Alyssa Royse believes that society’s relationship with sexuality is at least partially responsible when good men and women commit rape.
I am used to getting the call in which a reluctant voice says, “I was raped.” I used to carry a pager and get that call at all hours, racing to emergency rooms to counsel women through the byzantine maze of emotions, doctors, cops and—for lucky ones—lawyers that were soon to come.
However, I was not used to getting the call in which a dear friend of mine says, “I am being accused of rape.” And I was certainly not used to saying, “did you do it?”
It seems like a simple question to answer. But he, like many people, struggled with it. He didn’t answer. So I asked the question from another angle, “What did she say happened?”
“She said I raped her,” he answered.
“Well, then you probably did. What exactly happened?”
This is where this particular story becomes much more general. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is a scene whose generalities are probably repeated every night, somewhere. And they rarely happen in the tidy confines of a dark alley, with a stranger who is clearly a “rapist” and a woman who is clearly being victimized. More often than not, rape happens amongst people who know each other, and the rapist is not someone carrying a villainous cloak and look of ill intent. The rapist is just a person who may genuinely not realize that what he’s doing is rape.
My friend, for instance, was genuinely unsure, which was why he called me. At the time, I was fresh from giving a rousing talk at SlutWalk, in which I very clearly stated that the only person responsible for rape is the rapist. I said that no matter what a woman is wearing or doing, no one has the right to touch her without her explicit consent. It was a great talk.
But it cannot undo generations of training in which the goal of getting dressed and going out is to get the guy or get the girl and hook up or get lucky. In this training, we are taught that in order to get the guy, we have to look sexy—and sometimes have sex. The training has also taught men that the reason we dress up and look sexy is to “catch him”. We even use those words, as if our bodies themselves are the lure, and our sexuality the hook.
In this particular case, I had watched the woman in question flirt aggressively with my friend for weeks. I had watched her sit on his lap, dance with him, twirl his hair in her fingers. I had seen her at parties discussing the various kinds of sex work she had done, and the pleasure with which she explored her own very fluid sexuality, all while looking my friend straight in the eye.
Only she knows what signals she intended to send out. But many of us can guess the signals he received.
This is not a “some girls, they rape so easy” story. I promise. This is a “some signals, they read so wrong” story. And the fault is not hers, it’s ours—all of ours—for not explaining what these signals DON’T mean, even if we don’t know exactly what they DO mean.
♦◊♦
On the night in question, there was drinking. A lot of it. I wasn’t there, but there was probably some drugging. There was music and dancing. At some point, people started clustering off into smaller groups, some of which turned sexual. My friend and this woman fell asleep together. And by all accounts, when she woke up, he was penetrating her.
Which is to say that she was asleep when he started to penetrate her. She did not consent prior. Anything said after the penetration beside the point, so I’m leaving it out on purpose. It is the mixed signals of everything leading up to this moment that are the point of this story.
In my mind, this was rape. Because being hot, flirty, frolicky and drunk is NOT consent. Putting your penis in a woman without her consent is rape. Being drunk was not an excuse for either party. The responsibility was not on her to say “stop”, it was on him to ask if it’s okay before he did it. This part is simple.
To some of you, it may sound ridiculous when I say that my friend is a really sweet guy. He was devastated at the allegation of rape, and even more so at my confirmation that it was rape. We spent a week or so exploring how this could have happened. Not excusing it, but trying to understand it. With him, the conversations were painful and beautiful, and he understood. He claimed it, at least to me, and learned a hard lesson: he had committed rape. That “nice guys” can do that.
Still, the fact that he is a nice guy doesn’t make it okay. Ever.
♦◊♦
Within the community at large, there were much harder discussions centering on how it was that he thought penetrating her while she was asleep was okay, but any discussion of her behavior leading up to it was taboo. Any suggestion that her behavior may have led to—NOT JUSTIFIED OR EXCUSED—the rape was met with screams of “victim blaming” and “rape apology”.
But to run from this part of the discussion is to let the problem stagnate and fester.
There are two simple truths here:
1. She had every right to do everything she was doing and fully expect to be safe from rape. (She was right.)
2. He believed that everything she was doing was an invitation to have sex. (He was wrong.)
The problem is not that she’s a “slut”. The implications of that word make my brain shrivel when sprinkled with the salty insinuations that so often accompany it: that a woman who exhibits a fondness for her own sexuality is somehow inviting anyone who sees her to have sex with her.
The problem isn’t even that he’s a rapist.
The problem is that no one is taking responsibility for the mixed messages about sex and sexuality in which we are stewing. And no one is taking responsibility for teaching people how the messages we are sending are often being misunderstood.
Just to be painfully clear, the ONLY thing that counts as consent to have sex is the word “YES”, accompanied with any form of “I would like to have sex with you”. But we need to stop denying that we sell sex as the reason for everything—from what car to buy, to why to work out to what clothes will help us “get ahead”. In our world, sex is the end game. Period. Anything shy of sex is quitting, or worse, losing.
We use other’s people’s assessment of whether or not we are “hot” to feel good about ourselves. After all, the question we ask when we get dressed is “how do I look,” not “how do I feel?” And “look” in this case is meant to mean, “will other people find me attractive?”
Magazines and web sites feature an endless barrage of “How to get your guy or girl to do _____” and most of it is based on using looks and/or sex to get something. We walk a really fine tightrope between seeking validation and sending out signals that are easily misinterpreted as an invitation.
To continue ignoring these truths is going to keep getting us in trouble. Not because we need to change how we walk, talk or dress (personally, I love putting on a corset and leather pants to go out), but because we need to teach people that anything short of verbal consent is not an invitation to stick any part of your body on or in any part of anyone else’s body.
♦◊♦
To a large degree, my friend thought he was doing what was expected. And while he was wrong, weeks of flirting, provocative dancing and intimate innuendo led him to believe that sex was the logical conclusion of their social intercourse. Many people watching it unfold would have thought that, too.
Of course they would all be wrong. But if something walks like a fuck and talks like fuck, at what point are we supposed to understand that it’s not a fuck? Our binary language of “yes means yes” and “no means no” doesn’t address the entire spectrum of both spoken language and body language, which mean different things to different people.
I would love for “no means no” to work, but it doesn’t.
How do I know it doesn’t work? I know because my friend raped someone and didn’t even know it. I know because on any given night, people who think they are having drunk party sex with a partner who wants it are actually committing rape. Rape, although clear as hell at the ends of the spectrum, often exists in the dark murky world of mixed signals, confusing messages and alcohol. It happens to “good girls” who didn’t ask for it, and it happens at the hands of “good guys” who honestly didn’t know that’s what they were doing.
But it’s still rape. We often try to call it something else. We give it the name “date rape,” as if that’s softer and gentler. My friend didn’t commit actual rape, it was “just date rape”. Nope. That doesn’t fly. Rape is rape. The question is, why is it happening?
In order to get to that answer we need to first abolish the idea that all rape is about power and violence. It’s not. Some rape begins as the earnest belief that sex is going to happen, and that it should. The confusion starts with misreading socially accepted cues. Like, for instance, the cue that says, she’s dressed in a way that I find sexy, and she’s flirting with me, so that means we’re going to have sex. That is not an illogical conclusion. A lot of times, that’s exactly the case. But not always.
The confusion about when social intercourse turns into sexual intercourse is real, and we are all, in large part, to blame for it because we don’t address the underlying mythologies and mixed messages about what sex is. Without letting anyone off the hook for committing rape, we have to look at how we are all accomplices in making women’s bodies and sexuality a prize and something to which some men feel entitled, especially when they’re wrapped in pleasing packages and smiling in an inviting way. So while the individual rapist is solely responsible for the rape he committed, we all—as a society—are responsible for the culture that created the confusion.
♦◊♦
We need to change the emotional algebra with which we interpret social cues. We need to go from “sexy = sex” to “someone else’s sexuality doesn’t have anything to do with me”. We need to teach people that sex, as awesome as it is, is not the goal. We need to teach people that we each have the right to express our sexuality any way we want—in our movement, our dress, our language—and that it is not an invitation.
Just because someone has a sexuality does not entitle you to use it any more than someone else having a car entitles you to drive it.
Nice girls get raped. Nice guys commit rape. And it can happen the other way too. I have known men who felt violated when a date touched them in a sexual manner that they didn’t want. And certainly, if a guy wakes up to a woman “riding” him without his consent, that’s rape too. Whether or not it would be perceived as such is a much larger question, much less why. I know from experience that there are many men who feel they have been violated but don’t even know what to call it, because they have been led to believe that they are supposed to get—or at least want—sex all the time. But the simple fact is that consent needs to be the first order of business when having sex. Otherwise, well, it’s not sex, it’s rape.
Rape is what happens when we aren’t allowed to discuss sex and sexuality as if it were as natural as food, and instead shroud it in mysterious languages and grant it mysterious powers and lust for it like Gollum after the ring. Rape is what happens we don’t even understand what sex and sexuality are, but use them for everything anyway.
♦◊♦
My friend ended up leaving town. He left for a lot of reasons, but this was certainly a major part of it. And when his name comes up, there are knowing glances—disdain and remorse and a sort of sadness because he “was such a nice guy”. I don’t expect to hear from him again. I haven’t heard from her either, though we were never friends and I’m sure that my willingness to explore the nuance was seen as excusing him.
What happened to her was wrong. My friend raped her. But I am still trying to figure out why. And no, it’s not as simple as the fact that he put his penis in her. It is a lot more complicated than that. And we need to talk about it.
Photo: Parody magazine cover courtesy of the author
About Alyssa Royse
“She said I raped her,” he answered.
“Well, then you probably did.”
Speaking of poor communication, I hope you spotted your error here and will never make this same mistake again.
Being drunk was not an excuse for either party. The responsibility was not on her to say “stop”, it was on him to ask if it’s okay before he did it. This part is simple.
I have to admit a bit of confusion. This isn’t the first time that I’ve seen that while drinking does not shift responsibility in a situation like this it seems that in the end the responsibility is always put on the guy.
Ideally I would think that in a situation where some sort of substance is used the initiator of the sex act is the one that should be held responsible (which I would agree with) however that doesn’t seem to be the case. It’s always on the guy no matter what. As if the woman’s responsibility can actually be absolved by some means but in no circumstance can the guy’s responsibility ever be absolved.
That’s the mixed signal that I have a problem with.
Danny, in what way – ever – would a man putting his penis in a sleeping woman (drunk or not) put ANY responsibility upon her?
If they’re both drunk and both consenting at the time, then yes, I agree that the responsibility shouldn’t automatically be on the guy.
Yeah, I”d like to know the answer to that.
To me the issue is we are, as a culture, relying on non verbal communication to relay intent (flirting, sexy clothes, posturing, etc) but that doesn’t always indicate consent (saying, I would like to have sex with you now).
