Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Just Gimme A Little Tuvan Throat Chant Previous entry: Anti-gay GOP Congressman’s $150K earmark for theater tied to staffer’s gay sex and drug film

Phew, thank goodness feminists are for equality

Research into bonobos—-which are ape societies that female-dominated, in contrast to male-dominated ones like chimpanzees and our own—-has turned up evidence that they’re just as prone to violence as male-dominated societies.  A comment from the evolutionary anthropologist Gottfried Hohmann, the study’s co-author:

In chimpanzees, male-dominance is associated with physical violence, hunting, and meat consumption. By inference, the lack of male dominance and physical violence is often used to explain the relative absence of hunting and meat eating in bonobos. Our observations suggest that, in contrast to previous assumptions, these behaviors may persist in societies with different social relations.

Honestly, I’d be more surprised to find out that females are inherently less violent in any primate species.  It’s obvious to me that violence in humans tends to be a result of a combination of power and desire.  We all want things that we can’t have just by snapping our fingers, but when we have social privilege to act violently, it’s a lot easier to give into the urge.  Female dominance instead of male dominance, even if such a thing was possible, wouldn’t change what is so ingrained in human nature.  The only solution is to create more equality in society so that few people have power to the degree that they aren’t as accountable to each other, or worse (in the case of some groups of men), actually compel each other to violence to establish their superiority. 


Of course, the accusation leveled by anti-feminists at feminists is that we want to create a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy.  Again, that would be stupid because we’d never be able to do that.  More importantly, it shows how anti-feminists lack imagination.  They can only imagine replacing one unjust, violence-ridden hierarchy with another.  But we should aim higher, for systems that are based on equality and peace.  For the skeptical, it’s worth noting that many communities have managed to create themselves in ways where people are peaceful and respectful, and crime is low.  The remarkable success of the feminist movement in reducing the rape rate over the past 40 years also points to the flexibility in human nature.  People can be better and less violent.  But the first step is believing in the possibility. 

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:22 PM • (112) Comments

Very well said.

Comment #1: Tom  on  10/15  at  05:48 PM

The remarkable success of the feminist movement in reducing the rape rate over the past 40 years also points to the flexibility in human nature.

That was not a known fact to me at all, and it would serve us all very much to have it more widely known.

It’s always been a marker in my head that rape has got to be a seriously under-reported crime; I got confused at my University sexuality class in the 90’s, for the professor was insistent that these incredible reported figures from surveys that reported 50-60% of females had been raped were accurate.  I still don’t believe it.

One can see the same thing in anecdotal rape surveys in blogs occasionally, reported incidences of rape that is always shockingly high, not-believably high.

Yet the numbers are there for a reason, it’s always disturbed me greatly, the perceived and actual rate of rape has got to ge hugely, tragically different.  It would be very good news indeed if the national rape rate has gone down.

Comment #2: paradox  on  10/15  at  05:52 PM

Females are no less violent and controlling than males, they just act on it differently by dominating on an emotional level.  Junior High frenemy tactics are, essentially, the same as those used by the Puritans (the ones in our history as well as the current ones like the so-called Concerned Women of America).  Men can and do take advantage of this and are able to dominate over women with the assistance of these good puritan women but it’s often the women themselves who terrorize other women.

My guess is that the success of the feminist movement comes from the feminists mutual disdain of the Queen Bee and her minions.

Comment #3: ol cranky  on  10/15  at  05:52 PM

the professor was insistent that these incredible reported figures from surveys that reported 50-60% of females had been raped were accurate.  I still don’t believe it.

It probably depends on one’s definition of rape.  I would guess that something close to a majority of women have been pressured into sex they didn’t want to have.  ofI would buy that more than a third of all women have experienced date rape. 

But no, I don’t think that 60% of women have been forcibly raped by a stranger, at the point of a weapon.  Which is what a lot of people think of when they hear the word “rape”.

Comment #4: The Opoponax  on  10/15  at  06:02 PM

Oppomax, one of the stories I saw on-line was a woman letting a drinking ex-boyfriend into her house when she was alone.  She realized too late it was either fight or let him do it to get rid of him.  She didn’t fight, and it was rape.  Of course the cops never heard of it.

Like I said it just confuses me.  The rate has to be under-reported, possible appallingly so, yet the reported national rate has gone down.

Oh well, I’ll muddle along with it.

Comment #5: paradox  on  10/15  at  06:11 PM

Paradox, I don’t believe that a professor would say that.  It’s more like 1 in 8.  But there’s been something like an 80% decline since the 70s, which means that while rape is still common, it’s not an everyday part of many women’s life like it apparently was in the past.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  06:14 PM

Your plea for peace and equality is exactly the point I have been trying to make to those around me: if we are a Christ-like nation (and really, having taught ethics in college, I can vouch for the fact that virtually every major religion has this same tenet) then we should treat each other with love (as we desire to be treated) and to share what we have (to whom more is given, more is expected). But from so many I get, ah that would never work, why should I share with someone who is lazy,...

I always respond with then I guess you have a very low opinion of people and you are not a follower of Christ. The fact is it has never been tried; so how do we know it won’t work? I guess people can laugh at me, but the older I get the more I realize love IS all you need. I mean, really, at this point in human history, what do we haev to lose?

Comment #7: caliban  on  10/15  at  06:16 PM

Bonobos are female-dominated? I did not know that. All I knew is that they’re sex maniacs.

I really should have taken biology in school instead of physics.

Comment #8: Bitter Scribe  on  10/15  at  06:17 PM

In other words, paradox, some of your confusion might stem from the fact that you don’t comprehend how common it was that 1 in 6 people can be a victim and that’s down from the past.  Part of it was that rape was considered an acceptable part of courting and marriage in the past.  Hell, the entire plot of the “Back To The Future” doesn’t make sense without the audience getting the context of a culture where rape was just that common.  The thing was victims of acquaintance rape were expected to just live with it, and blame themselves for getting in a “bad” situation.  It was the feminist movement that put the onus on stopping rape on men, and they were very effective at it.  But we still have a long way to go.

Comment #9: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  06:18 PM

Caliban, pick up your fairy tales and take them elsewhere. Seriously, did you just muck up a decent conversation with proselytizing?  You must be a blast at dinner parties.  Yuck.  Lay off, seriously.  In all the years I’ve been doing this blog, I have yet to see someone bust out the witnessing routine. This is a new form of obnoxious.  Congrats!  That’s rare on the internet.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  06:21 PM

OTOH, if some enterprising behavioral biologist can demonstrate examples of ape social groups where one ape lays claim to having a special relationship with “god” and uses that as an excuse for the other apes to feed and care for him/her while they live the life of Riley, I’d love to hear about it…

Comment #11: MikeEss  on  10/15  at  06:26 PM

I don’t want to be argumentative, and I’m sorely creased I don’t remember the precise percentage, but I vividly remember disagreeing with her on these incredible reported rape numbers.  It’s a terrible thing, if true.

Her name is Carol Mukhopadhyay, and in fact she still teaches the same class.  Talk to her and it’s very likely she’ll remember me, I’m the guy that always sneaked apples onto her desk.

Like I said, I’m not being argumentative here, I just wish I knew the truth.

Comment #12: paradox  on  10/15  at  06:26 PM

Considering you’re talking about an anthropology professor whose major area of field work seems to be India, it’s possible she was speaking cross-culturally and/or internationally.

Marital rape is still very, very common in some societies. 

And not to be culturally insensitive, but I can imagine that, in cultures which stress arranged marriage, it’s quite likely that huge numbers of women are raped on their wedding night.

Comment #13: The Opoponax  on  10/15  at  06:38 PM

“She realized too late it was either fight or let him do it to get rid of him.  She didn’t fight, and it was rape. “

This could still be argued to legally not be rape since she did consent to sex. If she had fought and he had forced himself on her then it would legally be rape. Why didn’t she call the police when she thought he was going to turn violent? Sorry but a defense lawyer and even police would not call it rape since once again the woman consented. Prostitution is not rape either despite some feminists calling it nor is pornography.

” I saw on-line was a woman letting a drinking ex-boyfriend into her house when she was alone.  “

This is something the police and any other thinking would ask about. Why would you let someone who was drunk and an ex into your house when you are alone? That is asking for trouble. Could it be that under questioning that the woman’s story wouldn’t hold up.

Comment #14: tootiredoftheright  on  10/15  at  06:38 PM

But there’s been something like an 80% decline since the 70s, which means that while rape is still common, it’s not an everyday part of many women’s life like it apparently was in the past.

Exactly. I’m 50, and grew up in the 1970s when acquaintance rape was incredibly common. By the time I graduated from high school, not a single female friend of mine had not told me of a time when they were raped. But in many cases, they “went along” with it because it was less dangerous and less scary than fighting back, and because they knew it would be considered their fault for being out at night, or drinking, or allowing a guy to kiss them or whatever. It was *always* our fault back then.

And we were told that since we could be on the pill we didnt have a “reason” to say no to sex anymore. The idea that we could say no because we were not interested was not part of the conversation at the time.

Comment #15: Broce  on  10/15  at  06:39 PM

Why would you let someone who was drunk and an ex into your house when you are alone?

Because you didnt have an expectation that they would RAPE you. Drunk does not mean “incapable of knowing right from wrong” and ex does not mean “criminal who will become violent”

Comment #16: Broce  on  10/15  at  06:42 PM

“In chimpanzees, male-dominance is associated with physical violence, hunting, and meat consumption.”

Males do more of those things, but not exclusively: female chimps have been seen hunting with spears.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6387611.stm

Comment #17: windy  on  10/15  at  06:43 PM

This could still be argued to legally not be rape since she did consent to sex. If she had fought and he had forced himself on her then it would legally be rape. Why didn’t she call the police when she thought he was going to turn violent? Sorry but a defense lawyer and even police would not call it rape since once again the woman consented.

And this is exactly why you will often hear much higher numbers than sound reasonable.  Because feminists are seldom talking about what a detective or a defense attorney would consider a prosecutable rape—they’re talking about rape in the sense of “having sex against one’s will”.

Comment #18: The Opoponax  on  10/15  at  06:44 PM

Yay!  Or first “blame the victim” comment.  That took longer than I expected.

Comment #19: Jake Squid  on  10/15  at  06:46 PM

This is something the police and any other thinking would ask about. Why would you let someone who was drunk and an ex into your house when you are alone? That is asking for trouble.

At one time she trusted him implicitly, and she didn’t think he was drunk, he was drinking.  She told him to get lost and he would not.

