[trigger warning: rape. please visit this delightful otter instead.]
(Also, much thanks to [redacted] who actually answers me when I sent this post, half written, and asked "where am I going with this?")
Oh, right, you might need some background, because you're not actually in my brain. (We're all better off that way, trust me.) According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is either an institute seeking to advance sexual and reproductive health worldwide or the world leader in the production of aborted baby lasagna, 98% of Catholic women, including women who go to church at least once a month, use some form of birth control, including sterilization, IUDs and birth control pills.
This is controversial in that the Pope says that birth control is bad and there is no excuse for it. Are you currently living in poverty, unable to feed yourself, let alone someone else? Have more babies! Do you live in an area where 1 in 2 people are infected with HIV? Have unprotected sex! Do you currently have Stage IV cancer? Moar baybeez!
Really, though, is anyone surprised that almost all Catholic women capable of ignoring this advice currently are? Apparently, some people are, but those people have some startling views on consent and gatekeeping.
I think it takes a lot of courage and faith in God to use NFP during a marriage. I say this with deep trepidation, but the biggest draw back I’ve encountered is an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain. I think a lot of men who grew up in the Post Pill era have never been told that they can’t have sex, ever. It’s really hard to get someone to change in a marriage. And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession, I’ve never had a priest give me a hard time about it.
There are so many things wrong with that paragraph, and none of them are the birth control pill. "an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain." What she means to say is that she says no to sex and he won't take that no as an answer. That's not an unwillingness to abstain, that's rape**. And it's not the fault of slutty pill-popping feminists. He's heard "no" before. Every man has heard "no" before and will hear it again. His problem is that he is a rapist.
This makes me see red: And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession . . .
Her husband ignored her when she said "no" and she went to confession? And the priest said anything other than "you need to leave him, now"? I'm not surprised by that, and it makes me sad that I'm not surprised by that. I hope nobody wonders about my deep-rooted cynicism.
Serious consent issues aside, this is a major drawback of natural family planning. One of many. Abusive men frequently sabotage birth control in order to gain more control over their victims. Pregnant women are less likely to leave- and more likely to be killed. Homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in America. That's right. Murder. And that is true across all races and all socioeconomic classes. Abusive men sabotage birth control, impregnate their partners, abuse escalates during pregnancy and leads to murder a disturbing percentage of the time.
Natural family planning requires the consent of both parties to work. If one partner decides that this no thing isn't working for them, there is no birth control. In the above example, at least the husband is agreeing to use some other form of birth control (my guess would be condoms), but now this woman is carrying around guilt that she prevented a pregnancy in what is clearly a rather unhealthy relationship.
And why is she carrying this guilt around? Because women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men want sex, all the time, women do not. Women only have sex to get love or money or commitment. Men cannot control their sexual urges, women don't really have sexual urges so it's up to women to allow, but not enjoy, sex or not. This woman is upset because of the abuse, but she's also upset because she feels that she has failed at the one job women aren't supposed to fail at: gatekeeping the sex.
NFP really depends on women successfully gatekeeping, as women are the ones who suffer the most from pregnancy, physically, emotionally, financially, socially, etc. Ultimately, women must succeed at gatekeeping for NFP to work, and as shown above, gatekeeping ain't always easy.
*Other than the 25% failure rate, that is.
**I think that someone might point out that her husband isn't raping her, he's pestering her until she relents, so, in the immortal words of [redacted]: What [Faith is] trying to say in the double-star note is that all "she gave in" apologists can just not bother commenting, because badgering one's life partner until he/she gives in...is NOT getting consent. It's the gatekeeper now being responsible for KEEPING THE PEACE, TOO, SO STFU.
http://www.cafepress.com/mockwriting.276113387
ReplyDeleteI always meant to produce that as a onesie, but the free version of Cafepress is... suboptimal.
That's the kind of gift that says you care.
ReplyDeleteWow! On so many levels this is just disturbing. Because I've been the badgered wife that gave in to things that DH wanted and I didn't I can relate. The further I read the angrier I got. It took my friend to tell me after 20 freaking years that is was the same as rape. And yes I did feel guilty. So I can also relate to that aspect of it. You should be able to tell your significant other no. And it shouldn't just be during the woman's fertile time either. A woman should be able to say, "I just don't feel like it". Give me a break!
ReplyDeleteWell, since the Holy Mother Church has decreed that blow- and/or hand-jobs are a SIN, what's a poor fella to do? There is only one proper repository for sperm, and that's the vagina over which Jesus has given him dominion.
ReplyDeleteYou know what totally blew my mind, D'Ma? When I heard someone say that if you have to ask whether or not sex was consensual, it was not. And nonconsensual sex is rape.
ReplyDeleteIt took me a long time to really process that, with a lot of "But what about . . .?" during the process. So, yeah.
"I've been the badgered wife that gave in to things that DH wanted and I didn't I can relate. The further I read the angrier I got. It took my friend to tell me after 20 freaking years that is was the same as rape."
ReplyDeleteBeing badgered, if that means verbally harassed until you give in, is abusive but it is not rape. If someone pesters you until you give in, you still consent by giving in. There is a choice involved.
"And nonconsensual sex is rape."
Indeed it is. But if you do consent, then it is not rape. Pretending that someone being nagged until they give in is the same as rape cheapens the term and dilutes its meaning.
I should note that if "badgered" involved threats rather than just annoying persuasion, then that's a different matter.
ReplyDeleteHey UNRR,
ReplyDeleteYeah okay. I was gonna give you the definition of coercion.
