Because I am the most brilliant legal mind of our generation, I give you this, my latest idea on the eradication of rape through enforcement of male responsibility:
The problem with rape, other than the fact that 95% of it is perpetrated by men, always seems to boil down to this asinine controversy over consent. The issue is grossly encumbered with a futile focus on meaningless, temporary instances of the withdrawal of consent, to wit: “she said yes” or “she said yes and then she said no” or “she said yes and waited until two days later to say no” or “she said yes and has been lying about it ever since.” She said, she said, she said.
Well, what if lack of consent were the default? What if all prospective objects of dudely predation — by whom I mean all women — are a priori considered to have said “no”? What if women, in other words, were seen by the courts to abide in a persistent legal condition of keep-the-fuck-off-me?
A straight girl could still have as much sex as she wants with men, if for some reason she thinks it’s a good idea (naturally I would most vigorously urge self-identified heterosexual women to contemplate the horrific personal and political implications of submitting to male domination in this way. But that’s another post). All she’d have to do is not call the cops. No harm no foul.
But if, at any time during the course of the proceedings, up to and including the storied infinitesimal microsecond preceding the sacred spilling of dudely seed, the woman elects to biff off to the nearest taco stand; and if her egress from the sweaty tableau is in any way impeded by the pronger (such an impediment would include everything from “traditional” brute force, to that insistently whispered declamation “just a couple more minutes, I’m almost there” the dread seriousness of which the fervid oaf dramatizes by that ever-so-slight tightening of his grip on her wrist); or if, in three hours or three days or, perhaps in the case of childhood abuse, in 13 years it begins to dawn on her that she has been badly used by an opportunistic predator, she has simply to make a call.
Presto! The dude is already a rapist, because, legally, consent never existed.
[The kind reader will intellectively supply the Law & Order ‘chung-chung!’ audio here]
This contingency would have the immediate and pleasant result that the engorged dude would be forced to ruminate a bit, prior to gettin’ busy, on the subject of his own integrity. Should he examine the scheme from all sides and ultimately determine that his motives perhaps emanate from baser impulses to dominate or whip off a piece or put a notch on his bedpost or satisfy some other subhuman urge, he would, would he not — knowing that the woman could drop a dime on him at any time should his deportment should fail to live up to her standards of civility — decline the opportunity to become a rapist and go to jail?
I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.
Well, what of it? The set-up now, with the emphasis — in a misogynist world with a misogynist judiciary — on whether or not women “give” consent, is that female participants are all infinitely rapeable, because all some perv has to do is say, “she said yes.”
An excellent idea. I’ve already suggested in in a textbook I wrote for McGraw-Hill, called An Invitation to Feminist Ethics (where I am known as Hilde Lindemann). But I like how you go into sweaty, graphic detail.
Mamasquab, alas it was inevitable that I should unknowingly bite some published author’s steez, but I swear this idea came to me eureka-style this morning in a blinding flash of light.
Naturally I await the onslaught of burly legal dude-minds, poking holes in its flimsy women-are-human argument, until it looks like Swiss cheese. How did you fare?
Well there goes all of your credibility. That was the most ridiculous thing that I’ve read in a long, long time.
That the default position is not already an assumption of “no way, dude” speaks to women’s lack of power.
Zonk, can I be your doctor? I’ve got some interesting human response experiments I’ve always wanted to try, but these damn consent forms and the Belmont Commission and such really get in the way of my baser curiosities.
When I can no longer stand not knowing the acute failure mode for human lung response to sulphuric acid mist, I’ll know who to call? After all, you didn’t have to say yes.
I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.
Hm, so what’s the down side?
Haw, haw, LMYC!
Also: doesn’t the current plan criminalize all female participants in heterosexual sex? Because the woman is assumed guilty from the get-go, right? Don’t wanna fuck? You’re a frigid, lesbian, cock-teasing bitch. Wanna fuck? You’re a slut and a whore. Change your mind midway through for ANY reason? Well, according to the State of Maryland, tfb — once penetration has occurred, you’re his, baby. Report a rape? You’re lying, bitch.
I guess now would be the proper time to acknowledge that Twisty has ruined my life. I no longer care about shaving. I take from my husband the kind of sex I want. I threw out all my high heels. I hate everything.
Good job, Twisty! Count me as one of your successes!
“I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.”
I’m sure that there’s a technological way round this. You know, the Consent-O-Meter-40000, that has some spiffy technological way of letting you draw up a quick contract for sex between you and the dude in question (no loss of spontaneity), some way of verifying that it’s not forced (say you set codewords every morning, so ‘cytoplasm’ would mean that it was all ok, but ‘wombat’ would mean that you were being forced). Consent-O-Meter-40000 would remain switched on throughout intercourse, responding to and recording changes in the consent situation (him: “just a couple more minutes, I’m almost there†her:”WOMBAT!”). Any disablement or tampering with the Consent-O-Meter-40000 would result in an automatic rape charge. Consent-O-Meter-40000 would also be entirely voluntary for women to use, being simply for their convenience (for example, if in possession of a paranoid boyfriend). There are indeed numerous problems with this, and it lacks the beautiful simplicity of the original Twisty-plan.
I hate everything.
Good job, Twisty! Count me as one of your successes!
There, see? Twisty, don’t ever let the patriarchy tell you you can’t be fulfilled in your mission to ruin everything for everybody.
Hattie, please go get a taco.
No no, the woman is never the criminal. Her status remains static and her soveriegnty unquestioned. It is only the dudes who, when infringing on a woman’s personal soveriegnty, take the risk that she will not view the act as assault and invoke the tacitly understood “no” to commend the perp to the rapist pile.
I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.
This statement sounds like something that would come from traditional mysogyny: it embodies both the spurious concepts that women are not capable of consent and/or the “you women always change your minds all the time” mantra.
I think it would be fairer to say that it potentially criminalizes all male participants in hetsex. Other than that, it shifts the burden of proof of consent to be far more in line with our commercial transactions and medical treatment.
In theory it would be a very quick way to dismantle the rape culture. Afterall, if women can no longer be treated as passive sperm recepticles to be taken at will, and rape actually HAS consequences, then it’s definitely not in a man’s best interest to stick it in her.
Yeah, there’d be legal implications and huge holes and problems and issues and stuff, but if we had this for even just a year or two, maybe it would finally knock away that sense of sexual entitlement so many men seem to run around with.
Hilde Lindemann
OMG! The Hilde Lindemann who put forth the awesome argument that forced pregancy is tantamount to specific performance a while back at the blog formerly known as Shakespeare’s Sister? You rock, mama.
