The rape culture thread.

[NodmiTheSellout]

What a sunny topic! OK, let's start out with what the idea of rape culture isn't.

It isn't an argument that someone will, say, listen to a song depicting rape and respond, "You know, that sounds like a good idea. I think I'm going to go out and rape!"

Rather, rape culture refers to the many, many things that diminish the severity of rape, undermine consent, and otherwise pretend the line of what is and isn't rape is "blurry", that people--particularly women--default to 'consent' and if they were too scared to say 'no' then they consented, etc.. It's the habit of people/articles/etc. advising women how to protect themselves against rape, but not advising men of how to properly obtain consent, that women's bodies aren't something earned through taking them out to dinner, etc.. It's news articles that refer to rape as 'having sex', even in the most blatant examples of rape.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20100427_Ex-schoolmate_admits_raping_teen_who_died_after_booze _binge.html
Kierra Johnson, 15, lived a turbulent life that ended in a haze of alcohol and sexual violence on the afternoon of March 7, 2008.

Yesterday, the second young man involved in her death by alcohol poisoning quietly pleaded guilty in a Philadelphia courtroom, as his co-defendant had done in February.

Shareef Clemons, 18, who, if found guilty at trial, could have spent decades behind bars, agreed to plead guilty to rape, conspiracy, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and simple assault in exchange for a six-to-12-year state prison term, plus five years' probation.

Clemons will be formally sentenced July 28 by Common Pleas Judge Ellen Ceisler, who revoked his bail yesterday and placed him in custody.

Co-defendant Juan Williams, 19, who was prepared to testify against Clemons at trial, will be sentenced by Ceisler May 4.

"We're glad that it ended in a nontrial disposition so that the family didn't have to sit through a trial and listen to all the details of Kierra's last moments of life," Assistant District Attorney Eileen Hurley said after the brief hearing.

Johnson, of East Germantown, gave birth at age 14 and was expelled by the school district to Community Education Partners, a disciplinary school in North Philadelphia, after she was caught having sex on school grounds.

She, Clemons and Williams attended the school, although the boys did not know Johnson.

They met for the first time while waiting at a bus stop on the morning of March 7, 2008, when all three should have been in school.

Clemons, who was 16, and Williams, then 17, didn't even know Johnson's name but recognized her school uniform, they later would tell police.

The trio ended up at Williams' house on Crowson Street near Church Lane, East Germantown, where they drank vodka, wine, peach schnapps and rum.

When Johnson passed out on the living-room sofa, the boys carried her down the basement stairs and placed her on a weightlifting bench, Hurley told the judge.

They put on condoms and took turns having sex with Johnson, who was vomiting and drifting in and out of consciousness.

Clemons also had unprotected anal sex with Johnson, and his DNA was recovered from the victim's body, Hurley said.

The city medical examiner later that day determined that her blood-alcohol level was .433 - rendering her unable to consent to sexual intercourse. That level is also nearly five times above the legal limit to drive a car. When Williams' mother returned home, he ran out the back door, and Clemons told her before fleeing that he and Williams had been in the basement lifting weights. Williams' mother found Johnson unconscious, partly clothed and dangling from the weightlifting bench.

That they put 'rape' in the article heading is pretty uncommon as it it, but you can't "take turns having sex" with someone who is so drunk that she can't function and is about to die from alcohol poisoning. You take turns raping a woman in that state. PS: Rape culture is also going out of your way to paint the victim as immoral and who probably "had it coming", because women who live a certain lifestyle practically rape themselves, y'know.

As for the depiction of rape in entertainment, rather than in news stories. . .this is where I kind of falter. I think there is no problem with me, my friends, etc., consuming material which depicts rape as laughable or sexy (or as an appropriate comparison to something mild, i.e. "that tax bill is raping me") so long as we're aware that it's happening, and not pretending that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the message it's sending. I know the difference between fiction and life, and know that if someone's raped in real life, there's nothing "hot" about it, and there's nothing funny about touching a drunk girl/stealing her underwear/whatever no matter how awkward and pathetic the guy doing it is. Many people who recognize objectionable things in entertainment feel they have to stop watching it, supporting it, etc., but I can't do that. . .because uhm, if I stopped listening to every band with a lyric that diminished rape (or illustrated some other sort of bias), I'd have about two bands I could still listen to. MAYBE.

Overall, I'm more offended by disgusting advertising than music--I exempt art in many cases because if that isn't an appropriate outlet for ugly sentiments, what is? You can't expect everyone to have nothing but pure, progressive thoughts 24/7, and it's better to sing about them than act on them. Of course when the songs are merely glorifying an ongoing lifestyle of dehumanizing women, then. . .eh. Most of the offending songs I listen to are about things that the singer would never do, they're stories or fantasies ("Someone less privileged than you should rape you"). If they were different from that, if they seemed to be about treating women like shit in actuality, I wouldn't listen--and there's been cases where that's happened.

Anyway, I'm ranty and don't make for a coherent argument. . .so go for it.

[Hobbs]

How is rape depicted in advertisement?

[Fryk]

Couldn't you argue that advertising, in itself, is an art form?

[NodmiTheSellout]

How is rape depicted in advertisement?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j48Z0Ns3Bk4

Rape, when depicted in advertisement, is written off as "funny and playful". Because women not feeling secure in their own bodies, feeling vulnerable on a base level like that--it's hilarious.

Objectification of women is also a large part of rape culture (if women are simply objects, why should their consent be respected?), so I don't think I need to point you to the three million things companies use women's bodies to sell.

Couldn't you argue that advertising, in itself, is an art form?

You could. But it's not an art form in the same way that other things are art forms. It has a motive, to sell; it's an expression of why [product] is great and you should buy it. Whereas the things I mention exist for expression and entertainment. Not to mention, it's not only men who purchase things. In fact, in a lot of families, women do most of the shopping--shopping for food, for cleaning products, stopping at fast-food places in between such shopping trips, etc.. So when a commercial clearly doesn't even consider women when it's being made, it's alienating a huge chunk of its customer base. Which is just a bad idea. Many women will buy the products anyway, just because they're necessary for whatever reason, but advertising without insinuating that, for instance, women just loooove cleaning so goddamn much if they have [product], would probably be more effective. I understand that the intended message in many cleaning commercials is "this product means you're finished cleaning faster, and it's done better, too!", but it gets muddled up with imagery insinuating that women do nothing but clean and do shit for their kids.

[Red Panda]

I always thought it was a bit odd how rape in Rescue Me never was a relationship killer. In one case it actually helped the relationship.

[Hobbs]

That's not rape. That's voyeurism. The two are both crimes, but there are strict differences between them. As it is, it's not glorifying rape, nor objectifying women. It's using (albeit an odd method) to get a message across. If it had been a man showering, would you have raised such a fuss? Anyone would be uncomfortable knowing a group or even one person was watching them shower. In this case, I think you'd need a lesson from Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I've never even seen this advertisement, when was it aired?

[Fryk]

Ah, but art is a form of communication... and all communication is persuasion at heart. Like advertising is.