There is a lot to unpack, including that many human beings are very willing to justify their desires even when they act badly (She had been flirting for weeks, I thought I was supposed to…. when in reality a sleeping person isn’t a good sexual experience nor a consensual one) and I’m glad for articles like this.
Initiating sex with a sleeping person isn’t much different (to me) than stealing that person’s wallet (in that it is a crime, not in impact). It’s not ok, it wasn’t agreed to, they aren’t in a position to stop the act. It’s all wrong at that moment.
I would like to know what happened after she woke up, which was purposefully left out because my guess is that’s part of what lead to his continued statement of confusion. Regardless of if she went with it in the moment (drunk, tired etc) his initiating while she was asleep was pretty damn wrong.
@Joanna: Let me explain how I feel about your question.
Being drunk doesn’t put the responsibility on her but IT SHOULD remove the responsibility from him. If he is too drunk to know what he is doing then he shouldn’t be held responsible.
Responsibility isn’t an all or nothing thing, in fact two people can be 100% responsible. In this case NO responsibility lies with her BUT none ( or very little ) should lie with him.
Now, where it gets even murkier (is that even a word) is IF SHE SAID YES while drunk and I believe that maybe that is what Danny is referring to.
Society and the law have said that ALL the responsibility for the sex act lies with the man because we as a society still believe that sex is something that men DO TO women , not something they do with each other.
No John. Not as described here in this story.
If my partner and I are heavily drinking and have sex, then I claim that I could not have consented because of my drunkenness, and shift responsibility to my drunken partner – then I agree with your position. This story is different however.
There are two different things happening here – a discussion about what Alyssa is talking about in THIS article, and speculation as to what would happen if two people were both drunk and both consented to sex.
They’re VERY separate.
“If he is too drunk to know what he is doing then he shouldn’t be held responsible.”
That’s not true. Apply that argument to a drunk driver that kills someone because he’s too drunk to know he shouldn’t get in the car. It doesn’t fly, does it? I agree that the way we view sex as something men DO TO women needs to change, but that he is absolved because he was TOO DRUNK is a ludicrous argument.
Good point, too.
But wouldn’t that hold true for both of them, if they both consented and were both drunk?
You beat me too it – I was busy checking sources.
Being drunk absolutely does NOT absolve him of responsibility. He is an adult, and he made the choice to get drunk.
Ignorance is never accepted as an excuse for breaking the law. If I go to a country where they drive on the left, and I decide to drive on the right and cause an accident, they won’t say “the accident wan’t her fault, she didn’t know.” That would be ridiculous and unacceptable.
But if he weren’t drunk and she were drunk , it would absolve her of responsibility though wouldn’t it.
See how that works.
Joanna:
Danny, in what way – ever – would a man putting his penis in a sleeping woman (drunk or not) put ANY responsibility upon her?
I was thinking of saying something along the lines of, “If you and/or Julie can show me where I said it should put responsibility on her then I’ll answer that.”
But I’ll be nice. What I actually said was I would imagine that the one that initiates the sex would be the one held responsible and called a rapist accordingly. However it seems that that is not the case and once a substance comes into the picture the responsibility is fully shifted to the guy regardless of what happened.
Like John Sctoll mentions in his example. He wants to initiate sex and she says yes. Apparently if they were both drunk he’s the rapist because he should have known that she was drunk and her consent may not have been genuine.
John Sctoll:
Responsibility isn’t an all or nothing thing, in fact two people can be 100% responsible. In this case NO responsibility lies with her BUT none ( or very little ) should lie with him.
Exactly. It seems that with it comes sex where substances are involved there is a rush to declare one 100% responsible and the other 0%.
Society and the law have said that ALL the responsibility for the sex act lies with the man because we as a society still believe that sex is something that men DO TO women , not something they do with each other.
True. And it seems that those that want women to be sexually free want women to have their cake and eat it too. They don’t seem to want to end the presumption of responsibility you mention here because it puts responsibility on men and strips freedom away from women.
(But Joanna and Julie to answer that burning question of yours the answer is never. Because as I said I would hold the initiator responsible. In this exact case he initiated while she was sleep.)
If the incident in this story had been reversed, and he had flirted with her for weeks, they got drunk and went to sleep, he woke up with her using his nocturnal erection to penetrate herself without his consent then she would be the rapist. Period. I think the law and most rational people would see it that way. In that case, he would be being used as a tool for her sexual gratification without his consent, and that would be rape. Period.
The nuance that I, personally, am curious about is when sex has been initiated and accepted. Is the act of flirting an invitation to sex? No, I do not think so. And that’s the puzzle we need to unpack and put together. How to deal with the myriad signs and signals that are beyond the yes and no binary. But consent must be certain, not “maybe probably I think that’s what is likely supposed to possibly happen.”
If the incident in this story had been reversed, and he had flirted with her for weeks, they got drunk and went to sleep, he woke up with her using his nocturnal erection to penetrate herself without his consent then she would be the rapist. Period.
Sorry – Not in the USA! .. and I’m not sure about quite a few other countries too! Envelopment is not recognised as Big R even under the updated FBI definition of November/December 2011.
MediaHound is correct – most places a woman would not be charged with rape for non-consensual envelopment. However, it would be a felony sexual assault in most cases, in most states.
But please note, forcible sodomy is also not considered rape in most places.
Many thanks for getting to this MediaHound.
And not only does this happen in the law books but there is also something else.
I think the law and most rational people would see it that way.
But even today it’s still argued as to whether a woman/girl can even rape a man/boy. In the news coverage of cases (like Joanna and MediaHound mention) you can see a difference in the language. Namely when it comes to statutory rape.
When it’s man/girl it’s said he raped her. When it’s woman/boy it’s said she had sex with him.
in California it would be a form of unlawful sexual penetration. Penal Code 289, subsection l (that’s a lower case L) includes causing another person to penetrate ones genitals against their will (i.e. envelopment) I believe the penalties for PC 289 can be as severe as for rape. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/289.html
Danny…there were a several things he could have done in that situation…
Like getting out of bed and brushing his teeth and getting dressed and going out for bagels to bring back to her when she awoke….
Like going to the kitchen and making an awesome omelette with fresh-squeezed juice…
Like gently shaking her on the shoulder and just cuddle….
Like getting up and folding up the clothes on the floor and straightening up the room….
But, no, that’s not what he did, did he?
He chose to do that, which is abusive….
NOT NICE AT ALL…
I don’t recall trying to say that it was nice in that comment. I’ve already said that the guy talked about in this post was a rapist and should be held responsible for it.
I took Alyssa’s post here as a change to talk about the mixed signals and messed up things that can happen as a result of them when it comes to sex. Or is the only thing that’s allowed here are declarations that he’s a rapist end of story?
Danny, I don’t think the issue here is people twisting your words as much as people not understanding your first comment. I made clear that I didn’t really understand it.
No one’s trying to put words in your mouth, but it was a bit unclear.
If it’s unclear then ask for clarification.
You and Julie seemed to have some sort of reservation about that first comment. You made clear that you didn’t understand it and when you asked that question I clarified. You didn’t go into some sort of list of what he could have done instead and then flip out in all caps at the end did you? No you found my first comment to be unclear and asked about it.
So in light of that Leia:
What I actually said was I would imagine that the one that initiates the sex would be the one held responsible and called a rapist accordingly.
What about this is unclear that I think by initiating sex with her while she was sleep he is a rapist ?
No ethical decent man shoves his dick into a sleeping woman’s vagina, outside of a relationship where it’s been agreed that that’s OK. Your friend wasn’t confused. He’s just justifying himself like all malignant abusers do. He isn’t nice at all. He’s a dangerous creep who belongs in jail. This article is full of nonsense.
I agree this isn’t a case at all about mixed signals. The signal a sleeping person gives you is not “please insert your penis into me.” This isn’t even they were fooling around and he went “too far.” There’s no fooling around with a sleeping person.
The title of this piece is a lot more truthful than the piece itself. If we as a society are actually teaching hetero men that sleeping women are consenting, then that’s wrong teaching. We should fix that, then. But that isn’t a mixed signal. “Nice guys commit rape, too”? Hell, yes. In fact, most rapists don’t walk around with an “I’m a rapist” sign attached to their foreheads.
How often have you read news headlines about murderers or rapists, and the next door neighbor says “Oh, he seemed like such a nice man”? All the time.
No one is teaching anyone that sleeping women are consenting to anything. That’s ridiculous. I agree society has its problems regarding its attitudes to sexuality and consent, but that isn’t one of them.
This is just a whole heap of nonsense caused by one clever abuser who’s apparently smart enough to get away with it scot-free, manipulating with great skill the author of this article, tricking her into seeing nuance where there is none. He wasn’t “unsure” when he called her to ask if he’d raped this girl, he was minimizing fallout by finding someone who he was convinced he could fool into acting as a useful idiot, and evidently he was quite right.
This guy isn’t nice in any way, just smart. Like most rapists (ever read Lisak’s research?) he’s probably just a skilled predator who’s done it before and will do it again, using alcohol and drugs as weapons (but never overt violence, because it’s easier to get busted that way), just as in this story. He isn’t misguided. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding to think that most rapists are.
You know, you’re really failing to give the author’s discretion the benefit of the doubt here. She chose not to share the specifics of this incident, as mentioned in the article, and without that context we have no way of knowing if this guy is really a creepy, manipulative repeat offender or if he is, as the author’s described, a nice guy who did something really fucking stupid while quite drunk.
Consider: two adults consume an inordinate amount of alcohol. The female in the relationship has been extremely forthcoming about sex and her sexuality, extremely flirtatious, and has acted generally interested in the male for a few weeks now. These two people, now extremely drunk, wind up naked in bed together. The male wakes up and in his drunken stupor discovers himself curled up with a naked woman and reacts by doing what seems like the obvious thing. Author left out what happened after she woke up, so let’s speculate on what might have happened. She wakes up, she’s drunk, she wasn’t planning on having sex with this guy, but she’s not all there and she’s horny so she gets into it. They both go back to sleep. Morning rolls around, and they both realize what has happened. She feels violated, he is ashamed and confused, and they go their separate ways.
It’s quite likely that this guy never intended to do anything like this. It’s quite likely that he was mortified when he discovered his behavior. Does that excuse it entirely? No. Does it make the woman responsible for what happened to her? No. But it certainly puts him in a different category from someone who’d spike a girl’s drink, for example. And it certainly demands a few questions of her: like, without discounting the trauma of her experience or the fact of his responsibility, I would like to understand the logic that leads a woman to get wasted and curl up in the nude with a guy she does not intend to sex. That’s sending a pretty strong and inaccurate signal, wouldn’t you say?
