There have been numerous requests to resume the interrupted “consent” discussion, on accounta the old one got ruined by attention-seeking derailers.
Ask, O ye blamers, and ye shall receive. But first a brief recap:
Noticing that the American justice system seems to regard women as existing in a perpetual state of compliance, I posed a little thought experiment on the subject of rape. What I said was this: consider if lack of consent were the default position. Imagine if all women were considered a priori by the courts to have said “no.” In fact, “consent” would not apply to women at all; we would exist as inviolable entities, human beings with full personal sovereignty, the way men do now. We could have as much heterosex as we want, but the instant we don’t want, the dude becomes, in the eyes of the law, a rapist. This shifts to onus onto the dude not to be a barbarian. He can avoid jail by not having sex at all, and significantly reduce his risk of jail by ceasing to rape, prod, cajole, shame, or nag.
The original post has all the details.
Carry on.
Carrying on from the original post:
Justicewalks just held forth on the question of whether the mechanics of obtaining consent are antithetical to romantic spontaneity by opining:
“It occurs to me that the “intrique of romantic interlude and its concomitant communication ambiguities†are patriarchal constructs and NOT necessary for sex.”
Speaking personally, WORD. Romantic intricacies and flirtatious behavior totally creep me out, and immediately inspire in me a deep desire to run away. To me it feels covert and disingenuous and passive-aggressive. I hate it.
With that said, I know that many of my friends love that sort of carrying on to the extent that it’s a joy-defining thing, a make-or-break for their personal happiness. So I’m open to believing that it depends on the person.
But I’ll never be free of my personal distrust. Any and all romantic finesse will ever be, for me, nothing more than a sophisticated attempt to tear off a piece. Color me creeped out.
Romance and romantic love is inherently power ridden. Men are the lovers, women are loved. Men are the actors, women the passive recipient of love. It used to be said that men in courtship were on their knees as they offered up gestures of love to women who had the power to make or break their hopes. Yet, it was little recognised that the only choice women had was to reject. Women in the romantic framework of love react rather than act.
I personally think that being asked, or asking, for consent before any romantic or sexual act is in fact incredibly desireable. (On a slightly disturbing tangent, I thought people talking explicitly about what they wanted in bed was considered to be very desireable- certainly in the pornocracy!)
Before the original thread got derailed, we discussed how for a variety of reasons it’s common for women to buckle to patriarchal pressure and “relent” to sex (as opposed to “consent”). For that reason, this law would side-step the “but she said ‘yes’” defense by arguing that whether or not a woman relented to sex doesn’t supersede her right to charge dudes with rape. So to avoid confusion, I want to see if we can agree that the *law* isn’t about reworking what qualifies as consent (eg. “consent approval forms”), or who has to prove that consent was given or not in a court of law, or even whose responsibility it is in the moment to ensure that consent is given. The law is about ensuring that regardless of who said/did what, a woman has the right at any point before, during or after the fact to say “this is/was rape” and have the full support of the law. The reason the total removal of consent as it applies to sex is important is because structuring rape law around consent inevitably reduces it to “he said/she said” and we all know “he” wins that a suspiciously disproportionate amount of the time.
So is there agreement on that point, or is the question of the importance of consent as it applies to het-sex something we should debate?
A lot of what wat . I am a fussy, technocratic nerd, and I realize that. I also realize that IBTP is not in the market for a second-string Mandos. This will be my last fussy, technocratic post, and my only post on this thread, unless I’m specifically invited to post again, which I don’t think will happen.
I’m not concerned with an increase in false convictions. The vast majority of false rape convictions are in cases of stranger rape — cases where the issue of consent is either nonexistent or laughable: the police were simply incompetent (or malicious) and picked up the wrong guy. Changes to the legal standard of consent, in these cases, would have no effect: in current cases of stranger rape, there is seldom a claim of consent; the defense is usually “wrong guy,†and it is generally only “wrong guy” defenses that are correct.
But then you get to the cases where there’s no argument about who raped whom. In those, there’s a reason that only 13% or fewer people report acquaintance rape: Western rape laws are designed specifically to disregard them; to pretend they don’t exist. The only reason acquaintance rapes are prosecutable at all is because of half-thought-out and furiously resisted reforms in the last thirty years.
There are things that are being done, right now, to make serious improvements: some jurisdictions — and I’m not sure whether this is a trend or just an abortive half-measure — are making it clear that the mens rea requirement is negligence, not recklessness or malice. So, they’re asking questions about what the defendant did not do, rather than what the victim did do. Questions like this: Did you not take specific measures to find out whether your victim was consenting? No? Negligent. Rape. Did you not receive affirmative consent? No? Negligent. Rape. Did you use coercion? Yes? Reckless. Rape. This short-circuits the genre of rape defenses that begin with “Gosh, I’m sorry for what happened to you; I guess I was confused.â€
I think a lot of people have been using the Catherine MacKinnon’s idea that rape should be the default assumption of the court as a proxy for what Twisty actually proposed, which is that consent can be withdrawn retroactively: that is, if someone decides that they would not have consented given what they know at the moment they withdraw consent, then, retroactively, that sex becomes rape. For example: if a man unknowingly infected with a STD has (enthusiastically desired) sex with an uninfected woman, and she contracts that STD, then – theoretically – that should be chargeable, and punishable, as rape under the law. Should that be punishable? What about other cases involving unknown factors that would have been a deal-breaker if known at the time that the sex was enthusiastically consented to? Should there be a separate sub-category of offenses that “should†be reported, different from those that “can†be reported?
It’s this category – not false reports, but offenses like this – that I was talking about on the other thread.
– ACS
Not an answer to the bigger question, but in the UK we recently jailed a man who knew he had AIDS for giving it to his then girlfriend, as he did not inform her or use protection. They didn’t call it rape, but the prosecution did argue that the victim would not have consented to sex had she known.
“There are things that are being done, right now, to make serious improvements: some jurisdictions — and I’m not sure whether this is a trend or just an abortive half-measure — are making it clear that the mens rea requirement is negligence, not recklessness or malice.”
Very interesting. Could you point me towards some sources of further information about this?
“… the *law* isn’t about reworking what qualifies as consent (eg. “consent approval formsâ€), or who has to prove that consent was given or not in a court of law, or even whose responsibility it is in the moment to ensure that consent is given.” I just want to clarify that this statement about whose responsible for communication is in terms of the Twisty law. I wanted to include it so the “but I was acting really sensitive and shit” defense doesn’t apply. In the actual personal interactions between people, I agree with Feminist Avatar that open and honest communication is paramount.
I also was hoping the legal experts around could answer a relevant question I had about “jury nullification.” I’ve read that juries can choose to acquit defendants who obviously broke the law. Can juries choose to convict defendants who technically didn’t? Is that also protected under jury nullification?
Not an answer to the bigger question, but in the UK we recently jailed a man who knew he had AIDS for giving it to his then girlfriend, as he did not inform her or use protection. They didn’t call it rape, but the prosecution did argue that the victim would not have consented to sex had she known.