Twisty, it hit me while I was reading your legal theory that a claim of consent is not a defense against, say, murder or battery. It shouldn’t be any different for rape. Of course it is, though, because of the historical view of women as property with a freshness seal (reflected in the gross Maryland ruling) and because the patriarchy conflates rape and sex. If they can’t tell the difference, why should they believe that we can?
Apart from rape, is there any crime on the books that’s cancelled out by a claim of consent? I can’t think of one, but I’m no lawyer.
I insert the Law & Order “dun dun” in a lot of things. Glad I’m not the only one. Oh yeah, and the fact that women are generally in a state of NOT wanting sex is really, you know, against dude-centric culture. Don’t we all want it, all the time?
I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.
Not necessarily. Burglary laws don’t criminalize everyone I let into my house, just the ones who enter without my express say-so. Even if you visit every day, if you enter my home without my say-so you’re committing a crime.
Apart from rape, is there any crime on the books that’s cancelled out by a claim of consent?
Of course there are. Consent is what makes the difference between flirtation and harassment, a bear-hug and assault, a seventh-grade chorus recital and torture. Also landscaping and vandalism, watering my houseplants while I’m away and breaking and entering…
I think the better way to put it is “Are there any crimes that, when the perpetrator claims that the victim agreed to it, anyone in their right mind believes them?”
Robbery — “Hey man, he was giving away money left and right, then suddenly he says no to me?”
Breaking and entering — “He left the door open, then he complains because someone stole his TV!”
Car theft — “He TOLD me I could drive it. So what if I took it to Baja and sold it?”
Mugging — “He wanted it, man! He was gagging for it!”
Embezzlement — “The company gave me money every two weeks, then suddenly when I want a little on my own time, they get to refuse? Come on!”
Rape is not the same as “at any time should his deportment should fail to live up to her standards of civility.” Equating them would trivialize rape, among other problems.
Have you heard of being on bad terms with an ex? It happens. And not just because of the patriarchy.
Imagine if this applied to lesbian sex too. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Dude, lesbian sex? What are you talking about?
Absolutely! As a woman, I exist to be used and defiled. If I am foolish enough to protest, and demand justice, it is MY history, name, and choices that are scrutinized, twisted, and dragged through the gutter. The defendent rapist is “innocent until proven guilty.” The prosecution (notice that the victim is transformed into an aggressor) is therefore guilty until proven innocent.
So when I am raped by some sick asshole, I am guilty until proven innocent. The only way to prove this innocence is by closely examining every idealistic, mistaken decision I have ever made under the false assumption of personal sovereignty. My name is ruined, my life exposed, and rapist-turned-victim is issued a public apology by the prosecuting attorney.
Women who believe the lies and come forth are ruined. Women who don’t are silenced because they’re too “smart” to talk.
Did you know that Medusa wasn’t always the Medusa that we think of today? Apparently, she had gorgeous hair (that existed for the pleasure of ancient greek mysogenists). One fuckbag raped her in the temple of some goddess. This governing figure was so enraged at the slut who defiled her temple that she turned her hair into snakes, and
decreed that any man she looked at would be turned to stone.
That story is over 2000 years old, and it still goes on today.
Fuck the asshole who raped me. Fuck the patriarchy.
Hell, is the sarcasm meter broken? If so, go back and read my other post through sarcasm-colored X-Ray Specs. (”Is that really your friend’s body you ’see’ under his clothes?”)
Take the sarcasm specs off now: I am glad, nay, thrilled, that Twisty has ruined my life.
“I think the better way to put it is “Are there any crimes that, when the perpetrator claims that the victim agreed to it, anyone in their right mind believes them?â€
Robbery — “Hey man, he was giving away money left and right, then suddenly he says no to me?â€
Breaking and entering — “He left the door open, then he complains because someone stole his TV!â€
Car theft — “He TOLD me I could drive it. So what if I took it to Baja and sold it?â€
Mugging — “He wanted it, man! He was gagging for it!â€
Embezzlement — “The company gave me money every two weeks, then suddenly when I want a little on my own time, they get to refuse? Come on!—
This is an excellent summary.
“Fuck the asshole who raped me. Fuck the patriarchy.”
I seriously don’t want to be insensitive but were you raped or are you still talking about the story? I am confused. Also the story is appalling.
BTW, I didn’t mean the “current plan” as in the “Twisty alternative current plan.” I meant the written-in-stone current patriarchal plan, wherein the woman is always the criminal.
Dude, thank Jebus you’re here! You certainly have taken me down a notch. And boy, you sure learned us all a good lesson about trivializing rape, yessiree.
But seriously, a woman “being on bad terms with an ex” is such a tired excuse for slut-shaming.
I read it again and I apologise, it’s quite clear from the post.
As a dude, I think this is a brilliant idea. Though I still don’t know how to italicize text, this part:
“I grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex.”
Is exactly why I think it’s brilliant. If you aren’t sure enough that what you’re doing *isn’t* rape, and you don’t trust your sex partner enough to retroactively *charge* you with rape, then you shouldn’t be having sex with them in the first place. I think conservatives and “liberals” could all get behind this because it would cut down on casual sex, STD’s, unplanned pregnancies, and… oh yeah… rape.
Dude: RE: Ex-girlfriends “getting back” at their ex-bf’s by charging them with rape:
A) I think that only we men can trivialize rape sufficiently to throw it about so carelessly. I think by-and-large women know that rape charges aren’t something you throw around to get back at someone.
B) Even if we assume that there are in fact cases where diabolical bitches are maniacally plotting their ex’s downfalls with totally fabricated rape charges, we still have to ask the question, who is responsible for the patriarchal social structure and totally fucked up relationship that got that couple into that situation. At the least, why the hell did you date, let alone have sex with this person? Did you not see the potential for her manipulative plotting?
C) If this law were the case, it would encourage men to *think* about who they have sex with, why they’re doing it, and how women feel about it.
D) That raging injustice you feel about this hypothetical situation? That’s how women feel about the real situation. And given the fact that we’re the one’s with massive institutions of oppression behind us, maybe we can afford to give up a little of that privileged security they don’t have.
If you aren’t sure enough that what you’re doing *isn’t* rape, and you don’t trust your sex partner enough to retroactively *charge* you with rape, then you shouldn’t be having sex with them in the first place.
*throws rose petals at CA?*
Zonk: ‘Well there goes all of your credibility.”
NOOO! Not my credibility! It was all I had goin’ for me, too.
