« Spacial Relations | Main | Special Packblogging »
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
No Means...
If a woman consents to having sex with a man but then during intercourse says no, and the man continues, is it rape?
Yes.
ntodd
PS--I know the article goes on to discuss the legal view of the question, but it needs to be answered with humanity right up front no matter what the law says. The answer does not, in fact, "depend on where you live."
February 6, 2007 in Life Is A Chick Flick | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d834e12f7553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Means...:
Comments
This is obviously a very difficult concept to comprehend, since nobody seems to get it. [smacks forehead]
Then again, humanity and legality don't always walk hand-in-hand.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 11:27:38 AM
I agree - however, to clarify, I think at that point it's only rape if he continues after she has said "No" (or "Stop", what have you).
Elspeth
Posted by: Elspeth R | Feb 6, 2007 12:11:20 PM
Thank you, all, for confirming that I am not alone in my thinking. Elspeth makes a valid point, as well.
Posted by: mattmom | Feb 6, 2007 5:33:53 PM
You're wrong. You debase the very idea of rape by suggesting that concentual sex can be rape. Obviously if a woman wants to stop, then she should be allowed to do so, however that is not rape. Rape is about power and the forcing of a person on another person.
Actually the more I think about it, the more you disgust me. Ask any woman who has been raped and see if she shares your view. Rape is a violent, vicious act. You should know better.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 5:38:12 PM
trutheau - you might reconsider what has been written here. Nobody is suggesting that consensual sex is rape, rather that when there is no consent, in fact, there is rape. It does not require violence, but it does require forcing oneself onto another against their will. Which is the whole goddamned point.
So take back your disgust, unless you really don't want to understand.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 6:14:22 PM
"If a woman CONSENTS to having sex with a man but then during intercourse says no, and the man continues, is it rape?"
I'm quoting you, qouting TIME.
I know I'm going to come off as the asshole here, but rape is not about the act of sex. And for you to suggest otherwise does a great disservice to victims of rape. Rape is about power and it is violent.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 6:42:18 PM
I kinda agree with trutheau on this one.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 6:49:59 PM
Sorry, but if consent is withdrawn and the man continues, that is force and power on the male's part, and that is rape. Just like date rape. Just like violent rape.
We gonna compare battle scars next? Or how about slavery versus the Holocaust? Which is worse?
I've got an idea: how about understanding that a woman has control over her body, and when she says 'no', no matter when, it means, in fact, 'no'?
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 6:55:30 PM
Fine, but is continuing for the one to two seconds it takes to ask: "What do you mean?" and then stopping, too long?
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:01:40 PM
From the article:
Mel Feit, executive director of the National Center for Men, a male-advocacy group based in Old Bethpage, N.Y., says biology is a factor. "At a certain point during arousal, we don't have complete control over our ability to stop," he says. "To equate that with brutal, violent rape weakens the whole concept of rape."
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:02:51 PM
A woman has control over her body at all times. It is you who is taking away her control by suggesting that she had no control to begin with.
As I said before, if a woman says 'stop,' then the man should stop. However, to suggest that for him to not stop is rape, is an insult to any woman that has ever been violated, as in raped.
Come on, you must realize the difference between consenting, albeit at first, to sex, and being physically forced to have sex. Here's where you lose yourself. Rape is a violent act. I'm not saying that the man shouldn't stop, I'm only saying that it is not the vicious act of rape.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 7:07:21 PM
In addition, one additional thrust by the man after "no" is not necessarily rape.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:11:25 PM
"To equate that with brutal, violent rape weakens the whole concept of rape."
Nobody's equating it with brutal, violent rape. Great qualifiers there, nice strawman. Odd that this male disagrees with dude from a male-advocacy group, eh? Maybe it's because I know the defense is all bullshit. You can always stop--even past the point of no return. You pull out, you spew, but you've stopped intercourse because your partner said 'no.' End of story.
you must realize the difference between consenting, albeit at first, to sex, and being physically forced to have sex.
I have said there's a difference. And it is still rape if the man refuses to stop. He's refusing to acknowledge the woman's control over her body. When she withdraws consent, it is no longer consensual. What's so fucking difficult about this?
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 7:12:04 PM
In addition, one additional thrust by the man after "no" is not necessarily rape.
