The rape culture thread.

[the_std]

I agree with all of that being bad, and him being scum and should know better, but it is not rape if he waits until she says yes. If she says yes, if she consents, if she still has that choice, it is not rape. It still sucks, but it's not rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

There's consent and then there's "consent". Sex that is not consensual is rape. Coerced consent is not actual consent, it is "consent", meaning, it is consent in word only, not in spirit. She would rather not have consented. If her desires were respected, she would not have consented. I believe it's rape in a situation like this.

I know people don't like hearing this. . .that's why this sort of discussion needs to happen more openly, more often. The way sexual activity is painted is just so supremely fucked up, and not conducive to consent. Many people continue to paint sex as something that's enjoyable for men, and doesn't necessarily have to be for women. That attitude doesn't do well for ACTUAL consent, because it causes women to value their own sexual desires beneath those of men.

[HYHYBT]

One of the issues with the media/arts/culture is the promotion of rape myths. "She had it coming" if she was wearing revealing clothing, flirtatious, or intoxicated. "She's just a slut" if she has a reputation of being sexually active.

You don't want to go too far the other way either, though: I've read through arguments (I think the last was the comment area after an Amy Dickinson column) where the merest suggestion that it's a good idea for a woman to take certain precautions, like not walking alone in certain areas by herself at bad times of the day, or (I think this was what had happened in the letter) to avoid getting drunk at a frat party and going into a strange guy's bedroom with him, was exactly the same as blaming her for getting raped when she'd done so.

On the content of porn movies: those focus on the man's pleasure rather than the woman's because that's their target market. Virtually all porn is aimed at men. Straight porn is aimed at straight men; lesbian porn is aimed at straight men (I'd guess because they don't really want to watch the guy, so two women is better); gay porn is aimed at gay men.

There is a difference between coercion and persuasion. One is rape, the other is not. Not even "rapey." Consider the following situation:

Me: "Can I have five dollars?"
You: "No"
Me: "Please?"
You: "No, leave me alone."
Me: "Come on, I'll pay you back tomorrow."
You: "Oh, OK...."

Now, in this exchange, did I commit robbery? No. Not even a gray area. So why would the exact same exchange, only with sex instead of money and something more relevant in place of "I'll pay you back tomorrow" be comparable to rape?

[AdminAssistant]

Who are you talking about? All women? If a man tried that shit on me his ass would be out the door. I wouldn't give in to him. Not all women are delicate little flowers who will do anything to please the man they love. If she gives in to that kind of manipulation, she has other, bigger problems. She is not mentally healthy, she is not strong enough, all of those kinds of things. But just because she believes she has no choice does not mean that she doesn't have a choice. It is not rape.

What if she's a teenage girl? What if she is 16, scared, and stuck alone with her boyfriend who has decided that now is the time? You can be perfectly mentally healthy and still give in in that situation.

Because that was me. He worked on me and worked on me. I didn't have a place to go, since we were on vacation with his parents and they were away. I was scared out of my ever-loving mind, and though I did NOT want to have sex....what else could I do? I was emotionally manipulated, and that is wrong.

[the_std]

Sorry, AA, I was talking about women, not kids. I guess I should have stated that. I don't believe that anyone under eighteen and/or under a certain intellectual maturity level can be held to the same standard as the majority of women.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't believe that anyone under eighteen and/or under a certain intellectual maturity level can be held to the same standard as the majority of women.

Thanks. I've made peace with my past, but I wanted an example. I would guess that the vast majority of people who encounter this problem are teenage girls who are still virgins. So, there's that.

[NodmiTheSellout]

You don't want to go too far the other way either, though: I've read through arguments (I think the last was the comment area after an Amy Dickinson column) where the merest suggestion that it's a good idea for a woman to take certain precautions, like not walking alone in certain areas by herself at bad times of the day, or (I think this was what had happened in the letter) to avoid getting drunk at a frat party and going into a strange guy's bedroom with him, was exactly the same as blaming her for getting raped when she'd done so.

On the content of porn movies: those focus on the man's pleasure rather than the woman's because that's their target market. Virtually all porn is aimed at men. Straight porn is aimed at straight men; lesbian porn is aimed at straight men (I'd guess because they don't really want to watch the guy, so two women is better); gay porn is aimed at gay men.

The problem in this case is that, in a world of free porn, this is men's/boys' first (and for years, only) exposure to sex. People often roll their eyes at "sex isn't like porn!", as though to say, "If you're in a good sexual relationship, it is!" When the heterosexual male porn market is so huge and wildely viewed that it's nearly synonmous with "the porn market", it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the selfish, ridiculous way it portrays sex. Even allowing the "they meet and fuck within two minutes" premise as a necessity for fantasy, it's just shitty that they can't be bothered to paint a realistic picture of female pleasure. Nope, she's getting fucked for three minutes and having a screaming orgasm from it. And people wonder why women feel compelled to fake it.

There is a difference between coercion and persuasion. One is rape, the other is not. Not even "rapey." Consider the following situation:

Me: "Can I have five dollars?"
You: "No"
Me: "Please?"
You: "No, leave me alone."
Me: "Come on, I'll pay you back tomorrow."
You: "Oh, OK...."

Now, in this exchange, did I commit robbery? No. Not even a gray area. So why would the exact same exchange, only with sex instead of money and something more relevant in place of "I'll pay you back tomorrow" be comparable to rape?

Except there's no big violation felt when you give someone five dollars you really would've rather used to buy fast food (or whatever). It's just not comparable--sex and money are completely different. Not having a small sum of money for 24 hours is all that painful; feeling that your significant other only cares about their desires, at the expense of your comfort, is. A more constructive way of 'convincing' would be something like...

"Hey, let's have sex."
"No."
"Why?"

Now, there are about a million ways that could go. If he starts trying to tell her that "I don't feel good" isn't a good reason and just do it anyway, well, we're back on Rapey Way.

Your version of the exchange would be mirrored like

"Let's have sex."
"No."
"Please?"
"No. Go away."
"I'll eat you out!"
". . .OK."

Which probably wouldn't happen unless the reason why was "you're the only one who gets off when we have sex" (which, considering how many men take pointers from porn, is pretty likely I guess). The problem with that is that the man doesn't care why she won't have sex, just that she won't have sex--or, more accurately, give sex to him, since he clearly doesn't care if she's an enthusiastic participant, just that she does it.

[Rapscallion]

Except there's no big violation felt when you give someone five dollars you really would've rather used to buy fast food (or whatever).

Money is effectively time out of your life that you gave to someone else. They're not begging for your money - that's part of your life they're after.

Rapscallion

[Kimmik]

Ok I was going to avoid this thread but there are cases where a woman's past can over ride her common sense.

I have been raped, by my ex husband while we were married... do you know how many times I heard it is not rape if your married... got my ass beat for daring to tell my husband no.

then shortly after my divorce i dated a guy... he wanted to have sex.. I said no... he pleaded.. I said no... he got a little aggressive... I said yes.. not because I wanted to have sex but I was afraid of what would happen if I said no again.

[Hobbs]

Ok I was going to avoid this thread but there are cases where a woman's past can over ride her common sense.

I have been raped, by my ex husband while we were married... do you know how many times I heard it is not rape if your married... got my ass beat for daring to tell my husband no.

then shortly after my divorce i dated a guy... he wanted to have sex.. I said no... he pleaded.. I said no... he got a little aggressive... I said yes.. not because I wanted to have sex but I was afraid of what would happen if I said no again.

This is not to make light of your position, but...the man you relented to felt he had consent. Therefore, you wouldn't have gone back and accused him of rape would you? I mean...do you feel he raped you? I'm pretty sure the guy doesn't feel that way. Of course, I am working on presumptions here and I in no way am trying to make light of your story.

As an addendum, actually, my brother saw this news story on Haitians being given classes to acclimate to life in the US. The instructor asked them if it was possible to rape their wives and the men said, "No." The instructor then spent time explaining to them why it was considered rape.

[Fryk]

The other problem is that in the "coersion" versus coersion debate, you're taking away the man's right to his own perceptions. They don't count. Only hers.

Please understand, I am not saying that any man in that case would be RIGHT. But, he also isn't guilty of a crime. There's a distinction there.

[Kimmik]

This is not to make light of your position, but...the man you relented to felt he had consent. Therefore, you wouldn't have gone back and accused him of rape would you? I mean...do you feel he raped you?

Actually yes he raped me.. scaring someone into sex is forcing yourself on someone. I feared that I would get hurt as he got aggressive. If he hadn't I would have walked off. But instead I laid there like a doll willing my mind anywhere but there at that moment.

[Hobbs]

Actually yes he raped me.. scaring someone into sex is forcing yourself on someone. I feared that I would get hurt as he got aggressive. If he hadn't I would have walked off. But instead I laid there like a doll willing my mind anywhere but there at that moment.

How aggressive did he get. Did he raise his voice, threaten with a fist, etc? If not, he may percieve it as, "I won the argument," rather than "forcing" himself upon you. Please note, I'm not trying to excuse a rape, but it seems like some women call rape on a guy who felt he had obtained consent.