This is sensible, it just takes the “no actual statement of ‘yes’ =’no’” to its logical conclusion. Hell, we as a society basically assume that all men are pretty much almost always willing, right? (E.g. “you can’t rape the willing”)
I saw one commenter object with the hypothetical of “well, what if we break up and she gets mad at me and then accuses me of rape when I didn’t actually commit rape.” I’m pretty confident that would not end up going as far as one might fear. And even if it did, so be it. Machiavelli, another old, dead, white guy, said that even if someone is wrongly punished under the laws of a state, such things are inevitable and acceptable for the proper functioning of a legal system. This is an adjustment our system could use that would create a lot more justice with very little more(if any) innocent hurt.
See, this idea give dudes ants in their pants, because they’re all like “what about the vindictive ex-girlfriend seeking revenge?”
Well, asshole, if you didn’t treat her like a piece of crap during the breakup, maybe she’ll let you alone. And if you think a woman is so “crazy” that she might drop a dime on your ass just to be mean, here’s an idea: don’t do her!
All this does is propose that there ought to be consequences for being a rapist perv, and that the arbiters of your assholiness are now your former fucksleeves instead of your fellow good ole boys. It’s exactly the situation we have now, except the potential victims have the power instead of the perpetrators. It’s been that way for millennia. Isn’t it our turn yet?
I don’t really feel raging injustice about the hypothetical situation. The original post was just a terrible idea, and I think it’s worth pointing that out, rather than cheering for it.
Let’s take the analogy with theft. Let’s say that my credit card is billed for something I bought and I later change my mind, I should not be able to bring criminal charges against the store. Letting me do so would mean that stores would stop selling things, and we’d all lose. Even in response to customers sometimes being cheated, such a law would be insane.
Similarly for tarring all heterosexual sex as criminal if one party later says so.
And kay, I understand in the real world rape charges *aren’t* brought by bitter ex’s, and on the contrary rapes by lovers and ex-lovers are underreported. And that justice would dictate it be easier for them to bring rape charges and to obtain convictions. But it’s still naive to think that—if they could—people wouldn’t abuse the power to freely jail anyone they’ve ever slept with in the past. The point of my argument has nothing to do with gender. If consent wasn’t a defense when men charged other men with raping them, it would be a similarly terrible idea. No person, male or female, should have to depend on their exs’ good will to stay out of jail, unless some real crime was committed. “Failing to live up to [an ex-lover’s] standard of civility at any time” is not a real crime, and unfortunate as it is, does not warrant jail time.
There are possibilities other than status quo injustice and absurd revenge fantasies.
Dude: So, it doesn’t happen in the real world, but because it might happen in a hypothetical situation the law wouldn’t work?
Twisty, you know I love you and read you every day. I agree with everything you say. I agree with the theoretical idea behind this post, and I think LMYC summed it up nicely in comparing consent for rape with consent for mugging, or any other violent crime. It would be ridiculous to believe that anyone could agree to it.
However, as self-identified radical feminist, I have a tiny problem with your argument that women cannot give consent. This equates women with children, which is something patriarchy espouses and which YOU most certainly do not. Young children can never give consent to having sex with much older adults, because it is assumed that they do not have the mental capacity or understanding of what they are doing. Therefore, any situation in which a child has sex with an adult is rape, whenever it happens to be reported.
I believe an adult woman can give consent to sex for her own pleasure, so I cannot stand behind the idea that every woman who engages in heterosexual sex is unable to consent, even if she wanted to. As a lesbian, criminalizing hetero-sex the way gay sex has been criminalized amuses me to no end. However, as a feminist, I cannot condone grouping “women and children” together in the typical fashion, as it merely furthers the argument that women cannot make up their own minds, and that only men can be responsible for choosing their own sex partners.
Yes, something needs to be done about rape, but removing women’s right to say no or yes, and forcing them to take a default no on the basis that they do not have the power to choose heterosexual sex on their own, for their own pleasure, without it being rape, reminds me a lot of certain Middle Eastern countries where women’s legal status is identically equivalent to that of children.
Did I misunderstand something you said, Twisty? I have full faith in you, and do not believe you would argue anything without the betterment of all women in mind. :)
Let’s think about this.
The idea that ‘negative permission’ is the default pretty much follows the tenets of common law as it is practiced. If someone takes some property of mine, the law assumes that the burgler didn’t have my permission to take said burgled property, unless I speak up and say otherwise. This is a basic assumption in virutally all corners of criminal and civil law.
In the case of sexual assault/rape cases, however, there always seems to be some questioning of permission–who said ‘yes’? who said ‘no’? when was it all said?
WTF?
A) I think it’s irresponsible to think that all *almost all* women are so pure of heart that they are incapable of abusing easily abusable laws. If you give people easily abusable power, they will abuse it.
B) “who is responsible for the patriarchal social structure and totally fucked up relationship that got that couple into that situation. At the least, why the hell did you date, let alone have sex with this person? Did you not see the potential for her manipulative plotting?”
Who is responsible for the patriarchy? It’s certainly not the sole responsibility of the poor schmuck who is spending 15 years in jail for false charges.
And the second half of that paragraph sounds exactly like victim blaming, which seems to be the first thing that some people start to say when the victims are the males (people around here, I mean.)
C)Sure, the same way I would think about putting my head in a lions mouth and how the lion felt about it.
D)”maybe we can afford to give up a little of that privileged security they don’t have.”
A little? By a little you mean “having sex with a woman is license for her to send you to jail at any point she chooses for the rest of her life?”
I’m sorry. That’s really not something that anyone, much less and entire gender should have to do in the name of equality.
Let’s take the analogy with theft. Let’s say that my credit card is billed for something I bought and I later change my mind, I should not be able to bring criminal charges against the store.
If your credit card is charged, and you say you didn’t buy anything, should the store be able to say in its defense, “yea, but you asked us to bill your credit card?” Shouldn’t the default assumption be that you *didn’t* want your credit card billed, not that you’re just a lying ex-customer out for revenge?
Nevermind. BubbasNightmare said it better than I did.
See, dudewhohasread(butclearlynotgraspedthegistof)thefaq demonstrates the extent to which a paradigm of male entitlement has permeated his worldview through his paternalistic attempt to stop the naive little feminists from “cheering” an “absurd” thought experiment that casts women as legally entitled to their own bodily sovereignty.
Man, these lectures from realistic dudes! What would we do without’em?
Well, at the risk of getting bonked on the head by someone smarter than me, ‘conflating rape with sex’ happens because sex is the only one of these (which one of these is not like the others) in which the ‘victim’ sometimes appears to willingly participate.
I mean correct me if I’m missing something here, but is mugging a mutually chosen recreational activity?? Or murder?? “Oh, murder me now, sweetie, I just love it when you strangle me that way!” (Ach, shades of twisted BDSM perversion - yes, that’s what I said, perversion, slam me if you like, it’s what I feel.)