Coercion
Coercion is the use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to something they may not want to do – like being sexual or performing certain sexual acts. Examples of some coercive statements include: “If you love me you would have sex with me .”, “If you don't have sex with me I will find someone who will.”, and “I'm not sure I can be with someone who doesn't want to have sex with me.” Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault.
Yes, it was more than annoying persuasion. I have a feeling the woman in the story deals with more than annoying persuasion as well. Why else would she "have" to give in?
Right, UNRR, and a woman being raped is no longer a rape victim if she stops struggling.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like the guy is using rhetoric or "pestering" his wife in these cases, they tend to threaten and demand. "Who do you think pays for this house? Not you, since I won't let you get a job!"
I don't think you want to be on the side of trying to force women into having sex. That is a really creepy and disturbing line to flirt with.
Your examples are not coercion. There is no force involved, and no threat. There is nothing to reasonably prevent her from saying no.
ReplyDelete"Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault."
I agree. But what you have described is not coercion -- not even close.
"I have a feeling the woman in the story deals with more than annoying persuasion as well. Why else would she "have" to give in?"
Well, again. That's a different matter. If there is an actual threat involved, then it is rape. Making someone feel bad, or just playing with their emotions to talk them into having sex is abusive, yes. It's abusive to try to convince someone who clearly doesn't want sex to have sex. But it isn't rape.
The law begs to differ in quite a few states. That definition I provided is a legal definition. Coercion is a form of rape. Albeit not violent, but a form of rape the same.
ReplyDelete"It's not like the guy is using rhetoric or "pestering" his wife in these cases, they tend to threaten and demand. "
ReplyDeleteI've clearly stated that if there are actual threats involved then it is rape.
"I don't think you want to be on the side of trying to force women into having sex. That is a really creepy and disturbing line to flirt with."
Since I'm obviously not doing that, except to someone with a complete lack of reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills, I'm not too worried about it. I guess you missed where I said it was abusive. I'm making a distinction between mental abuse/bad behavior and rape. Apparently that was just too difficult to grasp. Either that or you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest.
"Coercion is a form of rape. Albeit not violent, but a form of rape the same."
ReplyDeleteYes, and I'm disagreeing with you that what you described constitutes coercion. There's no place in the country that is going to charge someone with rape for saying they are going to leave their wife if she won't have sex.
When does it become coercion? Give me examples of that.
ReplyDeleteThat paragraph I posted came from this website:
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm
This isn't the only website that lists this as a form of rape. Let me just tell you that regardless of your personal opinion, coercion makes you feel violated.
How about, "If you don't have sex with me you'll be sorry"? That's a vague implied threat that could mean violence. Or, "I'm tired of hearing no from you, we are going to have sex right now. I don't want to hear another word out of you." Those are threats that instill real fear that constrain the ability to say no.
ReplyDeleteI have to go to work, so I can't continue this argument right now. But I will check back later.
"Yes, and I'm disagreeing with you that what you described constitutes coercion."
ReplyDeleteThat's fine. I can accept that you personally disagree. Just don't be offended if I don't value your opinion on the matter. Have you ever been in that situation?
UNNR,
ReplyDeleteSo in your opinion rape MUST involve physical violence or the threat of physical violence? There are other forms of threats, you know.
I'd like to pose a question for UNRR - though I see D'Ma has basically beaten me to it. The question is this:
ReplyDeleteIs violence the only thing you can use to threaten someone?
"That's fine. I can accept that you personally disagree. Just don't be offended if I don't value your opinion on the matter. Have you ever been in that situation? "
ReplyDeleteI'm hard to offend, but it's stupid to only value the opinions of people who have personally been in situations. They are often the last people who can rationally evaluate that sort of situation, precisely because of their own personal involvement. Logical reasoning is logical reasoning, no matter where or who it comes from.
"So in your opinion rape MUST involve physical violence or the threat of physical violence? There are other forms of threats, you know. "
No, I wouldn't say that." I was responding only to the specific examples you gave, which I do not think can reasonably be defined as rape.
I would say that there needs to be a serious threat to make it rape -- a threat that inflicts enough distress that it is reasonable to believe the woman can't just brush it aside. I gave a couple of examples, but here's another one that involves no actual violence. But there is still a serious threat that that in my opinion could inflict the sort of terror that would rise to the level of rape.
"We are having sex right now or you can get the hell out of my house and sleep in the street for all I care."
That sort of threat, although it may not involve violence, is extremely intimidating, especially if he owns the house and has the right to evict her. A similar situation would be if a man has a woman in the car and tells her if she doesn't have sex with him she's going to have to get out and walk home. I would consider both those situations rape if she gave in and had sex.
I don't think there is a one-size fits all definition for rape, it depends on the circumstance. But being an obnoxious jerk, or verbally abusive is not the same thing as being a rapist. I don't think men should attempt to persuade women to have sex with them once they refuse. But attempts at persuasion, even if obnoxious and offensive, do not necessarily rise to the level of intimidation that implies that a woman has no reasonable choice but to give in, ie rape.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but has UNRR shown that he's okay with forcing the elderly to choose between food and medicine in the name of freedom AND allowing men to force women to have sex with them as long as no direct threats of violence are involved?
ReplyDeleteI, um, I'm not sure I feel comfortable sharing a gender and species with him...
Uh huh. Silly rape survivors with their silly lack of objectivity! Only those with no experience can be rational about things, and only that kind of rationality counts as "rational"! It's totes coincidence that this kind of "rationality" and "objectivity" serve the status quo and the patriarchy so well *cough*.
ReplyDeleteEnthusiastic consent is the only equitable, sensible, humane and decent standard.
