25 years old and deep in debt

[Berkut]

That is all great and desireable, but I cannot accept that the definition or "rape" is essentially "sex where ideally clear and concise communication has not occurred".

No one said that it would be defined that way. I only suggested that if there is any question - as in if at any point during the episode she said "no" - that rather than pushing forward, they both take a break and figure out where the line is.

That is obviously a good idea. The question on the table however is not what should people do in some ideal circumstances, but at what point non-ideal actions cross the line into criminal behavior. Pointing out that NOT engaging in even the nearly criminal behavior is a good idea is rather patently obvious, isn't it?

Interestingly, when I brought your story up with my 18-year-old son, he said that the first time she said no, he'd back off. I asked what that meant, and he said that if she said no, he'd take it back to just making out. End of story. He wouldn't ever want to put a girl into the position of feeling like he pressured her into anything.

So, it's not really so awkward or awful as you're making it sound. It can be done with very little fuss, and even less drama.

Woah, fiucking-A time the fuck out!

I have made no damn claim that my scenario is typical, or desirable, or OK, or anything. All I created was a plausible scenario that could happen, and that tried to find a line where I think the discriminator between "pressure" and "assault" becomes very hard to define.

I sure as fuck did not say that I thought "Joe's" actions were OK, or acceptable, or ideal, or anything of the sort. I think my post makes that pretty obviously clear in fact.

Thanks for telling me how your 18 year old son would handle a completely fictional scenario better than someone I just made up to illustrate a point about whether behavior rises to the level of criminal rape. What a great guy he is I guess?

Seriously, wtf Meri?

[Berkut]

Yes.  Without any doubt.  Sexual assault is a sex act without consent.  Sarah did not consent.

Do you have to get a verbal "yes" before you proceed? 

If you've gotten a verbal "no", then absolutely you'd better get a verbal "yes" before proceeding.

Look - there are some grey areas here.  If you're told "well I have a headache", or "I'm feeling tired", then while it would still be without consent, you may have an 'honest but mistaken belief in consent'.

But as they say, "no means no".

Forever and ever?

No means no until the other person says yes.

So it is rape if someone says no, and then does not say yes at some point - no matter what else they do to indicate they may have changed their mind?

What if Sarah took off her panties herself and climbed on, but never actually said she changed her mind? Still assault?

[Jaron]

I need to hear a little more about Sarah.

[MadImmortalMan]

FWIW Sarah gave consent in Berky's story. IMO.

[MadImmortalMan]

Or, if you're John Wayne, you will chase her all around the town, paddle her fanny with a coal shovel, and then live happily ever after.

I always preferred the Humphrey Bogart method:  possessing apathy, contempt and a lighter in case the lady desires to smoke.

I think this guy hits above his weight class. If you know what I mean.

[Berkut]

This is yet another example of how difficult people have in differentiating between how they think people ought to act, and what the law should define as criminal activity.

Of course men should go out of their way to make absolutely certain that consent is clear and explicit, and of course women should make that consent clear, and more importantly make it clear when consent is NOT given.

Duh. That is so obvious that it is uninteresting, and if everyone acted that way we would not be having this conversation to begin with.

But in the real world, not every man is the perfect Jak son who epitomizes the highest standards of gentlemanly conduct, and not every women is abundantly clear about what she wants, when she wants it, and when she does NOT want it. In the real world, most people are operating with limited information.

So deciding when in all the ambiguity a given act rises to the level of criminal assault seems kind of important. Someone doing something that is maybe not the best way to handle a situation doesn't make it criminal, nor should it. Hence noting what the ideal response is is not very useful.

I think the problem that a large number of women experience sexual contact that they perhaps did not want is certainly worthy of discussion. But defining sexual contact as "rape" whenever it happens in a context where someone may feel pressured or obligated, or even just indifferent just makes the issue seem petty and silly. It is why so many people can simply dismiss statistics like "25% of women report being sexually assaulted". They assume that "assaulted" may very well mean something that many people would not consider assault at all.

In my scenario above, I think Joe was probably a bit of an asshole, but I don't think he raped anyone. Sarah does in fact have some responsibility for the outcome here - she was a participant in the act, not simply a victim. Joe certainly should have backed off. Sarah should have done the same though - when she felt things were going further than she wanted, she should have probably shut the entire thing down and let both of them cool off a bit before talking through where things were heading.

What I reject out of the evaluation in these kinds of scenarios (specifically meaning the one above, obviously not when there is a more classic "rape" scenario) is the idea that one person is a straight up aggressor, and the other is simply a victim. Rather, they are two people engaged in a messy and difficult to manage emotional experience that often has outcomes one or both parties may not be entirely happy with - but that doesn't automatically make it rape.

In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.

[Berkut]

FWIW Sarah gave consent in Berky's story. IMO.

I can understand that position - I don't know if I agree with it though.

I think in my story consent was pretty much impossible to determine one way or another. Which is why I constructed it that way, of course.

You can look at as "She said no, she never clearly said she changed her mind, hence she did NOT give consent".

On the other hand, you can say "She said no, but then apparently she did change her mind, since when Joe asked, she did not tell him to stop".

I think both of those are reasonable positions. Obviously, ideally Joe would not proceed in such an ambiguous situation, but just as obviously we live in a world where shit like that does in fact happen all the time. I have a hard time, however, putting Joe up there with a traditional rapist. Hell, this scenario probably plays out all the time, and Joe and Sarah may very well go on to a happy relationship, even if the start of it was somewhat strained.