Wow, let's really parse this now. What about a half thrust? What if you buy her flowers after?
Anybody feeling guilty here now? Methinks they doth protest too much...
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 7:14:22 PM
Is continuing for the one to two seconds it takes to ask: "Do you want me to stop?" and then stopping, too long?
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:15:24 PM
Is continuing for the one to two seconds it takes to ask: "Do you want me to stop?" and then stopping, too long?
Yes.
She says "stop", you stop and ask. Are you so inattentive to your partner that you don't notice she doesn't want to continue? Then you're either a shitty lover, or not actually a lover at all.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 7:22:07 PM
Oh, I see. You have never misunderstood anyone, ever, in your entire life. In the hypothetical, she only said "no", not "stop." Thanks for the info however.
According to the article, that is indeed one possibility in the Maryland case. The accuser and the defendant agree that after he began to penetrate her and she wanted him to stop, he did so within a matter of seconds and did not climax. Even so, during deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide. They convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, among other sex offenses, and he's looking at a 5-year prison sentence. Kinda out of whack (no pun intended).
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:33:37 PM
NTodd, what's ironic is that you, the dude, disempowers women, by suggesting that they have no control over their bodies, until the moment they say 'no.' 'Withdraws consent,' are you serious?
What's even more ironic is that I think we agree, as in we both agree that rape is a horrible crime. However you diminish the violent act of rape.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 7:35:50 PM
I agree with trutheau. What's next, simply patting a woman on the behind is "rape" too?
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:40:56 PM
the jury sent a note to the judge asking if it was rape if a female changed her mind during the sex to which she consented and the man continued until climax. The judge said it was for them to decide.
That's nice. I'm not talking about whack law. I'm talking about the notion that when a woman says stop, it's up to me to stop. Doesn't matter how close I am to climax. Doesn't matter if we'd had a few beers. Doesn't matter how hot she was 3 seconds before.
What does matter: I get involved in a sexual relationship with a woman, it had better be based on trust and mutual consent. Period.
NTodd, what's ironic is that you, the dude, disempowers women, by suggesting that they have no control over their bodies, until the moment they say 'no.' 'Withdraws consent,' are you serious?
That's not irony, Alanis. That's your being completely fucking stupid.
The woman has control at all times. When she gives consent AND when she withdraws it. How the hell you get to where you're going is beyond me. I recommend a reading comp course, then Logic 101.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 7:41:37 PM
I agree with trutheau. What's next, simply patting a woman on the behind is "rape" too?
Last time I checked, that doesn't involve PENETRATING HER FUCKING VAGINA!
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 7:42:54 PM
Let's take it out of the sexual context then. If you, Todd, give me full and informed consent to push you off a building, can you "withdraw consent" halfway down?
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:43:48 PM
Calm down. I'm just asking a couple "deeply probing" questions.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:44:51 PM
If you, Todd, give me full and informed consent to push you off a building, can you "withdraw consent" halfway down?
Wow, what a GREAT analogy! Comparing the laws of physics to human decency and the laws of man! Damn, you are GOOOOOOD.
Try this one: you and I get into a fight; I apologize, you bash my head in. Still murder? Or just manslaughter?
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 7:53:12 PM
"Ejaculation" may indeed be an involuntary reflex at that point, but to answer your question: depends on where you live.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 7:56:30 PM
Wow, you sure are angry. I threw you a bone and you didn't even smell it.
'Irony' as defined by Oxford - 'the expression of meaning through the use of language signifying the opposite.' It is ironic that you believe you are empowering women by suggesting that women have no control until saying 'no.' As for your argument that a woman has control at all times and is only limited to her withdrawing of consent, I call horseshit. I'll try that one out next time I steal a car. Just jump out and it's as if I never stole it.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 7:59:10 PM
"Ejaculation" may indeed be an involuntary reflex at that point, but to answer your question: depends on where you live.
No, it doesn't, actually.
As for your argument that a woman has control at all times and is only limited to her withdrawing of consent, I call horseshit. I'll try that one out next time I steal a car. Just jump out and it's as if I never stole it.
Wow, that boggles the mind. When did I say it is only limited to withdrawing consent? Oh yeah, never! And your analogy? Only slightly dumber than the one about the cliff.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 8:05:01 PM
Dang, you'd think that it was absolutely unthinkable to pull the fuck out (pun intended), and pull your pud to completion. Surely, no sane woman would complain about "indecent exposure" in such an instance, and if that's the best you li'l horndogs can do, then for fuck's sake...
