishments, they backfired, and, rather than changing her story but still insisting upon the point of rape, she decided it would be less traumatic to recant the entire thing.
That’s just my guess. But I’m betting it may be pretty close to the truth. Any way you look at it, this girl is going to have a lot of crap to work through in therapy. God help her.
Comment by Lorian — September 18, 2009 @ 9:51 am
How sad for all involved. Perhaps she consented with no real concept of what it would be like or feel like…perhaps, I think, she consented to part of it…but then it snowballed into a much different situation…how scary would that be? How trapped would you feel in a small space with that many men?
I can’t imagine ever thinking that was fun or pleasurable.
What kind of man thinks sex involves four other men, cameras and takes place in a bathroom?
Comment by britt — September 18, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Lorian & Britt - Read Felipe’s comments. He did not touch her or video tape the encounter; yet, he still was hauled into jail because she identified him. Are you still going to use some perverted definition of rape to put him behind bars? Minority Report: He should be put in jail for just thinking about having sex with her.
Britt - What kind of woman thinks sex involves four other men? Apparently this woman. Yes, there are women who like orgies? There are some women who like the smell of urine cakes.
Pasted from FOXNews.com:
“It seems more like you’re guilty until proven innocent,” Felipe told FOXNews.com.
“Our names were tarnished. We were rapists, we were dirt, we were dogs.
“We weren’t even suspects. We were rapists.”
As for the 18-year-old freshman who accused him of being a rapist, Felipe had very little to say.
“I don’t know her from a hole in the wall,” he said. “I found out her name today from the newspapers. If she didn’t know there was a video out there, she wouldn’t have cared. She would have let us rot in jail.”
Felipe said he cannot provide many details of the night the incident occurred, due to an ongoing investigation. Authorities have said they are considering filing charges against Ndonye.
But on a few key facts, he is adamant. Felipe insists he did not have sex with Ndonye, he did not touch her, and he had nothing to do with videotaping her sexual encounter.
“I grew up in an all-women household — my mom, my sisters, my grandma. They would never raise me to treat a woman like that,” Felipe said. “It really hurt. I treat all women with respect.”
Comment by .... — September 18, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Re: the Hofstra case
At this point I don’t feel any sympathy for the young woman involved. We don’t know that she reluctantly consented to a sexual encounter she didn’t really want to get into, and we don’t know whether she felt pressured or coerced. All we know is that she lied about it being a rape and lied about the details of the alleged rape, and I think rape is way too serious to lie about.
It’s women like her who make it harder for women who are actually raped to come forward. Way to go, sweetheart.
The only people I feel sorry for are the men she falsely accused.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — September 18, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
On the surface, I’d be tempted to agree with you, but I have a feeling it is actually quite different that what is being presented. Since I’m not there and have nothing personal do with the case, of course, these are just my own personal suppositions, and I’ll claim them as such. I just have a hard time believing the story as it is now laid out. Not saying she didn’t lie. Of course she did. I just don’t believe the story that came out after she recanted, either. Personal opinion, totally owned by me.
Comment by Lorian — September 18, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
I’m curious, though. If Felipe, as he says, did not have sex with Ndonye, and “treats all women with respect,” what the heck was he doing there? Even standing around watching 4 other guys have sex with a girl in a men’s bathroom doesn’t seem very respectful, to me. Just a thought.
Comment by Lorian — September 18, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Do feminists get angry when a woman is questioned about her dress as a defense attorney tries to paint her as wanting it? Are feminists outraged when a seedy location is used to potray sex versus rape? (Rape at a nude dance club? Never.) Felipe doesn’t have to explain himself. He wasn’t involved. I don’t know if he was standing around or where he was located. Regardless, this does not give a woman the right to accuse him of rape.
I thought we felt it was better to let 9 guilty go to avoid convicting the innocent? Keep lowering the standards for rape. Make it easy for a small group to use rape as an excuse for bad choices or a cover. Your husband, sons, and others important in your life could be caught up in Felipe’s world. People are supposed to be presumed innocent.