[DontSayBanana]

In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.

Bullshit.  An impaired rational state is a consideration for the victim, not the aggressor.  This was the exact point that sent our case to trial, and it's also a well-established concept in a DWI driver committing vehicular homicide.  Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.

[Eddie Teach]

Bullshit.  An impaired rational state is a consideration for the victim, not the aggressor.  This was the exact point that sent our case to trial, and it's also a well-established concept in a DWI driver committing vehicular homicide.  Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.

[Neil]

Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.

Or better yet, his decision to be born with a penis.  All sex is rape, after all.

[Barrister]

In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.

But isn't that basically what I said?  "No means no".  Once a victim says no, then the accused must obtain explicit consent.

II don't think it's fair to a victim to have to say no not once, or twice, but repeatedly.  After all, no means no.

[Berkut]

In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.

Bullshit.  An impaired rational state is a consideration for the victim, not the aggressor.  This was the exact point that sent our case to trial, and it's also a well-established concept in a DWI driver committing vehicular homicide.  Joe's intent to commit the crime could be argued to go back to the decision to break out the wine.

Never mind.

[jimmy olsen]

What makes you say that?

IIRC the stat is based on a survey that asked if you have ever been raped or the object of unwanted sexual advances. 

Think about it, do you really think that one out of four women you know have been raped?

Seems reasonable.

It's not just one survey. I believe every survey done on the matter comes up with numbers like that.

[merithyn]

Woah, fiucking-A time the fuck out!

I have made no damn claim that my scenario is typical, or desirable, or OK, or anything. All I created was a plausible scenario that could happen, and that tried to find a line where I think the discriminator between "pressure" and "assault" becomes very hard to define.

I sure as fuck did not say that I thought "Joe's" actions were OK, or acceptable, or ideal, or anything of the sort. I think my post makes that pretty obviously clear in fact.

Thanks for telling me how your 18 year old son would handle a completely fictional scenario better than someone I just made up to illustrate a point about whether behavior rises to the level of criminal rape. What a great guy he is I guess?

Seriously, wtf Meri?

I never thought you did consider it okay. I understood what you were going for. I only pointed out that it's not a big fuss to take that step back. It's not just ideal, it's prudent and wise.

The reason I brought it up to Jak was to find out at what point he thought it was okay to try to push it a little further. He said that he never felt like it was okay. That's not the response I would have gotten from guys when I was his age, so I thought it was telling that things do seem to be shifting in terms of what's considered acceptable behavior.

As for your scenario, I don't know that were I in that girl's place that I would have pressed charges, but I also don't know that I would be able to date that guy anymore. I would be angry with myself for not being more clear, and at him for pushing it when he knew I wasn't ready. None of that changes the nature of the incident, however. As I've said, the incident is rape, whether or not the victim feels compelled to pursue it with the authorities.

[merithyn]

This is yet another example of how difficult people have in differentiating between how they think people ought to act, and what the law should define as criminal activity.

Of course men should go out of their way to make absolutely certain that consent is clear and explicit, and of course women should make that consent clear, and more importantly make it clear when consent is NOT given.

Duh. That is so obvious that it is uninteresting, and if everyone acted that way we would not be having this conversation to begin with.

But in the real world, not every man is the perfect Jak son who epitomizes the highest standards of gentlemanly conduct, and not every women is abundantly clear about what she wants, when she wants it, and when she does NOT want it. In the real world, most people are operating with limited information.

So deciding when in all the ambiguity a given act rises to the level of criminal assault seems kind of important. Someone doing something that is maybe not the best way to handle a situation doesn't make it criminal, nor should it. Hence noting what the ideal response is is not very useful.

I think the problem that a large number of women experience sexual contact that they perhaps did not want is certainly worthy of discussion. But defining sexual contact as "rape" whenever it happens in a context where someone may feel pressured or obligated, or even just indifferent just makes the issue seem petty and silly. It is why so many people can simply dismiss statistics like "25% of women report being sexually assaulted". They assume that "assaulted" may very well mean something that many people would not consider assault at all.

In my scenario above, I think Joe was probably a bit of an asshole, but I don't think he raped anyone. Sarah does in fact have some responsibility for the outcome here - she was a participant in the act, not simply a victim. Joe certainly should have backed off. Sarah should have done the same though - when she felt things were going further than she wanted, she should have probably shut the entire thing down and let both of them cool off a bit before talking through where things were heading.

What I reject out of the evaluation in these kinds of scenarios (specifically meaning the one above, obviously not when there is a more classic "rape" scenario) is the idea that one person is a straight up aggressor, and the other is simply a victim. Rather, they are two people engaged in a messy and difficult to manage emotional experience that often has outcomes one or both parties may not be entirely happy with - but that doesn't automatically make it rape.

In my opinion, rape involves some form of clear and overt coercion or active rejection of a clear "no". The person saying no has an obligation to be clear - saying you were embarrassed, pressured, or simply confused is certainly understandable for why you may have allowed something to happen you didn't really want. But on the other hand, the other person is dealing with difficult emotions as well - why does the "victims" emotional state excuse them from not making their no clear (ie why didn't Sarah say "No, I don't want to" when Joe asked that last time), but the other person emotional state doesn't matter? both parties when it comes to sex are operating under impaired rational considerations, almost by definition.

Those are really good - and incredibly fair - points. I think from my perspective, I've always been so defensive of people putting the blame on women in any situation that even in a scenario like you describe, I try to avoid doing so. As you say, that's just as unfair as blaming them every time.

It's something to think about.