I love how the parameters for threatening need to be so clear for our arbiter of real rape and not rape to nod along-- but you know, that isn't how it usually works. You may know in the background that if you say no enough times, your husband will leave you, without him ever having to *say* so. And you may know that that will leave you destitute and perhaps with children to care for, and shamed in your community. And that? That makes what lies behind the nagging a whole lot more weighty.
Again, anything less than enthusiastic consent is not consent that any decent human being wants.
Follow-up question for UNRR:
ReplyDeleteDoes your definition of rape allow for situations where no threats or coercion exist at all?
"I'm hard to offend, but it's stupid to only value the opinions of people who have personally been in situations."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty hard to offend myself so I'm going to ignore the fact that you just called me stupid and irrational. I didn't say I only valued the opinions of those who had been in the situation. I just asked you if you had.
That aside, I just don't value your opinion on the matter. There are many things that can instill fear in a person. It need not necessarily be violence.
What about, "I'm not happy, and I'm gonna do whatever it takes to make me happy."? Threat of divorce or an affair. What about, "I'll just tie your ass up and take what I want and there won't be anything you can do about it."?
But okay, let's just go with your definition - just for jollies. Abuse. Same difference. It's still violating. It's still deplorable. And it's still unfathomable that someone who claims to be your life partner and love you would be such an asshole.
And just so we're clear those were pretty calm examples I gave earlier. Probably closer to manipulation and emotional abuse. But I'm here to tell you, that's just a hop and a skip from the real thing.
"I'm hard to offend, but it's stupid to only value the opinions of people who have personally been in situations."
ReplyDeleteSo...by this metric, the only way anyone can possibly say, "It would suck to get shot in the face," is if they have been shot in the face. And only those who have been shot in the face can say, "Don't shoot someone else in the face."
It's like I'm back in high school having conversations with other idiot high schoolers about empiricism. I seem to recall thinking that David Hume's philosophy lead to a lack of ability to fathom the idea that it sucks to be hit by a car without being hit by a car. In my defense, I was fuck stupid when I was 17.
"So, correct me if I'm wrong, but has UNRR shown that he's okay with forcing the elderly to choose between food and medicine in the name of freedom"
ReplyDeleteAnother person with reading comprehension problems. Trying reading what I actually wrote instead of attacking your own strawman.
"AND allowing men to force women to have sex with them as long as no direct threats of violence are involved?"
No, I'm absolutely not ok with allowing men to force women to havc sex with them under any circumstances.
", um, I'm not sure I feel comfortable sharing a gender and species with him... "
I'm not sure I feel comfortable sharing a gender and species with someone either so stupid, or so deliberately dishonest as to attribute the above position to me.
"I'm pretty hard to offend myself so I'm going to ignore the fact that you just called me stupid and irrational."
ReplyDeleteI didn't. Do you understand that there's a difference between being stupid and having a stupid idea? I'll repeat it again and rephrase it. It is stupid to think that you get useful insights into something only from someone who has personally been affected by a traumatic situation. Sometimes an outside observer who has not gone through the same trauma might have some useful observations because they can more easily separate themselves from the emotions caused by that experience. And logical reasoning is logical reasoning no matter where it comes from. If someone who has never gotten a math problem right in his life somehow writes down that 2+2+4, 2+2 doesn't stop equaling 4 just because it was written by a math deficient individual.
"That aside, I just don't value your opinion on the matter. There are many things that can instill fear in a person. It need not necessarily be violence. "
You don't value my opinion because you don't like it, and because you don't seem to understand it -- even though I partially agree with you. Is there an epidemic of reading comprehension problems here? Did I not give two examples where someone said something that involved no violence, yet I agreed that those situations would constitute rape? I specifically said that it doesn't have to be violence to be rape, just a serious threat.
"What about, "I'm not happy, and I'm gonna do whatever it takes to make me happy."?"
Sounds like a serious threat to me. Yes, that would be rape.
"Threat of divorce or an affair. "
No, of course not. You are making the term rape completely meaningless and making a mockery of the seriousness of that crime by suggesting that if a man merely threatens divorce if his wife refuses sex, that that somehow constitutes rape. And if he says something like, "if you won't have sex with me I'll find someone who will," and she actually gives in to that, that is clearly not rape.
"What about, "I'll just tie your ass up and take what I want and there won't be anything you can do about it."? "
Obviously the threat of force makes it rape. I already covered that. Apparently that's something else you didn't bother to read.
"But okay, let's just go with your definition - just for jollies. Abuse. Same difference. It's still violating. It's still deplorable. And it's still unfathomable that someone who claims to be your life partner and love you would be such an asshole."
Again, I already agreed that it's abusive behavior for a man to persist in trying to convince a woman to have sex against her expressed wishes. But there are many types of abusive behavior that are not rape.
UNRR, if people consistently misinterpret your position, you might want to consider that maybe the problem isn't them. Maybe it's the way you're presenting yourself.
ReplyDelete"No, I'm absolutely not ok with allowing men to force women to havc sex with them under any circumstances."
Excellent. It's just barely possible that we're now making progress. Because if this is really your position, and you're willing to allow for a definition of "use of force" that doesn't require an element of violence - which you seem to be willing to at least consider - then it seems to me that when Personal Failure reads something like this:
"And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, [emphasis mine] and I went to confession, I’ve never had a priest give me a hard time about it."
...And PF says, basically, that sounds like she didn't feel she had any choice in the matter, which sounds like some version of "use of force" on her husband's part, which would qualify it as rape.
...Well, then it seems to me like you ought to be agreeing with her, rather than nitpicking over the precise semantic definition of rape - which frankly looks more than a little like missing the point in this particular case.
