You know, I'm not crazy about "consent is sexy." I think it sort of trivializes rape. It sounds as if the worst you can say about non-consensual sex is that it's unsexy.

The anti-feminists keep making our case for us. This argument is just a stone's throw from saying that women who consent are "bad girls" who deserve to be raped. At the core of the anti-feminist agenda is a fundamentalist conception of female sexuality as property owned by men. They can dress it up, but the bottom line is that they think women having sex for pleasure (for their _own_ pleasure) is spoliation of assets.

Bzzzt ! BS detector going off at max.

The 'ol hoary one-in-four nonsense again! Pure gibberish, absolute crap that has been refuted time & again .. and brought back from the crypt time and again .. like the living dead it needs that wooden stake thru its rotten heart.

Rape and sexual assault ARE crimes. Labelling ANY perception as "rape " is what skews the claims to meaninglessness.

Coming soon : eye rape, thought rape , speaking rape .. oops, that one just became fact
in where .. Costa Rica ?

Funny how its never sexual assault when grabbed by the bad boy biker .. just for the nerd who accidentally brushed up against the princess.

frankly, "consent is sexy" doesn't strike me as the greatest anti-rape slogan ever, either. but i guess i can kindof see how it might have come about - you want to oppose a horribly hurtful, violent crime, but you want to put a positive spin on it so as to not instantly turn off and scare away your audience, especially since you want to use v-day as a gimmick for the whole drive, so you have to make at least the _slogan_ sound appealing _somehow_...

yeah, true, it's not exactly batting a thousand, this one. but i doubt it could, given the circumstances - *i* sure can't think of a better one.

Jim, one in four women is a victim of sexual assault, and one in eight of what you consider "real" rape. Once again, I don't see the point. If it's only a hell of a lot of rape instead of a hella hell of a lot of rape, does that mean that it doesn't count?

Jim, uh, what exactly is it you are reacting to here ...?

I get what your first paragraph meant. You believe Koss's critics. The one-in-four number is hers. So, without agreeing, I understand what you are responding to.

Your second paragraph loses me. Who here or in the article said that rape is defined by perception rather than conduct? Are you responding to a view you oppose that has not even been raised here?

Your third paragraph similarly loses me. I'm not especially familiar with the legal systems of foreign nations.

Your final paragraph loses me, if anything, even more. You wrote, "Funny how its never sexual assault when grabbed by the bad boy biker .. just for the nerd who accidentally brushed up against the princess." I'm not sure I follow you. Are you arguing, contrary to what you said above, that rape is defined by perception? Are you talking about real life or fiction? Are you trying to make some complicated point about how fictional depictions of the use of force in sex perpetuate unrealistic assumptions about consent and sex (if that's what you're getting at, I might agree)?

If you want anyone to understand what you have to say, you can't shorthand all your thoughts. Slow down and say what's on your mind.

Ms. Eden (for all her New York Post hippness) seems a little lost in the ozone for someone who appears to be a grown adult. As a New York Observer article notes, "On abortion, Ms. Eden is an absolutist to the point where she believes an 11-year-old impregnated by her blind, retarded, serial-killing father with AIDS should keep the baby."

http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage6.asp

Of course HAS she been raped and impregnated? Hell no. "No, I can't imagine what it would be liked to be raped and carry my assailant's child."

http://www.dawneden.com/2005/01/wheres-emergency.html

That's sort of like me saying that men should just go out and ram ice picks through their penises because how much could it hurt anyway? Not that I would know or anything, but take my word on it, they jsut should because Jesus wants it.

What a doofus this little thing is.

MO

I think 'consent is sexy' means "it's sexy to ask your partner if she/he wants to make love" as opposed to just barging ahead. It's an attempt to move away from the model of "she didn't say no' to "she said yes." It certainly doesn't mean "sexy girls consent to sex." This woman sounds like a true lunatic. It must be infuriating for anti-feminists to watch the mainstreaming of the Vagina Monologues, it's become a kind of spring fiesta.

"The University of Washington article lauds the student actresses of The Vagina Monologues for their lack of shame in "structuring a performance based on women talking about the 'unnamed' subject." The real unnamed subject is abstinence, with all its benefits — including the prevention of cervical cancer. But don't expect Eve Ensler to publicize that anytime soon."

