thanks for posting this.. i have been feeling really down about sexual assault -- and althought this is complete bullshit -- i feel better seeing postive action and not so helpless and alone

As a journalism student and a guest op/ed columnist for my campus paper, I'm aware that editorials are based off opinion.
But this woman is ridiculous.
This editorial basically states that rape on college campuses across the country isn't an issue because victims aren't reporting the crimes.
How about the quote from the college female student mentioning that it's their fault because of the ways girls dress when they go out?
Sickening isn't it?
All this editorial does is promote victim blaming and horizontal hostility between women.

I had to rant about this at my own blog because it pissed me off so much I couldn't stop seething. I've been trying to find the composure to write to the LA Times without a generous sprinkling of profanity.

I especially loved that she suggests a rape crisis isn't real if it isn't considered a crisis within an article talking about how it's generally accepted that it is a crisis.

That's some impressive mental gymnastics.

"I especially loved that she suggests a rape crisis isn't real if it isn't considered a crisis within an article talking about how it's generally accepted that it is a crisis."

Did you read the article? The author wrote that most women who are technically classified as rape victims don't consider themselves to be rape victims (and therefore would presumably deny the existence of a "rape crisis"):

"In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences"

There's plenty to disagree with in the article, but she explicitly refutes the idea that the current situation is "generally accepted as a crisis," at least by the young women in question.

Bizurke -

Perhaps I'm misreading what you said, but are you agreeing with the author that a women isn't "raped" unless she categorizes her experience as "rape"?

If so, I'm sure most of us could provide you of very clear examples of why that is not correct. While you and I may have a very clear understanding of sexual assault, the same cannot be said of a great number of young women (and men).

I don't suppose there's a connection to this mentality, or anything. No, of course not.

I feel like I'm going to cry. I want to write a letter but I don't even know where to start. If anyone comes up with a good form, please post it.

Bizurke, don't you find it problematic that rape/sexual assault have become so normalized that women consider it "just part of life?"
Just because a woman doesn't call forced sex "rape" doesn't mean it's not rape. The patriarchy has effectively taught women that sexual violence is the norm; it has practically been defined out of existance. Now men are free to rape and assault with reckless abandon and no fear of repurcussions!

"Perhaps I'm misreading what you said, but are you agreeing with the author that a women isn't "raped" unless she categorizes her experience as "rape"?"

Sorry if I was unclear. Rape is rape, even if the woman doesn't consider it rape. (At least that's what I think.)

My point was that most women whom these studies identify at rape victims don't really consider themselves rape victims (unless the author is mischaracterizing the results of the relevant studies).

As a college student, I think the prevalence of date rape on and around campus is horrifying. I just think that enough people disagree with me that you can't claim there's an generally acknowledged crisis.

This is the same rag that gives regular space to Jonah Goldberg, a wingnut shill and recent author of Liberal Facism. (Yes, you read that right.)

Going to get a bite, then will send a letter and post it here.

Oh, Jessica-

Did you miss this tidbit? One of your favorite memes, I know:

"But most campus "rape" cases exist in the gray area of seeming cooperation and tacit consent, which is why they are almost never prosecuted criminally."

Looks like 'gray rape' has been officially picked up by the anti-feminist arm of the right wing noise machine. Expect some pseudoscientific 'studies' to be forthcoming in the next few months from outfits funded by Scaife et al.

All I can envision is a bunch of rapists sitting in their secret rape-cave high fiving each other because the million dollar cheque they sent her worked and she actually wrote this article for them.

*shudders*

Rape is a fact of life for women (and men) the world over. I don't think that means we shouldn't care about it. If rape is happening on the scale that women are becoming immune to it, that is a HUGE problem.

Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had ever experienced actions that she then classified as rape. One question, for example, asked, "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" -- a question that is ambiguous on several fronts, including the woman's degree of incapacitation, the causal relation between being given a drink and having sexual intercourse, and the man's intentions.

This is by far my favorite passage of that editorial. How is that an ambiguous question? It's only ambiguous to those who have been indoctrinated with the idea that rape has myriad conditions and that it is not simply forced sex. And "causal relation" is an oxymoron, isn't it? If it's causal, then it's more than a relation. Correcting that phrase wouldn't make the statement true anyway.

If anything, the more widespread something is in America, the more people accept it as a normal risk. The risk of a child being kidnapped by a stranger is slight, and yet it is only those kidnappings that inspire laws and changes like the Amber Alert, to dubious effect. The risk of a child drowning in a backyard swimming pool is much higher, but most people aren't terrified of the thought that there are swimming pools out there.

I think the reason so many people don't think there is a rape crisis is because rape IS so common, it's just an accepted (and, to many people, acceptable) risk that women have to live with.

Many men I've talked to are in total denial about the problem; most of them don't like to think or talk about it. They don't know women who have been raped (since their female friends rarely, if ever, share that with them), and a lot of them will completely focus on notions of "gray" rape and false accusations.

I had a completely draining online conversation with a rape apologist last week. It was a really difficult thing to do, and no one (male or female) chimed in to support me. It was a very upsetting conversation.

"Just because a woman doesn't call forced sex 'rape' doesn't mean it's not rape."

Indeed. If it *did* mean that, then a guy could force his toddler daughter to have sex and it wouldn't be rape as long as he made sure no one taught her the word "rape"...

Bizurke, I read the article and blogged about it. She means that it can't be a crisis if the world at large/authorities doesn't consider it so. While refuting a general agreement by authorities that there is a crisis.

It's a separate supporting point than the victims not identifying it as rape.

Her points: 1. 25% can't be right, because if it was right everyone would be calling it a national emergency.

2. 25% can't be right because the questions in the studies were misleading.

3. 25% can't be right because not that many women say what happened to them was rape.

1 is directly contradicted by the premise of her editorial, which is to refute the widely-held attitude that rape on campus is, in fact a crisis.

It comes down to the fact that his is what she's arguing:

The general consensus that there is a rape crisis is wrong. If it were true that there was a rape crisis, there would be a general consensus that there is a crisis. But because the consensus is wrong (as supported by points 2 and 3), there is no consensus. Therefore there is no crisis.

disgusting.
i wanted to go off, but i wanted more to be published.

i wrote:

Ms. MacDonald's February 24th diatribe on the evils of feminism actually demonstrates that rape-culture is more prevalent than most of us thought. She misinterprets the responses of college women to survey questions asking whether they believed they had been raped to mean that they were in fact, not actually victimized at all. The sad truth is that our culture still harbors a great deal of sexism--women are largely still given the impression that if they wear short skirts, go out on the town or consume alcohol in the presence of men, that they are effectively consenting to intercourse. Until our young people of both sexes are taught to believe in their own self-worth and the humanity of others, they will presumably continue to believe that women who are in touch with their sexuality and who behave just like their male peers are not entitled to enjoy the same privileges.

I wrote:

Dear Editor-

The rape crisis exists. Unfortunately, people like Heather Mac Donald ("What Campus Rape Crisis? Feb. 24, 2008) work hard to keep it invisible, to the detriment of the physical, mental, and emotional health of 20-25% of the women in this country.

Ms. Mac Donald's piece is a malignant blend of lies, half-truths, and misogynistic tropes. She claims that "most campus 'rape' cases" fall into a gray area -- somewhere between "seeming cooperation" and "tacit consent". She offers no evidence for this claim, nor could she; 'gray rape' is a vicious myth. Non-consensual sex is rape. Period. Ms. Mac Donald points to the disparity betwen the number of women who researchers conclude have been raped, and the percentage of those same women who self-identify as rape victims. The clear and oft-repeated explanation for that disparity is the success of accounts like hers in sowing confusion among women about what constitutes rape and sexual assault. By ignoring that, and instead indulging in a 50s-era tirade blaming women for having insufficient sexual restraint, Ms. Mac Donald actively props up a culture that silences victims and absolves rapists.

When I was in college, I was on the board of the women's resource center, and I am, of course, a feminist. But one thing I didn't agree with the WRC about was its annual "Take Back the Night" program proclaiming the victimhood of women. Mac Donald is correct on this account:

"Campus rape ideology holds that inebriation strips women of responsibility for their actions but preserves male responsibility not only for their own actions but for their partners’ as well. Thus do men again become the guardians of female well-being."

It's a very 50s mentality. Considering that the boy in the scenario the Harvard rape victim described was probably just as drunk as she was, what makes him the rapist and her the victim? The problem with the campus rape mentality is that it hold up the Laura-Session-Stepp idea that sex damages women. Calling it "rape" is not empowering, it does in fact "strip women of moral agency," as Mac Donald said.

Mac Doanld's argument is that if one in four college women were in fact raped, then there would be a national crisis of the kind that demanded action, not just lip service from campus protest organizations. It takes a lot of doublethink to say the fact that so few rapes are reported is evidence for how many there really are.

OK, go ahead and hang me.

My boyfriend, although a fairly enlightened male, didn't understand the worry that women often have when in public. So we did an experiment.

I dressed up in a sexy outfit (just to exaggerate the results a bit), and we went out. At the restaurant, he stayed by my side at every moment, and there was no highly noticable attention from the male populace there. Then we went to a fairly innocent location - a bookstore. About half the time I stayed with him, the other half I moved about on my own, but within his line of sight. Anytime I got more than three yards away from him, I becamse subject to leers, stares, and a couple of guys showing up on a row of books right after me a couple too many times. If I moved back next to my boyfriend, or if he came up to me and touched me, the looks and following stopped.

Now, I would suggest a similar experiment for anyone who decries the rape crisis. Go out in public, to a party locale. Appear drunk, lightly tipsy, or even just as if you are in a really good, open-hearted sort of mood. Remain within sight and easy reach of help (friends you've brought with you) at all times, but do not make that connection obvious. See how the men around you act. See how that is different from what you generally experience in public.

And then you can turn around and tell me that there aren't men out there, especially in locations frequented by college students, who act like predators. An actual experiment of this nature into how date rape goes down would be too dangerous, but this should give a clue to all those reluctant to believe that it's an issue.

I had a completely draining online conversation with a rape apologist last week.

Hey. Me too. Maybe the lunar eclipse brought them out of their slimy mud holes.

I find the concept of tacit consent and seeming cooperation very interesting.

Let's assume, just for a moment, that all instances of date rape are simply a misunderstanding. What does that say about the rapist? Even in cases where there's no concrete "no" uttered, what does it say about him that he didn't notice his date pushing his hands away, his date not kissing him back, his date just lying there and not responding/wincing in pain/crying?

A man like that is unbearably pathetic and selfish. He has also completely bought into our misogynistic culture's message that he is entitled to sex from any and all women and that women don't, can't, or shouldn't enjoy sex.

I'm not prepared to give a man like that any benefit of the doubt.

Okay, OpheliaBlake, let me start. The person who takes the initiative to stick a dick into an unconsenting female is the one who is responsible for that action. He is not responsible for anything she's done, and no one is saying he should be. But he penatrated her. Therefore he is responsible for that penetration. Since sticking a dick in an unconsenting female is rape, the man is thus responsible for the rape, no matter how much he has had to drink.

Does that clear it up for you? Oh, and to just assume that a woman was willing and participating because she was too drunk to remember what happened (and thus to drunk to consent), is sick and wrong.

I think my absolute FAVORITE part of that article is the following:

Further, 42% of the study's supposed victims said they had had intercourse again with their alleged assailants -- though it is highly unlikely that a raped woman would have sex again with the fiend who attacked her.

Pray tell, Heather MacDonald, HOW unlikely? Since much of your argument hinges on the unreliability of statistics, I think it's just great that you'd publish this statement, which hails from the great 2008 survey, "Things Heather MacDonald thinks are icky".

Yeah, noueux, I noticed that too. I especially love how she uses both this and the way women often don't identify their attacks as rape as a way to debunk the rape crisis, without ever realizes that the latter fact helps lead to the former.

My response.

Editors,

While I recognize that the views expressed by contributors to your editorial page do not reflect your views, I still believe publishing the essay written by Heather MacDonald (2-24-08) shows a lack of consideration for women (and men) everywhere.

Ms. MacDonald's (unsupported) assertion that rapes are not occurring at the rates reported by numerous studies both insults the victims of sexual assaults and perpetuates a belief system that makes it difficult for the victims of sexual assault to come forward if they have engaged in what Ms MacDonald implies is improper behavior (drinking, failing to go home early etc.) By publishing this essay you have given credence to her clearly erroneous and, frankly, hateful opinions.

Contrary to what Ms. MacDonald may believe, many men and women do not properly categorize their experience as "rape" (particularly given the connotations that word contains) even though we as a society would categorize their experience as clearly a sexual assault. Most women know personally of a least one person who has been forced to have sex against their will, but who ailed to acknowledge that they were raped for various reasons including the victim blaming excuses Ms. MacDonald relies on (I was drinking, I went back to his room, I was wearing that outfit, etc.). Regardless of the excuses, reasons, or rationales, sex against the will of the other person is rape. It isn't relevant what the victim wears or drinks, where the victim goes, if it is reported or proven in a court of law. Rape is non-consensual sex.

To suggest otherwise is both harmful and irresponsible.

Kimmy, we don't know if she was willing and participating or not, but the assumption is always that she was not. Saying that any woman who has had sex and can't remember was raped paints a picture of women as passive creatures who are acted upon. The guy might not remember what happened either, but no one would ever suggest she raped him, even if she initiated the sex.

Isn't there even a book called I Never Called It Rape, about this very issue?

I'm so sorry that the way real people behave in the real world doesn't measure up to the Heather MacDonald Guide to the Way Things Should Be, but part of growing up is realizing that this is indeed the case.

keshmeshi - good point. in arguing with rape apologists, i always ask why the standard for communicating nonconsent isn't more realistic and more workable for both parties. clearly saying "no" is great and i believe in encouraging everyone to be a better communicator about what they do and don't want in sex/relationships/etc, but there are in my view about a billion nonverbal ways for a person to communicate that they are clearly unhappy with what is happening and allowing rapists to get away with ignoring these myriad telltale signs is absurd.

opheliablake - it actually doesn't require doublethink at all. when statistics show that plenty of women surveyed indicated that they had had intercourse or some other sexual contact that was against their will, but a smaller percentage of those women responded negatively when just asked if they had been "raped", it's pretty clear what's going on.

you can't view macdonald's statistics in a vacuum. knowing what we know about the pervasiveness of sexism and of different standards of behavior for men and women, how is it not obvious that women are socialized to think they possess less sexual autonomy than men and that said perceived inequality will be reflected in their own perception of whether or not they have been victims of sexual assault?

Hey Ophelia-

What Kimmy said, and a bit more:

I'm curious how you reconcile being a feminist and a rape apologist. Seems like it would be a difficult dissonance to maintain. Care to share?

If someone was so wasted at a party that they didn't notice or remember you taking money from their wallet, did that person still steal? If someone were so drunk when they got behind the wheel of a car that they didn't even know they were in no condition to drive, would it still be drunk driving? If that person ran over a baby, would you want to absolve them of responsibility 'cause they were drunk?

