Miami U flier: 'Top ten ways to get away with rape'

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes, ando so is Ando, however Anders biblically knows someone and even has a small man he's helping to train in proper behavour, a littleman that appears to have shown more maturity than one of the posters here...

actually lay off Eion a bit, he sounds more like a sexual harrasser/hasn't been laid AYVB than he does an actual rapist, or a serial killer.

[eion]

Are you aware that a physical threat can be implied by such things as standing between the victim and the doorway or putting your arm around the victim? As you said, they don't have telepathy. They don't know your intentions or what you might do if they try to leave or reject you more forcefully. If someone says no over and over again, possibly for hours, especially if they're visibly uncomfortable, and you keep pushing, you're not just a douchebag, you're probably a rapist.

Yeah, that wouldn't fit the "free to leave" clause since you clearly stated a threat was implied. Should the person actually fear if they tried to leave they may be forced to stay, there are many ways to casually leave the area or get the other person to do so. And such things are taught in some sexual health classes. You can't assume that just because you perceive a threat a threat is actually being made.

And yes, putting your arm around someone or standing on a particular side of the room is ALWAYS a threatening move. Must be why I get kicked in the crotch every time I do it. A possibly threatening action like someone putting their arm around someone else is a very sketchy thing to make a rape allegation on. And can we leave out the inflammatory labeling? Victim is a needlessly loaded and biasing word for what we are talking about.

And while I can be persistent, I do in fact take no for an answer, and it's likely different because my partners are of similar strength being males, but then I've seen plenty of women half my size who were more than capable of kicking a guy till he lost all interest in intercourse. I hope it's clear I am just arguing a position. I don't like people retroactively changing the conditions of their consent just because they were later uncomfortable with the outcome of their choices, turning regretted consensual acts into violent or coercive assaults.

Life would be so much simpler if everyone just used safe words. Then we could cut through all the coy and vague bullshit and we might actually know what people really mean. When I tell my boyfriend RED LIGHT he knows damn well I want him to stop whatever he’s doing right away or the consequences shall be severe. Which is what lets me scream “NO, NO, STOP IT” at the top of my lungs or play hard to get and be sure he knows I don't mean for him to stop. Perhaps that's why I don't understand how somoene could allow something to happen to them if they aren't being prevented from stopping it. Saying "STOP asking me or I'm going to kick you in the crotch until you get the idea" is a lot clearly than shylly giggling and softly saying "no, I don't think we should." And if we're treading too close to ARSE territory I entirely understand if a mod wants me to edit that part.

Bear, I'd just call myself a shameless flirt and an ethical slut, but you say potato, I say patatoe.

[eion]

Ando's point was about possessing a perspective where you are constantly objectified and sexualized and in a situation where you are in fact pretty likely to be sexually assaulted, for your entire life. You're male, so your perspective is skewed.

Do we really want to start a game of "Oppression Top Trumps"?

[weemadando]

Weemadando, that would be walking through the city about 3 months ago coming home from a bar. A couple of guys were following us but we ducked into a diner and waited till a large group of people were walking towards the parking lot we were in. As we drove off they yelled faggot and such. But that is a VERY clear example of potential assault. Two horny teenagers rolling around on a dorm bed and one of them is reluctant but willingly remains is not a very clear example of such. You done with your red herring now?

First off, thanks for missing the point and claiming a red herring. Also, I said "sexual assault". Did you worry about being raped or sexually attacked by those guys 3 months ago? Or did the mere fact that they called you "faggot" push it into that category for you? And also - 3 months ago merely for a regular assault. Lucky you. I'm guessing if we went with sexual assault your answer would be "never". You don't worry about it. You don't worry when you have to catch a train late at night. You don't worry when you go jogging alone in the morning. You don't worry when someone is blocking your way to the toilet at a club.

Because you don't have to. But women do. And though the chance per event of a sexual assault occurring is remarkably low, should it happen, then we see the victim blaming. Even on such a bastion of righteous thought as this board there are countless threads where women have been blamed because "she should have been more careful". So they have to worry, not just because of the risk of attack, but because of the way society will treat them afterwards.

Also, fuck you and your "reluctant, but willingly remains". Try talking to victims of rape in these exact scenarios - where they wanted to stop events, but trying to stop or leave would have just resulted in violence. So they "willingly remained" and lay there and just let it happen. But it's OK, because they were merely reluctant but willingly remained, right?

