The college "rape" epidemic

[Derec]

Of course to an intelligent person there is no such thing as something in between consensual sex and rape but the media tends to create bigger messes out of existing confusions.

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

No, she is not talking about intimidation, but rather regret. As in a girl/woman decides 8 months later that she would like to retroactively withdraw consent.
Also, intimidation and coercion is very different than somebody consenting to have sex when they really did not have to. The former would not be consensual sex, the latter would. Otherwise you'd declare much sex non-consensual. If a person doesn't really feel horny but has sex because they want to please their partner that is still consensual. If a person is not attracted to another but consent because they were offered money etc. that is still consensual.
And certainly, if both parties have been drinking and consent to sex at the time, it is not rendered non-consensual if the other person regrets the hookup later. And it certainly should not be the case that men are considered rapists and women victims in a consensual drunken hookup. That is one of the sexist double standards of the modern feminism.

 

[Malintent]

Of course to an intelligent person there is no such thing as something in between consensual sex and rape but the media tends to create bigger messes out of existing confusions.

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

In your example, it is consensual sex. She consented. The reasons were not to avoid actual harm by the one making advances. The reasons were to avoid an unpleasant conversation.

Here's another example... two people "agree" to have sex (whatever that means). One of them wants the other to wear a condom, but the other does not want to. The other wears the condom, just to avoid the argument, and later claims sexual harassment or rape because they were made to wear the condom.

how is that different than your example? both are after-the-fact regret resulting in bad feelings due to a sexual act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course to an intelligent person there is no such thing as something in between consensual sex and rape but the media tends to create bigger messes out of existing confusions.

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

Anything to pretend the woman isn't in the wrong again.

This isn't about going along, this is about changing her mind--in the case I linked because she later saw him kissing another woman. They hooked up, she thought it was something more and cried rape when she realized the truth.

 

[RavenSky]

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

Anything to pretend the woman isn't in the wrong again.

Now it is accurately talking about you

Let me know when you can read with comprehension before you pop off with a piss-poor attempt at a stupid ad hominem. Here's a clue: I haven't commented at all on the girl in the case in the OP

 

[RavenSky]

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

No, she is not talking about intimidation, but rather regret...

Kindly produce evidence that Lauren Kozak said "regret equals rape" or anything like that.

The article she discussed - "Is it Possible That There Is Something In Between Consensual Sex And Rape…And That It Happens To Almost Every Girl Out There?" - does NOT say anything whatsoever like "regret equals rape", and that is what I am referring to.

On second thought, please don't even respond at all. My comment was to whichphilosophy - specifically to his comment

Of course to an intelligent person there is no such thing as something in between consensual sex and rape...

which the referenced article directly counters. I would like my exchange with whichphilosophy to proceed without you or Loren derailing it with any more of your anti-women bullshit. Thank you.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course to an intelligent person there is no such thing as something in between consensual sex and rape but the media tends to create bigger messes out of existing confusions.

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

If a person is legally capable of consenting, and they consent, then it is not rape. That's all there is to it.

I can think of a few situations where I later regretted having sex with someone, it doesn't mean I was raped. I consented, I even enjoyed it at the time. I later had to deal with the consequences of my consensual action, including feelings of regret, but I was not raped. End of story.

 

[RavenSky]

OK, so what is it when one person has been manipulated or intimidated into having sex? In truth, they do not want to have sex, but it is easier to "go along to get along", easier to just do it than to deal with the other person's anger.

This is the area Lauren Kozak seems to be referring to.

I am not suggesting that it be called rape (and it doesn't sound like she is either), but it isn't consensual sex either.

If a person is legally capable of consenting, and they consent, then it is not rape. That's all there is to it.

I can think of a few situations where I later regretted having sex with someone, it doesn't mean I was raped. I consented, I even enjoyed it at the time. I later had to deal with the consequences of my consensual action, including feelings of regret, but I was not raped. End of story.

Again, I am not talking about consent, and I am certainly not talking about a situation wherein you "even enjoyed it at the time. I later had to deal with the consequences of my consensual action, including feelings of regret..."

I am talking about a situation such as described in the article wherein there was ambivalent feelings - OK to kissing/making-out but a decided lack of consent to intercourse. At the same time, she didn't actually say "no" to intercourse, didn't try to fight him off. This is something very different from "enjoyed it at the time" - but even the author of the article says it wasn't rape either.

I think there is a grey area - an area that probably most "drunken sex" falls into. I don't think it should be "rape" with criminal or civil penalties attached, but it sure as hell isn't "consensual sex" either.

Whichphilosophy says that there is no in-between. It appears you hold the same position. I disagree, so no... not "end of story".

 

[RavenSky]

This article is, ironically, arguing against any grey area but it does discuss a couple of the points I am trying to make:

The “gray area” we have come to know as an inevitable part of sex and consent is a product of our culture’s less than healthy or communicative approach to sex.

But the reality is that this murky confusion does not have to and should not exist. A great way to spark a shift in the way we think about sex and consent is to look at the common ways the “gray area” myth plays out.

I agree with the author that the "grey area" should not exist, but that is going to take time and education. In the meantime...

Jaclyn Friedman, co-editor of Yes Means Yes, explains the active nature of here:

“Sexual consent isn’t like a lightswitch, which can be either “on” or “off.” It’s not like there’s this one thing called “sex” you can consent to anyhow. “Sex” is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner’s consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change. Consent isn’t a question. It’s a state.”

A partner may give consent without desire because they feel obligated to or because they don’t feel confident enough to speak up. Consent without desire cannot be considered consent if an underlying and unspoken pressure or obligation exists.

At the same time, consent can be given without the person feeling really sexually excited themselves. This may happen, for example, if they are doing it primarily to give pleasure to their partner or to build up the low level of sexual desire. As long as there’s no feeling of pressure and coercion, while it may not be full throttle enthusiastic consent, it can still be given in this situation.

Because many people are taught to think about consent in an “all you need is a yes” way, consent can be approached as an end goal—something you can pressure someone to eventually agree to.

The commonality of this sexual experience—being pressured into seemingly “consenting”—is astounding and many people do not realize that this is not consent at all.

Pressure to engage in a sexual act one does not wish to, either aggressive or calm and persistent, crumbles the platform on which true consent can be communicated freely and honestly.

Badgering, guilt-tripping, or pressuring someone until an initial “no” becomes an “okay” or “yes” is not actually a consensual yes.

It is rape.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/navigating-consent-debunking-the-grey-area-myth/

 

[KeepTalking]

If a person is legally capable of consenting, and they consent, then it is not rape. That's all there is to it.

I can think of a few situations where I later regretted having sex with someone, it doesn't mean I was raped. I consented, I even enjoyed it at the time. I later had to deal with the consequences of my consensual action, including feelings of regret, but I was not raped. End of story.

Again, I am not talking about consent, and I am certainly not talking about a situation wherein you "even enjoyed it at the time. I later had to deal with the consequences of my consensual action, including feelings of regret..."

I am talking about a situation such as described in the article wherein there was ambivalent feelings - OK to kissing/making-out but a decided lack of consent to intercourse. At the same time, she didn't actually say "no" to intercourse, didn't try to fight him off. This is something very different from "enjoyed it at the time" - but even the author of the article says it wasn't rape either.

I think there is a grey area - an area that probably most "drunken sex" falls into. I don't think it should be "rape" with criminal or civil penalties attached, but it sure as hell isn't "consensual sex" either.

Whichphilosophy says that there is no in-between. It appears you hold the same position. I disagree, so no... not "end of story".

My first thought after reading your response was that there was no consent, or no "affirmative consent" as it seems to be phrased these days, so it probably was rape. Then I got to thinking, and I think it is safe to say that I have rarely had sex when there was "affirmative consent". I have been married for over 25 years now, and the only times I recall ever having a verbal conversation along the lines of "do you want to have sex?" has been with my wife when one or the other of us may have been showing the signs of not being in the mood.

I get what you are saying now. Most of the time I have followed non-verbal cues, like thinking, "if she lets me take her clothes off, I guess we are gonna have sex". There has only been one occasion where I was in a half clothed state, and ready when my prospective partner said "no". I stopped immediately, but we did have sex a couple of days later, and were dating by then. She explained that the reason she said no was because she had not been taking birth control for a few days, and did not want to get pregnant. Once she was back on the pill, she was okay with it. I found it odd that she did not ask me to wear a condom, but I didn't have one on me anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered.

So, yeah, I can see the possible confusion here, and I am glad that such a thing never became an issue for me. Even though 25 years ago the standard would have been that she would have had to say "no" for there to be no consent, I would have felt pretty bad about myself if I ever put a woman in the position where she thought I had raped her because of a lack of "affirmative consent".

This is a long winded way of saying that half hour ago I would have agreed that there is no in between, now I'm not so sure.

 

[RavenSky]

And another article insisting that no "grey area" exists but also saying: And this would all be so much more apparent to both men and women if how we talked about sex and consent was clearer.

So, culturally, there is this perception of what constitutes rape – we envision someone violently forcing themselves on someone, proceeding when their partner has clearly said no. There are certain kinds of victims we believe (those who say no forcefully and vociferously, those who are chaste, who dressed conservatively, who did everything “right”) and kinds of victims we shame (if a victim was drunk, dressed “inappropriately”, engaging in risky behaviour, sexually experienced, in a relationship with or married to her rapist, then s/he becomes not the “right” kind of victim). This is all part of rape culture. It is perpetuated day-in and day-out through how we talk about sex, consent, women, men, and rape.

It is not surprising, then, when people are confused about rape, or when terms like “grey rape” emerge. But let me just be clear – there is no such thing as grey rape. It does not exist. And this would all be so much more apparent to both men and women if how we talked about sex and consent was clearer.

- See more at: http://www.gender-focus.com/2013/03/21/rape-is-rape-there-are-no-grey-areas/#sthash.Von2gkAL.dpuf

 

[RavenSky]

This is a long winded way of saying that half hour ago I would have agreed that there is no in between, now I'm not so sure.

Thank you for that.

Here is why I think this "grey area" issue is important to discuss - on the one hand we have people like Derec and Loren insisting that no grey area exists, but also maintaining that every single situation that looks like a grey area (and many that don't) are really because women are lying liars who lie; and this insistence that every situation is "morning after regret".

At the opposite extreme are people - possibly including the Jane Doe of the OP - who are also adamant that there is no grey area, but come down on the side of "it was rape".

Both articles I linked to make the same mistake, in my opinion. They talk about how things *should* be. Rape *should* be a clear cut obvious no grey area situation... and in an ideal world where people talked openly about their sex lives and everyone engaged in 'enthusiastic consent' and had a perfect understanding of the other person - it would be.

In the meantime, it's not.

 

[RavenSky]

This is more to the point I am talking about:

This past July, I went on a date with a guy I had met the week before at a concert. He invited me to hang out on his roof and listen to music. This seemed a relaxed and fun summer date — and I accepted. I greeted him in front of his building in the late afternoon and he took me to his apartment, saying he wanted to give me a tour before we headed up to the roof. Immediately upon entering, he took me into his bedroom and started removing my clothes.

It was not as if I weren’t attracted to him, or didn’t have any interest in having sex with him at some point — but not then. But it was happening so quickly it was hard to stop, and I went along with it, convincing myself that I wanted it too. He had this look in his eyes of distinct determination — like he was intent on getting precisely what he wanted — and I felt frightened by it. I kept going back and forth between convincing myself I was into it and playing along, and frantically thinking of ways to bail myself out. But I didn’t stop him, and it happened. Needless to say, I never saw the roof.

For several days following, I kept quiet. I felt humiliated and utterly confused by the event and didn’t understand how this had happened to me. As a self-proclaimed feminist, having majored in Women’s and Gender Studies, I was sure I had the necessary tools to prevent this sort of thing.

But after days of mulling it over, embarrassment and shame turned into rage. And suddenly, for whatever reason, I felt like talking.

But what actually happens here? What does it mean to have an experience in which one engages in unwanted sex, but does not feel explicitly forced into the sex act? And why had 100 percent of women I spoke with experienced this?

This one sounds similar to the OP:

One woman described an experience in which she “fully consented” to intercourse with a man pending the use of a condom. But mid-way through sex, she noticed the condom was lying on the floor. The man had removed the condom, without her knowing, and proceeded to have unprotected sex with her. When she realized what was happening, she became furious and immediately told him to leave. “I know I wasn’t raped, because I consented, but he changed the terms under which I consented, so what is that? I don’t know what to call it, but it was definitely a violation of some sort.”

However, through creating more language to be able to talk about unwanted sexual experiences, we can bring them into focus and into the discourse of American sex culture. We need language so we can stop describing experiences as having “blurry lines,” or being in “the grey area,” and “trailing off” when we try to talk about them.

So let’s talk about the grey area and blurry lines. Let’s define them, and let’s develop language that is true to those experiences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-rosenthal/defining-the-blurred-line_b_7153802.html

Another good article on the topic:

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/coerced-consent-yes-means-no/

 

[abaddon]

This is more to the point I am talking about:

This past July, I went on a date with a guy I had met the week before at a concert. He invited me to hang out on his roof and listen to music. This seemed a relaxed and fun summer date — and I accepted. I greeted him in front of his building in the late afternoon and he took me to his apartment, saying he wanted to give me a tour before we headed up to the roof. Immediately upon entering, he took me into his bedroom and started removing my clothes.

It was not as if I weren’t attracted to him, or didn’t have any interest in having sex with him at some point — but not then. But it was happening so quickly it was hard to stop, and I went along with it, convincing myself that I wanted it too. He had this look in his eyes of distinct determination — like he was intent on getting precisely what he wanted — and I felt frightened by it. I kept going back and forth between convincing myself I was into it and playing along, and frantically thinking of ways to bail myself out. But I didn’t stop him, and it happened. Needless to say, I never saw the roof.

For several days following, I kept quiet. I felt humiliated and utterly confused by the event and didn’t understand how this had happened to me. As a self-proclaimed feminist, having majored in Women’s and Gender Studies, I was sure I had the necessary tools to prevent this sort of thing.

But after days of mulling it over, embarrassment and shame turned into rage. And suddenly, for whatever reason, I felt like talking.

But what actually happens here? What does it mean to have an experience in which one engages in unwanted sex, but does not feel explicitly forced into the sex act? And why had 100 percent of women I spoke with experienced this?

This one sounds similar to the OP:

One woman described an experience in which she “fully consented” to intercourse with a man pending the use of a condom. But mid-way through sex, she noticed the condom was lying on the floor. The man had removed the condom, without her knowing, and proceeded to have unprotected sex with her. When she realized what was happening, she became furious and immediately told him to leave. “I know I wasn’t raped, because I consented, but he changed the terms under which I consented, so what is that? I don’t know what to call it, but it was definitely a violation of some sort.”

However, through creating more language to be able to talk about unwanted sexual experiences, we can bring them into focus and into the discourse of American sex culture. We need language so we can stop describing experiences as having “blurry lines,” or being in “the grey area,” and “trailing off” when we try to talk about them.

So let’s talk about the grey area and blurry lines. Let’s define them, and let’s develop language that is true to those experiences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-rosenthal/defining-the-blurred-line_b_7153802.html

Another good article on the topic:

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/coerced-consent-yes-means-no/

I read the “Is it possible that there is something in between consensual sex and rape … and that it happens to almost every girl out there?” article and the writer sounded pathetically lacking in her ability to take responsibility for herself and her choices.

“We’re saying we don’t know what it was. We just didn’t like it” says that article. Ok, so she didn’t like it. Next time, be more assertive. The first impulse towards “It’s just sex” is correct. It was when the added ideological stuff got mixed in that it complicated the matter. That’s when something that happened due to a personality issue of being overly compliant and unassertive became the responsibility of others to figure out. Now there’s a mysterious something more: it’s not “just sex” nor is it “rape”, but now it’s “rape-ish”.

Maybe whoever has mixed feelings also has the responsibility to sort them out before acting. Or maybe they should take full responsibility for deciding to act without first sorting things out. Either way, I think "deal with it" is not an overly harsh response. Life has gray zones and you WILL sort yourself out or go through life feeling victimized and probably mostly victimized by your own unsorted thoughts.

Why don’t we call jobs “slavery” and protest that they’re manipulations, or at least somehow a kinda-sorta "rape-ish" violation of our wants, when we do it but don’t want to and therefore it’s not [fully] “consensual”? We don't because it’s your choice to show up in spite of not wanting to, and I would call that consent.

In terms of law, it’s going to have to be a bit black and white. If you choose to have sex to avoid arguing about not having sex, then pick whether that’s consent or not. I consider it to be consent. The "gray areas" are gray because you’ve drifted off into psychology but are trying to politicize it and it's not clear how to do it. What is it about people who do things to please others, but then figure it’s not fully their own choice when they chose to please others or chose to avoid arguing or whatever it was they based their decision to give consent on?

Feminism would be great if it taught self-responsibility and didn’t veer like this into how to make some women’s personal confusions into other people’s problem. Why not sort out the confusion instead, grow in strength and resilience, take on more self-responsibility, accept and own your decisions?

“As a self-proclaimed feminist, having majored in Women’s and Gender Studies, I was sure I had the necessary tools to prevent this sort of thing" says one of the women in RavenSky's linked articles.

Apparently not. Maybe what she got were the tools with which to torture herself after the event by exaggerating the injustice 'done to' her and dismissing responsibility for her behaviors.

----------------------

(The example of the woman who found the man had broached the agreement by removing his condom is something else entirely than the instances of feeling uncertain but consenting anyway).

 

[prideandfall]

i've argued in several other threads on the topic of rape over the years that the word "rape" is being grievously misused, and this is another instance that really makes me want to reiterate that opinion.
IMO the word 'rape' is a lot like the word 'murder', and calling something like in the OP (or in several examples given throughout this thread) 'rape' is like calling a boxer dying of a brain hemorrhage in the middle of a bout 'murder'.

i think there needs to be more definitions of unwanted sexual situations that don't rely on "rape" to describe them, because that word has a very specific connotation in our cultural language and using it in situations where it's not warranted result in people wanting to argue against the incident itself in order to exclude to use of the word, since it doesn't fit their idea of what that word means.

also, and i hate to say this but this is kind of a pragmatic view of things, you have to acknowledge that culturally speaking in the US there is still a strong zeitgeist that "lack of no means yes", and you really can't just change the rules on that without also having a long national conversation to get everyone on the same page.
yes, a change in attitude is needed, but simply making laws and giving credence to individual viewpoints without first having reshaped the cultural landscape to have an awareness and acceptance of the new status quo seems a bit sketchy to me.

 

[Toni]

“We’re saying we don’t know what it was. We just didn’t like it” says that article. Ok, so she didn’t like it. Next time, be more assertive.

And in the meantime, what does she do with how she felt about what happened and how? Shake it off? It isn't always that easy to do.

Something else that is not always that easy to do is to say no. A lot of guys don't want to take no for an answer. A lot of guys believe the fact that she agreed to go do a quick tour of his apartment was her coyly giving consent. A lot of guys believe agreeing to the date is giving consent. A lot of guys believe that if they get an erection or the beginnings of an erection, it means she deliberately provoked the erection, and thereby gave consent.

Convincing such guys otherwise can involve a great deal of effort, by which I mean, fighting him off and risking a violent rape rather than simply not really consensual or pleasant sex.

Either case involves a lot of shame on the part of the woman. Including shame for not speaking up for herself. Not being able to fight off the guy. Being dumb enough/naive enough to have agreed to the date/cup of coffee/meeting in the library study room/being in the same space with someone other girls had vaguely warned you about. Having worn that shirt. Those jeans. Having had too much to drink. Or anything to drink. Or not enough because then you might not remember and that sounds better than remembering not knowing how to get out of a situation you did not want to be in.

After that, it's damage control. Mostly, damage to your reputation (once sullied by the easy label, guys who expect a lot more than promised or implied magically appear out of the woodwork). But also fear of pregnancy and if you are smart, fear of disease. And fear of a repeat experience if he decides he likes you or that he has put his mark on you.

The first impulse towards “It’s just sex” is correct. It was when the added ideological stuff got mixed in that it complicated the matter. That’s when something that happened due to a personality issue of being overly compliant and unassertive became the responsibility of others to figure out. Now there’s a mysterious something more: it’s not “just sex” nor is it “rape”, but now it’s “rape-ish”.

It's 'just sex' if she actually consented. If she didn't, it's not. Conversely, if he didn't consent, it's not just sex, either.

I've known guys who asserted that it is impossible to actually rape a woman if she's conscious. Because if she gives up fighting you off, she's consenting. Obviously.

Maybe whoever has mixed feelings also has the responsibility to sort them out before acting.

Sure. But the guy quite often forges ahead. Full steam and all of that. Making the sorting them out something that she does after, alone.

Or maybe they should take full responsibility for deciding to act without first sorting things out.

Did she decide to act in the scenario described? It's more like she decided NOT to act--not to fight back.

Girls are raised to be nice, to be passive, to please others. It's a bigger deal to appear to be an angry bitch than you might imagine. For young women, anyway.

Either way, I think "deal with it" is not an overly harsh response.

Probably because it's not you having to 'deal with' being pushed into an intimate act you didn't anticipate or agree to.

Life has gray zones and you WILL sort yourself out or go through life feeling victimized and probably mostly victimized by your own unsorted thoughts.

Or: if you push yourself on someone without explicitly gaining their consent, you WILL find yourself explaining why you believe it wasn't rape. Of course, you and all of your buddies will slut shame the woman for the rest of your shared time on campus, which not only vindicates you in the social realms but serves nicely to suppress the protests of any other woman.

 

[TSwizzle]

And in the meantime, what does she do with how she felt about what happened and how? Shake it off?

Yes. That's what normal people do when they make bad choices.

 

[RavenSky]

i've argued in several other threads on the topic of rape over the years that the word "rape" is being grievously misused, and this is another instance that really makes me want to reiterate that opinion.
IMO the word 'rape' is a lot like the word 'murder', and calling something like in the OP (or in several examples given throughout this thread) 'rape' is like calling a boxer dying of a brain hemorrhage in the middle of a bout 'murder'.

i think there needs to be more definitions of unwanted sexual situations that don't rely on "rape" to describe them, because that word has a very specific connotation in our cultural language and using it in situations where it's not warranted result in people wanting to argue against the incident itself in order to exclude to use of the word, since it doesn't fit their idea of what that word means.

also, and i hate to say this but this is kind of a pragmatic view of things, you have to acknowledge that culturally speaking in the US there is still a strong zeitgeist that "lack of no means yes", and you really can't just change the rules on that without also having a long national conversation to get everyone on the same page.
yes, a change in attitude is needed, but simply making laws and giving credence to individual viewpoints without first having reshaped the cultural landscape to have an awareness and acceptance of the new status quo seems a bit sketchy to me.

I actually agree with you on all of the above, and the bolded is part of my point as well.

 

[Toni]

And in the meantime, what does she do with how she felt about what happened and how? Shake it off?

Yes. That's what normal people do when they make bad choices.

By 'normal,' you mean who, exactly?

My impression is that you mean normal = male, but maybe I'm wrong.

If is is what you mean then I offer the following quibbles:

1. Is this what you would advise a male adolescent who was given a 'tour' of a priest or a coach's apartment--followed up by sex he didn't know how to get out of?

2. Do you think that society/the world at large is well served by men just 'shaking off' their emotional and physical traumas---er, 'mistakes?'

3. Is this what you would say to the guy who finds himself facing rape charges because he made the mistake of having sex with someone who was under aged or with a BAC over the legal limit?

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes. That's what normal people do when they make bad choices.

By 'normal,' you mean who, exactly?

"Normal people" meaning male or female. Just because someone (male or female) has buyer's remorse and a bit of a hangover doesn't mean they can claim they were raped. They just go, "Oh well, my bad." and move on.

 

[Toni]

By 'normal,' you mean who, exactly?

"Normal people" meaning male or female. Just because someone (male or female) has buyer's remorse and a bit of a hangover doesn't mean they can claim they were raped. They just go, "Oh well, my bad." and move on.

Ah, I forget that's your fantasy. It doesn't match what was described in the linked articles but obviously, it's your fantasy and unfortunately, you seem to be confusing that with reality.