I think a judgment on someone’s behavior at this juncture is appalling.  He could have weighed 100 lbs more than her and smashed her face in a second.  No one can predict how they would react.

Furthermore, the entire rationale rests upon the fact that she wasn’t savvy enough to stop a felon.  What?  What about the felon who instigates the rape?

I am, as usual, confused.  I rarely comment on Amanda’s posts, it would be much better to listen, but I’m not going to sit here and accpet criticism of rape victims.  Choosing to have sex other than an alternative of getting the shit beat out of you—even potentially—is rape.

Comment #20: paradox  on  10/15  at  06:51 PM

yeah, what they said…I keep thinking we are over this “why would she let a drunk guy in/walk down the street alone/exist in the world with a vagina/etc”. How DARE she? How dare she expect to have control over who and who does not touch her body. She should have KNOWN which of 3 billion men in countless situations will turn out to be violent raping felons and which ones won’t.

Niiiiiiice. Keep blaming the victim.

Comment #21: Lexie  on  10/15  at  07:04 PM

This is something the police and any other thinking would ask about. Why would you let someone who was drunk and an ex into your house when you are alone?

Because she foolishly believed that someone who claimed to love her would not hurt her?  Silly me, I thought that drunkenly raping your ex-girlfriend might be one of those things that men would frown upon, but apparently the problem is that she let him into the house, not that her ex-boyfriend raped her.

If your car ever gets stolen, don’t bother to file a police report—after all, it was clearly irresistible to the thief.  You should be flattered that he found your car so attractive that he couldn’t control himself.

Comment #22: Mnemosyne  on  10/15  at  07:04 PM

oh, and since when does opening the door to someone you know = consent to have sex with you?

Comment #23: Lexie  on  10/15  at  07:06 PM

oh, and since when does opening the door to someone you know = consent to have sex with you?

It doesn’t, Lexie, unless you’ve committed the crime of having a vagina.

And these jerks think it’s *feminists* who have a bad opinion of men - in the minds of people like tootiredoftheright, men are all apparently beasts who we should expect will rape any woman they can and it’s up to women to prevent it.

Comment #24: Broce  on  10/15  at  07:13 PM

Amanda is unwilling to listen to you, because you are one of those eeevil people with a religion, and you are rather off-topic, but I kind of like your point, Caliban.

Many sincere Christian believers have been duped into believing that a country run by Christians or in accord with so-called Christian laws would be closest to being a “Christ-like nation” (hell of an oxymoron, that.  Whatever happened to “My kingdom is not of this world?”).

These people are falling for the same thing as the hypothetical “Matriarchy Now!” feminist stereotype/ people attacking that strawwoman, ie “They can only imagine replacing one unjust, violence-ridden hierarchy with another.”

The rulers who have managed to govern more or-less in accordance with what you see as near-universal religious desires for peace and justice didn’t do it simply by deposing the evil overlords and taking their place.  Peace and justice come when you change the system and spread out the corrupting influence of power.

Comment #25: lonespark  on  10/15  at  07:18 PM

“But we should aim higher, for systems that are based on equality and peace.”

There has never, in my studies, ever been a matriarchal society that was free of the concentration of power the higher one went up in the power structure. Human society, like other primate societies, tends to abhor a power vacuum so someone or some group usually steps into the void. One could argue that such a fact is a biological necessity. If so, then the only way to get around that fact, I suppose, is to use reason to outgun biology. Even is some of the more famous non-primate cases, such as elephants, where females group together, there is usually one dominant female. The question I guess is why do people feel the need to have a leader who has power?

And no, I wasn’t proselytizing; I don’t even belong to any religion, never mind any church; nor am I even religious. I treat religions as philosophies without the after-life mumbo-jumbo I just don’t see how you can the peace and equality you say you seek without some degree of caring without pre-conditions.

As far as rape goes, I don’t know how you can argue against the proposition that it is the alleged victim who truly know whether she or he has been raped. Rape is power/control-not sex. A person can exercise power/control/rape against another human being without even being conscious of it simply by virtue of who they are and the power they represent.  That is why it is just about a prima facie case of sex discrim. when a boss puts the moves on an underling.

I would also tend to think that your reliance on rape reduction is misplaced considering that John Hopkins reported that almost 25% of women in America report physical violence by their intimate partner; this is not accounting for the assumed under-reporting. Hopkins also notes:

In nearly 50 population-based surveys from around the world, 10% to over
50% of women report being hit or otherwise physically harmed by an
intimate male partner at some point in their lives…
Physical violence in intimate relationships almost always is accompanied
by psychological abuse and, in one-third to over one-half of cases, by
sexual abuse (59, 75, 131, 258, 272). For example, among 613 abused
women in Japan, 57% had suffered all three types of abuse,physical,
psychological, and sexual. Only 8% had experienced physical abuse
alone (485). In Monterrey, Mexico, 52% of physically abused women had
also been sexually abused by their partners (191). In León, Nicaragua,
among 188 women who were physically abused by their partners, only
5 were not also abused sexually, psychologically, or both (131).

The incidence of rape is but a small sub-set of the violence against women that exits. For the record, RAININ reports: 1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).

Comment #26: caliban  on  10/15  at  07:22 PM

Yeah, I didn’t get the impression from Caliban’s comment that it was proselytizing; perhaps could have been phrased more clearly and could have been more on-topic, but it’s a lovely retort to people who want to rule a country according to the Bible.

Comment #27: Rebecca  on  10/15  at  07:44 PM

“The remarkable success of the feminist movement in reducing the rape rate over the past 40 years also points to the flexibility in human nature.  People can be better and less violent. “

Add to that success the destruction of ~ 50,000,000 unborn chidren since 1973.

There were many feminists in Solomon’s time, just as there are today.  Listen to what Solomon had to say about the rebellious feminists of his own time ... “And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”  What a contrast from the virtuous wife of Proverb 31:28 ... “Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.”  Which type of woman are you?  What does your husband (or X-husband) have to say about you?  God knows, and He does care, and you will have to give account for your laziness, carelessness, lies, deceitfulness, maliciousness, hurtful words, and sinful actions. 

Are you a careless daughter?  Are you a feminist?  Are you a bossy wife?  Are you a meddling fool?  You don’t need to be.  God loves all people, men and women.  We all need to rise above the childish fighting between each other and see the greater causes in life.  Feminism is so shallow!  A strong women doesn’t need to prove anything, just as a real man doesn’t need to prove anything.  Life is too short to live with a burden of hatred.  God wants to help us, but we must desire His help

Comment #28: KLH  on  10/15  at  07:44 PM

I’d like to be the first to mention Dave Sims.

And, dear God, I’d really like to be the last to mention Dave Sims too.

Comment #29: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/15  at  07:47 PM

KLH, go to hell…

Comment #30: MikeEss  on  10/15  at  07:48 PM

Thanks, paradox.  And you’re right—-it’s hard to know.  Part of the drop in rape is part of the larger drop in crime across the board, but rape dropped more, and I think feminism is part of it.  They do try to project the rape rate accurately, taking into account how many go unreported.  DOJ and FBI stats aren’t bad at all.

Comment #31: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  07:51 PM

Mike, KLH isn’t approving of the Bible.  Making fun of it, I think.

Comment #32: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  07:52 PM

...stick rule?...

Please?

Comment #33: Rebecca  on  10/15  at  07:53 PM

What does your husband (or X-husband) have to say about you?

And what do *I* have to say about his abusive ass? Oh wait…I forgot, that doesnt count.

KLH….we live in a predominantly Christian society. Your “good news” has already been heard by all, and rejected by many. Perhaps your god would be better served by you practicing those little commandments you supposedly live by than by your preaching to people who arent interested in your religious or political spewings.

Comment #34: Broce  on  10/15  at  07:54 PM

Mike, KLH isn’t approving of the Bible.  Making fun of it, I think.

What makes you say that?  S/he’s been sprayin’ stupid around here for awhile now, and this seems to be pretty much the same.

Comment #35: Seraph  on  10/15  at  08:15 PM

Mike, KLH isn’t approving of the Bible.  Making fun of it, I think.

No, he’s not.  Go take a look at the abortion thread. 

NOW can we have the troll banned?  I think we’re all sick of the racist and sexist comments it keeps spouting.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  10/15  at  08:21 PM

Thanks, Lonespark. I think you see my point- you cannot change the world until you change the underlying assumption that rules the world. It was what I was trying to say in my longer post. If biologically our species seeks to have a dominating power structure then we have to use reason to change our behaviour. I thought that was the whole Age of Reason thing was all about- or maybe I was wrong. And if we don’t at least try to operate from the basis of peace, love, and equality then I don’t know what basis we use. And we DON’T need religion to do that.

Comment #37: caliban  on  10/15  at  08:26 PM

This could still be argued to legally not be rape

Anything “can be argued”. Are you making that argument? If not, grow a set and stop simpering around hiding behind the passive voice.

Comment #38: mythago  on  10/15  at  09:05 PM

“NOW can we have the troll banned?  I think we’re all sick of the racist and sexist comments it keeps spouting. “

what’s the matter, do you normally silence desenting views? Can’t handle the truth, just what to silent it? No racism or sexism, not one of my posts had either of these. Com’on Mnemosyne, don’t be a fascist.

Comment #39: KLH  on  10/15  at  09:10 PM

what’s the matter, do you normally silence desenting views?

Posting lengthy comments with racist and sexist language and no evidence is not “dissent” (or, as you prefer, “desent”).  It’s shouting in someone’s ear with a bullhorn.  Time to go.

Comment #40: Mnemosyne  on  10/15  at  09:22 PM

I’ve never taken a women’s studies class but from what I’ve read, I’ve come to the conclusion that one of THE major achievements of the women’s movement was to introduce the concept of consent. The idea that a woman could or should have a choice in whether to have sex seems obvious to us now but until recently wasn’t even on the table.

Comment #41: annejumps  on  10/15  at  09:23 PM

Anything “can be argued”. Are you making that argument? If not, grow a set and stop simpering around hiding behind the passive voice.

I can’t speak for him, mythago, but I don’t think the situation described above would be considered rape in most states. This is because most states have what’s referred to as the force requirement - wherein an essential element of rape is the use of force or threat of force, against a woman capable of consent, in an act of sexual penetration. Absent that, in most states, it wasn’t rape.

[F]eminists are seldom talking about what a detective or a defense attorney would consider a prosecutable rape—they’re talking about rape in the sense of “having sex against one’s will”.