[Stark]

It's amazingly funny to read this stuff when 'reluctant' is basically code for rape anyway; your porn isn't rape porn, it's 'reluctance' porn. Totally different because people have no idea what date rape even is.

[Serafina]

If someone doesn't want to have sex with me, and I keep asking, and rather than kicking me out or leaving themselves or hell calling the police they remain there, I would say that their resolve is weak or their mind is looking to be convinced. Until we have telepathy, we have to trust people on their words and actions. Don't want to do something? Don't do it. My, how simple. If you truly do not want to have sex with the person, and nothing is preventing you from leaving the area, WHY ARE YOU STILL THERE?

Thanks for summing up rape culture!

Because that's exactly what needs to be changed. People not taking no for an answer, and requesting huge neon signs in 50 different languages and a national announcement before they get it.
If you ask a person for something and that person says no, then you accept that no. Period. The only reason to ask again is if the situation has notably changed - such as when you negotiate for a car, and altered the price, or if you or the person you want to have sex with have notably changed or significant time has passed.

You know what the above thinking results in?
"Hey baby, want to have a good time?"
"No thanks." "Aww, come on *feels her up*"
*Scared of provoking physical violence from the stronger man, the woman does not shove him away*
*takes her fear of getting physically assaulted as a sign that "she wants it". Continues to molest her, up to and including full rape*

There are myriad reasons why a person can't always walk away, shove the other person away, call the police, throw the other person out etc. Such as being at a party, in a public place, with a person you know and normally trust, the person in question being physically stronger than you, not having a phone on you and so on and so forth.
But people like you don't take a simple No for an answer and thus go on to harrass, molest or rape someone who just said no.
It's telling that all your "examples" and "comparisions" are about a weaker party nagging the stronger party, rather than the other way around as it is with men harrassing women until they get sex. Nor do you include factors such as social pressure, which is a HUGE factor due to rape culture and people just like you.

For someone who is apparently into BDSM, you have a remarkably poor grasp of Consent.
Consent is freely given, and not assumed until denied.
That's why, in a BDSM play szene or lifestyle, you consent ahead to actions the other person takes with you. A Dom just walking up to some random person who is Sub and initiating a play without such previous estabishments is wrong and rape - and "but he/she could have used a safeword" is NOT a valid excuse!
Apply the same logic to everyday situations - doing anything without express consent - even just continuing to ask - is wrong, and if it goes beyond just being verbal it is sexual assault (and sexual harrassment previous to that). But you keep saying "well, he/she could have just walked away".

[Serafina]

Or, in more simple terms:

Consent by Coercion is invalid.
Consent is given by saying Yes, not by not lack of a loud-enough No.
Thanks to rape culture, in many cases hard-to-notice factors coerce women against saying No.
Rape Culture demands that a woman defend herself against advances by all means possible and does not accept a simple No.
At the same time, our society sees such means as over-the-top, rude etc.
Thus, Rape Culture leads to women being coerced into "consent"

[Losonti Tokash]

Victim is a needlessly loaded and biasing word for what we are talking about.

Are you trolling?

[Broomstick]

IF you give consent to an action, either through initiation or a failure to prevent or otherwise express your desire not to proceed

You are precisely the audience who needs to be lectured on how not to rape, apparently. If you think it's valid consent if the other person isn't saying no hard enough by your standards then you have something to learn.

If someone doesn't want to have sex with me, and I keep asking, and rather than kicking me out or leaving themselves or hell calling the police they remain there, I would say that their resolve is weak or their mind is looking to be convinced. Until we have telepathy, we have to trust people on their words and actions. Don't want to do something? Don't do it. My, how simple. If you truly do not want to have sex with the person, and nothing is preventing you from leaving the area, WHY ARE YOU STILL THERE?

Well, let's see...

The most recent incident when someone tired to pressure/convince me to have sex was at work. This man first came to me to get his shoes repaired, which I did, because I'm a cobbler. My first tip off something odd was afoot was the over-the-top profusive praise for the repair. He came back the next tell, told me how beautiful/strong I was. Told me he was recently divorced and hey, could I meet him after work? No, I'm married. He assured me he did not view that as an obstacle and gave me his phone number. The next morning he came into the shop yelling at me because I hadn't called him when I had repeatedly told him I was not at all interested.