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | Feb 6, 2007 8:08:46 PM
Guys, NO means NO, whenever it's said. This isn't rocket science.
Posted by: sallyh | Feb 6, 2007 8:10:36 PM
No means NO.
Anything else is misogyny.
Posted by: Gomez | Feb 6, 2007 8:10:50 PM
Mel Feit, executive director of the National Center for Men, a male-advocacy group based in Old Bethpage, N.Y., says biology is a factor. "At a certain point during arousal, we don't have complete control over our ability to stop," he says.
But he's admitting that men have some control. So if she says no, you'd better find that little bit of control you still have and pull out.
And my husband agrees.
Posted by: pie | Feb 6, 2007 8:11:46 PM
No. Means. No. And if the man doesn't *get* that, he's likely to *get* a knee or an elbow to help make the point. Because then, the woman is just defending herself. *Get* it?
Posted by: emma | Feb 6, 2007 8:17:02 PM
Where the hell did this train come off the rails? Let me see:
Oh, when this completely ass-backwards statement was submitted: You debase the very idea of rape by suggesting that concentual [sic] sex can be rape.
trutheau seems to be entirely missing the point that NTodd is making. If a woman engages in consensual sex with a man, decides AT ANY POINT DURING THE ACT that she no longer wants to participate and says so, in any fashion she decides to articulate it, then the sex ceases to be consensual AT THAT POINT. Anything that happens afterward is "rape." That does not diminish the severity of the concept of "rape" in any way. As you've said yourself, trutheau, rape is about power. If the woman says no in the middle of the act and the man continues, then he is exerting his power over the woman against her will.
trutheau and jake seem to be hellbent on (a) putting words in NTodd's mouth, and (b) willfully ignoring any logical counterargument he has put forth.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 8:19:22 PM
I don't know if the recent posts are atributed to me, but if they are then I suggest that the posters go back and read what I wrote. I agree that at anytime a woman can say 'No.' I'm saying that in this case it is not rape.
Rape is a violent act, in which the perpetrator forces him or herself over the victim. It is not about sex. It is about control. If a woman has control over her body at all times, which she does, then she has control over her body at the instigating of the sexual act. Does that mean that the woman can't change her mind? - No. Emphatically - No. However that is not rape.
Don't you find it strange that you suggest men "have some control"? Shouldn't the woman "have some control"?
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 8:31:21 PM
trutheau and jake seem to be hellbent on (a) putting words in NTodd's mouth, and (b) willfully ignoring any logical counterargument he has put forth.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 8:19:22 PM
Methinks that trutheau and jake are one and the same.
Posted by: Buckeye, Dealer of Rare Coins | Feb 6, 2007 8:32:07 PM
Don't you find it strange that you suggest men "have some control"? Shouldn't the woman "have some control"?
Well, bless your heart, you continue to miss the point! Congratulations on being the most obtuse person I've run into for weeks. Now, for your next trick, question why shooting someone in the head isn't murder if the victim had some control over where their head was. And then tell me why gravity always gets you down.
Methinks that trutheau and jake are one and the same.
Jake's from the US, trutheau is in Japan, IIRC. I'm not gonna check the IP addresses again, though...
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 8:38:06 PM
I am in Japan. And I'm Japanese. So any mistakes I make in my spelling, I apologize for.
Want to make fun of my spelling? Try studying kanji.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 8:40:28 PM
Does that mean that the woman can't change her mind? - No. Emphatically - No. However that is not rape.
Good grief.
Posted by: pie | Feb 6, 2007 8:42:43 PM
So any mistakes I make in my spelling, I apologize for.
You spelling is not at issue here.
Posted by: pie | Feb 6, 2007 8:44:16 PM
And NTodd if you're going to accuse me of missing the point, at least try to get mine. As I've stated several times, a man should stop when told to. I'm saying that it is not the horrific act of rape, if the initial sexual act was consensual.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 8:45:07 PM
Don't you find it strange that you suggest men "have some control"? Shouldn't the woman "have some control"?
What part of saying "No" doesn't constitute control? No one is alleging that the woman in a consensual sexual act is powerless.