I I agree with Hobbs that that commercial isn't a form of rape. But it IS objectifying, and even as a guy I found it creepy.

[Hyena Dandy]

I agree the ad is creepy, but I don't think its rape, and I don't think its INTENDED to be fun and playful. The idea was to scare you with the idea of what you were putting in the bath. And that was just what they did. You're SUPPOSED to be disturbed.

[NodmiTheSellout]

It was intended as a bit of playful fun. There was a huge shitstorm over it across all sorts of feminist blogs (hence why it's on YouTube and not Method's website), and they used almost exactly that phrase to describe it. Apparently the fact that they're cartoon bubbles makes it hilarious.

Anyway, it's rare that actual rape is depicted in commercials, though it's certainly insinuated in, say, security commercials--notice that most of them contain terrified women talking to such soothing men. . .if you don't get our security system, A MAN WILL COME IN AND RAPE YOU. Of course they can't say that and hope to get on the air, so. . .

Again, rape culture isn't even about actual depiction of rape in media. It's about how media portrays the relationship between women and men--it's how it encourages male entitlement to female bodies, tries its damnedest to reduce rape down to "sex she regretted", paints "It's not rape, it's SURPRISE SEX!" as funny and witty, and similar things of that sort. Really, the most blatant example, in my view, is how courts and newspapers handle a rape case. Did you know it's impossible to rape a woman wearing tight pants? (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rape-of-woman-in-skinny-jeans-not-possible-20100430-tzai.html) Because there's absolutely no other way that a woman who doesn't want to fuck might be persuaded to take off her pants.

EDIT: Something just occurred to me about advertising and why I regard it as different from music. . .at least the music I listen to. The music I listen to isn't designed to appeal to a large audience. The people making it more or less acknowledge that the creation of their music is a selfish act, in large part, and they're kind of just lucky that people enjoy it. So, it's a product inasmuch as it's something they sell to make money, but it's not a product in that it's a reasonable desire that huge, varied groups of people will buy it. This isn't me trying to say people who like popular music are brainless consumers or any such snobby bullshit. . .I just think there's something more malicious in writing/executing something that objectifies women, glorifies unwanted male aggression, slyly blames women for the crimes perpetrated against them, etc., when you begin the process with "How can I sell this to as many people as possible?" Because then you're using people's misogyny as a marketing tool and. . .eugh. It's just gross.

[Hobbs]

Anyway, it's rare that actual rape is depicted in commercials, though it's certainly insinuated in, say, security commercials--notice that most of them contain terrified women talking to such soothing men. . .if you don't get our security system, A MAN WILL COME IN AND RAPE YOU. Of course they can't say that and hope to get on the air, so. . .


OF course that's the message of ADT/Broadview/etc. They're trying to market and sell a product about defending from home invasion/crimes. So of course they're going to give worst-case scenarios. Although, most of the ones I've seen depict home invasions, I have seen one about a stalker-ish ex-boyfriend.

[NodmiTheSellout]

My point is that they don't have to use the woman alone crap all the time. They can use men, men WITHOUT borderline hysterical wives/girlfriends. I can't remember a single commercial depicting a single man though. Some depict single women or mothers, some depict married or dating couples. . .but apparently a man is never vulnerable. Because men don't have valued personal possessions and can wake up out of a dead sleep and drop an intruder, y'know.

[Hobbs]

It's still a marketing ploy. The people who most likely buy burglar alarms are new homeowners, newlyweds, new parents, etc. So the marketing trend is to show that a family is vulnerable w/o the anti-theft system. The absent-husband is part of the ploy; "They can get your family when you can't protect them." Despite the "advances" of equal-rights, I would presume most, if not all, men still feel protective of their wives and children. People aren't meant to act rational in these commercials, because the point is to sell the product.

By the way, in the same corollary, I've seen commercials for Krav Maga that show both men and women taking the classes.

[Fryk]

So you're saying the music you like to listen to gets a free pass because not a lot of people like it? Hogwash. That just means that less people listen to their misogyny, that's all.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The less pessimistic side of me wants to think that's why fewer people listen to them... but that side can fuck off, given the circumstances. I don't distinguish between widely and narrowly heard messages. What you put out there is on you, regardless of how many people it reaches. More listeners may worsen the situation, but you're no less a scumbag for putting it out there/preaching it.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Nah, it mostly gets a free pass because it's either a. a highly fictional environment (as opposed to, say, a song that purports to be a document of how the singer's relationships with women actually go), b. highly self-aware, kind of satirical or c. it's not misogynistic so much as the context in which rape is mentioned is kind of iffy (i.e., is rape an appropriate metaphor for anything? some people believe rape should only describe, well, rape), which is a specific case--and that particular musician has been much closer to the topic of rape than I ever have, so I'm not going to tell him how to express himself in that regard. I don't have some magical, transcendent authority on the subject of rape just by being a woman.

But I do think there's a difference between songs written by the artist performing them and, say, songs written by some professional songwriter to be performed by someone else. Because in that case I can't chalk it down to telling someone how to express themselves--their first thought is "does this sell?". There's something more insidious about selling misogyny than, say, being kind of a fuckface who can't handle a breakup and writes songs about killing women as a way of dealing with it.

As for the suggestion that it's the misogyny that puts people off. . .are you serious? Misogyny is all over popular music, measuring women's worth by how fuckable they are, etc..There's only one musician I listen to where it's so prominent that I can see it turning people off, and that's the one where he's sort of created this hyper-sexual character to play with; it's intended to illustrate a certain mindset to the extreme, not condone it. He makes it so cartoonish that there's just no way it's meant to represent his views about women.

[Hobbs]

misogyny

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

misogyny
[misoj′inē]
Etymology: Gk, misein, to hate, gyne, women
an aversion to women. misogynist, n., misogynistic, adj

[NodmiTheSellout]

I think you're picking and choosing dictionary definitions, because most of them say "hatred, dislike or mistrust." It's used as an umbrella term for oppressive attitudes toward women, in most cases. Which reducing women down to their sexual usefulness definitely is.

Many songs I listen to contain misogyny in the form of "I hate the power a woman has when I'm so attracted to her, she needs to die" or "A woman so beautiful can't be trusted to exist in such an ugly world, I gotta kill her", i.e., ugly sentiments that a good progressive would probably refrain from consuming. I admit that my logic of giving it a free pass because it's a bit more over the top than the ridiculous way romance is painted in pop items (i.e. Twilight) or sex-without-romance is addressed (objectifying media like certain songs or certain kinds of pornography) isn't very sound. What it comes down to is, I like these musicians, the songs entertain me, and I don't want to stop listening to them to prove a point. Which makes me something of a poor progressive, compared with those who hear something like that and stop listening immediately. I admit that. People ain't perfect. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the criticisms and can't admit their validity.

[Hobbs]

What it comes down to is, I like these musicians, the songs entertain me, and I don't want to stop listening to them to prove a point. Which makes me something of a poor progressive, compared with those who hear something like that and stop listening immediately. I admit that. People ain't perfect. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the criticisms and can't admit their validity.

Pardon my saying so, but it makes you a hypocrite.