Now - why did I remain there just "taking that"? Because I was doing my job, and I need a job to support my family. Should his desire to harass me trump my right to earn a living?

Let's look at some hypotheticals that might have played out, how he might have "merely" pressured me to have sex with him, as a customer, without being a manager or boss with authority over me:

1) Threaten to tell my boss I was selling my services as a prostitute if I didn't have sex with him
2) Threaten to tell my husband I had already had sex with him if I didn't have sex with him.
3) Threaten to tell the police I was selling drugs out of the shop if I didn't have sex with him
4) Calling me multiple times a day at work, disrupting my business to the point of threatening my job if I didn't have sex with him.
5) Standing in the doorway of the shop when I went to seek help, thus physically preventing me from leaving the situation (he was easily 30 cm taller than me and thus physical intimidation is not out of reason)

These situations have all happened to either women I have known, or even to myself.

Now, standing there as a strong, capable, stubborn, and mature woman I was able to make it clear to him verbally none of his shit was going to work, firmly enough that he got the message and left. My 18 year old self, however, was less likely to pull that off.

I know it's hard for nice guys to believe, but there ARE men out there that blatant, and that amoral, as to use such tactics then, when the women gives in through fear, claim "she consented and it's not rape". And if confronted on his threats he'll laugh it off and say something like "I was just kidding".

The problem where this falls apart is that many mean really do not understand that virtually EVERY sexual encounter a heterosexual woman has is with someone physically larger and stronger than her, who can easily overpower her, beat her, rape her, or kill her. EVERY sexual encounter is with someone you can not physically overpower. Gestures that mean little to a man - leaning over her (often a consequence of simply being taller), blocking her way with an arm (which, if he's going for "casually leaning against a wall" he might not even be aware of doing in such a way it appear threatening to another), standing too close (he likes, right?), or unrelenting persistence in pursuit can, to many women appear as a threat.

I once had a boyfriend two meters tall. I remember when we were together a time when we met a man who stood head and shoulders above him (VERY tall man!). My boyfriend was completely intimidate, extremely uncomfortable, and felt uneasy even though the Very Tall Man was nothing but a total gentleman and very friendly. Boyfriend commented at how unreasonable his reaction (feeling threatened) was because the other guy was objectively in no way threatening, it was simply because the other guy was so much bigger than him. I pointed out to the boyfriend that our own size disparity was much greater, and that nearly every man I interact with is at least as much taller than me as that VTM was than him, and many (such as himself) even bigger. Boyfriend really thought about that, and it dawned on him why women sometimes acted so skittish around him when he hadn't done more than say hello.

In other words, size matters. Strength matters.

Here's a significant difference in pursuit tactics:

A) Ask a woman out frequently. Do this while standing at arm's length or slightly more. Ask her during social times - between classes at school, passing her on the street, before or after work or, if you work with her, just before lunch or just before end of work.

B) Ask a woman out frequently. Do this while blocking her way with you arm. Do this while stepping directly in front of her so she either has to stop walking or run into you. Ask her during work. Constantly. Call her multiple times during work hours, especially if she's not supposed to get personal calls at work.

So... after a month of tactic A the woman goes out with you. That's a consent situation.

So... after a month of tactic B, with her job on the line if you call her again during work hours, she has sex with you. Do you HONESTLY claim that there was no coercion there? You are threatening her livelihood. Oh! But you were just calling her! Just asking her out! Just being persistent!

No, you asshole, you were, in fact, engaging in intimidation tactics to force someone to have sex with you.

[Broomstick]

Are you aware that a physical threat can be implied by such things as standing between the victim and the doorway or putting your arm around the victim? As you said, they don't have telepathy. They don't know your intentions or what you might do if they try to leave or reject you more forcefully.

^ This.

If a woman believes a man is about to rape her she may decide that cooperating is less likely to result in a violent rape/beating than her continued refusal she is not consenting to sex, she is choosing what she believes is the lesser of two evils.

For an analogy, if someone is confronted by a mugger and decides that meekly handing over their wallet means they are more likely to avoid being stabbed, shot, or beaten are they any less robbed? But they handed over their wallet! No one forced them to grab it and hand it over they did it of their own volition! It's still a damned robbery!