Don't get me wrong; words have meanings, and clarity is vital to both effective communication and clear thought. I'd even agree that sloppy, over-common, and imprecise use of terms tends to degrade their meaning and should be avoided. But in this particular case, the victim has said in her own words that she "had to" comply with her husband's wishes for sex, even though she didn't want to. Since you've already admitted that "had to" doesn't always mean that there was no other choice - sometimes it only means that all the other choices were worse - I don't see why you seem so intent on insisting that this must not have been a form of rape (albeit better disguised than some).
"Threat of divorce or an affair. "
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. You are making the term rape completely meaningless and making a mockery of the seriousness of that crime by suggesting that if a man merely threatens divorce if his wife refuses sex, that that somehow constitutes rape.
Ah, but that's only true if you assume that suing for divorce or having an affair are not that big a deal - as they aren't, in American (and many other) culture(s). If you're male. And, for that matter, if you're not all that emotionally attached to your spouse.
You are, in other words, judging the enormity of the threat by how it would affect you, and/or how you would respond to it - rather than how it would affect the person being threatened. That's a fine thing if you want avoid being threatened that way; it's much less useful in evaluating whether or not such a threat would constitute "coercion" or "use of force" against someone who isn't, y'know, you.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thank you for actually reading and responding directly to my argument. You make a reasonable point. Obviously what constitutes rape in each circumstance is a judgment call, that's why we are arguing about it. Naturally my personal judgment is going to reflect my own biases and how I view things.
But at the same time, I think I am on solid ground when I argue that the threat of divorce is not something that would normally be considered forcible coercion to the point that simply making such a threat to get sex would constitute rape. In my opinion, if that is rape, then we are radically redefining the term to the point where it starts to lose its commonly-understood meaning.
UNNR;
ReplyDeletewhat if divorce will leave her destitute? and it very well might - especially if there's a pre-nup. if she only gets alimony in X circumstances, and he says "give me sex or i'll divorce you, leaving you penniless, homeless, and cast out by our friends, because divorce is aweful and they'll all AGREE i should have divorced you because you aren't ALLOWED to say no to me, it's in the Bible and is part of our Church's teaching"
THAT is the level/type of threat we're dealing with, here.
i hate to say it, but the problems you run into here, over and over, stem from the fact that you A) seem to lack any empathy, B) don't seem to CARE that you lack empathy, and C) then make fun of the rest of us [or rather, insult the rest of us] because YOU don't have empathy but we do.
like, several threads ago, where you either didn't read my comment or just skimmed it, and said i wrote a "rant full of unproven things" when the things i stated were *facts* - like the specific fact that Regan had started deregulation of the financial industry that allowed said financial industry to do all the shit they did that caused the recession.
you don't actually READ everything we say, or you take things out of context, and on TOP of that you start from the assumption that we're just sitting here not "thinking" but just reacting emotionally, with no "rational" thought involved - and then wonder why we react badly?
stop, please. beyond looking like a total ass - a thing you don't care about - you keep derailing. for stupid shit. like this one - if a woman feels that her options are "sex now or GTFO" and she gives in - the situation that PF essentially described - you YOURSELF said you'd consider that rape - but because you read it without a single ounce of empathy and decided to read it in the way you WANTED, instead of the way it was PRESENTED, you once again stuck your foot in it.
Michael's right - at this point, almost every regular here has reacted you in a way that YOU say is "wrong" - and the ONLY common denomonator is YOU.
i have agreed with you in the past, and expect to do so in the future - but most of the time, i don't. not even because you're always "wrong", sometimes it's just the way you fucking talk. take a deep breath, and maybe try a bit more to NOT be the offensive asshole. i mean, if the only way you feel you can "get a point across" is to act like a jackass, you're either in the wrong area, or you're working from an incorrect assumption.
Nichael,
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I saw your last comment but not the one before. The response above refers to the second. Here's the response to the first.
"Maybe it's the way you're presenting yourself."
I did consider that, and reread my previous comments. But it was not the case. My comments were deliberately misinterpreted or ignored entirely. I did rephrase the passage that D'Ma chose to interpret as an insult in case it was misunderstood. I try to avoid ad hominem attacks, although I am not above responding to insults with insults. I don't think it's useful to initiate them.
".Well, then it seems to me like you ought to be agreeing with her, rather than nitpicking over the precise semantic definition of rape - which frankly looks more than a little like missing the point in this particular case."
Obviously I disagree. I don't make comments, let alone write the massive amount I usually write, if I don't think a point is worth making.
"I'd even agree that sloppy, over-common, and imprecise use of terms tends to degrade their meaning and should be avoided."
Yes, I agree, especially when one is attempting to redefine the definition of one of the most serious crimes.
" I don't see why you seem so intent on insisting that this must not have been a form of rape "
I'm not and I haven't been. My initial comment was in response to D'Ma's, not to anything in PF's post. I responded to this:
""I've been the badgered wife that gave in to things that DH wanted and I didn't I can relate. The further I read the angrier I got. It took my friend to tell me after 20 freaking years that is was the same as rape.""
My initial point, which I then expanded upon in response to the reaction, was that being "badgered" for sex -- athough abusive -- does not necessarily equal rape. We all agree that forcing a women to have sex is rape. What we disagree with is exactly what constitutes force, other than the obvious.
Michael -
ReplyDeletethat's an awesome design, and SHOULD be a onsie :D
denelian,
ReplyDelete"what if divorce will leave her destitute?"
As I already said, whether or not something might constitute rape depends on the circumstances. If a woman is totally dependent on her husband, then a reasonable case could be made that the threat of divorce could be force.
"i hate to say it, but the problems you run into here, over and over, stem from the fact that you A) seem to lack any empathy"
That's just silly. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I lack empathy.