I bet your answers would be: yes, that person stole; yes, it would still be drunk driving; and, no, you would not want to absolve the driver.

If I'm wrong about your responses, ok. If I'm right, though, let me ask: Why on earth would you expect a drunk person to take more responsibility for the contents of a wallet or the decision to drive than for making sure his sexual partner *actually wants* to have sex?

I must add that I am always startled by the number of people who seem to think that acknowledging the violent ways in which men victimize women is somehow "promoting victimhood." What does that even mean? Men who attack women are the ones promoting victimhood. Men who rape women make women into victims. Shutting up and ignoring it doesn't actually make that problem go away, and it doesn't make victimhood go away.

People sneer at the term "victim" as though somehow having been a victim is something to be ashamed of--that's just more woman-blaming garbage. If a man rapes a woman, there's no shame to her in being a victim. The shame is his, for being a rapist asshole.

I've been to a few Take Back the Night marches and speak-outs. They're about women who have been victims reclaiming strength. I just don't understand how anybody could object to that.

Let's make this very clear for Ms. MacDonald - unwanted sexual activity is RAPE. If a woman is unable to provide consent because of intoxication or other influence, it is RAPE. I understand that victims frequently hesitate to call it rape, but that's the thing about victimhood - just read up about victims of domestic violence. Women frequently lack the ability to describe what happened to them, to understand it as rape. Also, WHAT THE FUCK does this writer mean in her last statement that "fighting male dominance...is a sorry substitute for the pursuit of knowledge". So we should just roll over and take it when guys want to rape us, abuse us, whatever?

Riley, this is exactly right:

"knowing what we know about the pervasiveness of sexism and of different standards of behavior for men and women, how is it not obvious that women are socialized to think they possess less sexual autonomy than men and that said perceived inequality will be reflected in their own perception of whether or not they have been victims of sexual assault?"

But the "rape mentality" plays into this. As a woman, maybe I'd like to go to a party, receive oral sex in a bedroom, then forget the guy's name the next day. But society says I can't do this, because I do not have that kind of sexual autonomy. Society--and the "rape mentality" says that sex is something that HAPPENS TO women, not something we do.

Many women are raped on campus, and they should press charges to the full extent of the law, but the focus on a rape crisis furthers the idea that women are not sexually autonomous, that we are perpetual victims of men who hate us. I don't think that's a useful philosophy.

Faustus, what if I was so drunk I gave you $100? Are you a thief for taking it?

"fighting male dominance...is a sorry substitute for the pursuit of knowledge". So we should just roll over and take it when guys want to rape us, abuse us, whatever?

Well, exactly. Don't waste your precious time fighting! Close your eyes and mentally review your calculus notes instead.

Faustus, what if I was so drunk I gave you $100? Are you a thief for taking it?

Interestingly, contracts are not valid if the person was too drunk to know what she or he was signing.

Similarly, if someone whose awareness and judgment was impaired by inebriation, a blow to the head, or any other debilitating condition started waving hundreds at me, then, you know what? Because I have some basic human decency, I wouldn't take them. Because that person does not, at that point, have the ability to know what he or she is doing. So, yes, that should be theft. And shouldn't we have more stringent rules governing physical safety than mere property?

the focus on a rape crisis furthers the idea that women are not sexually autonomous, that we are perpetual victims of men who hate us. I don't think that's a useful philosophy.

Only if you conflate sex with rape, which is exactly what feminists who raise awareness about sexual violence are working against.

Ophelia-

You are conflating sex and rape. Society says that rape -- RAPE not SEX -- is something that 'happens to' women. Because, you know, it does.

The only folks who say that consensual sex itself is victimization are people like Heather Mac Donald and Laura Sessions Stepp who are well-paid to advocate a return to chastity belts and needlepoint.

The difference, see, is that sex is consensual and rape is non-consensual. When a woman is forced to do something she doesn't want to do (the definition of non-consensual), she has, actually and really, lost control. That happens quite a bit. So often, in fact, that it's gotten its own name: the rape crisis. Ignoring that isn't going to make it go away. It's going to make it worse. On the other hand, promoting respect for EVERYONE'S autonomy and consent gives women MORE control over their lives.

Your logic is twisted.

Faustus, what if I was so drunk I gave you $100? Are you a thief for taking it?

You're misdirecting. That isn't the issue. The issue is NON-CONSENT not drunken consent. We can argue about whether consent is "effective" if a person is intoxicated at a later time. For now let's stick to the initial example.

"If someone was so wasted at a party that they didn't notice or remember you taking money from their wallet, did that person still steal? If someone were so drunk when they got behind the wheel of a car that they didn't even know they were in no condition to drive, would it still be drunk driving? If that person ran over a baby, would you want to absolve them of responsibility 'cause they were drunk?" -- jfaustus

I just want to say, in the context of discussions about rape, I really really hate the (well-intentioned?) arguments that have become so common and liken women to inanimate objects (and apparently babies too). Ophelia makes a good point in saying that it is important to consider a women's sexuality as NOT always on the defensive, that by assuming women will *always* be saying no, and will *never* have a sex drive that ISN'T merely *responsive*, that we have then taken away women's sexual autonomy, and their libidos. I have a lot of problems with the general feminist arguments about rape, but this one I've seen here a lot. Sex is complicated and it is messy and to make an argument so black and white: drunk automaticall equals not consenting, is to oversimplify a very precarious situation, and the general feminist refusal to admit this always threatens to invalidate strong, true, and necessary feminist arguments regarding rape.

EG, jfaustus, you are both exactly right. well said.

Acknowledging rape doesn't threaten women's sexual autonomy. Rape does.

Kristen-

The initial example to which Ophelia was referring, if you go look at the original article (not the Op-Ed), is a woman who was so drunk that she didn't remember going to his room. So drunk she couldn't walk on her own back to her room. afterwards.

Although I'm a lawyer, on this issue I prefer to stay away from legal qusetions of drinking and consent. They laws vary from state to state, and are (in my view at least) beside the point. If someone is so drunk that they later don't remember coming to your room, so drunk that they can't stand even afterwards, they could not consent. Period. Could. Not. In fact, it's super creepy to bring someone that drunk back to your room in the first place.

The current norm, that sex is OK in the absence of clearly communicated non-consent doesn't work. How do we know this? It results in a massive number of rapes. It confuses things to the extent that even hyper-aware feminists (on this blog and elsewhere) debate the issue.

The standard should be clearly communicated consent. Anything other than that and you're in dangerous territory. And given the stakes, I for one would advocate that we as a society steer WAY clear of dangerous territory.

I'm going to try and be careful because part of my life's work is to end rape. I too shudder at the thought that drunkenness always means lack of consent for women but not for men. It assumes that a woman could not get drunk and turned on and want to engage in some sexual activity. Yet, I think these discussions can provide a way for rape apologists to minimize the very real problem of men ignoring lack of consent both for women who have been drinking and those who have not.

The other problem in the earlier comments is considering penetration as the way to talk about drunken sexual incidents. I agree that if someone shoves something into your body against your will, that is rape. Yet, real sex (not rape) is not about penetration, even when something that could be called penetrating occurs. Making drunken sexual activity about penetration makes it about rape to me. Does that make sense?

There has to be a way to talk about the issue of drunkenness and consent without automatically assuming women do not want sex OR automatically assuming that drunkenness gives a man carte blanche. I just don't know what it is yet.

Oops, didn't mean to post. Kristen, misread your comment! Sorry! Yours was a good point, so the above should be read as a much longer-winded (did I mention I'm a lawyer) version of the same in response to Ophelia's asinine misdirection.

I will agree with one sentence:

"College is for learning."

However, Mac Donald fails to realize that at least as much learning goes on outside the classroom as in it. I would actually be as bold as to say I feel I learned more by the whole "college experience" than I did actual college courses. Maybe it's because I majored in something I don't use, save for the occasional Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit answer.

the full article is disgusting...I don't know what kind of bullshit bubble she's trying to live in.

Faustus's (and the article's) example of that drunk leaves no room for consent. I am absolutely not on the fence there. That was rape. You cannot consent, if you cannot walk or talk. I guess my issue is that when drinking , my memory goes (went, I don't drink that much now) waaay before my ability to walk, talk, and have sex.

But yes, this example is rape. I also think rape is a larger problem right now and perhaps my concerns about fuzzy moments should be tabled until that problem is fully addressed.

mirm-

Have you ever considered advocating for a standard of enthusiastic consent as opposed to the current standard of absence of non-consent? Enthusiastic consent leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation. Not none, of course, but less.

Enthusiastic consent is a real solution as you suggest. It pushes against the notion that women are not supposed to want sex (and thus are unwilling to say they do) AND makes the line clearer for men to read. (I mean clearer than the line our culture currently provides them) Now, we just need to get some real sex education that uses the concept to help women voice their desires and help men understand that sex between 2 people (or more) is for/about/between both of those people.

Geek,

I shouldn't have suggested you didn't read the article just because we have different interpretations. Sorry about that.

I think we both agree that most of the article's premises and its conclusion that female "promiscuity" is a bigger problem than the staggering rates of sexual violence on campus are reactionary, sexist BS.

Still, I don't really follow your claim that MacDonald is using circular logic. I think her relevant claims are:

While school officials/feminists/&c. believe there's a rape crisis, most ordinary students do not. They do not identify themselves as rape victims when they officially -- for lack of better word -- "qualify", they don't press charges against rapists when they have every right to, they accuse women of inviting unwanted sexual attention with their revealing clothing and flirtatious demeanors. In short, they often don't "buy" the official, expert definition of rape.

You say (I think) that because she claims to be battling a "widely believed" myth, it's inconsistent to argue that the myth is not so widely believed by another group of people (viz. students). In my mind, there's nothing inconsistent with her argument, because she claims the myth is perpetuated by the universities themselves, not by the student body.

I think it's hard to counter her arguments about the perception of rape in the student body. I go to one of the schools mentioned repeatedly in the article, and it's clear to me that most students don't think there's a rape crisis. If everyone had adequate sex education and violence against women weren't so normalized, they probably would.

my letter:

I was more than dismayed to read Ms. McDonald's "editorial" in yesterday's paper - I was offended and disgusted. Not only does the article denigrate and mock women who have experienced rape and sexual assault (and the longer article from which this was taken actually denies one woman's reported experience), it reinforces the social pressures and stigmas that have already made it so difficult for women to come forward. As a woman who was raped during college, my attempt to report the crime was met with administrators and counselors desperately trying to convince me that either nothing bad had happened, or if it had, that it was my fault. I was also told by former friends that I had become "damaged goods" and would be able to get lots of dates because "everyone knew I would definitely put out." Because of this, I did not consider my experience "serious enough to report" because I had not lost a limb or been robbed - certainly the forcible taking of my sexual innocence did not seem serious to anyone else. Is it any wonder that women do not define their experiences as rape? That they focus on what they could or would have done differently in retrospect? That they turn inward in self-punishment rather than reaching out for support or justice? Sadly to say, articles like Ms. McDonald's just reinforce those problems and attitudes. Congratulations, LA Times, you are now part of the problem!!

Saying that any woman who has had sex and can't remember was raped paints a picture of women as passive creatures who are acted upon.

Good thing nobody said that then.

I went to college in MA and it is state law there that if you are drunk and have sex with a man, it is rape.

Just, you know, FYI.

I have to admit, I don't understand people who say that talking about date rape and such this way is painting women's sexuality as passive. Rape is not an act that reflects on the sexuality of the woman involved, inasmuch as it is against her will. You can only judge a woman's sexuality by those acts which she consents to. If she does not consent, it is not a matter of us saying she is passive sexually. It's a matter of us saying a crime has been committed against her. Same as robbery or murder.

People always bring up, "If I want to get drunk and have sex feminists are telling me that's rape, blah blah blah." Newsflash. If you want to do it, then there is consent, then there is no rape. No consent? Rape. Consent? No rape. Easy, isn't it?

Many women are raped on campus, and they should press charges to the full extent of the law, but the focus on a rape crisis furthers the idea that women are not sexually autonomous, that we are perpetual victims of men who hate us. I don't think that's a useful philosophy.

Ideally, they should report it and press charges (of course, they don't get to determine the charges, so the "to the fullest extent of the law" part is in someone else's hands). It seems to me that the rape crisis is a symptom of the fact that women aren't treated equally with full bodily autonomy, not the cause. If we started treating rape victims with the respect and justice they deserve, instead of blaming them, that helps women obtain autonomy. Ignoring it or not calling it what it is, rape, does nothing.

Sex is complicated and it is messy and to make an argument so black and white: drunk automaticall equals not consenting, is to oversimplify a very precarious situation, and the general feminist refusal to admit this always threatens to invalidate strong, true, and necessary feminist arguments regarding rape.

If someone doesn't consent to something being done to their body, that's assault. The problem is not that feminism won't admit that "sex is complicate and it is messy" (that's a matter of opinion), the problem is with the pervasive idea that women are here as sexual objects and that "yes" to sex is the default unless the woman clearly states otherwise. Instead of: women are autonomous beings and that "no" is the default unless there is enthusiastic consent (that goes for both parties). That isn't feminisms fault, as a matter of fact, it's a goal of feminism to change this mindset.

Now, we just need to get some real sex education that uses the concept to help women voice their desires and help men understand that sex between 2 people (or more) is for/about/between both of those people.

Yeah, I always wonder why people can't understand that consent is very present throughout the whole act of sex. "Yes," is not the only form of consent (although verbal forms of approval are, of course, very pleasant). Anyone who's had sex knows that if your partner's into it, there are any number of ways they express that - they touch you, kiss you, pull your clothes off, etc. If this is happening, chances are the person's pretty cool with having sex with you. If your partner is doing none of these things, whether it's because she's blackout drunk or because she's become uncomfortable with the situation, it's time to stop and figure out what's going on.

All of this talk about verbal consent makes me more grossed out about mail order brides who might not have a very good handle on English. I am now also wondering if rape/abuse rates are higher in inter-cultural circumstances, such as if one of the parties does not fully comprehend the language or sexual customs of the other.

abby dicarlo-

I was referring to the example that Mac Donald used in her article, which Ophelia referred to. I'll stand by my position that someone too drunk to remember going to another person's room, and too drunk to stand after having sex, was too drunk to consent.

That said, I don't take the position that others on this blog do that any drinking = no ability to consent = rape. Some states apparently apply the legal standard that intoxication precludes consent. I don't agree with that.

What bugs me is the standard that the absence of clearly communicated non-consent is good enough. To me, that standard presupposes that women are always ready for sex, that everything is on the table unless and until she says "no".

How on earth could that be? Why are women required to take things off the table instead of choosing to put them on it? By making enthusiastic consent the standard you change sex from being opt-out to being opt-in, you acknowledge that women want to have sex, and you say that it's ok for them to want sex -- more than ok, even; you say it's the only right way for sex to happen.

