I’m not going to dwell too much on what Ken Clarke had to say about rape last week, mainly because, let’s face it, that analysis has already been pretty much done to death.
All I will say is that although his comments were offensive, clumsy, outrageous and so on, and more so as they came from the Justice Secretary, someone who really should know better (and who should certainly have a better understanding of the current law than he displayed during the Victoria Derbyshire interview), I genuinely don’t think his bumbling attempts to explain why some rapists receive lengthier sentences than others warrant the calls for his sacking that have since ensued.
In fact I’ll go one further, and state for the record now that I think this kind of cynical, exploitative, bandwagon jumping (and this – and yes, that is me in the comments telling Harriet Harman exactly what I think of her record as far as “protecting rape crisis centres” goes) is not only unhelpful to the debate, it’s positively counter-fucking-productive.
What I would like to talk about though is the “rape debate” that Clarke’s comments have kicked off. A debate that, thanks to the wilful ignorance of some of those who have rushed to defend him, is not actually the debate Clarke ever intended his initial radio interview to provoke. Indeed, I think the Justice Secretary made it clear in his Question Time appearance that his intention all along had been to discuss the issue of an increased reduction in sentence for those who plead guilty at an early stage (from the current one third reduction to up to a half – a proposal which I’m opposed to incidentally, for those accused of rape and other violent crimes); and that’s still a discussion that needs to be had.
Unfortunately, rather than focusing on the proposals to reduce sentences, what’s happened instead is that an unpleasant and distasteful debate has now developed around whether or not some rapes are indeed “more serious” than others; one that has involved a significant proportion of Clarke’s so-called defenders trotting out some hoary old long-discredited rape myths.
Here for example, is Roger Helmer, the Conservative MEP for the East Midlands, writing on his blog on why “Ken on rape” was “badly phrased, but bascially right“and engaging in some charming victim blaming in the process:
“In the same way, let’s consider two rape scenarios.
The first is the classic “stranger-rape”, where a masked individual emerges from the bushes, hits his victim over the head with a blunt instrument, drags her into the undergrowth and rapes her, and the leaves her unconscious, careless whether she lives or dies.
The second is “date rape”. Imagine that a woman voluntarily goes to her boyfriend’s apartment, voluntarily goes into the bedroom, voluntarily undresses and gets into bed, perhaps anticipating sex, or naïvely expecting merely a cuddle. But at the last minute she gets cold feet and says “Stop!”. The young man, in the heat of the moment, is unable to restrain himself and carries on.
In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished. But whereas in the first case, I’d again be quite happy to hang the guy, I think that most right-thinking people would expect a much lighter sentence in the second case. Rape is always wrong, but not always equally culpable.
My two scenarios also give the lie to one of the popular over-simplifications trotted out by the feminist tendency in these cases: “Rape is always about power and control and domination, never about sex”. In the first case, that may well be true. In the second case, it is clearly not true.
Let me make another point which will certainly get me vilified, but which I think is important to make: while in the first case, the blame is squarely on the perpetrator and does not attach to the victim, in the second case the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind.”
And here’s Richard Littlejohn writing in the Daily Mail, revealing his complete ignorance of what actually constitutes rape:
“I’ve no doubt that the victims of the most violent attacks, such as the poor woman who upbraided Ken Clarke on the wireless this week, carry their trauma with them for the rest of their days.
But, equally, many women who have had a brief sexual encounter of which they are ashamed simply shrug it off and get on with their lives. They don’t scream ‘rape’, they chalk it up to experience and vow to go easy on the chardonnay in future.“
For more on that piece read Angry Mob’s post – Richard Littlejohn on rape
And here’s Peter Hitchens bravely saying what no one else has allegedly been brave enough to say (as if!) – Some rapes ARE worse than others….there, I’ve said it:
“I am sick of the censorship that surrounds the issue of rape.
So I shall defy it. Of course all rapes are bad. But some rapes are worse than others.
The extension of rape, to cover any situation where a woman says she has been raped, is a huge difficulty for a fair legal system that relies on actual evidence before deciding guilt.
Even for saying this, I know quite well that I will get raging, lying abuse….