The world is not black-and-white. It is, as you write, “a fundamental misunderstanding to think that most rapists are [misguided].” But to discount that ANY rapists are misguided, to assume that anyone who has ever committed any offense which could be categorized as rape MUST by necessity be predatory and manipulative, is almost as disgusting in my eyes as victim blaming. It’s this sort of thinking that leads to public urination as a sexual offense.
I don’t see how it’s the “obvious thing” to start having sex with someone while they’re asleep. It’s just wrong and disgusting, and yes, that should be obvious no matter how plastered you are. This girl didn’t send any signals that she wanted to be shagged in her sleep, at least not as the story is told.
Sure, she made herself very vulnerable, and in retrospect that looks like a dumb decision. But I do think we have a reasonable expectation that it’s OK to make yourself vulnerable around friends and you won’t be violated or taken advantage of as a consequence. We’ve all done it, male and female.
I’m into some pretty kinky shit, but I do require my partners to be awake for it so they can actually consent, and enjoy themselves, y’know?
I’m 100% with you on the above, CmE
Yes, and you’d be correct, for the most part. But to expect an incredibly drunk and horny man who is currently entwined with the object of his affections, naked, to retain his faculties is a bit of a stretch.
Which leaves him responsible. Being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
But this is also a case of fundamental stupidity on the part of the female. Regardless of what people have a right to expect to be able to do around friends, this is pushing “vulnerability in safe company” to a phenomenal extreme. The author’s description of her behavior prior to this incident sounds like a woman who’s trying to turn a man on, and trying pretty hard. If she wants to do that for its own sake, or for the sake of flirtation, or anticipation, or whatever, good. That’s her business and I hope she has fun. But if the point of her behavior is to make the man horny, and she doesn’t actually intend to have sex with him, it’s PROBABLY wiser NOT to get wasted with him and then remove some clothing and then curl up in bed with him.
And the fact that drunk him misread the situation does not paint him an abuser, period. He committed rape. He is not your run-of-the-mill rapist. Another commenter said it better than I ever could:
“In the case in question, I think penetrating an unsuspecting sleeping woman for first-time sex is completely wrong, no matter how much she’d flirted up to that point. It sounds pretty clear though, that he *thought* she would welcome it, and given that description of her behavior toward him up to that point, combined with the impaired judgment of the partying, I can see why. He was wrong, which led to a terrible mistake, but I can’t lump this guy in with “any other rapist” who just finds a random vulnerable target to put his penis in when she’s sleeping. Even murder has degrees depending on intent and premeditation, so I don’t see why it’s unconscionable to consider the possibility that not all rapes are created equal.”
WOW there CmE. Ever thought ough of using your amazing clairvoyant powers which allow you to see everything from a distance – know the truth of everything – from a distance, Closed doors are nothing to you there…. WOW, ever thought of using them Super hero Powers for you know … Saving the universe and preventing all rape on a planet wide scale? If you need an agent to market your gifts let me know – I take 10%.
That’s funny. I’ve never raped anyone, and yet, nobody has every said to me, “Yes, I would like to have sex with you.” That isn’t, in fact, required by law. It’s just what’s required by the current – and ever-expanding – feminist definition of rape.
What your friend did was rape – actual rape, under the law. There’s no reason to muddy the waters with an ideological motivation. Rape is crime defined by law. It isn’t something that people get to define themselves.
I know that this won’t get posted – nothing ever gets allowed here if it disagrees with feminist definitions of rape; they allow more leeway on any other issue, but on rape, it’s ‘damn the law, whatever feminists believe is what really counts’. But I’m still going to make these comments, because fighting the good fight is the right thing to do.
There’s a difference between the legal definition of rape and the ethical and semantic analysis of rape–feminists simply believe that the law has to catch up with more developed thinking on the issue.
So – why was the opportunity to fully develop the issue in 2011 with the FBI redefining matters so comprehensively missed?
It’s odd how certain forms of the big R, recognised even under International law since the 1990′s, got missed. When it comes to playing catch up so may need to try harder or even just succeed. The Homework has already been done for them! P^)
Don’t bother MediaHound. They just retroactively claim that they have been the only ones pushing for it since forever…
Just keeping people honest! It’s hard, but some has to try! P^)
I do grasp your frustrations and concerns. Of course – if there is to be an open and considered communication about the issues, one that has to be addressed is what do you call it if he woke up and he was — well — surrounded without consent?
I’m all for being honest and open on the subject of the Big R Word, but that means looking at it from all the relevant angle and not always making it a One Way Trope!
“Rape is when a man forcibly inserts his penis into a woman’s vagina” just doesn’t allow the whole story, does it? Sex acts performed on an unwilling person has always been rape, we’re just calling it what it is. You’ll notice the original narrow definition doesn’t allow for male victims or female perpetrators. Do you think we should keep the definition that narrow anyway? The reason for the expanding definition has to do with recognising the humanity and value of more people.
Sorry Donna – but US Law says other wise – and it keeps being raised and dismissed. It’s a pity, but people like yourself are being mislead.
It always angers me when I hear people say that “any man can be a rapist”. Imagine if someone said “any Muslim can be a terrorist”. It’s prejudice, pure and simple.
As such, I started reading this article expecting it to anger me. It didn’t. It’s simply true and beautifully written. Thankyou.
The problem is that no one is taking responsibility for the mixed messages about sex and sexuality in which we are stewing. And no one is taking responsibility for teaching people how the messages we are sending are often being misunderstood.
I would agree – and putting my qualified educator on I would recommend some other home work too!
1) Teach all students what assault means – basic flavour
2) Teach all students what sexual assault means and how it is different to assault
3) Teach all students what rape means and why it is different to both assault and sexual assault
4) Make sure they all know why it’s bad to mix them up and use them indiscriminately and incorrectly
5) Teach all students that throwing words together with rape for fun is not a good idea – such as Verbal Rape – It’s not possible to commit rape by act of word – and it’s even worse if you insist that written words mean verbal (The Spoken Word) and you insist that the words have been used to commit rape. Standing by whilst sitting down may be seen as idiomatic, but verbal rape is not.
Above all else any lessons and lectures should address just how negative an impact there is upon everyone in using lnaguage and ideas in nonsensical ways. Just because a person has a certain gender, sex, sexuality, affiliation with any group or any claimed victim status it does not provide consent to take the word rape and misuse it with impunity.
In also am still wondering why this is such a Trope in the US centric Anglophone net? Also, Why is it such a seasonal issue?
Excellent article–very measured and well-written. Thank you.
The relationship between sexualty (as expressed by a person) and sex (as engaged in–or not–by a person) is a fascinating one and definitely one that requires more discussion.
That said, I do agree with both CmE and Neil Sheppard above, in that the man in the article can hardly be called a “nice guy”–he may be nice in many other ways, and he does show remorse, but nonetheless, he took advantage of the sleeping woman next to him, and no misbegotten signals can excuse that–and the title, while eye-catching, is unnecessary incendiary and horribly broad (for reasons related to the first point in this comment).
I am going to try to answer this, and may not get it right the first time, but let’s dialog through this. I called him a nice guy because he was and is a nice guy. And he did something really wrong and stupid and bad. He was a caring guy, a considerate guy, friendly, fun, genuine, thoughtful – all of those things. he was also young, horny, drunk, careless, and occasionally really just sort of lost in the world, or at least the world of the moment.
The reason this story is so important to me, and the reason I chose that title, is because we need to understand and accept that rape is not something that “other” people do, in a horrifying and forceful way. It is something that happens to nice people by nice people. Saying that just because he did this he is now an evil, wrong, or bad person is, I believe, a common attempt at distancing ourself from the reality. Because if “I” am nice guy, and nice guys don’t rape, than that drunken coerced sex I just had can’t be rape. But the thing is, it often is rape.
What this guy did was rape. No doubt about it. And it didn’t happen because he’s an asshole. It happened because he made a really bad decision for a whole lot of reasons. Her behavior leading up to the moment, our society’s unhealthy focus on the act of sex rather than the process of sexuality, being drunk, falling asleep with her, misinterpreting signals. Yes, by the time he called me, he was pretty sure that what he did was wrong. What he wasn’t sure about was why he did it or why he was SO VERY WRONG.
The reason it matters to me that he was a nice guy is because this story is so common. (I have had so many emails from people on both sides of this type of story today, personally, I have cried a lot today, realizing what a vein I hit.) He is not a bogey man. He’s a regular guy, living in a world of regret. As he should. But as some point, regret simply isn’t as useful as thoughtful analysis and conversation.
Not all nice guys will commit rape. Most of them won’t. But not all rapists are bad guys. Some of them are nice guys who do bad things. Kind of like not all people who kill someone in a DUI are what we would consider a “murderer” even though someone died at their hand.
In this situation, the power to create change really is in the nuance. I hope that makes some sense.
I see what you’re saying, Alyssa, and I appreciate it, I do. While otherwise nice guys may rape, though, I do think it renders thiem “less nice”–and if we continue to call them nice, it may minimize the severity of what they’ve done (i.e., “you can rape and still be a nice guy”).
It all comes back to the question, how nice can you be if you don’t know that sex without consent is wrong, and–as you’re asking–what makes otherwise nice guys blind to this? And I thank you for raising this question!
“Just to be painfully clear, the ONLY thing that counts as consent to have sex is the word “YES”, accompanied with any form of “I would like to have sex with you”.”
By this standard I am a rapist and a rape victim and I wonder if the same isn’t true for anybody who reads this site and had sex.
“I would love for “no means no” to work, but it doesn’t.”
Of course no means no works, you just have to define it properly:
“Every person involved in a sexual act must have the possibility and the ability to stop the encounter at any time without fearing retribution.”
“How do I know it doesn’t work? I know because my friend raped someone and didn’t even know it.”
She was asleep.
Yeah, this. I don’t know how you couldn’t know that penetrating an unconscious woman was wrong. He knew full well what he was doing.
“No means no” is absolutely fine, especially as far as the law is concerned, and yes, non-verbal consent is a thing. If not, them I’m a rapist and a rape victim many many times over, just as Alberich says.
Yeah, this. I’m pretty sure in six years with my husband, that discussion never took place. We used body language, innuendo, things like that – as, I imagine, most couples do. If this were to become the definition of rape, any divorce could involve accusations of hundreds of counts of rape on both sides. I think “no means no” works fine!
This may be painfully nitpicky, but I don’t think that’s accurate. There are many other words not involving the word “yes” or such a blunt direct statement that also constitute consent, especially in established relationships where a presumption of likely consent exists. Even in first-time encounters, though, I imagine a whole lot of consensual sex would get re-classified as rape by not counting other assenting words or non-verbal signs as consent. Assuming such standards apply to either gender, it would also treat most men in sexual counters as non-consenting victims, since their “yes” is rarely sought, and a man saying “I would like to have sex with you” would typically be met with disgust, not respect for having made his consent clear.
