Date Rape

[Steven_Draker]

On Men and Date Rape: I'm Not Sure If I Was Sexually Assaulted or Not:

 

 

I've never been in a situation where I thought I could be raped. I'm a big guy, strong, how could I be raped? Until the moment when my legs were in the air, totally vulnerable, looking into the eyes of a man insistent on fucking me, did I ponder, Am I in danger?

 

We had met online a year earlier, had some sexy texts, but never met. A couple months later we ran into each other at the bar, but still, nothing came of it. Then we matched on Tinder, igniting a new round of communication.

 

Why did I swipe right?

 

I had intended on staying in, but got that Friday night itch to go out. We had been texting, so I mentioned dinner. Two hours later, we met at a restaurant near my apartment.

 

The conversation was fine, but didn't exactly flow. The first bump in the road was his reaction to my sobriety. He couldn't understand why I would choose to be sober if I never really had that serious of a problem. Accustomed to this kind of reaction, I didn't read into it, just politely explained myself and moved on.

 

During the dinner I told myself, Don't invite him over. I didn't feel that sexual spark. He was attractive, but not exactly doing it for me. Still, I studied him, thinking about if I could actually have sex with him. As we walked post-dinner, my brain was saying, Don't do it, while my mouth said, "Wanna come over?"

 

I don't even feel like having sex.

 

Why did I invite him over? I wasn't lonely. I honestly just wanted dinner.

 

We chatted, started to make out, then made our way to the bed. Everything was going by the book, no red flags. I took the dominant position in removing our clothes, going slowly. Once undressed he became more dominant.

 

Ten minutes into casual foreplay I noticed his obvious intention to penetrate. I said, "Not tonight." I could tell he was disappointed, so I continued, "I don't usually start with that. It takes me a while to bottom, to get comfortable."

 

This is where I should have said, I guess we're not a match, it was lovely knowing you. Unfortunately, I didn't.

 

He became more dominant, not exactly physical, but contorting me into positions that were difficult for me to get out of. I'd say again, "Not tonight, it's not going to happen," trying to take a soft tone while standing -- or laying -- firm. But he'd push harder, no lubrication, as I'd attempt to wiggle my way out of his hold.

 

We'd do this dance for a while, him pushing harder, me saying, "No," but again in that passive tone. I thought of being aggressive, but I honestly couldn't tell if he was just a harmless, overzealous guy, or someone I should actually be concerned about.

 

Sexual violence against men isn't unheard of, just not talked about. In a National Crime Victimization Survey, of 40,000 households questioned about rape and sexual violence, 38 percent of the incidents were against men. Gay or straight, sexual violence against men does happen. As I came to learn, it's the grey area of is this assault or just harmless aggressive behavior? is where the confusion begins.

 

The pain of the situation became more intense. I thought, Am I in danger? My legs were in the air, he had my arms gripped down, I was locked in. Then I felt bad about letting myself be put into that position, letting him do this to me, to get this far.

 

I felt trapped and a little scared (I say a little because I was still questioning the severity of the situation, that grey area). I knew I didn't like it, I wanted it to stop, but I didn't want to be mean. Then, as he pushed harder, I felt that rush of pain, and panicked.

 

"Ow," he said. He let me out of his grip, and I slid over. My cat, Frasier, had bit his foot.

 

Let this be a lesson to all the cat haters. Sometimes they can save you.

 

I told him that this wasn't going to happen, and that we should call it a night. He belittled me for not being able to stay hard, to which I held back from saying, "Sorry, rape is basically a boner-kill for me."

 

After he left, I thought about that sexual grey area. I was fine, no actual harm done, but what of the actual experience? What exactly is sexual assault? Since he didn't actually penetrate, do I just write this off and use it as an example of what not to do in the future?

 

Whatever the label that's supposed to be applied to it, I didn't want it. If it was so easy for that to happen to me, imagine how many other men have it go so much worse. Because I'm a man, I don't know how to talk about this. Talking about this involves a type of communication I and most other men aren't equipped with.

 

Maybe it's time we learn the words necessary to prevent things like this because sorry, I'm not loaning out Frasier to anyone else who might need him.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-alan-scott/im-not-sure-if-i-was-sexu_b_6022108.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

[+ quoththeraven]

The author of this piece may not know what to call it, but I do: It was attempted rape. He didn't want to have sex with this guy and his cat biting him is what stopped it, not anything he or his "date" did.