Feminist Avatar, that is actually a really interesting part of the debate, and it ties into the recent Massachusetts case about the woman whose boyfriend’s brother had sex with her and it wasn’t considered rape even though she wouldn’t have had sex with him had she known. Fraudulent bases for sex weren’t considered rape in that ruling. I assume in the Twisty plan this would definitely be rape? If it is, I completely agree. Sex under false pretenses, be that a false identity or concealment of a (deadly or otherwise!) STI, where the perpetrator is purposefully concealing this pertinent information, should be rape.
“The reason the total removal of consent as it applies to sex is important is because structuring rape law around consent inevitably reduces it to “he said/she said†and we all know “he†wins that a suspiciously disproportionate amount of the time.â€
Rather, the reason consent must be removed is because it inherently denies equal human standing to the woman.
If rape is to be measured by consent, then sex is being something that is done TO the woman. In such a case, a woman cannot consent because the position of being an object (i.e., when something is done to a person, they are definitively objectified) removes the possibility of her being able to consent. No person can will their own oppression; therefore no woman can consent to heterosexual sex.
By transforming the legal assumption from the location of consent into a position of individual sovereignty for all partners, sex becomes something that people do with each other. Any sex that is done to a person is rape, and the individuals engaging in this are the measure for judgment.
The patriarchy will never see women as fully human. By transforming the legal supposition to non-consent, the legal system starts to look like a legal system without patriarchy. Of course it will still be imbued with patriarchy because women are going to some extent be objectified, which is why you need to deal in the language of consent v. non-consent. By asserting non-consent, women are able to have a semblance of legal self-determination while still existing under patriarchy.
For me, the rub is how to continually push towards asserting determinate selfhood under patriarchy.
In Canada, former CFL (football) player Trevis Smith was recently convicted of aggravated sexual assault for not informing his consensual sex partners of his HIV-positive status.
In the case of someone who is unaware of his STD status, I’d question whether it would qualify as sexual assault, considering that we don’t charge people with crimes for unintentionally spreading other serious diseases. But in the case of a known STD-positive condition, I’d say that’s as criminal as grabbing a syringe and injecting someone with infected blood.
I think Canadian law (http://www.mun.ca/sexualharassment/Definitions4.html) clears up a lot of the rape/not rape issue by using the term “sexual assault.” It covers other forms of non-consensual sexual contact and behaviour, including everything from groping to penetrative rape. I also think the term “assault” puts it into the same category as other crimes against the body (like beating or killing someone) and takes it out of the context of property crime.
Essentially, Trevis Smith was convicted under the same charge that would be used for any man who “wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant” in the course of a rape. Sure, they had consensual sex, but the women didn’t consent to the risk of HIV infection (neither of them are HIV positive from their contact either).
I thought it was a triumph for women. If a man lies to you, he’s liable. I’d like to see more of that (like in that awful Massachusetts case).
Not that we actually have a much better system to make women confident in pressing charges, although we also often protect the victim’s identity under our rape shield laws (which also restrict digging into a woman’s past and other nasty tricks on the part of the defense). Still, women in Canada face similar struggles in taking rapists to court as do their sisters around the world.
Cunning Allusionment?:
My understanding of jury nullification is that it comes out of the Common Law, and rather than being written as positive law is just something that is done in the name of liberal justice.
Jury nullification is highly discouraged by judges and the establishment, but (or because) it has generally been done as a counter-majoritarian action because the jury thinks the law itself is unjust.
The jury is nullifying the law.
Under such a definition, I don’t think you can get convictions out of nullifications. A jury determined to convict without reasonable doubt would (if the jury’s deliberations were made public) be providing grounds for appeal or mistrial. Though technically, I don’t think that the jurors could be punished.
When juries start convicting accused rapists without reasonable doubt on the basis that rape laws are unfair, then I think this issue will come up in the law review. Until then, I think that might be an issue of interest rather than policy import.
By defining it as assault, actual physical contact is not required. Gesture, or otherwise manifest intent is enough. That does goes outside the bounds of the original Twisty Law, even if it is an interesting and desirable point.
Feminist Avatar:
IIRC, the proper charge for someone who exposes another to an “agent” which could likely result in death should be charged with attempted murder, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon. A good prosecutor can work up a good 8- to 15-year sentence for something like that.
I’d be interested in more discussion on how a disinterested third party (i.e., a jury) could determine whether a sexual act resulted from “consent” or “relent”.
This is the case for a lot of places: either exposing someone to HIV is folded into 1st degree assault/aggravated battery or exists as its own felony with comparable penalties.
– aCS
I think the whole concept of consent goes back to the idea that women only have the power to reject that Feminist Avatar stated. The whole idea, that women are acted upon rather than independent actors with their own wishes, needs, wants, and desires is the big part of the whole dynamic.
My read of the prior post and the derailers’ arguments had a big “Aha!” moment for me. It dawned on me, later than it should have, but I still figured it out, that most men in the traditional patriarchal paradigm aren’t really seeking true consent, desire, or agreement. Or mutuality of any sort. Instead the lack of consent is the real turn on. Convincing a woman who doesn’t initially want to have sex to have sex (whether, in the end, she wants sex or not, or, indeed has satisfactory sex after “agreeing”) is the victory.
Thus, the male ideal of a woman who needs to be pursued and won, who is elusive, but who is attainable. The woman who actually (I think I’m stealing this from someone else in the thread) is joyful and delighted at the prospect of sex with the guy is not that desirable. Better to chase after the elusive one.
The whole construct discourages heterosexual women from being open and honest about desire (because he’s supposed to want you, not vice versa) and means men are chasing after women who don’t want them, thinking true “romance” is winning an initially unwillling woman.
Ugh. I wish I were gay.
The dynamic that Foilwoman is talking about is only reinforced by the way society talks about male vs. female sexuality. In health classes, for example, girls are taught not to explore their own sexuality, but rather to respond to an aggressive male sexuality. Boys will be the ones wanting sex, and girls must learn how to put on the brakes. Thus, boys learn that all women are merely playing hard to get and their “no” isn’t worth a damn.
I think that’s why so many men rape, yet so few think of themselves as rapists.
CA: “I also was hoping the legal experts around could answer a relevant question I had about “jury nullification.†I’ve read that juries can choose to acquit defendants who obviously broke the law. Can juries choose to convict defendants who technically didn’t? Is that also protected under jury nullification?”
Some intro stuff:
The divide between judge and jury is the divide between interpretations of law and findings of fact. Judge makes the former, jury makes the latter. So, if a jury finds that X didn’t meet all the elements of a rape (and the argument frequently revolves around the consent element, IMO), the jury acquits b/c the facts don’t satisfy the legal requirement.
Some other stuff:
Now, there is a thing called a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (an “NOV” for the matching fussy latin). It happens when “the judge is convinced the judgment is not reasonably supported by the facts and/or the law. . . . Granting a motion for such a ruling means the court realizes it should have directed the jury to reach an opposite verdict in the first place.” [http://dictionary.law.com]
I realize as I’m typing this that a judgment NOV is not something we talked a lot about in law school. But, working just from first principles, it’s going to have to be pretty damn obvious that there’s a problem with the jury’s fact-finding for a judge to be willing to do so, b/c there’s a LOT of deference to the fact-finder. So, there’s a mechanism for that deference to be overcome, i.e., this NOV business, but it wouldn’t be common. Not that you were asking that.
