Date Rape

October 11, 2010

These men shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

Did you file assault charges against these men? That's one remedy by which such people can be held accountable.

Those who are victimized by false rape claims, OTOH, have no legal remedy, none, there is a 0% conviction rate and no civil cause of action, despite that their lives are often ruined, and it is by a trick of fate, such as filming with a phone-camera, that they are able to escape wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

October 11, 2010

Hi Elaina..good morning!

Hi Tami-chan... good morning to you too! I was busy working yesterday... sorry I couldn't respond till now.

You had mentioned some things about sanskrit's story that did not exist on the post that you responded to...so 2 things are possible on why this happened, imho: 1) you are making up stories to discredit him or push your point 2) you are confused-and therefore just plainly wrong. Which is it? THAT was the point why I wanted you to examine the post again, but you chose to ignore it...I wonder why !

I already explain the second part and did not even think, much more INSIST it had to do with date rape...but you also ignore my explanation..oh well...

When you first addressed me about my statement to Sanskrit (not to you), you asked what my statement had to do with date rape. I replied that Sanskrit's story did not have anything to do with date rape, since neither he nor the crying woman were raped. Is this not so? About her crying, I don't know for sure why she was crying, but I do have a few friends who have cried during sex because they say it's "just beautiful." I don't understand that type of crying, but sometimes crying is not meaning one is afraid she is going to be raped. I did not get anything from Sanskrit's story that alerted me to her being afraid he would rape her at all. A matter of fact, it seemed that she was upset after he refused her. Neither were raped, nor was there attempted rape involved, hence it has nothing to do with date rape.

Well, you know what? Maybe this is strange for you but many people have sex without actually "loving" the each other...it does not mean they have "no idea what true love is"...

Actually, I am aware that there are people right now who are having sex with someone they don't love. Matter of fact, there might be just as many people right now having sex with someone they don't love as people having sex with someone they do love. I wonder if the world would be a better place if people loved the people they are having sex with? Have you ever thought of that?

By the way, a man who truly loves a woman does not rape her. Love and rape are contrary to each other. Love is about caring for another person (not just having ooshy gooshy happy feelings.) Rape is about power and humiliating the victim and receiving pleasure from forcing oneself on to another person.

I concluded that it was about rape? are you sure about that? because I think I said that his story was pertinent because prior to that, he pointed out that women give out conflicting signal ( and this is how many dates rape accusations real or made up happen). In this particular post he gave this example of a woman who wanted to have sex with him but then started crying (jesus, I am repeating myself here...)

I find it amazing that I have to repeat myself to you too.

Again, many people have sex with other people and there is no love shared between them. How can that mean that they have "no idea what true love" is..How do you know that?

Yes I know that, and again, perhaps the world would be a better place if the people who have sex with other loved each other. There are too many broken hearts in the world, actually even one broken heart is a tragedy.

Did I say you said that? I simply asked you a question. You can just answer the question without deflecting it. And no, I am not sanskrit...LOL..I am way too pretty to be him, I think...and too girly to be him.... Although I would love to see a pic of him.

Write him and ask him for a picture?

You do not think he has any idea what true love is because.......? of your opinion of him....which is...? You are not making sense to me. Your opinion of him is baseless because you simply do not know him. My opinion of what you said about him is based simply on that statement because you clearly stated it.

Wait...you do not care about my opinion of you? But you would however, be "sad" if I did not know true love....ahmmm...are you trying to spin my wheels , here, Elaina?

I have no idea what "spin my wheels" means, so of course I am not trying to do that. If you haven't noticed, all I have been trying to do is answer your questions. You are the one who started asking me questions about my comment to Sanskrit. I have, if you go back and look, been obliging you by answering them.

How can I do this now, given what you said above?

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Unfortunately for you, it is not my responsibility to prove to you the he has an "idea of what true love is"-as I have not made any sweeping judgment of him. I do not know him. It is, however, YOUR responsibility to prove that you made that conclusion about him based on facts.

Listen Tami-chan, see if you get this. You are the one who started asking me questions concerning my reply to Sanskrit. In my culture, it is rude of me to not answer you, so that's why I do. Some people seem to like being busybodies, who get involved in attacking another person for their comments to someone else.

My comment to Sanskrit, as I mentioned to you in one of my earlier replying posts to you, is best addressed by Sanskrit, not you. If you want to, please go and read his replies to me after I pointed that out. I also asked him what true love is (to him), and he has not responded (as far as I know.) That is fine and is no surprise to me really. Sanskrit is however, a big boy. He can respond himself to comments I make TO him, if he wants to. It's his prerogative, not yours. By the way, my comment that I don't "think he has any idea what true love is" is not calling him names. If he wants to say, yes I do know what true love is, that's fine. He is perfectly in his right to do so. Concerning you, this absurd discussion only you and I are having concerning my reply to Sanskrit is over. If Sanskrit wishes, he can write to me about it, but I will no longer honor your posts about this topic with an answer to you.

Have a good Sunday, Elaina? going to church today?

tami

Actually, I work on Sundays. What about you? Did you go to church on Sunday? Or to the grocery store perhaps? Maybe a walk in the park? The weather (at least here) was gorgeous. Hopefully where you live it was just as lovely.

October 11, 2010

Hi Kamille,

I felt you adopted a blame the victim mentality. And yes, I am self-reflective and have taken a hard look at my actions. I am willing to admit I make mistakes and take responsibility for my share of the blame here. This does not excuse, however, these men's actions. They were as much in the wrong as I was, and I would argue, easily even more. I am also willing to risk public humiliation to discuss this topic and be honest about my experiences. I hope you daughter never finds herself in that kind of situation.

I boldened the part above because it is an awesome point; men are responsible for their own actions. I also do really appreciate you being willing to write about your experiences. That takes a lot of guts, and I really admire you for it. Hopefully your posts will help someone, which is a very good thing.

Since you cannot be bothered to read posts, I should also point out that I adopted the rule that I never go to secluded places, after the incident with guy number 2.

That's a good rule, though sometimes it's so hard to do. For example, I love canoeing and going out, and most of my friends who also like to do that are guys, but I don't go with just one guy alone (except for my boyfriend.) My Dad, though, has had talks with the guys I hang out with, and where I'm from, there are always jokes about Dads of daughters and the Dad's rifles. (My Dad has a rifle, though even though he and others joke about it, I personally don't think they'd ever use it to shoot someone who hurts their daughter. My Dad does very much respect the law and the fair trial process.)

Guy number 3 claimed he had to go to the washroom and since he was someone I considered a friend, I let him in. Now go ahead people, tell me how ridiculous and naive it is to let a human being go to the toilet and that I should have known he was lying about that and accept that men lie and are allowed to lie and there is nothing wrong about it.

I think he was just being sneaky. It is sad that a man you considered to be your friend had interior motives.

Okay then, some women lie and make false rape charges. We all know it's like that. Live with it. That's how the world works. We also know cheaters lie, but of course they will lie, they're cheating. We should also all accept that.

Well, I do think that women who lie and make false rape charges should be punished in a court of law for it: like jail time to serve or a fine to pay, but really, It's hard to know sometimes. Many times, it's just her word or his word. Unless there is ample evidence either way, it makes those kind of cases very difficult. It is sad though that for a long time, women have been under this sort of stigma where if you're a woman, your word isn't as good as a man's word. Thankfully, that stigma is changing. The ideal is for both the man's word and the woman's word to be respected, since both are people who have human rights that should be equal, though they are different genders.

Yes, I must be the one to blame. These men shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Nor should we expect them to respect their word or listen to what a woman is saying and doing.

Totally disagree!!! What a sad thing to say! (I hope it's just sarcasm.)

While I absolutely agree that women are responsible for protecting themselves, I also think we should educate men about rape and about how to recognize when they are putting themselves at risk for rape accusations. Rape is a societal problem, not a "women's" problem.

