Want to stop rape?

[pecunium]

Don't rape

It's not a great campaign, but the idea is sound. Men rape. Women don't need to change what they do, the people who rape them do.

Yes, I l know the arguments... people need to take care of their surroundings, not do stupid things, etc.

It's all true, and none of it is relevant to the real issue. No one will really say, "it was my fault" if I do something which increases my risk, and I get attacked.

Example: A kid was murdered down the block from me. The word on the street is he was killed over money. What money? Stuff he won in the illegal dice game the folks next door used to run (they stopped, just after the killing... I wonder why).

No one is blaming him for playing in the local game, nor for being on a streetcorner. They blame the people who shot him.

Which is as it should be. They also don't have campaigns up saying, "If you hang on the corner, you are asking to get shot/robbed/thumped." When the Klan rolls into town and beats someone for being "uppity" we (no longer) blame the victim.

But rape... we still do that. She was in the wrong bar. She went out alone. She wore, "provocative" clothing (which is to say, she wore clothes). She "led him on", etc.

All of it is nonsense.

Rape isn't a con-game. It's not a Nigerian scam. It's not a case of the victim being beguiled into doing something. It's a guy who doesn't take no for an answer. It may be force, it may be subterfuge (the "get them drunk" trick). It may be social pressure. It may be any number of things.

But the root of it all, the rapist didn't take no for an answer. It may have been in advance (force, drugs) it may have been soft-pedal ("if you loved me", "you know you want to"), it may have been thoughtless (she says, "maybe this is a bad idea").

The simple fact of the matter... the consent you want, if you are going to avoid rape; the consent we need to teach our sons (before they get confused messages from the culture), the message we need to make the norm...

Consent = enthusiastic consent.

It's that simple. If one's partner is enthusiastic, then the question of rape goes away. If one doesn't pressure, then the question of rape goes away. If one sets rules (when I started having sex, my rule was, "if one of us is impaired, and we don't have an extant physical relationship, we aren't starting one now." As I got more experience with sex, and impairment, I modified it some. I have a pretty good idea when my ability to decide is starting to get fuzzy, and at that point the rule kicks in. For my partner, I do a slightly less nuanced version of this. I look at age, and what I've gleaned from conversation; while not impaired, to decide. I try to err on the side of, "we can wait." First times are, IMO, better sober, in any case).

Enthusiastic consent = no rape.

Non-consent (no matter when, nor how mildly expressed) = rape.

It's that simple. The same way the thief steals, the murderer murders and the liar lies: the rapist rapes.

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

God I get tired of this. I truly do. It never reaches the people who need to be reached, and for the people who are reached, well, it perpetuates some stupidities.

"No one will really say, "it was my fault" if I do something which increases my risk, and I get attacked."

Bull. Maybe not in the exact same words, but honestly, if you flash large wads of cash around in a high crime neighborhood, if you conspicuously wear a Rolex when traveling to Rio, or you leave the keys to your car in the ignition when you park it each night, and you get mugged or ripped off, people will say it was your own fault for acting like a dumbass. People may be less likely to say it to your face, and that's a difference between theft and rape, many times, but people will still say it. More will think it.

And just because it doesn't justify rape, doesn't mean deliberate cock-teasing doesn't exist, or is morally acceptable behavior. It's a form of non-consensual B&D-like power game. Very much like when disadvantaged kids step out into traffic against the light and stroll as casually and slowly across the street as possible while the cars are forced to wait. It is a game that counts on the moral restraint of the other party -- as long as the man in question is not a rapist, as long as the drivers in the cars see the jaywalkers and can stop in time, the game is safe and the players can thumb their noses at their opponents. But sometimes the man is a rapist, and sometimes the driver doesn't see the pedestrian in time. When you decide to run with the bulls in Pamplona, there is always a risk that you will be gored, or trampled. This argument you're re-hashing suggests that there is no risk, or that we can somehow eliminate it by repeating the "don't rape" mantra.

So yeah, by all means, teach young men that a sober and enthusiastic partner is what he should seek, exclusively. But that doesn't mean it's okay not to teach young women that getting blind drunk and dancing in their underwear at frat parties may lead to more trouble than they are prepared for.

For that matter, any argument that equates rape by force with first times when the partners were imperfectly sober, observant, or communicative seriously minimizes the horror and trauma of rape by violence. Even murder has degrees. Implying that all rape is the same diminishes the enormity of the worst or greatly over-dramatizes the least. Even if we were discussing matters less serious, the loss of granularity would be unfortunate.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Bull. Maybe not in the exact same words, but honestly, if you flash large wads of cash around in a high crime neighborhood, if you conspicuously wear a Rolex when traveling to Rio, or you leave the keys to your car in the ignition when you park it each night, and you get mugged or ripped off, people will say it was your own fault for acting like a dumbass. People may be less likely to say it to your face, and that's a difference between theft and rape, many times, but people will still say it. More will think it.