You have a pretty narrow interpretation of what constitutes rape.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 8:45:15 PM
I'm saying that it is not the horrific act of rape, if the initial sexual act was consensual.
AND I'M SAYING THAT RAPE IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY VIOLENT!
But if you're Japanese, I guess your bias makes sense. God knows anything less than the Rape of Nanking is pretty tame, eh...?
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 8:49:53 PM
Fine, I give up. Women are totally powerless until they say 'No'. What the hell was she thinking when she jumped into bed with a man that she didn't want to have sex with?
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 8:51:32 PM
Women are totally powerless until they say 'No'.
Careful playing with fire, Strawman!
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 8:52:50 PM
Yeesh NTodd, didn't know we'd be getting racist here. How are those Native-Americans doing by the way?
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 8:53:00 PM
Yeesh NTodd, didn't know we'd be getting racist here. How are those Native-Americans doing by the way?
We're not getting racist. I simply observe that you seem to equate 'rape' only with brutal violence, when it can be many different degrees. I figure it must be some historical guilt about all the brutal rape in China. Why else would you be so adamant about it needing to be horribly violent to "count"?
As for the Native Americans, well, white Europeans fucked them up good. I should know: I'm part white European, part Native American. Thanks for asking!
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 9:04:58 PM
I'm saying that it is not the horrific act of rape, if the initial sexual act was consensual.
You need to get past this idea that rape is some narrowly defined act in which a woman is physically overpowered by the man from the very start. Here in the U.S., the definition is broader than that.
And your attitude that a woman shouldn't get into bed with a man unless she really "wants it" is rather parochial and paternalistic. Because that's what you're saying, even if you add some sort of sarcastic qualifier to soften the message.
What's next? Condemning premarital sex?
I will agree with you: studying the Japanese language is a very difficult thing. I tried it.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:11:49 PM
So you don't equate rape with brutal violence? You think there are forms of rape that are gentle?
And you're not being racist by suggesting that I am inclined to rape because of actions of my ancestors? I guarantee you this, the incidents of rape in Japan are a lot lower than in the U.S.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 9:16:39 PM
So you don't equate rape with brutal violence? You think there are forms of rape that are gentle?
Why are you unable to get past the fact that no one here is alleging that?
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:22:09 PM
So you don't equate rape with brutal violence? You think there are forms of rape that are gentle?
No, I equate rape with a person wielding power over another person's body sexually without that person's consent. It's actually quite simple.
And you're not being racist by suggesting that I am inclined to rape because of actions of my ancestors?
Nope, because I'm not suggesting that. Tell ya what: you learn to understand English better, then you can come to an American blog and debate what we think 'rape' is.
I guarantee you this, the incidents of rape in Japan are a lot lower than in the U.S.
Good for you! I'm sure you never have any instances of date rape or other kinds that aren't completely brutal and violent. You must live in a culture superior to American and Chinese...
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 9:23:20 PM
Well, no, rape does not require "brutal violence" as you describe it, unless you are describing the act itself as "brutal violence." And "gentle" is not the only alternative to "brutal violence." Your strawmen are getting lamer.
And if you so narrowly define "rape" as to include only stereotypical Deathwish-style assaults, then I'm sure you can come up with much lower incidents of rape. Your not calling it rape doesn't mean it isn't though. Get it? I thought not.
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 9:23:21 PM
I will agree with you: studying the Japanese language is a very difficult thing. I tried it.
NTodd's Pa's Wife majored in it, and studied in Japan.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 9:24:37 PM
Look, I've said it before, but it appears as though I have to say it again: of course the man should stop when told to. However, the physical act of rape is about power, not about sex. So anybody engaged in the physical act of sex is not engaging in the physical act of rape.
Just to be clear: when a woman says 'No' then the man should stop.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 9:25:18 PM
And if you so narrowly define "rape" as to include only stereotypical Deathwish-style assaults, then I'm sure you can come up with much lower incidents of rape.
Remember, kids: murder is by definition 'brutal', so killing somebody with a drug that makes them die peacefully isn't murder!
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 9:25:54 PM
So anybody engaged in the physical act of sex is not engaging in the physical act of rape.
As an attorney, I can tell you that any judge would throw you in the slam faster than you can say "but she got into bed with me" if you tried that defense.
