The college "rape" epidemic

[TSwizzle]

No fantasy. I call it the way I see it, chick bangs some guy she hardly knows, has buyer's remorse and a buddy telling her "Tiffany, you were, like, totally raped !"

 

[Toni]

No fantasy. I call it the way I see it, chick bangs some guy she hardly knows, has buyer's remorse and a buddy telling her "Tiffany, you were, like, totally raped !"

Right. Because she was totally into it, wanted it and was just disappointed after.

Not because she wasn't expecting it, didn't want to and didn't know how to get out of it.

Your women must love you.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

If she tells the guy no, and he forges ahead, then it is unequivocally rape. I don't think most guys are going to forge ahead when they hear the word no, but that is just my personal feeling, formed from my own experiences. Offering no resistance, verbal or physical, and instead going along with it, is likely to make it seem consensual to the guy, and that's where the problem lies.

I just don't get the thinking of the person who doesn't want to have sex, but goes along with it anyway, for fear of the situation turning violent and becoming a rape, who afterwards decides that it was rape. It seems that they are afraid of being raped, so they let themselves be raped, something does not add up there. As others have noted, I think it all comes down to how we, as a society, owing to our puritanical religious roots, talk about sex (or rather, avoid talking about sex when it matters). The solution may be to become more open and honest about our sex lives, and not just when we are about to have sex. Affirmative consent is only going to set in and become the norm once we all start talking about sex more, and earlier in the development of our adolescents. Unfortunately, we are already at the point where affirmative consent is becoming the standard, but talking about sex openly is still somewhat taboo.

 

[Rhea]

I just don't get the thinking of the person who doesn't want to have sex, but goes along with it anyway, for fear of the situation turning violent and becoming a rape, who afterwards decides that it was rape. It seems that they are afraid of being raped, so they let themselves be raped, something does not add up there.

Maybe the thinking is that they are afraid of being killed or maimed so they let themselves be raped.

 

[KeepTalking]

I just don't get the thinking of the person who doesn't want to have sex, but goes along with it anyway, for fear of the situation turning violent and becoming a rape, who afterwards decides that it was rape. It seems that they are afraid of being raped, so they let themselves be raped, something does not add up there.

Maybe the thinking is that they are afraid of being killed or maimed so they let themselves be raped.

I don't get that feeling from the examples provided. Certainly, the comment to which I directly responded was simply a fear of the guy forging ahead. Just saying no is highly unlikely to turn the situation murderous. If the guy is already that on the edge, nothing said or done is going to keep things from getting violent. At least verbalizing the no establishes that if sex follows, it's rape. It removes any doubt or grey areas.

 

[TSwizzle]

No fantasy. I call it the way I see it, chick bangs some guy she hardly knows, has buyer's remorse and a buddy telling her "Tiffany, you were, like, totally raped !"

Right. Because she was totally into it, wanted it and was just disappointed after.

Whatever, she put out willingly at the time.

 

[Malintent]

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'.

Funny you use this example.. I was just thinking along these lines, which is why I am here, revisiting this thread. I was thinking that any example of calling an encounter between two people "rape" because one of those people felt regret after the fact (but both consented before and during the act), is exactly like a participant in a sanctioned boxing match feeling regret for participating in the sport, and attempting to claim that the boxing match was "assault".

Can a boxer, football player, or anyone engaged in a contact sport claim assault retroactively?

More to the case this thread is discussing.. can I, as a spectator of the sport, charge one of the participants for assaulting the other, even if both participants look at me and say, "WTF, we were just playing our sport"?

 

[Toni]

Maybe the thinking is that they are afraid of being killed or maimed so they let themselves be raped.

I don't get that feeling from the examples provided. Certainly, the comment to which I directly responded was simply a fear of the guy forging ahead. Just saying no is highly unlikely to turn the situation murderous. If the guy is already that on the edge, nothing said or done is going to keep things from getting violent. At least verbalizing the no establishes that if sex follows, it's rape. It removes any doubt or grey areas.

So now it's understandable if someone decides to not fight back if they fear for their life? But only at that point--not if she fears losing the physical battle and getting hurt more.