And that paragraph right there explains it, in that I can’t even talk about the violent stuff without it getting weird. I mean, even in this here radical blogspace there are women who claim BDSM is ok. So if there are women, possibility a majority of us, who don’t say “no” loudly and clearly every single time some yay-hoo (how the heck d’you spell that?) crosses our own personal boundaries, how are they supposed to know?
Really, truly, how are they supposed to know the difference? I’m asking a genuine, honest question here, as a woman who’s actually pretty damn good at ‘no’, but still struggles with being single and het and who (gasp)likes sex (though I admit I’m beginning to consider the notion of celibacy for a while). And sometimes I let my guard down because it’s just so friggin’ exhausting to constantly patrol the perimeter.
Ducking head and putting on flak jacket.
Repenting, the idea is not that a woman can’t give consent, it’s that the whole concept of consent doesn’t apply to her in the first place. She exists as an inviolable entity, a human being with full agency, on set-it-and-forget-it mode — you know, the way men are now. All this does is put the onus on the dude to not be a barbarian. He can certainly avoid jail by not having sex at all, and significantly reduce his risk by ceasing to rape, prod, cajole, shame, or nag.
I think that zonk and dude are wearing straw colored glasses.
Kidnapping is perhaps similar, in that there is often a question of consent, unless the victim is dead or severly battered. When I was a young sprout, rape was not considered possible(by dudes) unless the victim was beaten into unconsciousness or killed. I don’t think the dudely attitude has changed much since then. If you are not kicking, screaming, and biting, you’re practically consenting.
The presumption of no as the default position would be one tiny step toward teaching young men how to behave like decent human beings.
Shira, the correct analogy would be say that I did buy something, but later decided the store had done something else I didn’t like.
Well, asshole, if you didn’t treat her like a piece of crap during the breakup, maybe she’ll let you alone. And if you think a woman is so “crazy†that she might drop a dime on your ass just to be mean, here’s an idea: don’t do her!
Ex’s of both genders can be bitter even when no one treats anyone like a piece of crap. And people can treat each other like pieces of crap without deserving jail time.
Here’s another feminist idea. How about all women get guns for free and can legally shoot any man they’ve ever had sex with at any point in the past? Sure, most wouldn’t abuse the privilege. And it would redress injustice. And if you don’t want her to later shoot you, you can just keep it in your pants, right?
What upsets me about these ideas is not the “ants in my pants” (I personally haven’t burned too many bridges), but the way our common humanity gets forgotten. Prison is horrible, and even when people like murderers and rapists get sent there it should be at least a little bit tragic. What upsets me is the way people here talk with glee about the threat of prison falling on the heads of all hetero men. My point isn’t that your idea is unrealistic, it’s that your idea is hateful in its broad accusations of rape. It’s an ugly thing to watch, even if it’s in response to genuine injustice, and even if I don’t feel personally threatened.
Also, Repenting is right. Your idea would hurt heterosexual women, just like my credit card analogue would hurt buyers.
It’s certainly not the sole responsibility of the poor schmuck who is spending 15 years in jail for false charges.
Pffft when does anyone do 15 years for sexual assault?
“If your credit card is charged, and you say you didn’t buy anything, should the store be able to say in its defense, “yea, but you asked us to bill your credit card?†Shouldn’t the default assumption be that you *didn’t* want your credit card billed, not that you’re just a lying ex-customer out for revenge? ”
Sure, that’s why stores require credit card receipts, signed by the holder.
“oh no baby, we can’t have sex tonight, i’m out of requisition forms and we dont even have a pen so that you can sign a pre-sex consent form, a statement of intent and then a post sex declaration of enjoyment.
See, now I always thought that this is kinda how it should be. As I’ve said on other posts, I was “I knew the guy” raped umpteen years ago. I walked into his room. I was forceably prevented from walking out by his body and namely his penis. It seems like this is so damned simple. A woman should be able to get up and leave at any moment.
Anyway, here is what I am getting at, though. A few years back my apartment was robbed. My roommate accidentally left our patio door wide open one night and someone just walked right in and took our stuff. Now, certainly it was unwise that my roommate left the door wide open. And she felt like she really made a blunder there. But no one said, “You weren’t really robbed! You were asking for some stranger to come in and take your stuff without permission. You left your door wide open!” No one said that.
Compare that to the reactions I get from my little typical “I knew the guy” rape story. Well, you went home with him, you went into his house, you kissed him, etc. He probably didn’t understand that you didn’t want sex. You were sending mixed signals. But I never said in any manner, Yes, you can have sex with me. In fact, I said, no you cannot have sex with me but that was overruled by the fact that I opted to stay in his room rather than walk my sorry ass home in the dark at night.
So, it is assummed that even if you make it easy for someone, they are not allowed to come into your home and take your stuff without permission. But it is not assummed, even if you make it easy for someone, that they can enter your body without permission. What if it were?
Gee, how the hell hard could that be to figure out?
Don’t answer that.
Dude: so I shouldn’t wish men who rape to accept responsibility for rape because “prisons are horrible”? Come on. Is that the best you got?
“Pffft when does anyone do 15 years for sexual assault?”
Sorry, is 10 an acceptable amount of time to send someone to jail who did nothing wrong?
There’s really no difference between the hypothetical and the legal system as currently constructed: if someone brings a rape complaint, it’s assumed that there was a lack of consent, which is usually enough, barring absolutely dispostive DNA evidence, to secure an indictment, which doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, I’ve seen a whole lot of unreasonable doubts in jury verdicts that acquit rapists, informed by a whole range of fucked-up ideas that most of the commenters are listing.
I like it! As far as fairness to men goes - I think I have the perfect solution. We’ll try it the new Twisty way for the next 5000 years, (just to even things out) and then, if it turns out there are a lot of problems with women abusing their power, we’ll try to come up with a compromise position that makes sense.
dude who HAS, what the hell? Is sex merely a commercial ‘transaction’ to you, like buying and selling a car??? Are you capable of getting that sex is much more than that, a level of physical and emotional intimacy that is not your godbag-given birthright?
Feelings. Emotions. These are not things we can buy and sell, and are things that always happen in intimate phyical encounters. It’s how humans are made, because we’re wired for intimate social connection. The fact that you’ve been socialized/brainwashed into splitting off from all that is most human about you doesn’t give you license to treat the rest of us like unwanted merchandise.
The thing that will do the most to prevent the bitterness of an ex is to, as somebody upthread said, never ever sleep with anybody if you are in any doubt whatsoever as to your own personal motives, her motives, and the fact that she is an actual human, with feelings, needs, wants, desires, etc. that are just as real and valid as your own.