"But perhaps it's asking too much to suggest that a group affiliated with the V-Day campaign should work seriously to reduce sexual activity among unmarried youths."

... I fail to see why they should, frankly. Premarital sex is not, in my humble opinion, inherently evil. I don't think intimacy should have a ring and a lifetime committment attached, and gay couples are kind of stuck with premarital sex until they can get married.

I definitely agree with Katha, above. I read the slogan to be promoting consent as something desirable in the hopes that more couples will wait until there's mutual agreement before having sex, not as trivilizing rape. Mutual agreement is something I definitely promote.

This idea of sexual knowledge promoting sexual activity is nothing new with some of the more reactionary crowd. In past clinic defenses I have been a part of, I do try to talk to some of the anti-choise activists. I remember talking to one man, who I told that I agreed that there are too many abortions and that the best way of reducing the amount performed was for both men and women to use more birth control. This man than told me that what I was saying was that people should have sex in the streets.
My point is this, that with some people, trying to talk about sex is the same as saying the everyone should have sex everywhere. I have no idea how to convince them otherwise.

Janine:

You can't convince them otherwise because they have one thing right (stay with me here).

Sexual knowledge does tend to lead to understanding, investigation, contemplation. If you tell somebody how to have safer anal sex, and they have not thought about anal sex, they might decide the idea of anal sex excites them. When we provide people information, it broadens their horizons and expands their options.

The antis don't want people to have options. They believe their version of the world is not optional but mandatory. They want a world where sexual pleasure outside their narrow constraints is unspeakable -- literally unspeakable -- or beset with such dangers that no sane person would dare.

So, for them, anything that reduces sexual options or imposes consequences is good, and anything that reduces consequences or creates options is bad. The far-right positions are therefore consistent: No sex until marriage, no sex education other than indoctrination, no contraception, no abortion, no homosexuality, no polyamory, no masturbation.

Anyone who shows up for a clinic hit cannot be reasoned with. They can only be shown for the radical reactionaries that they are.

That's why I am so happy about this New Republic article -- this woman obviously thinks undergraduates ought not to be having sex. Nobody agrees with that but the fringies. The more we can demonstrate that the fundamentalist agenda is just against any kind of sex, the less influence they will have with the non-insane populace.

So...if I've read correctly, the Right is pro-oppressing people, anti-"options," pro-constraint, pro-totalitarian control over everybody, anti-sex (or, "afraid of sex")? I hardly agree with the Right with anything, but not even I am hysterical enough to believe this.

What really amazes me is how many of you are so narrow-minded that it is impossible for you to apprehend the fact that some people have different conceptions of what constitutes "freedom." And by caricaturing your ideological opponents with such intellectually lazy straw man arguments, you risk sounding like an idiot.

Carly:

Perhaps I should confine my characterization to a smaller subset of the cultural right. However, while they certainly would not adopt my terminology, those elements of the right that agree with Dawn Eden do, in fact, take the positions I say they do. She's against premarital sex. Seriously.

Nor do I think that most of the religious folks I am speaking of would dispute that they think their rules are mandatory -- if you believe in God's plan for all of us, then God's law is not optional.

I don't think there's any controversy that one of the arguments for abstinence-only education is that telling children about sex gives them ideas. In fact, there is even controversy about telling children about masturbation -- so much so that it got a Surgeon General fired (resigned, technically, but this is a polite inside-the-beltway fiction).

My third paragraph is polemic, but not in my view unsupported. The fourth, however, is a serious analysis of the import of a set of positions. The folks I am talking about explain their positions differently, of course -- for example, that the only purposes of sexual pleasure are intimacy and reproduction within the holy union of a heterosexual marriage open to the possibility of conception (to take the Catholic view -- do you think a religious Catholic would disagree with that sentence as a summary of Catholic theology?). I have a different view of what their positions have in common. I conclude -- and I don't think unreasonably so -- that the great consistency in the religious right positions on sex is that all the positions tend to constrict sexual self-expression to the narrow set of circumstances where their faith deems it appropriate.

Now, most Americans are not on board with a religiously-driven view of sex that states that all sexual expression ought to be limited to intimacy within a heterosexual marriage. Pointing out the far-out position of someone like Dawn Eden alienates her and makes sex-positive feminists more like the mainstream of America.

Or, as I put it in a prior comment, ours is the side of tolerance and fun.