In the case in question, I think penetrating an unsuspecting sleeping woman for first-time sex is completely wrong, no matter how much she’d flirted up to that point. It sounds pretty clear though, that he *thought* she would welcome it, and given that description of her behavior toward him up to that point, combined with the impaired judgment of the partying, I can see why. He was wrong, which led to a terrible mistake, but I can’t lump this guy in with “any other rapist” who just finds a random vulnerable target to put his penis in when she’s sleeping. Even murder has degrees depending on intent and premeditation, so I don’t see why it’s unconscionable to consider the possibility that not all rapes are created equal.
It doesn’t look like he misread at least a potential interest in having sex with him, but his criminal error, that other guys should be more educated about to prevent doing the same thing, was thinking that her waking behavior was permission to initiate a sexual encounter while she slept. He should have proffered sex when she was awake, and from the looks of it, there was a good chance that would have been welcomed. On the flip side, no woman *deserves* to be raped in her sleep, but for chrissakes, there were a ton of things this woman did that were high risk. For starters, if you’ve been heavily flirting with someone, then on a night of heavy drinking (and possibly drugging), don’t lie down to sleep with the guy if you’re not ready for a sexual move to be made. Granted, penetration isn’t an acceptable first move, but don’t count on a drunk, drugged guy to remain in a holding pattern when all your signals have been to guide him in for a landing. I’m not talking about “blame the victim” signals like she dressed too sexy or walked in a dangerous part of town — look again at that quote, which contains abundant examples of the kind of behavior that often precedes consent. They both should have known better, and both engaged in high-risk behavior.
“Granted, penetration isn’t an acceptable first move, but don’t count on a drunk, drugged guy to remain in a holding pattern when all your signals have been to guide him in for a landing.”
Wow. It most certainly isn’t an acceptable first move. A passed out person (asleep or passed out due to drugs/drink) is not guiding someone in for a landing.
Let’s say that I’ve been talking with you about buying you dinner for a week. And we go to a party and get drunk and talk about that dinner. And I pass out with my jacket open and you can see my wallet. Does that mean I’ve given you permission to take the wallet, take the money and go get a meal while I’m not conscious? Or that it is any less of a crime? It’s still theft, plain and simple. And it’s a person justifying theft because of some behaviors indicating a future meal.
I get what you are saying about high risk, I really do Marcus and more people should take care of themselves, but if I passed out a party and someone stole my wallet, I doubt people would be saying I asked for it because I’d been offering to feed the person with my own money earlier in the week.
I’ve been flirted with plenty by men, but if i did to them what this man did to the woman, it would be wrong and people would and should call it assault. No mater how much he said he wanted me, for me to take that during him being passed out, is totally unconscionable.
And I also get that if my wallet was stolen while i was drunk, I’d probably beat the hell out of myself for putting myself in a risky situation. As do pretty much all sexual assault victims. The guilt they feel is enormous because the message around them is “prettymuchthiswillwindupyourfault” the thief is the one stealing, the rapist is the one raping.
And for the life of me, and this is another topic all together…why would anyone thing having sex with an unconscious person is a good idea? Or good sex? There is nothing mutual about it. No one sleeping is participating, engaging, exchanging pleasure or doing that guiding in for a landing…that person is asleep or passed out and is basically then a sex doll, not a partner.
I don’t get it.
I’m not upset or concerned by drunk people wanting to hook up. I’m not upset or concerned by people getting mixed signals, and trying to work it out. I’m upset and concerned by anyone treating another human being like an object. Deciding to mount or penetrate someone who is passed out seems like that exactly. Even if that person wakes up and is like…eh..ok… it still started from a place of isolation, not joining. I’m also concerned by anyone (male or female) that plays the role of “easy lay” as some kind of manipulation as well, cause it indicates talk AROUND the subject of sex without actually having to own their own decisions instead of talking directly and transparently ABOUT the actual sex that might happen. There were boundary issues all over the map with the case described above. Which, for better or for worse, is a lot of people in college and their 20′s.
Which is a cultural problem in a huge way.
If that’s all that happens – passing out – then obviously, that’s not guiding someone in for a landing. Of course, I never said it was. I quoted from the article itself, abundant *other* signs that preceded that moment, that reasonably could be construed as heading in that direction. Other details weren’t given, but if, as some have speculated, the falling asleep together included nudity and some making out, then that would be even more reason to mitigate against the *intentional* rapeyness of the situation. If the sexy-talk she was described as engaging in include a fondness for giving/receiving sleepy affection, that could make a difference, too, right? I don’t assert that the most generous possible interpretation is what happened, but it’s not reasonable to assume the worst about everything, either, based on a sketchy second-hand summary. Obviously, sex she didn’t want or explicitly consent to occurred, and that’s a Very Bad Thing, but this guy is being condemned as though there were no mixed signals and all the bad decision-making was strictly his responsibility, like all she did was pass out in his vicinity, which isn’t what it sounds like to me. If this was the only testimony in a court case, I’d feel bad for her, but it wouldn’t be enough for me to convict the guy of rape.
Regarding sleep sex, many comments have expressed horror and disgust at the very idea. I think it’s a terrible idea for *starting* a sexual relationship, but believe it or not, like just about any other sexual taste, there are people who get off on being on the giving or receiving end of that with a trusted partner. I would say the same about intoxicated sex, in that the potential for miscommunication and/or regret in a casual or first-time hookup is so high it should be avoided just as a matter of safety, but the risks and ethical concerns go way down in an already-established sexual relationship. If more people could be convinced to abide by a rule of mandatory mutual sobriety for first-time sex, a story like this one wouldn’t even occur. Like drunk driving campaigns, it’s worth fighting the good fight to educate people, but I won’t hold my breath about ever convincing everyone to do the smart thing.
It’s all a bit pointless then, this exercise, since we don’t know what they said to each other before and right after. And I see plenty of information in the article saying that mixed messages are a problem. Thus communication is needed.
Still, I don’t believe that if I flirt hard and say, “wow do I want to sleep with you” on a Tuesday, that that means you have permission to sleep with me on a Saturday if I”m asleep or druggedout/drunk. Which I’m not sure that’s what you are saying, but it sounded a little like it.
The Tuesday-Saturday time gap isn’t part of the story, so it’s just as plausible that she said, while drinking and drugging with him that night, “Man, do I want to sleep with you,” and got naked and made out with him for a while before they both passed out with him spooning her. If that was the case, then I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to classify this guy as a sociopathic rapist who cares nothing for consent, since I’d consider it more in the realm of “honest mistake”. (That’s not to trivialize it, because an honest mistake can cost someone’s life, but there’s a difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder, isn’t there?) But neither of us knows the facts, so yes, it’s a bit pointless to argue whether *this guy* was a rapist who ought to be locked up, or a guy who understandably thought he had her consent when it turns out he didn’t. It all argues in favor of more communication for people who actually get themselves into such situations, and I’m pretty sure we don’t have any disagreement about that.
Marcus – you make quite a valid – In fact and extremely valid point – about the word “Yes” and other forms being used. But you have missed a whopping big issue. Intonation and Stress… and I’m not referring to emotional state linked to anxiety – it’s how people “SAY” words. For the word yes there are 3 basic intonation and stress modes .. and actually a lot more besides.
The Fundamentalist who do love their black and white – it has to be Binary mind set – are plain lazy when it comes to considering language. Maybe if they did a very basic foreign language course they would learn, but I do doubt it! I doubt it so much!
You see in Spoken English – Verbal not Written – there are three basic Intonations – a rising ending, a flat ending and the falling end. I’ll keep it simple and miss out all forms of the Declarative, Interrogative, Negative and just plain bored.
Rising intonation makes the word yes into an Interrogative as as in “Yes?” and without full contextual analysis it’s simply not possible to say if it is consensual or not! In fact, answering a question with a question is generally accepted as no consent given. Lovely example of issue can be found on this link – It uses the word “Today”.
The same occurs with the lack of intonation and flat ending – that depending upon context and even tone of voice can be consent or even a parody of consent being given – so that’s no use either without full context being used to check what was communicated.
And the dropping end which implies a negative – well equally could be either positive or negative – even ironic and totally none committal depending upon context.
So I have to say that when people set of to peddle their universal cure alls for the ills of mankind, it may engender progress if they actually considered what the hell they are saying and checking it’s basic validity!
It is not possible to say “Yes Means Yes” or “No Means No” without full context being explicitly given and that is not just situation but also dispositional as to the people within the context. I know It’s a crashing bore having to repeatedly highlight the gross flaws in the thinking of some who keep attempting to come up with a Universal and Killer Advertising campaign that will end rape with one simple application.
But someone has to do it – and you never know after the errors have been pointed out for the 3000th time maybe some basic reality nay prevail and some thinking and reasoning may occur.
Slogans are great – but there is an art to making sure they are about for more than a week at a time! Maybe when some have actually done some learning rather than just residing at an educational establishment they may be able to deal with the complexity of issues rather than just a few chapters from a text book. P^) .
If anyone is in an objecting mood they may find some back ground reading of value – I’d start with “Intonational Prominence on Negatives in English. – Language and Speech, v28 n3 p197-230 Jul-Sep – 1985 – Describes a study done to determine which intonational parameters are most important to the meaning being conveyed within different social settings. Defines the factors that appear to influence the use of pitch and/or intensity prominence on negative words. Found that, in many situations, interactional rules take precedence over linguistic rules.”
Odd that – in many situations, interactional rules take precedence over linguistic rules – in which case laying down Linguistic Rules is not the way to go – interactional are far more useful.
Simply demanding that all interaction is to be controlled by simplistic use of language is doomed to failure – especially when the people making the pronouncements cant even understand the word “Yes” and how it gets used in interactions.
If a guy walks past the sign on the beach that says, “NO SWIMMING ON ACCOUNT OF SHARK ATTACKS”, and the likely happens, somebody at the funeral for whatever washes up will probably whisper to someone else….”Maybe he should have stayed out of the water.” The same thing is probably true of a guy trying to cross the expressway blindfolded. “Maybe….”
Only with regard to rape are we reproached for commending caution.
While, in this case, the guy was responsible, legally and ethically, can we get away with saying she shouldn’t have done the “I’m an easy lay” schtick? Sure, she’s allowed. So’s the unlucky swimmer. It’s just that…it would be a little bit, I don’t know, less likely to have a bad result.
Communications can be misunderstood. Just like the “I’m an easy lay” schtick might be confused with “I’m an easy lay.” We need to teach guys it might not mean that, and it might be just a wee bit prudent to teach women that some guys might not be all that sophisticated and, even though it’s his responsibility, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped.
The difference is that a shark is not capable of reason, or understanding rules, consequences and so forth. A person committing rape is.