I would expect a motion for judgment NOV in either scenario you described, whether its an acquittal or a finding of guilty, if the finding is “not reasonably supported”. It’s not going to matter which side the jury came down on.
So, if someone was obviously innocent — the evidence didn’t reasonably support the jury’s finding of guilt — then the NOV is how a judge would recognize and act on that. And vice versa.
Jury nullification is a term I’m not sure I ever heard until you mentioned it here, I had to look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary, and it’s not in the online law dictionary I posted to above. There is an entry on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification], and it seems to fit with my definition in Black’s. I would see a judgment NOV as one way for a judge to counteract such an attempt by a jury to ‘nullify’ the law by refusing to find guilty/acquit someone who obviously is so, in order to make a social statement or avoid what the jury perceives as injustice. (Given the patriarchy, I wonder if there are any stats on NOVs for rape cases versus other crimes. It would be interesting to see if there are any identifiable trends.)
I think, given the history of nullification, because it would be an injustice to find someone guilty when they weren’t, your second scenario, of a jury finding X guilty, wouldn’t be very likely. It kind of cuts against the grain of the underlying purpose of this nullification, which is to avoid, not perpetuate, injustice.
Now that I’ve made what may be my maiden post (certainly as B, Esq.), after a lifetime of lurking, and been all geeky about legal technical stuff, let me just say that as annoying as trolls are, I’m really glad Mandos was in the comments on the original post, b/c it was Twisty’s referendum on him that made me read through all those comments, and I’m very glad I did.
I’m *still* thinking about the “consent” thing, and I think the idea of assuming a default ‘no’ is a great one.
I think, realistically, it would require a change in how women signal sexual interest, and about halfway through the comments I thought about how more ‘fringe’ sexual communities may have explicit negotiations (like a dom and a sub working out the context of their ’scene’), so Twisty’s modest proposal here not only has the effect of making many trolls nervous, but also of making het sex a ‘fringe’ preference that must/should be negotiated.
*light jazz plays in background*
“Hey, listen, I just wanted to tell you . . . I’m straight. Are you OK with that?”
“Um, yeah.”
“And I think I’d like to have sex with you.”
“Oh. Well, I appreciate the compliment. Uh, what did you have in mind?”
[and so on]
*more jazz*
Cool!
What does it mean to “tear off a piece?”
Thus, boys learn that all women are merely playing hard to get and their “no†isn’t worth a damn.
Not only is it not worth a damn, it’s expected. It’s part of their script. We women were all born only to be thrust into some SM scene with no safe word.
The interesting thing is that as a society we sell love as a neutral value free act. Love is the ultimate righter of wrongs. It ensures that men and women are equal.
Yet, even a cursory exploration of the language of love highlights the power that is built into the system. The language of love highlights possession-
Be my baby; be mine; I am yours; always yours.
and of imposition-
I love you- I act upon you with my love.
Love is powerful!
Foilwoman, it took me too long to realize this too.
The woman who actually (I think I’m stealing this from someone else in the thread) is joyful and delighted at the prospect of sex with the guy is not that desirable.
Because, I guess, nice girls aren’t supposed to want sex. Is there a sick logic going on where nice girls never say yes too quickly? Nice girls always say no a couple of times before they say yes? Like, I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would allow me as a member, unless it was after I pestered and cajoled them into it?
I guess that’s why we get phrases like “conquest” and “the thrill of the hunt.” It’s almost like their real pleasure comes from turning a no into a yes, and after that, the sex itself is just secondary.
Sorry if I’m just stating th obvious, but the last thread was a big aha moment for me too, in realizing that consent should not be the measuring stick. Alex, from a few posts ago, was eventually getting forced “consent” from his poor girlfriend. In order for things to be truly right and non-rape, and to take away consent as the yardstick, she would be the one initiating sex (and not after weeks of him begging her to initiate sex, either). That’s probably a poor example, though, since there were so very many things wrong with that particular situation.
I think it is also important to recognise that it is the whole system of love that is embedded with power. As a society, we like to think of love as value neutral and as wiping out power differentials. Love is seen as the opposite of violence.
Yet love is a powerful act. Even a cursory look at the language of love highlights that power in action. Love is about possession: be mine, be my baby, always yours, I give you my heart and my hand etc.
Love is about violence:
I love you- I act my love upon you.
My favourite example of this is benevolence, which is often translated as charitable love. But what it really means is: I have power over you and as a result I can be nice/charitable/loving, you cannot do the same as you do not have power.
What does it mean to “tear off a piece?â€
It’s a particularly commodifying euphemism for having sex. As in, the man is “tearing off a piece of that ass.” It’s also seen as “breaking off a piece.”
Feminist Avatar:
I got words about that.
Be careful not to confuse love with the language that surrounds the concept of love; they are not the same. The use of language is a construct of the culture that uses it; in other words, the Patriarchy permeates the language describing value-neutral concepts like “love” with its own spin.
If you use a morally valid definition of love (such as “that condition in which another’s happiness is essential to your own”), it’s easier to see that that a statement like “Love is about violence” is how misogyny and its misbegotten offspring see love as a tool.
Pardon me, or tell me I’m wrong, but I think comments here are missing a central point. Rape law and everything about the way women’s sexuality has been controlled under patriarchy since at least the Hammurabi codes has had no interest in women’s will.
Women (wombs) are PROPERTY of fathers then husbands. Desire? Who cares? Consent? Only disproven by violent resistance and, preferably, death rather than violation of the vagina (since our entire worth IS our vagina). That’s why the law cares much less about other forms of sexual abuse and assault. Like most law, it’s designed to protect property.
Things have changed a bit, but we delude ourselves too often by thinking that 5,000 year old constructs can be eliminated in a few decades. That’s why female sexual sovereignty as proposed by Twisty is so revolutionary. My body belongs to no one but me? Burn that witch!
I still feel that consent is a misleading direction. I think the whole scenario of sex should be considered without it. When thinking about having sex, the man should realize there is no consent, so he shouldn’t think about consent. He should think about not doing anything unless he’s damn sure that’s what the woman wants, on account of it being entirely his fault if she doesn’t want, now/during/after.
Foilwoman does a good job of summing it up:
“I still figured it out, that most men in the traditional patriarchal paradigm aren’t really seeking true consent, desire, or agreement. Or mutuality of any sort. Instead the lack of consent is the real turn on. Convincing a woman who doesn’t initially want to have sex to have sex (whether, in the end, she wants sex or not, or, indeed has satisfactory sex after “agreeingâ€) is the victory.”