I'm pretty comfortable saying that a significant part of the Right, including the current administration, has some serious hang-ups about sex, Carly. Did you miss the bit about how Bush's proposed budget slashes all sorts of health funding, such as programs that train nurses, track and contain epidemics, and treat traumatic brain injuries, while massively increasing money for programs that teach children not to have sex? You don't think there's something a little skewed about the priorities of people who decide that the nursing shortage and is less important than the "don't fuck" curriculum? Especially since the "don't fuck" curriculum appears not to work?

"It must be infuriating for anti-feminists to watch the mainstreaming of the Vagina Monologues, it's become a kind of spring fiesta."

My sense is that the V-day thing drives anti-feminists a little nuts. Last year, some IWF-funded anti-feminist group on my campus staged a "take back Valentine's Day" event. Apparently, feminists are taking all of the fun out of Valentine's Day. The thing is, I don't think too many people think about "fun" when they think about the IWF, and not too many people went to their event. Anyway, if the anti-feminist group is still around, they were totally quiet this year. And V-day is still going strong.

Fair enough. Apologies if my writing style left questions as to what I am reacting to.

Marissa Hacketts erroneous accusations do a disservice to those that wish to be taken seriously on this issue. Let me explain why.

First there is the false, and repeatedly refuted claim of 1 in 4 sexual assaults. Let alone the 1 in 5 in men. ( actually thats the one that gave it away to me .. the mens numbers are hallucinatory bs )

This also has the residual knock-on effect of creating a local hysteria around the perceived ever-present-threat-lurking-in-the-shadows that's gonna getcha. It's everywhere doncha know?

.. a straw man boogie man if you will. When the numbers are really examined the claims fall apart.
How does that help in the future when serious urgent issues need attention? Auhorities : " Um yes, well we can't act until we do a study verifying that this is correct .. you will remember last time the blowback we received from the incorrect statistics given to us".

There are consequences to actions. That is a key point the feminist movement has succeeded in creating awareness in men of. The irony is the self same movement just cannot .. what, conceive.. believe .. accept? .. that it is capable of the same ignorance.

It's both sad and hilarious. Now of course saying the words hilarious(sp?)could be conceived as needlessly vindictive .. a sort of late hit after making the tackle. No, it's just that it is hilarious in a stand-off dry Far Side cartoonish kind of way.

Admit it . I fuck up, you fuck up, they fuck up. This is a fuck up.

Wait. The implications go even further.

The Consent to Sex requirement is being applied in a non practical manner. It's about 1 step from having to fill in a form in triplicate before anything goes any further. Can you see a couple going at it then stopping .." Do you X , consent to my lovemaking, kissing from the neck to the breast, without specifically touching the breast, as a first step in our volcanic climactic orgasmic sex?" Yeesh. Or even before things begin. Nah, that wouldn't ruin the moment would it? Let's take spontaniety outside and shoot it in the head shall we?

Why would anyone try to propose a resolution in such a manner? A cynic might say that it is intentional. To create even more difficulty and tension in an already very difficult male-female relationship environment. Gee, thanks.

This is kind of like communism. Impractical declarations from on high from the politburo that have absolutely no practical relevance at the local level.

And that brings me to my dissipated thoughts on the bad boy biker. I'm alluding to reality here.
What is happening is that regular guys are getting hit with all this " You must approach this way, and request this way and talk in only this politically correct manner etc" when dealing with women on a romantic level.

But that's not how heterosexuality works. The effect is to feminise men in their thinking and approaches. And it doesn't work. Women on a romantic level ( not every one , but as a whole )do not respond to tentative passive non-aggressive male. It's not desired nor appreciated.

Therefore our stereotypical Bad Boy Biker gets the girl cause he doesn't give a crap about any pc. And if they're successful and regular guys begin to copy, which they will and do, females are only going to get treated worse over time. No, there's something very wrong at the base of this Consent requirement.

Oh, I've noticed that I'm on a wee bit of a rant here. Hey if you resented the above you'll be burning me in effigy for what follows.

Consent requirements feed the extremely problematic situation of false accusations. How can you defend against this? As things stand now, men can be wiped out JUST on the basis of this accusation : guilty until proven innocent publically, legally, and practically. Having experienced the process of false accusation myself, I personally would look for the same penalties for false accusation or unproven allegation by allegers.