Just to be clear: when a woman says 'No' then the man should stop.
And if he continues after she says "no", then here in the U.S., we consider that rape. No need for "brutal violence" or whatever other strawman you want to construct.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:28:58 PM
However, the physical act of rape is about power, not about sex. So anybody engaged in the physical act of sex is not engaging in the physical act of rape.
Clearly someone was only half-paying attention in his sensitivity-training seminar. Verrrrry slowwwwwwly: rape is not only about power. It is also about sex. Your insisting it is otherwise does nothing tomake what you say true. You are simply 100% wrong, legally and ethically.
Posted by: | Feb 6, 2007 9:30:11 PM
killing somebody with a drug that makes them die peacefully isn't murder!
Tell that to Dr. Kevorkian!
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:30:28 PM
I don't quite know what your problem is with me NTodd, but you sure seem hostile. You are being racist, and the worst kind of racist is one who thinks they aren't.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 9:33:10 PM
You have completely missed the point. In sexual situations consent may be given to some acts but denied for others. If at anytime coercion or violence is used against a woman in order to get her to perform such acts, against her will, that is rape. It is immaterial if she decided to have one kind of sex with a man or sit on a couch and watch movies with a man: forced sex acts are rape.
For example my neighbor screamed out in the middle of the night once because her boyfriend who I assume she trusted was hurting her and would not stop until she started to scream bloody murder. I assume it started out as something she wanted and turned into something painful that she certainly did not want. It was violent painful and demeaning to her. I know because I had to listen to them argue afterwards as well. She was searching for a word when she was so upset about it: the word is rape.
Posted by: ellenbrenna | Feb 6, 2007 9:33:59 PM
I eagerly await being reminded that if a woman goes on a date with a man, he cannot "rape" her. And if she is married to a man, he cannot "rape" her. And if she makes googly-eyes at him, he cannot "rape" her. And if she passed out on the bed in his presence, he cannot "rape" her. Nope, it's only rape if he beats the shit out of her while he's doing it. Does it count if he only threatens to? What if he says he has a knife but doesn't show it to her?
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 9:36:40 PM
I don't quite know what your problem is with me NTodd, but you sure seem hostile.
Yup, I am hostile. I'm hostile against people who deny rape is rape. I have several friends who were raped and guess what, it wasn't "brutal and violent." So fuck you for suggesting that their rapes denigrate "real" rape in your mind, for being disgusted by my notion of what rape is, and for suggesting that I disempower women when I note that they have the power of consent over their bodies at all times. Oh, and fuck you for erecting strawmen and continuing to put words in my mouth.
You are being racist, and the worst kind of racist is one who thinks they aren't.
No, I'm not, but go ahead and think whatever you want. I've merely observed that you continue to cling to some strange notion that rape must be violent. I can only accept that you do this because you cannot accept that rape and power can be expressed in ways less-violent than what you've seen historically.
You, on the other hand, are a pathetic sexist pig.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 9:38:54 PM
Rape Perception Differences Between Japanese and American College Students: On the Mediating Influence of Gender Role Traditionality. Yamawaki & Tschanz. Sex Roles, Volume 52, Numbers 5-6 / March, 2005.
Abstract: This study was designed to examine the differences in rape perceptions between Japanese and American college students. It was found that the Japanese minimized the seriousness of rapes, blamed the victims, and excused the rapists more than did the Americans. Cross-cultural differences in the gender role traditionality (GRT) were found to mediate these differences. GRT-mediated tendencies for increases in the intimacy between the victim and the perpetrator to be associated with increases in rape minimization and victim blame were also found. These latter tendencies were found to be greater among the Japanese than among the Americans. Gender differences in rape perception were also found among the Japanese participants.
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 9:41:39 PM
ellenbrenna - that's exactly where I'm coming from. Thank you.
Really, I'm practically weeping right now. My dear friends who were raped weren't held at knife point, weren't beaten, weren't victims of "violence" or anything. They were raped because they did not consent to sex, but the man (in these cases, not dismissing other "configurations") refused to acknowledge their wishes.