If you take that analogy “Danger Shark Attack Possible” then should we put “Danger Rape Attack Possible” up at all bars? Churches? School yards? Your own apartments? Your dorm room? Cause rapes happen all over the place even in the places you feel the most safe.
Of course people should take precautions. Everyone should. But people who have reason and judgement should do their best to exercise that reason and judgement. Of course, there are people in the world who have the ethics and empathy of sharks. It’s often hard to tell who those people are just by looks.
Julie.
Precisely. And if rapes occur in bars or after barhopping, a sign would be appropriate.
Thing is, the implication of this article is that being raped is a Very Bad Thing. And if you can’t trust guys, one hundred and ten percent of the guys, to get the real message, to read past the “I’m an easy lay” schtick, then some caution might be commended to women. Them being the ones being raped.
So, until we’re sure something north of one hundred percent of the guys get it, and get it drunk, sober, drugged, aroused, maybe taking some precaution about messaging would be prudent.
Julie.
Sharks are sharks. But some percentage of men are rapists. I believe some activists will say the percentage approaches 100.
The point is not who gets to be blamed. The point is not to be raped. Call me crazy here, but I thought that was the point.
You can’t depend on one hundred percent of men to be able to read past the “I’m an easy lay,” schtick to see, “Maybe, maybe not, but certainly not without asking,” Sometimes you look like what you look like.
Problem is, and most guys have heard of it if not experienced it, is….
When I was a college official, on a low-level, part-time basis, and because of a couple of other things, people thought I was a guy to talk to, or at, depending.
One way or another, from the woman in question, or the roommate of a woman I didn’t know, or from a guy who was puzzled and angry, or some other way, I encountered half a dozen cases where the woman in question was annoyed or puzzled that the guy in question took no for an answer.
We do have communication issues, one way or another, and putting on a schtick you don’t mean is probably not a good idea. Sure, you can blame the guy afterwards. Which is good for…?
“The point is not who gets to be blamed. The point is not to be raped. Call me crazy here, but I thought that was the point.”
The point also is? Not to rape. “Not being raped” puts all the responsibility on the person not wanting to be raped. In the case of someone who has a security system, locks his/her doors, vets his/her friends and still winds up in a date rape…well I guess she/he just didn’t want to be raped badly enough? Uh, no, actually, the rapist who raped her/him is a horrible excuse for a human being and the rapist is the one who should be blamed for encroaching on her/his bodily autonomy, not the victim.
It’s got to be a both and deal. People should do their due diligence not to get hurt and take reasonable precautions, but if that means policing one’s entire life to avoid predators,never trusting anyone, and relying on agents to protect you from other people, something is wrong, very wrong.
Julie.
The point for a woman is to not be raped. Since she’s not the one doing the raping, telling her not to rape is kind of a waste.
We can tell guys, but as some feminists insist, not even one gets the message. Which leaves women facing a horde of ravening rapists. Sharks, in other words.
What to do? Well, you can go about insisting you have the right and privilege to do whatever you want and not be victimized..
Or you can take precautions and reduce the chances.
And, to pass the time, you can slag people who suggest the latter.
Pretty much every woman I know is aware of how to reduce her chances of assault and believe me, you have no idea how many things the average woman does to protect herself from not walking alone at night to carrying her keys to worrying about the damn length of her skirt.
I do have the right to go about the world after doing my due diligence and taking precautions. You as well have the right to go about the world in the same way. And if you are attacked, after taking reasonable precautions, I would hope that justice would be done and you’d be able to face your assailant and not be treated like sh*t for going about your business like a human being.
What’s “taking precautions” and what’s reasonable? I just got in from a job around the block during twilight? Should I not have? Should I have taken a gun? Mace? Told five people where I was going? Not exercised? I don’t think it’s reasonable for me to have to live in fear all the time. And then, if I have a male friend come over, one that I trust or my husband trusts, and something bad happens…how does one take precautions about that? This is the problem.
For the record I don’t think there are hoards of ravening rapists out there. I do think there are some people, male and female, that are probably sociopathic to a certain extent and enjoy hurting people.
I don’t slag people. I’m not slagging you. I’m engaging with you in a reasonable dialogue. If you think this is slagging, then….I don’t know what to say.
Julie.
For slagging…. pretending I said that a woman should stay locked up and if she’s still raped she didn’t want not to be raped enough.
Taking precautions is one thing. The woman in the article wasn’t taking precautions. She was presenting herself as an easy lay. The opposite of taking precautions. Problem is, the guy took her at her self-presentation. Had she not sent that message, or the appearance of that message, he might not have bothered her. Or maybe he would have, but there was no obvious downside to being less demonstrative.
Clearly, she didn’t know who she was getting drunk with, despite thinking she did.
Sometimes you don’t know. The way to avoid trouble in that case is not to get passing-out drunk with somebody.
No he didn’t. He penetrated a sleeping/passed out person because he wanted to. In the case of date rapes, you usually don’t know and thus that would mean you’d need to take every precaution of every thing and every day.
She didn’t send a message of “penetrate me when I’m passed out.” She sent a message of “let’s have a sexual relationship between the two of us.” He apparently got the message wrong. Or he got it right but felt..well, why not.
And I”m not slagging you, just pointing out where that particular thought process leads. I don’t believe, from what I remember about everything you’ve written, that you think women need to be imprisoned in their homes by their relatives for fear of attack.
But women and men both do deserve the right to travel freely.
You have the right to travel freely. Doesn’t mean you won’t have a flat tire, a serious auto accident, a mugging, miss your airline connections. Or anything else.
“should” “right” “ought” All good. But do not represent the reality. It’s like saying I deserve the right to go outside wearing whatever I want and not get hot, cold, wet, or sumburned. Sure you do. You have that right. Nobody’s going to argue with that. Go ahead.
This guy was a creep. He didn’t think he could get any action with a conscious woman. That’s interesting. According to the article, he didn’t try, despite what looked like serious invites. Sheesh. Even with those, he had to wait until she was passed out. Wonder what about him turned her on, or at least led her to self-present as an eager, easy lay.
What a pair.
FOR GOD SAKE, PUT A TRIGGER WARNING ON ARTICLES LIKE THIS. YOU’RE RISKING WORSENING PEOPLE’S TRAUMA BY NOT DOING SO.
The title has “rape” in it.
Editorially, as a policy, we do not put trigger warnings on articles where the title is very clear about what content will be contained therein.
C – your view that trigger warnings should be applied to all materials you may have issues with is not in line with recognised best practice in the treatment and management of Stress Reactions and PTSD. Such activity incorrectly and unreasonably places management of the persons health issues outside of the person. It is the responsibility of the person with PTSD or PTSD like illness to manage their own triggers in all areas of their lives and that includes internet usage of all types.
If you have been advised other wise by any health professional, organisation dealing with any form of mental health issues or trauma recovery, I can only advise that you seek better advice, support and possible medical care.
I am aware that there has been a meme concerning Trigger Warnings Circulating the net. Unfortunately many have mistaken that for good advice and professional help.
Here at GMP, just for clarification, use a trigger warning when we feel there isn’t adequate information in the title and/or subtitle indicating that a common trigger (child abuse, rape, violence, etc) may be contained within an article.
That way, the person with PTSD or -like condition can self-regulate on what materials are best suitable for him/herself.
We feel that is just respectful to everyone, not even just those who may be triggered. In this case, as I said, the word “rape” in the title and sub should be a tip-off that this is an article about rape.
Joanna – I get the compromise and position of GMP around trigger warnings.
I have PTSD and an associated trigger from Jelly Doughnuts. I find it cruel when confectionery is displayed without warning! P^))))
I deal with people with PTSD daily from such diverse issues as a failed parachute to having surgery whilst paralysed and anaesthetic having failed – 10 hours of most invasive surgery and wide awake. One person was trapped in a capsized yacht in a force 10 storm in the southern ocean for 8 days, and one guy and airline pilot ended up with PTSD from expertly landing a plane with engine failure whilst saving 256 passengers and crew. He was last off the plane, making sure all others were safe, and a fuel tank exploding as he jumped down an escape chute. Then you have the military guys and gals from The Falklands, Bosnia (Ex-Yugoslavia – genocide), Rwnada (genocide) Iraq (2 wars), Afghanistan (terror war of attrition) and don’t forget the guys who every day patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland for over 30 years facing terrorist snipers, bombs and boobytraps. Would you like me to list all the forms of abuse that can happen, from the sexual to the physical to the extremes of the psychological like the refugees from Somalia or even Libya and what was done to them? I haven’t even mentioned rape, domestic abuse(by child), domestic abuse(by adult) spousal abuse, elder abuse, disability abuse….. People tend to focus upon what they see as victim – they forget medical staff, doctors, paramedics, firemen, dispatchers, members of the public who witness events and are helpless….
To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “There are more triggers in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Worst of all – indiscriminate and improper use of Trigger warnings actually make Trigger Warnings Triggers for PTSD and anxiety! They are not recommended because it is not possible to rationally protect all possible people from all possible triggers, and improper usage makes people expect to be triggered and the trigger warning will actually heighten reaction to any trigger.
Also it is best practice in net usage to use scripting tools available via grease monkey to list key words and phrases from texts which may be linked to triggers. The person can choose to block all sites – receive warnings which are person specific and therefore more useful and it gives the individual control of their welfare and is NET wide not site specific. Multiple options that meet different level of need, ability, operating systems exist.
It also reduces editorial burden and also reduces specious and false claims being made concerning what percentage of the net is likely to trigger people who have been raped, and other specious claims that a site is not protecting users. Individuals who wish to express power and to manipulate by using then issue are prevented from public drama and disruptive conduct.
I would also point out that the only groups advocating for Trigger warnings are those which still contest the view that PTSD is not the same as Rape trauma syndrome and demands that there be special distinctions made for rape and trauma which do not apply to any other trauma and PTSD.
Interestingly, on Wikipedia there is a page with Trauma trigger as it’s title – and it advocated for Trigger warnings. Oddly it only uses references related to rape and Rape trauma syndrome for supposed justification and of course ignores all other evidence and sources on a global basis as to Trauma Triggers and best practice in treatment and management.
Hell they have even missed the basic and seminal texts reporting findings from Functional MRI scans which showed that the Triggers actually exist – and when I wrote about that one It got featured here on GMP – Deniers and PTSD – November 26, 2011
I would also remind you of the concerns that exist around some advocating that all women should at all times be viewed as Rape Survivors with PTSD … and treated as such. Not only is that most incorrect as to how women should be viewed at al times, but it gets sexists when you factor out male rape survivors. It is also a most egregious misinterpretation of a Disability issue (PTSD) into a gender issue. You may have seen my earlier comments correcting claims that making adjustments for colour blindness where more males have the condition is a gender issue. It’s a Disability Discrimination Issue. It’s shocking how confused some people are over minority status and what rightfully belongs to which groups!