Marxie, you shouldn't make pronouncements about the law that you got second-hand from a flier. If you have a cite for that proposition, I'd like to see it. I am a lawyer, and I googled "Massachusetts rape statute" and got section 265-22b, which says:

"Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a person and compels such person to submit by force and against his will, or compels such person to submit by threat of bodily injury, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years; and whoever commits a second or subsequent such offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term or years."

And there doesn't appear to be anything in Chapter 265 (offenses against the person) that supports what you said. So do you have a case?

In NY (IRRC, I have not researched this in years) intoxication voids consent only if (1) involuntary; or (2) it renders the intoxicated person "physically helpless", which I think in the cases means passed out cold.

Re: Cassie:

If this is happening, chances are the person's pretty cool with having sex with you.

"Chances are" a man or woman shouldn't be having sex with another if there is only a "chance" that his or her victim is "cool with" it. That kind of thinking only reinforces the notion that one can wing it and end up accidentally, not-quite-raping somebody, which is bull.

Also, a victim's appearance of being "into it" doesn't mean that he or she gave any consent.

"The difference, see, is that sex is consensual and rape is non-consensual."

Meanwhile, I thought that raping meant having sex with someone who isn't consenting.

Hmm...while some rapists claim "it wasn't rape" to avoid feeling guilty about attacking their dates, how many other rapists might claim "it wasn't sex" to avoid feeling guilty about breaking their abstinence pledges...?

"Because of this, I did not consider my experience 'serious enough to report' because I had not lost a limb or been robbed - certainly the forcible taking of my sexual innocence did not seem serious to anyone else."

It seems serious to me, and would have seemed serious to me even before I started college!

Besides, I wouldn't get away with punching someone in the face (unless in self-defense) while leaving her or his limbs and gear alone, so why should anyone get away with rape (which is never in self-defense!)?

everybodyever:

I think Cassie's point was that

consent is very present throughout the whole act of sex. "Yes," is not the only form of consent...

Her language was a bit casual, but isn't this the comment section on a blog? I may write like a lawyer, but that's an occupational hazard. I'm pretty sure Cassie was agreeing with many of us that the standard for sex should be enthusiastic consent, not the absence of non-consent.

had a question on this as far as the whole drunken consent scenario. If a man penetrates a woman when both are drunk then since he put his penis in her vagina, it is rape. That makes sense to me and as was explained to me before is pretty much what the law says in a lot of places. By the same token, if she gives him a handjob or a blowjob, while both are drunk, has she not committed sexual assault or does this entire issue revolve around only penetration?
-Dan

Mina-

Do you concur with Ophelia that

the focus on a rape crisis furthers the idea that women are not sexually autonomous, that we are perpetual victims of men who hate us.

If so, I oppose your view. But if you don't agree with Ophelia, then you might want to take a quick look at the context of the one sentence you cherry-picked.

Does anyone know where the 20-25% stat actually comes from? The other day I was over at safercampus.org, which is just a great site and from what I can tell doing a lot of good, and they had a link to the DoJ statistics on all manner of crime against college age persons, to include rape/sexual assault. The numbers dont even begin to approach 20 or 25%. Does anyone have any links to sites that parse the DoJ stats further? The reason I ask is because the stats on rape/sexual assault include fondling and verbal threats. I have little faith in stats to begin with and believe the rape crisis should never be boiled down to numbers but it would be interesting to see the stats of "just" rape/attempted rate, separate from all the other acts that can be considered sexual assault.

Let me rephrase: The idea that consent is something to be taken away, rather than given, is stupid. The idea that consent is difficult to assess after 'sexual relations' have begun, and therefore unimportant as compared to the initial consent, is stupid. The idea that a man who is not raping a woman is "a guardian of her well-being" is monumentally stupid, unless you're willing to apply that to my male friends when they're successfully not stabbing me with knives while preparing dinner.

You'll have to forgive me, but usually I go with sarcasm (which is, admittedly, difficult to discern on the internet) than a flat-out, "Wow, way to be an idiot." I find that people don't respond very well to that, tempting though it might be.

"Do you concur with Ophelia that

"'the focus on a rape crisis furthers the idea that women are not sexually autonomous, that we are perpetual victims of men who hate us.'

"and that we should therefore endorse Heather Mac Donald's position about the moral responsibility of women for rape?"

Nope, I don't concur with her on that.

"But if you don't agree with Ophelia, then you might want to take a quick look at the context of the one sentence you cherry-picked."

What cherry-picking? I just quoted each statement I was responding to. I can agree or disagree with part of a post without agreeing or disagreeing with the whole thing. You can too! :)

"Does anyone know where the 20-25% stat actually comes from? The other day I was over at safercampus.org, which is just a great site and from what I can tell doing a lot of good, and they had a link to the DoJ statistics on all manner of crime against college age persons, to include rape/sexual assault. The numbers dont even begin to approach 20 or 25%."

I don't remember where it came from, but I thought the 25% figure was the % of women and girls in the U.S. who have been sexually assaulted, including the ones who were attacked in childhood or later adulthood and not attacked in college.

I'm not sure Mina, whether its anti-feminists on this topic or some other group on other topics, I've seen many successful attacks on numbers that are tossed around, to include the 25% number. No one knows where they come from and though I'm loathe to say this is another example of, as termed by Dr. Dutton, the woozle effect I think it does no good to open up the movement to attack by using stats that are easily attacked. This is tough with the rape crisis as the numbers will never be exact.

If your memory is correct mina, and its probably a lot better than mine, if that 25% figure is the number of women who have been (or will be?) sexually assaulted, what percentage of that is rape and what percentage is verbal threats? Always wondered about that, sorry to go OT.

looked at it again, the 20-25% is being used by colleges. Thats why I brought up the DoJ stats on college-aged persons. Sorry, long day.

"Yeah, I always wonder why people can't understand that consent is very present throughout the whole act of sex. "Yes," is not the only form of consent (although verbal forms of approval are, of course, very pleasant). Anyone who's had sex knows that if your partner's into it, there are any number of ways they express that - they touch you, kiss you, pull your clothes off, etc. If this is happening, chances are the person's pretty cool with having sex with you. If your partner is doing none of these things, whether it's because she's blackout drunk or because she's become uncomfortable with the situation, it's time to stop and figure out what's going on." -cassie

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

jfaustus - i also agree with your clarified point about enthusiastic consent. I think i was misunderstanding (due in part to other arguments i've heard i think) that enthusiastic consent would be tantamount to calling a sexual act in which the word "yes" (and also the absence of the word "no") was not uttered - rape.. I say that sex is complicated and messy because of they different ways one can consent to sex - which I think cassie summed up much more clearly than i did.

I have a friend, who was telling me about a sexual encounter. let's call this person A, and the other B. So A and B were are engaging in activity that was quickly headed towards sex - penetration. A and B are both enthusiastically consenting - in the ways in which Cassie described. But then all of a sudden B tenses up, B's whole body tenses. A stops and asks B if B wants to continue. B feels uncomfortable (seemingly) and says "I don't know what do you think?" A says to B, "this is your body, you have to tell me what you want." B tells A that they should probably stop, this isn't really what B wants.

I use this example to portray what Cassie was alluding to.. When I spoke to A about this, A was (rightfully so) very upset that A felt A could have possibly continued with a non-consensual sexual act because B never actually SAID "no". Luckily, A is a feminist and aware of these things and therefore stopped to ask B why B's body tensed up.

This is the kind of sex-positive education that needs to take place. Not judging and making absolutes of drunk = rape, but rather a heightened awareness of what means yes and what means no. It would be my (and I'm sure many other feminists) absolute dream if B could have just *said* no. But B felt uncomfortable and A recognized that.

Does this make sense? I think the notion of physical enthusiastic consent needs to be more available, more accessible. I feel like often I hear many arguments from feminists that are too oversimplistic, too absolute. And I think that sex is just not so absolute. And before any negative reactions, please keep in mind that of course, I am talking about situations in which there is no absolute "no" or "yes", which obviously makes the situation of rape versus sex clear..

Mina-

I should have been more precise. I was responding to Ophelia's conflation of rape with consensual sex. Specifically, I was making the point that discussing rape is not tantamount to painting women as powerless victims in the context of consensual sex. Thus the imprecise sentence, which should have read:

"The difference, see, is that consensual sex is, how to put it..., ummm..., consensual (yeah, that's the ticket!) and rape is non-consensual sex (as in the opposite)."

Good enough? ;-)

For people who are wondering where stats come from, I recommend browsing the CDC website. Here's one report:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf

Their numbers put it at about 17% of women will be the victim of a rape (14%) or attempted rape (3%) in their lifetime.

Here is a main page that links to other reports about violence (not just sexual violence):

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/SV/svp-data.htm

abby-

Yes yes yes! I totally agree with your point, and like the scenario. I've been in that situation before, and ALWAYS stop to ask what she wanted before continuing. I've been with my SO for more than 7 years now. We have a baby together. And I'll still stop and ask if it doesn't seem like she's into it -- too tired, distracted, etc.

Does the word "Yes" needs to be uttered? I'm actually not sure what I think. It's a complex question, and depends on whether you're talking about a legal standard or a cultural one. The latter can be much more complex and nuanced; the former need to be objective and easy to apply.

The tricky part is that the utterance "yes" can be made to mean so many different things. Focusing exclusively on just the word passing someone's lips ignores a whole ream of ways that non-consent could be communicated even while saying "yes". The trouble is that those non-verbal cues make for terrible legal standards.

Would I automatically say that sex in the absence of an uttered "yes" is rape? No, I wouldn't. But until you're 100% sure you're reading your partner's nonverbal cues correctly -- and especially during hookups or in the early stages of relationships -- it seems reasonable to double- and triple-check.

to be clear: the above was "you" in the general sense, not meant to refer to abby.

"Good enough? ;-)"

Yeah!

Good. Otherwise I would have had to sic the Wuggles on you. She's 6 months old, has 2 sharp teeth, and isn't afraid to use them.

Jfaustus,

My bad...my html skills (or lack thereof) were at the heart of the confusion...I should really learn to close my tags.

Dan,

YES. A woman (or man) "giving" (that is SO the wrong word in this context) a man a handjob/blowjob when he is too drunk to give effective consent (or IMO doesn't give enthusiastic consent) is rape. Regardless of whether he categorizes his experience as rape.

Were you expecting a different answer?

This comes as I'm trying to finish up a short essay on consent and enthusiasm...

I'll drop a note to the Times, too. Though I'm a loyal subsriber, I missed this particular horror when it came out in print.

ok, we can change the word to performing. I was not expecting any specific answer. Seems the too drunk to give effective consent thing is being discussed quite a bit here and its a very interesting discussion.

Can you explain enthusiastic a bit more as far as consent is concerned in your mind. In my mind, the word enthusiatic means eager or fervent. If thats the case and not having that is rape, I've raped my wife dozens of times and shes raped me dozens of times. I can see a difference in the enthusiastic standard for hook-ups and long-standing relationships.

Actually, the assertion that rape is non-consensual sex gives me pause. Because it defines rape as a type of sex. I believe rape is NOT violent sex; rather rape is sexualized violence.

Hmmm, maybe that's not so clear. To put it another way, when one says Rape is "xyz" sex, one is defining it as a type of sex, on a spectrum of sexual acts as it were. Sex is a part of the daily normal part of the human experience and perfectly legal. When one says rape is "xyz" violence (in this case xyz=sexualized), you are defining it as violence, which is illegal and not part of the daily normal human experience. Therefore I define rape not as non-consensual sex but as misogynistic violence that is sexualized.

Reason #500,000,000,000,000etc that OpheliaBlake is a fucking idiot:

A study done at UMass Boston proved that everybody, including men, is scared of the rape word. Men responded "no" to questions regarding whether they were rapists, and "yes" to questions regarding whether they had ever "physically forced a woman to have sex with them."

Another reason:

These same men who had just confessed to being rapists once you took out the rape word turned around and confessed to intentionally getting slightly drunk so that they could claim it was a drunken mistake later, in addition to spiking drinks and seeking out women who could not handle alchohol very well.

The young men in question are in most cases in perfect control while the women they rape are utterly trashed.

Thanks for playing though. I hate you passionately now.

"These same men who had just confessed to being rapists once you took out the rape word turned around and confessed to intentionally getting slightly drunk so that they could claim it was a drunken mistake later, in addition to spiking drinks and seeking out women who could not handle alchohol very well."

I'd heard the first part of the study but never this part. While it doesn't really surprise me it does make me physically sick.

sera,
can you link that study? having a hard time finding it on google. Thanks.

sera,

i certainly have no authority here, but i think i might speak for quite a few of us when suggesting that calling someone who was sincerely trying to participate in this discussion a "fucking idiot" is very unnecessary..

Dan,

Different people have differing definitions of "enthusiastic consent" and I do not want to speak for everyone. What I think of when I think of enthusiastic consent is a willing, active, and (for lack of a better word) happy participant.

I don't see why this standard should be different for relationships and hookups. My husband and I have been together for eight (maybe nine, we're having trouble remember the year at the moment) years and this standard has worked for us.

Besides I dislike differing standards for relationship because I work with a good number of DV victims (as a lawyer) and they have a sufficiently difficult time identifying when they are raped without us adding another layer of social bs.

this quote was originally posted by neuoux, from the article and I wanted to make a few comments.

"Further, 42% of the study's supposed victims said they had had intercourse again with their alleged assailants -- though it is highly unlikely that a raped woman would have sex again with the fiend who attacked her."

I don't really understand how the woman who wrote this article came to some of the conclusions that she did (like neuoux pointed out, where does the "likely" come from)

I personally did not have sex with my rapist after he raped me. He was a stranger who followed me into the bathroom. But, I know it's not uncommon for girls who were raped to have sex with their assailants after...for a variety reasons. It doesn't change, however, the fact that they were raped as the author implies.

Another related story of someone close to me: This person, I'll just call her Sara for now (not real name), was unfortunately raped by an acquaintance of ours. She happened to be passed out in her friend's bedroom and this guy snuck in and raped her while she was unconscious, she woke up the next morning with her bra and underwear torn off. Sara was devastated from the rape and of course confused. She ended up having sex with her assailant several weeks later, after the rape although she had never consented to sex with this person before the rape. At first I was confused at why she would have sex with her assailant, but I came to understand why she did, after my own experience and also years later, when she explained to me why.

