• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Nation: Ending Rape Illiteracy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mumei

Member
While I was poking around online yesterday, I came across Melissa Harris-Perry' open letter to Indiana congressman Richard Mourdock whose comments are referenced in this article. I watched the video of her reading the letter online (and I recommend you do the same!), and towards the end of the video I saw in the background behind her was an article called "Ending Rape Illiteracy" in the Nation by Jessica Valenti.

Jessica Valenti is one of my favorite feminist bloggers; she is one of the founders of Feministing and Yes Means Yes, and wrote a book I strongly recommend called The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, which connects narratives connecting female morality with virginity, the purity culture, anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion attitudes, retrograde attitudes on sexual assault and rape, negative attitudes towards female ownership of their bodies and sexual autonomy, and so forth. I think that for anyone who has noticed the repeated "gaffes" of Republican officials on the issue of rape and abortion, it helps to explain how those attitudes are all connected by a paternalistic attitude towards women.

But this topic isn't about that book; it is about this article. I have put in the hyperlinks from the article so it is easier to follow along. Enjoy, and play nice.

This week, a DC-based feminist group projected the phrase “rape is rape” onto the US Capitol building. The action was meant to highlight survivors’ stories and bring attention to the way rape is often mischaracterized. The sentiment may seem an obvious one—who doesn’t understand what rape is?—but the message, sadly, is much needed. Tuesday evening at the final Indiana Senate debate, Republican Richard Mourdock explained why he opposes abortion with no exceptions by calling pregnancy from rape "something that God intended"- the latest in a long line of "gaffes" by male politicians about sexual assault. It was only this January that the FBI updated its archaic definition of rape and victim-blaming in the culture and courts runs rampant.

Feminists have done a lot to change policies, but not enough to change minds. Despite decades of activism on sexual assault—despite common sense, even—there is still widespread ignorance about what rape is, and this absence of a widely understood and culturally accepted definition of sexual assault is one of the biggest hurdles we have in chipping away at rape culture.

When Todd Akin uttered his now-famous line that women rarely get pregnant from “legitimate rape,” he didn’t misspeak. This was something he thought was true—both the bizarre logic about pregnancy and the idea that there is such a thing as a rape that isn’t legitimate. Last year, Wisconsin state representative Roger Rivard told a newspaper reporter that “some girls rape easy.” Now under fire, Rivard attempted to clarify his comments, claiming they were taken out of context.

What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me [from my father], telling me, “If you’re going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.” So the way he said it was, “Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.”​

Rivard obviously thought this explanation would lessen the damage of his original statement; he assumed his belief that women regularly lie about being raped was a commonly held one. What’s depressing is that he’s probably right.

To too many people, “rape” and “rape victim” are not accurate descriptors but political shorthand—the product of an overblown, politically correct interpretation of sex. As Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry said in 2008, “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse.”

If you’re married, you’ve contractually agreed to be available for sex whether or not you want to. If you’re a woman of color, you must be a liar. If you don’t have as much money as your attacker, you’re just looking for a payday. If you’re in college, you shouldn’t want to ruin your poor young rapist’s life. If you’re a sex worker, it wasn’t rape it was just “theft of services.” If you said yes at first but changed your mind, tough luck. If you’ve had sex before, you must say yes to everyone. If you were drinking you should have known better. If you were wearing a short skirt what did you expect?

The definition of who is a rape victim has been whittled down by racism, misogyny, classism and the pervasive wink-wink-nudge-nudge belief that all women really want to be forced anyway. The assumption is that women are, by default, desirous of sex unless they explicitly state otherwise. And women don’t just have to prove that we said no, but that we screamed it.

Recently the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned a sexual assault conviction for a man who attacked a woman with severe cerebral palsy. The woman cannot communicate verbally, and according to the court’s documents, has the “intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old.” Still, because of how the state defines rape in cases of physical incapacitation, the court decided that the victim was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” and therefore could have communicated a lack of consent and didn’t. Basically, she didn’t fight back hard enough in order for what happened to her to be considered rape.

This is not just a problem of rhetoric or legalese. The lack of an accepted cultural definition of rape leaves room for mischaracterizations that turn back the clock on progress already made.

Five years ago, anti-feminist author Laura Sessions Stepp popularized the term “gray rape” in her book, Unhooked, to explain the confusion women may feel after they’ve been sexually assaulted, and their hesitance to call themselves victims.

The term took off, and Cosmopolitan magazine featured a cover story by Stepp about this “new kind of date rape.” (If you doubt the cultural relevance of Cosmo, consider that it has a circulation of 3 million readers and—sadly—is the best-selling magazine in college bookstores.)

Stepp wrote in Cosmo that “gray rape” is caused by “hookups, mixed signals, and alcohol” and “the idea that women can be just as bold and adventurous about sex as men are.” She also called it a “consequence of today’s hookup culture.”

A generation ago, it was easier for men and women to understand what constituted rape because the social rules were clearer. Men were supposed to be the ones coming on to women, and women were said to be looking for relationships, not casual sex.