 

Sadly, it's almost certainly not worth reporting to the police or following up on because attitudes about sex and consent (not to speak of the gay sex aspect) are still so screwed up that an investigation likely would cause the author more harm than good. But counseling, to the extent there are counselors available who are sensitive to and have experience working with male victims of rape and attempted rape, would be a good idea if for no other reason than to help him clarify in his own mind what happened and come to terms with it.

[Guest]

The author of this piece may not know what to call it, but I do: It was attempted rape. He didn't want to have sex with this guy and his cat biting him is what stopped it, not anything he or his "date" did.

 

Sadly, it's almost certainly not worth reporting to the police or following up on because attitudes about sex and consent (not to speak of the gay sex aspect) are still so screwed up that an investigation likely would cause the author more harm than good. But counseling, to the extent there are counselors available who are sensitive to and have experience working with male victims of rape and attempted rape, would be a good idea if for no other reason than to help him clarify in his own mind what happened and come to terms with it.

 

Well, the author could talk with a rape victims' counselor and decide for himself whether the investigation would likely cause more harm than good. At least there would be a record. I agree, however, that a case like this probably couldn't be proven in court with a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. The problem with date rape (let alone attempted date rape) cases, is that they can be difficult to prove. The writer of this piece had bad vibes and doubt way before even inviting the man over. As we walked post-dinner, my brain was saying, Don't do it, while my mouth said, "Wanna come over?"

I think that the lesson here is to trust your gut (or brain). When we were children, most of us were probably told not to talk to strangers, and especially not to ride in a stranger's car (my mother had a password for us that she would give in case she needed someone I didn't know to talk to me). Inviting someone to one's house in that setting seems to be potentially inviting trouble. Multiply that by actually getting naked in bed with the person. He's lucky things didn't turn out worse for him.

[+ quoththeraven]

Well, the author could talk with a rape victims' counselor and decide for himself whether the investigation would likely cause more harm than good. At least there would be a record. I agree, however, that a case like this probably couldn't be proven in court with a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. The problem with date rape (let alone attempted date rape) cases, is that they can be difficult to prove. The writer of this piece had bad vibes and doubt way before even inviting the man over. As we walked post-dinner, my brain was saying, Don't do it, while my mouth said, "Wanna come over?"

I think that the lesson here is to trust your gut (or brain). When we were children, most of us were probably told not to talk to strangers, and especially not to ride in a stranger's car (my mother had a password for us that she would give in case she needed someone I didn't know to talk to me). Inviting someone to one's house in that setting seems to be potentially inviting trouble. Multiply that by actually getting naked in bed with the person. He's lucky things didn't turn out worse for him.

 

My take on this is different from yours. The reason the legal case is problematic is because we have screwed-up attitudes and beliefs about sex and about when we're owed sex. No one owes us sex. Men in particular seem to have a problem with this concept. Then there's the potential for thinking this is just a quarrel between a couple of [insert anti-gay slur] and for being creeped out by descriptions of gay sex.

 

Would it not have happened if he hadn't brought the guy home? Yes, that's true. If someone leaves their car unlocked or stores their wallet someplace where it is easily pickpocketed, does that mean that they weren't victims of a crime? No, it doesn't. Juries consider issues of credibility all the time. The problem here is that people still buy the "leading him on" excuse, which is fundamentally at odds with the concept of consent and is a form of victim-blaming of the sort we see all the time with female rape victims.

 

Human nature being what it is, we can't eliminate rape entirely, just as we'll never eliminate theft, but changing societal beliefs about sex and consent would go a long way to improving matters.

[maninsoma]

I found myself in a very similar situation about 35 years ago. While I would call this (and what I experienced) attempted rape, I do think that the author (and myself) need to take some responsibility for creating a dangerous situation. A rape that occurs because you are literally overpowered against your will is one thing. But why invite someone to your home and then initiate a sexual encounter if you don't want to have sex? The author admits that he actually did these things. It isn't like the attempted rapist forced his way into the home or ripped the other guy's clothes off. What the author did was more than "lead him on." He chose to initiate getting naked and making out, and only after that was under way and the other guy wanted to have penetrative sex did he say "not now." Even then it seems like he could have gotten out of bed, got dressed, and sent the guy home. But he continued the encounter, giving the attempted rapist more opportunities to try to force penetrative sex. Maybe the attempted rapist would have tried to prevent him from stopping the encounter at that point, but we don't really know because this guy didn't try.