It's absolutely offensive to hear that women cannot withdraw consent and that rape can only happen if there's brutal violence. No, that's brutally violent rape. But rape can take many forms, all of which are physically and/or psychically damaging. To deny that is to deny a person's power over their bodies, female or otherwise.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 9:43:46 PM
Rape Perception Differences Between Japanese and American College Students: On the Mediating Influence of Gender Role Traditionality. Yamawaki & Tschanz. Sex Roles, Volume 52, Numbers 5-6 / March, 2005.
Ai-yup.
What I was getting at over at the Crack Den.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:46:22 PM
I totally agree with everything you wrote ellenbrenna. Still it sounds as though your neighbors boyfriend wasn't in it for the sex, but for the physical control he had over her. In that case it is not about sex. That is rape.
My point is that it would be wrong to call a man a rapist when engaged in consensual sex.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 9:47:45 PM
In case I'm being "racist" by pointing out that study, let me quote further from it:
Although the tendencies were greater in Japan, we found that in both cultures studied victims of marital and date rape are relatively likely to be blamed, and their ordeal is relatively likely to be minimized. Research suggests that it is often the case that rape victims are not offered needed support and help when people around them minimize the episode and blame the victims (Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001). [snip]
The problem of nonsupport among victims of marital and date rape does not appear to be of limited scope. Most sexual assaults are committed by perpetrators who are known to their victims (Koss et al., 1988); in particular, perpetrators tend to be men with whom the victims were romantically involved (Gelles & Cornell, 1983; Russell, 1990). Moreover, although it is believed that victims of date and marital rape suffer much less than stranger-rape victims, the severe nature of the consequences of date and marital rape has been established by previous research (Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985; Russell, 1990; Shapiro, 1997). Largely consistent with past literature, our research suggests that one reason why adjustment to date and marital rape may often be poor is that the victims of these forms of assaultmay not receive support from others, particularly those others who subscribe to traditional beliefs about appropriate gender role behavior.
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 9:50:25 PM
Wow NTodd, now we're getting into the name-calling. Good on ya, keep it up.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 9:50:27 PM
It's hopeless.
Posted by: pie | Feb 6, 2007 9:50:28 PM
My point is that it would be wrong to call a man a rapist when engaged in consensual sex.
NOBODY SAID THAT! Now you're just being purposefully obtuse.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:51:36 PM
And I thought haloscan was inexplicable!
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 9:53:50 PM
Whoa, easy there, JeffCO!
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 9:54:36 PM
Stoopit error-giving, non-post showing software. I presume the webmaster of this site will clean up my reposts.
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 9:58:13 PM
Wow NTodd, now we're getting into the name-calling. Good on ya, keep it up.
Thanks, man! I love what you're doing, too. You fluke-raping, nard-busting dipshit.
And I thought haloscan was inexplicable!
If I were more motivated, I'd go in and delete the dupes. But this gets my thread count up! And, uh...other things as well, which is embarrassing in a discussion about horrible, brutal, only-can-be-violent rape.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 10:00:55 PM
We are still discussing the article mentioned at the top, aren't we? It was consensual sex, wasn't it?
And NTodd, your description of your friends who have been raped by knife-point sounds horrifying indeed. It doesn't sound consesual at all. By the way I think you're a poo-poo head.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 10:02:40 PM
We are still discussing the article mentioned at the top, aren't we? It was consensual sex, wasn't it?
And NTodd, your description of your friends who have been raped by knife-point sounds horrifying indeed. It doesn't sound consesual at all. By the way I think you're a poo-poo head.
Posted by: trutheau | Feb 6, 2007 10:02:40 PM
Not after the woman said no, it wasn't.
Posted by: Bas-O-Matic | Feb 6, 2007 10:09:40 PM
We are still discussing the article mentioned at the top, aren't we? It was consensual sex, wasn't it?
Yes, the article is about consensual sex and the moment when it STOPS being "consensual." Because, contrary to your very literal translation of the idea, even if a man is engaged in consensual sex with a woman, the moment a woman says no and he doesn't stop, he becomes a rapist. Poof, just like that!
Your argument that if it's consensual sex then it can't be rape is intellectually shallow and fallacious.
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 10:12:28 PM
And NTodd, your description of your friends who have been raped by knife-point sounds horrifying indeed. It doesn't sound consesual at all.
[bangs head on keyboard]
IT WASN'T AT KNIFEPOINT. THAT'S THE POINT.
By the way I think you're a poo-poo head.