There's a lot to gain and currently, very little to lose by making these false statements. I've since disabused myself of the notion of females wearing this white halo around their heads. As I also did of men long ago.

But you know what? My desire above is nonsense. It's not practical. It's a land mine strewn mud bog that leads to quagmire. If the leaders proposing this cannot visualize this outcome, then why follow them, why are they leaders? There's an unspoken underlying theme of revenge in the Consent Requirements. Cold, calculating, and very destructive.

I've undoubtebly made a too lengthy post. I'll explain what I would more practically do to a round course of hissing and booing at some further point. Hope this has helped explain my position.

"The Consent to Sex requirement is being applied in a non practical manner. It's about 1 step from having to fill in a form in triplicate before anything goes any further."

Can you explain where you're getting this?

Jim:
It seems as though your contempt about rape/sexual violence derives from the unfortunate situation of being a victim of a false accusation, and as result you are not able to look at these issues objectively.
A few specific points:
The one in four statistic to which you are referring is old (17 years old to be exact)and has been refuted many times due to the study's methodological weaknesses. The statistic (most) violence researchers use now is one in five women, which is reported in a study conducted by the US Department of Justice in 2000. As for the one in five men number, "the one that gave it away," is over a man's lifetime, beginning at birth. This number includes child sexual abuse, of which males are more often victims. As for the "perceived ever-present-threat-lurking-in-the-shadows" - this is a myth, perpetuated by those who know little about rape and sexual violence. Most (80%) women know their attackers - he is a spouse, boyfriend, date, acquaintance, neighbor, classmate, etc. Our culture (women and men) tends to believe that there has to be an element of abject fear in order for a woman to be raped. The stranger in the dark alley draped in a full body trenchcoat weilding a knife is a culturally acceptable rapist. The guy who bought you a few drinks at the bar is not.

Jim:

Now I understand what you're saying, but now I'm quite sure you're largely reacting to something that nobody here is saying.

Let's put aside Hackett's numbers for a second. They are originally Koss's numbers. There's a controversy on both sides, some people think those numbers are nonsense and some think they have been replicated and are just misunderstood. That's an old fight, and I don't want to rehash it- but I do understand your position.

About consent, though, I don't know who is arguing that anybody needs a hall pass to get laid. All anybody is arguing that I can see is that folks ought to be sure that their partner is into it- that is, consenting.

I just don't think there are so many close cases. Whenever I have leaned in to kiss a woman, either she kisses back, or she leaves me hanging with my lips in the air, letting me know clearly that it isn't going to happen.

As to just pushing a woman up against a wall and forcing your tongue in her mouth, I think that's more a creature of fiction than reality. Most of the women I know, even if they wanted to fuck that guy, would smack him. I'm sorry to tell you this, but that is a sexual assault. Just like grabbing the ass of some woman -- if she's not into it, you have already grabbed her ass. That's invasive. You can't assume it's okay.

Every straight guy I know would feel angry if a strange gay man walked up to him and grabbed his cock or his ass. Why would a woman like it any more? If you add a physical mismatch and some intimidation, you can imagine how ugly it would be. Why is it hard to accept that this is sexual assault when men do it to women, even though we would all accept that it is sexual assault if a man did it to you?

I know there are feminist men out there who are Christian, celibate, sort of very wary about being sexual at all, etc. I am _not_that_guy_. I'm for sex, lots of it. I'm more than okay with people having sex with any consenting adults they choose, including people whose names they didn't know and never found out. You will hear no moral scolding from me.

I don't know what kind of sex one would want to have where saying anything would ruin the moment. If you can't say what you want to do, what positions you like, ask your partner if she likes something, then how are you going to communicate? How is it men get blow jobs, for example? In my experience, they ask for it, and if their partner is into it, they get it.

And, if you can't talk without ruining the mood, how are you going to practice safer sex? I'm assuming that you're not over forty, Jim, and you grew up like I did in the era of safer sex. If you want to fuck, somebody has to have the condom, or if nobody does, you have to decide what you're going to do without it.

If you are half-way naked with a woman, and she's taking her jeans off and kissing your neck, and you can't ask her if she wants to fuck without sounding like Woody Allen, you have a skills issue. If you ask her if she wants to fuck and she tells you no, that's pretty important information. If she says, "fuck me!" that's consent.

I don't understand why people treat consent like it's a parking permit.