But these boundaries and rules have been loosening up for decades, and now lots of women feel it’s perfectly okay to go out looking for a hookup or to be the aggressor, which may turn out fine for them—unless the signals get mixed or misread.​

A few months after this article ran, a student at Lewis & Clark College in Portland was sexually assaulted, forced to perform oral sex on her attacker. The young woman called what happened to her “gray rape,” a term she learned from an article in Cosmopolitan.

“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head. I started gagging and choking and I couldn’t really breathe.” She says she started pushing on [her attacker’s] abdomen to tell him to stop. ‘And he was like, “yeah, that’s right, choke on it.”​

There is nothing “gray” about this. There is nothing gray about violence, there is nothing gray about “choke on it,” there is nothing gray about rape. But thanks to this made up definition that isn’t recognized by law, medical professionals or sexual assault advocates—and that puts the blame for assault on women’s sexuality —this young woman and countless others think that maybe the sexual assault that was perpetrated against them was something less than a violent crime.

This is not an isolated example. Every day, the severity, violence and criminality of what rape is—its very definition—is distorted in a way that makes it more difficult for survivors to come forward and for anti-violence advocates to do their work, while making the world easier for victim-blaming and for rapists themselves.

In 2006, for example, a Nebraska judge ordered that the victim in a rape trial not be allowed to use the word rape or sexual assault when describing what happened to her because it would be too prejudicial. The words she could use instead? Intercourse or sex. In Maryland, up until 2008 it wasn’t considered rape if a woman withdrew her consent during sex and her partner kept going. (Who else would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner besides a rapist?) And this month in Oregon, a woman who was raped, beaten and choked by a man she went on a date with was ordered to provide her Google search history. The defense team hoped that if she Googled the definition of rape, it would show that she wasn’t sure if she had really been sexually assaulted.

Even the way that the United States compiles rape statistics has been affected by bad language. After the Department of Justice reported that there were 182,000 sexual assaults committed against women in 2008, a study by the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center showed that their numbers were wrong—thanks largely to the way they talked to women. Instead of asking questions like “Has anyone ever forced you to have sex?”, they asked women if they had been subject to “rape, attempted or other type of sexual attack.” Thanks to the confusion around the definition of rape, and the hesitance of many women to label themselves victims, the actual number of women raped was much higher—the center put it around 1 million.

What feminists should do in response to bad policy and legislation has been clear cut—and successful. When the GOP tried to pass an anti-abortion measure last year that would redefine rape only as an assault that was “forcible,” feminists groups immediately took action. Thanks to national organizations, online activism and a clever Twitter campaign, the language was taken out of the bill. Feminists also won a campaign to push the FBI to change their outdated definition of rape, language dating from 1929 that said sexual assault was “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.”

But how we change the culture is a hurdle we haven’t properly tackled. Feminism’s major cultural successes around rape have occurred on a micro level—taking on individual television shows or products. And, for the most part, our cultural work has been reactionary—we’re constantly on the defensive, whether it’s trying to fight back against victim-blaming headlines or offensive rape jokes.

This is work is important, but what’s crucial is that we make a shift from targeting pieces of the culture in a reactive way to proactively changing the broader culture in a more lasting way. We need to spend less time worrying about ultraconservative misogynists and extremist politicians and focus on shifting the way we all think about sexual assault and consent. We need to think and act much, much bigger.

Instead of pressuring Facebook to take down offensive groups like “It’s not rape if you yell ‘surprise’ ” (yes, that group really exists), feminist leaders should be petitioning to get in a room with Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to brainstorm ways that the company can actively push an anti-rape message. In addition to creating our own alternative media, we need to be working with and within existing mainstream media. I want to see a show do for sexual consent and sexual autonomy what Glee has done for LGBT issues. I want to see a “yes means yes” model in our sexual health textbooks, but I also want to see it on the cover of Glamour magazine. We need a multi-faceted, nationwide campaign so widespread that every person who opens a newspaper, watches television, goes online or just walks down the street knows about it.

The time is ripe for going big. The American public, young women especially, are ready for a new message about sexuality and for a definition of rape that is accurate, strong, progressive and indisputable.

When Vice President Joe Biden gave a press conference last year about the administration’s efforts to curb sexual violence in schools, he laid some groundwork, saying, “No means no. No means no if you’re drunk or sober. No means no if you’re in bed in the dorm or on the street. No means no even if you said yes first and changed your mind. No means no—and it’s a crime…”

This particular section of his speech—a strong message against rape, that called out victim-blaming, and put the blame squarely on the perpetrator—was tweeted and sent around Tumblr and blogs tens of thousands of times. No offense to the Vice President—but can you imagine the impact if wasn’t Joe Biden but Taylor Swift giving this message? Our politicians should be making bold feminist statements about sexual assault, but our pop culture icons need to be talking about it too.