I think almost anyone in this thread understands a boy accepting the sexual advances of a priest, a coach, teacher, scoutmaster. But girls are presumed to be willing if the guy is not her priest, teacher, coach or scoutmaster? Or is it still her fault if it is one of those?

The whole reasoning behind explicit consent is that the other person merely accepting the situation does not mean they want the sexual contact.

 

[prideandfall]

The whole reasoning behind explicit consent is that the other person merely accepting the situation does not mean they want the sexual contact.

true, and in principle i agree with the concept of explicit consent, but it DOES raise a lot of weird potential slippery slope arguments if you take the idea to its logical conclusion, which in turn requires a rather in-depth examination of sex and why (if at all) this one interaction should be unique.

as an example of what i mean:
there have been times where i was with a woman, and she wanted some trinket or to eat at some expensive place, and i wasn't terribly inclined to buy her the thing or go to the place but i did it anyways to placate her.
does that mean she robbed me?
because by the logic of "agreeing to sex just to shut the other person up equates to rape" then women are robbing men pretty much every hour of every day.

so, the issue you have to look at is: does sex constitute some kind of special exception to the general logical trap presented? is sex special in some way that negates the slippery slope angle?
because i don't think that it does, but i'm also not a sexual prude so the act of fucking doesn't hold any sacrosanct significance to me... i can see how it would be different if you're someone who thinks sex is this transcendent interaction by goes beyond any other interaction between humans, and if so i'm curious about the thought process behind it.

 

[Toni]

[ENT][/ENT]

The whole reasoning behind explicit consent is that the other person merely accepting the situation does not mean they want the sexual contact.

true, and in principle i agree with the concept of explicit consent, but it DOES raise a lot of weird potential slippery slope arguments if you take the idea to its logical conclusion, which in turn requires a rather in-depth examination of sex and why (if at all) this one interaction should be unique.

as an example of what i mean:
there have been times where i was with a woman, and she wanted some trinket or to eat at some expensive place, and i wasn't terribly inclined to buy her the thing or go to the place but i did it anyways to placate her.
does that mean she robbed me?
because by the logic of "agreeing to sex just to shut the other person up equates to rape" then women are robbing men pretty much every hour of every day.

so, the issue you have to look at is: does sex constitute some kind of special exception to the general logical trap presented? is sex special in some way that negates the slippery slope angle?
because i don't think that it does, but i'm also not a sexual prude so the act of fucking doesn't hold any sacrosanct significance to me... i can see how it would be different if you're someone who thinks sex is this transcendent interaction by goes beyond any other interaction between humans, and if so i'm curious about the thought process behind it.

Aside from the fact that sex leaves both parties vulnerable to some infections and a woman vulnerable to pregnancy, the plain truth is that there are plenty of guys who don't take no for an answer. And take acquiescence for consent when it really is pragmatic decision to not get beaten up.

People lie to themselves all the time.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't get that feeling from the examples provided. Certainly, the comment to which I directly responded was simply a fear of the guy forging ahead. Just saying no is highly unlikely to turn the situation murderous. If the guy is already that on the edge, nothing said or done is going to keep things from getting violent. At least verbalizing the no establishes that if sex follows, it's rape. It removes any doubt or grey areas.

So now it's understandable if someone decides to not fight back if they fear for their life? But only at that point--not if she fears losing the physical battle and getting hurt more.

I said nothing about fighting back, mush less whether or when it is understandable for someone to make that decision. I very specifically referred to verbalizing non-consent.

I think almost anyone in this thread understands a boy accepting the sexual advances of a priest, a coach, teacher, scoutmaster. But girls are presumed to be willing if the guy is not her priest, teacher, coach or scoutmaster? Or is it still her fault if it is one of those?

Those boys are legally incapable of consent, as are underage girls. We are not talking about them, we are talking about women, who are capable of both consent, and verbalizing non-consent, regardless of the identity of their prospective sex partner.

The whole reasoning behind explicit consent is that the other person merely accepting the situation does not mean they want the sexual contact.