I appreciate the thought and care that has gone into consideration of PTSD – Trauma and how GMP should reasonably and rationally manage Trauma Triggers. It is of concern that the reality has not been fully articulated so that a more rounded and inclusive decision could be made!
It is a terrible thing to have to consider and get to grips with the reality of, but well intentioned actions by some can and will be used to pervert reality for others with claims that they lack the insight and skills to deal with. Never underestimate how others will look at others good intentions and work out how to use then to achieve ends that begger belief.
And to be very basic and direct People with PTSD are responsible for their own management – The world is not responsible for what ever caused the PTSD – and it’s not the worlds responsibility to either protect the person from themselves or provide excuses for not being responsible in managing themselves and living their lives.
Do all bars have a notice stating all alcoholics should be warned that alcohol may be inside? Alcohol is a trigger to Alcoholics and it just being Present or Mentioned can be traumatic and trigger alcohol related PTSD stressor!
Not using Trigger warnings is Win Win – and the responsible course of action, even if not seen as trendy and surfing the memes.
Don’t trigger warnings actually trigger people more? And if they read it they will trigger more because they expect to be triggered?
BINGO!
I had an incident with a guy in college where we both got extremely drunk. The next thing I remember is being in bed with him and he was penetrating me. We had been dating for 2-3 weeks but had not had sex yet before that. I was too drunk to react. Later I felt violated but to this day I’m not sure if it was rape or not. He told me I came to the bedroom willingly and he didn’t realize that I passed out. He was very drunk as well. I honestly don’t have enough memory of the incident to know if I indicated that I had consented or not. I blamed myself for drinking too much.
We kept dating for a couple weeks after that, but every time we tried to have sex, he couldn’t get an erection. Guilt? I don’t know. We broke up.
To me its not that complex. I wouldn’t say its indicative of society’s ideas’s about sexuality per se but the age old issue of that a woman dressing proactively, talking about sex, being flirtatious is considered an invitation or consent to men have sex.
If he was unclear that it was rape then he thought they were already there. Although I don’t see how having sex with someone for the first time while they are asleep is considered consent.
There is something missing from his perception, his notion of responsibility and awareness of the event. Did he blame it on the alcohol and drugs? Did he get having sex with someone while they are asleep is not okay? That is where there is more to learn from.
“On the night in question, there was drinking. A lot of it. I wasn’t there, but there was probably some drugging……. My friend and this woman fell asleep together. ”
I stopped reading right there.
Passed out is probably more accurate…
Heavy machinery, firearms, automobiles and libidos should probably not be fooled with inebriated….
Why would you get involved?
I do agree we need to continue to define and examine what sexuality is and isn’t as a society. I think when I wrote that I wanted to blame it on men’s skewed ideas in this area.
I really appreciate the nuance, complexity, and humanity this article brings to these really difficult issues–thank you for writing this.
This is a powerful, well-written article that strikes a little too close to home for me, and I’d like to actually add a different type of rape that we don’t talk about at all in society, either: the type where “consent” is given through coercion or wearing-down.
I know only too well how insidious this is, because it happened to me. Or rather, because I was the one who did it.
I was dating a woman in a long-distance relationship, and we saw each other in person for the first time in over half a year. Naturally, I had come to expect that the first night we’d have a wild night of passion liked we did every other time we saw each other. She, however, told me she didn’t want to, because she was tired from travel. And I promptly threw one hell of a temper tantrum, whining, pleading, and eventually expressing genuine anger like a child before turning over in a petulant huff and giving passive-aggressive sighs. At which point she said that okay, we could.
It wasn’t until later that she told me how betrayed and violated she felt. That I’d ignored her “no” to wear her down with repeated whining and pressure. That she’d felt scared by my anger, and worried I’d hurt her if she didn’t say yes. (The fact that I never would have is irrelevant, as it was what she perceived that led to her decision). The fact that I thought entitled to her body because we were dating and because we’d slept together before, and she agreed, which led to her feeling like she’d compromised herself. And eventually, she said the word that neither of us wanted to bring up: she felt like she’d been raped.
I always considered myself a good guy. I’ve always tried to fight for equality and for the rights of those who are marginalized. But this was years ago and I’m still not sure how to process it or how to deal with it as a man who identifies as feminist, or how to use it to maybe find a silver lining of purpose or redemption.
Yes, she said yes. On the surface, consent was given. But it was consent given after pestering and, from her perspective, threats. So she has every right to feel how she did. And at the time I had no clue I’d even done anything wrong.
Like the article discusses, we need as a society to talk about and be more aware of how (particularly) men wrongly interpret signals that (particularly) women send out. But we also need (particularly) boys to learn that a consent won through pestering isn’t much of a consent at all. I wish i’d learned that lesson before I had to.
THANK YOU for sharing that. It is these shades of grey that will really change the way we handle situations of sexual violence. I think many people have a similar story, and don’t feel comfortable sharing it.
” Like the article discusses, we need as a society to talk about and be more aware of how (particularly) men wrongly interpret signals that (particularly) women send out. But we also need (particularly) boys to learn that a consent won through pestering isn’t much of a consent at all. I wish i’d learned that lesson before I had to. ”
My opinion is if guys misread womens signal is mostly because women are inefficient communicators. And guys inept receptors. So IMO boys/men need to learn to be aware of what women communicate, but women need to improve their communicating skills. No more subtle signals, no more clues. Be straightforward and say what you want.
Anyhow, but boys and girls need to learn how to communicate efficiently. If misunderstanding happens, often is because the basic communication between the two was flawed. Learn how to communicate properly (not only or especially men, but both genders equally) and 98% of misunderstanding like magic will vanish.
“but boys and girls need to learn how to communicate efficiently”
it should have been ‘ both boys and girls need to learn how to communicate efficiently [...]
Mr Supertypo – so nice to see someone using four letter words in a hyper accurate and none confrontational manner.
Equality in language and even thought is such a tricky thing, and even inhuman. People hate equality and hate learning about it – they prefer and desire prejudice – it’s their comfort zone.
Four letters word? lol are you maybe referring to my spelling skills? well take a look to my nick, ‘SuperTYPO’ the worst speller in the world
I dont know, but sometimes I think that being judgmental, confrontational and prejudged may be a protective behavior. Maybe to cover or silence the conscience? or to hide the lack of reason skills?
It’s much more difficult and dangerous to be open minded, and understand the situation rather than being close minded and defensive. About the subject, its easier making the guy a pariah than give a close look to all the dynamics involved. Wrong it’s still wrong, no doubt in that. But no matter what some people claims or belive, there is a ocean of difference between a pre meditated assault and a honest mistake due to poor communication.
So what can we all learn from this? what is the lesson? dont sleep with people when you are drunk and be clear how to communicate. And even if she express the desire to be ravished in her sleep (more common than people things) dont do it. Wake her up, and speak to her. And the woman can say either yes or no; she has the last word in this case. If she is dissapointed the morning after, that ‘s her problem. Not his
I think that being judgmental, confrontational and prejudged may be a protective behavior. Maybe to cover or silence the conscience? or to hide the lack of reason skills?
I saw that on a T-shirt once. It was torn off the wearer and burned in public. I wasn’t sure if it was performance art or just Ironic.
Psychopaths may wear a nice thin veneer of niceness….until they get their intended target alone…
This story is sickening….
But I think it does illustrate the fact that quite a few “nice-looking guys” do really sick things when they think no one is watching….like Jekyll and Hyde…
Leia – I’m just amazed at how your super powers and ability to know all about reality over all distances and outwith time is so poorly managed. My fee is 10%.
This guy sounds like a jerk. It is never o.k. to have sex with a sleeping woman.
Thank you JoAnne for maintaining a sense of decorum and balance. At least you left the perps gender/sex as neutral rather than turning your statement into a polarised and even sexist one.
I Wonder though, what is your view of having sex with a sleeping man by another person of unknown sex/gender?
Mediahound, it is never o.k. to have sex with anyone while they are sleeping. I was just made the comment about the sleeping woman because that was what the article was about.
What if the sleeping person explicitly asked the partner to have sex with them, while they were conscious?
This is a weird, nitpicky conversation, MediaHound and Alberich.
Yes, it is wrong for all people to have sex with someone who is asleep, but if your particular interest is in having someone have sex with you while you’re sleeping, and you give consent prior, then of course that’s okay.
See Jamie Utt’s “Yes, No, Maybe” consent checklist for more details.
http://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/the-yes-no-maybe-chart-a-tool-for-talking-about-consent/
Nitpicky? odd word for verifying matters precisely. I hope that if some one is being asked to verify what they mean that nitpicky isn’t the new control lingo!
Some? Some one? One? Monolithic!
Men have to deal with being told we have shame – fear – can’t consent – lack capacities in so many ways and now we run the risk of being nitpicky as well? I am an advocate for self determined end of life. If I loose any more strings to me bow as a basic chap I may just have to sign out of the The Big Hilton for good!
I get drama and language and how people read it and get the direct messages, the indirect ones and even the ones that are so obvious people just miss them …. The sky is blue sort of thing … the silent things that just don’t need to be said …. the things accepted as reality – presumed to be reality – hey they get made reality.
It’s them silent and invisible words like some …. as in “SOME” Nice Guys Commit Rape Too.
Alternate titles – Confessions of an accidental? rapist – Being a friends Judge and Jury – Advocate or Confessor – what do you do when your best friend asks Am I A Rapist?
Aint it terrble when the men rape trope is so universal that when things get written they keep on being so expansive when dealing with a small group. Why not just put it up there Another Men Rape Thread – rape Some? I wonder what Some think? Some?
Some still insist that the way they communicate in written form or by spoken word does not reveal patterns of thinking and how the world gets viewed. My View Fooey to that one – I see Finger prints and forensics.
Just be glad I aint being Pernickety ! P^)
Some? Some one? One? Monolithic!
Joanna:
“Yes, it is wrong for all people to have sex with someone who is asleep, but if your particular interest is in having someone have sex with you while you’re sleeping, and you give consent prior, then of course that’s okay.”
The problem is “no means no” requires both parties to be able to stop the encounter at any time. While one partner is asleep they can’t exercise this right. You can compare this to a BDSM encounter with no safeword (and I can easily see why a submissive might want not to have a safeword).
I asked the question because, it leads to a defence of the guy in Alyssa’s post.
Now let us assume that we agree that:
a) People can give valid prior consent to sleep sex.
We also have as a given standard in society
b) Valid consent to sex doesn’t have to be explicit and verbal.
In light of a), b) and the fact that we don’t know the details of the prior interaction of the two people in the post, could it be that he could reasonably believe, that she wanted to have sex while asleep? Obviously what he did was wrong, but was it rape?
The crucial question is:
When does her behaviour allow him to have sex with her and when is it rape? Where exactly is the line?