[Fryk]

Ok, cool. I'll buy that. I have to say, your line of thinking and your explanation are more refreshing to me than I lot of BS hypocrisy I hear coming from the mouth of 'progressives'.

The thing I tought about with that commercial and what you said is that it's not the commercial itself to me that's the problem. It's the thinking behind its being made in the first place. Am I correct in thinking that's where you're saying the problem is?

[NodmiTheSellout]

Re: Fryk, yes, that's the gist of it.

Re:Hobbs, I can live with that. Someone who claims not to be a hypocrite in anything ever is probably lying to themselves. I am a hypocrite for consuming media that is problematic, while knowing it is problematic. Other people are hypocrites for, say, campaigning against gay rights while themselves being homosexual. One is kind of not cool--the other actively oppresses people. In the grand scheme of hypocrites, I'm not even a blip.

[Hobbs]

Re: Fryk, yes, that's the gist of it.

Re:Hobbs, I can live with that. Someone who claims not to be a hypocrite in anything ever is probably lying to themselves. I am a hypocrite for consuming media that is problematic, while knowing it is problematic. Other people are hypocrites for, say, campaigning against gay rights while themselves being homosexual. One is kind of not cool--the other actively oppresses people. In the grand scheme of hypocrites, I'm not even a blip.
I just don't see how you can be so vehemently obtuse to others when you yourself consume the same type of media. Also, why does it seem only bad to have women-hating songs? There are tons of man-hating ones, but I don't here you complaining about that.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Where am I saying no one can consume it? I'm saying it's got problematic messages and it's up to the individual how they deal with that. I deal with that by consuming what I want to consume, but not dismissing the criticisms against it.

Also, I'm not "complaining" about man-hating songs because I don't know of any off the top of my head. I'm sure they exist, but I barely watch TV and have classic rock radio on in the car, so I don't know about them. Unless you count self-loathing songs written by men as "man-hating", none of the musicians I listen to are guilty of that--not even the few female ones. If they concern you, then talk about them. Me, I can only address what I know about. I don't sit around all day listening to every new release, looking for something objectionable in it. I'm someone who has opinions about the shit that comes to my attention, I'm not some kind of professional progressive or whatever the hell I'd have to be to know about everything problematic in the world ever. I know that I go for a walk and hear "Fuck that bitch, fuck that bitch in the ass, unh, you know what you're good for, yeah" (not a direct transcription obviously) played at street-shaking volumes in a car, and I don't hear "Bring me home some money, be a real man!" in that context (though I imagine there's probably some of that sentiment in country music, maybe?).

Overall, rigid gender roles - whose reinforcement is often what makes offensive lyrics offensive - aren't good no matter which gender they're trying to enforce. Men shouldn't feel wrong for expressing emotions, asking for help, not being good at sports or fixing shit, whatever--just like women shouldn't feel wrong for not wanting kids, for not abiding by the rules of sexual desirability and availability for men, for not being "ladylike", etc. (I kind of have a hard time articulating the things that form gender roles). Both are wrong, it's just that one role tends toward creating power and the other tends toward creating reliance, so the latter's kind of getting the short end of the stick. Getting rid of ridiculous gendered expectations would surely help things along a great deal.

[Hobbs]

What about songs where women are using their sexuality as a way of gaining power and independence from men? Are those still wrong, even though they resort to bringing the issue to being solely about sexual/physical attractiveness?

[Fryk]

See, Hobbs, I see those artists, and those songs in particular, as the worst part of all of it. Dumb guys get the message they want to hear reenforced by the gender in question!

[NodmiTheSellout]

What do you mean by that, Hobbs? Are you talking about women celebrating lesbianism? You'd need to give an example, I listen to about a dozen bands or some such bullshit, I'm fairly ignorant to music that's not thrown in my face (commercials, on the street, admittedly when it's addressed in a feminist blog, etc.).

If it's about using their sexuality as a way to control men, then I think it's. . .not exactly cool, but an understandable reaction to the sexual environment. I won't condone it but I don't feel comfortable condemning it either.

[Hobbs]

What do you mean by that, Hobbs? Are you talking about women celebrating lesbianism? You'd need to give an example, I listen to about a dozen bands or some such bullshit, I'm fairly ignorant to music that's not thrown in my face (commercials, on the street, admittedly when it's addressed in a feminist blog, etc.).

If it's about using their sexuality as a way to control men, then I think it's. . .not exactly cool, but an understandable reaction to the sexual environment. I won't condone it but I don't feel comfortable condemning it either.
Could you please not curse? I'm speaking nicely.

I mean songs like "Single Ladies," "You Oughta Know" "Before he Cheats" to name a few. Only one is technically considered "country."

I agree Fryk, but from what I can gather from Nodmi (pardon if I get this wrong) it is an assumption that only men are capable of being sexist.

[Fryk]

Even better. What I get from her last post is "Women can be sexist, too, but it's totally cool and understandable when they do it."

[Hobbs]

Even better. What I get from her last post is "Women can be sexist, too, but it's totally cool and understandable when they do it."
Hmm, you're right Fryk. I hadn't thought of it that way.

[lordlundar]

Although, most of the ones I've seen depict home invasions, I have seen one about a stalker-ish ex-boyfriend.

That one was actually modified. There's no mention of an ex-boyfriend in it now.

[NodmiTheSellout]

About the profanity. . .sorry, I guess? It's not meant to offend or anything, it's just the way I type. Which should be clear considering that I'm using "bullshit" to refer to my narrow taste in music, not anything you've said. Funny that this is a thread about messages in media, and you seem on the side insinuating that too much is being read into it. . .yet you choose to get offended by the mere presence of profanity - profanity that doesn't even rely on anything actually offensive, but a four-letter word that is arbitrarily "bad" - in a post. WEIRD.

Regarding "it's OK if women are sexist". . .no. I specifically said it was not cool, but that it's understandable in an environment so obsessed with rigid gender roles, etc. etc.. Just like I think it isn't cool to use rape as a metaphor for things that aren't rape, but I understand it. It's not cool to fantasize about killing women because you got your heart broken or whatever, but I understand it. I think sentiments like "all men are cheaters" or "all men are assholes" - I'm assuming those are what's expressed in the mentioned songs - are ridiculous and don't do anything for equality. Two wrongs don't make a right, blah blah.

I don't think female power should be measured by how loudly she can call a man - or "men" - an asshole, without acknowledging the forces that, well, encourage men to be assholes. Which I'm not sure I feel is an appropriate topic for a song. Not that I'm saying no one should write songs about whatever social/political cause strikes their fancy, just that I think a lot of the time it's very awkward to hear people preach shit like that in music. They only get a free pass if their music as a whole is entertaining (which is why I can listen to Refused and not The Lost Patrol Band, for instance).

That's all my subjective opinion of course. . .my point is that I don't expect deep political statements to be made in music. Especially not in pop music (some bands do manage to make moving statements about power and oppression without being expressly a political band, like Swans). And since they're not going to take that level of care, to try and express themselves in a sober, constructive way, rather than in a way that's just going to encourage distrust among human beings, it's irresponsible.