Of course, the most important question to ask is: Is it possible to do all this with a definition of sexual assault that is not only widely understood and culturally accepted—but that is also comprehensive, intersectional and forward thinking? Can we get broad agreement around a definition of rape that shifts the focus away from the victim and onto the perpetrator, advocates for enthusiastic consent, and recognizes and centers structural inequities?

Clearly, this is just one piece of a tremendous battle. A widely accepted definition of rape—even a progressive, feminist one—will not change everything, and it won’t eradicate rape. But it is a necessary step to shift the culture.

The reason we have qualifiers—legitimate, forcible, date, gray—is because at the end of the day it’s not enough to say ‘rape’. We don’t believe it on its own and we want to know what “kind” of assault it was in order to make a value judgment about what really happened—and to believe that it couldn’t happen to us. It’s not because most people are bad, or want to blame rape victims. Americans are simply too mired in misogyny, and without feminist influence, to think any differently.

Thanks to widespread online activism and women’s issues dominating election discourse, feminism is enjoying a moment of real cultural power. Now is the time to use it.​
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
This isn't the kind of high social target I usually associate with feminism.. Most of these kinds of statements comes from a place of extreme Derp (creationists, etc). The mainstream of society facepalms when they see this stuff.

So yeah it should be combatted.. But I don't even think you have to turn to a feminist frramework to find the theory to condemn it as ultra-dumb.
 

TUROK

Member
This is not just a problem of rhetoric or legalese. The lack of an accepted cultural definition of rape leaves room for mischaracterizations that turn back the clock on progress already made.

There's never going to be an accepted cultural definition of rape. Rhetoric and legalese are the closest we're gonna get to a means of preventing any sort of loopholes from taking place.

I'm trying to think if there are accepted cultural definitions on anything. That would probably require a very homogenized society.

Americans are simply too mired in misogyny, and without feminist influence, to think any differently.
How silly.
 

Veezy

que?
There's never going to be an accepted cultural definition of rape. Rhetoric and legalese are the closest we're gonna get to a means of preventing any sort of loopholes from taking place.

I'm trying to think if there are accepted cultural definitions on anything. That would probably require a very homogenized society.
Surely you agree that teenage and college men don't have a proper understanding of rape and sexual assault? The attitude that it's "never gonna happen" fucking sucks. Our culture is part of that.

How silly.
But, it's true. Check the media. Check our politicians. It's quite true American society is quite misogynistic.
 

shira

Member
This isn't the kind of high social target I usually associate with feminism.. Most of these kinds of statements comes from a place of extreme Derp (creationists, etc). The mainstream of society facepalms when they see this stuff.

So yeah it should be combatted.. But I don't even think you have to turn to a feminist frramework to find the theory to condemn it as ultra-dumb.

Mmm I think we have it pretty good in North America.
 
But, it's true. Check the media. Check our politicians. It's quite true American society is quite misogynistic.

Any time one of our politicians says something idiotic about rape, they get called out on it by the public big time. It's not like people just accept what they say. The public knows that what they're saying is wrong. And the media singles them out too. So please don't say that American society is "quite misogynistic" just because some idiot Republicans say some outlandish things about rape.

Now if the media cheered these politicians on and the politicians themselves didn't get any blowback whatsoever in the public for saying the things they did about rape, you'd have a point, but that's not the case here.

Oh and Mumei, it's Melissa Harris-Perry FYI.
 
Any time one of our politicians says something idiotic about rape, they get called out on it by the public big time. It's not like people just accept what they say. The public knows that what they're saying is wrong. And the media singles them out too. So please don't say that American society is "quite misogynistic" just because some idiot Republicans say some outlandish things about rape.

Now if the media cheered these politicians on and the politicians themselves didn't get any blowback whatsoever in the public for saying the things they did about rape, you'd have a point, but that's not the case here.

Oh and Mumei, it's Melissa Harris-Perry FYI.

The point is that there are many, many people that believe what some of these guys say is true. Ask a typical collage bro type if getting a girl drunk enough that she can't walk and then having sex with her is rape and he'll say no. The many examples in the article about actual court cases prove that a lot of people don't think it's actually rape unless unless there's a ton of force involved.
 

TUROK

Member
Surely you agree that teenage and college men don't have a proper understanding of rape and sexual assault? The attitude that it's "never gonna happen" fucking sucks. Our culture is part of that.

But, it's true. Check the media. Check our politicians. It's quite true American society is quite misogynistic.
Some don't, sure. Even then, the definition rape and sexual assault is one that people still don't even agree on.

Our culture is definitely part of that. Our culture is one that encourages free thinking (in theory), so the notion that everyone will one day agree upon a single understanding is beyond silly. That's where the legalese comes into play. Not everyone is going to agree with it, but it's a realistic alternative to trying to achieve complete social harmony.

If our society was so misogynistic, these politicians and these facets of the media would not be criticized or scrutinized whenever they voiced or encouraged this line of thinking.