Thomas, do you have a blog? Your name is only attached to your email address, as far as I can tell. You ought to get a blog!

Anne, I don't have a blog. My work schedule swings widely and sometimes it would just have to sit for months.

Ms Niki, I'm not clear exactly on your question so hope I'll address it in the rest of my reply.

Mis, well it's good to see agreement on the statistics. Let me address the "bar" aspect. I have very little sympathy for someone who knows they will be drinking, and then places themselves in a vulnerable position at a future point. Man or woman .. drinking and driving or drinking and sex, its about self responsibility. No, it doesn't make any assault OK, .. but come on , they know better.
I'm outraged if a person is hit by a car while at a crosswalk, I'm perplexed at a person that tries to cross the track at Indy and gets shredded into the stands.

Thomas : theoretically yes, I do agree with you. Theoretically.

Meanwhile back in the real world it unfortunately doesn't often work that way.

Two parts here I guess : actions and potential future problems.

I perceive an intentional wedge being created over the issue of consent , and its an iron fist in a velvet glove & a trojan horse .. to wildly mix my metaphors.

The problem is that while no should mean no and your average J6P ( JoeSixPack) respects it .. it is taking him right out of the game. And in steps Bad Boy Biker to claim the prize cause he doesn't give a shit. How ironic, giving a shit will often get you shown the door ; to be aggessive succeeds.

Of course that IS sexual evolution and selection at play. Whether people wish to acknowledge it at all. Women "test" Thomas, I don't think you'll deny that. They test long and they test hard because subconsciously its about finding the best mate at a biological level. The same way you and I form our choices almost instantly .. we're robots really .. to our underlying sexual drive.

Too bad no one told J6P about this. He's in for one frustrating existance following societies taught indoctrination. He gets no action, the ladies DO NOT respect him, and he watches morbidly as the guy that is not supposed to succeed, by all he's been taught , walks off with the girl.

What is the number 1 reading choice amongst women?
Ah, its those romance novels aka "the bodice rippers". What does that say about what women really want? Do they want to be raped. NO! But they do want a guy who isn't weak, doesn't take the first no for an answer (

Jim: The Federal stat for false accusations of rape is 2%, which is no more or less than any other violent crime.

And yes, self-responsibility is important, necessary, and individual. Rather than taking the perspective that the woman should know better, how about look at it from the other direction, the man should know better. Why would anyone want to have sex with someone who is intoxicated? Is it fear of rejection? Fear that s/he may not enjoy the sex, and therefore cause humiliation on the part of the initiator? NOTHING gives anyone the right to commit rape. NOTHING gives anyone the right to enter another person's space without her/his permission. One person's liberty stops at the end of another person's nose.

On consent: Consent is not merely the absence of a "no" but rather the presence of a "yes". If you are not sure if the person you are with wants sex, ask. I will not attempt an explanation of this, as Thomas has already posted an excellent response.

Jim, my question was where you were getting the idea that anyone wants to make consent an issue involving court orders.

In a way, I guess you kind of did answer my question. However, your long example about guys who wait for a "yes" being, as Darwin would put it, unfit is a little out there. Ok, so some women might go for guys who don't listen when they say no. So what? A) that's not a healthy relationship at all, b) do guys really go for women like that more than those with strong self-esteem?, and c) most of the women I know seriously respect a guy that's willing to back off. I know I do. I definitely test -- to find the ones that are willing to listen when I speak up.

Jim - without getting political, I'd just like to point a couple of examples from my experience. A friend of mine, who's probably the most sexualy liberated girl I know, once told her boyfriend that one of her fantasies was to be raped. So that's what he did one day - walked in, threw her on the floor, had sex, ejaculated, got up and left her laying there. She told me it was very traumatic, to put it VERY mildly.
On the other hand, I know that when the dude I am married to wakes me up in the middle of the night saying that he'll die if we don't make love NOW because I'm just too fucking sexy, I happily get to bidness, unless I'm literally exhausted.

The difference? Both examples have agressive behaviors from a male, yet the first one disregards the woman's feelings or desires, while the second acknowledges and respects them. 'Cause part of what's so hot about my husband's midnight crazed offer is that I know he will not make me have sex if I am really too tired. And he knows that if I said no, I'm not playing games. And shouldn't this be how releationship goes? And if it doesn't, why be in such relationship?