Very true and very good point!!!

I should add another common denominator:

4) All these men were known to me, the ones from cases 2 and 3 I knew really well.

Sad to say, many men who rape women or sexually abuse women/girls have the common denominator that they know that girl... hence the abuse. What's horrible and horrifying to me is that many girls/women think it's their fault that they are being raped/sexually abuse, which is so not true! It's not their fault that there are perverse guys in the world.

October 11, 2010

Okay then, some women lie and make false rape charges. We all know it's like that. Live with it. That's how the world works. We also know cheaters lie, but of course they will lie, they're cheating. We should also all accept that.

Yes, I must be the one to blame. These men shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Nor should we expect them to respect their word or listen to what a woman is saying and doing.

Yes those comments were sarcastic and phrased this way in the hope that the 'men lie" posters will realize how ridiculous it is to condone lying in scenarios where the safety of humans are at stake. And, should I point out, these men who feel entitled to lie to women and ignore women's expressed desires for not sex are putting themselves at risk of rape accusations. I don't have a gender bone to grind. The belief that it's okay for men to lie to gain the trust of a woman is dangerous for men.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Kamille

October 11, 2010

Yes, I must be the one to blame. These men shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Nor should we expect them to respect their word or listen to what a woman is saying and doing.

This point keeps getting lost/ignored/discounted in here. For the life of me I do not understand why. Most of the cautionary admonitions in this thread are directed at WOMEN. What about the men? They are excusing themselves from all accountability with "We can't help it [behaving like animals], that's just the way we are":

Men will lie.

It's one of those things in this world where there is no point in complaining about it. Just expect it to happen and look out for yourself.

I CANNOT BELIEVE there isn't more outrage about this. I can only hope the attitudes expressed in this thread are not the norm in real life. They certainly aren't reflective of anybody I know.

October 11, 2010

I CANNOT BELIEVE there isn't more outrage about this. I can only hope the attitudes expressed in this thread are not the norm in real life. They certainly aren't reflective of anybody I know.

I know! To me it really speaks to the heart of the problem. Women on rape trials have to prove they clearly said no, but meanwhile some posters advocate we shouldn't even expect men to communicate their own intentions clearly?

I also hope the attitudes expressed here are not the norm in real life. I think it's important to point out that some posters here have a differing point of view. The discussion about lying started when I asked what, exactly counted as a No.

What about if the girl said: "Sure, I'll come in, but no sex right?" right at the door of the apartment. Does that count as a no?

What about "Is it okay if we just cuddle?", does that count as a No. When, exactly, does a request for "No sex", count as "no"?

Waynebrady responded with this, which I found really reassuring.

Yes offcourse that count's as a no and it would be rape if the man tried to have sex with her. If a man continues to try and have sex with a woman even though she has said all that then he is a rapist, shure... If a woman doesn't say no, doesn't say she doesn't want sex or tries to resist at all and just let's the guy have sex with her, then it isn't rape simple as that. Because a no or a stop or trying to resist might have prevented the whole situation. If a woman doesn't say no, the man might not know that she didn't want to do it, if he would maybe he would have stopped.

And I do agree with the fact that it is a woman's job to indicate she doesn't want sex.

So no, not all men think the pursuit of their own happiness allows them to disregard basic moral principles.

I think I now have an answer to Florida man's question

Good questions both parties need to ponder.

What if the two are naked, have been intimate in other ways that eve. and he's arising to mount her?

She could have last second (literally) second thoughts as he is dangerously close to him doing her.

What if she's even given him permission, but she panics and gets scared?

Anyone engaged in any form of sexual activity has the right to request the activity stop at any given moment.

Similarly, being in a private setting with someone does not strip anyone from their right to say no.

October 11, 2010

This point keeps getting lost/ignored/discounted in here. For the life of me I do not understand why. Most of the cautionary admonitions in this thread are directed at WOMEN. What about the men? They are excusing themselves from all accountability with "We can't help it [behaving like animals], that's just the way we are":

I CANNOT BELIEVE there isn't more outrage about this. I can only hope the attitudes expressed in this thread are not the norm in real life. They certainly aren't reflective of anybody I know.

Gotta say I agree. It's like women just have to accept that men behave so, and will always behave so, like it or lump it. Women have to constantly wonder what exactly did she do to invite such actions towards themselves? Sorry, but in the times I was harassed, and groped unwantedly, I never did a thing to encourage that kind of treatment. I didn't even speak with these men once.

Fact is, men can control their sexual urges, they just choose not to because after all they're 'men.' I'm all for women being more aware of the risks, and not consciously putting themselves at risk, and asserting themselves better, but it's not easy. I remember the time I was walking home and the guy attacked me and my friend, part of me just froze. I was terrified, he may have had a knife, a gun anything, you can't always prepare for your bodie's immediate response.

But yes, each individual is responsible for their own safety, but that's common knowledge. No woman here is arguing against that, what we are arguing against is the mentality of some male posters. Men are taking the passive approach on their attitudes, rather than actively altering them, they expect women to merely sit back and accept that that is how it is. Men, you are not wild animals. You can control how you behave, a woman inviting you into her place for coffee does not excuse you forcing yourself upon her.

October 11, 2010

I know! To me it really speaks to the heart of the problem. Women on rape trials have to prove they clearly said no, but meanwhile some posters advocate we shouldn't even expect men to communicate their own intentions clearly?

I also hope the attitudes expressed here are not the norm in real life. I think it's important to point out that some posters here have a differing point of view. The discussion about lying started when I asked what, exactly counted as a No.

Waynebrady responded with this, which I found really reassuring.

And I do agree with the fact that it is a woman's job to indicate she doesn't want sex.

So no, not all men think the pursuit of their own happiness allows them to disregard basic moral principles.

I think I now have an answer to Florida man's question

Anyone engaged in any form of sexual activity has the right to request the activity stop at any given moment.

Similarly, being in a private setting with someone does not strip anyone from their right to say no.

Spot on.

The problem with trials of rape are so brutal towards the woman-the defence seeking to destroy any credibility she has, make out she wanted it, asked for it in some way, that so many women never come forward. Unless you're beaten black and blue, it's almost inconceivable to some minds how the woman could have been raped. I watched the Tenth Circle (I know it's fiction) but it resembles real-life to a Tee. The officials dealing with her case were all like 'there's not a mark on her' etc. They were constantly asking questions about how she had behaved during that night etc, did she drink? Drugs? What was she wearing? It doesn't matter essentially, no is no, and the guy should always respect that regardless.

October 11, 2010

This point keeps getting lost/ignored/discounted in here. For the life of me I do not understand why. Most of the cautionary admonitions in this thread are directed at WOMEN. What about the men? They are excusing themselves from all accountability with "We can't help it [behaving like animals], that's just the way we are":

I CANNOT BELIEVE there isn't more outrage about this. I can only hope the attitudes expressed in this thread are not the norm in real life. They certainly aren't reflective of anybody I know.

Agreed on all counts. This thread's been bugging at me like threads on LS don't usually.

I've seen these various articles which refer to research indicating that a pretty high percentage of male college students, when given assurances of anonymity, stated that they would force a woman into sex if they could get away with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/29/science/when-the-rapist-is-not-a-stranger-studies-seek-new-understanding.html

''When men are asked if there is any likelihood they would force a woman to have sex against her will if they could get away with it, about half say they would,'' said Dr. Neil Malamuth, a psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. ''But if you ask them if they would rape a woman if they knew they could get away with it, only about 15 percent say they would.''
Those who change their answers do not seem to realize that there is no difference between rape and forcing a woman to have sex against her will

I earlier indicated my belief that most men would not rape a woman, but studies out there contradict my belief. I guess it would be more accurate for me to say that the men I know personally seem very clear about shared responsibility - and a woman's right to say no, and to be able to spend time alone in a man's company, without him having any sense of entitlement to have sex with her.