I have acknowledged that, and I am struggling with the concept of how that standard is changing from what it was when I was a young man chasing skirts. The standard may be changing, but the way we talk about sex in our society seems to be lagging behind that change. Inexperienced men don't feel comfortable asking prospective partners explicitly about sex, and some women don't feel comfortable about verbalizing non-consent. How do we bridge that gap?

I'm not sure that prosecuting men for rape in situations where a woman seems to be consenting, but she has second thoughts that she does not verbalize, and later regrets letting things go that far. That's the grey area being discussed, and if it's a grey area for the women who had this kind of sexual encounter, you can bet that men are going to have a hard time understanding it as well.

 

[prideandfall]

Aside from the fact that sex leaves both parties vulnerable to some infections and a woman vulnerable to pregnancy, the plain truth is that there are plenty of guys who don't take no for an answer. And take acquiescence for consent when it really is pragmatic decision to not get beaten up.

People lie to themselves all the time.

well that's a complete non sequitur and in no way related to what i said or asked, but it's also technically true so i guess uh... yes? okay.

- - - Updated - - -

saw this today and it reminded me of this thread and a lot of the themes going on here.

 

[Toni]

So now it's understandable if someone decides to not fight back if they fear for their life? But only at that point--not if she fears losing the physical battle and getting hurt more.

I said nothing about fighting back, mush less whether or when it is understandable for someone to make that decision. I very specifically referred to verbalizing non-consent.

I think almost anyone in this thread understands a boy accepting the sexual advances of a priest, a coach, teacher, scoutmaster. But girls are presumed to be willing if the guy is not her priest, teacher, coach or scoutmaster? Or is it still her fault if it is one of those?

Those boys are legally incapable of consent, as are underage girls. We are not talking about them, we are talking about women, who are capable of both consent, and verbalizing non-consent, regardless of the identity of their prospective sex partner.

The whole reasoning behind explicit consent is that the other person merely accepting the situation does not mean they want the sexual contact.

I have acknowledged that, and I am struggling with the concept of how that standard is changing from what it was when I was a young man chasing skirts. The standard may be changing, but the way we talk about sex in our society seems to be lagging behind that change. Inexperienced men don't feel comfortable asking prospective partners explicitly about sex, and some women don't feel comfortable about verbalizing non-consent. How do we bridge that gap?

I'm not sure that prosecuting men for rape in situations where a woman seems to be consenting, but she has second thoughts that she does not verbalize, and later regrets letting things go that far. That's the grey area being discussed, and if it's a grey area for the women who had this kind of sexual encounter, you can bet that men are going to have a hard time understanding it as well.

I do understand your point but coming from the perspective of someone who has listened to a lot of you g women talk about their experiences, and some of my own. There are guys who do not listen. Just plain do not or will not. Who refuse to believe that the no was sincere. And some who are sooo enthusiastic that they don't hear no or they don't notice the attempts to avoid or escape.

And then, there is the socialization.

True story: when I was in high school, a guy in one of my classes decided he was interested in me. I knew I was not interested in him and very politely told his friends who were on a recon mission to gauge my interest. There was no coy waffling on my part but also no invented boyfriend which was apparently evidence that I would be interested if he were persistent enough. Then the phone calls started. I tried making polite but disinterested small talk and invented chores, homework whatever. And hung up. Immediately he called back. I said I was busy. He asked if I was interested. I said no. Why? I'm just not. I have to go. Immediately calling again. And again and again until I told him never to call me again. And then never to call md or speak to me again. Followed by hanging up every time the phone rang. Of course this was the olden days when we had one telephone. Located in the kitchen. In between the dozens!!! Of phone calls, my mom asked and I explained this guy would not stop calling. It was a small house and she was making dinner so she heard the progression of calls, me clearly saying not to call again, etc.

A ten or fifteen minute break in calls during which time my father comes home and the calls start again. Dad was closest to the phone so he answered and hands the phone to me. I had had more than enough at that point, and indeed had simply been hanging up whenever the phone rang. I told the guy to stop calling and hung up for maybe the 20th or 30th time that evening.