I’ve always found this to be a particularly bizarre aspect of feminism - this notion that the actual legal definition of rape is somehow subordinate to their made-up definition.

I wouldn’t mind except I think it might actually be harmful and damaging to women to have these false notions of what rape actually is floating around.

After all, there are a whole host of positive benefits to women resisting rape using physical force - like they have less of a chance of actually being raped, they don’t get hurt anymore than those who don’t, they psychologically heal faster because they don’t blame themselves, etc.

The problem with these made-up definitions of rape is that they give women the totally wrong message. Women need to be aware of what the rape laws actually are in their state. Women should be told that if some man attempts to have sex with them without their permission that they need to fight back. That if they don’t not only are they more likely to be raped but that they won’t even be able to get him convicted - should they try to do so.

Telling them anything otherwise is just asking for trouble.

Comment #42: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  09:43 PM

I’ve always found this to be a particularly bizarre aspect of feminism - this notion that the actual legal definition of rape is somehow subordinate to their made-up definition.

I wouldn’t mind except I think it might actually be harmful and damaging to women to have these false notions of what rape actually is floating around.

Yes, you know how damaging it would be if people got the idea that feminists thought that women were full human beings and ought to have full bodily autonomy…

Comment #43: The Opoponax  on  10/15  at  09:47 PM

The issue of consent arose very early in the woman’s movement when women began to be separated from their husbands as a distinct legal entity having their own rights and not rights derived from their husbands. For the greater part of American history women were subsumed into the legal world of men. The American Constitution was not written for women (among other groups it was not written for) but was generally for white, landed men. It was only after women were granted rights (see voting) that their ability to have any say in most things was naught. It is interesting to note that the idea that a husband could not rape his wife persisted for a long time after women began to get rights; I would argue that the just destruction of that rule is the result of feminist advocacy.

Comment #44: caliban  on  10/15  at  09:51 PM

Women need to be aware of what the rape laws actually are in their state. Women should be told that if some man attempts to have sex with them without their permission that they need to fight back. That if they don’t not only are they more likely to be raped but that they won’t even be able to get him convicted - should they try to do so.

Alternately, there’s always TELLING MEN NOT TO RAPE PEOPLE.

Comment #45: Rebecca  on  10/15  at  09:52 PM

What a contrast from the virtuous wife of Proverb 31:28

The irony is he’s quoting one of the most feminist passages in the bible; the virtuous wife, it turns out, is a hard-working, highly successful businesswoman . . .

Comment #46: rea  on  10/15  at  09:57 PM

The problem with these made-up definitions of rape is that they give women the totally wrong message. Women need to be aware of what the rape laws actually are in their state. Women should be told that if some man attempts to have sex with them without their permission that they need to fight back. That if they don’t not only are they more likely to be raped but that they won’t even be able to get him convicted - should they try to do so.

The problem with YOU is that you know jack-all about rape and violence.  Women who fight back are more likely to suffer even worse injuries.  It’s the difference between just being raped and being raped and severely beaten or being raped and murdered.

And nowhere in that story did I see that the woman said “yes” or that she didn’t say “no.”  Just saying “no” is enough for it to be rape, in and out of court.

So much for being “progressive.”

Comment #47: keshmeshi  on  10/15  at  09:58 PM

Before everyone jumps all over Prince….

If we are going to discuss rape legally, perhaps this might help. It is from the Model Penal Code:

§ 25.01   General Principles

[A]  Common law – Generally speaking, sexual intercourse by a male with a female not his wife, constitutes rape if it is committed:


    1.)    forcibly
    2.)    by means of deception;
    3.)    while the female is asleep or unconscious; or
    4.)    under circumstances in which the female is not competent to give consent (e.g., she is drugged, mentally disabled, or underage).

Rape is a general-intent offense. As such, a defendant is guilty of rape if he possessed a morally blameworthy state of mind regarding the female’s lack of consent.

[B] Traditional Statutory Law – Traditional rape statutes define the offense as sexual intercourse achieved “forcibly,” “against the will” of the female, or “without her consent.” Like the common law, such statutes are gender-specific, i.e., only males are legally capable of perpetrating the offense, and only females can legally be victims of the crime.

[C]  Modern Statutory Law – Many states now extend the law to specified forms of non-forcible, but nonconsensual, sexual intercourse, e.g., sexual intercourse by a male with an unconscious or drugged female.  Increasingly, rape is now defined in gender-neutral terms regarding both the perpetrator and the victim. In the most reformed statutes, the offense has been broadened to include all forms of sexual penetration; the name of the crime has been changed (e.g., “criminal sexual conduct” or “sexual assault”) and the offense is divided into degrees.

[D]  Model Penal Code – A male is guilty of rape if, acting purposely, knowingly, or recklessly regarding each of the material elements of the offense, he has sexual intercourse with a female under any of the following circumstances:


    1.)    the female is less than 10 years of age;
    2.)    the female is unconscious;
    3.)    he compels the female to submit by force or by threatening her or another person with imminent death, grievous bodily harm, extreme pain or kidnapping; or
    4.)    he administers or employs drugs or intoxicants in a manner that substantially impairs the female’s ability to appraise or control her conduct. [MPC § 213.1(1)]

§ 25.02   “Forcible”

The traditional common law rule requires proof that both the female did not consent to the intercourse and that the sexual act was “by force” or “against her will” (“resistance” requirement).  Generally speaking, nonconsensual intercourse is “forcible” if the male uses or threatens to use force likely to cause serious bodily harm to the female or, possibly, a third person.  Intercourse secured by a non-physical threat does not constitute forcible rape at common law.

A minority of jurisdictions by statute or common law interpretation have abolished the resistance requirement.  Where state have retained the resistance requirement, the trend is to reduce the significance of the rule by lowering the barrier, typically requiring only that the alleged victim asserted a degree of resistance that was reasonable under the circumstances or that was sufficient to indicate that the sexual intercourse was without consent.

An extreme minority approach, applied at least in New Jersey, is that a male can be convicted for forcible rape based solely on the lack of permission for the sexual intercourse. [State in the Interest of M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266 (1992)]

The Model Penal Code defines rape solely in terms of the male’s acts of aggression and does not require proof of resistance by the victim.

§ 25.03   Marital Immunity Rule

At common law, a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife.  The majority of states retain a partial exemption under which immunity does not apply if the parties are legally separated or are living apart at the time of the rape.

A minority of states maintain a total exemption for marital rape, while at least twelve states have abolished the rule.

The Model Penal Code recognizes a partial marital exemption that bars a rape prosecution against a spouse or persons “living as man and wife,” although they are not formally married.  More stringent than the majority exemption, the only exception to the marital immunity rule is for spouses living apart under a formal decree of separation. [MPC § 213.6(2)]

I might argue that rape is both a philosophical term and a legal one. The law is slowly catching up.

Comment #48: caliban  on  10/15  at  10:03 PM

“Women who fight back are more likely to suffer even worse injuries.  It’s the difference between just being raped and being raped and severely beaten or being raped and murdered.

Care to provide the studies?
There have been plenty of rapists that stopped trying to rape the woman and backed off especially if she used a knife or her teeth on a certain area of the rapist. Here is the thing fighting back does work because most rapists get off on the fear since it gives them power. Having the woman fight back makes them withdraw.

Also in the case of the drunk ex yes drunk exes going to their former girlfriend/wife does usually result in violence. Also she could have the police or tried to lock herself in a room with a phone. There are tons of things a woman can do in that situation and get the police involved without being raped. Yes we can blame the victim if they disregard the warnings signs and don’t use their brain.
People who are upset about this are the reason why so many products have dumb warning signs on them that should be common sense.

Also here is the thing a lot of women don’t say no and men have been told by women that if the woman doesn’t object to the sexual advance it means the woman consents.

Comment #49: tootiredoftheright  on  10/15  at  10:48 PM

Before everyone jumps all over Prince….

If we are going to discuss rape legally, perhaps this might help. It is from the Model Penal Code:

Actually what you cut and paste appears to be the Lexis-Nexus capsule summary on rape - not the Model Penal Code. Incidentally, the Model Penal Code, is not law anywhere - which does not make it particularly relevant to a discussion of what legally is rape.

Plus the capsule summary does back up what I just said - which that rape in most states, has what’s called the force requirement, which would mean that in most states the example above would not be rape.

Comment #50: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  10:56 PM

men have been told by women that if the woman doesn’t object to the sexual advance it means the woman consents.

THAT is why men need to be told - and to then tell other men - that it’s not right to have sex until the other person actively and affirmatively consents.

Comment #51: BenF  on  10/15  at  11:05 PM

“Plus the capsule summary does back up what I just said - which that rape in most states, has what’s called the force requirement, which would mean that in most states the example above would not be rape.”

It also says that marital rape isn’t rape, that doesn’t mean we should refuse to recognize it as such.

Comment #52: Meri  on  10/15  at  11:07 PM

Tootiredofright -

He won’t find any evidence.

I found this on Google:

“Women’s resistance strategies to rape were examined using police reports and the court testimonies of 274 women who either avoided rape or were raped by subsequently incarcerated sex offenders. The sequence of behaviors in the offender-victim interaction was analyzed to determine whether women who resist rape with physical force are, as some have suggested, exacerbating the potential for physical injury or are simply responding to the severity of the offender’s physical attack. The results indicated that 85% of the women in the study who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender’s initiated violence. The remaining 15% who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender’s verbal aggression. Moreover, those women who responded with physical aggression to the offender’s violent physical attack were more likely to avoid rape than were women who did not resist such force. Also, the potential for physical injury was no greater for these women than for those who used other resistance strategies or who offered no resistance. These analyses suggest that the frequently found correlation between physical resistance and injury of the woman might be the result of the initial level of the offender’s violence and should not be used to discourage women from physically resisting rape.”

Comment #53: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  11:08 PM

Why hasn’t tootiredoftheright been kittened yet? Do we really need another tiresome assjack spouting crap about how women “get raped” and it’s clearly all their own fault?

Progressive Prince, you’re not even making sense. The Model Penal Code is not law, but it is a model for many states’ laws. You’re also kind of skimming past the fact that actual force need not be used. Exhorting women to “fight back” in all circumstances is ridiculous. People threatened by a rapist are not likely to be thinking “What will I do that looks best to a jury?” but “Can I get out of this without being raped or killed?”

At any rate, most of what affects the conviction has nothing to do with what the victim does and more with who she is. Sad but true.