…Revolutionary feminism, which regards all men as predators and sees the married family as a sordid prison, has scared most politicians, most judges, most journalists, most civil servants – and most people – into accepting its nasty dogmas.
Oddly enough, Mr Clarke would normally be an ally of this cause. But ultra-feminist zealotry is bitterly intolerant of any disagreement, however gentle or thoughtful. Nothing short of total submission will do…..
…But in this case rape does not usually mean what most people think it means – the forcible abduction and violation of a woman by a stranger. It means a dispute about consent, often between people who are already in a sexual relationship.”
No Hitchens, it really fucking doesn’t. Rape, whether by a stranger or by a person known to the victim, is not just simply a “a dispute about consent“: it’s a violation, of bodily autonomy, and of trust. And as Rape Crisis point out: “There is the belief that being raped by a known man is not as traumatic as being raped by a stranger.
Our experience shows us that this is most often not the case. Women invest a lot of trust into the relationships they form with men and if this trust is abused it can leave the woman doubting all relationships, past, present and future.”
Mind you, considering Hitchens is the one who argued only a few years ago that “a rape victim who was drunk deserves less sympathy“, we really shouldn’t be surprised by the continuing wankery he comes out with on this subject.
The most disturbing comment I’ve seen so far though since Clarke’s disastrous radio performance last week, is this piece from the Inspector Gadget blog. Bear in mind when reading this that this is a blog written by, and commented on by, serving police officers:
When is a rape not a rape? SHOCK (note, the original piece seems to have been removed, although the comment thread remains. So click here for the google cache of the article):
“As a serving policeman, there are several things I am not allowed to talk about.
There are plenty of operational secrets we cannot discuss, but I’m not referring to those. I’m talking about the taboo subjects. The ‘detection’ rate for rape is one of these.
It’s very frustrating to sit and listen to pundits talking about the low number of rape convictions in Court, when as police officers we all know what lies behind these poor numbers.
For example, I couldn’t possibly tell you that out of every ten rapes which are reported in Ruraltown, at least eight turn out to be nonsense. To be fair, eight out of ten of everything reported at Ruraltown police station is nonsense, why should rape be any different?
I couldn’t tell you that of the remaining two, an existing alcohol-fuelled chaotic drug-based relationship is a factor in at least one of these, and ‘consent’ is probably present in the other to some degree. In my whole service I can only recall three stranger rapes and a half a dozen where consent was withdrawn at the time and he carried on. But I can’t tell you that.
I can’t tell you that most of the adult rapes reported in Ruraltown represent either the latest in a series of allegations designed to score points against an ‘ex, lies designed to fend off an angry parent when a curfew has been missed or a defence mechanism when a jilted ‘partner’ discovers an infidelity
A rape once reported, even if withdrawn later, is in the system and a failure to bring someone to justice, even if it never happened, shows up in the ‘detection’ rate. The ‘detection rate’ is low because the number of rapes which actually happen is low. I couldn’t possibly say that though.”
Seriously, when you see attitudes like these, is it really any wonder that so few women report the sex crimes perpetrated against them to the police? (for a more balanced view from a serving police officer, read PC Bloggs’s Shh – it’s the R Word)
What all of these pieces (and others) reveal is a complete ignorance of the impact rape can have on its victims, or to be more precise, of the different ways that survivors respond to rape. Because these responses (see here for wikipedia article on rape trauma syndrome for example) are not dependent on the presence of violence beyond the violence of the rape itself, and can affect the victims of so-called “date rape” just as ‘seriously’ as they can the victims of so-called stranger rape (and equally, it should be pointed out that neither are these responses necessarily universally experienced by all rape survivors).
And that’s why I would never attempt to argue that any form of rape is more ‘serious’ than another, because no one can say for sure how any individual is going to respond to being the victim of a rape. Some people, like Suzanne Moore, may well be able to say “What happened defines me less than many other events in my life“, but as she also acknowledges: “That’s a choice, perhaps, that not everyone can make.”
Indeed it’s not.
The Rape Crisis National Freephone Helpline is open from 12-2.30pm & 7-9.30pm every day of the year: you can call them on 0808 802 9999
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Sad to see so many people who just don’t get it.