Ok, I'll cop to that.


But you know what won't happen? No one will refuse to prosecute.

No one will put you on the stand and convince the jury you "deserved it".

No one will say, if I didn't fight, and kick and scream and come nigh unto death, then I didn't really get robbed.

So yeah, I'm pehaps glossing a bit, but the core.. that it's my fault, and I deserved it, isn't carried the same way.

And glossing the part where I said being aware of one's surroundings matters, well that's bullshit too. Because yes, the same way one has to not flash a roll of ones wrapped with a twenty, one has to pay attention. But there isn't anything a short skirt, or going out alone, or wearing any other thing which trips someone's switch is justification.

As to the problem of rape by violence; it's the least of the categories of rape, so it's actually not the rape I care about most. Most guys who commit non-violent rape get all sort of comforting apologists who say, "it's not as if he was violent, it wasn't, 'real' rape."

Yes, there are degrees of murder. Until, and unless, the culture sees rape as being in degrees, and insists that it all needs to be punished. When the courts stop accepting things like, "It's impossible to rape a woman in "skinny jeans", then I'm going to keep saying things like this.

Because, for all that there is "sex decided on poorly" there is also traumatic rape which doesn't involve violence, and until that granularity is understood, explanations which depend on it are fruitless.

So, OK, you think it's bullshit. Got that; but your arguments don't persuade me, because, while mine may not be perfect, when expressed in symbols, yours don't fix the problem either.

Of the two, I'll take this bit of hyperbole, to the casual dismissal of everything which isn't, "rape by violence".

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

For that matter, any argument that equates rape by force with first times when the partners were imperfectly sober, observant, or communicative seriously minimizes the horror and trauma of rape by violence.

No, actually, it doesn't. You're comparing the basically mythical stranger rape that starts violent and remains so to the equally mythical "woman to slightly too drunk to drive" who later claims she didn't REALLY consent.

And just because it doesn't justify rape, doesn't mean deliberate cock-teasing doesn't exist, or is morally acceptable behavior.

Um, okay, yeah, you don't actually know anything about sexual violence, do you? Like, at all?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The last isn't really a fair shot.

But, in my hasty first reaction, I missed the bit about cock-teasing.

Yeah, it exists. And it's cruel. What does it have to do with rape? What point bringing it up? I mean really?

Because the only parallel, is my saying it doesn't justify rape. You agree with this, so why the attack on it's morality?

What is the rhetorical purpose; what support to your argument is it supposed to make.

As user said (I think... since I'm interpreting her statement about not knowing anything about sexual violence as ignorance of the stats, not the mechanics of force, nor any comment on personal experience), the most common (far and away) person to commit a sexual assault is a person known to the victim.

That changes the equation, a lot. It removes a lot of the aspects of physical violence, it puts ann_totusek in the hard spot of needing to be sure she's willing to shoot (and justify, to the police) someone she knows. It means that it might not be the best idea to go out with that, "safe" friend to look out for you, in those places where one is at the proverbial risk.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

The last isn't really a fair shot.

There, we disagree. akirlu is basically dumping a whole pile of hairy, tired old rhetoric about what rape is, what is and is not a 'serious' violation of someone's sexual integrity, and how to stop it. The most accurate bits of it are overgeneralised and decontextualised and it goes downhill from there.

The kindest interpretation of this behaviour is, she has no idea exactly how unconnected with actual reality the things she is saying are, that she does not, actually, know what she is talking about.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Also, really, God I get tired of this. I truly do. is not strictly the way to my generous reading of your argument.

You know who else gets tired of this? Sexual assault survivors. We truly do. When there stops being sexual assault, everyone gets to stop hearing simple, plain truths about it. Not before. No matter how tired they get.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

You're comparing the basically mythical stranger rape that starts violent and remains so to the equally mythical "woman to slightly too drunk to drive" who later claims she didn't REALLY consent.

"Mythical," my fluffy white butt. I personally know women who fall into each category. The one who was violently raped wrote a book about the experience. It's well worth reading. It's called Lucky by Alice Sebold and it is still in print. And it is quite clear that Alice's experience hat a much much larger impact on her life than did Alicia's, or mine. How rape happens matters. The degree to which one's consent is violated matters. Collapsing all that into a single thing trivializes the trauma of violent rape, and that is not okay with me.