There is a world of difference between forcing yourself onto a woman and being very enthusiastic about having sex with that same woman.
(And to be fair, I do believe it works both ways.)
The problem with your J6P is that he has no redeeming value - he shobs around, and doesn't do anything for a girl to notice him. I'm not saying that he should adopt the biker boy approach, but to bemoan his own sad state of affairs (or lack thereof) by blaming the bad boys is well, silly.

Also, regarding your comparison of drinking and fucking to drinking and driving, you know, it also goes both ways - if you know there's a risk the drunk girl you've had sex with might turn around and go, "he raped me," why have sex with her in the first place? Your logic here is a bit flawed, although I do agree on the drink and fuck point.

Getting on the original subject here, I'm also not that mad about "consent is sexy" campaign. Why not start a "condoms are cute" campaign while we're at it? I strongly agree that the original idea that without consent, there's shouldn't me any sexual activities going on, I think cutesy slogans like this are not doing much to help. It's like a pink set of tools made "specially for women," 'cause, you know us women, we won't touch a hammer unless it's got a pink handle.
I think the article is a perfect example how people already wary of the word "sex" or "sexy" will misconstrue (sp?) the whole point.

I notice a similarity in position with the last few posters, in that there is a belief that social construct, indoctrination, and legal framework trump the basic hereditarial functioning of heterosexuality. Maybe in 10,000 years after everyone has had their eyelids taped open for 24 hour indoctrination like in the movie Clockwork Orange.

I guess that is where the discussion / debate is really centered.

*I'm going to reply line by line to Mis's words :*
Rather than taking the perspective that the woman should know better, how about look at it from the other direction, the man should know better.
*No no no, both parties know they're going to be drinking, both take responsibiliies for their actions. And yes, any party she selects as her partner knows she is less restrained by consuming liquor. And she sure knows it. But that's a whole other discussion about why females want to drink and then have sex*

Why would anyone want to have sex with someone who is intoxicated? * Because it increases their chances of having sex ? Blink *

Is it fear of rejection? * How about its a time proven method of increasing chances of success?*

Fear that s/he may not enjoy the sex, and therefore cause humiliation on the part of the initiator?* No, probably because she'll be looser and enjoy it more *
NOTHING gives anyone the right to commit rape.
*Agreed.
NOTHING gives anyone the right to enter another person's space without her/his permission.* Whoa, the motherload of variable perception. So, is there like a set distance that people should stay apart , maybe they should implant chips into folks that buzz them when they've broken a preset limit.
Can you envision it, people silently hop & bump around like pinballs. Can you imagine it in crowds , there would be people strewn all over the place grabbing their heads in recoil from the incessant buzzing . The noise, stop the noise !
One person's liberty stops at the end of another person's nose. * The nose, stop the nose ! *

Sexual assault consists of exactly what components? Is it brushing up against someone by accident , hmmm coulda been deliberate you know. Is it when Brutus my pit bull is caught humping your leg? Or your stuffed toy?

I suspect its related in one part to the level of traumatisation to the individual. As I've tried to illustrate above, theres quite the spectrum in possibility and interpretation. Unfortunately, opportunism means that people will exploit this point. As far as they can and for the most that they can.

Elfy,

Yeh you describe an ideal action. Enthusiatic sex is great I think we can all agree. Almost as good as make up sex right?

Anyway. That's one type of sex. I wonder how many types of moods, situations, and backgrounds influence how the sexual setting will unfold. Tens, hundreds, thousands? Infinite variables?

As much as everyone would really really like to believe otherwise , your statement : "The difference? Both examples have agressive behaviors from a male, yet the first one disregards the woman's feelings or desires, while the second acknowledges and respects them" relies on a very subjective interpretation .. known only completely by the woman , AT THAT MOMENT ahem ..

What will it be? Vulcan mind melds? Befriend a clairavoyant? Astrology?

Who has the power in this situation? Who always does?

I'm starting to form the belief that "power" is the key issue in relationships. Power is something used judiciously, sparingly, and fearfully. Power goes to peoples heads I've seen it. You remember in Lord of the Rings the effect upon everyone the was near or bore the ring?

Jim:

You seem to be arguing from sociobiology. Now, I don't dismiss sociobiology out of hand -- I believe it has some explanatory power. But it is also inherently limited.