 

So, to be clear: No should mean no to everyone. There's no excuse to try to force someone to do something that he's already said he doesn't want to do. But if I were on a jury and this alleged victim told the story as he wrote it on HuffPo, I don't know that I would even be able to convict the guy of attempted rape. I mean, it seems like he was going to try to force his way until the cat bit him, but maybe he was just hoping the guy would eventually change his mind about penetrative sex since he seemed to be enjoying everything else.

[Guest]

The reason the legal case is problematic is because we have screwed-up attitudes and beliefs about sex and about when we're owed sex.

 

No, the reason the legal case is problematic is that all the perpetrator has to do it give a different story, and it's a "he said/he said" situation. The fact that we may have sympathies for the victim, or feel (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that the accused has a better reason to lie than the accuser does not prove something beyond reasonable doubt. We (in the US, at least) are a nation of laws, bound by our statutes and the Constitution. I should be able to take my bicycle downtown, leave it on the sidewalk with the kickstand, do my business, and come back to it without locking the bicycle up. If I did so, I would not be "inviting" a crime. Yet I know that if I leave my bicycle unattended downtown, there is a good chance that some thief is going to steal my bicycle, and that the odds of finding the bicycle, let alone successfully prosecuting the thief, would be very low.

I went to university at UCLA. While I was there, I noticed that the main campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin, used to have a column put out by the campus police in which it described the crime, and then listed the "Cause" as something the victim did (i.e. leave something unattended or unlocked, or walking in the dark alone). I wrote a letter to the newspaper indicating I found that language highly offensive. There are things crime victims may have done differently, but victims don't cause crimes--criminals do. The newspaper did change the column, listing "Contributing factor(s)" rather than "Cause."

While I have nothing but disdain for criminals and sympathy for crime victims, I am not willing to throw our Constitution out the window, or put innocent people in jail, simply out of the fear that someone I believe might be a criminal could be "getting away with it." Accusing someone costs the accuser little to nothing, and false accusations happen more than we'd like to think. The most famous example, of course, it the infamous Duke lacrosse case, in which three innocent lacrosse players were dragged through the mud and had their reputations ruined due to false accusations and unethical behavior by the DA. The DA was eventually sentenced to one day in jail:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1763323/

Other examples of false accusations include the Tawana Brawley case and the Kobe Bryant case. The most important task of our legal system is to ensure that innocent people are not punished. Putting the criminals in jail really comes a distant second. Anyone who can't understand this should themselves be the victim of a false accusation one day. And I'm telling you: it happens. And God help us if juries should decide things just based on their gut feeling of the "credibility" of the witnesses rather than on objective facts. In all of these cases, the (false) accusers put on quite a tearful show until it was demonstrated that they were lying.

[tom1980]

And God help us if juries should decide things just based on their gut feeling of the "credibility" of the witnesses rather than on objective facts.

 

Unfortunately, juries do this all the time. They decide they don't like a witness, one of the lawyers, or the plaintiff/victim/defendant in a given case. Then they vote against the person they don't like no matter what the rest of the evidence says. Happens every day. As you note, in the criminal justice system, the onus is on the police and prosecution to investigate and determine whether to proceed with trial. Unfortunately, in my experience, many police officers and more than a few prosecutors care more about closing cases and obtaining convictions than ensuring the guilt of the person being prosecuted or that the punishment fits the crime. Even more unfortunately, because judges are elected officials who must stand for reelection in many states, quite a few of them care far too much about popular opinion and conviction statistics in their courts.

[+ nycman]

Rape?

 

Maybe I'm the crazy one....but it doesn't even remotely sound like rape to me.

 

Any sexually active man (or woman for that matter) needs to know how to say "no" in a clear and

unambiguous way. "I don't usually start with that. It takes me a while to bottom, to get comfortable",

sounds to me like, "Just slow down a little...and we're fine". What I'm not hearing is, "please stop

trying to fuck me". If you say that and he doesn't get the message the first time, then you say,

"I'm sorry but this isn't working for me"...then GET UP, and GET DRESSED!