[NodmiTheSellout]

What the fuck? Yes, what matters is the victim's feelings. You're seriously telling this woman that YOU know better than HER whether she was raped? I don't care if he believed she actually said the word "yes" or "alright" or "OK" after he really hounded her for sex. Consent in that case just isn't fucking consent, it's self-preservation. And judging from how she just "laid there like a doll", it was almost certainly obvious to the man--I'm assuming that wasn't the way she normally behaved in bed with him--and he just did not care, because all he wanted was sexual gratification, that was all he cared about.

And yes, the f-bombs were called for. Defining someone's experience for them is more foul than the word "fuck" could ever be. Rape is NOT ABOUT what the man thinks he did. It's about what he did. Which in this case is clearly rape. Do you know how many times rapists say "Oh, she wanted it!"? Even the cases everyone would call rape where someone's snatched into an alley. I'm sure you'll say that's different, they're crazy, I'm talking about these poor, gentle, innocent men in relationships whose dicks are just so sad that they're not getting sucked, and say "Please honey, you are the light of my life, if you would only tenderly caress me. . ." I just don't get why people think one-sided sex like that could be consensual. How it is just SO IMPORTANT to entertain their dicks inside a woman that they don't care if she's as into it as they are. The selfishness involved is mind-boggling. Just. . .god. Fuck. Knowing how many men believe it's OK to have sex with a woman who's just laying there, miserable, because gosh darn it THEY NEED TO GET OFF, I'm glad I'm asexual.

EDIT AGAIN: Just read closer, I kind of glazed over after the "Well, did he raise his fist at you?" kind of "Let me mansplain what rape is, sweetie" stuff. Feeling like you won an argument is an appropriate time to engage in sex? What? Just HOW goddamn entitled do men feel to sex, exactly? To me, if there's an argument about having sex, there should BE NO SEX, because one party obviously doesn't want to be having it. I just. . .I. . .oh, man.

Rape doesn't cease being rape because men refuse to think about it from any perspective but their own.

[Fryk]

What the fuck? Yes, what matters is the victim's feelings. You're seriously telling this woman that YOU know better than HER whether she was raped? I don't care if he believed she actually said the word "yes" or "alright" or "OK" after he really hounded her for sex. Consent in that case just isn't fucking consent, it's self-preservation. And judging from how she just "laid there like a doll", it was almost certainly obvious to the man--I'm assuming that wasn't the way she normally behaved in bed with him--and he just did not care, because all he wanted was sexual gratification, that was all he cared about.

And yes, the f-bombs were called for. Defining someone's experience for them is more foul than the word "fuck" could ever be. Rape is NOT ABOUT what the man thinks he did. It's about what he did. Which in this case is clearly rape. Do you know how many times rapists say "Oh, she wanted it!"? Even the cases everyone would call rape where someone's snatched into an alley. I'm sure you'll say that's different, they're crazy, I'm talking about these poor, gentle, innocent men in relationships whose dicks are just so sad that they're not getting sucked, and say "Please honey, you are the light of my life, if you would only tenderly caress me. . ." I just don't get why people think one-sided sex like that could be consensual. How it is just SO IMPORTANT to entertain their dicks inside a woman that they don't care if she's as into it as they are. The selfishness involved is mind-boggling. Just. . .god. Fuck. Knowing how many men believe it's OK to have sex with a woman who's just laying there, miserable, because gosh darn it THEY NEED TO GET OFF, I'm glad I'm asexual.

EDIT AGAIN: Just read closer, I kind of glazed over after the "Well, did he raise his fist at you?" kind of "Let me mansplain what rape is, sweetie" stuff. Feeling like you won an argument is an appropriate time to engage in sex? What? Just HOW goddamn entitled do men feel to sex, exactly? To me, if there's an argument about having sex, there should BE NO SEX, because one party obviously doesn't want to be having it. I just. . .I. . .oh, man.

Rape doesn't cease being rape because men refuse to think about it from any perspective but their own.

See, you read a tiny bit and decided to go off. I NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that the woman's feelings don't matter. I said the PERCEPTION OF BOTH PARTIES both matter. And I am not talking about all cases of rape. I was speaking to the matter of COERSION. It matter a GREAT DEAL what the, er, coerser (is that a word?) thinks and feels. It is not absolute, and what the coersee (is that a w- oh, screw it! I say it is) matters just as much. But if someone was truly not trying to bully someone into doing something, how can you slam them for, well, trying to bully someone into doing something?