And if we add to that Laura’s comment:
“Nice girls always say no a couple of times before they say yes? Like, I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would allow me as a member, unless it was after I pestered and cajoled them into it?”
it reminds me of the rituals supposedly for investing a Bishop or the Pope back in the middle ages: when offered the title and position, he had to refuse three times, and the committee (or synod, or whatever it was) had to return to him and press him to take up the position three times. That way everyone was reassured of the new bishop or pope’s humility and lack of ambition/campaigning for the position. So we should consider that this notion of pressure and relenting in sex could be coming out of this other tradition and look into it more.
Oh, and also, if patriarchy only had one model of femininity it would be easier to counteract and overthrow. On the Virgin side, we have women supposed to not like sex, to resist or passively endure sex, and to only have sex with a certain designated person. The exclusivity of ownership and pressuring ( leading ) her into sex are turn-ons, as is the notion that you (the husband) might be able to turn her into an angel in the house and a devil in the bedroom, but no one would know but you. On the Whore side, she is a turn on precisely because she is common property and many men have sex with her, which makes her seem dirty and transgressive. Not only does she love sex (so dirty!) but she will have it with anyone and will even initiate it. Basically, everything you do can be fit into one paradigm or the other, so you’re fucked coming and going.
“Be careful not to confuse love with the language that surrounds the concept of love”
Yeah, but the thing is, love is an idea, and language shapes ideas. How else would love become indistinguishable from sex, and sex indistinguishable from porn?
He should think about not doing anything unless he’s damn sure that’s what the woman wants,
That seems like a good way for men to approach things sexual - the consent concept seems kind of grudging, like a negotiation. Conversely, if you approach things with mutual benefit / win-win scenarios in mind then it generally feels unpleasant and creepy to move your desire forward past where your partner is.
It’s a particularly commodifying euphemism for having sex. As in, the man is “tearing off a piece of that ass.†It’s also seen as “breaking off a piece.â€
I first learned of that phrase via an unpleasant double entendre from reading Naked Lunch in high school - creepy, creepy book.
I think another significant issue here is the impact that such a change in legal theory would have on ‘age of consent’ laws. The idea of an age of consent, which almost always applies to a younger girl and an older guy, is that if the girl is under that age, she does not possess sufficient judgment capabilities in order to be able to say “yes” or “no”.
However, in the eyes of the law, these still apply to in the older woman/younger boy case (e.g. teachers and their students), which was largely ignored until recent years. When a guy passes the age of consent, he is considered to always be in “yes” mode, as already established here. When a girl passes that age, she can now give consent, but whether or not she says “yes” is the question.
So if we go with Twisty’s idea that we consider a girl to be saying “no” unless otherwise explicitly stated. Thus, we have girls saying “no” a priori and guys saying “yes” a priori. I may have made an error in logic, but doesn’t that still uphold the idea of the woman as being receiving/passive and the man being the active? It seems to me that the duality is still upheld. Granted, the idea was stated that the thinking is that all women are just playing hard to get and that you can eventually get them to say yes. In the eyes of the law, what Twisty is proposing would eliminate that, at least in the legal sense. However, it still seems to me that we are still working within the paradigm where the woman is passive and the male is active, that being the patriarchy.
I think the discussion of consent is useful only to remove it from the new situation being proposed—after all, Twisty’s Law is designed to vaporize the whole consent issue. What interests me at the moment is how the new situation might look in action.
First, forget about “romance” and “love”. The human spirit can soar, but not in those particular patriarchal coffins. What man can think about these concepts without an immediate context of hunt and chase? They are rooted in power-over and its uses, however witty and debonair.
Next, men have to deal with the fact that in a universe that continuously oppresses women in every manner available, only explicit agreement can be a basis for entering a woman’s space in any manner, let alone an intimate manner. (I’m not shying away from saying “sex” here, I’m just not sure what it means in the context of the Twisty Law.) The notion that the default situation is “no” makes this totally transparent and concrete as a personal interaction. The fundamental counterproposition to any male whining here is ask who would want to enter another’s space, no matter how previously intimate, when in any doubt of one’s welcome? To me the only answer here is simple—a rapist. Sure, its a strong term in the more subtle cases, but (a) lets own it because we do it, and (b) the intrinsic issue doesn’t change with the level of “subtlety”.
Furthermore, men who want to graduate to humanhood have to let go of our supposed right to “have sex”. This is just a removal of our object’s agency. (I mean, in terms of a “right” to “sex”, one can’t even speak of a “partner”.)
Rather than scare up any more male logic-shpielers here, don’t trash this tread with more mens’ rumination but join the comment thread on my blog (click my name). I depend on the moderator to bar this comment if I’m violating net-etiquette in diverting male commentary.
“Twisty’s idea that we consider a girl to be saying “no†unless otherwise explicitly stated.”
This is not my idea at all. There is no other explicit statement. Read the post again.
Tyler D, may I assume you’re asserting that this is as it should be? Just to clarify.
I recently came across an article by Eva Kittay in which she argues that the “contractual” model of consent should not apply to sex in the first place, and that sex should be viewed as a communicative action rather than as a conquest of one person by another. In that article she suggests that consent should be rethought as “mutual desire.” The problem with the contractual model, as many of the commenters have already pointed out, is that it ostensibly would require both parties to be autonomous agents, when, under patriarchy, women are not supposed to be autonomous agents. Thus, sex could not be consensual, if consent=contract. But I like Twisty’s suggestion even better than Kittay’s, because Kittay doesn’t really make it clear how women are suddenly going to have agency on the “consent=communication” model. If we added the stipulation that, legally, women have always already said no, and took “consent” out of the picture entirely, then this would perhaps provide the impetus needed for men to revise the ways in which they currently think about sex (i.e. as domination).
I was afraid I had put it incorrectly.
After rereading this post and the original one, I believe I see it better. I found this passage most significant:
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.
From that, I will make the analogy that when someone is on trial for breaking into my house, there is no question if I asked them in or said it was perfectly fine they came in through the skywindow, the simple fact that I say now that I didn’t want them in then is sufficient. It’s like the reverse of the concept of “dropping charges.” Where I say, oh wait, it was just my jackass brother breaking into my house, I’ll deal with that on my own.
A woman could find out she unknowingly got an STI from a man she had sex with and accuse him of rape on the grounds that he did not alert her to his STI status.
Because of the circumstances that a woman grows up under in our society, the idea of consent upholds the passive position of the female, giving a false sense of power, for, in reality due to the male dominated system, she is not actually free and independent to give consent.
Alright, then to age of consent laws, they would be eliminated, correct? Would we retain any sort of age restriction? What would it mean to be “of age”?
“Rather, the reason consent must be removed is because it inherently denies equal human standing to the woman.” -Tigs
I take it that you agree that the inherent bias of the “he said/she said” implied by consent-centric laws is important and that Twisty’s Law corrects this. What you talked about here seems to me to be a related but more fundamental problem with the issue of consent. I want to be sure that I understand you correctly on the reason “[consent] inherently denies equal human standing to the woman.” Obviously, people don’t need to consent to their own actions, so requiring women to consent to sex implies that sex isn’t an act of their own will. By removing women as an agent acting on their own behalf, sex becomes something men do *to* women. Since only free agents can provide consent in the first place, in this context in becomes impossible for women to consent to heterosexual sex. Do I have this right/almost right, or am I totally off/grossly offensive?