Ask a typical collage bro type if getting a girl drunk enough that she can't walk and then having sex with her is rape and he'll say no.
Hell of a generalization. Is it still rape if both of them are really drunk? I highly highly doubt that anyone who knowingly gets a girl drunk (without drinking too much himself or not at all) enough to manipulate her into having sex believes that what he is doing is okay. This sort of person would still commit the act of rape even if he knew that that is exactly what he is doing.

We're already getting into tired arguments. I'll be excusing myself soon. Seen how this plays out too many times.
 
Ask a typical collage bro type if getting a girl drunk enough that she can't walk and then having sex with her is rape and he'll say no.

Asking that question to an age range that is made up mostly of morons (which I am apart of) is a little dishonest. We have to start younger to make a true change in that attitude.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
But, it's true. Check the media. Check our politicians. It's quite true American society is quite misogynistic.

This is incorrect. If a culture valued certain ideas then the proponents of those ideals would not become social pariahs.

Also, most men do not rape or commit sexual assault regardless of what you believe their understanding of rape might be. The understanding of the overwhelming majority seem to be quite fine.
 

Good move, you'll probably be safer this way. I myself am not sure whether or not I will regret posting here.

As it is, yes. We really need to educate some people on what exactly constitutes "rape" so that we don't have anyone with absurd beliefs like "legitimate rape".
 
The point is that there are many, many people that believe what some of these guys say is true. Ask a typical collage bro type if getting a girl drunk enough that she can't walk and then having sex with her is rape and he'll say no. The many examples in the article about actual court cases prove that a lot of people don't think it's actually rape unless unless there's a ton of force involved.
My point is that the public at large is not nearly as accepting of rape as this piece lets on. Hell, the article longs for a future day when a celebrity such as Taylor Swift dares to actually speak out against rape and confirm to the people that No actually does mean No as if I haven't been bombarded with PSAs on TV since I was born in the 1980s espousing that very same revolutionary idea. Yes, some flyover states have had shitty antiquated laws on the books to deal with rape to this day in some cases, but rape is far from the only issue those backwater states are slow to adapt on.

Normally I happen to think that The Nation has some well-written stuff in it. This is an exception.
 
Some don't, sure. Even then, the definition rape and sexual assault is one that people still don't even agree on.

Our culture is definitely part of that. Our culture is one that encourages free thinking (in theory), so the notion that everyone will one day agree upon a single understanding is beyond silly. That's where the legalese comes into play. Not everyone is going to agree with it, but it's a realistic alternative to trying to achieve complete social harmony.

This is a...weird counter-argument. I mean, pretty much everyone is clear on what the definition of "murder" is, right? There are certainly edge cases where the line between murder and justifiable homicide, i.e. self-defense, crime of passion, etc.--is debatable, but it's not as if those edge cases make us throw up our hands and declare the entire concept of murder to be an indefinable quagmire of uncertainty, and that it's OK if large parts of society don't understand that murder is wrong and why it's wrong because opinions differ. If even a small percentage of the population, say 5%, told you that they wouldn't consider it murder to kill someone who owed them a substantial amount of money, would this not be cause for concern?

If our society was so misogynistic, these politicians and these facets of the media would not be criticized or scrutinized whenever they voiced or encouraged this line of thinking.
They're criticized by a small subset of vocal activists and pundits who dedicate their careers specifically to fighting against such stupidity, and the news media likes to make stories out of such controversies. But that does not prove that society at large cares about or even understands what they're talking about; the vast majority of Americans don't even watch cable news. So no, what you see being discussed in the media is not representative of the attitudes and views held by society at large.

Hell of a generalization. Is it still rape if both of them are really drunk? I highly highly doubt that anyone who knowingly gets a girl drunk (without drinking too much himself or not at all) enough to manipulate her into having sex believes that what he is doing is okay. This sort of person would still commit the act of rape even if he knew that that is exactly what he is doing.
So you simply deny the numerous studies that show a disturbing percentage of men do think exactly that?
 
Hell of a generalization. Is it still rape if both of them are really drunk?
Last time I was out in Vegas I met a girl in a bar and we started drinking together and we both got wasted to the point where security asked us to leave the bar and we ended up going to my room and had sex. I'd say we were both equally as drunk, but we still both knew what we were doing.

I guess we raped each other?
 

Mumei

Member
Any time one of our politicians says something idiotic about rape, they get called out on it by the public big time. It's not like people just accept what they say. The public knows that what they're saying is wrong. And the media singles them out too. So please don't say that American society is "quite misogynistic" just because some idiot Republicans say some outlandish things about rape.

Now if the media cheered these politicians on and the politicians themselves didn't get any blowback whatsoever in the public for saying the things they did about rape, you'd have a point, but that's not the case here.

I think you're right that the media reaction is generally negative, but you also have to consider that those politicians making those "gaffes" are not, in their minds, making gaffes when they are saying them. In other words, I think that they don't expect that what they are saying is going to be problematic nor do they expect that their (often worse) explanations will be problematic either. So I don't think "They get blowback" is evidence that we don't have a problem with misogyny; I think it is evidence that we also have opposition to misogyny - and good for us! - in addition misogyny.