I think you’re a bit wide of the mark when it comes to the policeman’s blog, however. He isn’t suggesting (as the others are) that some rapes are less serious than others. He’s saying that most reported rapes (on his beat, which might not be typical) are not actual rapes, and that in many cases there was not even any physical contact. What’s more, he seems to include sex where consent is given and then withdrawn in his definition of rape, which suggests that he takes those offences seriously too. I certainly hope so. You might not like his flippancy, but it’s wrong to lump him in with the other idiots without countering his argument.
As for the other columnists, I’m right beside you throwing my arms up in despair. Their poverty of understanding is thoroughly depressing.
First up, an admission. I partially defended Ken Clarke; not realising like him, that there was a distinction between “unlawful sex” (statutory rape of the underaged jiggy nature) and “rape” already made in law. As soon as I was corrected, by a tabloid to my deep shame, I retracted.
Second up, the ethos of crime and punishment generically places the cost of impact on the perpetrator, whether foreseen or not. In prison, induction videos show a scuffle that leads to an unintentioned death is still murder, even if the victim had a skull like an eggshell, unbeknownst to everyone.
This is significantly easier with physiological injury than mental or emotional, but there is a move towards such accounting in the courts, with victim impact statements pre-sentencing being used more frequently.
This said though, there is still a presumption that objectively, the punishment should fit the crime, and that brutal, menacing crime offends more than broken trust, whatever the emotional cost to the victim. This is the whole schema that allows tariff for crimes to be set by offence in the first place. This is where rules designed to make process smoother make individual outliers unfair, even where the rules are sensibly designed in the first place. Even were a hypothetical rule-to-catch-all-fairly practicable, how would you measure the facial disfiguration of one rape victim against the agony of being raped with minimal violence by a friend. I’ve been beaten, and betrayed, and my experience is that the physical violence had a darker personal legacy than the broken trust. Of course others with different dispositions may view identical situations differently.
But why does it matter whether heinous crimes like rape and murder are adjudicated “most heinous” or “mildly heinous”? Well, because there’s limited capacity, both to process perpetrators through the criminal justice system, and to incarcerate them. And because justice is supposed to be fair. It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect the same punishment for a home invasion robbery with serious violence to attract the same punishment as a burglary while occupants are home, regardless of the emotional impact on the victims. I think there’s a case (not a strong one) for the same to apply to sexual assault and rape. A way that you could argue otherwise is to say that rape, as a violation of bodily autonomy represents the most serious kind of physical violence, and should attract a tariff where no mitigation is ethically defensible.
Would this be preventive of further abuses though?
What I’d ask you to consider is the possibility that perpetrators of rape, like child abusers and arsonists, represent deeply disturbed individuals; vulnerable, rejected, powerless and muted by their skills and situation. That’s not to say that society doesn’t deserve protection from such individuals, because they are dangerous, but they are usually simultaneously victims and abusers, and suffer – in the same horrific emotional and mental anguish that they inflict on others. Sending them down for life, or taking no account of their conduct, however feeble in the round, may be profoundly debilitative.
To take an oft-cited and derided example, a rapist uses a condom at the victims request. Does this lessen the severity of the violation? Barely, or not at all. Does it represent the capacity in the perpetrator to consider his actions, impact, consequences – and some small sense of mercy? I think it does, and to the extent that our societal mercy can increase that of our more dangerous inhabitants, while still keeping the general population safe, it is the right thing to do. Your enemy wins when you resemble him, as they say.
Ultimately, we all want a safer, less violent life. I believe that this is best achieved through the recognition of and accounting for small kindnesses, even amidst brutality (which of course must be equally recognised and accounted), is the best way to get there.
Well said cath. so many times this week i have said ‘you don’t get to decide’ to writers, comments and people who have tried to claim that one kind of rape is worse than another. often seems to men talking loudly about how women should react and feel about rape too, although not exclusively. Some of the comments have been unbelievable.
Yesterday, I was moved to write condemning not Ken Clarke, but Helmer, for cleaving to cretinous opinions that were tired when I was young http://bit.ly/iv88Ps
However, today I found myself in the position, such was the hysteria online, and the rabid demands for Helmer’s head on a pike, to write defending his right to say what he did. He broke no laws, he didn’t exhort anyone to rape, he was just a dumb old codger spouting drivel, but he has the right to freedom of speech just like the rest of us. http://wp.me/peDjy-1y8
Apologies for posting two links – the alternative, to make both points clearly, would have been to reproduce them in full.