Comment #54: mythago  on  10/15  at  11:19 PM

It also says that marital rape isn’t rape, that doesn’t mean we should refuse to recognize it as such.

Actually it says that only in a minority of states maintain that exemption - whereas only an “extreme minority” have gotten rid of the force requirement.

Comment #55: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  11:19 PM

Progressive Prince, you’re not even making sense. The Model Penal Code is not law, but it is a model for many states’ laws.

Parts of it have been used in many states but to my knowledge only New York and New Jersey have followed it on rape. In any case, as I have already pointed out, most states still retain the force requirement - which means in the example above she was not raped - in virtually every state.

You’re also kind of skimming past the fact that actual force need not be used.

How? Did I skim past it when I repeatedly said the use of force or the threat of force was part of the force requirement? I don’t see how I could have been clearer.

Exhorting women to “fight back” in all circumstances is ridiculous.

Agreed. Which is why I simply indicated there are benefits to resisting rape - I never said or implied that every woman in every situation has a moral duty to resist.

People threatened by a rapist are not likely to be thinking “What will I do that looks best to a jury?” but “Can I get out of this without being raped or killed?”

True, but that doesn’t mean that feminists should persist in using unaccepted, legally irrelevant definitions of rape. The only effect that I can see that would have would be to give women the wrong message about what to do in a rape. Imagine how horrified you would be if after being raped you found out that you weren’t really legally raped - and if you had just known that had you resisted you could have him convicted of what he did.

Comment #56: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  11:34 PM

Yes we can blame the victim if they disregard the warnings signs and don’t use their brain.

Did you miss the part where rape is a crime committed by criminals?

Comment #57: Rebecca  on  10/15  at  11:36 PM

Well, it’s actually true that fighting back doesn’t necessarily make it more likely that the woman will be injured. But only the woman herself can make that assessment when she’s in the situation. If the man is, for instance, twice the woman’s size, which happens pretty often, then many women would think that the *odds* of getting badly hurt if they fight back become worse than they want to risk. A lot of men, faced with similar odds (for instance, small slight men being faced with much bigger assailants, or men faced off against more than one opponent), make the same decision (particularly in prisons.)

Imagine that there was a requirement that you physically fight back before you can charge someone with stealing your wallet. Pretty much every advice I’ve ever heard says that if someone wants your wallet, just give it to them. It’s only money—don’t run the risk of ending up dead. But if our law insisted that no crime had occurred if you gave your wallet without resisting, don’t you think that would be incredibly unfair to victims of mugging? Rape is a much greater violation than being mugged; telling people that they *have* to fight back or it won’t be considered rape is just cruel.

I do think women should be encouraged to fight back, because it often works. But that doesn’t mean we should *penalize* women who *don’t* fight back. A crime still happened to the woman whether she fought back or not.

Because rape has existed for thousands of years as a property crime against men than as a crime of violation against women, there’s a lot of places where the law hasn’t caught up to the reality of rape. The reality of rape is that if someone fucks you when you didn’t want them to, you were raped. The law may say that it was okay, because he was her husband, or it was okay, because she didn’t fight back, or it was okay, because she knew him personally, or it was okay, because maybe she was just pretending to be unconscious, or it was okay, because any reasonable woman might be into kinky sex and want to be beaten black and blue with a coathanger wire so there’s no proof that she didn’t want it. The law, in these cases, is an ass.

Finally, most drunken ex-boyfriends are not any kind of physical threat to women. The fact that we only hear about drunken ex-boyfriends when they beat up and rape their ex-girlfriends is why we might think that a drunken ex would be dangerous to a woman, but telling women that they shouldn’t trust men that they loved once… that basically boils down to saying “Men are evil.” And you know, when people make the argument that men are evil I want them to follow through. I want them to admit that men should have a curfew and men should be restricted in their movements and men should be treated like dangerous animals. Because if women cannot trust men they *love*, as a matter of *routine*—if we can say, looking at a situation, “well of course she shouldn’t have trusted him! He was a man, what did she expect? Even if they used to be lovers, hell, *especially* if they used to be lovers she shouldn’t have let him into her home”, then we also need to be saying “Men are dangerous animals and should be treated as such.” You know, the way we treat pet tigers. But if men are human, if men deserve human rights, if men *aren’t* automatically rapists, if most men can be assumed to be good people… then women should never, ever, ever be punished or castigated for trusting the wrong man.

You can either have “Well, she should have expected he would rape her! He was a man!”, or you can have men treated as human beings with full human rights, but logically you can’t have both. Either all men can be assumed to be rapists, and if that’s so we should treat men very harshly and restrictively, or most men are not rapists, in which case women should not be blamed for trusting men.

Comment #58: Alara Rogers  on  10/15  at  11:40 PM

Prince:

Yes, it is a summary. I really didn’t want to paste the whole thing, but the points are the same. I was supporting (somewhat) your view. The law is different than the feminist philosophy of rape. However, I think the feminist philosophy is more forward looking and will eventually become law. I think one way to make it so is to get people to believe in it; speak of it and push it.

Comment #59: caliban  on  10/15  at  11:45 PM

Bravo, Alara.  Great post.

Comment #60: The Opoponax  on  10/15  at  11:51 PM

Why would you let someone who was drunk and an ex into your house when you are alone?

Just for the record, stupidity and criminal behaviour are not on the same axis.  While there’s no reason that the man’s crime should be excused, there’s no reason that someone can’t simultaneously state “What the hell was she thinking?”  Just because she did something stupid doesn’t reduce his culpability in taking advantage of it, but neither does his decision mean her responsibility for accepting that she was dumb be voided.

If I leave my house unlocked, it doesn’t mean I’m consenting to be robbed, and if someone does rob it, they should be treated no than someone who forcibly entered (just taking into account the stolen goods).  Still doesn’t mean my decision to make it easier can’t be criticized.

Comment #61: KeithM  on  10/15  at  11:55 PM

I do think women should be encouraged to fight back, because it often works. But that doesn’t mean we should *penalize* women who *don’t* fight back. A crime still happened to the woman whether she fought back or not.

Alara, I generally agree with your post but remember the force threat requirement of rape doesn’t require a woman to fight back - it can be met by a reasonable threat of force from the man perpetuating it.

So if a 200 lb man with a knife commands a woman to have sex with him, particularly if he says he is going to kill her if she resists, that would meet the requirement and she would not be required to resist.

Caliban - sorry if I came off as hostile in my post with my tone - I think I was screaming at McCain for blathering something annoying - smile

Comment #62: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  11:55 PM

Let me explain the difference between rape and other crimes.

A few years ago, my friend, a male, was robbed. He had inadvertently left a balcony door open to his apartment on a hot summer night, and some criminals came into his house and took a bunch of stuff. He did not tell them not to, he did not fight them off. He just left the door open and made it easy for them.

The next day, he called the police. The police (men) came over and took his report. They asked how the robbers entered the building. And my friend, embarrassed, said that they walked right in the door he left open. “Really stupid of me, huh?” he said.

The police officer said, “Well, of course it isn’t the best way to go, but you didn’t invite them in. They still had no right to enter your home without your permission and take your stuff. They tresspassed, they took things without your permission. They are still the criminals here. The ones at fault.”

Now, compare that to all of this business. Apparently women have the responsibility of preventing their own rape. They have to hole themselves up in their house and not let any male in. They have to be able to do and instant psychological profile and be able to predict the future actions of any man they meet. They have to not only be responsible for making sure that the perp knows that consent is not given in provable terms. (Unlike the robbery case when it is just assumed that you don’t have consent to enter one’s home and take their stuff. The robber would need to prove consent. That he was invited in and given the stuff he robbed.) Oh, and now they even have to be able to calculate the cost/benefits risk of physically fighting someone off and figure out how to do that under duress with a likely larger and stronger enemy combatant to fight off. Then, and only then, well…maybe, if you aren’t a slut and weren’t wearing a short skirt at the time…you just might be able to call it rape. (Oh, and hope that you aren’t married to or living with your rapist, because then all bets are off.)

I don’t really give a flying fuck about what the model penal code says. That is just pure wrong, it is misogynistic and gender biased and it treats the victim as a criminal if she didn’t do everything right as she was being violently victimized. Feminist argue like this because rape is rape and the laws need to be changed. Not because we don’t know what rape is.

God. What century am I in?

Comment #63: Lexie  on  10/15  at  11:57 PM

” But that doesn’t mean we should *penalize* women who *don’t* fight back.”

No it is perfectly valid to ask why they didn’t fight back. Here is the thing a lot of the rape stories fall apart when questioned about. The women didn’t say no, she gave a silent yes she affirmed the act of sex. She didn’t do anything to resist the advance. A court of law would toss out the rape accusation the police wouldn’t waste their time.

If women want rape to be treated as a serious crime they need to learn to say no, they need to learn what actually constitutes rape.

If a woman is drunk and claims to be raped should we take her at her word? She is drunk after all which affects one’s recall and judgement. Every drunk person who claims to be a victim of a crime has to be vetted more then a sober person.

“Finally, most drunken ex-boyfriends are not any kind of physical threat to women. The fact that we only hear about drunken ex-boyfriends when they beat up and rape their ex-girlfriends is why we might think that a drunken ex would be dangerous to a woman, but telling women that they shouldn’t trust men that they loved once”

They should ask why the person is showing up and use sense. If someone beats on my door at 3. AM I don’t blindly open the frigging door. Especially if I see that person through the door lens go to another house and repeat the knocking then stumble off to another house. It’s called sense.

Also like I said why not say no? or use the old tired excuse of I have a headache or use some verbal skill to get to a room out of sight and quietly call the police. If you call 911 and then hang up the operator will dispatch police. Then when the police knock which usually only takes a few minutes during which time an intelligent person can delay things the woman can then inform the police that their drunken friend is being belligerant and possibly threating. If the man then threatens her either vocally or physically yes it would be rape under the law. Proclaiming he will rape me if I don’t agree to have sex is not a valid defense. It’s a loon defense and would be thrown out.

The reason women in that case do not call the police is because they know yes the man had sex with her because she consented to it in the eyes of the law and anyone trying to get the facts from her.

There are tons of things a woman can do to minimize the threat of rape and not be a damn shut in. It’s called being smart and using common sense.

Here is the thing a woman can kill her rapist after the act of rape. But women do not do so and the cycle of rape continues. If woman are taught to fight back either being intelligent like I illustrated above or using physical force then rapes will be quite rare.

