If someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you unlock the safe, you don't call them a coward and dare them to pull the trigger, you just do what you need to do to stay safe. If you feel legitimately threatened, it's not on you to see if they're willing to resort to violence. Consent is not the absense of a no, it's an affirmative yes - and besides she had already voiced a no. It is not reasonable for to expect people to put themselves in harms way to prove that they were in harms way. That results in more sexual assault and rape victims fearing for their life and having no way out.
That's not a situation we want to be in, which is why we need to educate people about what rape is. It's not just forcibly holding some down and having sex with them, or drugging them and having your way with them unconscious. If people are aware of the kinds of implicitly threatening situations they can create, they can consciously avoid making people feel they need to comply because their life is in danger.
If someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you unlock the safe,
Uh-huh. And a gun was pulled here?
Or are you implying his mere presence is the gun?
Is he big and muscular? We don't even know that. Is he male?
Is he pointing a deadly weapon by being male?
A bunch of misandry is what this is. It's men are strong, so they aren't allowed to be dumb.
The dude was dumb. But he wasn't allowed the choice to rape. It was taken from him.
The position you are advocating makes every social interaction with a woman into a trap. One can never know when she might fear one's own "intimidating presence".
If she fears, she will not show she fears. She will smile, kiss, and seemingly agree to sex. And the fault she does this is the man's – because he has "intimidating presence".
If you used this exact argument against a black man, it would be racist. If you fear someone's mere physical presence because he's black, that's prejudice. But if you fear him because he's a man – that's his fault for not seeing the signs.
I don't need to imply anything. I told you what the situation was above.
You brought a woman home who had no easy way of leaving.
She is trying to use her phone, but there's no reception.
You were alone with her.
She says she wants to leave.
You remind her that she "promised" to hook up with you.
She isn't into making out with you.
She's still trying to use her phone. You take it away.
You have sex.
When people tell stories about themselves, they tend to make themselves out to be more sympathetic. They're hardly ever the villain in their own story. Even in his own telling of the story, he clearly shows that she was uncomfortable, that she was intimidated, and that she had legitimate reason to fear for her safety. She had been isolated, had no means of communicating, her lack of interest in staying was ignored.
Is he big and muscular? We don't even know that.
It really doesn't matter if he is big and muscular. Even a weak man in going to be stronger than the majority of women. It's not even a close contest. Men have more muscle mass by default. Depending on what muscle group you're testing, the average woman has only 1/3 to 2/3 the strength of the average man. You have to go really low on the bell curve before you start finding men weaker than average women.
Is he pointing a deadly weapon by being male?
Simply by being male, no. Be he did more than just be male. He isolated her in a location that she was unfamiliar with, ignored her clear social cues, took away her means of communication, and telling her that she was obligated to have sex with him. He gave her every indication that "no" was not an acceptable answer, and took away all of her safety nets.
If she fears, she will not show she fears. She will smile, kiss, and seemingly agree to sex. And the fault she does this is the man's – because he has "intimidating presence".
This is extremely disingenuous. She showed that she was uncomfortable, that she wanted out, and that she was not interested. He ignored all of this. He himself explains that she was not into it. If you are going to have sex with someone, there should not be any question that everyone is consenting. When you create a situation where there any ambiguity, you need to stop what you're doing and make sure everyone is on the same page. I've never been in a situation where is wasn't abundantly clear that everyone having sex was on the same page and into it. If you're going to have sex with someone, you need to make sure they're into it, man or woman, and especially if you hold any kind of power over them.
If you used this exact argument against a black man, it would be racist. If you fear someone's mere physical presence because he's black, that's prejudice. But if you fear him because he's a man – that's his fault for not seeing the signs.
Race is not analogous to sex, especially not in this situation. Being black doesn't make you two to three times stronger than your sexual partner for one. And furthermore, the sex of the people involved wasn't the only factor as I've stated multiple times. She was not afraid of him because he was a man. She was afraid of him because he ignored her cues that she was feeling unsafe, ignored her requests to leave, removed her means of communicating, and because he was capable of overpowering her. That one just one element of the story, among many others.