An idea that effectively criminalizes rape, puts an end to the “he said/she said” rape defense, neatly bysteps blaming the victim, and places responsibility on the rapist to not be a rapist makes Dude and Zonk quake in their boots?
Makes me love it even more.
Thank you, Twisty.
You’re talking about more than rape. You said that if a man and woman have sex then the woman can at any point in the future, and for whatever reason, get the man convicted of rape. That would encompass situations that shouldn’t be called rape. I’m sure you can easily imagine them.
Maybe there should be some additional negative consequences for dudes whose ex-gf’s dislike them. If so, prison shouldn’t be one of them (unless of course they really have done something like rape).
The best I’ve got is that non-rapists shouldn’t go to prison.
Looky at how the scaredy dudes imagine that the Twisty Sovereign Vagina Law is vengeful, rather than just, in spirit. It’s the same old thing whenever anyone proposes that raping women should be made a bit more inconvenient. The hairy lesbians want to imprison all the innocent men! In those horrible prisons! And their horrible hairy ideas are hurting women!
One more time: this law would change nothing for dudes who don’t go around raping women. Their lives would remain exactly the same. Get it?
“what about the vindictive ex-girlfriend seeking revenge?â€
Ah, the old fears of a slave revolt.
Boy, the dudes are out in full force today, protecting the rapedom.
Sorry, guys, to tell you something you haven’t heard approximately one billion times already, but “You don’t get it.”
Our entire legal system is set up so that people who might not have committed the crime get punished anyway. Does this fill me with glee? Hell, no. Is it a fact? Hell, yes.
Your misogyny is showing like a half-slip under a silk dress. (Like that one, fellow blamers?) Twisty is positing that we change the idea of rape to mean “Unless the woman specifically says, ‘Oh please, let’s fuck,’ it’s rape” instead of the current “Well, she wasn’t strong enough in her denial of my advances, so I went ahead.” You are immediately assuming that this will give all vindictive women everywhere license to accuse men they went out with three years ago with rape. Guess what? Vindicitive women everywhere are CURRENTLY free to so accuse their exes.
I guess you’re right, though. Better avoid the remote possibility of crazy, vindictive women accusing exes of rape than the current reality of women getting raped, not being believed, and being assaulted all over again by our “justice” system.
Furthermore, may I be so bold as to suggest that being part of the gender that does 95% of the raping, you may not know that rape is not always so cut-and-dried as you decent men may think it is. I once had a guy shove my head down onto his raging hard cock, choking the shit out of me until he came in my mouth. Up to that point, I liked him and we were “fooling around,” as they say. I enjoyed the sexual feelings I was having. I (thought) I liked him and was even thinking maybe we’d start a relationship.
So was that rape, or not?
Need I tell you that at 19, I was too ashamed and embarrassed to even tell someone what had happened, because the answer would be: what did I expect? I was making out with him and we were behaving sexually, right?
When in that scenario did I get to say, “No”?
And that, my dear men afraid of being falsely accused of rape by an ex with full agency and the weight of the law behind her, was MILD compared to 99% of the stories you could read from other blamers here.
And it’s just ONE of the examples in my “sexual” quiver.
They way dude tries to squirm around the idea that nothing said means no even if it hasn’t been explicitly stated would be cute to watch if I it didn’t make me want to run my head into the wall, repeatedly.
No one here really wants inocent people to go to jail. We just have a different definition of inocent.In the sex/rape scenario currently being discussed: An inocent person is someone that made love WITH someone while considering the emotional well-being of all concerned. Like: Do I feel good? Does my partner like this? hey I’ll just ask! Do you feel good? What do you want? What do I want? Hmm this is good.
It’s not really all that hard, women do it all the time (not just sex). It is part of what it means to treat other people with respect. And if you give other people respect, then you get it back.
anyway there would still be courts that would have to rule.
But maybe with solely women as judges *maniaclaugh*
Shira, the correct analogy would be say that I did buy something, but later decided the store had done something else I didn’t like.
No, because we’re talking about the act of the company charging your credit card, and whether we should assume that you didn’t want your credit card charged if you say you didn’t. Your analogy is only “the correct analogy” if you want to privilege the company’s version of events over the customer’s.
I had a company do this very thing to me just last year - somehow got my credit card information and started charging me $30/month. They swore up and down that I had signed up for their service, that I had received their membership card and everything! I’ll give you one guess as to who won that debate.
I mean correct me if I’m missing something here, but is mugging a mutually chosen recreational activity??
People willingly give money to each other all the time, and yet people do not conflate mugging and gift-giving. The person who decides whether it was a mugging is the muggee, not the mugger.
Actually, when someone broke into my brother’s apartment and ripped off his stuff, the onus to prove a robbery had taken place was on him.
Well hell, Frumious, then let’s just shitcan the whole concept of “not saying yes means no” Damn. Your poor brother. That changes everything for me.
The person who decides whether it was a mugging is the muggee, not the mugger.
Yeah, but what about that panhandling bum of a brother who’s borrowed money from you for the last time, dammit, but when he whines pathetically, you give in?
These analogies are only so useful if we leave out the difference between material transactions and exchanges of emotional intimacy.
Can anybody tell me why discussing emotions (and all such softer, weaker, illogical things) seems to be verboten on this blog? Can I blame the P?
tinfoil hattie’s example sure sounds like rape. Or if not, then sexual assault. Either way, I really want to emphasize that what her ex did to her should be unacceptable and he should have to answer for what he did. I in no way want to excuse or protect behavior like that, and even something as horrible as prison might be justified for him, although tinfoil hattie would know better than me on this point.
I know a woman who was raped by an ex-b/f, and didn’t bring charges. It was a horrible situation and, despite my gender, I was not totally oblivious to what she went through. Obviously it would have been better if the law made it easier for her to get justice.
But this isn’t what Twisty said.
In fact, she emphasized that women could not legally give consent, and that sex is automatically rape, with men protected only by women not choosing to press charges.
Look, it might be reasonable to require signed consent forms before sex, and even then to have strong protection against fraud, or coerced signatures, and the like.
But that isn’t what Twisty said!
Had she said something sane, I wouldn’t be here complaining.
Well, as another dude whose opinion no one asked for, I have to admit, my first reaction to Twisty’s proposal was, if not outrage, deep skepticism and dubiousness. All the same arguments these other guys are making went through my head, including the vindictive ex-GF scenario (even though I’m pretty sure none of my exes dislike me so much they’d pull something like that even if they had the power) and the fact that on the face of it, it seems to violate the “presumption of innocence” that is supposedly embedded in the American legal system.
Then I thought about it a little more. A lot of Twisty’s posts require considerable mental mastication, at least for me.
I’m still not entirely convinced this would be a good idea (yes, I realize it’s wildly hypothetical anyway), but what struck me was that the current state of affairs is horribly unbalanced in the other direction. The default is that lots and lots of women get raped, very few rapists are punished, and anything that isn’t blatantly and obviously Rape with a capital-R, like hold-her-down-and-beat-her-and-rip-her-clothes-off, is not even regarded as rape by most men.
So adopting Twisty’s proposal would mean a lot less of that, and yeah, probably a few instances of innocent guys being jailed by vindictive ex-girlfriends.
That’s what has most guys going “OMGThat’stotallyunfair!!!!!” ‘Cause they see the potential injustice to them, and not the overwhelming injustice in the current situation, which affects women.
So I have to ask myself, would I be willing to take the risk that someday I’ll have consensual sex with a woman who turns out to be a nutcase and charges me with rape, if taking on that risk means massively fewer women will be raped? Especially given that once the new system kicks in (in Twisty’s hypothetical post-patriarchal fantasy world), all men would start being a helluva lot more careful about who they have sex with in the first place?
Yeah, I think the logic is starting to wear down my natural dudely defensiveness.
Oops, left off italics (quote) on
The person who decides whether it was a mugging is the muggee, not the mugger.
Frumious B, that was quite the laugh you just gave me!!!
When I was much younger, someone broke into my apartment building and stole my clothes out the dryer. Despite zero evidence that it had happened and no possible way of finding out who had committed the crime, the police never suggested that perhaps I had never really had those missing pants in the first place, or that maybe I had willingly given them away.
They took a report (which only happens 75% of the time when women report a rape) and assured me that they would keep the description of my clothes on file in case they turned up, and asked if they could contact me to provide additional evidence if laundry room robbery became a pattern in our area and they eventually caught someone.
Apparently you cannot even begin to imagine the contrast.
Thanks for addressing my concerns, Twisty. Throwing in my two cents against dude, The Man, and all their ilk:
Going with the premise that consent can’t exist and that men and women are both responsible for their own bodies is a brilliant redefinition of the law. Therefore, if one person violates another’s body, it is impossible for the victim to be persecuted for the crime, as is so often the case. It is the idea that someone could consent to a crime that is ridiculous. If a person were to bring a case to court regarding the possible theft or violation of their property, no court would bother to excessively question whether that person were trying to frame the accused.
The idiotic idea that every rape victim must go through some sort of screening process because of the theoretical idea that they could “consent” to the crime and might possibly be using the accused for money is callous and insensitive. Every person in court should be held up to the same scrutiny, and it seems completely innefective to justice (as statistics prove in the sadly small amount of rape cases that end in conviction of the rapist) to force victims of sexual violence to go through some sort of special screening process to ensure that they did not WANT the crime to occur.
Thank you again for inspiring me to think about this matter harder, Twisty. This discussion has inspired me to write the final paper for my college course on sexual violence about how the idea of “consent to rape” needs to be abolished.
So I have to ask myself, would I be willing to take the risk that someday I’ll have consensual sex with a woman who turns out to be a nutcase and charges me with rape,
What are you doing sleeping with somebody you don’t know well enough to know if she’s a ‘nutcase’? Hint: If she goes from ‘rational’ to being a ‘nutcase’, she probably, being brainwashed by patriarchy like the rest of us, unknowingly allowed you to violate her emotional boundaries by having sex too soon, hoping that you might turn out to love her and stick around.
Argh, round and round in circles. I also sense that women on this blog don’t want to talk about the fact that sex really is different for women than for men. There are even studies lately that support a physiological reason for that, something called oxytocin, a ‘bonding’ hormone released during sex, produced in copious quantities in women and significantly damped in men by testosterone. Better find a link to back this up, off to google I go.
What the dudes don’t seem to appreciate, is that women could make rape accusation now, today, the way things currently are. The new rules would not in any way affect the number of men who are falsely charged. It would affect the number of rapists who are not charged.
There is a myth, deeply ingrained in our culture, about false rape charges. The facts are that many women are raped, few men are charged, and even fewer are incarcerated for their crime.
It just might happen that if women were believed when they reported a rape, there would be fewer rapists on the street.
The dudely fear seems to be that if women were believed when they reported a rape, the dudes would have to stop pretending that they are just playing around when they hold their gf down and penetrate her against her will.
I think the better way to put it is “Are there any crimes that, when the perpetrator claims that the victim agreed to it, anyone in their right mind believes them?â€
Thanks, LMYC, for running my less-than-coherent question through your filter. That is what I meant, and your illustrations are perfect.
“sex really is different for women than for men”
Well, you’ll certainly get no argument from me on this point. Although whether this is due to culture-of-domination indoctrination or “oxytocin” remains a mystery. All I can tell you is, the day I figured this out was the day I waved a final sayonara to the het life.
Curiouser, you are almost right in my area of professional expertise with that last paragraph!! First off, I want to say I’ve agreed with almost every thing you’ve said today right up to that last paragraph. I think I may see where you’re going with your oxytocin study, so I’ll offer a preemptive debunk about causality and brain chemistry. My apologies in advance if I’m off on a tangent about something you already agree with.
Brain chemistry research is an emerging area of study. At this moment in time it is correlational rather than causal. Right now, assuming that we take those studies at face value - which I will for the purposes of this discussion, we see a correlation between sex and this bonding hormone for women but not for men. What we don’t know, although some people (not you necessarily, or the researchers - usually the media and other armchair neuroscientists) like to pretend we do, is whether this correlation is somehow innate, or whether its socially determined.
When neuroscience was in its infancy, most people assumed that anything in the brain was innate. More and more it looks like there is an elaborate system of reciprocal causation between brain chemistry and environment. So far, reciprocal causation is almost always a better model than straight environment or straight brain chemistry.
In this case, what I’m suggesting is that no one really knows the extent to which that observed gender difference in brain chemistry is a result of innate biological differences, or of differential socialization, or most likely both.
I hope this was vaguely interesting and informative for someone besides me.
What are you doing sleeping with somebody you don’t know well enough to know if she’s a ‘nutcase’?
As much as we’d like to believe that everyone should have sex only with someone they know and trust deeply and intimately, the reality is that men and women both tend to make foolish and irresponsible decisions when it comes to sex. Currently, the price for that (no matter which party was the foolish/irresponsible one) is largely borne by women. In Twisty’s paradigm, it would be shifted more to the male side. Even with the dreaded threat of “She could decide she’s mad at me years later and charge me with rape!” hanging over every man, I doubt it would completely eliminate sexual irresponsibility on the part of males, but it would sure reduce it.