Also the claim about the man being twice the size is nonsense. Plenty of women and men who are small in stature can kick the ass of a person weighing twice as much. It’s called hitting the right spots and element of surprise. Rapists are like bullies once hit most of them crumble to the ground.

Comment #64: tootiredoftheright  on  10/16  at  12:24 AM

Note to self:  Go rob Tootiredoftheright’s house later.  There is virtually no chance he’ll bother to press charges.  He’ll just think he must have deserved it.

Comment #65: The Opoponax  on  10/16  at  12:28 AM

“The majority of states retain a partial exemption under which immunity does not apply if the parties are legally separated or are living apart at the time of the rape. “

So, yes, while only a minority of states maintain a full marital rape exemption, the majority still ignore rape if the husband and wife are still living together.

But I guess according to tootired, only stupid, cowardly women get themselves raped, and thus deserve it because of their stupidity and cowardice.

Comment #66: Meri  on  10/16  at  12:58 AM

I’m guessing here… tootiredoftheright is a libertarian?

Asking “Why didn’t she do more to protect herself?” is foolish and frankly fucking offensive, because of the context of the culture in which we live. In most places in the world, the onus is placed squarely on the woman to fight back (or expected to NOT fight back, as in the “not married” clause in the MPC above), rather than telling men to fucking stop it. It’s exactly the same thing as saying “She was asking for it because she was [wearing a short skirt/in a bad neighborhood/too drunk/etc.]”

Rape continues to occur, and occur frequently, regardless of how tightly controlled women are (for example, burkas) because it does nothing to stop the cause of rape. When you engage in victim blaming you are moving the discussion away from any useful conclusions. No amount of victim blaming will reduce the frequency of rape, because it tacitly excuses the cause of the rape: the rapist.

So when you say “Well, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to ask why didn’t she do more to prevent it.”, it’s really not reasonable at all, because, out of malice or just plain foolishness, your statement by default excuses the real cause of the rape. That’s you being an asshole.

The fact that you fail to see that, after being repeatedly told why you’re wrong, makes me think you lean more towards the malice side than the stupid side.

Comment #67: banisteriopsis  on  10/16  at  01:13 AM

TooTired says:
“If a woman is drunk and claims to be raped should we take her at her word? She is drunk after all which affects one’s recall and judgement.”

Um, I don’t know if this is true of every woman but I can still “feel it” hours after I’ve had sex. So, if it felt like I have had sex (and there might also be physical evidence to prove it) and I don’t remember having it or giving consent for it and this occurred when I went to a party and had a few drinks the night before (not illegal, you know. Guys get to, why don’t we?) I’m going to know that I was raped. Will I be able to prove it under the current law, probably not. But that does not mean a crime was not committed.

Comment #68: Lexie  on  10/16  at  01:18 AM

This is because most states have what’s referred to as the force requirement - wherein an essential element of rape is the use of force or threat of force, against a woman capable of consent, in an act of sexual penetration.

Men always have the threat of force against women.

Always. It’s inherent to being 100 pounds heavier and stronger, on average, combined with a society that holds men essentially unaccountable for their sexual desires.

I don’t think you have to be a woman to understand that, but I guarantee you every single woman understands it.

Comment #69: Chet  on  10/16  at  01:20 AM

“I’m guessing here… tootiredoftheright is a libertarian? “

Either that or bitter over having to fight his way out of a rape charge.

Comment #70: Lexie  on  10/16  at  01:22 AM

Women who fight back are more likely to suffer even worse injuries.  It’s the difference between just being raped and being raped and severely beaten or being raped and murdered.

My understanding is that DOJ statistics don’t back that up. In surveys of rape victims, more women felt that fighting back made their situation “better” than felt it had made their situation “worse.”

I guess there’s the problem where the women who were raped and murdered can’t answer a survey at all, so there’s some uncertainty about the results, but the idea that fighting back makes it worse is, at least, unsupported.

And it’s not fundamentally different from telling women that they should fight back. I think people should take self-defense courses, if only to learn to be more observant about their surroundings and situation - that’s a good strategy to avoid being the victim of any kind of crime - but I trust women to determine, on their own, the proper course of action. Unfortunately all to many women don’t have the choice to physically resist, since they’ve never been instructed in personal defense. Have, indeed, been dissuaded from doing so.

But, for the most part, telling women to pack heat or learn karate is generally about either blaming victims or exercising revenge fantasies by proxy. (Same with “if somebody ever raped my wife I’d kill him.”)

Comment #71: Chet  on  10/16  at  01:26 AM

Alara, I am giving you a standing ovation.

I often hear MRAs protesting that it’s so offensive to always be regarded as potential rapists. But then shit like this happens, and they say the victim should have regarded every man as a potential rapist. Which is it?

Comment #72: Lauren O  on  10/16  at  01:37 AM

“Um, I don’t know if this is true of every woman but I can still “feel it” hours after I’ve had sex. “

Obviously you either like it rough or you are quite unusual since most women say they never feel orgasm hence the cultural pressure to fake it. Even prostitutes in legal brothels admit faking it and often just forgetting what they did with the client.

“should take self-defense courses, if only to learn to be more observant about their surroundings and situation”

People should learn that in general. 99% of crimes/accidents can be avoided if people are aware of what is going on around them.

“It’s inherent to being 100 pounds heavier and stronger, on average”

That is a myth. It’s 30 pounds on average. As for strength men have it in the upper body however woman have their body weight concenrated in the hips. Women are much faster and agile then men.
There are women who weigh a 130 pounds and can beat the stuffing out of five or six men at a time. It has nothing to do weight or strength but mental agility.

Comment #73: tootiredoftheright  on  10/16  at  02:44 AM

Obviously you either like it rough or you are quite unusual

hahaha OK now I know this is a put on. Nobody’s THAT stupid…. What an asshole. He sure wasted a lot of effort typing those screeds for the joke.

Comment #74: banisteriopsis  on  10/16  at  03:09 AM

Obviously you either like it rough or you are quite unusual since most women say they never feel orgasm hence the cultural pressure to fake it. Even prostitutes in legal brothels admit faking it and often just forgetting what they did with the client.

Great.  All women are whores who just pretend to like sex. Care to start telling us about your bitch of an ex-wife who took your money and your kids and you just don’t understand why she was so damn upset because you only punched in the face that one time?

Comment #75: Mnemosyne  on  10/16  at  03:11 AM

Tired, no one is disputing that awareness of one’s surroundings and physical strength can be useful in deterring crime. That’s not why we’re all calling you out. We’re all calling you out because you are defending rapists. She didn’t say no, she let me in, she didn’t fight back, she was drunk, so she deserved it.

You are ignoring that rape is a crime that is committed by rapist criminals, not something the victim does to herself. The victim is not at fault. A hypothetical drunk, naked woman, with a history of sexual activity, walking in the worst part of town, etc., still has a right not to be raped. And this hypothetical drunk, naked woman with a history of sexual activity walking in the worst part of town doesn’t “get raped.” Someone rapes her. He is the problem, not she.

Remove the factors that you say lead to rape - alcohol, lack of caution, dress or lack thereof - and there is still rape. Remove the factors that we say lead to rape - rapists - and there is no rape.

Comment #76: Rebecca  on  10/16  at  03:14 AM

dude, she wasn’t talking about an orgasm, you idiot, there is musculature involved that gets a good workout during sex, hence “feeling it” hours later. it’s a completely normal reaction, dillweed.

Comment #77: redwards  on  10/16  at  03:14 AM

Obviously you either like it rough or you are quite unusual since most women say they never feel orgasm hence the cultural pressure to fake it. Even prostitutes in legal brothels admit faking it and often just forgetting what they did with the client.

(Please please ban this offensive fuckwit now.)

What, precisely, does ‘feeling’ or ‘not feeling’ an orgasm have to do with being raped? Where does an orgasm come into this at all? Have you ever actually slept with a woman? Do you have the slightest CLUE about female anatomy?

Comment #78: Nic C  on  10/16  at  06:47 AM

Of course, the accusation leveled by anti-feminists at feminists is that we want to create a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy.  Again, that would be stupid because we’d never be able to do that.  More importantly, it shows how anti-feminists lack imagination.  They can only imagine replacing one unjust, violence-ridden hierarchy with another

[atheist’s pedantic rant]

This is something I notice about ‘the conservative movement’ (and about liberals/leftists) again and again. I believe you are right that their mis-understanding of feminism derives from a failure of imagination. Let me describe exactly how this failure works, in my estimation.

1. Most people instinctively believe that others think the same general way that they do
2. When a person perceives an other who appears to have different beliefs, the perciever will attempt to explain these other beliefs to themselves, in terms of their own way of thinking.
3. The resulting perceived image of the other is therefore colored strongly by the consciousness of the perceiver.

So, the anti-feminists (who are usually some kind of traditionalist, often religious-right), want to preserve patriarchy, a system where males by default have power over females. They have the kind of mentality that desires this kind of sharp power distinction in society. When they hear feminists talking about women’s rights, they don’t get that you mean more equality, since their mentality shrinks instinctively from imagining this. They translate “I want women’s rights” into “I want revenge on male power- I want women to control men now”.

Another example of the conservatives making this perceptual error is when anti-environmentalists of the religious-right say that environmentalists want to start a ‘new religion’ of ‘earth worship’. They are fitting environmentalim into their own world-picture, and the process warps environmentalism.

Now, for the example of liberals/leftists falling victim to this failure of imagination. Liberals will examine the media figures of the right wing, lets say Rush Limbaugh, and say that Limbaugh is a man cynically, calculatedly exploiting resentments in society in order to preserve the political power of his movement. Lets break down how we decide this.

1. I live in society, where there are many different kinds of people. That’s fine with me. I’ve got no particular problem with others… if they didn’t exist, the world would be less interesting. Everyone has a game, an angle, to live on in this world, and I’d better make mine good. Many people in this world want to follow someone. I don’t get why, I get enough following doing my job, but they all can go follow someone if they like.
2. There’s this guy Rush Limbaugh who spews all this crazy shit on his radio program. He says that blacks are all welfare cheats. He says that feminists are nazis.(?!) He says that liberals like me are all traitors and faggots.
3. What Limbaugh says doen’t sound like truth. Stuff he says about me is nasty. But I think he must have a bigger, meaner game, and a sharper angle than I do. The more he spews these lies, the more his followers will be able to attack their enemies. His angle is to make himself the necessary center of this angry crowd. He’s playing an angle, and a dangerous one.

Now, there’s probably some truth to this picture of a cynical Rush Limbaugh. But we’re ignoring something else, an important aspect of it. Our minds almost cannot encompass it because it seems too dumb. Our mentality instinctively protects us from considering that maybe Limbaugh basically believes what he’s saying. He thinks women (bitches) have too much power, and they weaken the men. He thinks blacks are over-running society like animals, breaking it up. There are all these forces weakening his American world, eating away at this strong, beautiful structure, like sappers undermining a medieval castle’s walls. Modern, cosmopolitan ideas, as ungraspable and untrustworthy as the weather, swirl in from Europe and South America like hurricanes and sow chaos in his strong, hard, designed, world that so many men spent so much time building up.

[/atheist’s pedantic rant]

Anyway, this is a great essay, and that’s interesting to learn about Bonobos.

Also, KLH is a douche.

Comment #79: atheist  on  10/16  at  08:34 AM

“Um, I don’t know if this is true of every woman but I can still “feel it” hours after I’ve had sex. “

Obviously you either like it rough or you are quite unusual since most women say they never feel orgasm hence the cultural pressure to fake it. Even prostitutes in legal brothels admit faking it and often just forgetting what they did with the client.

Tootired

Not only are you being a jerk, you’re wrong.

Comment #80: atheist  on  10/16  at  08:41 AM

Er, that was,

Not only are you being a jerk, you’re wrong

Comment #81: atheist  on  10/16  at  09:05 AM

” there is musculature involved that gets a good workout during sex, hence “feeling it” hours later. “

Fascinating that most women never report that feeling dillweed when asked in studies dillweed.

Comment #82: tootiredtothink  on  10/16  at  09:06 AM

Shorter tootired:

Sex - I’m doing it wrong.

(Friendly advice: if the woman you sleep with isn’t “feeling” her orgasm, it’s because she’s not having an orgasm. Must. Try. Harder.)

Comment #83: Nic C  on  10/16  at  09:25 AM

When a woman who is capable of saying no doesn’t say no and there isn’t any threats either verbal or physicall but goes into having sex with a guy then claims rape it will be tossed out. Since it sounds like trying to get a guy into trouble with the law over a false accusation or it sounds like the woman slept with a jerk but didn’t want to fess up with it being her own decision. There is no indication of violence going to happen. A woman claiming to go along with sex with a guy in fear he may turn violent is like how some white people claim to react when seeing a black person on the street. It’s an irrational fear that has no basis in reality yet a lot women who claim to be raped yet never report it to the police but state in their stories the guy never physically threated her or said any threating things but they thought he may get violent if the guy asked for sex and the woman said no. Sorry but that doesn’t fly in the legal code as to what rapes nor should it follow in the logic of what rape is.

In human culture as of right now when a woman after being kissed by her boyfriend doesn’t say no or say anything to or in fact physicall react to not proceed most men will proceed to the next steps of foreplay once again watching the woman for any sign that is she is not consenting. There is no physical threats of violence or verbal threats. But guess what a number of women will claim they were raped yet never said no but kept silent. In our culture this is a sign that the woman is being shy and the man has to lead. A number of women over the years have stated they were disapointed in the man who upon seeing their reactions of shyness immeaditly stopped instead of going forward since the woman being shy expected the man to continue even if she didn’t say anything.

This is why a lot of date rape claims get tossed out because the woman never said no nor gave any indication she wasn’t willing.

Comment #84: tootiredtothink  on  10/16  at  09:27 AM

“Friendly advice: if the woman you sleep with isn’t “feeling” her orgasm, it’s because she’s not having an orgasm. Must. Try. Harder.) “

70% of women report never having an orgasm even though a machine reading her registers she is having one. It’s indeed in the woman’s head.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/395600/why_women_fake_orgasms_and_how_to_tell.html

Comment #85: tootiredoftheright  on  10/16  at  09:33 AM

tootired, got a vagina of your own?  (And I don’t mean you’ve cowed some poor woman with really low self esteem into allowing you to control hers.)

Unless you’ve got a vagina and let some guy stick his dick into it and rub it back and forth for a while, how could you possibly know what it feels like?

No man would expect a woman to really know what having a penis is like, why would you assume you know what having a vulva and vagina are like?

That, my friend, is pure, arrogant, patriarchy.  Recognize, own it, accept that you’re infected with it. If you don’t like it, fix it.  If you do like it, no reason to ever bother coming to Pandagon again and sharing your stupidity…

Comment #86: MikeEss  on  10/16  at  09:39 AM

I think people should take self-defense courses, if only to learn to be more observant about their surroundings and situation - that’s a good strategy to avoid being the victim of any kind of crime - but I trust women to determine, on their own, the proper course of action.

Scenario for those who think that taking self defense courses is the solution to rape.

You’re out on a date with a guy you’ve been seeing quite a bit of lately.  Let’s say it’s, oh, I dunno, the fourth date.  So far, everything is great. You have a lot in common, he’s funny in exactly the right way, and just your type.  You’re compatible on all the important stuff.  He’s been a perfect gentleman thus far.  All systems go.

At the end of the night, after a few drinks (not drinks to excess, but let’s say 2 rounds), he invites you back to his place.  You take him up on it, though you’re not sure whether you actually feel like having sex or what.  You fool around for a bit, but honestly you’re pretty tired and you have a big day ahead of you in the mornring.  You say, “I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but I think I ought to go.” 

He calls you a tease and insists that you stay, that you “owe him” sex.  It’s his house, and he’s a lot bigger than you.  He locks the front door , physically pulls you into the bedroom, and initiates sex.  You say no, and that you really want to go home.  But honestly there’s not a whole lot you can really do short of beating him senseless and breaking out of the place. 

Is this rape?  Why or why not?

What would you have done in this situation?  Be realistic - no superhero shit.

If you think that you’d have taken your chances with fighting him off and busting your way out of the apartment, what do you think the chances are that you’d get home to find the cops waiting to arrest you on assault charges?  How well equipped are you to be arrested, charged with a felony, and go through a criminal trial in which it’s entirely possible you could be found guilty of assault and spend time in jail?

Comment #87: The Opoponax  on  10/16  at  09:46 AM

Okay, I had to stop reading halfway down because my eyes were crossed in absolute, stultifying anger.

Tootired and “Progressive,”  UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN RAPED, YOU CAN SHUT THE FUCK UP RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

If you have never been in the situation where someone is crowding into your space, crushing you down, making it hard for you to breathe, with his hands all over you and you are in a state of shock because this guy, this guy was supposed to be a friend to you, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I’ve been in that situation.  And you know what?  Every instinct I had said to just lay there and let it be over with, because any fighting would only prolong the situation. 

I feel bad for every woman who has ever had sex with you.  I can’t imagine how horrible it must be for her.  I mean, if you think that a woman just laying there silently, unmoving, is giving consent, it must be MAGIC to be in bed with you.

Goddammit, can we just band these two assholes?  My adrenalin pump is going to break.

Comment #88: speedbudget  on  10/16  at  09:49 AM

Oh, and on the “feeling it” discussion, hey, ASSHOLE, you know not of which you speak.

First, there is a reason lubrication is involved with sex.  Try rubbing a dildo in your ass without lubrication.  Fucking hurts, right?  Natch.

What, you live in some fantasy world where prostitutes actually enjoy all that sex?  Where they’re into every horrible instance with every horrible man enough to have orgasms, up to 100 times a day?  What fucking world do you live in?

And I’m sorry, but I feel an orgasm.  Apparently, none of your sex partners do.  And the only time I fake it is when I’m with some asshole who won’t fucking stop when I tell him it’s pointless, not going to happen.  I consider that shit assault, not rape, by the way.  But I know it’s pointless to report it because the police force is riddled with assholes like you who think just because women walk outside their house, they want it.

You know what?  Women are people, you dicksmack.

Comment #89: speedbudget  on  10/16  at  10:04 AM

Wow! Went to sleep last night and wake up to find that I like it “rough” and can have hours long orgasms. Who knew?

Um, no. I wasn’t talking about orgasms. And I wasn’t talking about some kind of “injury” or what have you from “liking it rough.” I was just simply saying that in a part of my body that is not generally touched on an all day/day to day basis I can feel for awhile when it has been. The same thing occurs for me with tampon usage.

Geez.

I guess I thought that “Tired of” and others were more mature and had at least a little more knowledge about womens bodies than they appear to have.

Comment #90: Lexie  on  10/16  at  11:33 AM

A woman claiming to go along with sex with a guy in fear he may turn violent is like how some white people claim to react when seeing a black person on the street. It’s an irrational fear that has no basis in reality yet a lot women who claim to be raped yet never report it to the police but state in their stories the guy never physically threated her or said any threating things but they thought he may get violent if the guy asked for sex and the woman said no.

There is no physical threats of violence or verbal threats. But guess what a number of women will claim they were raped yet never said no but kept silent. In our culture this is a sign that the woman is being shy and the man has to lead. A number of women over the years have stated they were disapointed in the man who upon seeing their reactions of shyness immeaditly stopped instead of going forward since the woman being shy expected the man to continue even if she didn’t say anything.

It seems to me that you are taking a far too-legalistic look at a messy situation which sits right on an uneasy, shifting, unclear border between the legal world, the social world, and the political world. Sure, perhaps a woman who tried to prosecute a rape charge in a “date rape” would have trouble making it stick. This does not mean that no women are raped on dates.

Your view of the security situation between men and women also sounds quite naive. So you have never threatened a woman. Why do you generalize from yourself to all men? “There is no physical threats of violence or verbal threats.” and you can make this blanket statement why? And doesn’t it occur to you that, as a man, you might not be able to easily see society from a woman’s standpoint? What makes you so confident that you know women better than they know themselves? Don’t you think this analytical arrogance could get you in trouble at some point, when you mis-understand a situation that isn’t as safe as it looks?

Comment #91: atheist  on  10/16  at  11:33 AM

“dude, she wasn’t talking about an orgasm, you idiot, there is musculature involved that gets a good workout during sex, hence “feeling it” hours later. it’s a completely normal reaction, dillweed. “

ETA: yes, this type of feeling is exactly what I was talking about. I’m still ROTFL that Tiredof thought I was talking about orgasm. Me thinks he must watch too much porn!

Comment #92: Lexie  on  10/16  at  11:38 AM

Obviously you either like it rough or you are quite unusual since most women say they never feel orgasm hence the cultural pressure to fake it. Even prostitutes in legal brothels admit faking it and often just forgetting what they did with the client.

And seriously, what the fuck is this?! She must like it rough? Most women never have orgasms? Most women feel just like legal prostitutes?

Women who prostitute themselves have to make money in bulk. This will force them into having lots of quick sex with men who know they are paying for the priviledge and therefore are less likely to try and cause the women to have orgasms. Don’t you think they are a poor stand-in for the experiences of women in general, in this area?

Comment #93: atheist  on  10/16  at  11:39 AM

Wow, I am actively nauseated. You know that mental alert that’s supposed to go off to let you know a guy is dangerous and you shouldn’t go into that dark alley with him? It started dinging about Prince and Right about two comments in. Not just jerks, but potentially dangerous jerks. Eugh.

If I was a billionaire - or otherwise had clout in the world - I would seriously dump as many resources as possible into getting these two sentences said in every school in the country at least ten times a year:

If you do not want someone to touch you in the way that they are touching you, say no. You have the right to say no - even if they’re bigger or older than you, even if they’re someone with power over you - and you have the right to be respected.

If you are touching someone and they tell you no, stop touching them and move away from them.

Comment #94: purpleshoes  on  10/16  at  11:51 AM

The other thing is, after leaving my stupid patriarchy infected 20s behind, I’ve only ever dated men who understood that the default in sexual stuff was no, and they make sure that they get clear and affirmative consent before moving forward with anything sexual. It isn’t that hard to think this way. It is not awkward for men and women with some level of maturity to just make sure they talk to each other so they ensure true consent. Now that I’ve been with my current partner for a long time, I will give him “blanket consent”...say for the night…but of course both of us still hold veto power. But this is what all of this comes down to. Men need to understand that the default is NO. They need to take responsibility for getting clear consent. And women need to understand that they have this right as well. It is much easier to be in a world where you understand that men know the starting point is no and you get to tell them yes when the time is right. Rather than having to have it be your responsiblity to tell him No when you are potentially being pushed, harassed, or violently attacked.

I don’t know why this is so hard. For every other crime out there. (Robbery, Murder, etc.) the onus is on the criminal to prove consent. Not on the victim to prove nonconsent. Imagine if we assumed that murder victims WANTED to be murdered and must leave evidence behind that they said “NO” and used resistance against their assailant. Or if you were robbed or mugged, you had to prove that you told the mugger, “NO! I object to you taking my wallet!” and that you fought against him.

The only reason rape legally requires the victim to prove she didn’t want it to happen is because the patriarchy and its collective tiny widdle ego cannot handle that sometimes women don’t want to have sex with them.

Comment #95: Lexie  on  10/16  at  11:53 AM

If you think that you’d have taken your chances with fighting him off and busting your way out of the apartment, what do you think the chances are that you’d get home to find the cops waiting to arrest you on assault charges?

I don’t know, I guess. I can only look at it from a man’s perspective, thus, I have no idea what the cops are going to think about a woman who beats her way out of another man’s apartment.

I’m inclined to think, though, that a cop isn’t going to jump to the conclusion that a woman beat a man up for absolutely no reason, if only because 95% of all violent crime is committed by men (and therefore a violently aggressive criminal woman isn’t something they’re likely to have encountered) whereas foiled rape attempts are something they’d have encountered quite a bit.

But, yeah, I take the point. Is a plead-out to assault charges, though, really worse than being raped? I can’t possibly know, obviously. Personally I think I’d take some pride in the rap sheet, and if an employer ever asked, I’d simply explain that I beat the shit out of a man who tried to rape me, but he could afford a much better lawyer.

Like I said I can’t possibly know. I can’t put forced sex on a continuum of Bad Shit because I can’t see it from a woman’s perspective.

Comment #96: Chet  on  10/16  at  12:56 PM

I’m inclined to think, though, that a cop isn’t going to jump to the conclusion that a woman beat a man up for absolutely no reason

Ah, Chet.  You’re a comedic genius.

Did you know that the default response by most police departments in a domestic dispute is, in fact, to arrest both parties?  The police aren’t allowed to act in a judicial capacity, deciding who committed which crime against who, or who was defending vs. who was attacking, and the like.  If I call the cops and say “A woman just whopped me upside the head with a frying pan, and I passed out.  I have a huge goose-egg on the back of my head and think I might have a concussion.  She left the scene, but I know where she lives,” any police department worth a damn is going to pursue that complaint and at the very least arrest the individual in question for assault. 

Now if it later turns out that the woman acted in self defense and is acquitted?  OK. 

But if your options are “lie back and be fucked by this creep and then try to forget it ever happened” vs. “possibly spend the night in jail, at the very least”, most smart people are going to pick the former.

Comment #97: The Opoponax  on  10/16  at  03:15 PM

“most smart people are going to pick the former.”

So winding up with a disease that could be easily cured for a while or be incurable, get pregnant, become suicidal since they try to forget it are smart choices according to you? There is a reason why the police get annoyed with women who come complaining to be raped yet deny the rape kit and don’t want to press charges. It’s called having the rapist repeat the crime over and over again because the rapist becomes convinced no woman will report the crime.

There is a reason most rapists who are convicted are thought to have commited dozens if not hundreds more rapes then what they were convicted of it’s because of these idiotic women. If women want to stop rape they need to learn to say the word no, be aware of what the law says they can do and report the rape, press charges, do the rape kit. So yes we can blame the victims because they aren’t part of the solution they are part of the problem by allowing other people to become victims.

Comment #98: tootiredoftheright  on  10/16  at  04:01 PM

I’m inclined to think, though, that a cop isn’t going to jump to the conclusion that a woman beat a man up for absolutely no reason

I had an acquaintance who dated a horrible scumbag. One night, they got in a fight, and he pushed her down on the bed and held her there like he was going to rape her. So she fought back by slapping him in the face. He immediately picked up the phone and called the police to report domestic violence. Because of their policy, the police arrested her and she spent the night in jail. The real kicker is that she said the individual officers felt horrible, but they had to follow policy. Yes, she got arrested for defender herself from rape. Clearly physical self-defense is a flawless plan.

And to the idea that some women can beat up men bigger than they are…well, yes, a very few women can do that. Most simply can’t. I weight 100 pounds. In order for me to be able to physically defend myself from a rapist, I’d have to spend hours and hours a day working out and learning martial arts. In order to not be blamed for my own rape, am I really expected to devote my entire life to fending off rapists? Because I would much rather just do my schoolwork and get my degree.

Comment #99: Lauren O  on  10/16  at  05:01 PM

What kind of misogynistic bullshit needs to be spewed before somebody gets banned on this site?  Why is Tootired still here, spewing that crap?

Can we put him in jail, and let him get raped, and then blame him for not fighting back hard enough or submitting to the humiliating rape kit and recriminations of the staff for not putting up enough of a fight and then the disdain of the police and the lawyers for having allowed himself to be easy enough to rape?

For fuck’s sake.  Ban him.

Comment #100: speedbudget  on  10/16  at  05:34 PM

Progressive Prince wrote:
I’ve always found this to be a particularly bizarre aspect of feminism - this notion that the actual legal definition of rape is somehow subordinate to their made-up definition.

Yes, heaven forbid we try fight for our right to bodily autonomy. That’s just so weird.

/snark

In the old days, “consent” of a woman meant nothing because she was, in the words of Lucretia Mott, “civilly dead.” Under the old marriage couverture laws, her legal existence was subsumed by her husband’s. Only her husband had the power to consent to anything. Rape was a property crime against the husband or father; the woman’s feelings or thoughts didn’t enter into it. Naturally, marital rape didn’t legally exist.

Now, women have the right to vote, bring lawsuits, be parties to contracts, and open bank accounts without their fathers’ or husbands’ permission. Therefore, a woman’s consent legally means something. The legal definition of rape, which is, put very simply, “sexual intercourse without consent,” has changed to reflect this fact.

After all, there are a whole host of positive benefits to women resisting rape using physical force - like they have less of a chance of actually being raped, they don’t get hurt anymore than those who don’t, [snip]

Not true. Statistically, women who fight back sustain far more serious injuries than women who do not. The are more likely to end up in the hospital. I’m for self-defense, but if a woman chooses to submit because she’s afraid of getting hurt worse, blaming her for the actions of the rapist is just heinous.

Historically, though, you are right. In the bad old days, if a woman “put up no resistance,” then the authorities assumed that what happened was not rape. That is no longer true today, I can’t quote the laws in every state, but here in Minnesota (where it’s called “Criminal Sexual Conduct.”) the law says that First Degree CSC is sexual penetration plus one of the other elements mentioned, including

Victim has reasonable fear of great bodily harm to self or other. or

A dangerous weapon is used or threatened.

Second Degree CSC is sexual contact plus those same elements. They’re Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.342 and 609.343 if you want to read the whole thing.

Let’s apply this standard to the above scenario. Woman lets drunken ex-boyfriend into her home. She then realizes that she either can submit to having sex with him or fight him. Whether he’s guilty depends on the facts. If this fight involved, say, a knife held up to the face, (Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.342(d)) or a threat to beat her into a bloody pulp if she didn’t comply, or even a threat to seriously hurt someone else, (Minn. State. Sec. 609.342(c)) then the ex-boyfriend would be guilty of First Degree Criminal Sexual Misconduct according to MN statute. That’s a twelve year prison sentence, albeit possibly shortened by parole.

Comment #101: maatnofret  on  10/16  at  06:11 PM

...And I see that Alara Rogers and others have addressed the same issues with a lot more eloquence.

Note to self: read entire thread next time.

Comment #102: maatnofret  on  10/16  at  06:40 PM

Ah, Chet.  You’re a comedic genius.

And you’re a self-entitled jackass. You asked an interesting question, I gave you my honest answer. I guess that’s not enough for people like you.

The police aren’t allowed to act in a judicial capacity, deciding who committed which crime against who, or who was defending vs. who was attacking, and the like.

Well, that sucks. Nonetheless their impressions and testimony (“it was clear he’d attempted to rape her, and his injuries were the result of her self-defense”) are going to be a large factor in whether or not the prosecutor goes ahead with charges.

But if your options are “lie back and be fucked by this creep and then try to forget it ever happened” vs. “possibly spend the night in jail, at the very least”, most smart people are going to pick the former.

How well does “try to forget it ever happened” usually work out? From the actual testimonies of rape victims - harrowing accounts of self-doubt and psychic trauma that persists long after - I’m going to guess “not well.” On the other hand, most college students have spent a night in the county lock-up with relatively little ill effect. Even better to have spent a night in lock-up at the behest of cops who reluctantly had to take you in under domestic abuse policy, but know you were in the right and are sympathetic to your cause.

I mean you’re substantially underplaying the trauma and pain of rape, Opoponax, if you think it’s not substantially worse than one night in county jail. I can’t know, of course, since I’ve never been raped, but from testimony I have to believe that any “smart person” is going to take the night in jail, with the charges straightened out the next morning, over potentially years of recovery from a traumatic rape.

I’m sorry you would be so insensitive as to come to Pandagon, of all places, and try to pretend that rape just isn’t that bad. What the fuck is wrong with you, Opoponax?

Comment #103: Chet  on  10/16  at  06:53 PM

Not true. Statistically, women who fight back sustain far more serious injuries than women who do not.

Can we get a cite for this claim? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but just in this thread people have made the exact opposite claim, and my understanding of the DOJ statistics is that more women who fight back felt it helped their situation than felt it harmed it.

I’m not picking on you, but consider this - if you were part of a patriarchal society that wanted to enforce your second-class citizenhood by the constant threat of rape, wouldn’t they take steps to make sure you didn’t put up any resistance?

Do you really think you don’t live in that society?

Comment #104: Chet  on  10/16  at  06:55 PM

Not to change the off-topic topic, but…
Sometimes there’s just about nothing worse than county jail.
Come to Phoenix and let Sheriff Joe show you a good time!

Comment #105: lonespark  on  10/16  at  06:57 PM

The legal definition of rape, which is, put very simply, “sexual intercourse without consent,” has changed to reflect this fact.

That’s the thing… it really hasn’t.

As the capsule summery posted above on rape makes clear in most states there is a force or threat of force element that has to be met before a sexual act can be called rape. The woman’s lack of consent isn’t enough by itself, in most states, to transform the act into rape.

In the bad old days, if a woman “put up no resistance,” then the authorities assumed that what happened was not rape. That is no longer true today

I never said it was. What I said was that the widely pushed feminist definition (rape = sex without consent) does not correspond, in almost every state, with legal reality.

And as I already made clear above in most states the perpetrator must use either force or the threat of force in the commission of his offense. It sounds like MN is in accord with this view.

So in other words, you’re right in that women do not have to resist to their utmost anymore, but wrong in that I never said that they did. If there is a reasonable threat made they were raped in all states despite any lack of resistance on their part.

Not true. Statistically, women who fight back sustain far more serious injuries than women who do not.

I would like to see those statistics - and I am not trying to be belligerent or hostile - if you actually have them I would be interested in reading them.

I linked to an abstract above that pretty clearly supports my position - and I know I’ve read in other places, like my criminal law book in L-school those same types of studies - so I am pretty sure they are accurate.

Comment #106: Progressive Prince  on  10/16  at  07:13 PM

Nonetheless their impressions and testimony (“it was clear he’d attempted to rape her, and his injuries were the result of her self-defense”) are going to be a large factor in whether or not the prosecutor goes ahead with charges.

And in the mean time, you’re in jail.  Which could get you fired, especially if you miss 2-3 days of work.  Even if you don’t actually lose your job, you could be out 2-3 days’ pay at minimum.  Which is a lot of money for some people.  Oh, and if you’re poor and nonwhite, and you work in a low-status job, it could be hard for you to get a new job right away, since yep, employers have ways of finding out about this sort of thing.  It would at least make things a lot harder for you, in the short term, and possibly the long term depending on exactly how everything pans out.

I’m not willing to say that this is worse than being raped, but in that moment you don’t exactly have a lot of time to think out the deeper metaphysics of the situation.  And I can tell you, having been in these sorts fo situations before, that mainly you just want it to be over, to NOT be in the situation.  While obviously I don’t think it’s wrong to fight back, my bottom line is that we need to leave it up to women themselves to decide the best course of action, and not penalize them for not busting out the kung-fu moves. 

I mean, really?  You’re acting all self-righteous about the fact that I’m willing to say, “y’know, I think it’s still rape, even if the woman doesn’t try to physically fight off her attacker.”

It’s very easy for men to treat this sort of thing like a video game or a comic book.  “Well, duh, obviously I would take self defense classes, then I could just fight him off, even if he was way bigger than me!”  “Well duh, obviously I would make a quick move for my cell phone, call 911, and the cops would be there in the blink of an eye!”  “Well, duh, obviously the cops would know exactly what was afoot and arrest him straightaway while clearly understanding that I was a mere victim of his vile advances!”  “Well, duh, obviously I would get a great attorney, and he’d rot in jail, and the judge and jury would give me a standing ovation at the end!” 

Life is not an episode of Law & Order: SVU, asshole.

How well does “try to forget it ever happened” usually work out? From the actual testimonies of rape victims - harrowing accounts of self-doubt and psychic trauma that persists long after - I’m going to guess “not well.”

You would be shocked how many women, in the company of “just girls”, after a few drinks, will joke wanly about experiences that amount to date rape.  It’s something that’s taken a lot more seriously than it used to be, but there’s still a lot of pressure to simply sweep non-consensual sexual experiences under the rug if they’re not the sort of thing we usually think of as easily prosecutable “stranger in a dark alley” rape.  I’d guess that half the women you’ve ever met have a story like the one I told - a guy you actually like and trust wants sex, you don’t, you don’t really want it to come to assault charges, so you just do it and try to forget it.

Comment #107: The Opoponax  on  10/16  at  07:16 PM

PP and other legal types - I think you’re also overlooking the different classes of felony. I’m in NY, so bear with me if the law’s substantially different in other states, but there are different classes depending on whether the rape was by forcible compulsion (force or threat of force), influence of drugs/alcohol, age difference, etc. Plain and simple, rape in NY state (if I recall correctly from when I was studying sex assault law) is intercourse without consent. The class of felony depends on other factors.

Comment #108: Rebecca  on  10/16  at  08:12 PM

“Victim has reasonable fear of great bodily harm to self or other.”

The problem is a lot of stories about date rape is that there is nothing that the woman says leads to a reasonable fear of bodily harm, it’s irrational fear. Again if a woman says no to a man making an advance then most stories of date rape would vanish overnight. It’s why these woman do not report the story to the police because they know there is no rational basis for their fear claim they would be physically hurt if they said no.

Btw most rapists who kill their victims will flat out tell you the victim didn’t put up any defense at all. Most rapists who beat their victims and backed up by the victim also report that their victims didn’t resist but instead cried and begged not to be hurt.

Also the claim that not fighting back is best is bad. It’s bad for the victim in court.


http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/self-defense.html flat out states most studies show it is better for a woman to resist often preventing the rape and if the rape is carried out there is often no risk of more physical injury. In other words a woman is more likely to be injured if she doesn’t resist.

http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=POLICE&p;=/selfdefense/

Comment #109: tootiredoftheright  on  10/16  at  09:19 PM

PP wrote:

I can’t speak for him, mythago, but I don’t think the situation described above would be considered rape in most states. This is because most states have what’s referred to as the force requirement - wherein an essential element of rape is the use of force or threat of force, against a woman capable of consent, in an act of sexual penetration. Absent that, in most states, it wasn’t rape.

You’re assuming a lot that wasn’t in “the situation above.” Here’s what was described:

Oppomax, one of the stories I saw on-line was a woman letting a drinking ex-boyfriend into her house when she was alone.  She realized too late it was either fight or let him do it to get rid of him.  She didn’t fight, and it was rape.

The only thing we know is that she felt she had no choice other than fighting him off. But in no state is it necessary for the victim to attempt to physically fight with the rapist, for it to be legally rape.

You’re assuming that the drunk ex-boyfriend didn’t use physical force at all, and didn’t make or imply any threats of force. But the example doesn’t tell us one way or the other. I think it’s quite plausible that the ex did threaten force, one way or another, because otherwise she probably wouldn’t have gotten the impression that fight or give in were her only choices.

I’ve always found this to be a particularly bizarre aspect of feminism - this notion that the actual legal definition of rape is somehow subordinate to their made-up definition.

30 years ago, in most states marital rape wasn’t rape. If feminists had followed your advice, and accepted that the then-existing legal definition of rape was the legitimate and best definition of rape, then the law would never have been changed, and it would still be legal today for husbands to rape their wives. Instead, feminists fought for a better definition of rape, and in time the law caught up.

Comment #110: Ampersand  on  10/17  at  06:01 AM

Tootired, I don’t believe you’ve answered my question yet: what does having/feeling an orgasm have to do with being raped, or feeling the physical after-effects of rape?

The Opoponax wrote:

Life is not an episode of Law & Order: SVU, asshole.

Precisely. It’s impossible to know how you (or anyone else) will react if placed in such a situation: fight back, manage to run away, or successfully call for help - or freeze, due to any number of paralysing emotions… fear, shock/disbelief, shame, disgust, despair, helplessness.

Just because a woman doesn’t immediately land a good right hook on her attacker, or because she eventually stops struggling and waits for it to be over, doesn’t mean a) she didn’t say no or b) it wasn’t a violation. I’m puzzled (but not surprised) that ‘not fighting back’ seems to be being conflated with ‘not saying no’ by the more wingnutty posters here. Oddly enough, sometimes some men don’t take ‘no’ for an answer no matter how loudly and frequently you shout it. Oddly enough, sometimes some victims are frightened than anything they do will just make the experience worse.

I’m with Ampersand (and others) on the need to continue campaigning for changes in the law that reflect the reality of women’s experience. On Wikipedia, I noticed this ruling, which seems to me the direction we should be heading in:

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word consent. It defined rape as: “a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.”

A rapist doesn’t have to be holding a knife to his victim’s throat to make an attack seem overwhelmingly terrifying and/or impossible to resist. It’s vile that women could be penalised for their simple, understandable fear.

Comment #111: Nic C  on  10/17  at  10:43 AM

The problem is a lot of stories about date rape is that there is nothing that the woman says leads to a reasonable fear of bodily harm, it’s irrational fear. Again if a woman says no to a man making an advance then most stories of date rape would vanish overnight. It’s why these woman do not report the story to the police because they know there is no rational basis for their fear claim they would be physically hurt if they said no.

I will repeat, your estimation of the security situation between men and women seems naive to me. Do some women have over-paranoid views of date rape? Perhaps. However, your claims about the irrationality of rape fear, and the supposed ease with which rapes should be reported by women to the police, seem over-optimistic, even downright panglossian. Rather than dismissing fears, you should make a point of attempting to understand why people may be afraid—only in this way will you emerge with a realistic view of security.

Comment #112: atheist  on  10/17  at  11:47 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.