You're wrong: I'm an asshole.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 10:19:43 PM
IT WASN'T AT KNIFEPOINT. THAT'S THE POINT.
Ain't no stoppin' us now...
Well, I'll never listen to McFadden & Whitehead the same way again...
Posted by: watertiger, 4 da shorteez | Feb 6, 2007 10:23:56 PM
well, this is a lively thread.
Posted by: charley | Feb 6, 2007 11:11:11 PM
There, now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 6, 2007 11:11:42 PM
Fuck you, JeffCO. You go to hell, you go to hell and you die. And so's yer Aunt Fanny.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2007 11:23:06 PM
Jaysus Cripes on a crutch in a crap-heap. Did I really just waste 10 minutes of my life reading this thread?
trutheau, you are not on this thread to persuade anyone of anything. You are here to wreak hostile havoc on NTodd, not to persuade him that you are right and he is wrong, but to prove that he is a Bad Person™. And how are you doing it? By claiming the right to define not only your position, but his position as well, and on top of that, the definitions of all terms and concepts involved in what, under different circumstances, might have been called a discussion. That is fundamentally dishonest of you.
I probably once had a position on these issues, but at my age, questions of ability obviate questions of consent. But goddamn, I certainly haven't lost my distaste for dishonest demagoguery.
Posted by: Steve Bates | Feb 6, 2007 11:37:14 PM
Well, if I ever have a blog I certainly am not going to link to this potty-mouthed den of irrationality.
Posted by: JeffCO | Feb 7, 2007 3:05:26 AM
Aw, shit.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 7, 2007 11:02:46 AM
Well I am really late to this party, BUT, in as I work with rape victim's on a regular basis. when she says stop it means stop, and if a man doesn't stop he proceeds to take control away from her. She loses control of her body, and he has power, and it matters not if the act began violently; because once a woman loses power over her own body and consent is removed the act itself becomes violent. In addition, many rapes occur between friends/family/spouses; when a woman has that kind of connection to her rapist, ESPECIALLY if he is someone with whom she has constented to have sex with in the past; the degree of trauma is frequently enhanced by the misplaced guilt she feels at his prosecution, IF she reports the rape.
To not acknowledge that the act of taking away control from a woman over her body is ALWAYS an act of violence no matter the prior circumstances, degrades date/marriage rape victims all over the world.
Posted by: rugo | Feb 7, 2007 11:22:22 AM
As an attorney myself, watertiger, it again depends on where the alleged crime(s) took place. One more thrust while he asks: "Do you want me to stop?" is not necessarily rape. I won't post any more since it seems to cause problems, but bottom line, I do agree with rugo, that when she (or he) says stop it means stop, and if the other party doesn't stop he (or she) proceeds to take control away. There are other posssible crimes short of rape though.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 7, 2007 12:06:57 PM
Jake - are you congenitally incapable of getting that the point of my post had nothing to do with the legal definition of the crime of rape?
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 7, 2007 12:14:04 PM
No. However, the "Time" article was completely about the legal definition, and the argument can be made that humanity's definition in this regard should be exactly the same.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 7, 2007 12:23:13 PM
Sorry, Todd, but I have to "stop" posting now. Enjoy yourself in my absence.
Posted by: Jake | Feb 7, 2007 12:44:59 PM
However, the "Time" article was completely about the legal definition, and the argument can be made that humanity's definition in this regard should be exactly the same.
Yeah, and that's why I noted the difference between legal definitions and what rape really is: a violation of personal control and exercise of power over another. I'd also note that several states, as mentioned in the article, accept that humane definition.
I would be inclined to agree that the law should reflect what humanity dictates. Alas, the law is wrong in some states, and inhumane.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 7, 2007 10:54:39 PM
I think everyone is missing the point - To label a ompletely non-consensual rape the same as an act that started out consensual and to offer the same punishment to both is insane! There are different levels of criminal activity here. The essence of these cases is that a man that takes 5-10 seconds to stop is guilty of the same crime and will be punished equally as a man that brutally attacks a woman and forces his penis inside of her. Clearly, there is a difference and these two very different situations should be treated differently and punished differently.
Posted by: pabmama | Feb 10, 2007 7:22:52 PM
Oddly enough, there are different degrees of murder...
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 10, 2007 7:55:02 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