 

Continuing to willingly roll around naked is sending mixed signals...and you will get burned.

 

Only once have I had a guy not "get the message". It was in a group and he kept trying to shove

his finger up my ass. After several "polite" attempts to get him to stop, I grabbed him by the wrist

and said "if you do that again, I'm going to break your fucking wrist". He stopped.

 

Be clear and unambiguous.

 

And whatever you do....don't say "rape me"....unless you REALLY want to be raped. I've seen more than a few

men get WAY in over their heads with that stupid fantasy. You want to be raped?....are you SURE about that?

 

Say what you mean, mean what you say...and "date rape" won't be an issue in your life.....I promise.

[+ Socalguy]

Wow, I hope this doesn't come across as me 'blaming the victim' here, but it doesn't add up. He said he's a big strong guy yet while this was happening he admits to telling the guy 'No' in a passive soft tone and even as he was trapped and scared, he was still 'questioning the severity of the situation'. The kicker has to be "I knew I didn't like it, I wanted it to stop, but I didn't want to be mean." How many rape victims worry about hurting their rapist's feelings?

[Nvr2Thick]

Rape?

 

Maybe I'm the crazy one....but it doesn't even remotely sound like rape to me.

 

 

I agree. If you've got a guy in bed with you who repeatedly makes advances to penetrate in spite of your objections, why would you continue? I've been in situations where I actually LIKED the guy, unlike the author of the story, and where push came to shove and I left. I've also been in situations where I've said no and end up getting fucked. I don't consider it rape because, after all, I stuck around naked in bed with an aggressive top after I protested. Obviously I changed my mind.

 

I've been very interested in the Mike Tyson rape trial. In spite of the popular reputation many reasonable people in the legal profession view this case as travesty of justice. Both Tyson and his accuser had some matching points in their testimony about their interactions in his room before they started having sex -- when she was uncomfortable with his aggression and pace during foreplay, and both accounts agreed that he relaxed and took a passive position allowing her access to her clothes and the door and he gave her the option to stay or go. Later, her account of the sexual acts also mentioned that she was uncomfortable under him and that when she complained he allowed her to climb on top -- that Tyson did not physically restrain her. She said she did not leave because she felt that the situation was threatening.

 

I got in a bit of an argument with a woman who said that if a guy was fucking her and she got tired and told him to stop it should be considered rape if he keeps going. If that's the case I've been raped more than a dozen times.

[+ purplekow]

Rape?

 

 

Say what you mean, mean what you say...and "date rape" won't be an issue in your life.....I promise.

 

I was opening a business and had the equipment salesman with whom I had several meetings, come to my home to review the order. He lived in my neighborhood and my home was a convenient place to meet. The first time we met at my home, I suddenly felt very tired at 9 PM. I usually go to bed in the wee small hours of the morning, so I was perplexed. I asked him to leave and escorted him out. I even remember telling him that I did not know what was going on and why I was so tired. The next time we spoke, we arranged to work on the deal at my home, and once again I became tired and asked him to leave. After the deal was closed, he continued to sell me equipment. Two years later, a member of the Volunteer Fire Department, stumbled out of the man's home and was able to call the police before he passed out from the Roofies he was given. The salesman was eventually convicted of attempted rape and his deades old family business went out of business.

Since I heard about that, I have wondered if more went on with those episodes at my home than I remember.

So, say what you mean, mean what you say and watch out for a surruptiously dropped roofie in your drink and if you are lucky, date rape will not be an issue.

[+ FreshFluff]

Wow, I hope this doesn't come across as me 'blaming the victim' here, but it doesn't add up. He said he's a big strong guy yet while this was happening he admits to telling the guy 'No' in a passive soft tone and even as he was trapped and scared, he was still 'questioning the severity of the situation'. The kicker has to be "I knew I didn't like it, I wanted it to stop, but I didn't want to be mean." How many rape victims worry about hurting their rapist's feelings?

 

Actually, it's not that rare in the accounts of MtF date rape that I've read about. In some cases, there's some component of a romantic relationship between the two, and the victim doesn't want to make the guy feel rejected or make the situation awkward.

[+ FreshFluff]

An ambiguous rape case. The article recounts the perspective of both accuser and accused, which is rare.