I am self-reflective and have taken a hard look at my actions. I am willing to admit I make mistakes and take responsibility for my share of the blame here. This does not excuse, however, these men's actions. They were as much in the wrong as I was, and I would argue, easily even more. I am also willing to risk public humiliation to discuss this topic and be honest about my experiences. I hope you daughter never finds herself in that kind of situation.

Kamille - Tamichan asked for a common denominator in your situation. I offered one, but I think a very important common denominator was missed out. That is, that in each of those cases although the men attempted to get you into a sexual situation it didn't proceed to a completed rape. I think guy one was probably the one who was most likely to rape...and you very sensibly escaped and shut yourself in the bathroom. Guy two was physically aggressive, but ultimately he didn't go through with forcing himself on you (and in the circumstances you describe, he could have done). Guy three was rude and obnoxious and attempted to shame you into having sex with him, but he didn't actually physically attack and overpower you.

This isn't to undermine the level of anxiety all three situations caused you, because I think those are situations that would be highly stressful for any woman. What I'm trying to get to is that although guys two and three weren't who you hoped they were, your judgement wasn't completely off base in that both of them ultimately accepted "no" even though they pushed for sex and were pretty unpleasant about it.

I made the point to OB that studies indicate a very big percentage of respondents to surveys indicate that they'd force a woman into sex if they could get away with it. I'm not sure what to make of a study like that, because I think there are some men who might say that - then, when faced with the reality of a frightened or reluctant woman, think better of it. Who knows? That's just a hope really.

However, let's say that there's truth in it and that there are many guys out there who would force an unwilling woman into sex if they thought there wouldn't be negative consequences for them. That says to me that statistically, one of the most effective ways a woman could defend herself from something like date rape would be to be able to convey that she's not someone who a man can pin down and rape without him incurring some pretty major consequences on himself for doing so.

Here are the kind of things I've seen on this thread from women that trouble me. Not that I want to criticise the women for saying those things....but because I think that were this not an anonymous forum they would be giving out risky messages about themselves.

1. "Knowing what it's like for rape victims to go through the reporting process, I couldn't go through with that."

Well then, if you think like that - and if men pick up that you think like that, you're an easier target. Essentially you're saying "I'm someone you can rape without the consequence of you being reported for it."

2. "Don't go to a man's house and be alone with him unless you're prepared to have sex with him."

When a woman gives that advice to other women, any predatory male listening in will I'm sure take that as her sending out a personal value. ie "if I agree to be alone with you, it means I want to have sex with you."

I'm clear that I'm entitled to be alone in the company of a man without him having any rights to me sexually - or reaching an assumption(to the point where he'll become angry and hostile if thwarted) that I want to have sex with him. By feeling responsible for those unpleasant situations you described, Kamille, you're allowing one or two other people on the board to push you into the mindset that you're not actually entitled to be alone with a guy without him having that assumption (and being obnoxious to you if thwarted).

Canada is not Saudi Arabia or any country where it's considered appropriate for women to shroud themselves in cloth for fear of unleashing sexual aggression in men who don't feel accountable for controlling their desires. You are entitled to be alone with a male acquaintance without him taking a message from that that your body is up for grabs. I suspect that because of what happened, you may have lost some confidence in your right to that particular freedom...and it's being further undermined by some of the comments on this board.

However, it's vital that you get that confidence back, I think. Because by having the confidence that you do in fact have that right and that other people should respect that right, I believe you're better placed to stand your ground in situations where a man tries to persuade you otherwise. Again, none of those men completed a rape against you...and I would suggest that part of that is because you are a smart, credible woman who they would be that bit more cautious about. Of course women have to be careful about who they spend time alone with, and be aware that potentially they can be vulnerable in that situation. If some of the advice coming out on this thread were to be followed, however, we might as well all be in Saudi Arabia/avoiding any situations where we're alone with any man other than a partner or close male relative.

Best to be that woman about whom a potential date rapist thinks "Okay, she might be someone who would report me. She's got a good support network - maybe some people she knows will beat me up. If I were in court, she might make a very articulate, strong and credible witness against me." A drunk man might be less inclined to rationalise in this way, which is why it pays to closely observe a man's drinking habits and avoid getting into any risky situations with a drunk guy (thinking about how quickly and unexpectedly drunks can turn nasty and aggressive- and how it's so less likely that you'll be able to reason with an aggressive man in an intoxicated state - or talk him out of inflicting violence on you). Being that woman who instils a certain amount of caution in men will put some men off...but bearing in mind the "I'd take her by force if I could get away with it" statistics, it seems to me that isn't a bad thing at all. Unless a woman is so desperate that she doesn't care who she attracts so long as he's male....which hopefully wouldn't apply to anyone here.

In the normal scheme of events, I think that a man who is making moves on you will - even if he's caught up in lust - have enough rationality to back off when told "no!" by the kind of woman who isn't liable to let him off scot-free if he messes with her. I would say that because you do demonstrate a reasonable amount of confidence in your rights, as a woman (even if your confidence has been shaken at times) when it comes to the crunch you are probably better equipped to stop a potential rape in its tracks than are those women who take a more victim-blaming approach.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Taramere

October 11, 2010

Correct me if I'm wrong SomeGuy81, but you are a commuter student in college, right?

I'm several years out of undergrad, but when I was in college it was not at all unusual to hang out on someone's bed because it was often the only seat in the place. Hanging out in someone's bed to watch a movie in college is different than randomly crawling in bed with a date in my experience.

Aerogurl, he did rape you. You pushed him off when he tried to kiss you and he kept pushing you until you finally permitted him to have sex with you. You didn't consent, you stopped fighting.

Could you have screamed no and hoped he stopped or someone came in? Definately. But you were scared he might get violent so you didn't. Any decent guy would have stopped at some point while you just laid there. He is a rapist.

I'm not suggesting you try to press charges or anything. It sounds far too late for that. But I would call what happened rape.

I think you should be more careful about what you call rape.

What happened here is something of a grey area. She pushed back once, then stopped. Questions come to my mind such as exactly how it looked. Did she push playfully, or in a way that could've seemed that to the guy? Did she push hard? Did she look scared and unhappy? How long did she keep pushing?

There is a big difference between pushing once for a second or two and pushing hard for let's say 10 seconds or more. This is especially important because she never said a verbal “no”. Responsibility for this communication is _shared_. Yes the man should stop if the woman is not happy, but also if a man isn't stopping a woman needs to up her communication until he does. I would say that a clear verbal “no” is the absolute least the woman can do if the situation is to be considered rape.

I understand this was certainly emotionally traumatic for her, and I don't want to diminish that. Yes, the guy should have stopped. But, this is a public forum and if something like this is posted it needs to be responded to. I would not be responding if people had simply offered their sympathy. But, if other people see fit to label what she described as “rape”, I think that merits a response.

Here is the problem with this. As a guy, I've heard a lot talked about in my life about rape statistics. They seem pretty high to me, but then I wonder about the people that compile them and what they include. Some studies will call it rape if all that happens is the woman regrets it the next day, with absolutely no struggle at all. Some call it rape if all it includes is brief finger penetration. Some have even called it rape if it is between a married couple and the only thing that happens is the woman has sex when she doesn't want to (ie when she has a headache or something), and the woman continues happily married afterwards. I hear these kinds of things and I say to myself “that's not what I would consider rape”. In some rape studies, women who were supposedly “raped” continued having a consensual relationship with the man afterwards. When I hear this kind of thing I feel like I'm being manipulated for someone else's political gains, and it makes me doubt other women's statements.