Um, okay, yeah, you don't actually know anything about sexual violence, do you? Like, at all?

No, what I don't do is accept or agree with some of the premises about it that you appear to be operating from.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't. And you can ask any professional that, and I have heard that directly from psychologists and psychiatrists since...the late 80s. The degree DOES NOT MATTER. It's come up both in therapy (single and group) and in training, clinicals, and classes. You're going to tell me that the whole field of psychology is full of shit? (Probably.)

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't recognize how you are coming across here.

I was raped in my home, by my father. What, exactly, do you think that I should have done differently?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

God, how awful. I wish that kind of thing would never happen. But wen did I suggest that you could or should have done something different, precisely? There is a lot of air space between the problems I have with Terry's post and claiming that all rape is always entirely the responsibility of the victim. I'm arguing for granularity and distinctions, not collapsing all cases into one.

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

To some extent, when discussing rape, I'm not very good at keeping my adult, analytical, rational mind fully engaged. I can't say that you said on page 2, line 17...But I can say that your post did, well, cause me to reply as I did. I really don't think you're trying to say "some women are responsible for getting raped." It does, however, come across as blaming victims of the rapes that you don't deem "bad enough."

A friend of mine was raped while she was working a night shift in a convenience store. She was left for dead. She and I have different sorts of trauma. Her physical scars are horrific, and I have none. I assume that my ability to trust and to love have been damaged in a different way than hers, both due to my age and my relationship with my rapist. I don't see a value to comparing who has it "worse." Neither of us is at fault, and teaching women "not to be raped" isn't going to eliminate situations like hers or mine.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The problem is the popular culture collapses them into two.

Violent, with a subtext of resistance, = rape.

Everything else = misunderstanding.

Which is the entire point of saying that non-consent = rape. When that meme takes serious hold, we can start talking about degrees of rape.

Because right now, we have courts accepting that women in alcoholic comas weren't raped. That people with mental disabilities, in wheelchairs, are consenting adults (at IIRC, 16).

That wearing "skinny jeans" = cannot be raped because it requires the active participation of the wearer to remove them is the finding of fact by a judge.

Those all trivialise rape too. Worse, they completely discount it, because they absolutely cancel out granularity.

In the formulation you seem to be advocating (one which says more than one thing = rape is bad) ends up being binary (violence is required, or it isn't rape) and which says that only violence = trauma, the ability to discuss degrees of rape is gone.

I've agreed that rape is a continuum. I've also said the greater burden on preventing it is on the part of those who do, not those who are done by.

Just as we do for things like burglary, fraud, mugging, etc. We may not do all we can to prevent those things, but those who fail to prevent it are not, by default, assumed to have caused it.

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of relatively new research suggestiong that a LOT of acquaintance rape is committed by men who deliberately get women drunk, deliberately get women alone and in situations where it can get played as a "he said/she said" thing. It has exactly zero to do with "cock-teasing."

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

And that the men who do this do it over and over again, because they know it WORKS. Because of all the people who will agree with them that it wasn't REALLY rape if they didn't leave physical scars.

[songblaze.livejournal.com]

The thing about a woman being a "deliberate cock-tease" is that the man has every opportunity to ask her to stop. In my experience, most men who complain about "cock-teases" are enthusiastically participating. They like the attention, they like the sexual nature of it, they like the temptation of a beautiful woman teasing them.

Frankly, if a man can't handle the pain of being aroused by a woman and then being given a red light on sex, he can take himself off to the bathroom and take care of himself. He has an option for taking care of his arousal without harming anyone.

If I tell my neighbor about my great TV I just got, maybe even invite them over for a movie to see how great the TV is, does it make it any less a crime for them to come steal it?

As for what's more traumatic...I'm a survivor. I've known a lot of other survivors through things like survivor's support groups. I've known a number of women who were less traumatized by a violent rape than I was by non-violent nonconsensual actions from a "friend". The level of trauma and psychological harm is not measured by what was done to a person, but by how they respond to it.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Yes, so right. A 'cock tease' (what is the male equivalent anyways) is not making anyone do anything, nothing needs to be done. Self control. We don't take dumps in our office, grab food off a shelf in a store and start eating on the spot when hungry and walk out, push people out of their way when walking, whatever.

[inflectionpoint.livejournal.com]

This.

I've been sexually aroused to the point where I thought I'd go mad or die, and didn't have access to partners at that time. So I did the obvious thing and took care of myself. I didn't sexually assault the person who was sleeping next to me, in my home, as my guest. If it matters, I'm female.

Self control. I don't understand why it isn't expected or assumed when talking about men and sex. It puzzles me no end.