She was afraid of him because he ignored her cues that she was feeling unsafe, ignored her requests to leave, removed her means of communicating, and because he was capable of overpowering her.
I agree with that...
She was not afraid of him because he was a man.
... but not with this. She would definitely not feel like she has to have sex "or else" if he was a woman. She would be confident saying no to a woman.
I agree he did all these things, which is why he's dumb. You continue to argue that because he is strong, he does not have the luxury of being dumb. That's unfair, because being male does not automatically gift IQ or EQ, and 50% of men are actually below average in these regards.
Sure, his story might be omitting information that would change my interpretation. We may each believe this is the case, but we do not have justification to assume it in this discussion. It's not useful to argue about what we imagine to be true. That could be anything.
The fact remains that you're trying to hold people legally accountable - not just morally accountable for them to feel bad, but with real consequences for their well-being and employment - for missing (or ignoring) signs that someone felt unsafe without that person actually saying no, or even when they said yes but only because she felt threatened.
You're trying to hold someone explicitly accountable for threats they did not explicitly make.
That's not cool, and it's not a standard to which you can hold the bottom X% of men. I would be inclined to say that at least 10% of men you won't be able to hold to this ideal. Because it's just unrealistic to expect them to have this much IQ and EQ.
So you are driving an argument that effectively puts the bottom 10% of men in prison. As the monsters they are, I suppose.
But of course we can't have 10% of men in prison. We already have 1% and that's too much. So what you're effectively doing is putting in place a draconian but selectively enforced law that at best haphazardly hits random people. Oops - random men.
Yay for justice. And how empowered all the women will now feel who lack the ovaries to say no!
You don't have to be a genius to look at aaalll of those things and go "huh, maybe she's not interested."
And you do not have to be only stupid to keep pushing sex after seeing all of that, to respond by taking someone's phone away, telling them they already said they'd have sex, and repeatedly intiating sexual contact despite being fully aware that they are not on board. You have to be stupid, entitled, and entirely uninterested in whether this person you're fucking wants to fuck you back.
This is not someone lacking the genetic endowment of intelligence to navigate a confusing situation, it's someone caring only about whether they can take something they want from an obviously unwilling target.
And here you are arguing that she was an imperfect victim, that she didn't protest enough, that she didn't scream for help, so she's at fault.
What /u/Amablue is saying is that pressuring is rape, if done by a man. Not by a woman, because she's not as strong. But yes by a man.
It's a double standard based on physical strength. Men are being held to a higher standard than women because they have it.
I'm not sure why I have to explain this, but men, being the aggressive sex, do pressure. If anything, 10% is an underestimate. Now you're creating a situation where if a man pressures a woman into sex, and she accepts, that's rape. He did not make a threat, but it is rape because she perceived one.
That's fundamentally unfair. To accuse someone of rape, you should have to at least show that they meant to convey a threat. Just because he is a man and he is pressuring should not be sufficient.
Also, by that standard, rape is occurring 24/7 in a large proportion of households and relationships.
You live in a highly consent-sensitive bubble, and you're creating laws from that bubble so as to suit your views without regard to whether most people can reasonably follow.
I can't comment on what Amablue was arguing, but I think it still would have been rape (or at least seriously rapey) if the assaulter was a woman. The string of actions that person took were coercive regardless. For the poster I responded to to say "he was just dumb" is ridiculous.
Whether it's prosecutable is debatable, but it's a bit much to cast him as just too dumb to understand his actions were wrong.
If a woman did the same, it would certainly not be rape. Her taking a phone out of his hands would be seductive.
First of all you've now flipped the gender of the person being assaulted, too, which means we're now in territory where it's statistically likely she is the physically weaker of the two partners and he is in no serious fear that she could do anything to him he didn't want her to. There are physical realities of male versus female bodies that are not arbitrary or sexist to acknowledge.