But I do think there's a difference between "I was wronged by a member of this gender, I'm pissed and writing a song, fuck 'em all!" and songs that don't really sprout from any emotional place that I can tell, they're just talking about women in this gross, objectifying way.

Hell, I'll use examples from a musician I like, in general, just some routes his sexism takes I can't listen to, others I can. Nick Cave. Back in the 80s/90s, his sexist sentiments took a road like this:
I cannot blame it all on her
To blame her all would be a lie
For many a night I lay awake
And wished that I could watch her die
See her accusing finger spurt
See flies swarm her hateful eye
To watch her groaning in the dirt
See her clicking tongue crack dry

And although I can objectively acknowledge an undesirable sexist sentiment ("wahh, she doesn't approve of everything I do, that bitch needs to die!"), that strikes me as the sort of shit one writes when bitter about a breakup. It's an emotional reaction, and those aren't always uhh, morally sound, let's say. I can excuse it because he's writing this shit in a song, he's not enacting it on anyone. Ugly, yes. So ugly that I can't appreciate the fire it gives the song? No.

What I can't listen to is some of his newer stuff, for having lyrics like this:
then a black girl with no clothes on
danced across the room
we charted the progress of the planets
around that boogie-woogie moon
I called her my nubian princess
I gave her some sweet-back bad-ass jive
I spent the next seven years between her legs
pining for my wife

because there's a way the songs talk about women that's changed. It's much more casual, describing women as sexual trophies to be won with flattering words (more obvious if I quoted the rest of that song, that pops up in other songs too), which is something I'm just not comfortable with, I can't listen to it.

Overall I don't get on a huge soapbox about sexism in music, as much as I'd get on it about sexism in news reporting (as in the original post) or sexism in advertisement, precisely because of my unequal judgment about it. Some kinds of sexism in music bother me, some don't. If I'm going to give any of it an objective free pass, then all of it should have that. But subjectively, yes, I'm going to acknowledge that I can abide by some sexism and not others. I'll pick my brains about it but ultimately, I acknowledge that there is not some high moral logic behind why I can listen to "LET'S GO KILL IVY!!" and not "I saw this sexy girl...and this sexy girl...and this sexy girl...hey baby, let's do it".

[Hobbs]

About the profanity. . .sorry, I guess? It's not meant to offend or anything, it's just the way I type. Which should be clear considering that I'm using "bullshit" to refer to my narrow taste in music, not anything you've said. Funny that this is a thread about messages in media, and you seem on the side insinuating that too much is being read into it. . .yet you choose to get offended by the mere presence of profanity - profanity that doesn't even rely on anything actually offensive, but a four-letter word that is arbitrarily "bad" - in a post. WEIRD.


I know the Site Rules say a little profanity is okay, but personally, I feel that once someone brings profanity into a conversation, you start to debase the merits of the argument. I was merely asking for your respect.

I think you are reading too much into it. The fact that you're offended at the media not using a four-letter word to describe a crime...WEIRD.

[AdminAssistant]

I think you are reading too much into it. The fact that you're offended at the media not using a four-letter word to describe a crime...WEIRD.

Language is important, as you have acknowledged in regards to profanity. Having sex is not a crime. Rape is. Sexual activity without consent = RAPE.

One of the issues with the media/arts/culture is the promotion of rape myths. "She had it coming" if she was wearing revealing clothing, flirtatious, or intoxicated. "She's just a slut" if she has a reputation of being sexually active. And, here's the fun one, even if she was passed out, if the last thing she did was interpreted by the male as consent, then it isn't rape. Ain't that fun? Or, another fun one, "real rape". It's only "real rape" if the attacker is violent, the victim puts up enough of a struggle, and is beaten. So, "have sex with me or I'll kill you", is not rape, according to that myth.

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me." See Spring Awakening: The Musical for a wonderful example. Yes, she says yes, after saying no repeatedly. The whole scene is depicted sooooo romantically, and the musical is extremely popular with the 14-21 crowd. It scares me...how many girls will become convinced that Melchior's behavior is acceptable? (And what really pisses me off is that the whole musical stomps on what Wedekind was trying to say, that adults should not oppress their children.)

Plus, rape as depicted in the media is almost exclusively heteronormative (man rapes woman). While that's the majority of cases, men can be raped by both women and men, and women can be raped by other women.

[Boozy]

I know the Site Rules say a little profanity is okay, but personally, I feel that once someone brings profanity into a conversation, you start to debase the merits of the argument. I was merely asking for your respect.

"Bullshit" is pretty vanilla as far as swear words go.

Sorry, but as you said, Fratching does not prohibit cursing. If you feel that a member's potty mouth is upsetting your sensibilities, put them on "Ignore". You can't really ask them to stop doing something that the forum and it's administrators allow.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I know the Site Rules say a little profanity is okay, but personally, I feel that once someone brings profanity into a conversation, you start to debase the merits of the argument. I was merely asking for your respect.

I don't agree. I feel that profanity - at least words like "shit" or "fuck" - doesn't do anything but add color or passion into an argument, UNLESS those words are pointed AT the person you're arguing with, in which case, I agree with you. I didn't say "fuck you", I didn't call anything you said "some bullshit argument", I'm using it as a descriptive for either a. vague things or b. specific things relating to myself.

The use of profane words and a subsequent desire to discourage or censor the use of those words is a different topic, though. If it concerns you, make a topic about it--I'm done here. Expect me to drop the f-bomb occasionally, too, and live with it. I'm clearly capable of expressing myself without those words, but I like them, so I use them sometimes. It's a valid choice and I intend to keep making it, hopefully without someone telling me how I'm allowed to express myself. Unless your issue is a woman's right to choose. . .;);) (WINK!).

Language is important, as you have acknowledged in regards to profanity. Having sex is not a crime. Rape is. Sexual activity without consent = RAPE.

One of the issues with the media/arts/culture is the promotion of rape myths. "She had it coming" if she was wearing revealing clothing, flirtatious, or intoxicated. "She's just a slut" if she has a reputation of being sexually active. And, here's the fun one, even if she was passed out, if the last thing she did was interpreted by the male as consent, then it isn't rape. Ain't that fun? Or, another fun one, "real rape". It's only "real rape" if the attacker is violent, the victim puts up enough of a struggle, and is beaten. So, "have sex with me or I'll kill you", is not rape, according to that myth.

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me." See Spring Awakening: The Musical for a wonderful example. Yes, she says yes, after saying no repeatedly. The whole scene is depicted sooooo romantically, and the musical is extremely popular with the 14-21 crowd. It scares me...how many girls will become convinced that Melchior's behavior is acceptable? (And what really pisses me off is that the whole musical stomps on what Wedekind was trying to say, that adults should not oppress their children.)

Plus, rape as depicted in the media is almost exclusively heteronormative (man rapes woman). While that's the majority of cases, men can be raped by both women and men, and women can be raped by other women.

I agree with this entirely. This is what I'm trying (and was failing) to get at. Thank you, more articulate person.

[Boozy]

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me." See Spring Awakening: The Musical for a wonderful example. Yes, she says yes, after saying no repeatedly. The whole scene is depicted sooooo romantically, and the musical is extremely popular with the 14-21 crowd. It scares me...how many girls will become convinced that Melchior's behavior is acceptable?