Foilwoman: For what little it’s worth, I’m a guy whose always found the whole “pursuit” thing really disturbing. I could never figure out why my girl friends kept falling for the same assholish behavior over and over again. It was all so transparent and - even to my untrained eye - sexist, I couldn’t bring myself to do it. The result was that my first kiss was when I was 21. I wonder if it’s kind of a vicious circle (though it’s obvious that women have the short end of the circle) in that young girls are trained to recognize predatory behavior as positive interest, and guys are trained to be predators. If someone from either gender rejects those models, they don’t get the “opportunity” (I say that with the bitter irony it deserves) to participate in the sex culture we’re all trained to want very much (even if girls are also taught to suppress any indication that they do). In retrospect, I can see that all I was “missing out” on was most likely a bunch of shallow, oppressive, and unhealthy “relationships.” But boy-howdy did it seem like I was missing out on a lot more at the time. IBTP.
Feminist Avatar: RE: “Love is about violence”: To keep this short, I may have become unintelligible, I apologize. We’re accustomed to thinking of the present moment as occurring at the end of history, like a comet with the tail spreading out behind us. But we all know that this now is not the end of history for we live in its very midst. Love and violence have been slowly separating from each other over the last several thousand years. When I look at history I see that despite the concerted efforts of power, liberation and equality have been as inexorable as the wind. I suppose I’m just wondering if love can be more than what it is now. Is there good use to seeing love as part of a great arc of liberation that we live within? I see words as functional tools for conveying information and shaping thought. Different definitions of love are useful for different things. The way you defined love is useful for the task of illuminating the very real connections between love and violence and patriarchy’s role in maintaining those connections. Can we maintain consistency but also use a term like love in multiple ways? Are other definitions useful at all at this point in the liberation process?
Hm. “Consent” == “You got something I want. Gimme. Okay gimme, please.”
“Consentless” == “We’re simply doing something together, carrying out an act that requires two people to perform, in most common incarnations.”
Twisty, I think your paradigm is missing an essential element. Women facing the question of whether to have sex face a Catch-22 type situation. No matter whether they say “no” or “yes” there is the potential for serious trouble.
If the woman says “yes,” initiates sex, or merely shows too much enthusiasm, she may be judged as a slut or “bad girl,” possibly triggering negative consequences. After saying “yes” to sex, a woman is no longer entitled to even those tiny bits of protection provided by the patriarchy to “nice girls.” Worse, if the woman judges herself by patriarchal rules, she may damage her own self-esteem by saying “yes.” In other words, “yes” is dangerous.
Oppositely, if the woman says “no,” a bastard who doesn’t care how she feels might rape her regardless. The rape might even be worse, or possibly even murderous, because the woman said “no.” (Under patriarchal rules, *HURL* a woman who disobeys must be *HURL* punished.) On the other hand, the man might come from a culture where women never, ever say “yes” no matter how they feel, and attempt to force sex on her. (BTW, I’m not making excuses for a raping asshole, enumerating the hazards of this particular minefield.)
There are other possible disadvantages to saying “no.” If the woman is interested in the man, but her patriarchal culture doesn’t allow her to express that interest, a man who doesn’t understand her culture might take her “no” seriously when he shouldn’t. He’s proved himself to be a “nice guy,” but “he doesn’t understand.” Or the woman might be inexperienced in saying “no” while signaling “yes” in other ways, resulting in poor communication. Alternately, the man might lose interest permanently after hearing a “no” that’s nothing more than an attempt to preserve “good-girl” status before “reluctantly” giving in.
Very simply, most women don’t have the freedom to say “yes” or “no” based on their real feelings. Instead, they must evaluate the man, their culture, and the situation, then say whatever does the least damage. It’s like facing the choice of voting for Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, but much, much worse.
I blame the patriarchy.
When a discussion about rape degenerates (ha!) into talk about “love and romance” and desire, it really underscores the point that, yes, for many/most/all(?) men, those things are all related.
What do women think? For women is rape on a continuum that includes desire, love, and romance?
Do we have to solve the question of why men relate these things to rape before we can end rape?
I do like the default = no consent concept, and I actually do think that — while it sounds crazy, it just might work. Eventually. But only if the default position of no consent applies to everyone, male and female and trans and whatever. Whomever. This is NOT a ‘what about the men’ quibble, but a much deeper thing. Call me sentimental, but I want not only to be able to grant (or withhold) my consent when I choose, I also want to be able to ask for sex when I want it, and I don’t necessarily want to be asking someone whose default = yes.
I thought Feminist Avatar brought up love and romance?
Nope sorry, Cannibal Femme started the love and romance discussion in the very first post.
I’m sorry, Trout, but is this your first experience with the dilemma that women face under the madonna/whore paradigm? If so, you might want to consider that perhaps Twisty didn’t address this explicitly because it’s something that all advanced patriarchy blamers understand from first-hand experience. In other words, it’s so painfully obvious to the women who have lived it (and continue to live it) that it often goes unsaid among us.
And this:
If the woman is interested in the man, but her patriarchal culture doesn’t allow her to express that interest, a man who doesn’t understand her culture might take her “no†seriously when he shouldn’t. He’s proved himself to be a “nice guy,†but “he doesn’t understand.â€
is more of the ol’ what-about-the-menz?! b.s. I think.
Actually, I was asking the women to chime in on their viewpoint about the rape/love/romance/desire continuum.
Cannibal Femme may already have when she wrote:
But I’ll never be free of my personal distrust. Any and all romantic finesse will ever be, for me, nothing more than a sophisticated attempt to tear off a piece. Color me creeped out.
And actually, I believe that Cannibal Femme was reacting to finnsmotel’s writing:
“I’m merely calling for discussion on how to best secure consent without necessarily abandoning the intrigue of romantic interlude and its concomitant communication ambiguities.”
There seem to be several interpretations of the meaning behind the original post, and I must admit that I am thoroughly confused at this point. So I want to hear it from Twisty, just to make sure things are clarified. First of all, according to the new Twisty paradigm, is it possible for a man and a woman to completely agree to have sex or is that just an impossibility under the patriarchy? People have said here that every single instance of hetero sex is a case of rape. Is this part of the Twisty paradigm? Secondly, if it is possible for a man and a woman to completely agree to sexual intercourse, I’m curious as to how this would play out in said paradigm. Once and for all, is consent an issue? If so, what constitutes consent and how can it be proven in court? If the idea of the law is to eliminate the element of consent altogether, then what exactly constitutes an agreement between partners? Not trying to pick at the nits, but I really just want to be on equal footing so I know exactly what’s being said.