When she says, Yes! Let’s do it! And there is a mutual, non verbal communication/verbal communcation indicating that yes the sexytimes are AOK!
If she said, “Hey I love having sleep sex! Feel free to wake me up with sex!” If she said “Yes I want sex tonight, and if she said, wake me if I fall asleep and let’s keep doing it.” and then he did, and then she got pissed off, then I’d not think he raped her.
Going on what the author states, he felt like something bad had happened, he described it to the author fully and in detail, and she concurred, and he agreed that his actions were not welcome in that particular case.
The thing that is bugging me here is that it keeps reading like her behavior is a contract that she has to fulfill with sex to satisfy him. That she’s selling and he’s buying and if she flirts with him it’s a false bill of goods.
Leaving aside whether what they both did was high risk behavior (it was) and that they were both placing themselves in less than ideal circumstances (they were), this is why a lot of women react badly to the defenses of his initial action of penetrating her while sleeping. “He was confused! She led him on!” Because it can read that if you approach a man with your sexuality visible, if you are a sexually active person, and if you are interested in sex with someone then you will wind up owing that sex and well, it was the obvious choice for him wasn’t it? I mean, she’s right there! in some state of undress! Ripe for the picking!
And that places her in the position of object, not partner. Let’s say we live in a world where that isn’t called rape, but a really bad night with clumsy, rude sex. It still means he was more interested in getting his rocks off (with a sleeping or passed out partner) than with having a mutually pleasurable sexual experience with a partner he was communicating ethically with. In that world her crime would be not protecting herself well and his crime would be being a selfish jerk.
Currently, in our world it’s a kind of sexual assault and it’s also very possible she’s guilty of being really provocative and manipulative which is totally wrong, but I don’t think that means he gets to take what was supposedly offered because she’s being a tease. You don’t get to take it. It’s got to be mutual.
Both of their jobs should be to communicate. No one should be manipulating, no one should be, as I used in another example, “taking the wallet in which money is available for that dinner you promised me.”
And frankly, I’ve been on the dude’s end of things-being flirted with shamelessly for a long time, and then when I tried to get the situation to happen, told…”I don’t feel that way about you.” Should that man have manipulated the situation? No, it means he was a jerk interested in toying with me. Does that mean I’d have had the right to take what I wanted if we passed out together after a party? No, no it does not.
Julie,
to clarify a couple of questions:
1.Assuming we have a boy and a girl. The girl desires to being woken up through penetration the next morning and agrees to that with the boy. The boy wakes her up through penetration, but now the girl feels used and awful. Does the boy bear any guilt?
2.Is explicit verbal consent the only valid consent to sleep sex?
3.Which kinds of sex require explicit verbal consent and which kinds of sex can be agreed using different methods (like body language etc.)?
4.Which sex acts require that all participants have the ability and the possibility to end the act at any time? (I thought this was just the standard “no means no”, but as you seem to be OK with sleep sex, you obviously don’t require this standard always.)
Julie:
“The thing that is bugging me here is that it keeps reading like her behavior is a contract that she has to fulfill with sex to satisfy him.”
I don’t see anybody here denying her the right to end the sex act whenever she wants, the problem is that if she is not conscious, she can’t exercise this right. By abandoning the “no means no” standard, which must include the ability of every participant to say stop, you wind up with such problems.
Julie.
“No one should be manipulating, no one should be, as I used in another example, “taking the wallet in which money is available for that dinner you promised me.””
Obviously not, but what if he is sure that she wants him to have sex with her while she is asleep?
“And frankly, I’ve been on the dude’s end of things-being flirted with shamelessly for a long time, and then when I tried to get the situation to happen, told…”I don’t feel that way about you.” Should that man have manipulated the situation? No, it means he was a jerk interested in toying with me.”
Why was he a jerk in this situation? You making wrong assumptions doesn’t make him a jerk, it makes you wrong. If you don’t like flirting you could have told him, couldn’t you?
Julie,
to clarify a couple of questions:
1.Assuming we have a boy and a girl. The girl desires to being woken up through penetration the next morning and agrees to that with the boy. The boy wakes her up through penetration, but now the girl feels used and awful. Does the boy bear any guilt?
Guilt as in legal guilt? Probably not. Guilt as in having empathy for someone who he cares about and now feels bad? I would hope he’d feel something akin to not wanting her to feel used and that they would discuss why it turned out that way.
2.Is explicit verbal consent the only valid consent to sleep sex?
Given the risks? Probably wouldn’t hurt. If long term partners know each other well and are used to doing sleep sex, then probably not. Depends on their level of communication.
3.Which kinds of sex require explicit verbal consent and which kinds of sex can be agreed using different methods (like body language etc.)?
Personally, for me (and because I am not a lawyer) if I have a new partner or I am doing brand new things with a partner that carry some level of physical or emotional risk, I think it’s really good to have verbal convos about them. Obviously nothing is required, and people do things all the time without it, but it lessens risk if you actually communicate with people. Indeed, if you are very good at reading people and feel confident in the ongoing nonverbal consent, then that’s up to the people involved.
4.Which sex acts require that all participants have the ability and the possibility to end the act at any time? (I thought this was just the standard “no means no”, but as you seem to be OK with sleep sex, you obviously don’t require this standard always.)
Um, all of them? Like, if you are having sex with someone and you don’t like what she’s doing/or you feel ill or whatever…wouldn’t you believe you have the right to say no/stop? Did I say I was ok with sleep sex? Can’t recall, but I’m in a very long term partnership and we’ve talked about a great many things.
Julie:
“The thing that is bugging me here is that it keeps reading like her behavior is a contract that she has to fulfill with sex to satisfy him.”
I don’t see anybody here denying her the right to end the sex act whenever she wants, the problem is that if she is not conscious, she can’t exercise this right. By abandoning the “no means no” standard, which must include the ability of every participant to say stop, you wind up with such problems.
Enthusiastic consent means the presence of a “YES” (verbal or non verbal and clear, not assumed) not just the absence of a no. Thus, she’s sleeping and not saying yes, so don’t stick your penis in her unless you feel really really certain that’s on the table and has been discussed.
Julie.
“No one should be manipulating, no one should be, as I used in another example, “taking the wallet in which money is available for that dinner you promised me.””
Obviously not, but what if he is sure that she wants him to have sex with her while she is asleep?
Then we wouldn’t be having this conversation….
“And frankly, I’ve been on the dude’s end of things-being flirted with shamelessly for a long time, and then when I tried to get the situation to happen, told…”I don’t feel that way about you.” Should that man have manipulated the situation? No, it means he was a jerk interested in toying with me.”
Why was he a jerk in this situation? You making wrong assumptions doesn’t make him a jerk, it makes you wrong. If you don’t like flirting you could have told him, couldn’t you?
Julie,
re 1.“Guilt as in having empathy for someone who he cares about and now feels bad?”
Empathy is not guilt. Guilt implies that he was responsible. So how guilty he feels should not depend on her reaction to his actions, but only on his actions.
re 2. Me: “Is explicit verbal consent the only valid consent to sleep sex?”
Julie:“Given the risks? Probably wouldn’t hurt. If long term partners know each other well and are used to doing sleep sex, then probably not. Depends on their level of communication.”
Your answer implies, that there is valid consent to sleep sex and hence that sleep sex can be consensual.
re 4.Julie:“Did I say I was ok with sleep sex?”
As far I understand you imply that. See above, what you said above implies that you think sleep sex can be consensual and if it is consensual it is OK, isn’t it? Originally I understood your statement:
“When she says, Yes! Let’s do it! And there is a mutual, non verbal communication/verbal communcation indicating that yes the sexytimes are AOK!”
to be about sleep sex, maybe I misunderstood you here.
As I understand it, sleep sex doesn’t meet the standard of “no means no” and hence can’t be consensual.
Julie:“Enthusiastic consent means the presence of a “YES” (verbal or non verbal and clear, not assumed) not just the absence of a no.”
My real problem is the question of consensuality of sleep sex and the validity of prior consent, see above.
Julie“Thus, she’s sleeping and not saying yes, so don’t stick your penis in her unless you feel really really certain that’s on the table and has been discussed.”
What I feel shouldn’t matter, only her observable behaviour is important to me for the question if she consents. Anyway, I doubt that she can can give meaningful consent to sleep sex.
Me:”Obviously not, but what if he is sure that she wants him to have sex with her while she is asleep?”
Julie:“Then we wouldn’t be having this conversation….”
Well you can be sure of something that is wrong.
I’m a male who works in an environment where the topic of Rape Culture is coming up repeatedly in discussion, so I’d like to ask a few questions.
1) If both a man and a woman are drunk, and fall asleep (pass out), but then–unlike in this article–both come to, have enough of verbal/non-verbal discussion to conclude both want sex, and have it, and the next day the woman says she regards it as rape because she was under the influence, is it rape? He was under the influence too. This relates to a comment made above. Why is it only on the male? Keep in mind, this isn’t an example where she said no and he drunkenly raped her anyway. This is an example where she drunkenly said yes after he drunkenly asked. How was he NOT doing what he was supposed to (in asking), and if he shouldn’t have even been around her while drunk, why is it okay for HER to have been around HIM while drunk?
2) This guy pentetrated her while she was sleeping, so to me that’s clear rape. Different question. If a woman is sleeping, and you’re in the kind of situation where you’ve had sex before or fooled around before (which is not necessarily a “relationship”) and you touch the woman–let’s say you begin massaging her neck or something–as a way of communicating you’d like to have sex but are checking to see if that “No” is coming… is that considered a sexual assault? Because after all she’s asleep. Right? And if it is, then you realize the only way to be sure would be to completely wake her up, ask her clearly, “Would you like to have sex,” and then start doing whatever it is you do for warming up, etc. And women are going to RESPOND to this? I’m sorry… but that seems like a the mood is going to be totally destroyed by that. Which isn’t to say the mood is more important than establishing consent but I am saying that pretty much any kind of waking up next to you (drunk or not) fumbling -leads-to-sex kind of thing is absolutely off limits now. Or is this too extreme an interpretation on my part?
Again just asking.
I can try to take a stab at MY OPINION of those two scenarios, and hope it’s taken as an open dialog.
1) This is an example of why my mantra is “No Fucked Up Hook Ups.” Is it rape? Not to me. But is it totally ill-advised, a form of coercion, likely to lead to a whole lot of drama? Yup. To me it’s just a really bad risk / reward ratio. And a bad idea. I know that getting wasted and hooking is pretty normal, but I think it’s a pretty bad idea, for a lot of reasons that I’m not going to lecture anyone on.