Use of the same word for these kinds of things dilutes the power of the word. As women, I'm sure you want a true forceful violent rape to be harshly condemned by men. You want every man around, when he hears that it has happened, to go grab the perpetrator and throw him in prison for a long time so he doesn't do it to someone else. This is understandable and right. But, when you take these ambiguous situations and call it by the same word as that, you run the risk of crying wolf. In this situation created by today's apparently inflated rape statistics, a man may hear that a woman has been “raped” and think to himself, “yes but was it really rape?” He may not be so eager to throw another guy into prison.

In this particular case, you're ready to call a guy a “rapist”-- the same word you would use for a guy that threatened a woman at gunpoint, beat her, and held her down while she screamed. You are completely unwilling apparently to consider what it might have looked like from his point of view but instead choose to demonize him. If that's what you want to do go ahead, but understand that when a man like me reads this, he is going to think twice and maybe three times if he is ever on a jury listening to a woman's testimony. He is going to remember feeling that certain women at least will push the facts farther than seems appropriate.

So, I would suggest you be careful with your use of this word. It is supposed to be a heinous crime. It is supposed to be a word that drives men to action in defense of women. Do not weaken its power by using it for every situation it can possibly be stretched to fit.

Scott

October 11, 2010

OpenBook,

This point keeps getting lost/ignored/discounted in here. For the life of me I do not understand why. Most of the cautionary admonitions in this thread are directed at WOMEN. What about the men? They are excusing themselves from all accountability with "We can't help it [behaving like animals], that's just the way we are":

Spot on!

Gotta say I agree. It's like women just have to accept that men behave so, and will always behave so, like it or lump it. Women have to constantly wonder what exactly did she do to invite such actions towards themselves? Sorry, but in the times I was harassed, and groped unwantedly, I never did a thing to encourage that kind of treatment. I didn't even speak with these men once.

Fact is, men can control their sexual urges, they just choose not to because after all they're 'men.' I'm all for women being more aware of the risks, and not consciously putting themselves at risk, and asserting themselves better, but it's not easy. I remember the time I was walking home and the guy attacked me and my friend, part of me just froze. I was terrified, he may have had a knife, a gun anything, you can't always prepare for your bodie's immediate response.

But yes, each individual is responsible for their own safety, but that's common knowledge. No woman here is arguing against that, what we are arguing against is the mentality of some male posters. Men are taking the passive approach on their attitudes, rather than actively altering them, they expect women to merely sit back and accept that that is how it is. Men, you are not wild animals. You can control how you behave, a woman inviting you into her place for coffee does not excuse you forcing yourself upon her.

Agreed!

October 11, 2010

I was out at a dinner last night and did not see the thread unravel. I'm now getting caught up.

I want to thank Taramere for explaining her understanding of what happened the three times I was with men who ignored my request to not have sex. I want to point out two things first:

1) Except for potentially case number 1, I don't think number 2 or 3 would have gone on once I started using the famous "I said no". My first point in this thread was that I think there is something wrong with our society if we think that seeking consent ruins the mood, while condoning an attitude where short of being threatened with rape charges, a man can ignore a woman's indication that she is ambivalent about having sex, or, as in my case, has clearly stated she doesn't want sex.

2) I brought up my examples when Taramere encouraged women to trust their instincts. Yes, definitely, trust your instincts. I should have kicked guy number 3 out the minute he asked for a stronger drink then water. But I brought those up because, especially in case 2 and 3, I felt safe with these guys until things started going wrong. They were both friends, people I had hung out with one on one in the past so I had no reason to be suspicious of them.

Which brings me to these points Taramere indicates.

1. Men who get very close into your physical space all the time - eg in the bar or at a party - and don't seem to pick up on the "back off a bit" signals. Who continually touch you far more than seems natural or necessary.

2. Men who are looking for ways to isolate you quickly from the group rather than being content to get to know you within that group situation.

3. Men who make a lot of sexual references in conversation - suggestive of what they plan to get up with you at some later date - even though you barely know them. For instance, years ago a guy I'd just met once said to me "I like women who do some sort of sport, because you can get far rougher with them in bed without worrying that they're going to freak out or get badly hurt."

Doesn't mean he's an abuser, but in a situation like that he's giving information about himself that places him in the situation where if anything you don't like happens, he can say "hey - I was very clear with her over what I'm about and what I like to do." It sounds obvious that it would be a bad idea to go home with a man like that, but in practice his bluntness may come across as quite disarming and refreshing sounding...and I think as a result of that women sometimes mistakenly place trust in men who use that "slightly shocking but disarmingly honest sounding" approach. For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't disarmed by it. Benefits of having a protective older brother who coaches you through adolescence with information about common tactics employed in the pick up.

4. Men who are very adamant that you should trust them - even though you hardly know them - and become quite angry with you, or demonstrate very hurt feelings, when you fail to extend to them the level of trust they're looking for.

While these are good points, none of these apply to how the guys 1, 2 and 3 behaved. I agree number 4 comes closest, especially in the case of guy number 1 and 3, but even then, they were all milk and honey on the walk home and only started demonstrating emotional manipulation once they were inside the apartment.

My point is, even your best instincts can fail you.

October 11, 2010

Agreed on all counts. This threads been bugging at me like threads on LS don't usually.

I've seen these various articles which refer to research indicating that a pretty high percentage of male college students, when given assurances of anonymity, stated that they would force a woman into sex if they could get away with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/29/science/when-the-rapist-is-not-a-stranger-studies-seek-new-understanding.html

I earlier indicated my belief that most men would not rape a woman, but studies out there contradict my belief. I guess it would be more accurate for me to say that the men I know personally seem very clear about shared responsibility - and a woman's right to say no, and to be able to spend time alone in a man's company, without him having any sense of entitlement to have sex with her.

Kamille - Tamichan asked for a common denominator in your situation. I offered one, but I think a very important common denominator was missed out. That is, that in each of those cases although the men attempted to get you into a sexual situation it didn't proceed to a completed rape. I think guy one was probably the one who was most likely to rape...and you very sensibly escaped and shut yourself in the bathroom. Guy two was physically aggressive, but ultimately he didn't go through with forcing himself on you (and in the circumstances you describe, he could have done). Guy three was rude and obnoxious and attempted to shame you into having sex with him, but he didn't actually physically attack and overpower you.

This isn't to undermine the level of anxiety all three situations caused you, because I think those are situations that would be highly stressful for any woman. What I'm trying to get to is that although guys two and three weren't who you hoped they were, your judgement wasn't completely off base in that both of them ultimately accepted "no" even though they pushed for sex and were pretty unpleasant about it.

I made the point to OB that studies indicate a very big percentage of respondents to surveys indicate that they'd force a woman into sex if they could get away with it. I'm not sure what to make of a study like that, because I think there are some men who might say that - then, when faced with the reality of a frightened or reluctant woman, think better of it. Who knows? That's just a hope really.

However, let's say that there's truth in it and that there are many guys out there who would force an unwilling woman into sex if they thought there wouldn't be negative consequences for them. That says to me that statistically, one of the most effective ways a woman could defend herself from something like date rape would be to be able to convey that she's not someone who a man can pin down and rape without him incurring some pretty major consequences on himself for doing so.

Here are the kind of things I've seen on this thread from women that trouble me. Not that I want to criticise the women for saying those things....but because I think that were this not an anonymous forum they would be giving out risky messages about themselves.

1. "Knowing what it's like for rape victims to go through the reporting process, I couldn't go through with that."

Well then, if you think like that - and if men pick up that you think like that, you're an easier target. Essentially you're saying "I'm someone you can rape without the consequence of you being reported for it."

2. "Don't go to a man's house and be alone with him unless you're prepared to have sex with him."

When a woman gives that advice to other women, any predatory male listening in will I'm sure take that as her sending out a personal value. ie "if I agree to be alone with you, it means I want to have sex with you."