"when the things i stated were *facts* "
No, they were not facts. You apparently can't separate facts from propaganda, and when someone can't do that, I can't be bothered to correct them. It's pointless.
"you don't actually READ everything we say, or you take things out of context"
That's pretty funny, since I do read everything and respond quite specifically. It's my words that haven't been read and have been misrepresented. Unlike you, I can actually give examples of this.
"and on TOP of that you start from the assumption.."
No, I respond to what is written. You are the one making unfounded assumptions about me.
"stop, please. beyond looking like a total ass - a thing you don't care about"
I'll continue commenting when I feel it is useful to comment, and in the manner I always comment. If you don't like it, get over it or don't respond to me. And it's pretty funny when someone who can't write anything without including a bunch of profanity accuses someone else of looking like an ass. Check out a mirror.
"Michael's right - at this point, almost every regular here has reacted you in a way that YOU say is "wrong" - and the ONLY common denomonator is YOU."
Yes, because I'm the one disagreeing with the majority opinion here. That doesn't make me wrong, lacking in empathy, or anything else. It makes me someone who is going against the prevailing views.
" if the only way you feel you can "get a point across" is to act like a jackas"
I haven't done that at all, other than possibly my dismissive comment about your rant. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
Michael & denelian,
ReplyDeleteIt's 2:16 am here and I'm going to bed. I'll check back later in the morning if you are continuing to argue with me -- since as you know I have serious difficulty letting an argument go :)
"Maybe it's the way you're presenting yourself."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you considered the possibility that it could be your presentation. I'm having no trouble following your ideas. I haven't a reading comprehension problem. The way you present yourself is to belittle ideas you don't agree with.
It's fine that you have a differing opinion from mine. It's fine that you disagreed with my initial comment. You can't possibly know all the facts of my case.
I did use the word badgered because I wanted to relate to something without divulging all the gory details of my situation. Having brought it up I opened myself up to questions. You all now know way more about me than I had planned to spill.
Do you come here to have meaningful dialogue? Or do you think you know so much more than the rest of us that you need to enlighten us with your wisdom?
The thing is even when we bend a little in your direction and agree with you to some degree you continue to insult our ideas. Maybe they aren't personal attacks (i.e. calling someone's idea stupid vs. calling them stupid). When you disagree with an idea you come across as hostile.
"We are having sex right now or you can get the hell out of my house and sleep in the street for all I care."
ReplyDeleteThis was an example you gave of a non-violent threat that could be considered rape.
"I would say that there needs to be a serious threat to make it rape -- a threat that inflicts enough distress that it is reasonable to believe the woman can't just brush it aside."
This was your definition. Why is the threat of divorce or an affair not meeting your criteria? These are not things one can just brush aside.
what propoganda? it's not like people TALK about it. or are you say that the fact that Regan started deregulation of banks didn't happen? or that the deregulation that he started, and was continued by BushI and later by Bush II, DIDN'T lead to banks and financial institutions being able to engage in the risky practices, formerly NOT legal because of banking regs put in place after the Great Depression, that caused most of the current problem?
ReplyDeleteTHAT'S where YOU aren't paying attention. it's not something you seem to have any knowledge of, so you're dismissing it as "propoganda" - when i haven't seen ANYONE really talk about this, at ALL. at least, no one at any major news orgs, the Dems aren't pushing it, NO ONE is talking about it.
but it's true that Regan started the deregulization. and that deregulization led to the current problem.
and then yoy said i had an "incoherent rant" full of "propoganda and misinformation" and when i specifically asked you to tell me WHAT was "wrong", i.e. what thing i said was incorrect or "propoganda", you ignored it.
you didn't hurt my feelings - you pissed me off. you completely ignored every single point that i made, dismissed me without a thought - and then accused me of being "sensitive" by telling me you're "sorry" that you "hurt my feelings" [which you didn't do]
you treat all of us this way. you're dismissive and condesending, when you aren't being an out-right asshole. other people - including me! - have disagreed with the "majority" here, and have been able to do so without being a jackass. and without pissing anyone off.
but whatever the fuck. if you're just interested in trolling - which is what you're doing now, however much you seem to think you aren't - then nothing i say is going to matter.
"empathy" os being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and it's not saying something that's offensive in an offensive way. there's a ton of ways to tell someone you disagree with them WITHOUT being an asshole. you aren't interested in doing so.
so nevermind, forget i said anything, go ahead and do what you're doing, and continue to wonder why you aren't getting a wonderful reaction. i'm too tired to care about your shit; my effort to explain to you was wasted effort and i don't have enough energy to spare more.
"Maybe it's the way you're presenting yourself."
ReplyDeleteI did consider that, and reread my previous comments. But it was not the case.
Do me a favor, and re-read just that two-sentence response. Do you have any idea just how silly - and pompous - that sounds? It sounds like, "I wasn't sure that my ideas were easy to understand, so I re-read them, and I understood them perfectly." This is a fine example of something you mentioned earlier: sometimes the person in the situation is the least capable of having perspective about it.
Look, you don't check your clarity by re-reading your own material. Of course your arguments make sense to you; you know what you were trying to say. You check your work by having someone else look it over, preferably someone who doesn't share your assumptions.
You're reminding me an awful lot of someone I know in person, who gets into these same sorts of conversational difficulties. In his case, he's simply not as a good a communicator as he thinks he is; he also seems to think that logic is only logic if it's separated from emotion - and since he's very good at separating logic from emotion, he's absolutely convinced that he's an extremely logical person. And, of course, he'll occasionally trot out one of these logical arguments in a situation where it really isn't appropriate - when, regardless of whether or not he's right, whatever point he's insisting on is simply not worth that level of attention (shading over into missing the point outright).