Sara told me that she thought that if she consented to sex later on that it would sort of negate the rape. She thought that consenting, just once, even if it was afterwards would be the equivalent to giving him the okay to have sex with her whenever, which could then apply retroactively to the rape, thus making the rape, not a rape (even though rape is rape and non-consent/passed out = rape, she was raped and nothing changes that fact). I realized that her logic at the time was directly related to a common rape lie/myth about how if a girl consents to sex say with her boyfriend, husband, acquaintance etc. at a particular time, than this is a green light for sex anytime the guy wants it. Sara had obviously become confused by the rape myths (that are spread by people like the author of this article) and it made it hard for her to sort out what had happened to her. It lead her to further pain and confusion and I'm sure if it happened to one woman, it happens to a lot of women. I know there are many reasons why a victim would have sex later on with her rapist, however, it doesn't make the rape okay and it doesn't change the fact that if a guy has sex with a girl without her consent (including non-consent/passed out etc.) than it's rape.

The author's statement about how "women who were raped don't have sex with their assailants afterwards" is WRONG for so many reasons.

I can't go on enough about how these lies and myths harm girls and women. They have real life effects on women and it needs to be shown to everyone, what real harm these myths can do. What a powerful tool the stories of women can provide. Imagine physically showing this author and people like her the stories of hundreds of women who were directly hurt by these rape myths. I know it wouldn't be too hard to find a couple hundred, unfortunately. We can start with this story here, although it's not really mine to tell, I provide it here because it's important yet, still anonymous. Still, I didn't even get into the specific myths that influenced and caused harm to myself after I was raped. I'd like to give the woman who wrote this editorial a piece of my mind. I'll send in an email a little later on and post what I write.

"Hmmm, maybe that's not so clear. To put it another way, when one says Rape is 'xyz' sex, one is defining it as a type of sex, on a spectrum of sexual acts as it were. Sex is a part of the daily normal part of the human experience and perfectly legal. When one says rape is 'xyz' violence (in this case xyz=sexualized), you are defining it as violence, which is illegal and not part of the daily normal human experience."

OTOH, what about when and where having sex with someone against her will is legal? I'd call that rape even if local law blesses her husband or whomever for doing it.

Likewise, what about when and where it's illegal for a guy to make love with another man? I'd call that sex even if local law condemns his boyfriend for it.

It seems to make more sense to acknowledge that the spectrum of sexual acts, the spectrum of violent acts, and the spectrum of legal acts overlap. Some acts are on none of those 3, some are on 1 of those 3, some are on 2 of those 3, and sadly this world is messed up enough for some to be on all of those 3.

"OTOH, what about when and where having sex with someone against her will is legal? I'd call that rape even if local law blesses her husband or whomever for doing it."

It's still violence. Just because he says "I'm having sex" doesn't make it the same thing as sexual intercourse. It's still in it's basis a violent attack. Also "marital" rape has been illegal in every state since 1980.

"Likewise, what about when and where it's illegal for a guy to make love with another man? I'd call that sex even if local law condemns his boyfriend for it."

Good point. I forget sometimes that, just because in my state all consensual sex acts (without money involved) are legal, that isn't the case everywhere.

My point wasn't so much to compare laws governing sexual behavior, but about the attitude that rape is a type of sex. I think that attitude makes it dangerously easy to normalize rape. When you define it not primarily as sex but as assault, then it is kept set apart from normal behavior.

College is a place where people go to learn about lots of things. One of those things is personal boundaries, sex, and relationships. Most of that type of learning happens outside the classroom, and it involves trial and error.

Ignore this at risk of getting completely out of touch with reality.

"I didn't want to have sex - I just wanted to snuggle with this boy naked in bed all night long, & it sort of just happened ..."

Rael, I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I know one thing; that reality you mentioned shouldn't include being raped. Rape should not be a part of a college education and sexual violence should play no part whatsoever in teaching a person about sexuality and healthy relationships. I hope that's what you meant.

I agree that no one should be raped.

My point is that how you define rape matters a lot, particularly in this sort of environment.

I believe that completely ignoring the subjective view of the supposed "victim" in this sort of environment is very matronizing.

"It's still violence. Just because he says "I'm having sex" doesn't make it the same thing as sexual intercourse. It's still in it's basis a violent attack."

Of course it's still in its basis a violent attack. What I don't get is how "always consensual" became part of the definition of sexual intercourse.

If this is some attempt to be sex-positive, then I'm curious about how STDs count. Is an act also not sex if it was consensual then someone is shocked to find out he or she was infected during it?

"Also 'marital' rape has been illegal in every state since 1980.Also 'marital' rape has been illegal in every state since 1980."

But is it illegal everywhere?

"Good point. I forget sometimes that, just because in my state all consensual sex acts (without money involved) are legal, that isn't the case everywhere."

So true. In my state same-sex couples can get marriage licenses at City Hall, and meanwhile I should remember the rest of the world's situations too.

"My point wasn't so much to compare laws governing sexual behavior, but about the attitude that rape is a type of sex. I think that attitude makes it dangerously easy to normalize rape."

OTOH, the "rape isn't sex" attitude seems to me dangerously convenient for some rapists. How many guys who want to stick their dicks in girls' vaginas outside marriage but have been told "don't have sex outside marriage" would like a way to do that without it counting as sex...?

"Rael, I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I know one thing; that reality you mentioned shouldn't include being raped."

And it definitely shouldn't include raping!

rael - you sound like you're inching toward dangerous territory. it's not as if women, by the tim they are old enough to attend college, are somehow unaware that the danger of rape exists pretty much all the time.

so what is the point of castigating your hypothetical woman who just wanted some naked snuggling? would you have women stay indoors, maybe dress modestly, not socialize with unfamiliar men, because there are parts of the world where these exact "protections" are in place and guess what, people still get raped!

victim-blaming gets us nowhere. it's damaging to the ideals of equality that feminism espouses, demeaning to all women, and certainly doesn't reduce the incidence of sexual assault.

I guess "gray rape" is really the fault of men - for giving mixed signals. Let me explain: say you have a young woman who's hung out with guy friends in high school and college. She's gotten smashed with them, even slept in the same apartment or house 'alone' with them, has perhaps worn revealing clothes around them, cuddled with them, flirted at times, and none of them raped her.

Unfortunately, this builds up an unrealistic sense of trust: she starts to believe that perhaps men are physically capable of refraining from sticking their dick in an unconscious girl, or holding down an overly reluctant sex partner who is dressed like she's looking for it, even if the guy is really horny.

So, these men, who think they're just being compassionate and honorable human beings, are actually setting her up for the possibility of a humiliating and possibly painful learning experience somewhere down the line. The girl assumes that she can cuddle with a guy and not be raped, or take a ride home from a classmate and not be assaulted. Some very naive girls might even think that they can "make out" with a guy, to the point where he actually achieves an erection, yet somehow have the opportunity to not be made to fuck on command.

Thus, rape is men's fault. But not the fault of men who rape. They're just doing what men are biologically designed to do. It's men like this hypothetical girl's friends who don't rape, and give her the false sense that she has the right to cuddle naked but say no to intercourse, or get drunk and not get gangbanged while unconscious, or cocktease the more sexually aggressive (and thus more manly men) she meets without getting raped. In short, too many young women today have this crazy notion that they have the right to say no to any sex that they don't want to have. And I put the blame squaring on the shoulders of boys and men who have some kind of perverse squeamishness about forcing sex on someone.

Really, when I think of all the male friends in my social circle who hung out with me and my girlfriends in college, and often partied with us to the point of severe inebriation, yet didn't take the opportunity to teach any of a lesson about boundaries and trial and error and misplaced trust, I just get irate.

Ahaha. Ksms, you just won some kind of life medal in the halls of feminism, human dignity, and sharp satire.

Kimmy: "People always bring up, "If I want to get drunk and have sex feminists are telling me that's rape, blah blah blah." Newsflash. If you want to do it, then there is consent, then there is no rape. No consent? Rape. Consent? No rape. Easy, isn't it?"

No, Kimmy, it is not easy, because what a woman's intentions are before she gets drunk, do not indicate consent for any sex at all after she becomes drunk. A drunk or otherwise impaired person, cannot give consent. To illustrate: a woman can also give consent to sex, and withdraw it *during* sex later (i.e. she simply changes her mind, or it hurts, or like my wife has an upper limit for desired orgasms, and sometimes wants none at all), or give consent to one sex act (e.g. missionary, but not oral; or only one orgasm for the male), but nothing more after that. To ignore that is committing rape.

I have no problem accepting the fact that any man (or woman) taking advantage of a drunk or otherwise impaired woman is rape. The woman in that case, cannot give consent. It is unfortunate that it is not explicit in the law in the US, as in the UK or Australia. By the same token, however, does anyone (other than Kristen, thank you) believe that it is possible to rape a drunk male?

If *both* parties are honestly (no faking, I know drunkenness is used as an excuse in a number of crimes) impaired to the point of lack of memory, the assumption on this thread appears to be, must the rapist always be the male, simply because he has the penis? Recall I have no problem calling taking advantage of an impaired woman rape. But if both honestly lack the ability to testify what happened, is it always rape, and is the rapist always the male? I was never accused of wrongdoing, but I used to experience blackouts 20 years ago myself.

Kristen: "Different people have differing definitions of "enthusiastic consent" and I do not want to speak for everyone. What I think of when I think of enthusiastic consent is a willing, active, and (for lack of a better word) happy participant."

I continue to have a problem with the term "enthusiastic consent" I see used here, and have an even greater problem with the word "happy." What do you consider "blah" sex, as in a bland marriage, from the woman's standpoint, or if the woman considers marital sex a chore or duty like doing the laundry? What of women who are passive during sex, as some cultures may promote, not encouraged to guide their partners or seek her own pleasure (even the US has been guilty of this)? I do not even know how many men enthusiastic or happy would apply to, even if they were the ones who wanted sex in the first place. I imagine millions of men have themselves an orgasm, and go to sleep, just like many wives and writers complain of.

I'm not trolling, I really do not want to make a fight out of it, and have deliberately avoided numerous other issues I've seen in this thread that have already been addressed. I'd like to keep my responses if any, as brief as possible, hopefully, "Hmm. I see" and I'll be gone again.

atheistwoman: "I am now also wondering if rape/abuse rates are higher in inter-cultural circumstances, such as if one of the parties does not fully comprehend the language or sexual customs of the other."

I don't know where to look for actual statistics on IPV/DV/rape of foreign women, I've only seen the mail order bride issue addressed in US/Japanese news, but be certain it is an issue, and the opportunity for exploitation, abuse and rape is much higher when the woman is foreign. Japan also has this problem, where Japanese men take advantage of Russian, Eastern European, Latino, or Southeast Asian women in the sex trade or legally as "mail order" brides. (Recall, as I have written, there is no legal recognition of marital rape in Japan, and in fact Tokyo legal precedent dictates a woman CANNOT refuse sex with her husband. The legal definition of rape in Japan also REQUIRES force, as numerous victims have learned the hard way in court. A Japanese woman may be conditioned to have a similar attitude (or to be a passive victim, as in widespread sexual assault on public transportation), even if her partner is foreign, or if she lives in another country. In Japan, with 127 million people, "only" 1,500 rapes are reported each year. Compare that to our hundreds of thousands. Are American men hundreds of times more evil than Japanese men? No.)

Who does the woman go to for help, if she is unacquainted with the language or culture? How will she make her situation understood? Is the legal system prepared to deal with her with certified court interpreters in her language, at every step? Just how willing would authorities be to pursue a case with a foreigner they cannot themselves understand? What if the woman fears being arrested herself, or deported, if she believes or actually is, in violation of immigration law? This would be true of hundreds of thousands, if not millions (hard to count the undocumented), in the US, and part of how the sex slave trade operates in the US. I have seen estimates between 14,500 and 50,000 women and children are being brought to the US as sex slaves each year, and while possibly the most common figures, they are on the low end of the scale.

And about marital rape in the US: Yes, I read myself that it is illegal in all 50 states. But that does not mean that it is legally prosecuted in all 50 even when reported, any more than any "other" rape. I've read that 20% of men at one US conference admitted to raping their wives. How many men have you ever heard of being prosecuted for raping their wives? Was it 20% of married men? What is to be done with the tens of millions of men who rape or have raped? Really.

Abby- Calling a rape apologist a fucking idiot is indeed warranted and awesome. I think Rael is a fucking idiot too. :-) I also think that someone who comes on Feministing to make disingenuous arguments about why rape is not so big a deal is not making a genuine effort to engage in any sort of productive conversation, so I don't have to either.

Rael- Look at my earlier post. The reason people's experiences are being classified as rape despite the fact that they claim not to have been raped is that both rapists and rape victims realize rape is bad and try to pretend it doesn't exist. Time and time again, both rapists and rape victims will say that a rape did not occur, then will admit that the act which did occur meets the dictionary definition of rape.

If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, you're allowed to call it duck, even if the duck thinks it's a chicken.

Dananddanica- http://www.nowldef.org/html/njep/PDFdocs/undetectedrapist.PDF I was lucky enough to see the video and read the study, which I am having trouble finding I think because they want you to pay.

AMale- Yes, a woman who takes sexual advantage of a drunk man is still a rapist, however... I don't think this happens as frequently for a variety of reasons. Men, on average are trained to be sexual agressors where women are, on average, trained to be sexually passive. Men are, on average, both stronger and more able to hold their alchohol. And so on and so forth.

But I know for a fact that this sometimes happens, and I understand that it is rape.

Most comments here are really encouraging, but as much as it pains me to say, that opinion article reflects the ideas of a great majority of folks.

We can talk about rape all day, but the questions are:
1) Can we come up with "something"-an idea, education, a new cultural norm-- that results in fewer women being raped?
2) When rape happens, will the evidence hold up in a court of law?

I am not convinced that we are any closer to answering those questions.

I feel like we women are having these rape conversation with ourselves. And more often than not, when men are brought into the conversation, it's either with pro-feminist guys (y'all are great, btw) agreeing with us, or rape apologist a*holes. There doesn't seem to be much discourse in between.

The thing is, we are arguing with an assumption that women and men are reproductive equals. But is that true?

Let's look at the evidence:

Of late, health care providers feel perfectly at liberty to deny WOMEN access to internationally recognized, safe, effective STANDARDS OF CARE: birth control, emergency contraception, pap tests, etc.

There is an unending discourse pitting the value of a woman's life against that of the unborn.

There seems to be constant assault on reproductive rights, in the form of cutting funding or restricting laws or outright intimidation.

It is a disgrace that in 2008, many schools still lack of even the most rudimentary aspects of sexual health education and yet we have given free license to the media (especially content that young people are drawn to) to paint a distorted picture of sexuality and relationships.

I won't even talk about conservative religion.

These things I have mentioned individually may not seem like a big deal; but the sum of them is indeed. And the greatest impact is the message it sends.

I really don't know what the answers are. But from where I sit it seems that women are not in the greatest position to negotiate turning the tide of public opinion or promoting a healthier situation between men and women.

It sucks.

Sera

I know that standard rape figures puts male victims at about 10% of victims, and rape of men by *women* is maybe 30% of that, i.e. perhaps 3% of all rapes is female on male (I see 70% of male rape is male on male, but do not know where female same sex rape is categorized in all rapes). The priority should be on violence by males, who are separately reported to make up 95-96% of sex offenders. I get that. This is not a, what about the menz?

But how do we determine the offender if both parties are honestly impaired to a comparable level (use blood alcohol, physical performance or any other test you want), or both parties honestly cannot testify as to how the sex occurred? Use a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test there as well. I am not talking about men who act drunk to cover crimes, I am talking about men not able to give consent for a legally binding contract, or anything else, like a drunk woman. How do we establish criminal intent? How about reasonable doubt?

If this cannot be resolved even among sympathetic readers on this site, antifeminists like I see at GlennSacks (I see some Feministing posters there as well, I don't bother trying to talk to GS regulars myself), or the lawmakers who keep sex with drunk *women* from becoming law, will never be swayed. Antifeminists who will continue to be voters, lawmakers, police, lawyers, judges, or jurors, are extremely unlikely to accept a penalty for simply having a penis that can be used to penetrate with (the argument used earlier in the thread, and what GS readers explicitly disagree with), and their opinions therefore cannot simply be dismissed. They must be convinced for this to be voted and signed into law, and for arrest, prosecution, and convictions to occur. Meanwhile, society has not even reached the stage where "female" publications like Cosmo or female writers can get over the "grey rape" myth when ONLY the woman is drunk and impaired, and the man IS taking advantage of her.

Yes, it does suck. I believe rape prosecution will always involve uncertainty, even with laws as clear as woman drunk = rape.

I don't have much to contribute to this, besides the fact that it sparked a conversation with one of my best male friends, who it turns out, is a rape apologist...

"I feel like we women are having these rape conversation with ourselves. And more often than not, when men are brought into the conversation, it's either with pro-feminist guys (y'all are great, btw) agreeing with us, or rape apologist a*holes. There doesn't seem to be much discourse in between."

I see no middle ground. Rape is a terrible thing, and guys who take advantage of women who are insensible are among the worst criminals short of murderers.

The entire mindset that women are sometimes responsible for their rape misses the point entirely. No woman is ever, ever responsible for her own rape, period. The vast majority of men have proven, time and again, that the male biological make-up is able to control men's lustful desires (contrary to the author's take on it) when a scantily clad female is present, so please give my gender more credit than to speak of us as if we are animals with virtually no self-control. And please give women less credit than to suggest that they are the trustees of men's desires, capabale of turning us on and off like a light switch.

Speaking as a lawyer, in consensual relationships that lead to an allegation of "date rape," it is very, very difficult for police and juries to know what happened, short of cameras recording the entire evening (and we may be coming to that on campuses). DNA evidence won't help if the accused says the relationship was consensual. And, no, juries will not and should not necessarily just take the woman's word for it. The guy might be telling the truth. If a woman engages in conduct that might later be construed by a jury as consensual, this just means that it will be more difficult to prove that a rape occurred, that's all. Again, this should not enter the realm of moral judgments or in casting blame of the rape accuser. It just means that we live in America where everyone accused of a crime (especially a crime that is second only to murder in terms of lengths of prison sentences) is entired to the entire panoply of due process protections.

When the guy raises consent as an affirmative defense, the prosecution must prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for consent has nothing to do with a woman's secret, subjective desires or wishes. It is an objective test -- would a reasonable person in the position of the male understand from all the surrounding circumstances that the woman is assenting to sexual relations. The mere fact that a woman would not pass an intoxication test on the road does not necessarily render her sufficiently insensible to negate vaild consent in this context -- again, the jails would be filled with college boys if that were the test. Tipsy does not negate valid consent. Moreover, consent may be inferred from conduct and certainly need not be verbal (in this context, it rarely ever is). Otherwise, we would require people to sign off on legal documents before they hook up.

So let's ditch the moral overtones; if an author wants to talk about a woman's conduct as evidence -- that's fair game, because again, these cases are very, very difficult for juries. But can we get away from the moral blame game and talk reality? A rapist is solely responsible for his rape, period.

Amale,

"What of women who are passive during sex, as some cultures may promote, not encouraged to guide their partners or seek her own pleasure (even the US has been guilty of this)?"

And this is at the heart of what enthusiastic consent is trying to accomplish. You shouldn't have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you. Period. I don't care if your married or if you've been together for 100 years...sex should be about pleasure for both parties. The very idea that you have feel obligated to engage in some sexual activity that you don't really feel like is absolutely repulsive to me. Moreover its a remnant of patriarchal conditioning. "Women aren't supposed to enjoy sex." "Men are always supposed to be ready for sex." Deep down THIS is the problem.

I'm not saying we should throw everyone in jail when they have sex with an ambivalent partner. But as informed, enlightened people...the line should not be...well, s/he didn't say no...but rather s/he said, "Absolutely...now off with those pesky clothes."

I am just trying to see the relevancy of the question. What this situation is in which both people cannot remember what happened the next day and yet they were able to have sex. You mean if two people wake up the next morning beside each other and it seems as if they had sex, but neither can remember? They are both rapists? I don't know. If neither seems more responsible than the other and both were unable to give consent how could you convict one person? Perhaps this points to why it is hard to get people to acknowledge sex after both have been drinking as rape. If one is unable to give consent we still assume they should be able to ask for consent. But wouldn't their ability to ask for consent and look at body language also be impaired? (Ugh, that sounds like I'm excusing the rapist but I don't want it to sound like that! Don't know how else to say it though). So...I think we should just all stay away from sex if we are quite drunk. However, I'd think most cases where there has been drinking involved for both at least one of the people is sober enough to ask for consent or give consent but men will use the fact that they were drinking as an excuse for what they did. I think people should be encouraged to think of the limits of what they would do when they are drunk before they are drunk (including only going as far as the other person wants to go) and then it will be clearer if someone tries to cross a line.

Mirm, what is involved in your life work to stop rape? I am truly interested, if you see this.

Spike the cat, I also have an "it sucks" feeling today. That men have control of women's bodies (because chance of conviction is so low) and then if she becomes pregnant he can just leave and not pay her child support because what are the chances she will go after him anyway.≤/rant>

AMale- It's very hard to know how impaired both parties were, since police aren't present with breathalizers at frat parties. Studies like the one I linked of repeat offenders on college campuses (and the stories that most rape counselors/advocates hear in the course of their work) would indicate that the situation you describe, in which both parties were honestly too intoxicated to know what happened, is rather more rare than we're willing to admit.

And honestly, that would be a case where there is no way to prove that any rape occurred, so I don't think any action would be necessary, aside from laying off the sauce for a while.

Tim- The jails should be filled with college boys. They keep raping people. And while you, a lawyer, might not feel like making much of the difference between an actual rape epidemic and a rape epidemic as defined by law, I personally think the fact that our legal system does such a completely shit job of prosecuting rapists is just one more proof of the fact that our legal system doesn't work.

Also, tipsy doesn't negate valid consent, but a woman who complains she was too drunk to consent isn't an idiot. She's complaining she was too drunk to consent because she was far drunker than tipsy.

Finally, our cultural expectations of what actions on the part of a woman lead a man to assume she is consenting are highly subjective and influenced by ubiquitous sexism, making courts of law which rely on these expectations sexist as well.

Lyndorr- Again, all our focused worry on the hypothetical "What if they were both really trashed?" totally ignores the fact that it is usually the woman who is really trashed and the man who is slightly tipsy. Being so inebriated that you aren't able to make meaningful consent often also means you are too inebriated to initiate it, and I think that in most cases, if the men were really that drunk, the sex wouldn't have happened.

But sure, I'll bite. Alchohol probably does make it more difficult for some people to read signs of consent or lack thereof. This would possibly explain why some drunk guys think that they're about to be invited home by women who want them to fuck off, or try to dance with me when I thought I'd made it clear that I'm repulsed by them.

But social ineptitude is a far cry from rape. Having sex with someone who says no or is passed out is no more excusable because you are drunk than is murder. It is so wrong that the knowledge that it's wrong should be hardwired into your brain, present when your ability to make coherent speech is long gone.

On a side note, if you know that you're unable to tell which women hate you when you're drunk, you know that you're overbearing and creepy as a result, and you choose to keep getting drunk, you're a fucking asshole.

Tim, shouldn't your anger be directed at someone like Rael, who seems to believe that all men are savage raping beasts? It's anti-feminist rape apologists who consider all men rapists.

"Again, all our focused worry on the hypothetical "What if they were both really trashed?" totally ignores the fact that it is usually the woman who is really trashed and the man who is slightly tipsy."

Sera, I agree with all that which is why I questioned the relevancy of the question but tried to answer. I think any progress that could be made is slowed by trying to think of the examples where we don't know who to convict etc.

And I agree with something from way above. If rape were rare the conviction rate would be way higher.

gah made a post and it seems to have been eaten.

Sera,
Thanks for the link.

I have to agree with Tim here, as a layman its very hard for me to understand how rape could be successfully prosecuted in the she said/he said circumstances that were so prevalent on my campus. How exactly do you get past the reasonable doubt standard if there are no witnesses or signs of physical abuse?

Thats different from saying we are and have been in the midst of a rape crisis and that rape is unquestionably wrong. Those things are very much true. Even if the police were far better with rape cases though, with more resources allocated and so on rape prosecution would still be very difficult due to the nature of the crime. Unless you want to remove the innocent before proven guilty concept and give more weight to a woman's testimony than a man's 100 percent of the time, this will not change.

It being wrong and getting convictions are very different things.

Tim says: "I see no middle ground. Rape is a terrible thing, and guys who take advantage of women who are insensible are among the worst criminals short of murderers."

You yourself admit that it's damn near impossible to prove lack of consent short of video cameras being in the room. So where does that leave us?

"... No woman is ever, ever responsible for her own rape, period."

Agreed. But will this PREVENT rape? And does this hold up in court?

"The standard for consent has nothing to do with a woman's secret, subjective desires or wishes." It is an objective test -- would a reasonable person in the position of the male understand from all the surrounding circumstances that the woman is assenting to sexual relations.

Actually what you described is not an objective test at all; correct me if I'm wrong, but you could ask 10 "reasonable people" and still get different answers, no? And forgive me for being flippant but how exactly do we go about determining who is "reasonable" and who isn't? Sounds subjective to me.

Objective would be something you can quantify--something measurable with reproducibility (precision), like a DNA or blood test.

"And, no, juries will not and should not necessarily just take the woman's word for it. The guy might be telling the truth."

And again. Back to square numero uno.

See. That's what I'm saying, guys. We need some new talking points !!!!

The biggest problem with this whole rape-denying gray-rape bullshit is that the law (and society) assumes that a woman means yes until she says no. It is assumed that she is available for whatever her "partner" wants to do until she has to defend herself. Which is why the whole issue of impairment gets so dangerous. And as someone mentioned previously, a CONTRACT isn't binding if a person was impaired; why don't we treat WOMEN the same way?

This is all related to how women are implored to adjust their behaviour because of the bad behaviour of men that society refuses to punish.

I've always had trouble with the idea you can't consent when drunk. I mean, passed out? Sure. So drunk you don't really understand what's happening? Sure.

But I've had lots of sex when very drunk and forgetting things, and I don't find that a problem - but then, I have always initiated sexual encounters. I think twice I was falling down drunk, had been flirting pretty extremely but got uncomfortable at a certain point. Both men, also very drunk, said "you're not actually comfortable with this are you?" and I said no so we just went to sleep.

So I think the inability to make meaningful decisions when drunk is overestimated personally.

Oh, and this article is so fucked up it almost seems like satire. :(

What we need to do is get the people who manufacture date rape drugs and go after them. And the guys who buy that crap. THAT'S frightening to me that some guys do that (but no, I don't think the jails should be filled with college boys -- hey, I was a college boy one time, and, yes, most of us were looking for sex but certainly not to rape.)

"Actually what you described is not an objective test at all; correct me if I'm wrong, but you could ask 10 "reasonable people" and still get different answers, no? And forgive me for being flippant but how exactly do we go about determining who is "reasonable" and who isn't? Sounds subjective to me."

What I describe IS an objective test. It is not science; it can never be science. Our judicial system is a human institution, and juries are comprised of men and women who do the best they can. The "reasonable" person standard (which refers to objective as opposed to subjective standard) is first year law school stuff. Trust me, I didn't just make that up. And believe it or not, it works. All it means is that when a woman says NO, a reaonable male would understand it means NO. If she doesn't say it, he can't guess.

It also means the male can't rely on HIS subjective beliefs as a defense to rape -- it's not a defense to say, "she wanted it" if a reasonable person wouldn't have believed that.

As for the standard of consent when a person is intoxicated, trust me, I didn't just make that up, either: In determining whether a person is 'incapable of consenting' to sexual intercourse as a result of intoxication, the inquiry focuses on whether that person is "wholly insensible . . . in a state of utter stupefaction . . . caused by drunkenness . . . or drugs."

Tim- I didn't say that all college boys should go to jail. I meant, and I think it's fairly obvious that I meant this, that a large number of college boys are premeditated and even repeat rapists who go undetected, and that they should be in jail, even if it leads to lots of "college boys" filling our prisons. Do you find this more objectionable somehow than lots of nonviolent drug offenders who happen to be poor and/or minority filling our prisons? Why?

And just because you learned something in the first year of law school, rather than making it up, doesn't make it right. Some people learn in their freshman year of college that the things you're talking about are indeed subjective social constructs.

All it means is that when a woman says NO, a reaonable male would understand it means NO. If she doesn't say it, he can't guess.

Exactly, Tim. So don't guess. Why is the assumption a "yes"? Why not, shock of all shocks, ASK her?

Why is it a woman's burden to assume that society views her body as "free game" until she announces that it's not?

That is exactly why women are so frustrated: we are told we have to constantly be on the defensive, watching out for what other people might do to us, especially when it comes to sex.

Spike, I don't think we do need new talking points. This conversation always boils down to education. Teach young men and women to respect bodily integrity and that no one has a right to sex, never, ever, ever. Change will not come until that is hardwired into every man, woman, and child in this world. Change is slow, and in the meantime, a higher conviction rate won't happen. Until it is generally accepted knowledge that women have the right to refuse sex at any time, for any reason, the prevailing social opinion will be that women don't have this right, and send any number of signals by being out in public that they do consent to sex. It's not a problem with feminist rhetoric, it's a problem with culture being such a damned heavy thing to move. Change will come and things will get better, but things will be nasty for a very long time. There's nothing to do but to keep fighting attitudes.

I think there is not enough talk of solutions. Spike the cat, you reminded me of the article I read about Scotland. They have a dreadful rape conviction rape so they want to provide police officers with training for questioning rape victims, like to make them feel more comfortable and such. Some women have had to wait hours at the station before they could report the details. Of course in America paying for rape kits would be something. And articles like this truly suck. We need all articles like this to be replaced with articles about what is being done to convict more rapists. Because if someone thought they might actually get caught, they might think twice.
This is not even mentioning the education that is desperately needed world-wide to have men and women examine the assumptions prevalent in culture that lead people to assume things that have not been said.

Now that jail has been brought into the debate, I want to point out that jail really sucks. One of my brothers was in prison for a drug offense, and his experience was horrible. He doesn't like to talk about it (especially not with his younger sister), but it was bad. It's also effected his life since getting out almost six years ago.

And when I was raped (I wasn't drunk, but I liked the guy, we'd been on a date, and I was into having sex with him until things took a creepy turn), one of the reasons why I just let it drop was because I didn't want to send this guy to jail. What good would that do? It would just f up his life, and make him an even more aggressive, angrier, needier man. He probably wouldn't realize that he'd done something wrong.

Maybe this is an issue that doesn't need to brought into this debate, but as long as we're talking large scale, societal changes, I can't help but address the state of prisons.

tim, also speaking as a lawyer, my problem is not with the innocent-until-proven-guilty or the reasonable doubt standard for crimes or any of that. we need it for ALL people accused of crimes.

but i think the assertion that the reasonable person standard is entirely fair and objective, if that is what you were asserting, at least in practice, is false. i'm with jfaustus--the standard shouldn't be "what would a reasonable man understand a lack of consent to be?" but "what SHOULD a reasonable man understand as affirmative consent?" as has been pointed out numerous times in the comments to this post, there are plenty of other ways that apparently lots of posters here see as obvious manifestations of unhappiness or unwillingness that come short of saying "no, i do not want to have sex with you at this time." i think we need to use a standard that takes into account both what the average guy understands as "no", as well as what most women would consider communicating that a person was "not into it."

requiring affirmative consent (or enthusiastic, to use jfaustus' term) seems better suited to this task. i'm sure it would be no easy task, but we'll never get anywhere unless we hold people to a higher standard of behavior.

Tim-

There are other lawyers on this site, so you can't get away with condescending "you're not a member of the guild" tripe like this:

What I describe IS an objective test. It is not science; it can never be science. Our judicial system is a human institution, and juries are comprised of men and women who do the best they can. The "reasonable" person standard (which refers to objective as opposed to subjective standard) is first year law school stuff. Trust me, I didn't just make that up. And believe it or not, it works.

It DOES NOT work, and saying it does ignores a couple decades' worth of scholarship. Law is a social institution, as you yourself mentioned. As such, it is subject to the same flaws as the society that constructed it. Racism and sexism are rampant not only in the laws as written, but in their enforcement through mechanisms, like the 'reasonable man' standard, that are designed to maintain the status quo.

In one sense, you're right. Reasonable-ness is law's way of distinguishing between a someone's internal (unknowable) thoughts and their conduct. It asks, "Regardless of what this person was actually thinking inside -- which we can never know -- would a reasonable person in his or her position believe that XYZ." Without going exhaustively into the deconstruction of objectivity in law, one quick problem arises when a 'reasonable person' is also racist and sexist.

"Without going exhaustively into the deconstruction of objectivity in law, one quick problem arises when a 'reasonable person' is also racist and sexist."

marry me?

McDonald's piece and her perspective is fatally revealed by her moralizing in the second half. For a less moralizing critique of the "One in Four" matra, see Christina Hoff Sommers less emotional essay here: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
Hoff Sommers is probably not popular around here either, though.

It seems that anyone who dares to disagree with the 1/4 figure is likely to be labelled a "rape apologist". Even if the number is as low as 7% (25% less the 73% of that who did not define their experience as rape) the number is pretty appalling. To me to cling to the 1/4 number damages the credibility of the effort to raise consciousness about the issue, but I've been shouted at for that attitude before and will be somewhat surprised if it doesn't happen again.

The debate of what is rape and what is not often ignores the gap between what the victim experiences (she doesn't want it) and what the perpetrator reasonably believes (she does want it). Tim approaches it in his description of prosecutions, and that process is even further inadequate to the task of identifying rape where the perpetrator is insincere about his perception. For the crime of rape to have occurred there must be mens rea or a "guilty mind" on the part of the perpetrator. In other words there must be an intent to have intercourse without the victim's consent.

For some, a woman's subjective experience of unwanted sex is enough to call it rape. I count among those the people here who make the blanket statement "if the sex is without consent, it is rape, period." If you are one who would always take the woman's word for it, whatever the circumstances, I would ask you rhetorically, why don't you take the word of the 73% of the women who had unwanted sex who declined to say they were raped?

Discussions I see or read on college campuses are often charged with high emotion because those who want to accept the subjective definition accuse men who object to that definition as rapists or rape apologists. A far more productive approach would be to help both sides foster better communication without accusation, which would include persuading young men to pay more attention to stop signs.

response:

http://jezebel.com/360815/be-all-you-can-be

oh wow, you mean rape is also UNDERREPORTED?

Sixties Liberal, I don't think the folks on this thread who have been labeled *rape apologists* have been labeled as such because they specifically quibbled with the 1 in 4 statistic.

Also, your comment ending in "which would include persuading young men to pay more attention to stop signs" I think is made in good faith, but only serves to reinforce the prevailing cultural attitude (pointed out by about 100 people upthread) that sexual access to a woman is the default, until or unless she takes up her somehow-god-given, heavy, and lifelong burden of sufficiently, at at times necessarily persistently and forcibly, persuading the man she does not, in fact, want to have sex. These boys and men should be looking for "Go signs" before they do one goddamn thing, not doing whatever they feel until they get a "stop sign," if they choose to see or acknowledge it, let alone honor it. Aaaannndd, we're back to affirmative / enthusiastic consent. Funny how that works.

Cedar, I understand your point. Jails are horrible places and the majority of people sent there are non-violent people, usually people convicted of a drug crime, like your brother. He should have never been sent there. Locking people up for using drugs is a plague on our society, it destroys families and ruins lives. It's expensive and it places a huge burden on the already overflowing prison system and society as a whole. The whole war on drugs is a racist failure and a sham. It's essentially a war on people and a war on the poor and minority communities. It should be ended immediately. People who have addictions should be offered help, not punished, furthermore not everyone who uses drugs is an addict (i.e. smoked some pot at a party and got busted and now must go to jail for 3 years and complete a rehab program there).

With that said, we are not talking about non-violent (usually) benign drug users here, we are talking about rapists. I understand all the reasons why some don't press charges (I didn't press charges against my rapist) However for those who do wish to press charges, I believe fully that any rapist deserves the jail sentence he receives. Maybe that sounds a bit harsh to some, but rapists have committed an act of violence, drug users have no other crime than ingesting a chemical substance into their body, they never physically hurt another person but rapists do. I agree with your assessment of the state of our prisons and that non-violent drug users should NOT be treated as criminals. I also am for prisoners being treated fairly and humanely and agree that our prison system needs to be reformed. However rapists committed a violent crime, and any rapist who is prosecuted should have to live with the sentence they receive, including prison. I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to your brother, I have no sympathy, however for rapists who are sent to prison so long as they are treated humanely (which is another issue that could take up many pages) I do realize that many prisoners are not treated humanely however, that doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting rapists, it means we need to fight for prison reform, which I am totally for. Prisoners are people too and deserve a fair trial, access to medical care, visitation rights, a prison assignment close to their community, the right not to be beaten and humiliated by guards and other prisoners, mental health care, nutrition, and when they get out they deserve access to programs that help them adjust again to living in society and finding work. I'm for prisoners rights and prison reform, I'm not for letting rapists off the hook if the assailant wishes to press charges.

One more thing, Re: Lyndorr "Because if someone thought they might actually get caught, they might think twice."

Actually it's been proven that punitive measures are not effective in preventing crime (this is the whole argument with the death penalty, that tougher penalties will deter crime - actually no, this is false) And it's been proven over and over again. Please don't spread this meme, because there's just no evidence that tougher punishment and more punishment will deter murders, rapes or any other violent crime. What would be much more effective is education and awareness. Stamping out articles like this one (as you said) is a start. Punishment while necessary for those who do rape, is not the answer for deterring more rapes. Education, awareness and a change in attitude will go much farther in deterring this behavior. Fighting for equality and advocating the respect for the personhood of women, you know the "radical feminist idea that women are equal", can help change misogynistic attitudes that contribute to gender based violence.

"For the crime of rape to have occurred there must be mens rea or a "guilty mind" on the part of the perpetrator."

Not true at all. You can break the law without intending to, and (I think the lawyers will back me up on this) obliviousness to the law is not a suitable defense.

Meeneecat, where in that sentence you quoted is anything about tougher punishments? I said if the person thought they could be caught. I've read about the studies that say it's not tougher punishments but more certain and sooner punishments that are more likely to reduce crime.

I learned in a law course that yes, you do need mens rea but ignorance of the law is not a defense. So if one could somehow prove they were sleep walking when the rape happened, they don't have the mens rea. But when does that ever happen? So I don't see how men rea is an issue with rape cases.

Affirmative consent, I think, is a fine standard for an ideal world. It's an excellent standard for sex when you haven't negotiated a different standard for that relationship. If people adhered to it, it would make it easier to determine consent in rape cases.

While I sympathize with the suggestion that every time anyone has any kind of sex, it should be for mutual enjoyment and so on, I don't think we can or should set it as the ideal standard for all sex everywhere. People have sex for lots of reasons; if someone's willingly having sex for some reason other than their own pleasure, I don't want to be the one stopping them. I may not think highly of them, but it's their choice. This happens a lot more often in established relationships, and that's ok.

To me, it's always and forever about consent. It doesn't have to be enthusiastic consent. Grudging consent is still consent.

It gets way interesting if you try to figure out when reluctant consent stops being consent, though. A poster over on Salon told of her experience where a date had started coercing her and she did not believe she could fight him off. She deliberately made the decision to consent because she did not want to experience rape. She insisted she was not raped. I would disagree; I think she was coerced. But who you gonna believe?

And to lyndorr:
mens rea seems like a critical issue in rape cases. He thinks he's got consent; she hasn't given consent but doesn't communicate that to him; sex happens. He's a bad guy for not checking in with his partner, but is it so hard to believe that he's just a clueless git who misread her body language?

Was she raped? Absolutely, and will have all the negative effects associated with that. Did he mean to rape her? Not in my example.

What should the courts do? Is there a manslaughter analogue in rape caselaw? If the definition of rape in your jurisdiction requires mens rea, the guy gets off. If definition of rape in your jurisdiction does not, he goes to jail.

I know of one case offhand that was like this. I would expect there to be many more. I don't personally know what the courts should do about it. Maybe parole, an intensive sensitivity class, and community service. We prevent these unintentional rapes by educating everyone about sex and consent.

Lyndorr, I didn't mean to imply that you were talking about tougher penalties. It's a minor point, but I included the part about tougher penalties because it's often part of the same argument that "punishments will deter crime". Usually the argument for punishment deterring crime is also lumped together with tougher punishment also deterring crime. An example would be arguments for the death penalty (not that you are arguing for the death penalty) but people will usually say that the death penalty will deter crime for exactly the reason you said, which is "maybe they will think twice about committing the crime". Again I didn't mean to imply that you were referring to tougher penalties - but I did interpret what you said to mean that the possibility of getting caught (and thus punished) will cause a person to think twice before committing that crime, and again, my main point was that this is generally not true. Punishment has not been found to be a factor in deterring crime. i.e. I don't murder someone not because I'm afraid of the punishment, but because it's morally wrong.

I think actually this says a lot about the rape crisis. It's not that we need to be focusing on punishment (although rapists should definitely be punished if the victim seeks to press charges), but it's that we need to focus on changing people's attitude about the morality of rape, because apparently some men are not registering that it is VERY WRONG & UNACCEPTABLE. They have no moral guide when it comes to respecting women. Especially with the large percentage of college males who don't seem to have a problem with having sex with an unconsenting person. They need to get the message that this is WRONG. This suggestion it's not a cure-all, but I think it will help. As another commenter pointed out, women are NOT objects for a man's sexual gratification whenever he damn well pleases. "the problem is with the pervasive idea that women are here as sexual objects and that "yes" to sex is the default unless the woman clearly states otherwise. Instead of: women are autonomous beings and that "no" is the default unless there is enthusiastic consent (that goes for both parties)." [ShelbyWoo] And this is why we need a shift in attitudes, especially among that certain percentage of men who still don't get that it's unacceptable and as reprehensible as murder.

Actually Lyndorr, about the sleep walking, you may have heard there was a recent rape case where the man was acquitted because his lawyer argued that he was sleepwalking. It's a BS defense, but yeah, mens rea is a critical issue in rape cases. In this particular case it sets a dangerous precedent for any future cases, any man could argue that he was sleep walking and not be held responsible for the crime he committed. This has obvious implications for victims, and they're not good.
Here's the story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080207/sexomnia_case_080207/20080207?hub=CTVNewsAt11

"I think people should be encouraged to think of the limits of what they would do when they are drunk before they are drunk (including only going as far as the other person wants to go) and then it will be clearer if someone tries to cross a line."

It may be easier for someone who drinks more often, but personally, it took me years to realize my limits when drinking, long after university. That would be much too late for many teens and college students who are at risk.

And in any case, this seems to place responsibility on the drinker. I have no problem with that if the drinker is a drunk driver who caused an accident, because they were too irresponsible to learn their limits, or to reign in their behavior. I do have a problem if the drinker is a crime victim, of rape or anything else, because that would be blaming, this time of a victim.

"Absolutely...now off with those pesky clothes."

That would be nice if women did that, even if only with long term, committed partners. Unfortunately that is not my vision of married life in middle age in society in general, much less when elderly. Sex does not happen like in Viagra or KY warming massage oil commercials. I sure wish it did.

"The jails should be filled with college boys. They keep raping people."

I believe there is a rape epidemic, just as serious as I hear it is. The jails would be more than filled, if we are talking about punishing tens of millions of people who have raped. We would need to have many times the prisons we have now. This could mean for example, removing 20% of all married men for raping their wives, and quite frankly, many female offenders (4-5% of tens of millions) as well. For decades at a time. Is this what people are asking for? As appalling as rape is, gutting our society and splitting up families until rapists and future potential rapists learn their lesson sounds impractical at best.

"Objective would be something you can quantify--something measurable with reproducibility (precision), like a DNA or blood test."

That is true. Something undeniably quantifiable and confirmable. But what does a BAC of 0.08 or 0.1 really mean when it comes to the ability of an individual to function, as in driving an automobile, or to give legal consent to form a contract, have sex, or anything else? Should people steer clear of a potential sex partner if they look about 120 lbs., see them have 2-3 drinks in an hour, and consciously keep tabs and size people up like that? Should they ask the people's friends if this is how they normally behave when sober, to in effect, get permission to approach another adult for sex? Should one only be careful if someone "looks" drunk, according to their understanding of impairment? I am not trolling, I am very serious, even though I have never been involved in such a situation. My children and many others I know will, if and when such becomes law in the US.

FenrisWolf, nice to see you again. I am sure sex when drunk or high may be fun (I wouldn't know, but I would like to try deliberately altered states of consciousness), but you have been very fortunate, and stories like yours scare me. I nearly lost my life at the hands of one of my best friends when we were both drunk, and I had to be told about it later. Those kind of experiences are why I quit drinking for a number of years.

Ahhh, I feel I'm not used to communicating online. But I'll try.

Meeneecat, just wondering, do you think jails do nothing to deter people from committing crimes? That their only purpose is to keep criminals away from society (and in a better world be good at rehabilitation)?

OT, have you heard of someone going to jail for years because they were caught smoking pot? Because that's awful. And scary to me. I suppose they want to discourage people from buying but I'm sure the sellers will always find people to sell to. In Canada some small amount marijuana is decriminialized so it's the sellers that can be charged with crime.

I can understand the issue of not wanting to send someone to jail. I don't know what should be done. Of course I support education. I'm sure we all do. But what about the men that are already adults.

"And in any case, this seems to place responsibility on the drinker. I have no problem with that if the drinker is a drunk driver who caused an accident, because they were too irresponsible to learn their limits, or to reign in their behavior. I do have a problem if the drinker is a crime victim, of rape or anything else, because that would be blaming, this time of a victim."

Maybe I should expand on my point. Always, whether drinking or not, people should know their limit. I say this from personal experience. I don't know if being more aware of my limits would've made me say no more forcefully (and I don't blame myself). I don't know how many guys out there won't believe a woman if she says 'no' softly but might if she said it forcefully and angrily. I am not trying to blame women. Though from a couple posts here it does seem that communication of consent (or no consent) and mens rea is an issue. Related, I do think there are women with very low self-confidence who are having what some might call unwanted sex (but not like the grudgingly given married sex A male talks about). Maybe they participate in the sex, at least after being coerced a little bit because they don't have the confidence to try to say no more than a couple times. There is probably a lot of coerced sex out there where the woman consents in her mind in the end. So, I think women should be encouraged to know their limits and know that no one should cross them and somehow be helped to have the confidence to say no again and again to anyone who crosses those limits. But how to foster confidence?

"I do think there are women with very low self-confidence who are having what some might call unwanted sex . . . . Maybe they participate in the sex, at least after being coerced a little bit because they don't have the confidence to try to say no more than a couple times. There is probably a lot of coerced sex out there where the woman consents in her mind in the end."

Those all sound like legally pursuable rape if unwanted (consent not given), coerced, or "no" is ignored. Consent given can be withdrawn later during sex (and I believe a woman can realize her experience was in fact rape, after the fact), but is it possible for consent to be *given* after unwanted sex has begun, i.e., becoming "not rape?" Quite frankly, that sounds like a scenario out of porn.

Ah. And reminds me once more of the Vagina Monologues (text version) "The Coochie Snorter That Could," which I have read, the story of the same sex alcohol induced seduction/statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, with the famously deleted line, "If it was rape, it was good rape." Along these lines:

"Abusers, I’m told by my friends at Men Can Stop Rape, often try very hard to arouse their victims. They do so for obvious reasons, the most salient of which is that their victims’ pleasure works to alleviate the abusers’ guilt: 'She/he liked it! I didn’t really hurt them!'"

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/05/26/some-quick-thoughts-on-mary-kay-and-vili/

A comment on the site makes the claim that Ensler considered it a true story, making it even more problematic. But it gets laughs from the audience. Not so if the offender were a man with a 13 year old girl.

http://www.mencanstoprape.org/

SixtiesLiberal- What you and others have a habit of ignoring is that the women in question are often asked things like "Have you ever been physically forced to have intercourse when you didn't want to?" They experienced this. The fact that they choose not to tell anybody they feel they experienced a rape doesn't mean much unless you think that forcing somebody to have sex isn't rape. Is that what you believe? The fact that you seem so dedicated to defining forced sex as something other than rape is why you are a rape apologist, not your quibbles with the 1/4 statistic. Thanks for not actually reading the thread before you post.

AMale- Actually, I'm not really for prisons at all. I just really hated Tim's "OMG BUT THOSE GUYS LOOK LIKE ME" response to the idea that frat boy rapists should do jail time.

Frankly, I think that a gutted society free of rapists would be better than one with intact families which harbor rapists. Also, if nonviolent drug offenders were let out of prison, we'd have a lot more room for rapists.

But, as I said, this is all a bit moot, since ideally we'd be working towards a world without prisons.

Finally, yes. I am very aware of that segment of the Vagina Monologues. Frankly, as someone who was sexually abused by an older female, it's the reason I won't see the play.

I'm sorry it happened to you, and I'm sorry for making you recall it.

I have learned to believe in the rehabilitation aspects of prisons (in those programs where treatment, reintegration into society, education, and job training occur), but personally continue to feel the need for outright punishment for crimes like rape, if for nothing else than to remove the offender from society, and force them to have time to think.

More importantly, more actual prison time would drive home the message to the rest of society that rape equals rape, no matter what "kind," even if with willing underage partners or within a long term relationship like marriage. That said, I do not believe the deterrent effect would prevent rape any more effectively than threat of prison or even capital punishment prevent other serious crimes like murder.

"Frankly, I think that a gutted society free of rapists would be better than one with intact families which harbor rapists. Also, if nonviolent drug offenders were let out of prison, we'd have a lot more room for rapists."

I totally agree!

I think the deal with that particular segment of Ensler's play, is that while yes, this is statutory rape and would be traumatic for some teenagers that age if they felt they were not in control of the situation, the fact is some 13 yr-olds /do/ have positive sexual experiences.

I've heard the story of a girl who was gang-raped at 12, and at 15 she had a relationship with a significantly older man. Believe it or not though, this latter relationship was overall a positive experience for her that she felt helped in her healing.

Not everyone is going to have the same experience in a given situation, even ones that the majority of our society would be deeply uncomfortable with.

Yeah, sexual experiences /can/ have a positive affect on self-esteem and comfort with one's own genitals. It's not the only way, and sometimes it has the opposite affect, but everyone's experience is unique...

Other than the age and same sex aspect, there is the alcohol aspect. Males would be condemned for plying women with alcohol, even if, as in this article, many women would not later identify themselves as rape victims. Prosecuted, if drunk = rape became law, which I believe it should.

A male,

I disagree. I mean, I know we've had this debate before, but positive sexual experiences /can/ be had while alcohol is involved.

Affirmative consent can occur when alcohol is involved.

This is sort of like the debate about sex with a sleeping person, I think. Laws exist to help people who feel they were violated, not people who feel positive about their experiences. If a person is okay with sleep sex, they're not going to bring a charge against their partner who tries that.

The reason that feminists spend so much time talking about women being raped but not calling it that, is because a lot of women /do/ feel violated or negative about a given experience, but they are not calling it "rape" so as not to assert that it's something that should not have happened to them.

If a woman genuinly feels overall positive about an experience, it's probably not rape.

C'mon people, focus. We are getting closer here. Now some of y'all mentioned education and changing cultural attitudes. But how?

I mean do you think the typical college aged kids reading this blog would agree or disagree with the gist of what we are saying?

How do we go from people blinding agreeing with that article, to at least starting to think critically about the issue?

How can we bring more people, especially males, into this conversation without setting off WWIII?

I mean several women here have mentioned trying to talk to their guy friends and hitting a brick wall.
***************************************
For A male: yeah I heard about that Vagina Monologue sketch.

But let's put it into a little perspective. It is a live play, it is entertainment, and it does at least attempt to give a full perspective of a woman's experience.

Contrast that to a whole genre of simulated rape videos whose sole intent is to cater to an apparently very popular fantasy that young girls enjoy being raped and brutalized. And with no additional context other than to "pretend" that it's real.

"Those all sound like legally pursuable rape if unwanted (consent not given), coerced, or "no" is ignored."

Even if I agree with you, will the women who go through that see what happened as something that could or even should be legally pursued?
Articles like the ones recently posted about the sexual harassment in Toronto schools are what is making me interested in the education of girls as well. When it says the girls are finding what is happening, a normal part of life, that shocks me. How can we expect men to change if women don't even expect them to? I don't blame women here but blame whatever it is in society that is telling women they don't have full possession of their bodies and that they can be touched even if they don't give permission.

I really feel I need to stop thinking about this for a couple days. The anecdotal things I read about the harassment in schools were shocking. I think anecdotes and statistics together are important for getting a message across. People might disregard statistics because they don't know what the statistics actually represent until they hear actual stories.

So, the premier of Ontario has researching who will give a report about what to do about this problem in schools. Which is a small plus because he actually recognizes the problem but it also frustrates me. Universities have done so much research in the social sciences. How long until the premier stops thinking and actually takes action? Change some of the curriculum, add to it, make effective workshops related to this widespread, improve sex-ed, implement that gender studies optional course people are asking for even though we need interventions earlier than that, etc. I really think something somewhat revolutionary could happen but I'm not counting on it. Gender issues have been largely ignored in schools for a long time. That's my rant.

Spike the cat, those are good questions. How do you talk to someone who has just accepted the assumptions culture gives their whole life? The other day someone said the majority has their way. But no, I think the loudest people often have their way. But people (besides you all) don't really want to talk about rape I think.

"Researchers who will give a report", not "researching".

"If a woman genuinly feels overall positive about an experience, it's probably not rape."

Could this "positive" feeling, no matter how genuine, not be the result of conditioning or brainwashing, as in DV/IPV, or the result of culture and upbringing, as when many young women are not aware that they were in fact, raped, according to the definitions we are using on this site? I will remind you my wife believed she was having romantic relationships with some of the men who raped her, i.e., they were NOT her boyfriends/lovers, and is thus not aware that in EVERY such instance, that she was in fact, being raped, and thus reports no trauma, and continues to be friendly with at least one man today. For example, this friend in question - he was the leader of her college hiking club, the boyfriend of her best friend. He used to go to my future wife's apartment under the pretense of wanting to watch NBA basketball on her cable TV, but would repeatedly force himself on her (by her own account). However, she did not consider it wrong or stop him, because she loved him, this boyfriend of her best friend. Meanwhile, my wife has no problem realizing that being assaulted by strangers on the train or in a movie theater was wrong (but not worth reporting by her reasoning). Was that college friend, who continues to be a friend worth making overnight visits to see (now married to my wife's best friend) on her trips to Japan, a repeat offender rapist, or not? Don't tell me my wife's warped reasoning (developed through a near lifetime of abuse, physical and sexual) is the determining factor. Even by Japanese law (rape is forcible penile/vaginal intercourse only), he was indeed raping her.

Is this one instance in which the police should NOT be doing their job? If the woman believes her rape was a positive experience, as with my wife? Or should they investigate anyway, to be satisfied that the girl/woman would really not like to press charges, and is not being coerced or behaving strangely, as my wife is? I am sure they would be as confused as I, and frustrated if and when they are condemned for being wary the next time they are made aware of an alleged rape under similar circumstances. Is the law to be applied consistently, or not?

Meanwhile, in DV/IPV, police may be required by law to make arrests, even if the involved parties both deny anything wrong, or not want to press charges (either gender victim) and police act even when it can be later demonstrated there was in fact, no abuse occurring (e.g., I cannot find the story, but recently a man was forcibly taken down by police officers and IIRC, actually arrested in his own front yard, as he was attempting to assist his wife who was having an allergic seizure, and could have died; because the police thought he was attacking her).

From reading these comments it appears that no one actually read MacDonald's original article. Her basic premise was that the statistic that 25% of women on campus are raped is absurd and completely unsubstantiated (MacDonald supported her claims with evidence and I find her arguments believable). Also, she claims that false statistics like these have been used in demanding services on campuses to protect women that are now being underutilized (because no where near this number of women are being raped). All this seems reasonable to me. If you disagree with this please provide counter evidence. Finally the article here ridicules MacDonald because she relates a story of a woman who thinks she was raped but MacDonald points out that the woman takes no responsibility for her own actions that lead up to the sex act. The girl involved knowingly got drunk with her friends and then went to a party at some guys house and within minutes she acknowledges that she was making out with one of the guys (who she knew) who lived there. She claims to have no memory of what happens but she does seem to know that they had sex and she remembers that he walked her home. We don't really know that he did anything wrong (was he as drunk and therefore his actions as excusable as hers) but we do know that he had the decency to walk her home. She was so tramatized by this experience that for months afterward (months? must have been really deep scars) she 'detached' when she had sex. I assume she wasn't having sex with this same guy so just how many guys does she have sex with if within months of being 'raped' she picks up a new guy to have sex with. MacDonald was just pointing out that before someone cries rape it seems reaonsable that they take at least a few simple precautions to avoid.

A male,

I have only your word to go on that your wife was not traumatized by a man "forcing himself" on her (thus implying she did not want to have sex with him then, I assume).

I have never heard of a situation like that. Usually people being forced to do /anything/ they don't want to do causes them some amount of stress.

I wonder if you're conflating her saying she doesn't feel like anything bad happened, with an actual lack of trauma. Trauma is a psychological state, with complex sorts of side effects that the person who is traumatized may or may not realize are tied to a particular incident...

"I assume she wasn't having sex with this same guy so just how many guys does she have sex with if within months of being 'raped' she picks up a new guy to have sex with"

And that has exactly /what/ to do with anything?

"From reading these comments it appears that no one actually read MacDonald's original article. Her basic premise was that the statistic that 25% of women on campus are raped is absurd and completely unsubstantiated "

No. The 25% statistic is backed by a number of studies dating from the 1980s and 1990s. I do not know them off the top of my head, but I suggested to the local rape crisis center that they create a short fact sheet summarizing the studies to give to people like /you/ and they have agreed that this is a good idea. So maybe in a couple of weeks I'll have something for y'all...

To Ninapendamaishi:
MacDonald presented evidence that the 25% number was invalid. Can you refute her evidence? You says that the 25% figure is backed by "a number of studies". If you think that constitutes evidence then I claim that the 25% is refuted by "a number of studies" plus one and I guess I win. Do you *really* believe that 25% of women on campus are raped! If that were true who would possible consider sending their daughter to college?

To Ninapendamaishi:
I'm sorry I overlooked your first question. I do believe that the number of men she has sex with (and the frequency) is relevant. The more casually a person engages in sex the less seriously should their rape charges be considered. If a woman goes to a frat house and has sex with 15 men in one night and then, afterward, claims *one* of the sex acts was rape... well... I'm sorry but I'm going to have touble feeling sorry for her. (...and I'm not claiming that was what happened this particular night but... for all the precautions this woman took she could have had multiple partners and not even known it.) By the same token, if a prostitute is forced to have sex was she robbed or was she raped? (Of course, assault is another matter and independant of any rape that might have occured.)

The more casually a person engages in sex the less seriously should their rape charges be considered.

...By the same token, if a prostitute is forced to have sex was she robbed or was she raped?

VOR, rape apologists won't be tolerated on the site. Just a fair warning.

"Do you *really* believe that 25% of women on campus are raped! If that were true who would possible consider sending their daughter to college?"

Well VOR, as someone who has been trained to assist victims of sexual violence, I can tell you that probably about 25% of the college women I am any kind of good friends with and have had a serious conversation about sexual assault with have confided in me that they were at one point raped. And I go to a good college, with very intelligent students.

And by the way, the statistic is not saying that the 25% all happens in college, a lot of it happens before college, in high school or sometimes earlier...

To Jessica:
So basically asking for a clarification of what constitutes rape classifies one as a 'rape apologist'. I guess arbitrarily not having to tolerant people you disagree with is a pretty handy way of winning an argument. From the comments on this post 'rape' is whatever you people say it is. Also, a pretty handy way of winning arguments.

I do not know if you are a male, VOR, but I can tell you that having been sexually assaulted is not information women drop lightly. It is something they mention to people they are comfortable with, who they are not afraid of questioning them or blaming them, and when bringing it up would be relevant to some conversation. (it's not like it's something people would bring up casually or randomly)

I can also say that in general women are hesitant to discuss past negative sexual experiences with male love interests, b/c it will make an awful lot of men nervous.

All you want is clarification, VOR?

Heh. Fine, if a prostitute is forced to have sex against her will then she is raped. Much the same way it would also be illegal to physically force people to do any other kind of work in this country. (The prostitution can decline a person's money, just the way a person can quit their job or move to a different company)

lyndorr, didn't you read my previous post about how I think the prison system is racist, unfair and needs to be reformed. Didn't you read the part where I said arresting people in high numbers, ESPECIALLY for using drugs is unfair and wrong, not to mention that it ruins lives, destroys families, and communities. I never EVER implied that imprisonment was the answer to anything but you seem to have just pulled a conclusion out of your own bum without actually thinking about what I wrote.

You wrote "Meeneecat, just wondering, do you think jails do nothing to deter people from committing crimes? That their only purpose is to keep criminals away from society (and in a better world be good at rehabilitation)?"

Apparently, you missed my the part where I ranted about the exact OPPOSITE of what you are characterizing my comments as? Seriously, are you a troll? I just don't get it. How do you interpret my saying this: "Punishment has NOT been found to be a factor in deterring crime. i.e. I don't murder someone not because I'm afraid of the punishment, but because it's morally wrong." That seems to pretty clearly show that I don't think punishment deters crime and that I don't think punishment is necessarily the answer to preventing crime. Also my suggestion that education, awareness, and a change in attitude will do a whole lot more at preventing crime than locking people up should show you that I don't think punishment is the solution for everything, and in fact locking people up in high numbers, especially for non-violent crimes like drugs only causes more damage. (why am I repeating myself here to someone who obviously didn't take the time to read and think about what I wrote). I stipulated all my previous comments with the fact that still, rapists have committed a VIOLENT act and are much different from drug users (victims of the drug war) and that any victim who wishes to prosecute their assailant should be able to. I fully support the wishes of victims as long as it is of their own free will. I'll echo what someone else already said, I'd rather have the prisons full of rapists, than full of non-violent drug users/addicts. Please READ before you post, lyndorr, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but it's really frustrating when someone just chooses to ignore what you wrote, mischaracterizes what you wrote and issue statements that completely miss the point. I'm not going to repeat myself any further, but it might do you good to do some rereading here.

To Ninapendamaishi:
I guess I need to be blunt. Have you read MacDonald's article? If not then would you please? Then you can tell me what is wrong with the way she refutes the 25% figure?

To Jessica:
Hmmm... "Probably... about... 25%" of your female friends have told you they have been raped. Very strong evidence there. I will tell you that I have been very close to 100s of women in my life and I can't recall a single one who has told me she was raped. So if we average these 'hard' numbers out it looks like the incidence of rape is very low. Maybe a better way of doing this is reported crime statistics.

nina,
actually the 25% is just for college, the study that number came from, (or at least one of them?are there more?) is up top now on this site. it shows where the 20-25% of women in college will be raped or a victim of attempted rape during their school years comes from.

it takes the 2.8% incidence rate for the school year, puts it at 4.9% for a calendar year and says since college can often extend to 5 years nowadays, the rate is 20-25%. its a very interesting survey/report.

VOR, all I will say is do you have a certain statistic that must be true for there to be a crisis? Is 5% a crisis? 10%? The author was not only arguing that that statistic is false but that there is no crisis.

A male, so your wife uses the word "forced" to describe what these men did but says she has no trauma from it? Honestly I don't have enough information to form an opinion on this particular situation. Still, I can say I can imagine that if a woman is truly convinced her sexuality is not hers to control (like in marriage in Japan, right?) then she might not be bothered be such situations. It could be "forced upon" as in the woman obviously didn't want sex at the time but the man went ahead and had sex anyway because he wanted it. And he did everything required for it to happen and she let him. I don't know what your wife means by 'forced'.
I mean if there wasn't rape, if she never protested what these men did, that doesn't mean there was no problem. Same with above. Just because I question whether something is rape, doesn't mean there's no problem. I think we need to promote the idea that women are sexual beings with their own needs and desires (that means sometimes they want sex or kissing, etc and sometimes they don't) and those needs and desires should be acknowledged and respected. I mean as soon as you try to talk about rape, people will try to argue that this or that isn't rape and what about miscommunication? But what logical argument can be made against respect in sexual situations? And the whole idea of acknowledging women's sexual desires goes against calling them sluts because sometimes they will desire sex as much as the man they are with does and then they should be able to have sex without the woman being looked down upon.

VOR,
Read the report linked by Nora in her response to the Op-Ed, it links to the report where the 25% stat comes from. I'm not aware of any other reports also giving this stat, unless they simply cite it, if they are out there please let me know.

The report goes into the difference between the reported stats, which are also on the SAFER site, and the numbers in the study from which the 25% comes. Makes for some fascinating reading.

byebye troll.

VOR, you're disgusting. Would you have the same callous attitude towards a man who got raped after having consentual sex with a dozen people?

Women get to decide what happens to their own bodies. Period. YOU do not get to decide, based on sexual history, that X woman is more/less capable than Y woman of being raped.

Consenting to one sex act =/= consent to ALL sex acts from there on out. If you consent to a blow job, does that mean your partner is allowed to bite your dick?

Victims of rape are not utilizing campus resources for rape victims because, thanks to propaganda like McDonald's (and yours!), they do not realize they are rape victims!
Aren't you paying attention? Women think sexual assault and rape are parts of the college experience.

It happens to them and they figure it's their lot in life, so they don't identify it as "rape" and they don't seek out resources that could help them cope.

Why would women tell their parents about something they don't consider unusual?

VOR,

"I will tell you that I have been very close to 100s of women in my life and I can't recall a single one who has told me she was raped. "

Given that you would have looked for ways to hold the women responsible, and you no doubt display this attitude in at least subtle ways your day-to-day life, I do not doubt that the women you know who have been raped would not have thought to tell you.

sayonara sucker.

dananddanica,

Yes of course there are multiple studies. Most studies have found around 25%, which is why that figure is the most often quoted. It's so funny how people assume that social workers and women's rights activists are just stupid, or something... (Although when I've heard the statistic quoted, it said that 25% of college women had been raped, not necessarily raped /in college/)

Honestly, you can google around on the study a bit and come up with multiple studies, but I'd rather provide you with the list used by my local rape crisis center whenever they get that together...

Again, lyndorr, In case you forgot it was you who issued a statement in support of the idea that "punishment deters crime" which I have always maintained doesn't work.

Lyndorr said: "Because if someone thought they might actually get caught, they might think twice."

remember?

And VOR, you said the following "The more casually a person engages in sex the less seriously should their rape charges be considered. If a woman goes to a frat house and has sex with 15 men in one night and then, afterward, claims *one* of the sex acts was rape... well... I'm sorry but I'm going to have touble feeling sorry for her."

No VOR, you are WRONG. Like someone also pointed out, you are being an apologist for rapists. It doesn't matter if a girl consented to having sex with 15 men one night and then the same night the 16th man she didn't consent to having sex with and he continued anyways, THAT's RAPE. I don't expect you to have much sympathy because you have already proved yourself to be a rape apologist with your comments. But it's a perfect example of some of the attitudes we feminists need to change. It's YOU who needs educating and awareness training. It's YOU are no better than the rapist if you support and apologize for them.

Furthermore, why would women tell a rape apologist victim-blamer like VOR about their rapes? Some victims don't tell ANYONE for years and years.

"Hi, my name is Lisa. I was raped by a male babysitter as a child and by a friend in college. I work in data entry..."

Yeah. Doesn't really happen.

lyndorr,
25%, 10%, 5%, 1%, any of those would still be a problem, a crisis if you want to use that word. What some people say is that advocates are pumping up the numbers in order to receive more attention and more funding. Is it a case of the ends justifying the means? Probably so but it does make for an interesting argument. During this thread, early on, and in other threads like it I always ask where does the 25%, or whatever stat is being used, come from. People either cant cite it, don't know, or make guesses or assumptions that turn out to be wrong when we find the actual study or survey. What good does that do? Using numbers to make your case only really works if those numbers are unassailable, which rape stats will never be. 1% is too much but I dont see the gain in saying 25%, or quoting 25% as the gospel truth when even in the actual study it comes from cites the problems with the methodology that arrived at the number, something the people who quote it almost never do.
Heck, using the same methodology the study did, what % of women can be expected to be raped in their entire lifetime? If you go from 2.8 to 4.9 for a calendar year and 20-25% for 5 years, what is the % at 75 years? That would seem to be the point to hammer home.

Feel free to delete my response to the troll. Thise whole thing has made me so angry I can barely hold back any more.

Okay meeneecat, obviously we have some miscommunication going on. Please don't jump to that 'troll' conclusion.

""Punishment has NOT been found to be a factor in deterring crime. i.e. I don't murder someone not because I'm afraid of the punishment, but because it's morally wrong." That seems to pretty clearly show that I don't think punishment deters crime and that I don't think punishment is necessarily the answer to preventing crime."

I DID read that post. You're right that is pretty clear. You also talked a bunch about how tougher punishment have no effect on reducing crime. I suppose I wanted to clarify that you thought ANY punishment has no effect on deterring crime, which you thought was already clear. I'm not sure how I mischaracterized what you've written with two small questions you asked. Maybe you are interpreting my questions the wrong way but I in no way mean to insinuate that you think jails are a solution. It is obvious you think the opposite.

"That seems to pretty clearly show that I don't think punishment deters crime and that I don't think punishment is necessarily the answer to preventing crime."

Well, even if one did think punishment acted as a deterrent, that doesn't mean they think it is he answer to preventing crime. Of course education is important but we can't educate everyone and not everyone who is educated will take in what is said into their moral ideas. So really, with those two questions I asked I only wanted to confirm that you think the prospect of punishment has zero effect on whether crime happens. That's all. Maybe that answer should've been obvious but I felt I should know for certain before trying to respond to you with a response that made it seem like I didn't properly read your posts and know your opinion. Too late for that.

"What some people say is that advocates are pumping up the numbers in order to receive more attention and more funding. "

This is as offensive as the myth that Planned Parenthood is part of an abortion industry that is all about the money.

Plenty of responses to Mac Donald's editorial HAVE addressed why her critique of the 25% statistic is wrong. They point out where the #'s come from, what they mean, and how they've been supported by other studies. It's been attacked by an anti-feminist before, and a good analysis is on F.A.I.R.

nina,
I tried to find the actual studies and not just articles that cited this one and was unsuccessful. I'll keep trying though at home is back up now. I'm sure I'll find them, I just find it frustrating when people use stats, for any argument, when they don't know the reasoning behind them. Kind of like my friends who like to spout stats at me from the heritage foundation, cringe.
this post and prior posts- dan.

Spike at 9:09 asked:

How do we go from people blinding agreeing with that article, to at least starting to think critically about the issue?
How can we bring more people, especially males, into this conversation without setting off WWIII?
I mean several women here have mentioned trying to talk to their guy friends and hitting a brick wall.

My answers would be to encourage engagement in the conversation and persuade them there is a problem and to refrain from labelling anyone who questions the sacred statistics as a "rape apologist", particularly those who would like to see a decrease in coerced sexual activity. (Attention Sera at 7:59).

I take back the Troll comment, lyndorr, part of that was just my frustration for feeling like I was repeating myself and having to explain something I thought I already explained quite clearly. No, I don't think you are a troll, but thankyou for re reading my post.

About statistics, I have a few books on rape here at home and this is what one book says "A study by a professor at Mills College selected a random sample of 930 women, 44% of them had been victims of rape or attempted rape and 60% of the assailants were known to the victim. 26% of the assailants were acquaintances of dates of the victim. 8% were husbands of ex-husbands. 6% were lovers or ex-lovers. 6% were friends and 6% were authority figures such as teachers and bosses." In the same book, I also found that most victims were between the ages of 16 and 24 (from department of justice statistics). It seems to be that if 44% of these women surveyed were victims of rape or attempted rape, and considering the majority of these victims are 16-24 yrs old, than I'm willing to bet that adds up to a lot of college/teenager rapes. I think one in four (25%) sounds about right. I got this information from "Recovery, how to survive sexual assault" By Helen Benedict (St. Vincents rape crisis program in Manhattan, NY)

DanandDanica, Nina, others, Some more statistics (sorry for the long posts and all the numbers, I post them because many have inquired about the stats) These numbers are contained in another book I own called "I Never Called It Rape" By Robin Warshaw

"In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape." (Warshaw 1994)

"n a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police." (ibid)

"1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape." (ibid)

"In a survey of college males who committed rape, 84% said what they did was definitely not rape." (ibid) [*note this statistic with the previous one and you can see why we need some awareness counseling/campaign for college males, they apparently don't "get" what constitutes rape, and that rape is wrong. This is partly the fault of rape myths and lies, among other things]

"Among female rape victims, 61% are under age 18." (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995)
AND...
"83% of those raped are under the age of 25 years old." (National Institute of Justice 1998)

Again sorry for all the numbers, but a lot of these topics have come up in the comments so I figured I'd post the numbers. You can also see more statistics here: http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

Anyone interested in the book can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Never-Called-Rape-Recognizing-Acquaintance/dp/0060925728

Thanks meeneecat. I appreciate that. I will say of course there are some people not deterred by punishment (or else jails would be empty) and I do think there are people who as you described don't murder because we know it's immoral, not because of the threat of jail. But I can't think that threat of punishment has no effect. I keep thinking of those studies about what children will cheat on tests that showed the biggest factor was how likely it was the students would get caught. Jail is no solution. I wish there could be more concentration on rehabilitation because then jail might be trying to be part of a solution. The questions about what to do with these college rapists brings up the thought of minimum-security prisons, a presumably less threatening environment that still takes away freedoms and ideally would provide some kind of workshops to try to prevent further rape by this person (who might not see themself as a rapist).