I am sick of the censorship that surrounds the issue of rape
What censorship? I seem to have missed the censorship? Is is a super injunction?
PS the policeman is talking shite. I have never met anyone personally who has reported rape to the police, and I’ve met a lot of women who’ve been raped. Even on a rape crisis line, you have very few callers who have reported, or would report the incident. So he is saying that there is a mysterious outbreak of perjurers reporting non existent rapes?
There’s no complication. Rape is rape. Of course some rape comes with a side order of ABH, GBH, kidnapping, assault on the person etc, and some don’t. That rapist should receive extra consideration for any additional horrors supporting their crime. I assume that’s what Clarke meant. Some people labelled ‘rapist’ are actually ‘rape plus assault’-ists etc.
A colleague of mine was on the jury in a rape trail and he acquited the accused. Why, I asked? Because they ‘both seemed like screwballs’ and there was no clear evidence to back up anything. During the hearings the accused kept crying, and once shouted out “Why are you doing this to me, babe?” Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean a rape didn’t occur. Unfortunately the Ruraltown Police mentality seems to run everywhere.
One lovely tendency I’ve noticed on Comment is Free and here also exemplified by some of the right-wing pundits Cath quotes, is that of blokes who make minimising, quibbling and sceptical comments about rape to be moved to write imaginary rape scenarios into their ill-informed pontifications. They put just that much too much thought into describing terrifying, weapon-wielding actions of a stranger rapist, or the lead up to a boyfriend and girlfriend engaging in sexual activity.
First, it’s creepy; plus often tends to to be skewed to the perpetrator’s perspective. Secondly, all this business of “what if…?” and “what about…?”, focusing on scenarios that spring wholly from their imaginations – with no apparent consciousness of the fact that real people are really assaulted and it”s all too common an occurrence. That there are plenty of real cases reported in the media and discussed and analysed by legal professionals and academics, and real survivors who write or talk about being raped. Or even people they know may have relevant experiences. So, while their opinions could be informed by real cases and real experiences, somehow to them the hypothetical stories they make up themselves, that comfortably fit their prejudices and preconceptions, are so much more important and worthwhile. And they don’t get that the fact they have to imagine rape scenarios should inform them that they have not been directly affected by sexual violence and so have even less credibility to pronounce so decisively and self-assuredly about it.
consent was withdrawn at the time and he carried on
That so many men wave this about as an example of “not really rape” is very telling. That they see women as nothing more than wank-rags who should just shut up and let them get on with it, and that this is what “sex” is.
They also never say “men are unable to control themselves therefore should never be let loose into civilised society”. Nor do they ask “well why do so many men not care if their partner is unwilling or not – why do so many men want an unwilling partner ?”
marias i agree. and am so sick of (mostly) men pontificating about which type of rape is ‘worse’ and explaining to women how they shd feel or react to rape.
parallel
Unwilling? I thought the idea was to leave them panting and gasping for more…
@marias
I spent some time thinking about the “imagined rape scenario”. Initially, I thought it was a fair point, that real life examples and consequences are better evidence for moral judgements, and that personal experience is the only valid perspective from which to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of a given stance.
However, and without denying the above, this doesn’t render hypothetical examples completely without merit. Of course, “aunt sally” arguments like dick littleone spews are ulterior, and causally flow from conclusion to specious justification. But the imagined scenario and thought experience is well-used in other fields of ethics, and to argue that there’s something inherent in rape versus any other violent hate crime that makes it impossible to abstract and debate is, I think, wrong.
You’ve got to start from a position of self-questioning, and test your prejudices as well as the ethics of the scenario, exercise empathy and consider your own experience, but if you do all that and report honestly I think it’s unfair to say that I was somehow “getting off” on the imagined examples I used about rape above, or being cursory, however incomplete my own experiences of the subject.
True research, would be better of course, but theorising in a ethical debate has the advantage of considering the what-if, which taken alongside the what-is, informs the whole debate.