To be fair, once you've translated him back into English, and forced him to explicitly outline the context and assumptions under which he's speaking, he generally is logical. Just, y'know, not always in a way that's particularly helpful.
Before I respond specifically to any comments I will say this...
ReplyDeleteAfter I woke up I thought some more about it and realized that I let my argumentative nature get the better of my good judgment. My initial response to D'Ma's comment was too quick and should have been softened, given her personal experience. I stand by everything I wrote, and I think the point I made was important, but I probably should not have responded to her at all and just let it go. I would never have tried to make that point to her in person after she said she was in an abusive relationship, without knowing her very well.
D'Ma,
ReplyDelete"I'm having no trouble following your ideas. I haven't a reading comprehension problem."
What you wrote earlier indicated otherwise.
" The way you present yourself is to belittle ideas you don't agree with."
Yes I do, if I think they are wrong and based on poor logical reasoning.
"You can't possibly know all the facts of my case."
You are right, an I apologize for not making it clearer that I was only responding to the words you had written in that passage, and not judging your entire situation which I know nothing about.
"This was your definition. Why is the threat of divorce or an affair not meeting your criteria? These are not things one can just brush aside."
Yes, they are in most cases. The majority of women in the U.S. are not totally dependent on their husbands to the point that a threat of divorce could be considered "force" where the woman had to comply. The threat to cheat isn't force at all in any case.
"what propoganda?"
ReplyDeletePropaganda was probably the wrong word. I should have said you were offering a highly biased ideological interpretation and presenting it as fact.
"THAT'S where YOU aren't paying attention. it's not something you seem to have any knowledge of"
Not true. I just don't wish to argue with someone on a topic when she can't separate a biased, ideological picture of events from fact.
"but it's true that Regan started the deregulization. and that deregulization led to the current problem."
No it is not "true," that is an argument/opinion. There are plenty of interpretations of what led to current problems. I suggest reading something other than just leftist views.
"you didn't hurt my feelings - you pissed me off. you completely ignored every single point that i made"
I didn't respond to your argument at all for the reasons I mentioned. You are probably right though that I shouldn't have mentioned it as an example if I wasn't willing to engage it.
"you treat all of us this way. you're dismissive and condesending"
Yes, I am dismissive and condescending when my arguments are met not with reasonable arguments, but with strawmen and ad hominem attacks. If you look through this thread, you will see that I acknowledge when people make an effective point, including when you do.
"but whatever the fuck. if you're just interested in trolling - which is what you're doing now, however much you seem to think you aren't - then nothing i say is going to matter."
That's obvious nonsense. I don't comment to get a reaction. I comment because I think I have a significant point to make. That isn't trolling.
"there's a ton of ways to tell someone you disagree with them WITHOUT being an asshole. you aren't interested in doing so."
You appear completely oblivious to the fact that I was responding after I was attacked, and my words both ignored and deliberately mischaracterized. But supposedly I'm the asshole.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteWhen I responded late last night I was tired and annoyed. Some clown on this thread had accused me of being a monster who supports rape. I wasn't exactly in the mood to be tactful toward people who seemed uninterested in debating, but just demonizing someone who dared disagree with the prevailing wisdom.
"Do me a favor, and re-read just that two-sentence response. Do you have any idea just how silly - and pompous - that sounds? It sounds like, "I wasn't sure that my ideas were easy to understand, so I re-read them, and I understood them perfectly.""
That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant that there was no reasonable interpretation of my words that made me a rape supporter, or that justified ignoring what I had already said. I was no longer worried about sounding arrogant, because I am arrogant when I know I'm dealing with people who are apparently incapable of sustaining a rational debate. All you have to do is look at the differences in my responses to arguments which directly respond to points I made.
"Look, you don't check your clarity by re-reading your own material."
Sure you do, especially in a comment thread. You have to check to make sure that you actually wrote what you thought you wrote, especially when people act as if you didn't, or grossly mischaracterize your words. I go back and check to make sure my comments actually posted and that I wasn't misremembering what I had wrote. That's what I meant.
" And, of course, he'll occasionally trot out one of these logical arguments in a situation where it really isn't appropriate - when, regardless of whether or not he's right, whatever point he's insisting on is simply not worth that level of attention"
Yes, that is probably the case here as I admit above. I think my point is very important, or I wouldn't bother making it, but I chose the wrong time and person to make it with.
denelian,
ReplyDeleteOne more thing on a personal note. Regardless of what I might think about some of your ideas, I do have a significant measure of respect for you. You have raised a couple of points in the past that caused me to question my assumptions and see things in a somewhat different light. I appreciate people who can do that.
As I'm sure you are aware, written communication -- especially involving argument -- often comes across much harsher than it would in face-to-face communication. This is especially true when trying to respond to multiple people.
UNNR,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I really appreciate your apology. Thank you. Looking back I probably shouldn't have commented myself. I can also appreciate that you obviously get heated when you are challenged. I, too, am sorry because in hindsight I could have reacted better myself. This column was sort of a trigger for me and when you challenged me I reacted poorly.
I don't feel that I indicated in any way that I lack reading comprehension skills. I just disagreed with you. Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean you have to belittle it. You can disagree without doing that. It's much more meaningful, to me at least. You have a much better chance of swaying my opinion if you treat me with respect.
Having said what I did in the first comment I made would have indicated that I was in an abusive relationship.