Dude and Zonk bring up an interesting point, but not the way I think they tihnk. Under this law a bunch of guys who are otherwise privileged enough to never see the inside of a prison would have the “opportunity” to do so. How long do you think before radical prison reform exploded into *the* major political debate of the day? I mean, I bet we’d see a total overthrow of the prison-industrial complex in a single election cycle, what with rich white guys scrambling to get their sons out of the clink.
Well, Twisty may be trying to convert all us hets to her lesbian “lifestyle,” but I’m sure she won’t be personally offended to hear a bunch of polite “no thank yous.” And if she is, c’est la vie.
I don’t agree that women can never consent to sex with men, but that’s because I like having sex with men. Or I used to. Now I like having sex with “man,” my husband. If I didn’t like it with him, or with men in general, I’d opt for the Twisty way.
To me, if I come repeatedly and hard, and on my timetable, that works. Sorry for the TMI.
Also, maybe my oxytocin goes through the roof whenver I have sex, but I figure after centuries with the same man, I’ve had plenty of time to bond emotionally with him, so now I just want the physical parts of sex. Emotions, closeness, yeah-yeah. We’ll do that over breakfast, or on the interminable drive to my in-laws’.
I’m noticing a trend in the rape-apologist arguments. The dudes in question don’t want to allow women sovereignty over their own bodies because more rapists (who rape women) might go to prison. Prison is horrible, don’t you know. A man could get raped.Much better to let men rape women with impunity, Q.E.D.
IBTP.
“Twisty may be trying to convert all us hets to her lesbian “lifestyle,”
Ha! I can see it now: “Domineering radical Twisty Faster forces straight girls to adopt hairy lesbian ways.”
The way I see it there’s no actual “conversion” because heterosexuality is a construct of patriarchy. I think of it more as “liberation.”
Chacun à son goût, of course. For which gout there is no accounting!
the day I figured this out was the day I waved a final sayonara to the het life
Guessing I’m still looking for an escape hatch. Maybe after I’ve been blaming for a few more years (under Twisty tutelage) I might finally really ‘get’ it at a level that leads me to making life/relationship choices that work for me. Right now it’s still a hair-shirty (meaning constantly uncomfortable, not self-flagellating) sort of struggle.
brklyngrl, thanks for the comments - jury’s still out for me on oxytocin. I think I understand about the chicken/egg causal/correlational thing. I guess finding those articles simultaneously made me hopeful that, yay, here’s ‘proof’ that something I feel to be true in my bones is TWUE! Yay me! But on the other hand it chaps my fanny that my (and many other women’s) anecdotal evidence does not in fact = data. We have to ‘prove’ our truth in male/patriarchal/scientific/logical terms (forgive me, that was a broad sweeping unfair thing to say to a scientist, but it seems that if we made two lists comparing ‘female’ and ‘male’ and free-associated word pairs to their corresponding columns, that’s how things’d split out in our patriarchal universe. And that was a muddly thought.)
Still looking for something online to support where I was going with the oxytocin thing. Something maybe more credible than Wiki or a ‘lifestyle’ site with cherry-picked ‘data’.
She’s just treating consent to sex like a deadman’s switch, to use a mechanical metaphor. A deadman’s switch, for the groundlings, is a switch that you must squeeze in order to STOP something from happening. The default is for you to press it, and when you stop pressing, Event A takes place.
Basically, a hand grenade with the pin pulled is an explosive with a deadman’s switch. You must exert effort on the thing to keep it TURNED OFF.
In the same way, the default state for female consent would be legally defined as OFF. Consent, unless explicitly and enthusiastically given, would be assumed to NOT EXIST. In absolutely all cases.
In other words — and I take great glee in saying this — ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS UNLESS OTHERWISE DEFINED AS SUCH BY THEIR FEMALE SEX PARTNERS. (Applying this to gay or lesbian sex is a whole ‘nother ball of wax of a different colored kettle o’fish, and quite an interesting one.)
Essentially, if the woman doesn’t say, “Yes! By jim, I’d LOVE to have sex with you! I feel fabulous about this decision!” then IT’S RAPE. No “Well, she didn’t claw my eyes out,” none of this “She was drunk and didn’t/wasn’t able to say NO clearly enough,” and especially none of the, “She gave a grudging and unenthusiastic assent after relentless pestering that will allow me to git some offa her in the fine print.”
Right now, consent in the eyes of men and the law is signalled by a woman’s ceasing to say no. Under Twisty Law, consent is signalled one way only: by the enthusiastic hollering of the word YES! in neon purple lights with fireworks.
Apparently, this is threatening to grotesque womanhating males who can’t possible imagine a woman wanting sex with them so happily and joyously. So threatening in fact that, if required to measure up to that standard, they would find themselves condemned to a life of unrelenting celibacy. (Now, where’d I leave that teeny-weeny violin of mine?) They can’t possibly imagine a woman doing anything but mumbling assent to get him the hell off her back, or mumbling and drooling after he slipped a roofie on her, or any other variety of “consent” currently accepted in the eyes of Man, God,[tm], and The Law.
Let’s face it. When nature makes a surplus, that means that 90% of what’s there is worthless shit. 90% of men have no BUSINESS reproducing. And it’s female choice that’s the gatekeeper. If you, buddy, can’t get a single woman to literally hop up and down in joy, clap her hands, and do the endzone dance at the prospect of fucking you, you shouldn’t be fucking.
Argh, need to use the preview feature more. Left off quotes again on “the day I figured this out” etc., also “Guessing I’m still looking” should read, “Guess I’m still looking”.
Um, I’m a “nutcase” and I’d like to think that I’d never unjustly accuse anyone, even an assholish ex-boyfriend, of rape. Vindictive mean-spiritedness doesn’t mean a person is mentally ill. Thanks.
Please note that I’m not saying ALL SEX IS RAPE. What I am saying is all sex where you can’t get that woman to clap her hands to her mouth in delight and salivate at the prospect of fucking you IS RAPE.
Are you, Mr. I’m A Feminist But, the kind of man who can get a woman that happy at the idea of fucking you?
If not, then why are you trying to fuck her at all?
Are you so pathetic and stinky and so much of a loser that you can’t get her to want you?
If she “has hangups” and “has psycholgical problems, man” then why the fuck don’t you leave her hung-up ass the hell alone?
The ONLY thing that this little Twistified Code of Law would mean is, if you can’t get or find a woman who would be completely thrilled at the idea of fucking you, you ain’t gonna get laid.
AND WHAT MAY I ASK IS GODDAMNED WRONG WITH THIS YOU SHITSUCKING ASSHOLE?
While my heart eternally belongs to Twisty, because I love her, with credibility and tacos, from afar and forever, I’m feeling big love for the commenters here right now. Tiny brie lasagnas for everyone!
False.
Read her original post.
so now I just want the physical parts of sex. Emotions, closeness, yeah-yeah. We’ll do that over breakfast, or on the interminable drive to my in-laws’.
That’s great, Tinfoil, but I’m not in a committed relationship. But I’d like to be, and what I’m trying (maybe not very clearly or well) to say is that I think having sex as a way to bond with somebody we’re not already emotionally bonded with and committed to may well backfire for those of us seeking a long-term, het, committed relationship with a man. And the oxytocin thing is an attempt to add ’scientific’ support to my argument.
Guess I’ll be happier when I trust my gut enough to not question my own sense of what’s true for me and feel no need for external arguments to support my own feelings. IBtP.
True. Read her fucking post AGAIN.
Then, by your statement, consent should not exist for men either. After all, if someone sticks a finger up my ass or forces me to choke on their cock, I can still prosecute them for rape, or at least sexual assault. I have no problem with the premise - the system is broken, and it does need fixing. But I think you’re looking at the issue too simplistically. Without a formalized version of consent (which is, quite frankly, ridiculous), it will always remain so. When I ask my girlfriend if she really wants to have sex for the first time in our relationship, and she responds by grabbing me and throwing me onto her bed, is that consent? She never spoke aloud the word “yes.” If, 15 minutes later, she says that she’s changed her mind, has what we’ve done suddenly become rape, even if I do immediately pull out? What about even less-ambiguous situations, where the woman isn’t sure? Does the onus lie on her to actively say no? Yes, it does. But at the same time, she’s giving the same signals as someone who does want to have sex and simply isn’t explicitly saying it. As a guy, it’s not easy to tell the difference between the two. I tend to err on the side of caution; I won’t have sex with a girl unless I’m sure she’s ready to have sex. This isn’t always true.
While this sounds like a giant justification for the current system, it is not. It’s simply there to point out that if you’re going to deny consent to women, you should deny it to everyone. Equal rights, and all that (I know, I know, men benefit from the patriarchy, consciously or otherwise). Hell, ALL sex is rape, on both (or more) parties’ counts, so if someone wants to prosecute, feel free!
Beyond this, it makes sex even scarier for heterosexual women (as if it weren’t scary enough), since even a hint of her so much as not enjoying it much can lead to rape charges. Since most women don’t really want the men they sleep with to go to jail, they may be *more* afraid to report rape, rather than less, because if they haven’t made up their mind yet, well, according to the law it was rape. It doesn’t erase the issue of consent, it just makes it easier to prosecute men who may not have even gotten the signals to stop (we are pretty stupid). Do men have to be more considerate in choosing when and who they have sex with? Yes. But that doesn’t completely absolve them of responsibility if the woman isn’t willing to say no.
“That’s what has most guys going “OMGThat’stotallyunfair!!!!!†‘Cause they see the potential injustice to them, and not the overwhelming injustice in the current situation, which affects women.”
Exactly.
Actually, I remember attempting to report a bike theft from my garage when the kids were little and I had bikes for all of us. The first question of the dispatcher, “Was the garage door unlocked?” I said it was, “Well there’s really no point in us coming to take a report as it will be hard to prove.”
What? I didn’t though, reconfigure my deep sense of injustice to fit into the lazy cop’s refusal to take the time to report the incident. Instead, I chalked it up to another instance where without a man to legitimize my claim (or who claimed to experience loss), my loss was not considered worthy of consideration.
At that point I decided to hunt down potential bike thieves as my house seemed a popular point of destination and I was in no way going to give up my passion for riding because of them. Might I add that my vigilantism won success 7 out of 10 times my bikes were stolen. Lest any dudes here get the temptation to prove how irrational angry women are, no I didn’t kill the little bastard thieves, I just got my bikes back.
I took the same approach to men who pissed me off long ago, when I often reacted with force to men who would attempt unsolicited advances. I earned quite the reputation.
Hey, I-Just-Don’t-Get-It crowd? Here’s a quarter, get a sense of humor.
Oh gosh, I do hope I didn’t just lose my credibility? Because that would be bad.
It is widely bruited about that false rape accusations are rarely at least in part because the consequences for accusing someone of rape are often greater than the redress available, under patriarchy.
If you change the presumption in the way that Twisty’s modest proposal suggests, you’d expect the consequences for false rape accusations to significantly down, because the consequences for rape accusation (true or otherwise) in general would go down.
Consequently, I don’t understand why people assume that the number of false rape accusations wouldn’t change. By all accounts, Twisty’s proposed system voids the major reason why false accusations are rare.
“Essentially, if the woman doesn’t say, “Yes! By jim, I’d LOVE to have sex with you! I feel fabulous about this decision!†then IT’S RAPE.”
Well I’m on board with this. The “i can retract my consent whenever i want after the fact” part is bullshit though.
How often are wrongs righted without a single drop of blood being spilled by ‘innocents’?
I personally don’t feel a need to see all men in jail, but if one or two (or a hundred) accidentally land their asses there for a brief visit, I just see it as incentive for y’all to get your shit together and remove all cause for us to EVER think we need to remedy your collective behavior in such harsh fashion.
We want to see the shoe on the other foot. We want men, all men, to understand the role they each play, whether passive or active, in supporting the current male-dominated regime that oppresses women daily - even as we speak there’s almost certainly a woman being raped somewhere.
It shocks and appalls me that even I can say that so casually, so blithely, as if it’s not real. Even I, making a daily study of Twisty’s teachings, am still not able to escape the FACT that women’s oppression is universal, ubiquitious, and so common as to be taken completely for granted even by it’s most egregiously hassled victims (need to find an alternative for ‘victims’, the word has become almost meaningless/useless in this context.)
Sorry LMYC, but fiery rhetoric, popular as it may be, does not in fact make your interpretation available given Twisty’s text.
That’s what you THINK the modest proposal said. In fact, it never clarified how consent would be recorded or signalled, and was probably left as an exercise to the reader. I can easily see ways in which a recorded videotaped statement of consent (complete with noisemakers) before and after, could be taken as insufficient proof that the presumption of rape had been defeated, on a future accusation.
It’s hypothetical and probably unlikely, but you are talking about principle here.
Goodness me. Twisty and Blamer Regulars: you are all in *damn* fine form today. Thank you for the wheeeee!
As for the fellows preferring not to get it: it’s easy to decry the necessity of smashing a window if you refuse to notice that the house is on fire.
Oh, and: Twisty, what is this post’s title from? It’s very familiar, but I can’t place it.
It is not merely that prisons are horrible but more that prisons are usu