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this.

I've never seen Spring Awakening, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds that this Melchior did not proceed until he had obtained consent.

This is NOT date rape.

"You would if you loved me" is not bullying. Bullying is threatening physical harm. I would even be receptive to arguments that bullying could involve intense psychological manipulation and lying, to some degree. But "you would if you loved me?" This isn't bullying, this is whining.

I don't like to see women infantilized. A man is allowed to try to convince a woman to change her mind. A woman is allowed to change her mind in response to those arguments.

No doubt consenting is sometimes a bad choice for women. But I feel it's important to recognize when it IS a choice. Women can make mistakes, and they have to own them.

Putting on the shoulders of a man and demonizing him; what good does that do? Do we not teach women that they are responsible for their own sexual choices? This means they might make bad ones. They can't then turn around and blame the participant with the penis.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this.

I've never seen Spring Awakening, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds that this Melchior did not proceed until he had obtained consent.

This is NOT date rape.

"You would if you loved me" is not bullying. Bullying is threatening physical harm. I would even be receptive to arguments that bullying could involve intense psychological manipulation and lying, to some degree. But "you would if you loved me?" This isn't bullying, this is whining.

I don't like to see women infantilized. A man is allowed to try to convince a woman to change her mind. A woman is allowed to change her mind in response to those arguments.

Women can make mistakes, and I agree (to an extent) that a man can try to convince a woman to change her mind. However, when you're laying prone and the man is on top of you, and you feel that if you don't, then he'll leave you, then that's wrong. Especially when talking about teenage girls, I don't think they should be pressured into sex in any way whatsoever. Consent should not be a product of fear or ignorance.

As far as Spring Awakening: The Musical goes, here is the scene in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzo5YW3aYfY (And yes, that is what's-her-face and what's-his-face from Glee)

[NodmiTheSellout]

. . .so you're going to blame the woman for succumbing to an emotionally manipulative phrase like "you would if you loved me", more so than the man who seeks to manipulate her that way? Sexual coercion like that is NOT OK. It is NOT OK to constantly hound a woman who doesn't want to have sex to have sex. This is the whole "I am entitled to sex" thing that I made reference to sometimes, and it's a hurtful place to start out from. People regard consent as the default state of sexuality. As in, "This person is prepared to have sex, there is some reason this person does not want to have sex WITH ME." So, since this person is clearly just "holding out", it's fair to "convince" - manipulate, often - them to consent. Which is just fucking selfish and wrong, never mind the ickiness of coercing someone into sexual activity they didn't want to be having in the first place.

(Be aware that there's crude description of pornography in the following paragraph.)

Often, people (let's be honest, it's usually men, but I am in no way saying that ALL MEN are like this) fail to realize that sex is not just about what THEY want. The media doesn't do much to dissuade this attitude in men. "Women's magazines" (in quotes to reference stuff like Cosmo, as opposed to, say, a feminist publication) that address sex will have infinitely more articles about how to please a man than how to convince that man to please you--men's magazines will have more articles about how to dress, how to carry yourself, how to speak, and "obtain a hot girl" that way, than they will articles about how to make a woman orgasm. Pornography will often spend ages showing a blowjob, then there will be a comparative two seconds of oral attention to the woman (MAYBE) before there's a bit of intercourse and then he blows his load all over her chest. And that's what's painted as sexy, for both men and women--men think that's what a successful fuck goes like, women think that's what should be expected, and it's all ridiculous. (PS: On the expectations of men, too--a man doesn't need a huge dick to please a woman, since most women aren't going to be brought to orgasm by penetration alone anyway.) Women's enjoyment is devalued--all that matters is a man gets off. If you have to do very much convincing to get a woman in bed, you're doing it wrong--you're trying to make things sexual before she's ready, maybe, or you're disrespecting her right to just say "no, not in the mood, sorry". In certain contexts, convincing can be understandable (as a gradual introduction of sexual elements to someone who's uncomfortable with them, with full respect of her boundaries, for instance), but as a general rule. . .both parties should be enthusiastically consenting. If that isn't true, go masturbate--your hand isn't going to wind up feeling used and/or degraded because she said "yes" when she really just wanted to sit in bed and read.

[Greenday]

"You would if you loved me" is not bullying.

It IS emotional abuse though. And what if a guy keeps asking and asking until the woman feels like he's not leaving her with any other choice to get out of there until she has sex with him? That's still rape.

[Hobbs]

Language is important, as you have acknowledged in regards to profanity. Having sex is not a crime. Rape is. Sexual activity without consent = RAPE.


I still don't see why it's so important to have "rape" in the headline. Take the 7-year old discussed on another thread. Article didn't say "rape" but, hey I've gone to school and know how to make inferences. "Hey, that's rape," said I.

Nodmi, you're still not giving women any credit for the ability to MAKE CHOICES. You say that men are somehow to blame for every bad decision women make, which is utter, to borrow your term, BULLSHIT.

[Boozy]

. . .so you're going to blame the woman for succumbing to an emotionally manipulative phrase like "you would if you loved me", more so than the man who seeks to manipulate her that way?

"Moreso"? No. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think the guy in that situation is a total douche.

I think the woman in that situation simply has bad judgment that led her to consenting to sex with a douche.

But I just can't see it as rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I still don't see why it's so important to have "rape" in the headline. Take the 7-year old discussed on another thread. Article didn't say "rape" but, hey I've gone to school and know how to make inferences. "Hey, that's rape," said I.


It's important because, although the fact that it is rape is inferred, it is not enforced. The article I linked said "took turns having sex with Johnson", which isn't accurate. There is no "with" when there is not consent. There is "took turns sexually abusing Johnson", maybe "took turns penetrating Johnson", if you want to refer to the act--but she was not a participant in the act, thus, it did not occur "with" her; she became an object that was used for sexual gratification. In this instance, it is harmful because it suggests that it is possible to "have sex with" someone who is incapable of consenting. Rape of extremely intoxicated women is rather common and, logically, I would think even a bit underreported, since there's a lot of victim-blaming going around regarding drunk women. You know, "She shouldn't have drank so much that she passed out there", which is really nothing compared with "No one should look at a woman that drunk/a woman passed out and think "Mmm, I'm gonna fuck her!" There is really no use in doing that sort of blaming, it doesn't help anything.

Nodmi, you're still not giving women any credit for the ability to MAKE CHOICES. You say that men are somehow to blame for every bad decision women make, which is utter, to borrow your term, BULLSHIT.

I am. The situation we're discussing is one in which (extremely paraphrased, since people generally don't talk this way) a man says "Hey, let's have sex," the woman says, "I don't want to", and the man responds, "But I want to! It's been a long time. Please?" and it continues on for a bit until she goes, ". . .OK, if it'll make you happy." The woman is NOT to blame for failing to immediately recognize that the man she loves is completely selfish and doesn't respect her consent. She already MADE the decision--he chose not to respect that decision.

"Moreso"? No. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think the guy in that situation is a total douche.