I'm clear that I'm entitled to be alone in the company of a man without him having any rights to me sexually - or reaching an assumption(to the point where he'll become angry and hostile if thwarted) that I want to have sex with him. By feeling responsible for those unpleasant situations you described, Kamille, you're allowing one or two other people on the board to push you into the mindset that you're not actually entitled to be alone with a guy without him having that assumption (and being obnoxious to you if thwarted).

Canada is not Saudi Arabia or any country where it's considered appropriate for women to shroud themselves in cloth for fear of unleashing sexual aggression in men who don't feel accountable for controlling their desires. You are entitled to be alone with a male acquaintance without him taking a message from that that your body is up for grabs. I suspect that because of what happened, you may have lost some confidence in your right to that particular freedom...and it's being further undermined by some of the comments on this board.

However, it's vital that you get that confidence back, I think. Because by having the confidence that you do in fact have that right and that other people should respect that right, I believe you're better placed to stand your ground in situations where a man tries to persuade you otherwise. Again, none of those men completed a rape against you...and I would suggest that part of that is because you are a smart, credible woman who they would be that bit more cautious about. Of course women have to be careful about who they spend time alone with, and be aware that potentially they can be vulnerable in that situation. If some of the advice coming out on this thread were to be followed, however, we might as well all be in Saudi Arabia/avoiding any situations where we're alone with any man other than a partner or close male relative.

Best to be that woman about whom a potential date rapist thinks "Okay, she might be someone who would report me. She's got a good support network - maybe some people she knows will beat me up. If I were in court, she might make a very articular, strong and credible witness against me." A drunk man might be less inclined to rationalise in this way, which is why it pays to closely observe a man's drinking habits and avoid getting into any risky situations with a drunk guy (thinking about how quickly and unexpectedly drunks can turn nasty and aggressive). Being that woman who instils a certain amount of caution in men will put some men off...but bearing in mind the "I'd take her by force if I could get away with it" statistics, it seems to me that isn't a bad thing at all. Unless a woman is so desperate that she doesn't care who she attracts so long as he's male....which hopefully wouldn't apply to anyone here.

In the normal scheme of events, I think that a man who is making moves on you will - even if he's caught up in lust - have enough rationality to back off when told "no!" by the kind of woman who isn't liable to let him off scot-free if he messes with her. I would say that because you do demonstrate a reasonable amount of confidence in your rights, as a woman (even if your confidence has been shaken at times) when it comes to the crunch you are probably better equipped to stop a potential rape in its tracks than are those women who take a more victim-blaming approach.

The problem essentially with women reporting (and I do believe they should always report) is essentially how it is handled. The majority of the UK police force is predominantly male still, and as we have already seen in this thread, male attitudes towards rape victims are not always the kindest. They are more likely to belittle the victim, pass judgment etc. I've seen it happen, and a part of me wonders if it would have been better had she not reported it because of how she was made to feel. It's bad enough to be raped, but then to be treated in such a manner and made to feel like it was her fault, is even worse.

The only way I can see that changing is if there's courses in which the police go on to gain training and insight into rape victims experiences, and to try to get a boost of female officers to even out the balance. I do see where you're coming from, if you give off the impression that you won't say anything, you become an easy target. I've always thought I would report it, until my friend did, and I saw what she went through. The main motivation to me to report it, is to do your utmost to protect other women from such a man.

The thing is, with the not inviting him in, men here have already proven that if they get to a woman's house, in a private situation, they expect sex. By being alone with him, in his or your residence, you've created ambiguity. This is not to say the woman does not have the right to say no, of course they do, a woman's rights ought to be respected regardless. To be quite honest though, the first thing a defence barrister will snap at is the fact that she invited him in, or went to his, to a jury this is clear indication 'she wanted it'. That's not me talking, I don't believe it is, but I'm not naive enough to believe that others don't think such. Your safety comes first.

October 11, 2010

One of my ex girlfriends got raped by a guy at a college party she went to when we were taking a break from our relationship. She never did anything about it, and her best female friend at the time just watched and let it happen. The "friend" even laughed about it when my ex realized what happened the next morning.

She would never tell me his name or what he looked like, and we all went to the same college. It's probably a good thing she didn't, because I don't know what I would've done if I saw him walking on campus.

Hello kdark,

I just want to let you know that I think it's wonderful that instead of trying to excuse this guy's behavior, you cared for your exgirlfriend and for women in general enough to be angry at her attacker. There are many men like that, who care for women and who instead of questioning women and trying to excuse men, do care for women and do want to protect them from creeps.

About her, I do wish she had pressed charges, but as you can see from many posts on here, a woman who presses charges of rape is often the subject of a lot of speculation as to whether she's telling the truth or not, and is put on trial for herself, like she was the reason she was raped.

Thanks for your sharing this.

October 11, 2010

I think you should be more careful about what you call rape.

What happened here is something of a grey area. She pushed back once, then stopped. Questions come to my mind such as exactly how it looked. Did she push playfully, or in a way that could've seemed that to the guy? Did she push hard? Did she look scared and unhappy? How long did she keep pushing?

There is a big difference between pushing once for a second or two and pushing hard for let's say 10 seconds or more. This is especially important because she never said a verbal “no”. Responsibility for this communication is _shared_. Yes the man should stop if the woman is not happy, but also if a man isn't stopping a woman needs to up her communication until he does. I would say that a clear verbal “no” is the absolute least the woman can do if the situation is to be considered rape.

I understand this was certainly emotionally traumatic for her, and I don't want to diminish that. Yes, the guy should have stopped. But, this is a public forum and if something like this is posted it needs to be responded to. I would not be responding if people had simply offered their sympathy. But, if other people see fit to label what she described as “rape”, I think that merits a response.

Thank you. As a woman reading this I was appalled at the other women jumping on board to support this as an accusation of rape. Without a no, without any clear struggle, this clearly is not rape. Women are different in bed, some women are loud and animated, while others are meek and still, and everything else in between. To expect a man, especially one that's young or inexperienced, to know the difference between a meek love maker and a woman who "in her mind" does not want to have sex but doesn't outwardly express signs of it or verbalize it is too far-fetched.

While I too feel compassion for this poster, and agree that perhaps she did not want to have sex, there is an obligation on her to say one word, no. She may in fact be traumatized by the experience and should probably seek counseling, not only in regards to this experience but in regards to learn how to say no.

Use of the same word for these kinds of things dilutes the power of the word. As women, I'm sure you want a true forceful violent rape to be harshly condemned by men. You want every man around, when he hears that it has happened, to go grab the perpetrator and throw him in prison for a long time so he doesn't do it to someone else. This is understandable and right. But, when you take these ambiguous situations and call it by the same word as that, you run the risk of crying wolf. In this situation created by today's apparently inflated rape statistics, a man may hear that a woman has been “raped” and think to himself, “yes but was it really rape?” He may not be so eager to throw another guy into prison.

In this particular case, you're ready to call a guy a “rapist”-- the same word you would use for a guy that threatened a woman at gunpoint, beat her, and held her down while she screamed. You are completely unwilling apparently to consider what it might have looked like from his point of view but instead choose to demonize him. If that's what you want to do go ahead, but understand that when a man like me reads this, he is going to think twice and maybe three times if he is ever on a jury listening to a woman's testimony. He is going to remember feeling that certain women at least will push the facts farther than seems appropriate.

So, I would suggest you be careful with your use of this word. It is supposed to be a heinous crime. It is supposed to be a word that drives men to action in defense of women. Do not weaken its power by using it for every situation it can possibly be stretched to fit.