People’s experiences of being raped are also not as accessible as you imply, and the sheer horrific nature of that experience makes in morally impossible to question in a critical way. That’s not to say there would be criticism or blame levelled at the vicitm or their actions, just that probing the worst experience of someone’s life, even if they’re willing to openly say that it happened at all, is no simple thing.
Plus, browsing rape accounts, either from court or in other forms, strikes me as really “creepy”. Discussing with someone you know, possibly less so, but see above regarding fact-finding in such a shocking situation.
Starting with the premise, ‘Rape is Rape’, I would argue that the onus for proceding with caution is automatically put onto the men. If men view ‘sex’ as ending with coitus, then they should proceed with caution. Men need to be the arbiters of their own sexuality if they believe that sex constitutes at all times penetration. Post penetration, women may face certain risks such as pregnancy, a risk men will never face. Therefore in deference to fairness, I propose that men should also face a risk when engaging in sex/coitus. They face the risk of being accused of rape, each and every time they engage in penetrative sex. Men cannot have their cake and eat it. Women should no longer be satisfied with the crumbs left behind. A rethink is necessary.
“Unwilling? I thought the idea was to leave them panting and gasping for more…”
Gosh you’re so funny Gulfstream, rape is just one big joke right ?
Geez, if a woman says no, and a man violates the no, then that’s rape. And since most violation of women occurs in the home, I’d say that the majority of the rape occurs there too.
What’s so hard about men and the word NO being rape. Because most of them are doing this all the time. I see men violate my “no” all the time out in the world. I tell a man to stop his sexist comments, and he does it anyway. Men know that they can violate women all the time, and that “no” to the male mind means the beginning of a negotiation. Think of all the sales training classes men take in the corporate world to overcome customers’ “nos” to products. If a woman says “no” and women control the legal system, then it is rape, and the jail sentence should be severe in either case.
Parallel – No, the point was simply that most men don’t want an unwilling partner. Hope that clarifies.
“most men don’t want an unwilling partner.”
Oh yeah? Prove it.
I gotta come back into this, not to defend any of the points I made, or to agree with any anyone else has made, just to ask you to reflect on some of the things that have been said so far. I apologise for the off-topic “point of order”, but it’s been bugging me.
Parallel “[Men] also never say “men are unable to control themselves therefore should never be let loose into civilised society”
maggie “[Men should] face the risk of being accused of rape, each and every time they engage in penetrative sex [because women can get pregnant]”
SheilaG “What’s so hard about men and the word NO being rape? Because most of them are doing this all the time…Men know that they can violate women all the time, and that “no” to the male mind means the beginning of a negotiation.”
I can’t see a) what is gained by this brazen broad-brush female chauvinism apart from to give reason for common cause to both misogynist bigots and those with genuine thoughtful male identity and b) how the hypocrisy to reject anti-female prejudice but wield pan-male castigation is reconciled in the thoughts of those who say these things.
Sure, a very few men are abusive dicks nearly all of the time, a few muslims are repressive theocrats, a few short people compensate for stature by being loud and obnoxious. And a few women are vapid and voluntarily dependent. I’d never dream of seriously arguing any of these examples are representative of that group as a whole – that is the essence of stereotyping and clearly imbecilic in the face of the facts.
The whole sense I get from these quoted comments is of utter reality disjoint – iced by sam’s final comment “Oh yeah? Prove it.” One of the solid points made in the article and subsequent comments about the effect of suffering rape, violent or otherwise, is that it’s impossible to speculate about with any accuracy without having the experience. So we already know that it’s impossible to say what someone else feels, and our best evidence unless we are in the same situation is to take note of their experience. When someone (a man, presumably) says then “most men don’t want an unwilling partner”, how is this best proved other than through acceptance that that’s an honest position (-1 man who does), and the fact that 50%+ of men don’t rape as a matter of course?
I really like these articles because they make me think in ways that I don’t normally consider, but I can see firstly how it would be tempting to level an allegation of misandry at the comments I’ve identified (and by association the blog itself, although I’ve not seen evidence of that particularly myself), and secondly how it’s a very unfriendly place for a man to be; a kind of segregation by vitriol.
I said it in my first comment, but I think it’s more relevant now that when I first wrote it; your enemy wins when you come to resemble them.