Humans are not exclusively creatures of reason, but we are creatures that reason. We subject our natural urges to the dictates of rational thought to conform to social rules, laws and our own enlightened self- interest.

I occasionally have the urge to ram the car in front of me, to have sex with the young women I supervise, or to strangle my boss. But I don't, because I have self-control.

We wear clothes and designate special areas for the elimination of waste, thwarting our natural, biological urges to shit and piss wherever we happen to be. We don't, because we have self- control. A two-year old can learn to control his bowels, thwarting millions of years of evolution.

Paleolithic people attacked and killed strangers for no other reason than that every stranger is a threat. I hand strangers business cards.

Surely, we have some primate behavior -- but we don't express these urges in unreconstructed ways. Instead, we are socialized to express them in stylized, socially approved ways. Why do men court women with flowers, chocolate, or poetry? Are flowers and sonnets instinctual? No! Our primate urge to compete with other men is channelled into our clothing choices, sports, the cars we drive, our professional achievements, the things we say in class... What is a slammed tuner Honda other than a baboon showing its ass? (and that's not an insult -- I'm a bit of a car guy.)

So, in the real world, people reign in their urges, and express them in healthy ways. My professional life is combattive, and I get out my territorial sparring urges that way.

We reign in our sexual urges all the time. I'm assuming, Jim, that you grew up in the age of safer sex, and for basically your entire life you have had to wear condoms unless you're in a committed relationship. (caveats, generalizations, whatever.) In order to do that, you have to be able to communicate enough to get a condom out and get it on, and if neither of you has one you have to decide what to do without it. Using condoms is not instinct -- it is very recent socialization. Similarly, lots of people have various fetishes that move the focus away from penis-vagina intercourse. Nothing in evolution tells us that a man would delay intercourse for several minutes to lick a shoe ... but some do.

I agree that, on the whole, women look for partners who show strength. But what to them is strength is as thickly overlaid with socialization as the way we express it. It takes the forms of intellectual prowess or wit, success, lots of other things besides brute force. To attract attention, you have to show strength in ways that are not off-putting. Some of it is highly socially ritualistic, but some of it is no more complicated than confidence. (I'm dating myself, but remember the Bob Seger song Ramblin' Gamblin' Man? "Ain't good lookin' but you know I ain't shy/ Ain't afraid to look a girl in the eye".)

So, if some guy walks into a bar in a motorcycle jacket and leaves with the woman you've been staring at all night, it's not because he dragged her out cave-man style, and if you try to do that, it's not going to help. Something about him got her interested in him, and not you. You got out-competed, and you need a better strategy.

By the way, on the false allegation thing, you said 9 out of 10 above. That looks like hyperbole for emphasis. I've never seen a serious claim to anything like that number. Are you just trying to make a point, or is that a serious number? If the latter, where did you get it?

SWEPT OVERBOARD
: a novel of romance and buggery on the high seas
: by Jim Pensword

Swavio swept Priscilla up into his muscular arms, threw her roughly over his manly shoulders and strode to the captains quarters.

"How dare you, unhand me sir!":Priscilla wailed.

"Quiet woman!" : Swavious deep voice thundered.

Kicking in the door , he tossed Priscilla on to the bed, held off her frantic struggles, and ripped open her bodice.

Priscilla could hardly bear it any longer, waves of passion and surrender swept over her.

"Um, is it ok if we have sex?" : Swavio timidly quavered.

"I'll have your balls right here in my purse should you ever decide to come looking for them":
she scoffed over her shoulder quickly exiting the room.
.................................................

Turning his gaze ruefully to a commotion across the hall, Swavio focused on the scene behind the partially open door.

There he made out the rakish swarthy figure of his friend Jim in a struggle with a nubile young lass. ( who bore an uncanny resemblance to the young waif in the imprinted armless t-shirt on the Feministing website ).

She was bent over his knee, pants down, getting spanked like the proverbial red headed step child.

With every Whoosh & Smack ! her stinging cheeks
inflamed to an even deeper crimson hue.

Tearing a page from Chemical Ali in Baghdad Jim cursed :" I'll give you an ass whooping you'll never forget ! "

"Take me now! " : she cried.
.................................................