I still tend to disagree about the divorce issue. I understand what you are saying about a woman not being completely dependent on her husband, as I am not. I could have walked away at any time and could have let him walk. I should have long before I did. The problem is he could use the fact that he knew I didn't believe in divorce and the fact that I believed it to be a sin and against God to strong arm me into things I'd rather have not done. Even after I told him I'd rather not do that. I never pressed charges, nor would I. He also knew that. You call that abusive, I call it sexual assault at the very least. I can agree to disagree.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make them wrong. Nor does it make you wrong. It means you don't see it the same way and that's okay. It doesn't have to turn into a heated debate, or belittling or name calling. Though I disagreed with you I never called your opinions or ideas stupid or irrational.
I do think when talking about the threat of divorce or affair, intent becomes an issue as well. If the man knows that the woman fears such things enough that she will submit against her will then I can see that as being comparable to rape. However there is the other side of the situation as well, if the woman is absolutely refusing sex then from the mans perspective divorce or affair are possibly his only options, other than forced celibacy. In such a situation if the man is having affairs or filing for divorce in order to meet his needs rather than as an attempt to coerce then he is in the right.
ReplyDeleteNow the grey area would come if the man had an affair or filed for divorce because he refused to be forced into celibacy and in response the wife chose to begin offering him sex in order to prevent divorce or affairs, despite not wishing to. The husband has in this situation made no attempt at coercion yet the wife is being coerced by her own need to preserve the marriage in spite of her sexual disinterest.
How does such a situation fit into your definition of rape?
Ryk,
ReplyDeleteInteresting points and I agree with what you said in your first paragraph. I do think intent is important in the definition of crimes.
In your second paragraph, in my opinion that situation would definitely not be rape. The woman freely chooses to do something for her own purposes. Depending on the actual details, it might even be that she is manipulating and controlling him through the use of sex.
D'Ma,
ReplyDeleteI wrote a response to your comment. It was here but now I don't see it. Did you see it?
No, UNNR. I didn't see it. It happened to one of my comments as well. Blogger's eating them again. :)
ReplyDeleteRyk,
I totally agree with what you said about a wife refusing sex and forcing a man into celibacy or an affair or divorce. If you don't meet the other person's needs what are they to do? So I'm not completely oblivious to that aspect of it. There are always two sides to every story. In my particular case it wasn't, but I realize it can be that way.
Ryk,
ReplyDeleteTo be perfectly honest, the situation you describe in your second paragraph doesn't in any way constitute rape or sexual assault of any kind.
UNNR;
ReplyDeletei never called you a rape appologist - someone said that you were skirting the edge of arguments rape apologists USE - and that's a different kettle of fish.
my point about lack of empathy you seem to have gotten, while denying that you have problems - your apology to D'Ma [because she herself had been in that situation] is what i mean about empathy.
or, perhaps, when PF and I and others who are disabled and NOT INSURABLE get angry about people who AREN'T in this situation and who DO and WILL have the best health insurance in the world for the rest of their lives, talk about taking away the ONE form of health care/health insurance that we've paid for, and been promised, and is the ONLY ONE that will insure us if the worst happens [as it did to me] and we can't work anymore. you treat these things as *academic arguments*, when for us, they are quite literally life-or-death.
as for my arguments, all those posts ago, about Regan - i'll admit they probably weren't "clean", as in i wouldn't have turned in a paper that read that way.
but the people who have told me about it - not a single journalist, not a single Democrat [as in, not only not a person working for the Democratic party, in 4 cases the person teaching it were Republican, one person was a Libertarian, and the other half-dozen were either Independent or non-political] - i haven't seen ANYONE present the simple fact that Regan started deregulization in ANY partian way.
and the fact is, even if it's not 100% of the cause, it's a LARGE PORTION of the cause of the present situation. before deregulation, banks and financial institution COULD NOT list toxic assets as "A-grade" assets - they were REQUIRED, before Regan, to have an independent outside assessment. that went away, with deregulation - and every economist i have talked to about has claimed that THAT led, maybe not ALONE, but as a large part of the driving force, to all THIS.
that's not some "leftist view". it's the view of every single economist i know, at 5 different Universities and in private enterprise. that's the thing that really pissed me off there - instead of thinking about what i was saying, you just ASSUMED i got that info from some "leftist" place - but, honestly, i haven't seen but the most basic version of it ANYWHERE, including "leftist journalism". what one reads in "leftist journalism" is "The Republicans did this!" with very little else - when i can, i go thru and give the details, which "leftist" orgs often get WRONG [after all, part of the problem is ALSO the NAFTA! go Clinton. sigh]
it doesn't help, at all, to KNOW that you SHOULD know that on my BEST day, my pain level is a 7 and i'm on OMG! levels of narcotics. i may drop words or transpose them or something, but everything is there, and when you *have* agreed with me, in the past, it's been no better written [BECAUSE of said pain and med issues] it's like you ignore the problems when you like what i say, and then insult me for those problems when you don't like what i say, and YES, that's A) insulting and B) a lack of empathy.
your point about written communication *IS* a good one - but, see, if i somehow insult the PERSON, as opposed to the idea, i apologize. you don't - you then mock us for being insulted, and honestly? in many many many places, where YOU say you're only "critiquing" what's said, it REALLY comes off as a personal attack. sure, it may indeed be that you could say the same thing in person and it would be fine [although... not on all of them] but, having acknowledged that there's a problem, you should feel bound to mitigate it.
we'll see if you do so, outside of this thread.
i admit, last night my pain level was over a 9 and i'd just found out i have to have yet another fucking surgery. so i wasn't in anything resembling a good or charitable mood. pretty sure i mentioned the lack of energy, even if i didn't explain it. so i was harder than i would normally be - but YOU forgot that you're talking to people who have been raped, and in multiple cases, the threats used to force said rape aren't going to fit the perfect "do it or i'll kill you" level of rape. i mean, my step-father threatened to kill my mother if i told, and i've been told by MANY people that, since that wasn't a threat against ME, i should have told and therefor it wasn't rape [despite the fact that i was 12]. LOTS of us here are rape survivors, and i, at least, have PTSD [won't speak for anyone else] and if you don't KNOW that we are rape survivors, you haven't been paying attention. but that's where a lack of empathy AGAIN happened - knowing rape survivors are you, you proceeded to tell us that what happened to us wasn't rape. and it DOESN'T MATTER that YOU think you were speaking in the hypothetical - we've ALL heard it, over and over, and had those same exact arguments used against us.
ReplyDeletenot just to UNNR, now, but to EVERYONE - can you PLEASE make up your mind on "rape"? PLEASE?! either mention of rape when "it isn't rape" demeans the word, and you should stop saying shit like "i got raped on COD4 by some asshole on the team", or it DOESN'T demean it and we can call things that are "fuzzy" and "maybe not really rape in the eyes of the law" RAPE, because we were raped.
[seriously - some people wouldn't care about divorce. some would. saying NO ONE would care about divorce? sometimes, UNNR, you make sweeping statements that are just INSULTING.]
@ UNRR - Eh, fair enough. I've written a fair number of comments/responses myself that I came back to later and thought, wait, whoah, why didn't I have the sense to back off before I said that? So, y'know, okay.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do appreciate your response to D'Ma - which, assuming it's the one I think it is, I do see now. (Stupid comment-eating Blogger software. At least it put it back this time.)
And you're right; I was imprecise. I should have said, "If you're really worried about being misunderstood..." because, yes, we all do go back and recheck our own work.
Now, I've come to believe that we've gone about as far as we need to with this thread. I mean, we've got fifty-someodd comments on the topic (as near as I can tell) of whether rape is "sex obtained by force" or whether it is better defined as "non-consensual sexual activity", or whether it's something in between (say, "non-consensual sex").
So at this point, I'm just going to back slowly away and let the thread wind down. Or not, if it doesn't. Either way, I'm likely to be offline for most of the rest of today and all of tomorrow, so I wish you all well and take my leave.
Apologies for thread necromancy; I'm late to the party and making my way slowly through the archives here, but this is a topic on which I have strong if mixed (is that even possible?) feelings.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the issue here is terminology. We all agree that using violence, or the threat of violence, to get sex is a special kind of special, and no one should do it, ever. And we all agree (I'm guessing, at least) that consensual, enthusiastic sex is lovely. But there's that whole big grey area in between, and it's not wrong to see it as complicated. The line between rape and not-rape is actually kinda fuzzy. What constitutes consent? Is it rape if one partner isn't into it 100%? What about if they're not in the mood at the moment, but choose to go along with it because they love their partner and genuinely want to make them happy? What if they weren't in the mood at first, but after snuggling for a while, suddenly started feeling amorous? In general, what constitutes "coercion," and how much coercion is ok before it stops counting as consent?
These aren't simple questions. (Warning: next couple paragraphs contain personal information and descriptions of potential-rape, please skip if that bothers you.) I've been in the situation where I didn't want sex and my partner did; he kept kissing and touching me, until suddenly I realized I wanted it after all. What was killing my sex drive was stress from the day, and (paradoxically) what I needed to recover from the stress was happy sexytimes. My partner knew me well enough to realize that that was the case, and afterwards I was happy and grateful that he pushed the issue.
I've also been in the situation where I didn't want sex and someone else did. Mostly because (in no particular order) a) I was in a relationship with someone else, b) he was still emotionally entangled with his ex, c) I wasn't physically attracted to him, and d) while I didn't mind being his sounding board while he worked out his angst, I didn't actually like him all that much. He didn't try to force me, but he did keep pouring me drinks, using every emotionally-manipulative tool he could find to tug on my heartstrings, and repeatedly asking - no, nagging - me to fool around with him. Until eventually alcohol fuzzed out my very good reasons not to, and the nagging wore out my defenses, until... yeah, I gave in. Fast-forward to me sitting against the wall outside my hotel room, about half an hour later, sobbing and feeling like shit. (For the record, if anyone cares, I DID tell my boyfriend - now my husband - about it, because honesty is a Good Thing in relationships, and while he was angry, it wasn't at me.)
Were either of these experiences rape? Were neither? Both? I don't know, but I sure know which one felt more like it.
There's a word my husband and I found in a humor blog a few years back, and I find it both useful and hilarious in its absurdity. The word is "rapey." I've found it works really well to describe situations that aren't clearly black-and-white. (For example, most of us have met the guy who, while not actually being a rapist, tends to get a little rapey when he's drunk - not picking up on those not-so-subtle clues that his attentions are decidedly unwanted, and not quite remembering why it is not considered socially acceptable to continue to try to tap an ass that has turned him down thrice so far.)
ReplyDeleteSo here is what I propose! (Dun dun dun!!!) Don't look for a dividing line. Instead, see a spectrum. On one end, happy enthusiastic consensual sex. On the other end, gun-to-the-head rape. Everything in between is on the spectrum of rapey-ness. Just how far down that spectrum is acceptable in a healthy relationship is probably going to vary based on the individuals involved, but here's the litmus test - how did the least-enthusiastic person feel about it? Because, look, you can't give consent accidentally. If you feel like the sex wasn't consensual on your end, then it wasn't. (And yes, I am absolutely aware that it is possible to misinterpret signals and not realize that your partner is not enthusiastic. People make mistakes. But if your partner lets you know that they weren't comfortable - that, in fact, the sex was a little more rapey than they're ok with - you need to respect that, and believe them, and take steps to prevent such a miscommunication from happening in the future. I'm far less interested in blame than I am in fixing the problem.)