Now that that’s out of the way, I want to pick up on something else that SheilaG argues, about sales techniques and overcoming “No”. Blundering past an unequivocal “No” is clearly a fucked-up disregard for the other person’s consent. But before that point is reached, seduction is in itself a method and a mechanism (on both sides) of overcoming reluctance, the fear of rejection, the inhibitions of shyness and so on. That no question is often asked or answer given early on in these interactions is no accident – the courtship dance has within it many small ambiguous assents and refusals, many persuasions and many enticements. Where perceived incorrectly, “mixed signals” is the common term for it, with a consequence of severe awkwardness when misinterpreted.
Where I do think there is a problem – and not one the law can resolve – is where some men or women (the media would have us believe it’s the younger generation but I’m not sure that’s definitely the case) are assertively incapable of withholding consent because of personal insecurity, peer pressure, sense of obligation or just out and out fear. It’s not rape, either in law or morally, unless coercion or intimidation is used, but for the unwilling but consenting participant, the violation is still present.
The final thing I want to ask the assembled peoples is what you think about consensual sex, with a non-consensual component. Typical examples for discussion would be; nonconsensual ejaculation (undesired location, not premature!), secret video of sex, anal without asking, spanking or restraint (without serious violence) without asking or in disregard of a refusal. What would your judgement be?
My view of this (I think – I’ve asked the questions so I’m not really sure) that the video would constitute a crime, but the others merely a violation of trust (possibly an offence lower than rape itself) – and probably lead to the termination of the relationship. Using the arguments above (UrbanOsprey states it the most succinctly), rape as discussed is the most violent of violent crimes and should not be lessened because no “extra” violence was used, so if consent for the sex existed in the first place it was not a act of violence. The extra unagreed acts took it too far, but didn’t overturn the original consent and turn the whole thing into rape. But I freely admit I’m still mulling this one over.
“What all of these pieces (and others) reveal is a complete ignorance of the impact rape can have on its victims, or to be more precise, of the different ways that survivors respond to rape.”
I’d say what they reveal is ignorance of the nature of consent. And, in a way, that’s not surprising: if you have a deep, culturally-embedded disrespect for a portion of society (whether that’s women, trans people, sex workers or members of various other groups of people who become victims of rape in this society, not just women) as the commentators Cath quotes quite obviously do, you are not going to have a clearly-thought out stance on whether or not those people were deserving or undeserving of the things that happen to them. A view of rape as the acting out of uncontrollable but natural male urges is not only insulting to all the men who don’t rape (and who find it perfectly possible not to muddle up being turned on with the impulse to violate someone: different things entirely) but a fundamental misunderstanding of the sexual and social power dynamics being played out when someone is coerced into sex they don’t want, whether or not there is physical violence involved.
Sam – I can’t offer you scientific proof of that, but I don’t suppose my personal experiences are statistically unique.
I’ve encountered refuseniks, women who said stop, women who said don’t stop, and an American cougar who would probably have raped me if I hadn’t consented in time. I know which of these I preferred!
I’ve only ever met one guy who was seriously into violent sex with women, hence my previous post. He had the sort of porn films that even his mates thought were disgusting. He and another guy eventually got divorced and married each other’s wives, which seemed to work out.
Hope that helps – it’s all true.
(And let’s hear it for the cougars!)
And for those of you who can’t be bothered to plough through Anils long-winded whinge, here is the short version:
1) How dare women point out the things that men say and the way that they behave !
2) Don’t you realise that the reason men treat women badly is because feminists have a Bad Tone of Voice ? It’s all your own fault !
3) Stop being mean to men ! Waaahhhhh !
4) I’ve sort of vaguely registered that women are saying rape and the attitudes towards it is a huge problem in our culture – but it IS NOT hardly a problem at all. Because I, a man, say so.
5) I’m going to call women names now, while pretending I don’t really think that about ALL women. Oh no.
5) Feminists are delusional !
6) Some garbled attempt at a “deep” philosophical point about how no-one can ever experience what someone else has experienced, therefore …. (?)
7) Misandry !!
8) The women are being all mean to meeeee!!!!! Mummmmyyy !!!
9) Anyway, how are men supposed to know if they’re raping a women when the woman-things give out such *mixed signals* ? Uh ?
10) Oh, it’s so difficult, I mean if a woman-thing has “given consent” then that is a blanket “do what you like” right. So **even if she refuses** something and **I disregard that** then it DOESN’T “overide the original consent” …… and technically then it’s not rape ! Ta da !
And in case anyone thinks I’m taking too much peotic licence, especially in point 10), here is the bit I’m referring to:
The final thing I want to ask the assembled peoples is what you think about consensual sex, with a non-consensual component. Typical examples for discussion would be; nonconsensual ejaculation (undesired location, not premature!), secret video of sex, anal without asking, spanking or restraint (without serious violence) without asking or in disregard of a refusal. What would your judgement be?
My view of this (I think – I’ve asked the questions so I’m not really sure) that the video would constitute a crime, but the others merely a violation of trust… so if consent for the sex existed in the first place it was not a act of violence.
The extra unagreed acts took it too far, but didn’t overturn the original consent and turn the whole thing into rape.
My bolds.
Read it and think about what is being said here by Mr ” completely reasonable and not a rapist at all”. This is men in their own words, describing “sex” . Tying themselves in knots over just what they are allowed *to do* to the woman-thing, and where do they cross the line ?
Typically CLUELESS about what consent even means – and this is why I will ask again:
“why do men not want a willing partner ?”
This comment has been deleted.
Cath
‘This is men in their own words, describing “sex” .’
Well, it’s one man, trying – clumsily – to work it all out. If you are steeped in a misogynist/homophobic/transphobic culture, then the idea of clear-cut consent *is* complicated; it’s already compromised by the existing unbalanced power-dynamics in the relationships between different groups of people, whether known to each other or not. It’s not that surprising that people are going to find it difficult to see things in black and white.
Firstly, and in all seriousness, parallel – WTF? I give it some nuance, some uncertainty, some considerate reason and respect for other people’s views, and you get all sandy to give me a ten-point lashing?
That’s peyotic licence, damn straight. You be trippin’.
Lucy Cage is bang on about the last paragraph – it’s clumsy, because I’m not sure what I really think – and was asking for other people’s views, in order to help me work it out. I’m writing and musing about the nature of consent, ethics and law, not fantasising about what I can get away with the next time I get some. And the distinction isn’t moral in my rambling statement of my own views – I’m thinking about which would consistute a crime and which would simply be a morally horrible thing to do.
There’s lots of unagreed upon actions during consensual sex, and not all represent a perpetuation of a patriarchal dominance through violence, or are carried out by men against women. Think nail-raking, or biting, or “slipping the finger” for actions that some women sometimes do themselves.
Anyway, I hope the rest of y’all recognise I’m here on the learn, rather than being an apologist for the injustices of female subordination.
To paraphrase my deleted comment, I would say that I always regarded anything non-consensual as an admission of failure, and my aim was to become an expert, not a bully. That requires paying careful attention to the woman’s responses.
BTW –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0113l2r
@2:42:57
The final thing I want to ask the assembled peoples is what you think about consensual sex, with a non-consensual component. Typical examples for discussion would be; nonconsensual ejaculation (undesired location, not premature!), secret video of sex, anal without asking, spanking or restraint (without serious violence) without asking or in disregard of a refusal. What would your judgement be?
Never mind MY judgement, they’re all criminal offences if done without consent and intentionally. Of course not all such incidences will be prosecuted – very few will be, but theoretically – all criminal.
formatting gone astray.
How is anal sex without asking not rape? Please explain.
@ Anil MC, I’m a bit behind and am starting with your reply to me
My comment wasn’t actually referring to your first comment because when reading this thread the first time it was late at night and I zoned out over your comment. Reading it now, yes you do fall into the kind of hypothesising I was criticising.
I don’t have time to respond fully to that first comment, but basically throughout it you’re tying yourself in knots trying to simultaneously say rape is heinous AND to plead for understanding of rapists. (This is another type of common comment on discussions on rape, e.g. on Comment Is Free, btw, ones that argue that it is somehow essential or really useful to devote effort to understanding the perpetrator’s perspective.)
Your last paragraph takes the cake:
No it is really really not the best way to get there. It is soooo far from the best way to get there. Giving rapists credit for being ever so slightly magnanimous while commiting a rape is not the starting point for effective rape prevention.
If you are serious about being here to learn, you need to recognise that you really do need to learn. You’ve rambled on at great length but shown extremely superficial and way-off understanding of the issues. You ask in your last comment, what about “consensual sex, with a non-consensual component” – do you not see the ignorance you are swimming in? The illogicality of what you say is plain in the language there. You have this idea that consent to sex is a single moment, and then everything proceeds regardless. There’s no such thing as consensual sex with non-consensual components. Consent is an ongoing process. The moment you do something without regard to or against the other person’s wishes you are committing an abusive and nonconsensual act.
And by asking us all here “what if this? what if that?” (hypothesising again!) your focus is not on the big problem of justice for rape victims and the prevention of rape and all sexual violence, but on whether what a man might do to his partner is ok or not (for him to get away with). Again, the fact that you think there is any ambiguity in the scenarios you describe, and that you think there’s going to any wiggle room from commenters on a feminist blog shows how you really are starting from a position of extreme ignorance.
There’s nothing wrong with needing to learn. The kind of errors and myths you subscribe to are common. They’re the ideas that ALL of us are socialised into. You might have heard the term “rape culture” and wanted to quibble about it. If you really want to learn, try taking it seriously, and start reading about it and read on from there.
Back to your reply to me. I understand why you might feel uncomfortable seeking out accounts of rape – and it would be a creepy thing to do if you were seeking to get off on it – but the main point of my comment was that resorting to hypothesising based on your own flawed and limited understanding of the issues is still a really unhelpful and downright harmful thing to do because you’re only reinforcing your own pre-conceived and distorted ideas about what sexual assault looks like.
Plus, you know, most anti-rape writers will precisely avoid talking about and describing sexual assaults in vivid detail, out of respect for the victim/survivor in question, and out of awareness that other survivors may very well be reading/listening. What we’re talking about here is countering the misconceptions of many many ignorant people like Helmer (about how rape cases are either a terrible attack by a stranger or a man being a bit ungentlemanly by ignoring the fact that his partner has changed her mind about sex, serving to excuse and minimise the latter) by pointing to the fact that there are (all too many) real rape cases to base one’s knowledge and opinion on instead, and real rape survivors who have their own voices and own experiences to convey.
So for example, here’s a blog post that happens to be very relevant to the wider discussions going at the moment, about rape cases where the only act of overt violence is the rape or sexual assault itself and about related misconceptions & myths about rape – Fugitivus: Another post about rape. The writer references 3 cases of sexual assault – one that was written about by the victim to a problem page website, one her own experience of being raped in the context of a relationship. and one that of a male friend of hers who was molested by another man. I very much recommend reading it.
Finally, this was a really good blog post I happened upon with regard to consent, and the idea that “date rape” is a failure of communication: It’s not that they don’t understand, they just don’t like the answer. Consent is not something that is complicated to understand or to abide by.
What MariaS said.
Sorry, problem with 2nd link is typo in the “href” part of the link tag – could you fix it Cath if possible please?
Hi MariaS, the link should work now.
MariaS
I would agree with that. There would be a lot less non-consensual sex if teenagers were taught in their sex’n’relationships education how to make love as an art-form, in which messages are continually transmitted in each direction so that both parties achieve satisfaction. Unfortunately that’s still a bridge or few too far for the conservative mob.
Thanks Cath!
Doh, 2nd link should have been this – Fugitivus: Another post about rape (8/1/09). That blog has a few posts with the same title, and this is the one I was talking about, about rape “without violence” (but the one linked is also very worth reading too)
It’s not that they don’t understand, they just don’t like the answer. Consent is not something that is complicated to understand or to abide by.
Exactly. Consent is not difficult – if you view sex as a mutual interaction with another human being. Why do men struggle so with this ?
They’d soon enough recognise the violation if another man was treating *them* as nothing more than a masturbation aid.
Fundamentally *they do not want to see women as human*, they do *not want to engage with women in any sort of mutual way* and hence all the hand-wringing about what they can get away with and assorted fantastical “what if” scenarios.
MariaS
This.
Did you see the Canadian ruling yesterday?
why does anybody with a brain cell listen to peter hitchins. christ, i know pimps who think he is a sexist bigoted prat