Comment by .... — September 18, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Lorian, I am wondering with you..why does Fillippe watch this and still consider himself in any way respectful to women? That doesn’t make him guilty, but I wouldn’t want him dating my daughters.
His presence does not give her the right to accuse him of rape. very true. I am mad she lied
Remind me to tell my husband and sons not to have friends who consider sex a group sport with cameras and in bathrooms..wouldn’t a respectful man catch her eye and ask “Are you still okay with this?” Wouldn’t a respectful man not be invited to this party because his friends would know he’d be a kill joy? Wouldn’t he leave? just yuck
Comment by britt — September 18, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
If Felipe didn’t do anything to her, and didn’t stand around and watch, then, yeah, he’s an innocent. I’m still not convinced she wasn’t raped. retraction or no. I’m not saying she was, but I’m not convinced she wasn’t.
The fact that she lied about the details is the complicating factor, by all means, because once she tells one lie, it becomes impossible to ascertain which portions of her original story might actually have been true. “No ropes” does not necessarily equate to “fully consensual gang-bang in the boys restroom.”
We will likely never know the full actual circumstances, unfortunately. And since the accuser is no longer willing to stand behind her accusation, and is now, in fact, the accused, there’s not much more to be done about it.
Comment by Lorian — September 18, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
And, incidentally, if Felipe DIDN’T stand around and watch, then how did she identify him? Was he there or wasn’t he? If he was there, standing around and watching, then, while that doesn’t necessarily make him guilty of anything, it also doesn’t jibe with his “respectful of women” claim.
Comment by Lorian — September 18, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Has anyone seen the movie, Last exit to Brooklyn, based on the controversial book (some say sordid) by Hurbert Selby. It’s dark and brutal film, not for the squeamish.
At the end of the film the prostitute Tralala is brutally gang raped.
Just curious, if anyone who has seen the film, if they think it was consensual?
If a stranger walks up to you and says,”Here’s a gun, I want you to shoot and kill me,” and you do, is everything legally fine and dandy?
I wonder how well the defense of ” I thought I was sober enough” works in a drunk driving case?
Why is it that men seem to a sexual right to adult women, unless she can prove that she emphatically and vigorously said no.
If men can understand the concept of statutory rape (jail bait, a term my male co-workers use), what’s so hard about the concept of explicit consent.
I think every adult human has the right to the sexuality of his or her own body. If she chooses to have sex in a bathroom with three dozen one-armed men, or chooses not to have sex with her husband, that’s her choice. It is not the choice of the man who happens to be walking by.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — September 18, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Lorian - I have been unable to find any news story to provides details on Felipe’s alibi. Regardless, he is innocent.
The woman claimed that she was tied up with a rope. Sources say that the video shows the sex was consenual. If one of the men had not taken video of the consenual matter, these victims of false rape claims would have been in jail for many years.
She has destroyed many lives with her false claims. Even worse, she has made it harder for those who are raped.
When it does come to someone who is really raped, it is sad that s/he has to be nearly beaten to death; however, there needs to be a standard of evidence that protects the innocent.
Comment by .... — September 19, 2009 @ 7:45 am
I found this on another blog and thought it was very fitting for the discussion we’ve had here. Since there’s so many tips out there for potential victims not to become victimized…this rape counselor came up with some guidelines for perpetrators.
Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!
1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.
2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!
3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!
4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.
5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!
6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.
7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.
8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.
9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!
10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.
And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are commiting a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.
Comment by Risa — September 19, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
This kind of article makes me sick. It does the same old victim blaming. Why are we focusing on the victim of a crime. Why are we not talking about the perpetrator. The all so invisible perpetrator. Why do we ask the question why did she not fight. Why are we not asking the question why did he rape her. This kind of question is what prevents survivors from coming out and prosecuting the perps. Survivors need support. The general public loves blaming a victim, or they will say things like she was a slut or she was wearing a short skirt. It is very rare that a perp is falsely accused of rape. It is so hard for rape survivors to come out. And yet as women we still blame the victim. We are far from equality in this country.
I have volunteered at domestic violence shelters for 4 years, and have worked on the crisis line for a year for both rape crisis and domestic violence. I am not a professional, but I understand a little bit about rape. Talking to a victim of a crime, a women once asked me what I would have done in her shoes. I told her honestly I would have kicked him where it hurt, and called the police. She told me later on that she used to think exactly like me. From volunteering in groups (counseling) I was very surprised to see how many domestic violence survivors also experienced sexual assault from their partners.
Married women can be raped. If a husband threatens a women and says things like if you do not have intercouse with me I will not give you money, I will abuse you or the children.
The question above that said why did she not fight. Many people say that, I have met strong women (before the rape) that did not fight. Everyone talks big. But when it comes to surviving many women, and I am sure men will do what they can to live. Some women freeze up, some women are numb, some women don’t understand why the person continues, some women are scared. Someone from any walk of life can be raped.
A strong professional women came to our rape crisis center and did not understand how it could have happened to her. People around her couldn’t understand. Just because a person does not fight, that does not mean they were not raped. Be careful what you say, because rape survivors have the same internal dialogue, like why didn’t I fight. You can try to protect yourself all you want, but both women and men are vulnerable to being raped. Whatever age, gender, race, religion, socio-economic status you are. I do not say this to be politically correct, I say it because I have worked with people from all walks of life. Work with rape survivors and then you will understand why some do not fight. You will also see those that do fight, and die. Some do not want to have severe injuries, or are afraid of having a broken neck (like a survivor I worked with), or some are afraid of having a nose broken (like another survivor), or afraid of not knowing what the perpetrator will do, if an acquaintance will rape you, what else are they capable of doing. Rape is one of the worse crimes if not the worse crime that can be done to a female or male, that is why it is very successfully used in war to get the opponent down.
Comment by Nikole — September 25, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Amen Nikole.
Comment by Risa — September 25, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Some of the comments serve to masterfully illustrate the illogical thinking that promotes rape in our culture. Any of us, given a moment to reflect on what this would look like in our lives, would agree that a submissive partner (even one who doesn’t say anything at all) is not the same as a consenting one.
None of us should want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with us. If we are having sex with someone, and they say the word “no”, especially if it is the first time we had met let alone had sex with that person, we should feel weird about continuing. In fact, we should be unable to continue. The kind of victim-blaming that supposes a victim has to behave in a certain way to protect herself from getting raped shines the light away from where it belongs: on the man who wants to have intercourse whether or not his partner wants to.
So much talk about no meaning no, begs the question: doesn’t yes mean yes? Why should the victim, a victim of systematic oppression as a female, bear the burden of responsibility for saying no in the right way? Shouldn’t the aggressor be responsible for making sure he isn’t having intercourse with someone who doesn’t want to?
These comments say so much to me about the way we construct sexuality in our culture. Men are aggressors. Women are recipients of men’s sexual interest and bear the responsibility for setting boundaries, even though setting boundaries may result in violence. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, ladies.
We don’t ask why men want to rape women, we ask why women don’t stop getting themselves raped all the time. And until we change our focus, our daughters remain in danger.
Comment by amy — December 12, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
@Howard #205 and others,
I have never said no and meant yes, but I have started by saying no and eventually conceded to spare myself the repercussions. I think if men stopped assuming women said no when they meant yes and started assuming they might be saying yes when they meant no their relationships would improve. They also may end up having more enjoyable sex, and more of it.
Comment by amy — December 12, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
@StillConfused #254,
The situations wouldn’t be dangerous if there were no violent perpetrators present. I decline your invitation to “take responsibility for putting myself in dangerous situations” and leave that responsibility right where it belongs: on the shoulders of the perpetrators.
It takes a rapist for a rape to happen.
Comment by amy — December 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
we live in a culture that hates women
rape, abuse, and poverty tell the story clearly
don’t miss the background to these debates
and deference to males… is spiritual rape - wake up ladies!
Comment by Kali — July 28, 2010 @ 12:16 pm