 

Overall, I do agree with QTR's statement that many men feel entitled to sex, and that this contributes to some rapes.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/08/exclusive-brown-university-student-speaks-out-on-what-it-s-like-to-be-accused-of-rape.html

[Juan Vancouver]

The author of this piece may not know what to call it, but I do: It was attempted rape... Sadly, it's almost certainly not worth reporting to the police or following up on because attitudes about sex and consent (not to speak of the gay sex aspect) are still so screwed up that an investigation likely would cause the author more harm than good.

 

Well, the author could talk with a rape victims' counselor and decide for himself whether the investigation would likely cause more harm than good. At least there would be a record.

 

Bingo!

 

"No" means "no" and anytime a man or a woman say no it should be obeyed, regardless of whether the man or woman are naked, still in the room or appearing conciliatory. Any instance in which sex was forced on one of the partners is rape. And rape, from the most basic ethical point of view HAS to be reported. Rapists tend to make a habit of rape. Every time a rape or a foiled rape attempt remains undocumented gives more leeway to the rapist to continue raping.

 

I am so tired of the "Pressing charges would be terrible for the victim's reputation" argument. Do we really want to aid and abet rapists based on our shame about our sexuality? Do we really want to allow a patriarchal judiciary system deny of us the right of justice just because we are gay? Do we want to allow rapists to continue raping more people just because we are too shy to speak about our sexual life and because of the fear of slut shaming?

 

I am overwhelmed by all the responses that seem to be on the side of the rapist. (While adamantly claiming they are not.) In his article he clearly said NO. He was trying to be conciliatory, he was perhaps overpowered, he was possibly overwhelmed, ashamed and afraid, you name it, but he said NO and the man disregarded that.

 

Don't want false accusations or social repercussions? Then don't press charges. But there is always a way to let the authorities take note of what you believe was an attempt of rape. If this person tries it again and someone else is uncertain, it won't be uncertain because of your brave reporting. No innocent man gets unfairly accused of rape many times by unrelated people without having it been publicly reported that a complaint was made.

 

If I had suffered rape I would see it as my important responsibility to make sure this doesn't go undocumented.

 

Silence is complicity. Even when it comes to the victims.

[Diverdan]

Well said, Juan... you are right on target as usual...

[Nvr2Thick]

On Men and Date Rape: I'm Not Sure If I Was Sexually Assaulted or Not:

 

 

I don't even feel like having sex.

 

Why did I invite him over? I wasn't lonely. I honestly just wanted dinner.

 

 

Ten minutes into casual foreplay I noticed his obvious intention to penetrate. I said, "Not tonight." I could tell he was disappointed, so I continued, "I don't usually start with that. It takes me a while to bottom, to get comfortable."

 

This is where I should have said, I guess we're not a match, it was lovely knowing you. Unfortunately, I didn't.

 

He became more dominant, not exactly physical, but contorting me into positions that were difficult for me to get out of. I'd say again, "Not tonight, it's not going to happen," trying to take a soft tone while standing -- or laying -- firm. But he'd push harder, no lubrication, as I'd attempt to wiggle my way out of his hold.

 

We'd do this dance for a while, him pushing harder, me saying, "No," but again in that passive tone. I thought of being aggressive, but I honestly couldn't tell if he was just a harmless, overzealous guy, or someone I should actually be concerned about.

 

 

I knew I didn't like it, I wanted it to stop, but I didn't want to be mean.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-alan-scott/im-not-sure-if-i-was-sexu_b_6022108.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

 

Really? A guy makes advances toward your ass multiple times and you remain intimate? You don't stop a sexual encounter because you don't want to be mean?

 

This is truly the no that doesn't mean no. If you believe someone is trying to rape you because he's tried to penetrate you several times and you remain in bed with him is it because you're hoping it will turn into the sex you want or is it because you want to eventually allow him to fuck you? This reads like he was too lazy and apathetic to stop the guy. I think that if this guy's cat hadn't intervened he might have gotten fucked, chalked it up as lousy sex, and never written the article.

 

Imagine this:

"Well, I'm not going to insist that you don't fuck me, but if you do it's all on you."

 

I wouldn't want to blame the victim, but there's no victim here. By remaining in bed with his partner and allowing him to continually pursue penetration the author permitted this to happen.