I think the woman in that situation simply has bad judgment that led her to consenting to sex with a douche.

But I just can't see it as rape.

I think the woman in that situation felt she had to please the man she's in love with. He is emotionally forcing her hand--she loves him, so she feels she must do this. I believe manipulation to this degree is, at least, EXTREMELY rapey. It shares the same sentiment behind, say, a date rape--I don't care what she wants, I want to fuck her. It is a form of rape, even if it isn't one that is likely to win in court.

[the_std]

I think the woman in that situation felt she had to please the man she's in love with. He is emotionally forcing her hand--she loves him, so she feels she must do this. I believe manipulation to this degree is, at least, EXTREMELY rapey. It shares the same sentiment behind, say, a date rape--I don't care what she wants, I want to fuck her. It is a form of rape, even if it isn't one that is likely to win in court.

Hardly. The woman has the choice to say no, and to continue to say no, for as long as he asks. Emotional blackmail and coercion are tactics that men like that will use, but she still has the choice until he takes it away from her. Forcing a woman to have sex is rape. Taking away that choice is rape. But if the man will not do it until she says yes, that is not rape, as she still has a choice. Yeah, it's despicable on his part, but it is not rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

That level of manipulation makes her believe that her choice is taken away.

[the_std]

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

[NodmiTheSellout]

But the point is, a man uses that trick KNOWING that it will produce that reaction. The force necessary to rape someone is relative to the person being raped. A woman should not be blamed when a man preys on her weakness--he is still the predator. He is still the one doing the wrong thing.

[the_std]

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

[NodmiTheSellout]

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

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

[HYHYBT]

One of the issues with the media/arts/culture is the promotion of rape myths. "She had it coming" if she was wearing revealing clothing, flirtatious, or intoxicated. "She's just a slut" if she has a reputation of being sexually active. You don't want to go too far the other way either, though: I've read through arguments (I think the last was the comment area after an Amy Dickinson column) where the merest suggestion that it's a good idea for a woman to take certain precautions, like not walking alone in certain areas by herself at bad times of the day, or (I think this was what had happened in the letter) to avoid getting drunk at a frat party and going into a strange guy's bedroom with him, was exactly the same as blaming her for getting raped when she'd done so.

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

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

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

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

[AdminAssistant]

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

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

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

[the_std]

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

[AdminAssistant]

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

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

[NodmiTheSellout]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your version of the exchange would be mirrored like

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

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

[Rapscallion]

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

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

Rapscallion

[Kimmik]

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

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

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

[Hobbs]

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

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

then shortly after my divorce i dated a guy... he wanted to have sex.. I said no... he pleaded.. I said no... he got a little aggressive... I said yes.. not because I wanted to have sex but I was afraid of what would happen if I said no again.
This is not to make light of your position, but...the man you relented to felt he had consent. Therefore, you wouldn't have gone back and accused him of rape would you? I mean...do you feel he raped you? I'm pretty sure the guy doesn't feel that way. Of course, I am working on presumptions here and I in no way am trying to make light of your story.

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

[Fryk]

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

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

[Kimmik]

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

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

[Hobbs]

Actually yes he raped me.. scaring someone into sex is forcing yourself on someone. I feared that I would get hurt as he got aggressive. If he hadn't I would have walked off. But instead I laid there like a doll willing my mind anywhere but there at that moment.
How aggressive did he get. Did he raise his voice, threaten with a fist, etc? If not, he may percieve it as, "I won the argument," rather than "forcing" himself upon you. Please note, I'm not trying to excuse a rape, but it seems like some women call rape on a guy who felt he had obtained consent.

[NodmiTheSellout]

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

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

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

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

[Fryk]

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

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

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

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

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

[NodmiTheSellout]

Because people selfish enough to do that don't see their tactics as coersive, they see them as reasonable--because they are entitled to the sex, and the person denying them that sex is the one being unreasonable. The rapists who will say "Yeah, I raped her, I forced her, and???" are few and far between. I don't think the opinion of the person committing the act is terribly important because often, by committing the act in the first place, they fail to grasp the gravity of their decision, they fail to understand that what they're doing is, at best, severely disrespectful. The rapist's feelings on the matter don't make the victim's experiences any less traumatic. "But you said yes!!" isn't going to make her feel any better--in fact it's likely to make her feel worse. False rape accusations are much rarer than the "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN??" arguments really justify.

I mean whether a case like that can/should be successfully pursued in court is one matter but, morally, a man who does that is a rapist. Hell, who cares about 'should'--perfectly clear-cut rape cases can get thrown out if a woman dared to have consensual sex with anyone ever, so whether the law would persecute it isn't even worth anything.

[Fryk]

Because people selfish enough to do that don't see their tactics as coersive, they see them as reasonable--because they are entitled to the sex, and the person denying them that sex is the one being unreasonable. The rapists who will say "Yeah, I raped her, I forced her, and???" are few and far between. I don't think the opinion of the person committing the act is terribly important because often, by committing the act in the first place, they fail to grasp the gravity of their decision, they fail to understand that what they're doing is, at best, severely disrespectful. The rapist's feelings on the matter don't make the victim's experiences any less traumatic. "But you said yes!!" isn't going to make her feel any better--in fact it's likely to make her feel worse. False rape accusations are much rarer than the "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN??" arguments really justify.

I mean whether a case like that can/should be successfully pursued in court is one matter but, morally, a man who does that is a rapist. Hell, who cares about 'should'--perfectly clear-cut rape cases can get thrown out if a woman dared to have consensual sex with anyone ever, so whether the law would persecute it isn't even worth anything.

Here, I think we sort of agree. Yes, morally those guys are dispicable unevolved hominids, and they target the females that they know will cave to that sort of coersion. Legally, though, it just opens too biig a can of worms to go after these guys.

[kibbles]

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me."

I do not believe that is rape at all. If a man or woman gives in because someone says, "you would if you loved me" then that's it..that's their decision to give in.

I'm not talking about physical threats or threats on someone's life. But if someone says "you'd sleep with me if you loved me" and a person gives in..that's just as much on them as anything else.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Too bad not everyone is like that and, as Fryk said, people inclined toward that kind of manipulation are specifically targeted with it.

I just think that people really need to acknowledge that rape is "sexual activites performed upon a person without his/her consent" (paraphrased, but accurately so). Some places define it only as penetration, others define it as only vaginal penetration (wtf?), but those are clearly places that are in the wrong, here. The key is "sex without consent". If the "consent" is achieved only through manipulation, it is not consent, because given a fair situation (AKA "someone who actually cares for their partner as well as themselves"), the person would not have consented.

I know calling something rape is "extreme" and acknowledging how common something so "extreme" is is painful. . .but, well. That's why people really need to be taught about what is and is not consent, and what is and is not appropriate sexual behavior. Too bad that "inappropriate sexual behavior" is an idea owned by religious figures who pretty much hate any and all sex that doesn't result in a baby, and thus is something that people who have no problem with sex for pleasure, love, etc., have a knee-jerk negative reaction against. I understand that, but. . .sex without solid, genuine consent is inappropriate, in every situation. The person taking advantage of a wavering ghost of consent may not realize what they're doing, might not be a terrible person for it--but they're still doing a terrible thing.