Scott

I absolutely agree that using the word rape in this scenario dilutes the power of the word in a scenario where it is justified and rightly used. It's important as women that we take very seriously this word rape and not bandy it about attaching it to our discomfort or scenarios that don't fit, because rape does happen, and date rape does happen and it HAS to be taken seriously. As women we have a responsibility to know how to say NO in situations where we are uncomfortable. All it takes is the word NO. That is not a lot to ask. However, if we support accusations of rape where there were no clear signs, other than in her own mind, that women did not want to have sex it does dilute the power of any accusation, including accusations of women that were legitimately raped and said no.

October 11, 2010

The problem essentially with women reporting (and I do believe they should always report) is essentially how it is handled. The majority of the UK police force is predominantly male still, and as we have already seen in this thread, male attitudes towards rape victims are not always the kindest. They are more likely to belittle the victim, pass judgment etc. I've seen it happen, and a part of me wonders if it would have been better had she not reported it because of how she was made to feel. It's bad enough to be raped, but then to be treated in such a manner and made to feel like it was her fault, is even worse.

I know. I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that this is a process which is easy for women. We can't change the system on a thread like this, but we can make suggestions as to how women can give themselves the advantage using what limited support is on offer.

I suppose I see it like this. In any situation where you have to stand up to an abuser, it's going to be hard. It would be a disservice to people who have managed to do it to suggest otherwise. A huge part of what makes people successfully stand their ground against those who have some power over them, and are out to abuse that power, is that they give out the message of "I am prepared to stand my ground against you, whatever the personal cost to me."

In that sense, it's almost like a particularly horrible form of negotiation. What leverage do you have against a man who is performing a mental risk assessment in considering whether to force you into sex (and I do believe that barring the situation of the drunk, mentally ill individual or the guy who's high on drugs, it probably can be as calculated as that).

Maybe you have a black belt in a martial art which, while you have to be realistic about the level of protection it could afford you against a much bigger person (especially if he too is trained in a martial art) might at least render you far more sufficiently capable of delivering a very nasty injury that he'd decide it wasn't worth the risk.

Or maybe you have a few dodgy contacts you can call upon for a favour. Get them to break the guys legs. It's important that a potential aggressor knows that you're a tough enough cookie that you would be prepared to arrange an outcome like that for him if he hurts you.

Maybe you don't have a black belt or a network of contacts that would make him think twice. Maybe he's the one with the black belt and the network of dodgy contacts. What have you got then? All you've got is the protection that the law offers you...which in reality is quite limited. However, at crunch time - in a potential rape situation - you have to work with what you have.

That guy has to know that limited as the authorities might be in the help they offer women who have been raped, you are someone who will nonetheless get all the help she can from them. You need to convey the aura of being that if he messes with you, he's likely to make it into that that small category of men accused of rape who actually get convicted of it...because you're smart, tough, determined and articulate to stand in a witness box and get him put away. Give a calculating predator that information about you, and the chances are that he'll probably tell you with a sneer that you're not worth it. Which is the outcome you should be aiming for.

October 11, 2010

I think you should be more careful about what you call rape.

What happened here is something of a grey area. She pushed back once, then stopped. Questions come to my mind such as exactly how it looked. Did she push playfully, or in a way that could've seemed that to the guy? Did she push hard? Did she look scared and unhappy? How long did she keep pushing?

There is a big difference between pushing once for a second or two and pushing hard for let's say 10 seconds or more. This is especially important because she never said a verbal “no”. Responsibility for this communication is _shared_. Yes the man should stop if the woman is not happy, but also if a man isn't stopping a woman needs to up her communication until he does. I would say that a clear verbal “no” is the absolute least the woman can do if the situation is to be considered rape.

I understand this was certainly emotionally traumatic for her, and I don't want to diminish that. Yes, the guy should have stopped. But, this is a public forum and if something like this is posted it needs to be responded to. I would not be responding if people had simply offered their sympathy. But, if other people see fit to label what she described as “rape”, I think that merits a response.

Here is the problem with this. As a guy, I've heard a lot talked about in my life about rape statistics. They seem pretty high to me, but then I wonder about the people that compile them and what they include. Some studies will call it rape if all that happens is the woman regrets it the next day, with absolutely no struggle at all. Some call it rape if all it includes is brief finger penetration. Some have even called it rape if it is between a married couple and the only thing that happens is the woman has sex when she doesn't want to (ie when she has a headache or something), and the woman continues happily married afterwards. I hear these kinds of things and I say to myself “that's not what I would consider rape”. In some rape studies, women who were supposedly “raped” continued having a consensual relationship with the man afterwards. When I hear this kind of thing I feel like I'm being manipulated for someone else's political gains, and it makes me doubt other women's statements.

Use of the same word for these kinds of things dilutes the power of the word. As women, I'm sure you want a true forceful violent rape to be harshly condemned by men. You want every man around, when he hears that it has happened, to go grab the perpetrator and throw him in prison for a long time so he doesn't do it to someone else. This is understandable and right. But, when you take these ambiguous situations and call it by the same word as that, you run the risk of crying wolf. In this situation created by today's apparently inflated rape statistics, a man may hear that a woman has been “raped” and think to himself, “yes but was it really rape?” He may not be so eager to throw another guy into prison.

In this particular case, you're ready to call a guy a “rapist”-- the same word you would use for a guy that threatened a woman at gunpoint, beat her, and held her down while she screamed. You are completely unwilling apparently to consider what it might have looked like from his point of view but instead choose to demonize him. If that's what you want to do go ahead, but understand that when a man like me reads this, he is going to think twice and maybe three times if he is ever on a jury listening to a woman's testimony. He is going to remember feeling that certain women at least will push the facts farther than seems appropriate.

So, I would suggest you be careful with your use of this word. It is supposed to be a heinous crime. It is supposed to be a word that drives men to action in defense of women. Do not weaken its power by using it for every situation it can possibly be stretched to fit.

Scott

Rape is an issue surrounding consent, so wherever consent is not clearly given, or not given at all, it can and will allude to the question of rape. Not all, in fact, most rapes are not physically violent at all, they don't use a gun to force her to strip, beat her black and blue, or even beat her at all. Rape is and always will be about consent, if the woman does not actively give consent, and does not want to, then it is rape.

For many years, women have suffered at the hands of men taking exactly what they want, when they want it, and how they want it. A married woman, until around the early 1990s, in the UK, didn't have the right to report what would have been a rape outside of marriage, if it occured within marriage. A married woman could not be raped-the law deemed. How ridiculous that it was only twenty or less years ago that law was changed. We all full well know that a married woman can be raped, but the law never recognised such.

I'm really not understanding what is so ambiguous about the word 'rape' for you. A man is a rapist if he has sexual relations with a woman without her consent. How may a woman consent to sex:

1) Verbally-'Yes, I want to have sex with you right now.'

2)Through action-undressing you, etc etc.

You can't just say we have demonized the man in Aerogurl's case, she pushed him off, he didn't stop, and he continued, and took what he wanted. Does that sound like she consented in any way? I feel utterly disgusted that someone would condone it because heck, she wasn't held at gunpoint, there was no bruises, etc. Does a woman need to be beaten half to death for men to actually sit up and take note? Shocking.

There is no ambiguity in Aerogurl's case. She may not have screamed out no, punched the guy in the face, but she did not consent. That's not forcing anything to fit a description, that is it fitting the description of rape rather accurately. I'm just very sorry she had to go through that, and her account has been dragged over the coals because some men can't wrap their heads around it.

October 11, 2010

I know. I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that this is a process which is easy for women. We can't change the system on a thread like this, but we can make suggestions as to how women can give themselves the advantage using what limited support is on offer.

I suppose I see it like this. In any situation where you have to stand up to an abuser, it's going to be hard. It would be a disservice to people who have managed to do it to suggest otherwise. A huge part of what makes people successfully stand their ground against those who have some power over them, and are out to abuse that power, is that they give out the message of "I am prepared to stand my ground against you, whatever the personal cost to me."