My dad lit into me, telling me how rude I was and how hard it was for boys to work up the courage to call a girl. My dad was a good father and actually fairly protective and quite strict about dating, etc. I nearly burst into tears as I tried to explain that this had been going on since I got home from school and a polite no thanks wasn't working. It wasn't untily mother interceded and told him I had politely said no many times before I resorted to being rude and hanging up that my father finally got the picture. By which time I had left the table but of course, the phone rang again . This time my dad answered and made it understood that there were to be no more phone calls.

This was only phone calls. In my own home. And my own father castigated me for being rude to a boy wh wouldn't take no for an answer. And my father was at once fairly protective and at the same time someone who encouraged his daughters to excel, to be independent and strong, to stick up for themselves.

Can you understand why some women have trouble saying no very explicitly ?

What I don't understand is why society supports guys refusing to hear no, refusing to take no for an answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Foot, meet bullet.

You were just arguing that what I was referring to was a gray area between consent and rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

While the cases we are talking about are clearly lying it's possible to be wrong without it being a lie. If her memory of the situation isn't good and in the light of day she wouldn't consider having sex with him she will sometimes conclude that it's rape. Or consider the case out of SE Asia some months back--she didn't remember, she was injured so she reported it as rape. CCTV shows there was no rape, her injuries were from a fall.

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.

Many people are too shy for enthusiastic consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Learn from her mistake. That's what we usually do when we make a mistake. Don't go looking to blame someone else for your own mistake.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get that feeling from the examples provided. Certainly, the comment to which I directly responded was simply a fear of the guy forging ahead. Just saying no is highly unlikely to turn the situation murderous. If the guy is already that on the edge, nothing said or done is going to keep things from getting violent. At least verbalizing the no establishes that if sex follows, it's rape. It removes any doubt or grey areas.

So now it's understandable if someone decides to not fight back if they fear for their life? But only at that point--not if she fears losing the physical battle and getting hurt more.

I think almost anyone in this thread understands a boy accepting the sexual advances of a priest, a coach, teacher, scoutmaster. But girls are presumed to be willing if the guy is not her priest, teacher, coach or scoutmaster? Or is it still her fault if it is one of those?

The whole reasoning behind explicit consent is that the other person merely accepting the situation does not mean they want the sexual contact.

If there's a fear of force I can accept her not fighting back. In an unclear situation, though, I think she has an obligation to say no if her actions appear to be consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Aside from the fact that sex leaves both parties vulnerable to some infections and a woman vulnerable to pregnancy, the plain truth is that there are plenty of guys who don't take no for an answer. And take acquiescence for consent when it really is pragmatic decision to not get beaten up.

People lie to themselves all the time.

And if they don't take no for an answer it's rape. However, if she doesn't say the no in the first place and doesn't resist the normal development of a sexual situation then it's her fault. The reality of sex between new partners is that the man generally takes little steps and sees how she reacts. If she does nothing to interfere with this sequence she appears to be consenting but shy.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

If she tells the guy no, and he forges ahead, then it is unequivocally rape. I don't think most guys are going to forge ahead when they hear the word no, but that is just my personal feeling, formed from my own experiences.

Sadly, in my experience and that of most women I've ever talked to about it, have had a guy "forge ahead" in spite of a clear "no", particularly in those young adult years. This is not to say "most guys" would do it, but "most women" who have dated multiple men over the years has most likely faced that situation at least once.

I've had it happen to me 3 times. Twice they were near rapes - in other words, men that I had zero intention of having sex with at any point, so there was no ambiguity in my "no". There is no doubt in my mind that both of them were straight up sexual predators, and I was lucky to get away both times.

The first time, however, was with a boy I liked alot. I was a teenager and a virgin, and I did not want to have intercourse with him. I was totally fine with making out, but I also very clearly said "no" to more than that multiple times. I did not, however, fight him, scream at him, push him off or leave. I liked him. He just kept proceeding, ignoring my "no's" and telling me how much I would like it until somehow he was inside me having intercourse with me trying to squirm away the whole time. It was kind of comical. I kept trying to inch out from under him, and ended up half off the bed with my head smashed into the wall.