Like I said: If you can't ask a woman who is half-naked and kissing you if she wants to fuck without sounding like Woody Allen, you have a skills issue. More like this:

He kissed her neck, right below her ear. She was almost panting now, and her hand was sliding down the front of his jeans. "Yeah, take my cock out," he said. She was pushing against him, her breast pressing into his arm. He could feel her hard nipple teasing his skin. Her hand was in his open jeans, stroking him. "You like that? Yeah? You want my cock? You want me to fuck you?" "Uh-huh. Fuck me." She half- moaned it. She was still stroking his cock as he pulled her back onto the bed.

Also, you don't spank people without a safeword or some idea of limits. How do you know she's not going to totally freak out? Your description is significant S/M. How do you know what her limits are?

Look, in fiction, you can do anything. You do recognize, of course, that if you change the last line of your story to, "No! God! Somebody help me!" the guy is a rapist and deserves to go to jail. You do recognize that ... right?

hey jim, you may have noticed that i erased your last comment--twice. don't put the comment back up; we don't tolerate shit like that. and if you use the names of feministing editors in your freaky-ass comments again, you can be sure that i'll ban your IP address.

so let's go back to having a dicussion, rather then letting faux romance novel excerpts do the talking for us...

What ...?

I had to read that twice just to get past the thick dialect -- I don't speak antebellum Southern.

I'm still not at all sure I understand what you're trying to illustrate. Trading fiction is not all that effective a mode of discourse, and let's face it, neither of us is talented enough as an erotica writer to hold an audience.

If you're being funny, I didn't get the joke. If you're trying to make a point, I missed it. What are you trying to say here, that you have a problem with kinky sex? Hey, what two consenting adults do with the donkey of their choice is okay by me.

Anyway, you did get my last question, right? You do recognize that if some guy grabs some woman, spanks her and fucks her while she screams for help, and she in fact really does not want to be spanked and fucked by him, he's a rapist. You do acknowledge that ... right?

Well there's a reason I put up those chapters Jessica. You describe the writing as "freaky ass". Could you please quote the areas that you have judged to be unacceptable. Why specifically? What consitutes freaky ass? What doesn't?

Yo wassup? Jus keepin it real .. know wha I'm sayin?

Uh ... maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how one "keep[s] it real" using a fictional narrative set in the mid-nineteenth century South, and involving a contraption that hoists a donkey for sexual purposes.

Jim, one in four women is a victim of sexual assault, and one in eight of what you consider "real" rape. Once again, I don't see the point. If it's only a hell of a lot of rape instead of a hella hell of a lot of rape, does that mean that it doesn't count?

Your just proving my point that a feminist lies every 9 seconds!!!!

Sexual assalt is a crime that if followed by jail! If 25% of the population of 300,000,000 is raped and also consists of the rapist, there would be 25 percent of men in JAIL lady!!! So lets teach some feminists the math...300 million people, 25% of the men would be 37.5 million men in prison. Our country would be broke and feminists everywhere would be moving to famine stricten Africa! More food there.

There are 2 million men in prison at the moment. 95% are in there for drugs and violent crimes, robbery, assualt against other men.

The truth is there are only 15,000 rapes convictions in America per year! There are 85,000 accusations and out of that only 15,000 convictions. This is the worst conviction rate of any crime in America. Women use rape accusations for attention, because they cheated on husband, or are afraid they have an STD.

So ladies get your facts straight before you scare every woman away from men into the arms of other women, unless that is what you sexy ladies are trying to do!! It's funny how you women believe such nonsense. Well in reality its kinda cut!!

Verlch:

Your stats make the assumption that all rapes are reported, that all reports are prosecuted, that all prosecutions lead to convictions, and that all convictions lead to jail.

Now, if one in eight women is raped in her lifetime, and only one in ten is reported, and only half of those are reported to the police, and only half are prosecuted, and only half of those lead to convictions, and only half of the convictions lead to jail time, then there will be one imprisoned rapist for every 1280 women in the population.

As to the conviction rate, most rape is by acquintances of the victim, which is an inherent evidence problem. There's just less evidence than other crimes.

Suppose some woman goes out with a guy, invites him back to her apartment, decides she isn't going to fuck him. Suppose he forces her onto the bed and says she better let him fuck her or he'll beat the shit out of her. There's evidence of intercourse, but nothing that would help a jury determine if it was consensual. What can she do, except report it to the police and hope she is believed? What if you're on the jury -- would you ever accept that her testimony alone proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt?