London SlutWalk - now *11th*June, 1pm Trafalgar Square

[teahead]

I did the raping.

I'm pretty sure that "I thought they wouldn't mind" is not a valid defence to rape. What happens after the fact is hardly relevant, if you don't stop to ask permission.

Why do you believe what happened after the fact is hardly relevant? Any sentence imposed by the Court is after the fact. It sounds as though you believe there's something significant in the action of Law that is different from what people do with intent to one another.

 

[teahead]

There's a big difference between saying "I thought they wouldn't mind" and "I thought they didn't mind." Like Edie was saying, I think, rape seems to have a connotation that's about becoming detached from awareness of the other person's wants, desires... needs really, getting wrapped up in your own, and - the essential crime itself - intentionally exploiting the other person's body for your own gratification while deliberately ignoring and denigrating the un-gratification and damage that you're doing to the other person.

 

[xenon]

If a woman is riding a bloke. They've agreed he won't cum in her, she'll get off just before. Then she doesn't, and stays in situe as it were. That isn't rape to my mind. It's something else. Out of order, an abuce of trust but I wouldn't call it rape.

Flame away.

 

[frogwoman]

Still going, I see. Nice work. That 50-page prediction of mine is looking very achievable.

pm's

 

[ymu]

Heh. Delicate flower you're not. But getting all big shouldered about things doesn't work! Sounds like you're on some kind of moral crime fighting spree. And I'm still wondering what's pushing your feelings so strongly in the direction of Sorting Things Out. Particularly on a pretty anonymous internet message board.

You want me to walk away because some people went all aggro when I challenged them for being sexist shitheads on a thread about violence against women?

I'm here because they went all aggro, and because some more blokes then piled in for a laugh. It's disturbing behavour, and it needs challenging. I want them to explain themselves, if they can. If they want to dish abuse instead, it's every bit as informative.

 

[ymu]

Why do you believe what happened after the fact is hardly relevant? Any sentence imposed by the Court is after the fact. It sounds as though you believe there's something significant in the action of Law that is different from what people do with intent to one another.

Why?

Cos if a bloke bought me a drink and then raped me outside, his thinking that I wouldn't mind is not much fucking comfort.

How is this difficult to grasp?

 

[teahead]

But how connected is that to the rape issue?
Obviously there are some connections in terms of deliberate oppression.
But the social 'contract' here is different from what's happening between 2 people in a bedroom. Or to me it is.

Context counts.

 

[quimcunx]

Any particular reason why it's only ymu you're trying to persuade to walk away and requesting motivations from for posting?

Genuine question.

 

[teahead]

Why?

Cos if a bloke bought me a drink and then raped me outside, his thinking that I wouldn't mind is not much fucking comfort.

How is this difficult to grasp?

That's not difficult to grasp. What is, though, is whether you're saying there has been a transition from when you were drinking together and when s/he was doing the raping. At some point the victim becomes a person in need of "much fucking comfort" whereas at the beginning, that's not the situation. It's when the detachment happens that the rape begins, no?

 

[ymu]

If a woman is riding a bloke. They've agreed he won't cum in her, she'll get off just before. Then she doesn't, and stays in situe as it were. That isn't rape to my mind. It's something else. Out of order, an abuce of trust but I wouldn't call it rape.

Flame away.

It is a simple fact of law that a bloke refusing to withdraw is rape.

Legally, I did not rape, but it's a technical, semantic, distinction. There's no moral difference.

 

[teahead]

Any particular reason why it's only ymu you're trying to persuade to walk away and requesting motivations from for posting?

Genuine question.

I see what you're saying. I'm not meaning to be abusive in any way, but it sort of feels like I'm being positioned that way. These are difficult things to talk about where accountability depends on trust and intention. ymu seems to be both talking about a breach of trust, and feeling very dubious about whether trust is really possible. If you think it'd be better for me to step back, then perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here. But of course I'm happy to step back.

The trouble with talk about this kind of thing, where feelings are so much a part of the thinking, is that even by becoming involved you run the risk of producing hurt and harm.

 

[xenon]

It is a simple fact of law that a bloke refusing to withdraw is rape.

Legally, I did not rape, but it's a technical, semantic, distinction. There's no moral difference.

Of course, to your first point. Your second is your subjective interpretation and it's one I don't share. I suppose that's all that can be said on that really.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course to the first point?

You're just about to come and the woman says no, no, get out. And you don't - you come first before getting out.

That's rape?

Not in my book. There comes a point when you're having sex beyond which you can't call it rape, imo. It cheapens the term to call that rape.

 

[quimcunx]

I see what you're saying. I'm not meaning to be abusive in any way, but it sort of feels like I'm being positioned that way. These are difficult things to talk about where accountability depends on trust and intention. ymu seems to be both talking about a breach of trust, and feeling very dubious about whether trust is really possible. If you think it'd be better for me to step back, then perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here. But of course I'm happy to step back.

The trouble with talk about this kind of thing, where feelings are so much a part of the thinking, is that even by becoming involved you run the risk of producing hurt and harm.

I wasn't accusing you of being abusive. I don't think you are being. I don't understand how my question came across that I did.

 

[ymu]

That's not difficult to grasp. What is, though, is whether you're saying there has been a transition from when you were drinking together and when s/he was doing the raping. At some point the victim becomes a person in need of "much fucking comfort" whereas at the beginning, that's not the situation. It's when the detachment happens that the rape begins, no?

How is any of this relevant?

We came simultaneously, I was on top, I was weak, he was trapped. It could have been devastating for him to experience that powerlessness with someone he loved.

You seem to be suggesting that rapists can legitimately weigh the odds of causing harm, and that it might be excusable. Which is pretty fucked up.

 

[ymu]

Of course to the first point?

You're just about to come and the woman says no, no, get out. And you don't - you come first before getting out.

That's rape?

Not in my book. There comes a point when you're having sex beyond which you can't call it rape, imo. It cheapens the term to call that rape.

It's not your book that matters. It's the statute book. Be careful not to act on your instincts there. Seriously.

 

[Edie]

How is any of this relevant?

We came simultaneously, I was on top, I was weak, he was trapped. It could have been devastating for him to experience that powerlessness with someone he loved.

You seem to be suggesting that rapists can legitimately weigh the odds of causing harm, and that it might be excusable. Which is pretty fucked up.

You came at the same time? He was fuckin loving it. This aint right ymu, it's not even like you carried on whilst he was led there totally still or blanked out giving you the negatives cos he was scared or powerless. There've been times for a lot of people when they've carried on just cos it's far too late to say no or cos they've said yes, but this aint one of them. I dunno why you feel so guilty You fucked, it didn't work out how you both expected it to originally, but it AINT YOUR FAULT anymore than it's his.

 

[xenon]

Of course to the first point?

You're just about to come and the woman says no, no, get out. And you don't - you come first before getting out.

That's rape?

Not in my book. There comes a point when you're having sex beyond which you can't call it rape, imo. It cheapens the term to call that rape.

It's legally rape is it not? That doesn't mean it's qualitatevly the same as any other given example of rape.

 

[Louloubelle]

I do not believe that what ymu described is rape

Mostly rape is about hatred, power and the need to control. It is about a more powerful, person penetrating a disempowered person. There is usually a sense of entitlement on the part of the perpetrator. Often the rapist takes pleasure in the suffering of the victim. The motivation to spoil and to defile can be a significant element.

The event described by ymu, in which 2 people who care about each other maintain an affectionate relationship throughout the act, is not rape. It is not anywhere near rape.

This brings me to wonder about the way that the development of the discussion on this thread runs parallel to the issues inherent in slutwalk.

It seems to me that ymu has posted some extremely provocative posts on this thread, in a way that really does her no favours. Some of the posts feel like a kind of verbal self harming. Referring to yourself as a rapist is extremely provocative and will definitely invoke a hostile response. To expect otherwise is incredibly naive IMO.

Some of the language and terminology used by ymu has, IMO, also been very provocative and also likely to invoke a hostile response.

In some ways this is not a million miles away from a situation where a woman wears an outrageously revealing dress, or dresses in an extremely sexually provocative way and then accuses men of being sexist if they stare at her.

In principle, of course, women should be bale to walk down the high street naked and be completely safe from molestation or harassment, however in the real world it doesn't work like that.

Any reasonable, mature person would support women's rights to express themselves through clothes without fear of harassment and abuse, however any rational person takes measures to protect themselves from harm, whether male or female, and this includes stuff like avoiding dangerous areas, not flashing your expensive phone, and not dressing in a way likely to attract problems.

Ymu is free to write whatever she wants and to use whatever terminology she wants to, but anyone saying some of the stuff she has posted here would get a very hard time (much harder on most most other message boards IMO) and to be extremely provocative and then scream that everyone posting critically is sexist is very similar to the woman who goes out in a tiny dress showing everything and then screams that everyone is staring at her.

If you post / dress provocatively then you will provoke responses in people and maybe that is something to be learned from this?

I say this as someone who is very far from perfect myself and as someone who has provoked negative responses in others, fairly or unfairly, at various times in my life. Threads like this are always an opportunity to learn about the effect you have on others, and I'm not just talking about ymu, as many people seem to be provoking each other here and the thread is bringing out some ugly sides of many people.

Just my 2p worth

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

You came at the same time? He was fuckin loving it. This aint right ymu, it's not even like you carried on whilst he was led there totally still or blanked out giving you the negatives cos he was scared or powerless. There've been times for a lot of people when they've carried on just cos it's far too late to say no or cos they've said yes, but this aint one of them. I dunno why you feel so guilty You fucked, it didn't work out how you both expected it to originally, but it AINT YOUR FAULT anymore than it's his.

And to describe it as rape trivialises rape imo

 

[Edie]

I agree with lbj, there does come a point if the bloke is in you when it's not reasonable to turn round and call no unless they are hurting you pretty badly. They aren't machines.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's legally rape is it not? That doesn't mean it's qualitatevly the same as any other given example of rape.

I've just been having a look at the law in the UK. It doesn't seem clear to me whether it is legally rape or not, tbh. Rape is penetration without consent. Refusal to withdraw immediately upon request doesn't seem to be covered. I may have missed something there. Totally impossible to enforce as a law, though, I would have thought.

 

[ymu]

I see what you're saying. I'm not meaning to be abusive in any way, but it sort of feels like I'm being positioned that way. These are difficult things to talk about where accountability depends on trust and intention. ymu seems to be both talking about a breach of trust, and feeling very dubious about whether trust is really possible. If you think it'd be better for me to step back, then perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here. But of course I'm happy to step back.

The trouble with talk about this kind of thing, where feelings are so much a part of the thinking, is that even by becoming involved you run the risk of producing hurt and harm.

You don't sem to have grasped what is going on.

1. I'm not beating myself up for being a rapist. What happened, happened - I learnt something.

2. I'm not upset by the abuse, I'm interested in why it is occurring and being so widely tolerated. I am startled at the strength of the emotional reaction from so many men, but not upset so much as alarmed.


What's happening now is that half the thread haa added 'rapist' to the mindless abuse, and the other half is insisting that it wasn't rape if it turns out the other party didn't mind. A kind of rape roulette approach to sex crime.

So, it turns out maybe it would have been a useful discussion to have after all. But apparently, I should leave the thread because you say so …

 

[LiamO]

I think this thread is now an excellent example of the 'good' that can come from a hugely unpleasant experience and nasty bunfight.

I don't want to get into this one - at all - but it is now an interesting, 3-dimensional discussion - which possibly would not have happened without the row.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some of us don't agree that what you describe was a sex crime, ymu. That's the point. But you seem to be continuing to dismiss that fact. Nobody at all appears to have agreed with you that it was rape, btw. That ought to tell you something.

 

[past caring]

I agree with lbj, there does come a point if the bloke is in you when it's not reasonable to turn round and call no unless they are hurting you pretty badly. They aren't machines.

I don't think that is quite what lbj was saying. What I think he was saying is that, assuming the sex to have been consensual and mutually pleasurable to that point, there is then a point when plain biology takes over - where if you're a bloke (it may be different - the biology, that is - for a woman, I don't know) you're going to come whatever, unless you're Sting or something and being asked to withdraw at that biological point of no return isn't really going to work. I don't think that is rape in any reasonable moral sense and (assuming there was no dispute about the facts) I can't see someone being in breach of statute in that situation, either. I'm not too sure that what statute says is something I'd want to rely on too heavily in this debate, anyway; it wasn't that long ago that statute said you couldn't rape your wife - and there's still some way to go in terms of how the law might be improved.

Of course, it's entirely different if the agreement at the outset was that you'd withdraw before orgasm. I think it's also entirely different if a woman asks a bloke to stop (for whatever reason, doesn't have to be hurting her) at any time up to that point - it's not the case that saying "yes" at the outset robs you of the right to say "no" later.

 

[ymu]

Some of us don't agree that what you describe was a sex crime, ymu. That's the point. But you seem to be continuing to dismiss that fact. Nobody at all appears to have agreed with you that it was rape, btw. That ought to tell you something.

And if he'd been really upset about it? Would that have been a crime? Or do we just help ourselves without permission any time we think it's reasonable?

If my partner had refused to get off me when my heart went into arrhythmia because he wanted to cum, would that have been OK too?

How are you going to decide what is too trivial to upset anyone? Where do you draw the line? Or can we all just make up our own line and hope we don't upset anyone?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is a gap between 'perfectly ok behaviour' and 'rape'. Within that gap there is selfish behaviour such as coming inside someone when you've agreed before you started that you wouldn't. That isn't rape, imo. That it isn't rape doesn't make it ok. But not everything that isn't ok ought to be criminal.

 

[ymu]

I think the law is secondary to whether or not someone feels violated.

I wrote a long post about thus near the beginning. I'll go find it, there might be something sensible in it.

 

[ymu]

Pre-bunfight post.

I have equally muddled thoughts, and I'm supposed to be sleeping, so obviously, I'm going to try and outline them.

Firstly, 'rape is about power' has to be a generalisation because there are too many circumstances in which rape occurs to have one model. But I think you can put power in most models somewhere.

Women and children are more vulnerable to rape because they are physically weaker. The power differential makes it possible.

Stranger rape is rare. It's a sexual deviance. It may be about sexual gratification for some (not all), but they're getting off in a particular situation - where they have all the power. Street girls just aren't expensive enough, nor stranger rapes common enough, for it to be plausible that it is just about getting sex.

Rape by family members, friends, partners ... now you get into very complex territory.

It can be purely about sexual gratification. Non-withdrawal is one obvious example. I raped a man in this way: coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak. It was rape - I just didn't realise it at the time. I think this is likely to be the case for most non-withdrawals. Lack of self-control and/or confuddlement about the situation. Worth noting that the only reason I could rape him was that he was powerless to stop me. Had he been on top, I'd have had no such opportunity.

Partners and dates? Twenty years ago. men had the right to rape their wives. 1991 the law changed. That's serious power. And three whole living generations of men who had that right. Some may be rather bitter about giving it up, and if they have wives who are used to it, they can and will abuse that power. I've had some deeply unpleasant exchanges with some of these older men. Extreme culture shock.

I just keep coming back to the stranger rapist here. It's hard for a man not to know he is forcing a woman to have sex. A man who forces a date or a partner must, surely, be getting off on something more than just sex. I can allow some cases where it is lack of self control and/or a terrible misunderstanding of the 'banter' that so many men seem to think is harmless, but not all.

And, again, it comes down to power.

Because they can.

So, power in a very literal way - physically being able to force someone - and power as a means of achieving sexual gratification.

But there's also powerlessness as a motive to do something powerful. We live in a society that demands all men be alpha-males, but only allows a minority to achieve that. Of course there are some men who feel inadequate and powerless, and they may find the opportunity to be powerful quite irresistible. There's probably a bit of that in some stranger rapes and in some date rapes.

The criminal justice system hands the rapist another powerful weapon, of course. A very difficult ordeal in court.

And casual sexism means they'll probably be under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that their mates will approve. Peer approval is likely to be the main driver of gang-rape, especially amongst teenagers. And gaining peer approval is all about power, if you're in a gang.

So yeah. Dunno if that makes any sense.