Did he rape me? I guess technically he did, but I never felt "raped", just very uncomfortable and a little disrespected. Would I have wanted to see him prosecuted (or expelled from college had we been in college)? Definitely not. Was he wrong for not stopping? Yes. To him, I was just being shy and hard to get. But I am 100% certain that he was not a predator/rapist. For unrelated reasons, I left town within days of that encounter but we kept in touch. During a conversation some weeks later, I let it slip that I had been a virgin that night. He was horrified. He immediately wanted to marry me. LOL I didn't marry him, but we actually remained friends for several years after (never had sex again)

I think this is an example of why we need to change the conversation in this country. Craig was not a rapist. He was a boy who had been raised to believe that girls play hard to get, that good girls always say "no" even if they mean "yes", that the boys always take the lead in sex. I knew what happened that night wasn't right, I didn't want it, wasn't ready to "go all the way", didn't like it because I wasn't ready - but didn't feel raped. I felt pushed into something I wasn't ready for, but not violated - if that makes any sense.

Offering no resistance, verbal or physical, and instead going along with it, is likely to make it seem consensual to the guy, and that's where the problem lies.

I just don't get the thinking of the person who doesn't want to have sex, but goes along with it anyway, for fear of the situation turning violent and becoming a rape, who afterwards decides that it was rape. It seems that they are afraid of being raped, so they let themselves be raped, something does not add up there.

It some times and places, women were specifically taught not to resist or object during a rape in order to protect themselves from worse. There is a politician who just recently said a woman should just lay back and enjoy it.

Then the flip side is when women are disbelieved because they didn't fight back, even if the rapist has a gun or knife. I fought back against one of the sexual predators mentioned above. It worked and I got away. With the other, I was simply lucky that my sister and husband came looking for me in time. Had they not, I have zero doubt that I would have been raped, and I would have been severely hurt if I tried to fight back.

There is no one right way to be raped; and no matter what a woman does in self-preservation, someone will second guess her.

As others have noted, I think it all comes down to how we, as a society, owing to our puritanical religious roots, talk about sex (or rather, avoid talking about sex when it matters). The solution may be to become more open and honest about our sex lives, and not just when we are about to have sex. Affirmative consent is only going to set in and become the norm once we all start talking about sex more, and earlier in the development of our adolescents. Unfortunately, we are already at the point where affirmative consent is becoming the standard, but talking about sex openly is still somewhat taboo.

on this part, we agree completely

 

[RavenSky]

I have acknowledged that, and I am struggling with the concept of how that standard is changing from what it was when I was a young man chasing skirts. The standard may be changing, but the way we talk about sex in our society seems to be lagging behind that change. Inexperienced men don't feel comfortable asking prospective partners explicitly about sex, and some women don't feel comfortable about verbalizing non-consent. How do we bridge that gap?

This is exactly the crucial issue right now, and I think we bridge the gap with comprehensive sex-ed in schools that includes a thorough discussion of enthusiastic affirmative consent and, equally important, teaching boys that 'when in doubt' walking away is always the correct decision.

The problem is - as can be seen even on this board every time anyone suggests 'affirmative consent' should be the standard - the rabid resistance to this sort of education.

 

[Toni]

Aside from the fact that sex leaves both parties vulnerable to some infections and a woman vulnerable to pregnancy, the plain truth is that there are plenty of guys who don't take no for an answer. And take acquiescence for consent when it really is pragmatic decision to not get beaten up.

People lie to themselves all the time.

And if they don't take no for an answer it's rape. However, if she doesn't say the no in the first place and doesn't resist the normal development of a sexual situation then it's her fault. The reality of sex between new partners is that the man generally takes little steps and sees how she reacts. If she does nothing to interfere with this sequence she appears to be consenting but shy.

Which is convenient for the guy, right? If he can tell himself thst her lack of enthusiasm is just her being 'shy .' Not shocked because she didn't anticipate sex. Not fear or reluctance or even revulsion.

She's just shy. She just doesn't know what she wants. She 's just not very experienced and afraid for her reputation.

Even in this thread, how many posters are asserting that the girl doesn't actually have the right to her own feelings and desires--to desire to NOT have sex with that person st that moment?

Well fuck that shit all to hell and back again.

What you are really saying is that if a woman is afraid, then too bad for her because why should a guy have to be bothered to actually pay enough attention to figure out if she's actually interested. After all, he's got an erection!