On a slightly more specific note, I’m a little confused by the retro-active withdrawal of consent. It makes perfect sense in a case where a woman does not know at the time that she is being raped, and in hindsight realizes what happened to her and wants to put her rapist away. But is the proposed law suggesting that any case of heterosexual intercourse could potentially be rape if the woman wants to look back and call it that? Suppose a man and woman agree to have sex. For the sake of argument, let’s say the woman initiates, and she’s “jumping up and down” and screaming that she wants it, as was suggested earlier. So going into the act, there is no doubt from either party that this is a mutual agreement. Let’s say both parties enjoy the sex all the way until they’re finished, and at the end of it all they both express their enjoyment. Assuming that the woman was a free agent to enter into this agreement in the first place, years down the line, can she retro-actively claim it was rape? Is it at all possible for a man to have sex with a woman and be 100% sure that there isn’t a chance in hell he can be convicted of rape? Or is it simply that every single heterosexual act is already a case of rape? If someone, preferably Twisty, could clarify it would be most appreciated.
Slightly tangential, but: This discussion reminds me of the horrid fact that, until about two decades ago in the U.S., there was no such thing as marital rape. Permanent and enduring consent was presumed as a part of the married state. De jure, it was presumed of both partners, but de facto, since cases of women raping men are so rare as to be almost nonexistent, this was just another manifestation of patriarchal privilege that has since been addressed by most states.
However, one wonders how many women would lodge rape charges against their (non-estranged) husbands, even with the law on their side.
/tangent
Virago, it wasn’t “What about the menz,” but an attempt to make explicit the nature of the minefield. I agree that the problems with both “yes” and “no” are obvious, but what isn’t obvious is that the ability to honestly state a heartfelt “yes” or “no” is a perequisite for the legal idea Twisty suggests.
(Taking Twisty seriously may not always be the best idea, but her suggestion is interesting enough that I’m willing to play with it a little.)
Glad to see the discussion resume. Not that I don’t care, but I’ll opt out of it for now to see where it goes. Darn responsibilities.
Good stuff. Blame on.
In fact, it is a what-about-the-menz argument. You’re really just trying to say that it’s so confusing for us Nice Guys when you women say “no” and mean “yes”! What’s a Nice Guy to do?
What about the
menzNice Guys (TM)?!Trout wrote: “I agree that the problems with both “yes†and “no†are obvious, but what isn’t obvious is that the ability to honestly state a heartfelt “yes†or “no†is a prerequisite for the legal idea Twisty suggests.”
No it isn’t. It’s just a prerequisite to having sex under such circumstances.
Any woman who can’t bring herself to say “yes” when she means yes can darn well remain celibate until such time as she learns.
If she can’t say a heartfelt “no” or “yes”, then she is conflicted and not really eager to have sex.
Arguments to the contrary are all forms of “But what about the men? They might miss a chance at getting off and that would be awful!”
Your example of a “‘no’ that’s nothing more than an attempt to preserve ‘good-girl’ status before ‘reluctantly’ giving in” is indicative of someone who either A) will suffer if (when) it becomes known she’s having sex or B) is not fully into the idea. Either way, not having sex is the best outcome of such a situation.
Trout wrote: “Very simply, most women don’t have the freedom to say “yes†or “no†based on their real feelings.”
If that is the case, then they don’t have the freedom to decide the course of their own sex lives, and they really are being raped.
I would like to think that at least most American women have more freedom than that most of the time.
I don’t have much input here (though I’m reading avidly, when I have time), I just wanted to take this chance to leap in with a thank you. So.
Thank you, Twisty, for writing about this, and thank you to tinfoil hattie who rephrased the consent issue such that it lit huge light bulbs of “OH YES THAT THERE” in my head. It’s currently on the back burner in my head.
Just wanted to get that in while there was a chance of it getting seen. :)
Trout,
You’ve missed the point slightly - but just slightly. See, you seem to understand that women under the Patriarchy have to take a large number of parameters into account when deciding whether to “consent” to sex: the partner, the context, the culture, etc. But then you refer to women being unable to say “yes” to a man even if they genuinely want him…after you yourself have just established that a woman under Patriarchy never “just wants” a man.
The situation, context, and culture might just all come together in a way that makes sex the “proper” choice, and with a bit of luck (OK, a lot of luck…) the experience might be positive and even enjoyable - but it is still never something that the woman chooses just because she wants the man (or other sexual partner). In a patriarchy a woman never “just wants a man” (or other sexual partner…) and fucks him (her, it, hyr).
That’s why Virago attempted to tear you a new one when you said: If the woman is interested in the man, but her patriarchal culture doesn’t allow her to express that interest, a man who doesn’t understand her culture might take her “no†seriously when he shouldn’t. He’s proved himself to be a “nice guy,†but “he doesn’t understand.†Or the woman might be inexperienced in saying “no†while signaling “yes†in other ways, resulting in poor communication.
Arrgh. You seem to think that there is some magical sexual “true desire/lack of desire” that is separate from the myriad Patriarchal considerations that you yourself ennumerated. You’ve basically said - Sure, women take all sorts of things into consideration…and they ALSO either REALLY want to have sex, or REALLY don’t want to. Unfortunately - it doesn’t quite work that way. Under Patriarchy, women are always conflicted and divided between all the elements that affect their decision to have sex. Whether they also happen to be horny for the guy (or etc.) is usually incidental, and often irrelevant. Therefore when you basically say “women say no when they mean yes and that leads to miscommunication and guys don’t know what to do but it’s OK becuase women aren’t allowed to say what they REALLY mean,” it comes off as either patronizing (which I don’t think it is) or, as Virago thinks, a whine of “but what about the meeeenz!!” (for the record, I don’t think that either. I think it’s simply very difficult for a man to understand what it’s like to be a woman in this world).
Trout, women ALWAYS mean what they say. Whether they are conflicted with their choice (due to the million different and often conflicting parameters they have to consider), or it goes against what they think they might have done if they weren’t living in the Patriarchy (impossible and irrelevant - we ARE living under the Patriarchy, and will continue to do so for the rest of our lives), a woman’s “no” and her “yes” are EXACTLY what she meant to say at the time, because that’s what she decided was in her best interest. Any confusion that might result from that has to do with the fact that only half the human is forced to negotiate life as sex-class non-agents.
I think Trout’s onto something, though I don’t know if I can grab hold of its tail.
It’s what Twisty says over and over in different ways: Women in a patriarchy have no agency, no free will; it is literally impossible to remove ourselves from its context.
How can we know when we’re having a single thought that is entirely untarred by the patriarchal brush? Answer: We can’t. Because our belief systems, the ideas we use to think with, the very words with which these concepts are constructed, are patriarchal in origin. Even the fabulous lexicon of language created here is largely in reaction to patriarchy, and so is therefore trapped in its cage.
I’m sure someone else has already, and will again, say this better and more clearly than I apparently can. Jest tryin’ to wrap my noggin around a notion that is one slippery little bugger.
Ah. While I was busy straining away at my little thought, along came Tefnut and captured at least part of what I was trying to say:
Under Patriarchy, women are always conflicted and divided between all the elements that affect their decision to have sex.
And we are also ‘conflicted and divided’ by patriarchal considerations about practically any other decision you care to name as well.