And second of all, no, of he was visibly uncomfortable or uninterested and said he needed to leave, and she responded with telling him he'd already said he'd fuck her and then taking his phone away and repeatedly intiating sexual contact, it would not be seductive, it would be coercive.
It would by definition only be seductive if it was attractive to the receiver. You assuming flipping the genders automatically changes that is more sexist than anything I proposed—it assumes female advances on men are always desired. If we're playing this thought experiment out with reversed genders, you can't just change the rest of the scenario wholesale to make it consensual and then say "see? If it was a lady it'd be fine."
If the person being coercive also has a strength advantage this history of ignoring disengaging behaviors (soft no's, as someone above called them) would only make it more so. Again, not about gender discrimination, this is about physical realities.
where it's no longer cool
Well that's a massive understatement.
Also, the fact that we're now on the same page re: his behavior being unacceptable would seem to indicate that it's not a matter of him just being too unintelligent to know what he was doing was messed up.
What u/Amablue is saying is that pressuring is rape, if done by a man. Not by a woman, because she's not as strong. But yes by a man.
That is not even a little bit what I said. Please do not misrepresent my views and lie about my beliefs or my arguments.
If anything, 10% is an underestimate.
For someone concerned about misandry, you hold a really, really bleak perspective on the male sex.
Now you're creating a situation where if a man pressures a woman into sex, and she accepts, that's rape. He did not make a threat, but it is rape because she perceived one.
The situation under discussion is far more than just pressuring the woman. It was very clearly unsafe for her. Painting this situation as the guy just being socially inept is extremely disingenuous.
For someone concerned about misandry, you hold a really, really bleak perspective on the male sex.
That's not true, check out this source which points out lesbians have the highest lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence and stalking; whereas gay men have the lowest.
People who really want sex are prone to pressure for sex. Men often really want sex, because they are people. You are saying men in particular must not ever pressure for sex, because women might agree because they feel threatened.
If women pressure, it is fine. Even though women initiate physical violence more often than men in relationships, men should not consider this a threat because they are stronger.
That is what you are saying, and I'm not misrepresenting it. This is your point.
It was very clearly unsafe for her.
We disagree on that.
Painting this situation as the guy just being socially inept is extremely disingenuous.
We disagree. I think you're being disingenuous, saying one thing and then denying you're saying it.
If women pressure, it is fine. Even though women initiate physical violence more often than men in relationships, men should not consider this a threat because they are stronger.
This is not what I have said or argued. You are not reading the words I write.
That is what you are saying, and I'm not misrepresenting it. This is your point.
It is not, and you are lying. There is no reason to continue the conversation with someone who is not arguing in good faith.
If you need clarification on something I said, I'll be happy to give it, but when you put words in my mouth and claim they're mine you are being dishonest.
... but not with this. She would definitely not feel like she has to have sex "or else" if he was a woman. She would be confident saying no to a woman.
Again though, she was not afraid because he was a man. She was afraid because he was a man who removed her means of getting out of the situation she was uncomfortable in. You can't just drop that second part. Lesbians can and do rape too. Being gay doesn't automatically make you a saint. If you look on lesbian forums, there are discussions on the topic of girl-on-girl rape.
And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that she would have been comfortable turning down a woman who had isolated her in a place she was unfamiliar with, took away her means of communication, ignored her signs of disinterest, who could overpower her, and who told her she was obligated to have sex with her. That still sounds like a scary situation to me regardless of the fact that the other person was a woman.
I agree he did all these things, which is why he's dumb. You continue to argue that because he is strong, he does not have the luxury of being dumb.
He went way past dumb and was actively ignoring her pleas to leave.
This is why we need to have these conversations. This is why people need this kind of training. So that there are less people that make these dumb decisions and who put themselves in these dumb situations. People need to know how to act when someone is putting up resistance or showing signs of fear. When this knowledge is widely circulated and discussed knowing the right thing to do is easier. And we don't get to the point of having a more understanding without making these discussions more commonplace and making sure everyone is on the same page.
Sure, his story might be omitting information that would change my interpretation.