But I don't think that those politicians are speaking only for themselves; I think that they believe that for a significant proportion of their core constituencies what they are saying about rape is at the very least not anathema - an even representative of the views of a wide swath of Americans.

Oh and Mumei, it's Melissa Harris-Perry FYI.

Oops. :x

Thanks for the correction.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
This is a...weird counter-argument. I mean, pretty much everyone is clear on what the definition of "murder" is, right?

Most of society doesn't really understand the legal concept of murder and homicide other than not to participate in them. These technicalities are only really understood under the purview of the courts, and even they disagree at times.

Executions, war, self-defense, abortion, euthanasia are all controversial topics that divide the population over what constitutes murder.
 

CLEEK

Member
In Maryland, up until 2008 it wasn’t considered rape if a woman withdrew her consent during sex and her partner kept going. (Who else would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner besides a rapist?)

I've bolded the part I have issue with. The crux of whether the above scenario is rape all comes down to how the woman (and why does it have to be a woman?) 'withdraws' consent.

Physically? Verbally? Non-verbally? After the fact? The first two are clear signals that the 'victim' doesn't want to continue, the latter two are not.
 

r1chard

Member
Is it still rape if both of them are really drunk?
For serious?

If you murder someone while drunk, is it still murder?
If you steal something while drunk, is it still theft?
If you drive your goddamn car into a house while drunk, are you still destroying private property?

Why are you treating rape any differently?
 
But I don't think that those politicians are speaking only for themselves; I think that they believe that for a significant proportion of their core constituencies what they are saying about rape is at the very least not anathema - an even representative of the views of a wide swath of Americans.
Michele Bachmann is a sitting congresswoman, need I remind you. Do her words represent mainstream America or hell, do they even represent reality? These politicians get to pander to a certain geographical spot of the country and their districts are usually gerrymandered to hell.
 
For serious?

If you murder someone while drunk, is it still murder?
If you steal something while drunk, is it still theft?
If you drive your goddamn car into a house while drunk, are you still destroying private property?

Why are you treating rape any differently?

Those are all false equivalencies.
 
For serious?

If you murder someone while drunk, is it still murder?
If you steal something while drunk, is it still theft?
If you drive your goddamn car into a house while drunk, are you still destroying private property?

Why are you treating rape any differently?
You're misunderstanding. There is a certain school of thought (and laws in 1 or more states) where when someone is sufficiently intoxicated whether it be from alcohol or drugs, that it renders that person incapable to give consent for sex. This means that if you were to engage in intercourse with someone who was intoxicated, they could accuse you of rape after the fact without ever telling you to stop during the act and you'd be convicted.
Those are all false equivalencies.
No, r1chard just misunderstood what was being said is all.
 
Most of society doesn't really understand the legal concept of murder and homicide other than not to participate in them. These technicalities are only really understood under the purview of the courts, and even they disagree at times.

Executions, war, self-defense, abortion, euthanasia are all controversial topics that divide the population over what constitutes murder.

I feel like you took that first sentence of my post and constructed a reply around it without bothering to read the rest.
 

TUROK

Member
This is a...weird counter-argument. I mean, pretty much everyone is clear on what the definition of "murder" is, right? There are certainly edge cases where the line between murder and justifiable homicide, i.e. self-defense, crime of passion, etc.--is debatable, but it's not as if those edge cases make us throw up our hands and declare the entire concept of murder to be an indefinable quagmire of uncertainty, and that it's OK if large parts of society don't understand that murder is wrong and why it's wrong because opinions differ. If even a small percentage of the population, say 5%, told you that they wouldn't consider it murder to kill someone who owed them a substantial amount of money, would this not be cause for concern?


They're criticized by a small subset of vocal activists and pundits who dedicate their careers specifically to fighting against such stupidity, and the news media likes to make stories out of such controversies. But that does not prove that society at large cares about or even understands what they're talking about; the vast majority of Americans don't even watch cable news. So no, what you see being discussed in the media is not representative of the attitudes and views held by society at large.

So you simply deny the numerous studies that show a disturbing percentage of men do think exactly that?
Just because both rape and murder are both heinous crimes doesn't mean that the two are comparable. When murder is committed, there is a quantifiable distinction that rape doesn't have, that of a dead person.

Sex is an enjoyable activity between two or more people, and when the circumstances of such activities are subjected to legal scrutiny, there is OBVIOUSLY going to be disagreements.

Honestly, the fact that you'd even make the comparison is pretty baffling.
 

pigeon

Banned
You're misunderstanding. There is a certain school of thought (and laws in 1 or more states) where when someone is sufficiently intoxicated whether it be from alcohol or drugs, that it renders that person incapable to give consent for sex. This means that if you were to engage in intercourse with someone who was intoxicated, they could accuse you of rape after the fact without ever telling you to stop during the act.

...right, this is the school of thought called "common sense." If you drug somebody, it makes it easier to control them, that's why date rapists drug their victims.
 