Though I must beg to differ with this comment: women ALWAYS mean what they say
How many passive-aggressives (of either gender) have you known who say exactly the OPPOSITE of what they mean while relying on your sensitivity/empathy/magical powers of intuition to lead you to whatever’s hidden between the lines?
Ok, must go sleepy-bye now.
I’ve not heard it said ’round these parts that “women have no agency, no free will.” In fact, women do have agency and free will, but all their choices are bounded by the patriarchy. We’re still choosing–but our choices are very, very limited. There’s a difference. (Additionally, women have been known to side with the patriarchy and the most anyone ’round here asks them to do is to make their choices with their eyes open.)
Women’s choices–about sex, about finances, about shoes, about everydamnthing–are always framed in such a way as to have the best interests of men at heart, which is why it pains me to see a discussion about rape being served up with the ol’ “When she says ‘no’ she might mean ‘yes’ and then what are the menz–er, I mean, poor women–supposed to do?” with a side dish of “What happens to love/romance/desire if we have to worry about being rapists, er, I mean, about consent?”
Those are arguments offered by a patriarchy that wants to keep up the current defenses of “She said no but she meant yes” and “Rape=porn=sex=love/romance/desire.”
Hey all. Apologies for wading in here with a great big quotation, but I happen to be reading Mackinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State” at the moment, and I just got to the part about rape this evening. This passage (which I’m thinking - given the canonical nature of the book - is very possibly the root of much of what has already been said here and therefore pretty much old-hat to a lot of you, though still quite new to me) seems remarkably appropriate and therefore worth repeating. At the very least, I think it rather succinctly puts pay to the whole “what about the menz / nice guys” argument. Here goes then. Hope it resonates:
“The deeper problem is that rape law’s assumption that a single, objective state of affairs existed, one that merely needs to be determined by evidence, when so many rapes involve honest men and violated women. When the reality is split, is the woman raped but not by a rapist? Under these conditions, the law is desinged to conclude that a rape did not occur.
To attempt to solve this problem by adopoting reasonable belief as a standard without asking, on a substantive social basis, to whom the belief is reasonable and why - meaning, what conditions make it reasonable - is one-sided: male-sided.
What is it reasonable for a man to believe concerning a woman’s desire for sex when heterosexuality is compulsory?
What is reasonable for a man (accused or juror) to believe concerning a woman’s consent when he has been viewing positive-outcome-rape pornography?
The one whose subjectivity becomes the objectivity of ‘what happened’ is a matter of social meaning, that is, a matter of sexual politics. One-sidedly erasing women’s violation or dissolving presumptions into the subjectivity of either side are the alternatives dictated by the terms of the object / subject split, respectively.
These alternatives will only retrace that split to women’s detriment until its terms are confronted as gendered to the ground.”
…which confrontation, it seemse to me, is exactly what’s going on here! No???
“So if we go with Twisty’s idea that we consider a girl to be saying “no†unless otherwise explicitly stated. Thus, we have girls saying “no†a priori and guys saying “yes†a priori. I may have made an error in logic, but doesn’t that still uphold the idea of the woman as being receiving/passive and the man being the active?”
I know that Twisty has already told you that this isn’t what she is arguing, but I think it’s a good illustration of the mindset that is being fought here.
Why do you think that you get to consider anything about the woman? That’s really a general “you”, because most people take the same approach to rape. A woman is raped and suddenly everybody is considering her - look what happened to the Duke rape victim. She knew what those men did to her but from the way people behaved you’d think that everybody else knew better. Under Twisty’s law it’s the woman who decides whether she was raped or not. Her. Not you. Not Trout. Not the man who penetrated her. Not the court (although they will act against the man if he did rape her). The only idea this proposal would uphold is that a woman is sovereign over her own body. She decides what happens to her and what has happened to her. Your concerns about activity/passivity remain your own.
Although just to add, this idea that men are “active” and women are “passive” about sex, that passivity is bad, and women should aspire to also being active to are actually euphemisms for the real state of affairs which is that men are trained to be rapists and that women basically have to suck it up. It’s the active part of the equation that’s problematic. Active meaning in practice that the man goes at a woman using every trick he has until he breaks down her defences, which of course is rape.
I heard Germaine Greer talking about the high incidence of rape and the low reporting rate, and even lower conviction rate. She wondered if reducing the penalties, but also reducing the burden of proof in court would increase the conviction rate.
It would be like a deal with the devil, but would work by getting loads more rapists convicted. As part of the deal, a non-custodial sentence, or a shorter sentence would handed down. However, a conviction would place the rapist on an offender’s register. A web site showing the details, and photos of all convicted rapists would give women access to information on men that had raped.
The suggestion to reduce penalties for rape drew a collective sharp intake of breath from the audience, but it’s a interesting possibility, don’t you think?
First of all, what we have to get away from is that sex is oh-so-very vital to one’s health and well-being. No, I don’t know how to go about it either, aside from nuking every television show and movie and magazine and taking children out of society altogether, but we have to stop convincing young folks (and others) that sex is the be-all end-all of human existance. Then they won’t feel so horribly deprived when they’re not getting some. Then maybe men will find more enjoyment taking walks with their spouses and girlfriends, or talking, or doing activities that do not involve rubbing your genitals together.
I mean, am I the only one who is appalled that we sell make-up kits to eight year old girls? That kids as young as thirteen — or younger — are having sex? Shit, when I was thirteen, I wanted to romp around and play tug-of-war with my dog in the backyard. This pressure to make kids sexual has to be coming from the patriarchy. I think it’s another factor we need to examine in view of the whole problem.
As for what Twisty’s proposing here, I think the core of the trouble has been very well articulated above. Men do not take it seriously when a woman says ‘no.’ Therefore, to have a woman saying ‘no’ as the starting point in a sexual encouter is almost beyond their comprehension. It’s something they’ve been trained to ignore since they hit puberty, and maybe earlier. So they’re coming up with all these ‘logical’ talking points and reasons for why Twisty’s proposition wouldn’t work in the real world.
And it all boils down to this: It wouldn’t work in the real world because women are bitches and the grand majority are just waiting to take advantage of the Twisty Law and use it to put thousands of innocent, undeserving men in prison. So it’s much better to continue as we are and have men raping women and women raked over the grill, humiliated and disbelieved if they protest.
And what is the flaw in this great argument? Twisty’s already pointed it out. If men treat women decently, they’re not going to get accused. Period. I’m really furious at all thses cries of ‘oh, the poor innocent men!’ because what it really means is: ‘women are a bunch of untrustworthy sluts.’
And now I’m leaving on vacation and am doubtless going to miss endless fascinating posts. Blast. Ah, well, blame on everyone! I shall return.
Well Greer based her assertion that it would be OK to reduce penalties for rape by arguing that rape can’t be so bad because if a woman had a choice between having her nose cut off and being raped she’d choose the rape, so what are we making such a fuss about?
So my opinion for what it’s worth is no, it isn’t an interesting possibility.
I’m sorry to block quote so much, but my html isn’t good enough to find this quote on the page. This is from an archived Feministing posting that I happened to bookmark. I wonder what you advanced blamers make of this idea of a commodity model vs a performance model?