[marylander1940]

...

 

If I had suffered rape I would see it as my important responsibility to make sure this doesn't go undocumented.

 

Silence is complicity. Even when it comes to the victims.

 

Juan I get your point but if reporting a crime would put your career on jeopardy because of the "good ole boys club" will close ranks around the "nice guy" and protect the rapist? Institutions like the Catholic Church, the military and Penn State (college and alumni) all got angry when one of their own was accused or rape or complicity.

 

Penn State students rioted on the streets burning cars when JoePa was fired after not reporting Sandusky was raping 10-years-old boys.... Imagine if it had been the other way around and Joe Pa had been the rapist? Joe Pa was an institution and not even he could accuse/fire/get rid of someone who was raping children.

 

The students not only rioted, but female students bullied one of the "accusers/victims" of Sandusky calling him a fag... Where are the parents when daddy's little girl pack attack a rape victim, they turn around and defend her, so do the parents of rapists. It's like upside down world.

 

[video=youtube;Za8cY_zd9Qw]

 

 

...

 

Ten minutes into casual foreplay I noticed his obvious intention to penetrate. I said, "Not tonight." I could tell he was disappointed, so I continued, "I don't usually start with that. It takes me a while to bottom, to get comfortable."

 

This is where I should have said, I guess we're not a match, it was lovely knowing you. Unfortunately, I didn't.

 

 

First of all I'm very sorry about the whole experience, and I'm glad your cat saved you, btw I've always thought of you as a "cat person".

 

When you invite someone to your place after a "date" he might have some expectations about the whole situation. Having said this, even a wife has the right to tell her husband she's not in the mood and if he doesn't stop it's a rape.

 

Let's use common sense and if you're not that into someone, don't bring him into your place.

 

Btw I tried sending you this PM but I guess you blocked me:

 

" I know you don't bottom anymore for your clients, you even made an announcement here at the forum, but do you still do it while dating?

 

I'm just curious about it.

 

Marylander"

[+ quoththeraven]

There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes rape, compounded by the fact that in the US we have fifty different definitions of rape, which often goes by other names with various degrees of seriousness and levels of punishment (i.e, first degree rape or sexual assault, second degree, etc.). Here's some helpful links:

 

Was I Raped? (RAINN -- stands for Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, probably the pre-eminent US non-profit advocating on behalf of victims of sexual abuse). Contains links to explanations of the many and various state laws. As it says:

 

There are three main considerations in judging whether or not a sexual act is consensual (which means that both people are old enough to consent, have the capacity to consent, and agreed to the sexual contact) or is a crime.

[i'm skipping the discussion of age and capacity because it's not relevant here.]

 

Did both participants agree to take part? Did someone use physical force to make you have sexual contact with him/her? Has someone threatened you to make you have intercourse with them? If so, it is rape.

 

It doesn’t matter if you think your partner means yes, or if you’ve already started having sex — “No” also means “Stop.” If you proceed despite your partner’s expressed instruction to stop, you have not only violated basic codes of morality and decency, you may have also committed a crime under the laws of your state (check your state’s laws for specifics.)

 

In most states, the absence of force or coercion isn't determinative; it's the question of consent. In this case, the person involved said no. According to the law -- not public opinion -- that in and of itself makes what happened attempted rape. It doesn't matter that they got naked. It doesn't matter what the other person thought would happen. Another important point is that consent can be withdrawn and that consent to one sex act is not blanket consent to sex in the future. Each act requires consent on its own.

 

This should not be such a hard concept to wrap one's head around. It's like a safeword. In BDSM, once a safeword's been used, everything is supposed to stop. Immediately.

 

(I'm aware there are consent violations there, too. In fact, a survey showed 30% of those participating in it had experience a consent violation, either with regard to a safeword or stated limits. For more on this, see the website Yes Means Yes, whose main -- if not sole -- writer is a guy involved in kink. In fact, just read the blog. It's wonderful.)

 

And here's a New Republic article with a good overview of the state of the law today:

 

There's a Legal War Over the Definition of Rape (New Republic)

 

Some salient excerpts: The idea that rape must involve force might seem intuitive: When most people picture the crime, they think of an armed stranger in an alley—or, more generally, a large man holding a smaller woman down. But the reality is different. Most victims know their assailants, and most cases turn on subtle coercion or social pressure, not physical violence....

 

Two historic legal rulings in particular chipped away at the dominance of force. The first was Commonwealth v. Berkowitz in Pennsylvania in 1992. A sophomore at East Stroudsburg State University locked his roommate’s girlfriend into his bedroom, pushed her onto the bed, and had sex with her. Though she said “no” repeatedly, she did not resist. The state Supreme Court found Berkowitz not guilty because he did not employ the “forcible compulsion” specified by the state’s rape code. The ruling didn’t sit well. In 1995, the state legislature passed what had been dubbed the “no means no law,” making sex without consent—which it called “sexual assault,” not “rape”—a second degree felony.

 

In the same year, in State in the Interest of M.T.S., the New Jersey Supreme Court heard another case that involved neither abnormal force nor consent. It ruled something novel: that penetration without consent should itself satisfy the statute’s force requirement. The M.T.S. ruling also altered the definition of consent. Instead of placing responsibility on the victim to say “no,” the court said, the court should define any sex in the absence of a clear “yes” as rape. “At the time, it stirred up a lot of debate,” remembers Coughlin. “It’s interesting that an idea that’s really out there when it’s decided, two decades later, can seem right.”

 

Feminists have pushed for this evolution in legal thinking in the hopes of changing the way people understand rape outside the courtroom. The more psychologists learn, the more it seems to be the violation of a person’s will or trust—in other words, the lack of consent—that leaves the biggest emotional scars. A pioneering 1988 study led by psychologist Mary Koss found no difference in the levels of depression and anxiety among female college students who had been raped, sometimes violently, by strangers, and those who had been raped by acquaintances, usually not involving violence. In 1990, psychologist Sally Bowie found that—as Legal Momentum’s Lynn Hecht Schafran put it—“victims of nonstranger rape often experience even more severe and long lasting psychological trauma than the victims of strangers because they experience more self and societal blame for failing to prevent the rape.”

 

There's something in there that bears repeating: In New Jersey, any sex in the absence of a clear "yes" is rape. Doesn't matter if the person involved is male or female, doesn't matter who's stronger or weaker. None of that matters. ONLY CONSENT MATTERS.

 

What a jury will believe is something else entirely. Here's another point that needs to be made, though: A "he said, she said" (or a "he said, he said," or "she said, she said") situation is not an automatic slam dunk for the defendant. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "no evidence whatsoever to the contrary." If it did, many other crimes couldn't be successfully prosecuted. It is only in the sexual realm that conflicting stories are somehow elevated in people's minds to an automatic acquittal. That's why I mentioned credibility. A defendant can be convicted despite conflicting testimony under these and any number of other scenarios I haven't thought of off the top of my head:

 

1. What the defendant says doesn't pass the laugh/smell test (in other words, is so implausible as to how real people behave in the real world as to be unbelievable).

2. There are other witnesses/eyewitnesses whose testimony supports, tracks, or is consistent with the alleged victim's. Even better if these people (a) don't have an ax to grind or (b) the defendant is the only telling the story one way. Everyone else is telling it a different way.

3. There is physical evidence to the contrary (DNA, surveillance footage, etc.) that can't be explained away due to such factors as earlier consensual sex. In fact, in the absence of mistakes or malfeasance on the part of the lab (not unheard of), this is worth much more than eyewitness testimony.

 

In closing, why is this such a big deal? Why would anyone want to have sex with someone who isn't interested? We need to leave outdated heteronormativity behind and operate on the basis of a culture of affirmative consent in sexual matters. For more about the differences between what I call heteronormativity (aka "rape culture") and affirmative consent (aka "consent culture"), see this.

[+ quoththeraven]

I'd also like to point out the role social pressure plays here. It's especially bad for women, for whom turning a guy down is often fraught with danger and the potential for violence, made worse by the belief that by taking a woman out and paying for her dinner/movie/whatever, the guy is due some action because that's why he took her out to begin with! *insert "ugh" and eyeroll here; dude, if you're going to treat dates as transactions, get real and get honest and pay for transactional sex* The way women are socialized to be nice, seek approval, and want to be liked above all else plays a part as well.