In that sense, it's almost like a particularly horrible form of negotiation. What leverage do you have against a man who is performing a mental risk assessment in considering whether to force you into sex (and I do believe that barring the situation of the drunk, mentally ill individual or the guy who's high on drugs, it probably can be as calculated as that).

Maybe you have a black belt in a martial art which, while you have to be realistic about the level of protection it could afford you against a much bigger person (especially if he too is trained in a martial art) might at least render you far more sufficiently capable of delivering a very nasty injury that he'd decide it wasn't worth the risk.

Or maybe you have a few dodgy contacts you can call upon for a favour. Get them to break the guys legs. It's important that a potential aggressor knows that you're a tough enough cookie that you would be prepared to arrange an outcome like that for him if he hurts you.

Maybe you don't have a black belt or a network of contacts that would make him think twice. Maybe he's the one with the black belt and the network of dodgy contacts. What have you got then? All you've got is the protection that the law offers you...which in reality is quite limited. However, at crunch time - in a potential rape situation - you have to work with what you have.

That guy has to know that limited as the authorities might be in the help they offer women who have been raped, you are someone who will nonetheless get all the help she can from them. You need to convey the aura of being that if he messes with you, he's likely to make it into that that small category of men accused of rape who actually get convicted of it...because you're smart, tough, determined and articulate to stand in a witness box and get him put away. Give a calculating predator that information about you, and the chances are that he'll probably tell you with a sneer that you're not worth it. Which is the outcome you should be aiming for.

Fully agree. Women should always be assertive, and be prepared to not bow down to these abusers, show them that you will never stand for that treatment, and if he chooses to go through with it, you go through with it. As many women as possible ought to report cases like this, in order to seek justice, and in order to protect other women from them.

October 11, 2010

I absolutely agree that using the word rape in this scenario dilutes the power of the word in a scenario where it is justified and rightly used. It's important as women that we take very seriously this word rape and not bandy it about attaching it to our discomfort or scenarios that don't fit, because rape does happen, and date rape does happen and it HAS to be taken seriously. As women we have a responsibility to know how to say NO in situations where we are uncomfortable. All it takes is the word NO. That is not a lot to ask. However, if we support accusations of rape where there were no clear signs, other than in her own mind, that women did not want to have sex it does dilute the power of any accusation, including accusations of women that were legitimately raped and said no.

Hello CollectiveVelvet,

I volunteer with girls who have been sexually abused at a women's shelter. Many girls who have been sexually abused do not say no. They freeze. It's how some girls are. Other girls say no and yell and scream and it does no good, so eventually they stop saying no too.

Sexual abuse and rape have a lot in common, since rape is a part of sexual abuse that is a horrible reality many people (both male and female) face. It is very important for parents to teach their children to say no and to yell and scream and to make public sexual advances.

There was a study, and I could try to find it, that I heard about once where predators who sexually abused children often prey on children who they know won't make a scene.

I remember one day watching a program where a girl was called in by her dad to watch advice on what one should do if they were grabbed. The advice was to scream and kick and stay in the public eye, to not get in a vesicle with the attacker no matter what. Guess what? This girl actually had to use that advice one day at the mall, where she was grabbed and she followed that advice, and caring people who witnessed called the police and got that creep arrested!

There are, however, girls who freeze. Some people even suggest to freeze and go along with an attacker, and sometimes it is hard to know which way is best, especially when that person's life is at stake.

So, definitely children, both male and female, from a young age need to be taught to say no and yell and scream and tell anybody if anybody dares hurt them or try to hurt them.

October 11, 2010

In the normal scheme of events, I think that a man who is making moves on you will - even if he's caught up in lust - have enough rationality to back off when told "no!" by the kind of woman who isn't liable to let him off scot-free if he messes with her. I would say that because you do demonstrate a reasonable amount of confidence in your rights, as a woman (even if your confidence has been shaken at times) when it comes to the crunch you are probably better equipped to stop a potential rape in its tracks than are those women who take a more victim-blaming approach.

Agree. I have never pressed further when a woman blocked me from penetration. Of course I wanted to go farther but it's up to her.

Certainly, I never wanted to force someone to have sex with me, but I also feared the consequences of pushing her too far. She may not want to see me again.

This woman I was sex playing with (oral, etc.) would never open up for me go in. One night, in cuddling after she had been drinking (I don't drink anything but a little wine), she told me "I want you..."

I liked hearing that and got mentally excited, but questioned her, given her previous stopping me at the gate (she wasn't a virgin, but had limited experience, btw). She was a practicing Christian and I don't think she wanted the guilt of another sexual relationship.

She then changed her mind and we didn't ML. I felt better about asking her because I wasn't just after her body - though I really wanted her physically. I thought doing that would have been taking advantage of her in her state of intoxication.

Maybe I should have gone in as she gave me the green light.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Floridaman

October 11, 2010

Thank you. As a woman reading this I was appalled at the other women jumping on board to support this as an accusation of rape. Without a no, without any clear struggle, this clearly is not rape. Women are different in bed, some women are loud and animated, while others are meek and still, and everything else in between. To expect a man, especially one that's young or inexperienced, to know the difference between a meek love maker and a woman who "in her mind" does not want to have sex but doesn't outwardly express signs of it or verbalize it is too far-fetched.

While I too feel compassion for this poster, and agree that perhaps she did not want to have sex, there is an obligation on her to say one word, no. She may in fact be traumatized by the experience and should probably seek counseling, not only in regards to this experience but in regards to learn how to say no.

I absolutely agree that using the word rape in this scenario dilutes the power of the word in a scenario where it is justified and rightly used. It's important as women that we take very seriously this word rape and not bandy it about attaching it to our discomfort or scenarios that don't fit, because rape does happen, and date rape does happen and it HAS to be taken seriously. As women we have a responsibility to know how to say NO in situations where we are uncomfortable. All it takes is the word NO. That is not a lot to ask. However, if we support accusations of rape where there were no clear signs, other than in her own mind, that women did not want to have sex it does dilute the power of any accusation, including accusations of women that were legitimately raped and said no.

I can see why some are saying it is not rape, convention and etiquette requires we must always say no in order to claim it as rape. However, she did make it clear in the fact she tried to push him off, it can be very difficult to define it as we were not there, and not her. I believe I'd have reacted much the same way, and have done when ambushed. I tried to go along with it as much as possible, in order to limit the damage, luckily I got away, but I still froze. It's a tough call. But the distinction is clear.

May I point something out? If a woman ought to actively assert her lack of consent, in order to prove or show that she did not want to have sex, surely she ought to actively assert her consent, in order to prove she wanted to have sex. You can't have one without having the other. Anything less than verbal consent, or consent via action, if a woman merely lies there, frozen still, maybe the odd attempt at pushing him off, that could be and should be regarded as a mixed signal, thus the guy ought to respect her and ask if she is sure.

October 11, 2010

Fully agree. Women should always be assertive, and be prepared to not bow down to these abusers, show them that you will never stand for that treatment, and if he chooses to go through with it, you go through with it. As many women as possible ought to report cases like this, in order to seek justice, and in order to protect other women from them.

I was looking at my post again, and thinking "okay - when someone is right about to attack you, there isn't time to give out all those messages."

However, to give an example of stopping violence in its tracks: I was working in a home for teenagers with some serious behavioural problems (this is going back years). A couple of boys had been picking on a very small girl, it pressed my buttons and I reacted to them very angrily - angrily enough to inflame the situation rather than resolve it. I was standing in front of French doors. One of the boys came towards me and threatened to put me through them. I was absolutely terrified. My female shift partner - get this - fled into the kitchen and began doing some washing up, completely blanking out this horrible situation. So I was on my own.