Pardon me, or tell me I’m wrong, but I think comments here are missing a central point. Rape law and everything about the way women’s sexuality has been controlled under patriarchy since at least the Hammurabi codes has had no interest in women’s will.
Women (wombs) are PROPERTY of fathers then husbands. Desire? Who cares? Consent? Only disproven by violent resistance and, preferably, death rather than violation of the vagina (since our entire worth IS our vagina). That’s why the law cares much less about other forms of sexual abuse and assault. Like most law, it’s designed to protect property.
Touché, Roamaround. I’ve been waiting for someone to connect the dots.
Our laws are based on old English law. Rape was never considered to be a crime against women under the law. Women were considered property. The property of men. So the crime occurs when one man trespasses or infringes upon the property rights of another man. It is the property owners (the man) who is harmed, not the property itself (women). The property owners (men) are then awarded damages for the damaging of his goods (raped women) and compensated for his losses and the decreased value of his property. (Virginal women are considered to have much greater value). Not owned by any man? Then no harm or damage has been done.
Our laws are a clear reflection of this. Those who think women aren’t considered property any more in this day and age haven’t been in a courtroom lately. I can assure you these barbaric views, attitdues and laws are very much alive and well in the kangeroo courts and nothing much has changed over the centuries. Women are still on trial. One can read verbatim from the transcripts of witch trials. Women are still held to the same standards as they were 500 years ago.
Until we get that women are viewed as property by men and their system and laws, and that nothing much has changed in these views and attitudes over the centuries, women will be ill prepared to deal with the time warp they will be hurtled through, as they enter the Twilight Zone and are transported back to the days of Malleus Maleficarum. We’ve come a long way, baby? LOL. Hardly. Lip speak is just that. Lip speak. Actions say something quite different. Women are not considered human. Women are considered to be property. Property for men to buy, sell, steal and own. If men feel like setting fire to their property, then so be it. It’s his property to do with as he pleases. Not owned? Then it’s open season. You’re up for grabs. Whoever heard of property having sovereignty over itself and needing to give consent?
I’m a member of the forums at Indiebride.com, and for a while we were having a discussion about bachelor parties and the prevalence of the use of prostituted women by the assholes at these parties. Several of the women in the thread had experienced serious problems in their relationships due to their husbands’ bachelor parties and saw fit to warn others about the things that often go on at same. There were a couple of trolls in the thread, one of whom (if I recall correctly) berated me for “taking away [my fiancé’s] God-given right to look at boobs” and told us all we were fucked up for thinking it was okay to end a relationship if a man overstepped the relationship’s boundaries at a bachelor party. Her position was that yes, it was wrong for a man to overstep the boundaries, but if the woman never explicitly told him she didn’t want him using prostituted women at his bachelor party, or watching them with each other, or eating food out of their vaginas, or whatever specific thing, how was he to know, and how dare she punish him for doing what his friends told him was okay.
Indiebride.com’s forums have a lovely little button labeled “ignore this user”. We made use of it. If IBTP had such a button, maybe the trolls wouldn’t be able to derail threads so easily, because we’d just put them on “ignore” and talk around them.
But I definitely think it’s much better just to send them away. They have no business fucking with us, in my opinion.
Damn, I’ve posted on the wrong post. Too many tabs open at a time.
Not only are women are quasi-property in our culture, women are not considered very valuable. To wit:
“…[T]he national average sentence for men who kill their female partners is two to six years in prison. Criminal justice systems and juries do not, on average, treat the murder of women by their husbands terribly seriously. In contrast, women who kill their male partners are sentenced to an average of 15 years, three times as much as male defendants, despite the fact that many of these women killed in self-defense.â€
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/otheropinions/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1179120053203970.xml&coll=1
AND that’s for killing women, not merely prodding them.
Emphasis mine.
Part of why I hang out here is because I am not extremely well versed in academic feminism and am sucking down the learning like a flower in the desert. I’m raising a son and don’t want him to be an asshole. The above is a significant tool I can use and for that, I thank you.
Good ideas posted here on the new thread. I agree that lowering sentences is a bad idea. I like the idea of creating *real* consequences, though. How about posting these guys on a website? All rapists on a website accessible to all women. No privacy arguments–rapists lose that when they rape. How about those electronic monitored ankle things? Not only do they track, women can see them. In short, treat these rapists like the predators and social rejects that they are.
All convicted rapists are currently online, accessible to all. The listing includes each man’s name, aliases, address, job location, precise conviction(s), and a photograph. Some websites even have a map where you can see how close you live to a convicted rapist.
Thread hijack alert:
Lately I have been jokingly thanking Twisty for “ruining” my life with IBTP.
Now, I have to say I actually did have a friendship fracture over my steadfast refusal to unquestioningly accept to patriarchal constructs any longer. My best friend, whom I’ve known for 25 years, told me I’m too strident and that I have an anger emanating from me, and this is contributing to the “noise” in her life.
I said you’re damn right I’m angry, and you act like that’s a bad thing, and I don’t think it is.
Believe me, I won’t be sharing the “consent” thread with her.
Wow. I am reeling from this casualty of my life.
Thank goodness for all of you here.
The availability of sex offender info on-line varies by state. In Texas, there is a readily accessible website, and you can search by zip code. In Colorado, I had to make a trip to the constable’s office and make a written request to obtain a list of sex offenders. It seems that Colorado makes the sex offender’s privacy a bigger priority than the safety of the general public. I was primiarly interested in pedophiles since I have kids.
I’m suggesting that *all* states make access available to sex offender information. Although there are sex offenders out there who are not registered, it makes sense to know the convicted offenders.
Tinfoil Hattie, my condolences. As we age, some people stop growing. “Noise”=anxiety about looking at my own life in a different way, flexibility and change. Sucks.
Cunning Allusionment?:
“Obviously, people don’t need to consent to their own actions, so requiring women to consent to sex implies that sex isn’t an act of their own will. By removing women as an agent acting on their own behalf, sex becomes something men do *to* women. Since only free agents can provide consent in the first place, in this context in becomes impossible for women to consent to heterosexual sex.â€
Yup, that’s what I mean with big stress on the “in this contextâ€
The part I struggle with is the vicious balancing act of asserting self-hood under patriarchy. Patriarchy limits women’s ability to act as self-determinate beings, but this does not remove all possibility for autonomous action because a woman is able to see the lie and act against it.
Only when women see patriarchal society for what it is, see the limitations and the chinks in the wall, can heterosexual sex even begin to be not-rape.
On a side note:
The existentialists have a lot to say about living in the face of death that is useful for thinking about this. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that de Beauvoir came from there.
Susan Estrich proposed a new crime of “negligent rape”: a crime where the perpetrator did not know whether their partner was consenting, or did not take appropriate measures to determine whether their partner was able to consent. A prosecution of negligent rape would focus on the perpetrator’s actions with regard to determining consent, rather than an endless parsing of the victim’s communication of consent or non-consent. The que