Feminism vs. Equality

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's like any kind of violence - if you just hammer the one who commits the violent act, and do nothing else, regardless of the circumstances, then you'll create an environment in which people can use the illegality of violence to get one over on others. The problem is how to take contributory negligence and aiding and abetting into account. It'd be wrong to acquit a rapist just because a lady was wearing a mini skirt, and it would be wrong to jail a guy who wasn't told until 2 seconds after penetration that his advances weren't wanted. Between those two ridiculous extremes, it can get very difficult to know exactly what was going on and what to do about it.

I had a partner who actually liked the idea of being "raped," and she kept making it more and more difficult for me to have sex with her. She'd actually shout "KNOCK IT OFF!" when I made advances. In the end her resistance was so strong that I couldn't quite believe it was OK to proceed, and I lost my temper with her and told her she was playing games and I didn't like it. We never resolved it and we broke up. I'm sure now that if I'd just used more force on her, she'd have been delighted, but at the time it felt for all the world as if I were about to commit rape. If she'd explained it all clearly then maybe there'd have been no problem, but she only ever hinted, and as a 40-year-old Aspie I just couldn't decode her mixed messages with any confidence. Her love of rough handling isn't unique either - one third of my partners were interested in it. But they never spell it out, they want the guy to just know and get on with it. I could easily have goofed and unlawfully overpowered a woman if I'd mistaken a genuine rebuff for that game some of them love to play. Would I then have deserved the label of rapist pinned to me for the rest of my life? That's what would happen without the concept of female negligence.

I think that fantasy-play of rape is hot. But I think you are better off not being with this girl because HOW DO YOU KNOW if it's a game or not? I understand that people into the hardcore stuff have a sort of signal system, a code-word or something to indicate when something is NOT cool. I myself tend to be pushy when it comes to that. One relationship I was in was with a very inexperienced girl. I let her know my expectations up front and that she needs to understand what being in a relationship with me would ultimately mean. She didn't put on the brakes, she knew what was going to happen that night, and she had every chance to back out. She would admit that she wasn't really prepared for that, but it has been my experience that few people ever really are. She would also say that it was enjoyable.

As the man in the situation, we have to be extremely careful how we go about it. There are some very fine lines, and I do believe that if you stayed on the safe side of every line, NO ONE would EVER have sex at all.

As to everything else regarding rape and the equity of "play": I often refer to the Bible on things like that these days. According to the law, if a woman was out in the field, was raped, cried out, and no one heard her, it was pretty much her word against his and he'd be put to death. This is in Deuteronomy 22:25. It specifically refers to an engaged woman, as the law would be different for a single woman. The question here is what her intentions were--to murder a man through the legal system? The answer to the problem is easy--stay away from her if you find her, don't have sex with her, never travel anywhere alone! From how I understand these laws, if someone is found out to be setting someone up for a crime, any crime, then THEY would receive the punishment for what they are falsely accusing. This puts the man in the position of maintaining self-control at all times. It could easily be determined whether the man is innocent. It also avoids "blaming the victim."

In modern times, we culturally don't have a way to distinguish between consensual sex and rape. If the "woman in the field" cries rape, it is assumed that she WAS raped UNLESS she has been known to and witnessed to be in the habit of luring men "into the field" for such a purpose. In other words, if she was heard telling someone what she was planning to do, it can't be construed as rape. She would no longer be the victim, but the perpetrator.

In YOUR case, your woman makes a "game" of "crying rape," though it is in reality consensual. But how does anyone else know that? What if she was really serious and you didn't know it because it seemed just like any other time? Doesn't matter. She said, "NO" and/or "STOP" and you didn't. She's figuratively got you by the balls, whether she intends to metaphorically squeeze them or not.

Sexual intimacy is no game. Play that game and the woman wins every time.

Really?

Do you have insight into the sexual politics of every relationship?

Of course he does, because every sexual relationship is exactly the same.

@ Tough Diamond and Angel Rho, I am revolted by that kind of game but feel compelled to introduce you to the concept of 'safe words' anyway, for your own good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

way to miss the point.

Not at all, and that's not even what I was getting at.

Look at it rather from a strict legal perspective. Either a woman was raped or she wasn't. How does one determine whether rape has occurred? Just because the woman "said so"? If the rape incident started out as an intentional private affair, there are no witnesses. Only the woman and the man know the truth. I strongly disagree with so-called blaming the victim, BUT the ways in which rape cases are defined and often handled places a profound degree of power on the woman over her sexual partner or abuser. The inherent reality here is such that there really is no presumption of innocence. Now, if a woman fails to follow correct protocol, such as going to the hospital immediately after the incident, she doesn't do herself any favors. Condom usage also poses a problem in that there won't be quite as much clinical evidence. And rape is not necessarily always a violent act in the usual sense. A woman can "cry rape" for as little as deceptive behavior that, had she known the truth about her partner, she would never have consented to sex. I shudder to think how many times I could be accused of rape even though I've never engaged in anything that I thought was non-consensual. Multiply that by the number of every man who MIGHT have had sex with a woman who didn't really want to do it but somehow failed to communicate that fact. Those are a lot of rapists who are lucky not to be in prison, never mind the obvious ones that never get reported.

I understand that not all relationships are the same, and to insinuate that I ever said that is a blatant straw man. The plain fact is that rape, from a technical legal pov is way too easy a crime to commit. Rape convictions are unique in that they do not result from trials that are necessarily balanced. They generally favor female victims from the outset.

And they should. If men are aware of the consequences of their actions and punished to the fullest extent allowable, we have to carefully consider whether sex is really something we want that bad.

Better to err on the side of safety. If sex is a game, it is a dangerous one. When in doubt, DON'T.

I was joking.

Screw that. Bang everything! Bang anything that moves in the vicinity!

No worries here. We aren't into that at my house. If my wife wants to play rough, she's going to be the one in charge. I can take it. But if I were to so much as raise a hand to her just as a threat, she'd have my bags packed and the locks changed the next day.

I think safe words would have helped in Diamond's situation, as long as they are consistently used. On the other hand, having safe words implies consent, which limits the fantasy. She might have had a tendency to overuse the safe word trying to push him into breaking the rules. That's dangerous ground to tread. That's not the kind of woman I'd ever want to try to handle.

Darn my aspie literal mind!! !!

Don't say that. There are a lot of sheep where I live!

J/K

I disagree with you that rape trials favour the female from the outset.

I also think you're being a little paranoid about how often women 'cry rape', though I won't pretend it doesn't happen. Even the vast majority of those women that are into rape fantasies (I'm not one of them) aren't out to convict you.

Also, women don't always have the upper hand when rape accusations are made. There are many cultures where if you say you were raped, they assume it was your fault. That was the attitude of Western culture for a long time, and it still kind of is despite the progress that has been made.

Agreed.

Me too. If rape trials favoured the female it would be reflected in the convictions rates.