2) Touching someone’s neck to see if they’re interested in having sex is about as accurate as driving past a McDonald’s to see if someone’s hungry. Or a vegetarian. Yes, asking is your best bet, and in my mind it is not only necessary, but smoking hot. Now, is it 100% guaranteed to result in a guy getting to stick is dick in a girl? Nope. It’s not. But it’s not as if there is an inherent right there anyway. You do have to ask. Just like a store has to be open for you to shop in it. And I promise you that if a woman wants to have sex with you and you ask her, it’s a turn-on. I promise. You can even make it into actual foreplay by asking where she wants you to touch her, and how. Not only is that respecting her agency over her body, it is a surefire way to make sure you are giving her what she wants, which is hot. And you can return the favor, by asking her for what you want. See Jamie Utt’s article from yesterday on this site.
Honestly, the hottest words anyone’s ever said to me are “what do you want me to do now?”
1) This is an example of why my mantra is “No Fucked Up Hook Ups.” Is it rape? Not to me. But is it totally ill-advised, a form of coercion, likely to lead to a whole lot of drama? Yup. To me it’s just a really bad risk / reward ratio. And a bad idea. I know that getting wasted and hooking is pretty normal, but I think it’s a pretty bad idea, for a lot of reasons that I’m not going to lecture anyone on.
I think the problem is, even if you remove the word rape from the equation, it is still seen as something that he did to her. It’s still painted up as he took advantage of her.
Well, in this case he did. In the preliminary interactions, they did things with and to each other (flirting, touching, talking). If she was asleep or passed out and had not said “do me when I’m asleep” then he was the actor and she was acted upon. We don’t know what happened after she woke up, and if there were things she did to or with him and if that was consensual (through word or non verbal understanding).
If she had enveloped him while he was sleeping, this would be something she did TO him, without consent. In this case, he did do something TO her.
“If she had enveloped him” – would he have been raped?
I absolutely think so, yes. I understand current US law does not agree with me, but yes, if he woke up with her on him without his permission, using him, then I’d call that rape.
And in the case of couples who don’t mind being awoke to sex, well they have history and understanding BUT let’s say it’s 6 months in the relationship. One is horny prior to bed. The other says, “No, I’m ill/tired.” They sleep, first one mounts the other because damnit, they usually like it and I’m still aroused! That person being woken up has every right to be really really angry. I still think that’s non consensual and extremely bad behavior.
Julie you have just made a very clear point and missed it!
The title here is “Nice Guys Commit Rape Too” – but it is dishonest when the author knows full well that being in the USA it could never read “Nice Girls Commit Rape Too” – unless she started getting into strap ons and other ideas about penetrating his mouth or anus.
I just wonder why on a site about men it’s always about lecturing in only one direction and the realities of inequality against men in this area of rape and basic sexuality are ignored. I’m not even in the USA or North America, but you know, the way men are being treated makes me wonder if I would ever wish to visit again and in any way be party to what is going on.
No, I didn’t miss it. I’ve been expecting this comment or one like it, which is why I’ve been pointing out that indeed the reverse could happen and I’ve tried to use language that is indicative that both could happen. I’m not sure why “on a site about men it’s always…” unless there are just not any men willing to write the articles, or because there are more accounts of rapes such as this that people are willing are willing to write about.
In fact, I’ve written several articles (linked in the one linked here) about rape, gender etc. So it’s not like “this site” isn’t going in multiple directions. Or hasn’t at least.
Write a post, recruit writers. It’s vital and important.
How odd – three times in the last 12 months I’ve offered to write on the very subject and how the consent issues and legal definition issues (lack of) dovetail with things like prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.
Evidently,when the autumn rape media season came up last year and I started offering it was the wrong time. Is it the right time now, given that the season has started all over again? What is the correct time to submit pieces for inclusion during the autumn rape season – I aint seen a call for submissions?
I keep wondering why there is such a strange media focus around rape in the USA and even why the US based editors of rape stats on Wikipedia keep demanding that they will NOT use the internationally standardised rape stats by country from Interpol, but keep demanding that they will use non-indexed stats which ensure that the USA is the Rape capital of the World over such places as South Africa which it’s own government recognised as a manifest Rape Culture as far back as 1997. That is just one oddity out of so many! You have a 33% chance of being raped in South Africa before the age of 15 – you have a 10% chance of going to school.
Oh and those figures come from a little known researcher – Teboho Maitse – head of equality and diversity for all South Africa. Why is her work and the work of so many others ignored by white middle class female students at US based universities – just as the work of Loretta Ross, Yulanda Ward and Nkenge Toure and others is just ignored? It does get interesting as to why there is this odd racial thing going on around rape and who gets to speak and say what about it!
Hell a prof of law in India called out the Indian Government for allowing genocide by rape in Gujarat – 2002 – he wrote a full legal brief calling teh government and indian Politics Rape Culture 3 times – it’s taken a while but ministers have been convicted of conspiting to have muslims wiped out by genocidal rape …. but what would that matter.
In the USA in 2004 a Dutch Academic writing for the Encyclopedia of rape stated on page 179 that whilst some wish to see the USA as a rape culture it isn’t and there are even issues about how the US approach rape via the media … and some students have been misquoting it ever since claiming that it says America Is A rape culture. … it;s a pity they couldn’t read – them SATs aint what they used to be!
I’s also love to know why it is all so seasonal in the USA? The more I dig back the more you find October to December is the internet rape trope season on a US basis. Do all rapes happen in a three month window?
Imagine the defence – Not Guilty, it was June!
The only significant case that had hit the net and not followed the Autumn Window as The Duke lacrosse case, and that was primarily because so many demanded that the accused had to be guilty, and there was extra hot water generated by things said by people with political connections which resulted in jobs being lost – that was March 2006. Odd too how there was that whole race thing going on there too.
However, It has been observed that following on from that each Autumn for the last 6 years there has been this massive Autumn Rape season on the net. Hell even Slutwalk peaked in the Autumn.
Is there by any chance anything happening in the autumn each year which is driving people to think about – blog about and generally use the net to push Rape Forward into the Public Domain?
But then again – maybe next year…. Hell the last piece I submitted and it wasn’t even about sex but guys crying – got an auto email response and not heard anything since!
Write for us is one thing, but even when people write one wonders why cos it’s not acknowledged. Hell even comments don’t get published if they contain accurate but uncomfortable truths about reality – and some folks simply don’t want that reality, because it’s the wrong season! P^)
I have no idea why you weren’t published. I’m not an editor. I’d email Joanna, or Marcus, or Justin or Lisa directly and perhaps you can get a clear answer.
MediaHound, I never got an email about that.
Feel free to send me one joanna @ goodmenproject.com
As a Wikipedia Administrator (only one of thousands, I hasten to add
I find your report of various apparently-reputable sources of information being ignored disturbing.
If I might make a suggestion, a good way to start fixing this problem would be to write articles about the studies you reference, comparing them to those you say are preferred, rather than trying to wedge the new information into existing articles. I don’t know the best way to start a dialogue on the best way to stop such articles being deleted: maybe if you post a reference here then I could take a look (I am loath to simply drop my email address in a public place for various reasons which I hope you understand) or it might be that if you take up Joanna’s offer above she could facilitate an exchange of details (if as I assume she has some administrative way of seeing my address without it being made public).
Please note: I am not promising that whatever you write will not be deleted from Wikipedia, which would be foolish in the extreme! I can however make some informed and at least semi-intelligent guesses as to the best way to avoid deletion.
NotACat – I don’t find it disturbing, I just use it actively along with others to investigate abuse and control issues on-line. It is s fertile study ground.
I actually know a guy that happened to. He was camping out with some people we worked with, they were all drunk, etc, and one woman went into his tent, they had sex, the next day he’s upset about it cuz he said he was drunk, didn’t want it. He didn’t consider her attractive and said he never would have gone for her had he been sober. The thing that sticks with me is how shook up he was about it, and other bystanders (females included) said “Yeah, that’s rape.” The woman in question was dismissed from the workplace, to my understanding, but he never filed charges. So yeah that happens. And I’ve also heard stories from a woman I know who is a lesbian talk about what her gf did to her when she was asleep (same thing as here with varied body part details). I know the author and probably the overall Project are taking pains to say it could go either way but I really think there’s this vibe out there… if it’s rape it’s man to woman, not woman to man, not woman to woman. If it’s man to man it’s a prison thing. And that’s just absolutely not true. And furthermore I’ve seen men try to bring this up and then get accused of derailing the discussion, or detracting the from the focus on the much higher percentage of women who get raped by men. And while that might be true, is that fair? There’s this HUGE environment of hostility out there. I’m left wanting to communicate one thought: Being a man is no picnic. My view, in a truly equal society a man should not have to ask MORE questions than a woman, as MORE often than a woman, be MORE careful than a woman, etc. It should be just equal. But we never get within a mile of establishing what that kind of equality might entail.
Thank you for sharing that. Yes, issues of sexual violence – or maybe in honor of your earlier comment we should say on the spectrum of sexual coercion – happen across genders, orientations and social situations. And we need to talk about all of them. With as little hostility as possible so that we can hear what we’re saying and begin to understand.
Julie:
Well, in this case he did. In the preliminary interactions, they did things with and to each other (flirting, touching, talking). If she was asleep or passed out and had not said “do me when I’m asleep” then he was the actor and she was acted upon. We don’t know what happened after she woke up, and if there were things she did to or with him and if that was consensual (through word or non verbal understanding).
If she had enveloped him while he was sleeping, this would be something she did TO him, without consent. In this case, he did do something TO her.
Oh yes in this case he did. What I’m talking about is when it is reversed the so the responsibility is still put on him.
As in man/woman have a drunken hook up people still say that he did something to her as if being intoxicated absolves her of responsibility but doesn’t do the same for him. That’s what I’m trying to get at. When it comes to sexual choices it seems that men, no matter what are always responsible for their sexual choices and decisions while women may or may not be responsible for their sexual choices and decisions.
I was reading Alyssa’s post as not only the telling of a story but also a call for a conversation on the way we negotiate/navigate our way around sex. With that in mind I was trying to bring up what seems to be a sticky subject when it comes to responsibility. Yet and still people respond with the story she was telling, as there is some rule in effect that if it doesn’t relate to that story then it off limits or something.
I think the problem is, even if you remove the word rape from the equation, it is still seen as something that he did to her. It’s still painted up as he took advantage of her.
The dynamic is not just in the doing, it is also in the obtaining and the granting – the giving to and the receiving. There is that ongoing and endemic trope of male and female – he does – she is done too – he has to ask she has to grant – he is being given to she is the giver.
The lanaguage is comical as it’s actually built upon a Great Misquote of Dworkin. It is fascinating when a whole set of and dynamic within language has occurred and it’s all based upon a misquote.
Maybe when it becomes about both partners having sexualities and not just one – and the relationships presently controlled by language are either removed or made into one’s of equality it may be possible to have advance. I do find that being a pouf has distinct advantages – you just ask fancy a F###? and off you go! Lesbians are even worse – they don’t get past fancy….? P^)