Likewise, if a woman believes that letting a man's penis invade her vagina or other bodily orifice is less likely to result in her winding up in a hospital bed that does not make it non-rape than continued resistance of any sort.

[amigocabal]

Are you aware that a physical threat can be implied by such things as standing between the victim and the doorway or putting your arm around the victim? As you said, they don't have telepathy. They don't know your intentions or what you might do if they try to leave or reject you more forcefully. If someone says no over and over again, possibly for hours, especially if they're visibly uncomfortable, and you keep pushing, you're not just a douchebag, you're probably a rapist.

You are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex.

[Losonti Tokash]

Broomstick, that post was a fantastic illustration of what I was trying to get across. Thanks!

[Serafina]

Of course there are lots of different definitions of sex - everything from "only penetrating a vagina with a penis counts as sex" over "stimulating genitalia" up to "any stimulation with sexual intent".

Anyway - while you are right that "you are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex" - you are definitly a supporter and perpetrator of rape culture if you act that way. And of course you engage in sexual harrassment as well.

[amigocabal]

Or, in more simple terms:

Consent by Coercion is invalid.
Consent is given by saying Yes, not by not lack of a loud-enough No.
Thanks to rape culture, in many cases hard-to-notice factors coerce women against saying No.
Rape Culture demands that a woman defend herself against advances by all means possible and does not accept a simple No.
At the same time, our society sees such means as over-the-top, rude etc.
Thus, Rape Culture leads to women being coerced into "consent"

If we had a rape culture, rape would not be a crime at all, or at most considered to be on the same level as jaywalking.

if we had a rape culture, today there would be a gold statue of Jerry Sandusky in front of Beaver Stadium.

Anyway - while you are right that "you are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex" - you are definitly a supporter and perpetrator of rape culture if you act that way.

Act which way?

Surely for not believing that "you are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex", for "forc[ing] someone to have sex" is the definition of rape.

[Scrib]

Or, in more simple terms:

Consent by Coercion is invalid.
Consent is given by saying Yes, not by not lack of a loud-enough No.
Thanks to rape culture, in many cases hard-to-notice factors coerce women against saying No.
Rape Culture demands that a woman defend herself against advances by all means possible and does not accept a simple No.
At the same time, our society sees such means as over-the-top, rude etc.
Thus, Rape Culture leads to women being coerced into "consent"

If we had a rape culture, rape would not be a crime at all, or at most considered to be on the same level as jaywalking.

if we had a rape culture, today there would be a gold statue of Jerry Sandusky in front of Beaver Stadium.

Anyway - while you are right that "you are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex" - you are definitly a supporter and perpetrator of rape culture if you act that way.

Act which way?

Surely for not believing that "you are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex", for "forc[ing] someone to have sex" is the definition of rape.

It's feminist shorthand for cultures that tacitly allow some types of rape. you would do well to not take the first, literal meaning that pops into your mind.

[Serafina]

Gee, maybe the way you quoted in the post i was referring to?

Are you aware that a physical threat can be implied by such things as standing between the victim and the doorway or putting your arm around the victim? As you said, they don't have telepathy. They don't know your intentions or what you might do if they try to leave or reject you more forcefully. If someone says no over and over again, possibly for hours, especially if they're visibly uncomfortable, and you keep pushing, you're not just a douchebag, you're probably a rapist.

You are not a rapist until you force someone to have sex.

Also - rape culture is a term for a culture that discourages victims of rape to talk about it (such as by heavily scrutinizing them), acts apologetic towards rape-enabling behaviour, puts the burden of protection on the victims, where rapists are only very rarely punished, where rape in marriage was only criminalized a short time ago, where people complain about anti-rape campaigns, where rape is seen as a thing commited by strangers on the street rather than acquaintances of the victim....and so on and so forth.
And all of those are true in western (and many other) cultures.

You could also call a culture where "honor killings" are widespread a "murder culture", or a culture with widespread organized crime a "mafia culture". Neither means that the act itself is not criminal - it just means that the culture is highly enabling and/or encouraging of the act in question.


But hey, be an idiot and argue about some literal meaning that isn't even more accurate.

[amigocabal]

Are you aware that a physical threat can be implied by such things as standing between the victim and the doorway or putting your arm around the victim? As you said, they don't have telepathy. They don't know your intentions or what you might do if they try to leave or reject you more forcefully.

^ This.

If a woman believes a man is about to rape her she may decide that cooperating is less likely to result in a violent rape/beating than her continued refusal she is not consenting to sex, she is choosing what she believes is the lesser of two evils.

For an analogy, if someone is confronted by a mugger and decides that meekly handing over their wallet means they are more likely to avoid being stabbed, shot, or beaten are they any less robbed? But they handed over their wallet! No one forced them to grab it and hand it over they did it of their own volition! It's still a damned robbery!

Likewise, if a woman believes that letting a man's penis invade her vagina or other bodily orifice is less likely to result in her winding up in a hospital bed that does not make it non-rape than continued resistance of any sort.

That would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for rape.

Inherent in criminal law is mens rea. From the articleon Wikipedia.

"The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence).

In the context of rape, it requires an overt act on the part of the rapist with the purpose of forcing sex upon the victim. Thus, if "a woman believes that letting a man's penis invade her vagina or other bodily orifice is less likely to result in her winding up in a hospital bed" due to an overt act by the man with the purpose of forcing sex upon her, it is rape.

where rape is seen as a thing commited by strangers on the street rather than acquaintances of the victim

Good thing the Bible does not do that. See 2 Samuel 13:1-21 Any notion that rape is solely "a thing commited by strangers on the street" is refuted by those verses.

acts apologetic towards rape-enabling behaviour,

What would you call rape enabling behavior?

[Losonti Tokash]

Your bit about mens rea is funny, because while intent is certainly important in criminal law (murder vs manslaughter), you can still be punished for crimes you either didn't mean to commit or had good intentions for. Of course, legalism is a shitty moral argument to begin with (and appears to be your only recourse along with citing the Bible).

[amigocabal]

That would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for rape.

On second thought, in some cases it is not a necessary condition. A girl drugged or drunk to the point of unconsciousness would not "that letting a man's penis invade her vagina or other bodily orifice is less likely to result in her winding up in a hospital bed ", but a male who forces sex on her is still guilty of rape.

Your bit about mens rea is funny, because while intent is certainly important in criminal law (murder vs manslaughter), you can still be punished for crimes you either didn't mean to commit or had good intentions for.

Correct, for some crimes mens rea can include negligence e.g. criminally negligent homicide.

But rape has always required a willful act on the part of the rapist.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If the initiator of sexual acts doesn't realise he or she is coercing the other party, does that make the act any less traumatic for the victim?

We're not trying to just find bad mans (or "nithings" as you would prefer) to shame and throw in jail but to make life better for people who would be the victims. This goes back to why education on rape would be very helpful, because it would make it less likely people would rape without knowing it.

[Serafina]

But rape has always required a willful act on the part of the rapist.

Says who?
Also, even if that were so - that would just be an appeal to tradition "it has always been so, therefore it should remain so, regardless of reason, arguments or evidence."

[The Yosemite Bear]

don't make me provide links to brownmiller, or to the bollywood rape porn, and please no discussion of icch the killer (actually showed up on the asian action flicks suggestions on apple tv while visiting relatives <do not want>) to show what a culterial fetisization of rape looks like. We have enough with old 70s films being remade (last house on the left, I spit on your grave, etc), westerns and other media. I've discussed rapeplay vs. actual rape in terms of vampire fetish in ARSE and SLAM in the past, and I regularly explain to people as a union steward that they are approching the line, and sometimes that they just crossed over it.

[White Haven]

Serious question, Serafina, does that mean it's rape if a woman thinks a man is going to rape her who was not going to rape her? By that logic, someone feeling intimidated (whether from active intimidation by the other party or simply by possession of an intimidating physique) can then retroactively make a sexual encounter a rape despite a lack of intent to rape from the other party. To me, that seems to open up a quite unpleasant can of worms.

[The Yosemite Bear]

like I said don't make me bring Brownmiller into this discussion...

[Col. Crackpot]

But rape has always required a willful act on the part of the rapist.

Says who?

Seriously? Explain to me how an unwilling party can be a rapist.