[Hobbs]

Too bad not everyone is like that and, as Fryk said, people inclined toward that kind of manipulation are specifically targeted with it.

I just think that people really need to acknowledge that rape is "sexual activites performed upon a person without his/her consent" (paraphrased, but accurately so). Some places define it only as penetration, others define it as only vaginal penetration (wtf?), but those are clearly places that are in the wrong, here. The key is "sex without consent". If the "consent" is achieved only through manipulation, it is not consent, because given a fair situation (AKA "someone who actually cares for their partner as well as themselves"), the person would not have consented.

I know calling something rape is "extreme" and acknowledging how common something so "extreme" is is painful. . .but, well. That's why people really need to be taught about what is and is not consent, and what is and is not appropriate sexual behavior. Too bad that "inappropriate sexual behavior" is an idea owned by religious figures who pretty much hate any and all sex that doesn't result in a baby, and thus is something that people who have no problem with sex for pleasure, love, etc., have a knee-jerk negative reaction against. I understand that, but. . .sex without solid, genuine consent is inappropriate, in every situation. The person taking advantage of a wavering ghost of consent may not realize what they're doing, might not be a terrible person for it--but they're still doing a terrible thing.

The Definition of Rape, as it pertains to myself:

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

[Racket_Man]

I am going to post a story my Ex told me happened in her teenaged years.

She was babysitting for a couple while they had a night out. sometime during the evening a crazy man (I used this term for a specific reason which will become clear later) comes to the door beating on it demanding to be let in. he is demanding to see the wife of the couple my Ex was babysitting for. Ex told him to go away and she was calling the cops. this went on for a few minutes and she reaches for the phone to call the local police the guy crashes his truck through the front door, almost killing Ex. he then proceeds to beat the living shit outta Ex and rapes her repeatedly then leaves.

Couple comes home to find a wrecked house and Ex on the floor clinging to life. Ex manages to tell the cops what happened and who did this to her. Wife reocgnizes the mans name. he was someone she dated many years back but he was placed in a mental hospital for some reason.

it turns out the guy had been obsessed with wife and got really hung up on her and wanted her back. he escaped from the mental hospital and came to couple house for whatever reason.

NOW here is the twist. The wife would NOT press charges again crazy guy (unknown reason) and would NOT let the cops write out rape charges against crazy guy cause in her mind Ex had "enticed" crazy guy to do what he did. Even though Ex did everything right( kept the door closed and locked and tried to call the cops) she had to suffer for this woman's wierd state of denial.

here is an example of several people's "opinion" of what is rape
1. my Ex - got beat up and raped (classic situation) for doing nothing but what was right
2. the wife - Ex "enticed" or led crazy guy on so therefore no rape occured. crazy guy must have had a "good reason" to do what he did
3. grazy guy - well the wife/stalkee/former girlfriend was not there, I am really really frustrated/horny well I will take it out on any available female in the area
no matter what I have to do

result great bodily harm to Ex with no real recourse, couple denies everything and is ostrsized in the community and crazy guy just goes back to the padded cell farm with no punishment

[Hobbs]

Well, to be fair, the guy would have been put into the mental institute anyway. If he's crazy (and he seems so) he would be declared mentally unfit to stand trial. Still, it's shocking what that couple did.

[NodmiTheSellout]

The Definition of Rape, as it pertains to myself:

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.
So you're using the one that pretends a wife can never be raped by her husband. That's good to know! That particular law goes back to when wives were property, so they could be used by their husbands for sex at any time they saw fit, without worrying about being prosecuted for rape. Lovely example of rape culture even in law.

[Hobbs]

So you're using the one that pretends a wife can never be raped by her husband. That's good to know! That particular law goes back to when wives were property, so they could be used by their husbands for sex at any time they saw fit, without worrying about being prosecuted for rape. Lovely example of rape culture even in law.

It's not me...this is a quote from the UCMJ. In military law, concern is more towards the unit than personal law. Rape within a unit affects mission effectiveness, which if you didn't know, is our primary goal. No offense, but our job is to win wars, not placate to your sensibilities. Technically, a man can't have anal with his wife, either. I would think you'd at least appreciate that the death penalty can be used in a military rape-crime, seeing how evil men are:rolleyes:

I would think, however, that a man who raped his wife in the military would suffer something under Art. 133 and Art 134. The General Article (Art. 134) was made for the purpose of prosecuting crimes not inherently stated in the UCMJ.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Your post insinuated that that's the only definition you care about. Which makes the inclusion of "not his wife" worth noting.

I don't think rapists should be killed. I think rapists should be taught respect for fellow human beings.

[Hobbs]

Your post insinuated that that's the only definition you care about. Which makes the inclusion of "not his wife" worth noting.

I don't think rapists should be killed. I think rapists should be taught respect for fellow human beings.

Well, it kind of is the one I care about considering it's the one I'd be tried under and the one I will have to uphold.

Ah, so you only hate men a little:p

[Stormraven]

No, I'm sorry - I've tried to stay out of this thread, but his post clearly stated 'as it pertains to me'. Not 'as far as I'm concerned', or 'how I feel', and Hobbs has clearly indicated several times that he's a serving member of the armed forces. The UCMJ is the primary law that pertains to him, whatever he feels about the specifics.

In other words, or tl;dr, there's no insinuation there.

[NodmiTheSellout]

OK. In that case, I wonder why it's relevant, when the discussion had turned to moral definitions of rape. Which is what rape culture as an idea is primarily concerned about. I was talking about a moral definition of rape, and a dictionary definition of the word 'rape', which is different from a legal definition. To bring in a legal definition in the middle of that sort of sentiment. . .well, my conclusion was an easy mistake to make, I suppose.

[Hobbs]

OK. In that case, I wonder why it's relevant, when the discussion had turned to moral definitions of rape. Which is what rape culture as an idea is primarily concerned about. I was talking about a moral definition of rape, and a dictionary definition of the word 'rape', which is different from a legal definition. To bring in a legal definition in the middle of that sort of sentiment. . .well, my conclusion was an easy mistake to make, I suppose.

This so-called "culture" you seem to have in your head is a product of the legal and moral ramifications of the crime. In trying to find the military's moral stance, it is logical to find the legal definition and to try and find a common moral thread between the two.

[Nyoibo]

Even allowing the "they meet and fuck within two minutes" premise as a necessity for fantasy, it's just shitty that they can't be bothered to paint a realistic picture of female pleasure. Nope, she's getting fucked for three minutes and having a screaming orgasm from it. And people wonder why women feel compelled to fake it.


I'm sorry, you know all about female pleasure? I know several women who have "Met and fucked within 2 minutes" and do orgasm within a few minutes, a "realistic picture" of female pleasure would run the gamut from barely being touched and having an orgasm, to hours of foreplay, oral, intercourse and a bunch more thrown in.

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


Bolding mine.

You're talking about "Rape culture" and the cheapening of the term rape and you're using a word like rapey and saying things like "a bit rapey"? moreso than any other comment in this thread I found that the most offensive and cheapening.

Also on this subject of asking multiple times, getting an answer of no straight up is not always meant as no, sometimes no I'm not in the mood can be changed, a little bit of persuasion and such can be seduction and can be quite fun for both parties involved.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I know many, many women who are frustrated with that depiction of pleasure, because statistically, it isn't realistic. My inspiration for saying that came directly from a woman criticizing porn NOT from a feminist standpoint, but from the standpoint of a woman who, well, watches lots of porn. It doesn't take much internet searching at all to find tons of sex-positive women - even many who would scoff at being called a feminist - who say that orgasm just isn't a common product of the kind of sex that such porn portrays, for a woman.

As for the cheapening of the word 'rape' in that way. . .yeah, I should've said "pretty predatory" or something instead, but that's just a. . .I mean, it's the way it rolls off your tongue (or whatever), it's not cheapening the IDEA of rape the way that the other mentioned things do. It's not attacking the concept, it's just using the word in an accurate way that some people think looks weird. I don't think it's the same, but I understand why it's bothersome and will think of how I articulate myself with things like that in the future.

As for asking multiple times. . .this is why I said something to the effect of "ask WHY, don't just continually ASK". There's a difference between, "Let's have sex." "No." "I deserve sex!" "I don't want to." "But it's been so long!" "No." "You'd do it if you loved me!" ". . .*sigh* Fine." and seduction. Seduction usually does involve a "why??" of some shape or form.

[Racket_Man]

here is another stupid example from Aussie Land (sorry FireHeart)

http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/05/skinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case/?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl8|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2 F2010%2F05%2F05%2Fskinny-jeans-lead-to-acquittal-in-australian-rape-case%2F

another case of PERCEPTION not actual FACT

[jackfaire]

If rape by emotional blackmail is something that one can be convicted on doesn't that make all emotional blackmail illegal?

[Hobbs]

As for the cheapening of the word 'rape' in that way. . .yeah, I should've said "pretty predatory" or something instead, but that's just a. . .I mean, it's the way it rolls off your tongue (or whatever), it's not cheapening the IDEA of rape the way that the other mentioned things do. It's not attacking the concept, it's just using the word in an accurate way that some people think looks weird. I don't think it's the same, but I understand why it's bothersome and will think of how I articulate myself with things like that in the future.


So it's okay for you to cheapen the word...as long as it achieves your goals, am I interpreting that right? Making up a word like "rapey" cheapens it by making it sound like a nonsense word. It sounds like something Dr. Seuss would say...if he were a pedo, I suppose O_o

[NodmiTheSellout]

. . .it's a word. I didn't make it up, at least, I'm not the first person to type it in the world ever. Cheapening the WORD is different than cheapening the CONCEPT. I'll stop using it because I see why it's bothersome, but it's not inaccurate when speaking of predatory things. Saying you've been "raped" when losing at a video game, or that a tax "rapes" you because you lose ten cents a paycheck. . .that cheapens rape as a concept, not as a word.

If rape by emotional blackmail is something that one can be convicted on doesn't that make all emotional blackmail illegal?

Didn't say it was something someone should be convicted for. By nature, it's difficult to prosecute. But the perpetrator should definitely be held accountable for it, if only in a social way.

[Hobbs]

Didn't say it was something someone should be convicted for. By nature, it's difficult to prosecute. But the perpetrator should definitely be held accountable for it, if only in a social way.

Let's see...how does a society hold a perpetrator accountable? Oh, that's right, a trial. A trial by a jury of his/her peers in which factual evidence is presented to convict/aquit them.

[jackfaire]

.
Didn't say it was something someone should be convicted for. By nature, it's difficult to prosecute. But the perpetrator should definitely be held accountable for it, if only in a social way.

*nods* I can get behind that with any emotional blackmail there is usually a wariness of the person who engages in it and people less likely to trust that person.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Let's see...how does a society hold a perpetrator accountable? Oh, that's right, a trial. A trial by a jury of his/her peers in which factual evidence is presented to convict/aquit them.
I'm talking about getting ostracized by friends, losing the support of family, etc., when I say "in a social way".

[Fryk]

So a true amish shunning then?

So how does losing contact with one's entire support group lead to you being able to change your ways?

[Hobbs]

I think an Amish shunning is just as backwards as the thinking you're combatting, Nodmi.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I think you're trying to get me to be too specific about it. . .I don't think rapists cease to be human beings the moment they rape someone. Friends and family involved with the rapist and people around him should inform him of the nature of his behavior, why it's problematic, why he violated the woman in question with that behavior, etc. etc.. People shouldn't pretend it away, they should try to make him understand, and go to the good ol' shunning only if he refuses to believe he's in the wrong.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, and since we're talking about culture here, it would be helpful if the media didn't excuse that kind of emotional blackmail in sex. I want a Glee episode where the guy is trying to get her in bed, and she says, "NO!", kicks him in the crotch, and moves on.

[McDreidel09]

Friends and family involved with the rapist and people around him should inform him of the nature of his behavior, why it's problematic, why he violated the woman in question with that behavior, etc. etc.. People shouldn't pretend it away, they should try to make him understand, and go to the good ol' shunning only if he refuses to believe he's in the wrong.

Because talking to rapists about what they did will really help. If talking to the rapist helped, then they wouldn't have committed the crime, when their victim said no. Just as anyone who commits a crime, a rapist does not care about the person they hurt. For them, it was a power trip.

My rapist keeps changing his story about what happened. First he said that I didn't say stop. Then he acknowledged that I did tell him to stop, but he continued because I gave the okay for him to continue, which I did not. He was my boyfriend and I was in pain, so I told him to stop. He did not stop. I tried to struggle away and cried and he held me down and told me that I "needed to get used to it."

Do you honestly think sitting down and talking about what he did would really help someone like that?

[NodmiTheSellout]

Probably not, McDreidel09. But I also don't think anyone in this thread would try to justify what happened to you as not being rape. I was basically allowing them that there's such a thing as a rapist who doesn't know how they're hurting their victim. If such a person exists, then logically talking to them might help. Of course, the truth is that, as your example shows, even rapists do not think they are rapists--so their view on what is and isn't rape is not terribly relevant.

[jackfaire]

Well, and since we're talking about culture here, it would be helpful if the media didn't excuse that kind of emotional blackmail in sex. I want a Glee episode where the guy is trying to get her in bed, and she says, "NO!", kicks him in the crotch, and moves on.

I want episodes of tv shows to reveal emotional blackmail is wrong period. How about all the money you waste on family members who "really need it" and if you "reallly loved them" you would just help them out.

[Fryk]

I think you're trying to get me to be too specific about it. . .

When dealing with touchy subjects like this that, due to the discomforting nature of the subject, are usually left vaugue or half-defined anyway, there is NO such thing as too specific.

[kibbles]

I want episodes of tv shows to reveal emotional blackmail is wrong period. How about all the money you waste on family members who "really need it" and if you "reallly loved them" you would just help them out.

I'd like to see episodes of TV shows that didn't make or imply something is assault when it's clearly not. JMO.