 

Contrary to popular belief, men are neither immune to social pressure nor emotionless automatons. It doesn't feel good to turn down someone you like but don't want to have sex with. That's a general observation, not personal experience. I have no problem saying "no," and have, successfully, almost always to men I have had sex with under other circumstances. But I am not all people, most people, or even most women, nor are those involved all people, most people, or most men.

[+ FreshFluff]

I'd also like to point out the role social pressure plays here. It's especially bad for women, for whom turning a guy down is often fraught with danger and the potential for violence, made worse by the belief that by taking a woman out and paying for her dinner/movie/whatever, the guy is due some action because that's why he took her out to begin with! *insert "ugh" and eyeroll here; dude, if you're going to treat dates as transactions, get real and get honest and pay for transactional sex* The way women are socialized to be nice, seek approval, and want to be liked above all else plays a part as well.

 

This is one place where I believe socialization plays a big (and detrimental) role.

 

As for your statement about transactional sex, just read some of the monger boards online. "You always pay for your hole," some of the punters tell each other in an attempt to make themselves feel about about being rejected by non-professionals (and some pros too). "I pay them [sex workers] to leave," some respond, as if any SWs would give them the time of day without money.

[Rudynate]

Really? A guy makes advances toward your ass multiple times and you remain intimate? You don't stop a sexual encounter because you don't want to be mean?

 

This is truly the no that doesn't mean no. If you believe someone is trying to rape you because he's tried to penetrate you several times and you remain in bed with him is it because you're hoping it will turn into the sex you want or is it because you want to eventually allow him to fuck you? This reads like he was too lazy and apathetic to stop the guy. I think that if this guy's cat hadn't intervened he might have gotten fucked, chalked it up as lousy sex, and never written the article.

 

Imagine this:

"Well, I'm not going to insist that you don't fuck me, but if you do it's all on you."

 

I wouldn't want to blame the victim, but there's no victim here. By remaining in bed with his partner and allowing him to continually pursue penetration the author permitted this to happen.

 

It reminds me of a middle-aged woman I used to work with who used to really enjoy flirting just for fun. A guy we worked with, also, just in fun, started undoing the zipper on her top. She started laughing and said, "Alright, I'll give 10 minutes to stop that!"

[BSR]

If the incident described in the original post is defined as rape, then chalk up another victory for the Cult of Victimhood. First, let's look at this case, only this case, and leave any discussion of roofies, MtF rape, Mike Tyson, power dynamics between the sexes, transactional sex, etc., for a discussion about those particular issues. Now look at the almost endless series of mixed messages the so-called victim is sending to his so-called rapist, starting with "my brain was saying, Don't do it, while my mouth said, 'Wanna come over?'" If you listen to what the other guy says as opposed to unsuccessfully reading his mind, that's hardly a crime. After some casual foreplay, when the so-called rapist makes an attempt to penetrate, the so-called victim says, "I don't usually start with that. It takes me a while to bottom, to get comfortable," then he remains in bed. How is the so-called rapist supposed to know if "a while" means three months of courting or five minutes of rimming? If you choose to stay in bed with the guy, then the assumption that he meant five minutes is understandable. Then "He became more dominant, not exactly physical, but contorting me into positions that were difficult for me to get out of." The key is the PLURAL, positions, that is, over and over again the so-called victim could have put a stop to everything but didn't. OMG, somebody call the Guinness Book of World Records because this guy just set the record for most mixed messages in a 10-minute timeframe.

 

Here's a suggestion to all Cultists of Victimhood: when you say no, MEAN IT. It sounds like the so-called victim in this case kinda sorta maybe a part of him wanted to get fucked, but at the same time didn't, really, no really, I mean it ... uh, I think, and he kept saying no (passively), but he stayed in bed and let the guy continue, and he was put into difficult positions, but he kept getting out of them, but then he still stayed in the bed ... Crap almighty, I can't figure out what the hell this guy wants to save my f*cking life!!!

 

If you send countless mixed messages to a horny bastard, don't play the f*cking victim when he picks up on the ones he wants to hear and ignores the rest. Nvr2Thick said, "By remaining in bed with his partner and allowing him to continually pursue penetration the author permitted this to happen." I'd take that one step further, changing permitted to invited this to happen. You can take personal responsibility, or you can play the victim ... and oh, so many opt for the latter. Nobody does indulgent self-pity better than the Gay Left.