CLEEK

Member
Why are you treating rape any differently?


Because the law in some countries (Scotland, for one) explicit states that drunk women can't give consent. Which is one of the more ludicrous pieces of legislation in the World.

Think this through logically. Once a woman has voluntarily drunk or takes substances, she is not legally responsible any more for her actions. Not only does it discriminate in law between the genders (and it covers woman only, not male or trans-gender rape), the though process that drunk women are not legally responsible for their actions is insane. Does that mean drunk women can't be changed for drink driving, or any other crime they commit while intoxicated?

Feminist policies are dangerous. Surely the goal should be political and legal egalitarianism for all genders, races etc, not new laws (the Scottish law was passed in 2009) that explicitly discriminate against genders.
 

Mumei

Member
Michele Bachmann is a sitting congresswoman, need I remind you. Do her words represent mainstream America or hell, do they even represent reality? These politicians get to pander to a certain geographical spot of the country and their districts are usually gerrymandered to hell.

I don't think you've understood what I was saying. I was not arguing that they are representative of "mainstream America" - I wouldn't know how I would define that and hence wouldn't even use it in a discussion. I was arguing that they believe that they are representing a core of their constituency, and this would include things such as support for anti-abortion bills with amendments relating to "forcible rape", or a party platform that is similarly retrograde. I don't really see how you can see how there is one major party that panders to issues of misogyny dressed up in worries about sanctity of life and purity, including on issues of sexual assault and rape, that enjoys broad support from that party's members and then say, "Well, we don't have a problem with misogyny."

It doesn't make any sense, and saying, "Well, she only represents a gerrymandered district" doesn't change the fact that within that district, Michele Bachmann's odious views have not stopped her constituents from voting her to Congress on multiple occasions.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
I feel like you took that first sentence of my post and constructed a reply around it without bothering to read the rest.

No, you're just incorrect on the issue. A lot of what is being said bears little in relation to the actual crime of rape and claims of what people 'know' to be true is simply off base.

The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is acting in a manner that does not inculcate rape as a tradition and is in fact progressively eliminating and reducing its occurrence.
 

Vaporak

Member
The point is that there are many, many people that believe what some of these guys say is true. Ask a typical collage bro type if getting a girl drunk enough that she can't walk and then having sex with her is rape and he'll say no. The many examples in the article about actual court cases prove that a lot of people don't think it's actually rape unless unless there's a ton of force involved.

Just wondering, but what's your view (regarding if it's rape or not) when one of the parties isn't drunk enough that they can't walk, but has consumed alcohol, and why?
 

Mumei

Member
Per the discussion about rape and drunkenness, I think people might benefit from watching this video. It is a very interesting take on the issue of rape relating to fraud. And perhaps more importantly than the video itself (though it is good), he also includes several links in the description box that would be interesting for this discussion.

I think that the rape statutes in two states (which can also be found in the description box) could also be helpful:

New York Penal Article 130 said:
§ 130.25 Rape in the third degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is
incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than
seventeen years old;
2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual
intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or
3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without
such person's consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some
factor other than incapacity to consent.
Rape in the third degree is a class E felony.

§ 130.30 Rape in the second degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when:
1. being eighteen years old or more, he or she engages in sexual
intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old; or
2. he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is
incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally
incapacitated.
It shall be an affirmative defense to the crime of rape in the second
degree as defined in subdivision one of this section that the defendant
was less than four years older than the victim at the time of the act.
Rape in the second degree is a class D felony.

§ 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages
in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years
old or more.
Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

Tennessee Code said:
39-13-502. Aggravated rape.

(a) Aggravated rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act and the defendant is armed with a weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim reasonably to believe it to be a weapon;

(2) The defendant causes bodily injury to the victim;

(3) The defendant is aided or abetted by one (1) or more other persons; and

(A) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act; or

(B) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.

(b) Aggravated rape is a Class A felony.

----

39-13-503. Rape.

(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;

(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;

(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or

(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.

(b) Rape is a Class B felony.
 

A.E Suggs

Member
This isn't the kind of high social target I usually associate with feminism.. Most of these kinds of statements comes from a place of extreme Derp (creationists, etc). The mainstream of society facepalms when they see this stuff.

So yeah it should be combatted.. But I don't even think you have to turn to a feminist frramework to find the theory to condemn it as ultra-dumb.

Define what the mainstream society is, because I don't think you can speak for all of them.
 
...right, this is the school of thought called "common sense." If you drug somebody, it makes it easier to control them, that's why date rapists drug their victims.
Well there's slipping some kind of date rape drug (obviously rape, duh) into someone's drink and then there's getting drunk and/or high along with someone where you have partaken in the exact same amount of drinking or drug use as the other party. I'm not talking passed out drunk, I mean drunk and still functional. That's what I was talking about. Women don't just have one alcoholic beverage and then pass out and completely become incapacitated.

But yeah, keep twisting my words.