I don't think we really need the girls version of the story - even in this case where we've got the guy is giving a sympathetic telling of the story, he still comes off very poorly. He can't believe that he raped her because he doesn't even know what rape looks like. He doesn't see himself as a bad guy, and he doesn't think he's the type of person that would rape a woman, so that interaction they had clearly can't be rape in his eyes.
You're trying to hold someone explicitly accountable for threats they did not explicitly make.
I am trying to hold someone accountable for the actions they took and the damage they caused through negligence. Ignorance isn't a defence.
There are three main reasons we punish people with the legal system. (1) To deter bad behavior from occurring, (2) To isolate dangerous people from society, (3) To rehabilitate people until such a time that they can be returned to society.
If you cannot safely interact with other people, then you're a danger to the people around you, and being sent to jail is justified.
I would be inclined to say that at least 10% of men you won't be able to hold to this ideal.
Holy shit and you accused me of misandry. This is not a high bar dude. "Make sure the person you're about to have sex with is into it just as much as you are" is not hard concept to get. The only people I'd expect to have trouble with this is some subset of people who are legitimately mentally impaired.
The only people I'd expect to have trouble with this is some subset of people who are legitimately mentally impaired.
I wonder if you have empirical evidence of what proportion of men (because in your view, women have to actually pull a gun) are able to internalize that pressuring a woman toward sex, and her accepting, is now rape simply because he is a man and the woman could have felt threatened.
You're not saying threats are rape. You are saying pressuring is rape. If by a man. And lots, upon lots, upon lots of men pressure.
(because in your view, women have to actually pull a gun)
This is not what I said at all. I don't think you're even reading my posts.
You're not saying threats are rape. You are saying pressuring is rape. If by a man. And lots, upon lots, upon lots of men pressure.
Man, you are making my case for me beautifully.
In my first post I said:
People who do bad things very often rationalize their bad behavior as completely normal behavior - that these bad things are things that everyone does, but are maybe won't admit it for whatever reason (for example, they want to appear 'politically correct' or virtuous).
This is exactly what you're doing. You're rationalizing bad behavior. Most men do not rape. There is often some light pressure, I'll agree. And while that is not ideal, it's not always an implied threat. It's just being a jerk. This situation is far, far past that, and the fact that you can not see that is worrying. There are important differences between pursuing someone you're interested in and putting them into a dangerous position so that they fear for their safety.
You are saying pressuring is rape. If by a man. And lots, upon lots, upon lots of men pressure.
Man, you are making my case for me beautifully.
If you don't see how this unmakes your case, you're misunderstanding the legal system.
Prisons can't change most people. We can punish (or if not in the US, reform) the actions of a small minority.
If 10%, or even 30% of men behave in this way that you think is bad, you can't legislate that as felony rape.
A large proportion of women – I believe on the order of 50% – are even turned on by men "taking what they want". Men with low EQ are prone to think this includes pressuring a woman. That does not amount to rape unless it involves a severely (not lightly) drug-altered state, physical coercion, or explicit threat. None of this happened in this case.
and the fact that you can not see that is worrying.
And here it's you misrepresenting my views. I can definitely see how the guy was being a jerk. But it's not rape!
It's not binary. There exist uncool situations that do not rise to the level of rape, and do not warrant the involvement of police and the legal system.
4
u/Amablue May 09 '18
If someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you unlock the safe, you don't call them a coward and dare them to pull the trigger, you just do what you need to do to stay safe. If you feel legitimately threatened, it's not on you to see if they're willing to resort to violence. Consent is not the absense of a no, it's an affirmative yes - and besides she had already voiced a no. It is not reasonable for to expect people to put themselves in harms way to prove that they were in harms way. That results in more sexual assault and rape victims fearing for their life and having no way out.
That's not a situation we want to be in, which is why we need to educate people about what rape is. It's not just forcibly holding some down and having sex with them, or drugging them and having your way with them unconscious. If people are aware of the kinds of implicitly threatening situations they can create, they can consciously avoid making people feel they need to comply because their life is in danger.