My thought was "if this *&*&%$ lays a %^$£& finger throws me through those windows, I will get him caught, bound up and tortured for several hours." I know it sounds horrible, but that's what I was thinking - though God knows who I had in mind to carry out such a task. As I was thinking it, I said to him "touch me, and I can assure you I'll make sure you're severely dealt with."

I think your thoughts come through in your words and tone...and that if you're thinking in terms of heinous consequences you will impose on someone who's threatening you then often they'll pick that up and think twice. I don't know...I might be wrong, but I was right in that case because although he was a very large kid he stopped and sat down. He carried on being a sh*t in the verbal abuse he gave me, but the moment of physical danger was gone - which was all that really mattered.

It's not feminine or pretty to let that side of yourself out. All the time there are threads on here talking about the things women can be in order to ensure they are considered unattractive and unappealing to men. Able to stand your ground aggressively in a dangerous situation is one of them...but let's face it, our lives should not revolve around constantly trying to be pretty and feminine. There are appropriate times for that, but there are also times we need to be ready to adopt an aggressive demeanour...and times when a physical attack seems imminent are among them.

I think a course of martial arts training could probably give a lot of women a boost in that respect. Help them towards that point where they're less likely to panic to the point where they freeze in the face of an attacker and more likely to demonstrate some level of calm (even if they don't feel it) and assertively talk the prospective attacker down before they escalate to that point of no return.

October 11, 2010

Agreed on all counts. This thread's been bugging at me like threads on LS don't usually.

Same here.

We crossed posted and both agree that guys 2 and 3 were likely to stop. And in fact, they both did stop and backed down once I made it clear I wasn't going to be bullied into having sex. It's horrible though that guy 2 stopped only once I made it clear I would consider anything past that point to be rape. Not only did I say "I said no!" I said "I said no! No means no!"

I'm shocked, however, that some people have argued that that is fine with them. That a man should never stop to seek consent, should ignore a woman's attempts to provide for her own safety by stipulating she won't have sex before allowing a man in her space, and that a man should keep pushing for sex until the woman is forced, as a last recourse, to risk an escalation of the violence by threatening a rape charge.

Yes, my instincts told me number 1 would get violent and number 2 and 3 would stop.

I also think woman should be able to prosecute if they felt they were bullied into sex. In the examples I reported, I had explicitly said I did not want sex several times before the guys intensified their efforts to get me to have sex with them. Those moments count. I had said no. Sure, a woman can initially say no and then change her mind, but then it's even more incumbent upon men to ask for consent.

This isn't to undermine the level of anxiety all three situations caused you, because I think those are situations that would be highly stressful for any woman. What I'm trying to get to is that although guys two and three weren't who you hoped they were, your judgement wasn't completely off base in that both of them ultimately accepted "no" even though they pushed for sex and were pretty unpleasant about it.

Yes, number 2 accepted no once the No was presented as a rape accusations. It was incredibly scary. I debated reporting him for awhile because a part of me doubts other girls would have had the courage to threaten charges then and there.

However, let's say that there's truth in it and that there are many guys out there who would force an unwilling woman into sex if they thought there wouldn't be negative consequences for them. That says to me that statistically, one of the most effective ways a woman could defend herself from something like date rape would be to be able to convey that she's not someone who a man can pin down and rape without him incurring some pretty major consequences on himself for doing so.

2. "Don't go to a man's house and be alone with him unless you're prepared to have sex with him."

When a woman gives that advice to other women, any predatory male listening in will I'm sure take that as her sending out a personal value. ie "if I agree to be alone with you, it means I want to have sex with you."

I'm clear that I'm entitled to be alone in the company of a man without him having any rights to me sexually - or reaching an assumption(to the point where he'll become angry and hostile if thwarted) that I want to have sex with him.

That's a great point. The message should be: 1) No situation ever gives someone sexual rights over a somebody else's without their prior consent. 2) Protect yourself.

By feeling responsible for those unpleasant situations you described, Kamille, you're allowing one or two other people on the board to push you into the mindset that you're not actually entitled to be alone with a guy without him having that assumption (and being obnoxious to you if thwarted).

Another good point. I wonder if I have lost my confidence in my rights to the freedom of being alone with a man without him feeling entitled to make claims over my body. I will need to think about it. For now, it's a coping mechanism that works for me.

October 11, 2010

Hello CollectiveVelvet,

I volunteer with girls who have been sexually abused at a women's shelter. Many girls who have been sexually abused do not say no. They freeze. It's how some girls are. Other girls say no and yell and scream and it does no good, so eventually they stop saying no too.

Sexual abuse and rape have a lot in common, since rape is a part of sexual abuse that is a horrible reality many people (both male and female) face. It is very important for parents to teach their children to say no and to yell and scream and to make public sexual advances.

There was a study, and I could try to find it, that I heard about once where predators who sexually abused children often prey on children who they know won't make a scene.

I remember one day watching a program where a girl was called in by her dad to watch advice on what one should do if they were grabbed. The advice was to scream and kick and stay in the public eye, to not get in a vesicle with the attacker no matter what. Guess what? This girl actually had to use that advice one day at the mall, where she was grabbed and she followed that advice, and caring people who witnessed called the police and got that creep arrested!

There are, however, girls who freeze. Some people even suggest to freeze and go along with an attacker, and sometimes it is hard to know which way is best, especially when that person's life is at stake.

So, definitely children, both male and female, from a young age need to be taught to say no and yell and scream and tell anybody if anybody dares hurt them or try to hurt them.

I absolutely agree that children should be taught how to fight and make a scene. Clearly we need to educate our girls on how to say no in a sexually uncomfortable experience. I just happen to strongly disagree that a woman who does not know how to say no could then accuse a man of rape because she just went along with it.

Child sexual or physical abuse does not I feel fit in this category. This is a different topic. It is understandable that a child should be ambivalent with an adult; but as women we have a responsibility in ambiguous situations to state our desires and not assume that others know them. So much rides on this.

As an adolescent I certainly had a few sexual encounters where I was unsure, or did not know where my comfort level was, or regretted it later but decided to go along with it at the time... But I made a decision to have sex when I decided to go along with it without saying no, and without backing out of the situation, I may have even backed down and then changed my mind and decided to have sex. This was not rape, this was consensual sex.

October 11, 2010

Im too busy to read through all the long posts, so IDK if this is gonna fit in correctly, but I thought Id chime in. First of all, I agree that men (especially in college) are extremely sexually driven and often will do anything to have sex. A poll done at UCLA (don't know the accuracy though) said that about 20% of men would rape a girl if he knew he could get away with it. Ive heard of guys get in fights over girls, commit felonies, etc. Now, on the flip side of the spectrum, more women in college drink then men even though its a common factor for alcohol to be a cause of date rape. Im not saying women shouldn't drink but lots of women overdue in order to either keep up with the guys or because women's drunken behavior is often excused more. Keeping alcohol in moderation is a very good way of decreasing date rape chances. I'll give you an example. As I was walking home to my dorm, I saw a group of students, obviously just came from a party. The two guys were obviously flirting (and frankly not doing a very good job LOL) and the two girls were obviously intoxicated. Their were two other girls with them too. While I could tell they were possibly slightly drunk (walking kinda unevenly), they were much more in control and guess what they guys didn't seem interested. At first I thought maybe they were fugly but na, both were super HOT. Most date rapes occur because of opportunity.

Edited October 11, 2010 by classof2014

Sign In

Date Rape

Recommended Posts

sanskrit

elaina

elaina

Kamille

OpenBook

Kamille

harmfulsweetz

harmfulsweetz

Taramere

Scottdmw

elaina

Kamille

harmfulsweetz

elaina

CollectiveVelvet

Taramere

harmfulsweetz

harmfulsweetz

elaina

Floridaman

harmfulsweetz

Taramere

Kamille

CollectiveVelvet

classof2014

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...