And I'm getting out of this thread now because certain posters in here (like the one I quoted) are starting to amp up the outrage.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
It doesn't make any sense, and saying, "Well, she only represents a gerrymandered district" doesn't change the fact that within that district, Michele Bachmann's odious views have not stopped her constituents from voting her to Congress on multiple occasions.

The ease at which the Republicans are able to constantly beat down on Democrats, no matter how crazy their positions may be in the United States, is due to their solidarity around their politicians to such an extent that they can overlook points they disagree with for the many that they do.

It is unlikely that any of the Republicans are elected solely on their stance regarding rape or a series of stances that include it separate from other social mainstays, like religion.

You are looking at such a situation through the lens of a Democrat.
 
The ease at which the Republicans are able to constantly beat down on Democrats, no matter how crazy their positions may be in the United States, is due to their solidarity around their politicians to such an extent that they can overlook points they disagree with for the many that they do.

It is unlikely that any of the Republicans are elected solely on their stance regarding rape or a series of stances that include it separate from other social mainstays, like religion.

You are looking at such a situation through the lens of a Democrat.
Pretty much this. Republicans will still vote for Akin and Mourdock, not necessarily because they agree with these senatorial candidates' outlandish rape positions, but because they want to get rid of that Kenyan Socialist Fascist Marxist Effete Iron-Fisted Dictator President Barry Soetero.

It's a big tent of bigotry.
 

Mudkips

Banned
For serious?

If you murder someone while drunk, is it still murder?
If you steal something while drunk, is it still theft?
If you drive your goddamn car into a house while drunk, are you still destroying private property?

Why are you treating rape any differently?

The point is that whenever a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, there are people who say it's drunk sex, and there are people who say the woman was raped. There are very few people who admit that if bring drunk makes one incapable of consent, then the man was raped and the woman was a rapist every bit as the other way around.

Rape laws are terribly defined.
 

Mumei

Member
Well there's slipping some kind of date rape drug (obviously rape, duh) into someone's drink and then there's getting drunk and/or high along with someone where you have partaken in the exact same amount of drinking or drug use as the other party. I'm not talking passed out drunk, I mean drunk and still functional. That's what I was talking about. Women don't just have one alcoholic beverage and then pass out and completely become incapacitated.

But yeah, keep twisting my words.

And I'm getting out of this thread now because certain posters in here (like the one I quoted) are starting to amp up the outrage.

He wasn't getting outraged. He was explaining something. And on the off-chance you are still reading:

Alcohol - not some date rape drug you can slip into alcohol, but alcohol itself - is the drug of choice for so-called undetected rapists (e.g. those rapists who get away with it, do so repeatedly, and don't come into contact with law enforcement; they self-identify in studies which probably says a lot about their attitudes about what they are doing). These aren't men who are having drunken sex at a party; that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about men who plan to get alone with a woman who is too intoxicated or high to resist, and the small proportion of men like this are responsible for an astonishingly high percentage of rape and sexual assault.

This fact sheet, based on twenty years of studies of rapists, is a good primer.

The ease at which the Republicans are able to constantly beat down on Democrats, no matter how crazy their positions may be in the United States, is due to their solidarity around their politicians to such an extent that they can overlook points they disagree with for the many that they do.

It is unlikely that any of the Republicans are elected solely on their stance regarding rape or a series of stances that include it separate from other social mainstays, like religion.

You are looking at such a situation through the lens of a Democrat.

I am not a Democrat.

But I agree; I didn't say that there was outright support for those positions from every constituent. I was saying that it is an issue where those perspectives range from tolerable to supportable for the bulk of their constituents.
 

ronito

Member
Per the discussion about rape and drunkenness, I think people might benefit from watching this video. It is a very interesting take on the issue of rape relating to fraud. And perhaps more importantly than the video itself (though it is good), he also includes several links in the description box that would be interesting for this discussion.

I think that the rape statutes in two states (which can also be found in the description box) could also be helpful:

lol.

I just watched that video.

Then watched this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwmtkFPYXsg

Now I'm like, "Hey, was Steve raped? He was drunk, he was lied to. By that definition...."

I just wanted to enjoy a blue's clues story...
 

Zaptruder

Banned
So what's the middle ground between clear explicit verbally recorded and written consent... and retaining the impulsivity and passion of sex that makes it both something that can be joyful and filled with regret and consequence?
 

Atrus

Gold Member
Per the discussion about rape and drunkenness, I think people might benefit from watching this video. It is a very interesting take on the issue of rape relating to fraud. And perhaps more importantly than the video itself (though it is good), he also includes several links in the description box that would be interesting for this discussion.

I think that the rape statutes in two states (which can also be found in the description box) could also be helpful:

Rape by fraud is again an issue that makes lawyers more money and bankrupts society at the same time. It should not be the purview of the courts to intervene in the lack of judgement or due care of individuals to think and act for themselves.

People should really take care about the use of words like 'deception' and 'fraud' when it comes to criminal law, else the vast majority of the human population will find themselves guilty of a crime only a few agree on.
 

pigeon

Banned
So what's the middle ground between clear explicit verbally recorded and written consent... and retaining the impulsivity and passion of sex that makes both something that can be joyful and filled with regret and consequence?

I really don't see how the two are incompatible*. Do words turn you off?


* Well, obviously your bizarre exaggeration is incompatible, but that's okay.
 

coldvein

Banned
The point is that whenever a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, there are people who say it's drunk sex, and there are people who say the woman was raped. There are very few people who admit that if bring drunk makes one incapable of consent, then the man was raped and the woman was a rapist every bit as the other way around.

yeah, the drunk sex is a weird scenario.. i've had plenty of sex where i was way more mentally incapacitated than the girl. i don't think i was raped.

but if i had just typed "i've had plenty of sex where the girl was way more mentally incapacitated than me" people would be like "coldvein is a rapist".
 

Zaptruder

Banned
I really don't see how the two are incompatible*. Do words turn you off?


* Well, obviously your bizarre exaggeration is incompatible, but that's okay.

The bizarre exaggeration is simply the logical endpoint of explicit consent.

The issue primarily pertains to things like mutual drunkeness and post-sex regret.

Because unfortunately, in "less rapey cases of rape" (drunkeness, coercion, deception), there's little forensic evidence and boil down largely to a case of he said she said.
 

Mumei

Member
So what's the middle ground between clear explicit verbally recorded and written consent... and retaining the impulsivity and passion of sex that makes both something that can be joyful and filled with regret and consequence?

I don't really get this concern. I feel like people think that feminists want to take away every ounce of spontaneity from sex and turn it into this minefield of potential legalistic rape scenarios in which you are wholly at the mercy of some woman claiming that you raped her or something.

I mean, the point of the Yes Means Yes blog project that I mentioned in the beginning was about re-examining the issue of sexual consent from being a primarily negatory perspective where women have the ability to say 'No' to sexual activity into one where women feel empowered to pursue sex and deal with issues of female sexual autonomy and the shame. It is very much a sex positive perspective, and adding written consent forms isn't a part of the agenda. I think at most what is advocated is that partners have enthusiastic consent that goes beyond failing to say no or just going along with it, but is actively interested in it. I expect most people who have the social skills to get laid in the first place can tell if someone is genuinely interested, but perhaps I'm just an optimist.
 

CLEEK

Member
Alcohol - not some date rape drug you can slip into alcohol, but alcohol itself - is the drug of choice for so-called undetected rapists (e.g. those rapists who get away with it, do so repeatedly, and don't come into contact with law enforcement; they self-identify in studies which probably says a lot about their attitudes about what they are doing). These aren't men who are having drunken sex at a party; that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about men who plan to get alone with a woman who is too intoxicated or high to resist,


That's a moot point. It doesn't matter what was the original intention of legislation, or what scenarios you are discussing. 

The fact is, in some territories in the World, it is legally impossible for a man to have consensual sex with a woman. Legally, the man will raped her. That's insane. 

Ambiguous, poorly thought through legislation will always lead to miscarriages of justice and abuse. Rape laws need to be gender neutral. 
 

Atrus

Gold Member
I really don't see how the two are incompatible*. Do words turn you off?


* Well, obviously your bizarre exaggeration is incompatible, but that's okay.

The vast majority of human vs. human interaction are not conveyed through verbal transmission. How many women tell men that they now have the consent to grope their ass, or participate in a variety of actions on a play by play basis?

Carte blanches are not legally supported.

In order for the actions to be legally protected, it would involve a practice of interaction that virtually no human being that I've heard of practices. This is where a vast grey area exists where participants place themselves in significant legal liability to practice common human interaction.
 
yeah, the drunk sex is a weird scenario.. i've had plenty of sex where i was way more mentally incapacitated than the girl. i don't think i was raped.

but if i had just typed "i've had plenty of sex where the girl was way more mentally incapacitated than me" people would be like "coldvein is a rapist".

You know if you've been raped.
 

pigeon

Banned
The bizarre exaggeration is simply the logical endpoint of explicit consent.

The issue primarily pertains to things like mutual drunkeness and post-sex regret.

Because unfortunately, in "less rapey cases of rape" (drunkeness, coercion, deception), there's little forensic evidence and boil down largely to a case of he said she said.

I don't understand what you're trying to suggest here.

If you're talking about situations where you're both drunk and heavily impaired, I don't think anybody is arguing that's rape. The key idea here is malice. Nobody is trying to suggest that the activities normal, non-rapist guys engage in should be considered rape. We want the activities that RAPISTS engage in to be considered rape.

The vast majority of human vs. human interaction are not conveyed through verbal transmission.

Yeah, just baffling to me. You people engage in sex, from flirting to climax, without anybody at any point using words to suggest they're interested in sex? Even during? Because that suggests to me you're doing it wrong. I'm confident "Let's fuck" could fit into nearly any sexual scenario without wildly deranging it.

Maybe not the Deaf School fantasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom