I have seen this piece before. It's very powerful, and many women I know who were date raped have had this experience.

There is an email response that goes with that postcard. It is from a woman who says she married her rapist, had 3 kids with him, and only now after 25 years is realizing why she suffers from depression.

Wow. This postcard is... It's exactly what happened to me. I didn't remember what had really happened until I wrote a short story about it. I started out writing it, thinking it was a love story. And then when I really allowed myself to think about that night, I realized that I never said yes. In fact, I said no. You know how they say that when you're in a group of 3 or more women, odds are one of them has been sexually assaulted? I realized that she was me. But the realization, the remembering actually freed me.

All I can say is reading that hit close to home for me too. But for an entirely different reason than the above comments.
I just realized that I'm not as open-minded as I need to be.

Thanks for the eye opener.

This postcard really strikes a chord in me.

My ex, who raped me more times than I can count, still tries to get in touch with me so that we can "be friends." If I told him that he raped me for most of our relationship, he'd think I was crazy. G'uh.

I always wonder if rape survivors are talking more about physical force or psychological badgering.

I'm glad this was posted since I know many girls who have been in that situation and people I tell (especially men but also women) are always so shocked that such a thing could happen.

I read postsecret every week . . . this one struck me, too.

Wow. I think that speaks very powerfully, especially on the nuances of rape that society doesn't realize. Mainstream misogyny would have us believe that women run screaming, with their hands in the air, as soon as anything that can be construed as rape happens to them, but the truth is that most women stay silent and ashamed.

My mother was repeatedly gang raped by all four of her brothers and her father throughout her early childhood, but did not admit it until she was forty-one years old after three years of counseling for unexplained PTSD. Not only did this happen to her, but two of her cousins experienced rape either by their father or brother(s) before they hit puberty. And all the while, their mothers knew, but couldn't say anything, out of fear of their husbands.

I lived in the culture, the super-masculine machismo culture of Catholic Hispanics, and I know what she's talking about -- the fear and intimidation, and the shame. But I still can't imagine it. And I think that's why society is afraid to acknowledge the depth and scope of rape, because then you would know how bad it can get.

A friend of mine in college went through this same thing. Her rapist told her she "owed him" because he'd bought her dinner. It was her first time. It was their first date.

I have no idea what ever happened with them - last I can recall she was still dating him, but I know I pretty much just stopped asking. I was just too appalled and, I'm ashamed to say, judgmental, about the whole thing. Obviously we drifted apart after college, but this makes me wonder whatever did happen to her.

To Donna Darko: In my friend's case, from what I recall it was a murky combination of both physical and psychological coersion. He was getting physical, she wanted him to slow down, he refused and began telling her how she "owed him" since he'd paid for her dinner and her movie ticket and all of that junk. She was ultimately overwhelmed because she didn't have the strength to fight a battle on both "fronts".

Wow. I didn't know such a thing was possible. I would venture to offer an analysis, but I don't think I could do anybody justice :(

All I can say is rape, particularly the emotions these women have felt after being raped, is an issue that is very upsetting, but extremely foreign and difficult to grasp, for someone like myself. I really just don't know how to relate or understand it in any way that, as I said, does it any justice.

And yet I feel compelled to say something!

Thorn, that sounds awful.

Wow, ikkin . . . that's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard. I can't even imagine what it would be like to go through/deal with that.

I can easily see how this would happen. My first boyfriend was very very pushy when it came to sex. There weren't a lot of times when I was directly asked what I wanted to do and a lot of times when I expressed what I did want to do (usually sleep) and was pushed and conjoled until I would have sex. It was a bad situation all around for a lot of different reasons and I was happy to get out of it. I never called what happened 'rape' just because I don't believe the intention I think is behind most rapes (i.e, an expression of power or dominance) was there, it had more in common with emotional abuse. Still, I think more women are in situations like this than one would think.

But I don't know how to fix it, other than educating girls to learn to stand up for themselves and educating boys that they're not entitled to sex and to LISTEN to 'no' or 'not right now' or whatever it may be. I have a lot of sympathy for this woman and all the women who've posted about their experiences or the experiences of people close to them. Hopefully some minds will be opened.

I was sexually assaulted by my grandfather and for a long time I didn't understand it. I was so confused when he told me he loved me because I didn't know if he meant it in an 'adult' way or a 'grandpa' way. Because of the situation of him being in my family I didn't tell anyone and played sweet 'grandaughter' any time he and other family members were around. I tried so hard to make sure no one found out that I actually would convince myself that we had a normal grandpa-granddaughter relationship. I found this ad very powerful immediately as well, but I didn't think I related to it at first. Now, I see that I do. He was my abuser, but my grandfather. Someone I hated, and someone I loved... but also hated and feel ashamed for loving. I think this kind of nuanced experience with rapists/assaulters is more common than I have actually ever considered.

It applies to rape and any type of violence: there is always the desire, when the abuser or rapist is close to you, to pretend that it wasn't really that bad.

We can start by teaching women that things just aren't their fault. I'm all for personal responsibility, but women internalise violence because they have been taught that they have to be "nice" and "play nice" and "get along" and "be pleasant."

Maybe we ought to teach women that they are valid, worthwhile humans, first and foremost?

"Maybe we ought to teach women that they are valid, worthwhile humans, first and foremost?"

Great idea. Better yet, start before they're women.

Correction well taken - thanks, Mina! :)

I saw this secret on Sunday's post and like many people here it hit way too close to home for me. It brings up many bad memories for me, memories that I wished to forget. Yet by knowing that other women have gone through the same thing encourages me. It it nice to know that we are not alone in this world.

Oh my god.....this is just so sad. I admit I had no idea that this sort of thing is so common.

Oh my god.....this is just so sad. I admit I had no idea that this sort of thing is so common.

Oh my god.....this is just so sad. I admit I had no idea that this sort of thing is so common.

The Post Secret card rang true for me as well. I used to think that I had betrayed myself by continuing the relationship with the guy who raped me. Now I understand that it was a matter of survival. The love and support of some very strong women in a rape survivors support group helped me to move through and beyond that experience. Even still, I carry some part of it with me to this day.

I have (thankfully) never been raped, but I was in an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with my first boyfriend when I was 14. We didn't have intercourse, but there were many times when he wanted to engage in sexual play that I didn't, and just kept trying and asking until I eventually gave up and did it. It took me a long time to realize that what he did was wrong and abusive and not my fault. Sometimes I still have nightmares about him and though I'm happily married now to a wonderful, feminist man, I still have a lot of difficulty trusting men.

What I'm getting at here is that I always thought my situation was somewhat unique. To find out that it's not-- and that so many other women had/have relationships that actually involve rape-- causes very complex feelings on my part. On the one hand, I feel less like a "freak" and a victim. On the other hand, it's absolutely tragic to know how much company I have in such an awful situation.

Ooh, thanks for reminding me to check postsecret. Always fascinating. Sometimes funny, and, at times like this, incredibly sad.

I check Post Secret each week and this caught my eye as well. Each week there are at least 1-2 powerful entries.

Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.

I didn't break up with the boyfriend who raped me in college because see, if I pretended everything was okay, then I hadn't really been raped, right? Riiiight.

To this day, I typically get one of two responses from people when I tell them this story: Either the rape wasn't so bad (because I stayed, der) or it wasn't really rape. Oh, I occasionally get told that it wasn't really rape because I didn't fight hard enough.

Fun times.

Thorn, I have always insisted on paying my own way on dates, in part because I just think it's fair, but also precisely because I didn't want to give any man an excuse to think he'd "bought" me.

But it happened to me, too, despite my precautions. He was a friend and former lover. And the thought that I actually managed to cooperate in my own rape because I didn't want to embarrass him (or myself) by "making a scene" shames me deeply.

Oh, I occasionally get told that it wasn't really rape because I didn't fight hard enough.

Or maybe, you're just so shocked that someone would do that to you and just so scared that you can't fight like you usually can - like everyone would expect that you would.

--
Re: dates. If a man pays, you do owe him: you owe him a home-cooked meal, tickets to the theatre, a picnic lunch in the park, or treating him next time. Any man who thinks you owe him sex is looking for a prostitute - the currency being cuisine, not cash, but there's little difference.

(Somewhat divergent story: I once paid for the date - first real date as a couple - and got dumped later that night while I was lying in his arms because I wouldn't put out. Some men just use paying as an excuse to pressure for what they want anyway: it's not about the money or the relationship so much as about the expectation that he will be completely fulfilled, and to hell with the woman's feelings.)

ancrenewiseass, I'm so sorry.

I know the opinion of a stranger off the internet isn't going to help, but I think oenophile's point is valid. Date rapists use paying for a date to reassure themselves that they have done nothing wrong. They can wake up the next morning and tell themselves that they did not force a woman, she "owed it" to them. It's just an excuse, and denied that excuse they will find another.

You rape was not a sign of your weakness, it was a sign of his monstrosity.

I know I don't know you from Eve, but I am certain of that all the same.

Thorn

I never called what happened 'rape' just because I don't believe the intention I think is behind most rapes (i.e, an expression of power or dominance) was there, it had more in common with emotional abuse.

Emotional abuse is about power and dominance. I've dated one very unsubtle emotional abuser, who, after we broke up, would sit around thinking of reasons to call me and give me hell at work in hopes I'd start crying and humiliate myself in front of my coworkers.

I know the opinion of a stranger off the internet isn't going to help, but I think oenophile's point is valid. Date rapists use paying for a date to reassure themselves that they have done nothing wrong. They can wake up the next morning and tell themselves that they did not force a woman, she "owed it" to them. It's just an excuse, and denied that excuse they will find another.

Well, in a way that's why it doesn't matter if he pays or not. Because if you pay, he'll have another excuse to rape you if that's his intention.

I'm another woman this hits too close to home for.

I can't count the number of times I've been raped, but there were at least three men, and I dated one for two years.

Every time they pushed me just a little farther, they wouldn't let me go to sleep, or they just wouldn't stop touching me. And since I've internalized a crippling inability to say no, I let it happen.

And every time my head was pushed down into their lap, every time they pushed me back down or bent me back over after I tried to get up, I blamed myself. It never got extremely physically violent, but there was enough psychological manipulation and physical intimidation to get me to submit (and it didnt' take much).

For a long time I thought I was alone, and when I realized I wasn't it didn't make me feel any better.

This shouldn't be so common. Our culture swallows girls and young women whole, robbing us of our voices and our identities before we have a chance to find them.

Just after reading this thread this morning, I had a conversation with my 19-yr-old sister, who's a first-year college student taking a class on Sexual Ethics. She happened to mention, in the context of another story about the class, that the college sexual harassment policy states that in order for sex to be consensual, both people have to verbally affirm that they want to have sex.

I was like, "Well, yeah, that makes sense."

And she was like, "An-na. What, you're supposed to stop in the middle of making out and ask: 'Do you want to have sex?'"

I was like, "Um, yeah. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. You know: just checkin' in and all."

She thinks this it pretty uptight-militant-feminist of me (and the harassment policy) and completely unrealistic. Sigh.

Not sure how directly related to the above this is, but it struck me afterwards that resistance to principle of explicit consent helps perpetuate that who was-it-rape/wasn't-it-rape? culture that young women (and men) seem to be steeped in.

Plus, I just like the principle of affirmative consent ("yes, this feels good,") rather than a constant emphasis on "no means no." It seems like it would get us all into the habit of articulating our positive desires more fully.

I lost my virginity in a date rape. That was before we had a word to describe it. It was years before I stopped telling the "romantic" story of my first time on a beautiful spring day in a forest and acknowledged to myself that I had been raped.

I find "date rape" to be a rather strange term. "Rape" is horrible and its full horror should always be front and center in talking about it. Using terms like "date rape" implies, at least to me, some "lesser" form of rape. Not a good practice.

R.

It has been 10 years since I ended a very messed up relationship that involved a lot of emotional and psychological abuse and I can admit I was abused but still feel confused over the question of sexual abuse. Was I raped? I'm still not sure. After all, he was my boyfriend and I never explicitily said no. In fact, I felt like my only worth in that relationship was as a sexual toy. The relationship even degraded into something akin to prostitution, with me performing sexual acts for favours, such as the right to be left the hell alone.
About 5 years ago I randomly saw this ex on the street and ducked into an alley and proceeded to bawl my eyes out. Even though I'm in a healthy relationship now and have learned to trust men again (well, sort of), I still feel afraid of that man and feel very ashamed that I allowed myself to get into that situation in the first place.
Well... at least now I know I'm not alone, and maybe it wasn't my fault after all.

When I was 16, just a few months after I lost my virginity to my first real boyfriend, his best friend raped me. It was such a shitty situation. The boyfriend, I’ll call him A, was physically and emotionally abusive to me and cheated on me less than a month after the first time we had sex. The other guy, who I’ll call J, was my friend way before A and would defend me against him and comfort me when I cried about A, etc. Sometimes we would even sleep in the same bed together in a totally platonic non-sexual way (our group of friends was like that).
J had always wanted to be in a relationship with me and soon A started leaving me at places with no ride or making me walk home, so I would call J to pick me up. Eventually I started letting him kiss me and then one time we were at a friend of mine’s house and we were kissing and he kept trying to take off my clothes and I started crying and telling him I loved A and that I did not want to sleep with him. We eventually did have sex because he just wouldn’t stop and there was loud music playing so no one could hear what was going on. It was like what someone explained on an earlier post, I just surrendered to both the emotional and physical coercion. Plus, he was one of my best friends and I loved him and I didn’t want to hurt him, to REALLY hurt him, to make him stop, like I would have a stranger.
In the aftermath I broke up with A and was in a relationship with J for a few months, in denial just like the postcard or whatever. J had a girlfriend at the time, so the whole school called me a skank and a whore and a boyfriend-stealer. It was really unfair because at that point I had only been with one guy consensually.
When I broke up with J, I told him flat out I never wanted to be in a relationship with him and asked him why he had raped me. He didn’t really answer, but cried and apologized, said he loved me. I never spoke to him again.
So, yeah the post hit home with me, too. It was wrong for J to do that to me and I empathize with everyone else who has shared a story.
I agree with annajcook about the importance of emphasizing to young people “the principle of affirmative consent ("yes, this feels good,") rather than a constant emphasis on ‘no means no.’�

I can relate to this in a very small way, but in a valid manner nonetheless. I went to day camp until I was almost thirteen years old. The boys would always say things, but I tried to ignore them.

As the years went on, I grew up in multiple ways, as did the boys' insults. It went from "Hey, big boobs!" to "Come on over here and blow me, bitch." My "friends" told me that it wasn't a big deal. When I was upset, they got angry. "It was just a joke! They weren't being serious. You're such a baby. Just shut up," they would say.

When I was twelve, my friends and I were on the bus and were talking to a boy. He started to say things to me, like "Oh, baby, I love you," and "Will you have sex with me?" But in a mocking tone of voice, so I didn't know if he was being serious or not. I laughed it off, even when he started touching me and I told him to stop it. Then he touched my leg again, saying "I love you, let's have sex."

I later told my close friend, who already knew; our other friends had told spun the story at an angle that made me look as though I was some sort of psycho bitch.

What happened to the other posters is nothing short of horrific, and my experience is not anywhere near as awful as theirs. But it took me a while to understand that my friends were wrong and I was right, and he should not have been touching me like that, or saying that stuff to me. I don't know if you would call what he did assault—I am not aware of the proper terminology for sexual assault. But I have tasted the fear so many of you speak of. In my own small, miniscule way, I can relate.

Sorry that this is so long.

---

I feel sad for those of you that have been hurt so horribly.

annajcook, I totally agree. I don't necessarily think there should be some formalized script that everyone has to follow before having sex. That might take the fun out of things. But to me good sex involves good communication. We should definitely be emphasizing to young people that they need to make sure their partner is satisfied during sex and that they tell their partner when they are satisfied(or aren't). I love the idea of affirmative consent. I've never understood the defense of, well she didn't actually say "no," so I thought it was okay to keep going. But was she lying there unresponsive? Was she cringing the whole time? Maybe that should have been your first clue to ask if it was okay to keep going.

Without diminishing the pain that posters have described, I'd like to say that I'm disturbed at some of the descriptions of "rape" here. If a boy keeps touching you, and keeps trying to have sex with you, and, because of your personal issues, you can't say no, and end up having sex with him even though you don't want to, that's horrendous and sad. I know; I've done this myself. But he didn't rape you. You raped yourself. Rape (except for statutory rape) has an element of intent, or at least knowledge --- the guy has to know that you don't want it for it to be rape.

OK, let the excoriating begin.

Not sure how directly related to the above this is, but it struck me afterwards that resistance to principle of explicit consent helps perpetuate that who was-it-rape/wasn't-it-rape? culture that young women (and men) seem to be steeped in.

Plus, I just like the principle of affirmative consent ("yes, this feels good,") rather than a constant emphasis on "no means no." It seems like it would get us all into the habit of articulating our positive desires more fully.

I completely agree.

Also, I think an insistence on an affirmative consent basis for defining wanted vs unwanted sexual activity, of any sort, is not nearly so difficult to achieve as some people seem to suspect.

I once dated a woman who was an incest survivor, and occasionally while we were making out, she would have a flashback. She would freeze up, try to curl into a ball and turn away from me.

The difference between how she behaved during a flashback and her enthusiastic participation seconds before was not just "noticeable" but shockingly jarring. The first time it happened I practically leapt away from her, I was so convinced I had injured her in some horrible way.

Having seen that transformation in someone I loved, from enthuasiastic participant to someone who had rather seriously 'vacated the premises', I find a lot of the debate about "how do you know if she wants it or not?" ridiculous and appalling.

If a woman* is not giving just as good as she's getting - matching kiss for kiss, stroke for stroke, grope for grope, then her wishes, and thus her consent, are unclear and should be verified. Any person who cannot discern the difference between an enthusiastic, responsive partner and someone who is "humoring them", has disassociated or is trying to refuse, whether the word "No" is ever uttered at all, has no business trying to have sex with anyone but themselves.

* Seriously, this goes for anyone, women or men. I leave switching the pronouns as an exercise for the reader.

pearatty, that your opinion. in your opinion, you weren't raped, these other women weren't raped, but when a majority is firmly stating "hey, this is wrong, it's royally fucked up, it's RAPE", it really smack of self-denial to refuse to admit that.

i really like the "affirmative agreement" thing...what's wrong with being told, or saying, "yes I want you"? i've never understood those who complain about it, doesn't everyone want to hear that? in my(straight girl)experience, guys LOVE hearing any variant on the above phrase. i'm not sure i really understand the "it'll kill spontaneity" argument,actually.

pearatty, I think the issue is that the definition you are using is very narrow. There needs to be no previous intent in rape. Sometimes, someone might have raped someone else and not even realize it, which is why I love the concept of clearly defining what is consensual and making sure both parties say "yes" instead of getting to the point where someone might need to say "no." Just because one partner does not mean to hurt the other does not mean that it won't happen.
Rape is sexual activity that is unwanted and non-consensual. Just because a person is unable to say "no," even if there was no force, does not mean they wanted it and does not mean they raped themselves.
It simply means that the partner, regardless of if they meant to, used mental force to convince the survivor it was their only choice. telling someone "if you loved me, you would have sex with me" or "you're a slut anyway, you might as well" or "just have sex with me this once, you owe me"- that is force. It is coercive and I would define that as rape.
No one should EVER have the right to define how someone else feels. If they feel as though they were in a situation where they could not say "no" or where they did not feel heard and they feel they were abused or taken advantage of, no one can tell them different.
The Sexual Assault Centre at my university defines sexual assault (which encompasses rape) as "any unwanted act of a sexual nature."

I am sorry you were in situations where do had to do things you did not want to do. I would never call it rape if you didn't feel comfortable using that term. But if you wanted to, I would support you. And I think that's what we need a lot more of- support and belief in the survivor.
If we would create an environment where people thought they would be believed for these stories, where they would feel supported in saying "something was done to me that I did not want," then maybe so many people wouldn't have to live through these experiences.

Sorry for the long post, I just can't let this one go.

pearatty, I understand your ambivalence with calling... let's say 'sex by coercion' that's been described here rape. I also don't like that term for what I experienced, I could've fought, I could've said no, I could've made sure that there were no oppurtunities for that coercion to happen. I didn't, and so I do feel partially responsible for what I was pushed to do. But I didn't feel strong enough to stand up for myself, I felt like that boy was the only person who'd ever really love me or think I was beautiful, so I had to do what he wanted. My friends had become distant, due to the relationship, and I didn't want to tell my parents that I was having sex so I couldn't go to them for help. I don't call it rape but I know it wasn't right. But I agree with the people here who do call it rape, because I understand why they put that lable on it. It's up to you to define your own experiences, just like it's up to them to do the same.

Ugh, that's a bit of a harder look at my high school relationship than I would've liked to take this evening. I'm gonna go fetch the ice cream now if ya'll don't mind.

Raimileh, Genny, etc.: I totally get what you're saying about the experience being as traumatic as rape. I'm not actually even saying this isn't, in the subjective emotional universe of the person who can't say no, rape. And I think the sexual ethics of expecting partners to check in with each other for affirmative consent is a great idea.

My problem is with this statement:

"Sometimes, someone might have raped someone else and not even realize it"

A person is not a rapist if he/she reasonably believes he/she has the consent of the partner.

By the way, the converse of that is pretty close to the legal definition of rape in most states.

I think we, as feminist women, do ourselves no favors in ceding our power to men in this situation, by claiming that it is their responsibility to recognize our inability to consent. How insulting and infantalizing to women is that?

A person is not a rapist if he/she reasonably believes he/she has the consent of the partner.

But the question is, who gets to decide whether or not a belief is "reasonable"? Right now, the mainstream view seems to assume that consent is the default mode for women ("she didn't say no"). And that's bullshit. There's no reason why we can't expect men, as reasonable human beings, to err on the side of caution and to, you know, ask for clarification. If they can't be bothered to ask, if they can't be bothered to care that much, fuck them. They are rapists.

I think that it's perfectly possible to rape someone and not realize it through (usually willful) ignorance. Many men are under the impression that unless you beat a woman to a bloody pulp, it's not REALLY rape, or sure she said "no" but only once and not very loud, so that's not rape, either. In fact, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of how to be a decent human being is also not an excuse.

And I don't think that it's a woman's job to say "no" when doesn't want sex. It's the responsibility of both parties to say "yes."

Thorn, I'm afraid my earlier comment wasn't very clear. I meant to get across what Amanda said: that I'd convinced myself that I was seriously reducing the chance of getting raped by always paying my way, but that didn't turn out to be the case.

And, unsurprisingly, I strongly disagree with you, pearatty. Your experience is your experience, and I won't tell you how to label it. But my experience was a rape.

He did know I didn't want to sleep with him. I clearly told him so, repeatedly, and it didn't stop him. He just used more force every time I said it.

Remember that Clayton Williams comment about how bad weather is like rape: you just have to lie back and enjoy it? Well, that's exactly what I tried to do--in order to keep from upsetting anyone, including the people partying in my living room. After all, I was the hostess. I was supposed to keep everyone "comfortable." And who was going to believe I wasn't just being a drama queen, anyway? Everybody knew I'd already slept with him.

So, yeah, I cooperated. But no, I did not "rape myself." He raped me; I just helped him once I realized I couldn't get out of the situation without screaming, kicking, scratching, and punching--and maybe getting knocked around a good bit, myself.

And of course it's possible to rape someone without knowing it. People do awful things to other people without realizing it all the time. It's important for us to develop our senses of compassion and empathy--and to ask other people what they want or need--precisely because it's the best way to avoid hurting others through a lack of awareness.

And, by the way, everyone: thank you for your kind words.

Pearatty, let's take the messy relationship stuff out of the equation for a second, and see if this helps:

If you and I are hanging out, and I grab your car keys and jingle them at you, would your failure to tackle me and wrestle them out of my grasp be construed by anyone as you giving me your car? Of course not, it's absurd.

So why is sex any different? It's as EG said: "the mainstream view seems to assume that consent is the default mode for women ("she didn't say no"). And that's bullshit."

We don't simply presume consent for anything else in life, why do we assume it for sex?

So I'm walking on the subway, and I take some guy's wallet--I mean, it was halfway out of his pocket, so he was obviously just asking for somebody to take it. I did. Two days later, the cops arrest me because he says I "pickpocketed" him.

He obviously wanted me to have his wallet. What's the deal?

And it made me think about how all these other accusations of pickpocketing are probably false, too. We need higher standards of evidence to prove that there was no consent to hand over the wallet. And hell, let's prosecute accusers if they can't prove that they didn't hand over their wallets consensually.

I say we need a wallet-taker's rights movement in this country. Who's with me?

Cheers,

TH

Absolutely! I mean, after all, the guy didn't say no when you took his wallet, did he? Did he follow you and fight you for his wallet? Clearly, you had a reasonable belief that taking his wallet might be OK with him--so why not?

Re: rape.

When a woman is raped, she had sex without giving consent. When you talk about someone who was robbed, had something stolen, or killed, we are talking about the attitude of the VICTIM. If someone unintentionally sideswipes my little sister, I can assure you that I would think of her as murdered. A person whose wallet was swiped by accident is no less robbed than the person whose wallet was swiped on purpose.

The psyche does not distinguish between the mens rea of perpetrators; that is the job of the criminal justice system.

I don't call it rape but I know it wasn't right. But I agree with the people here who do call it rape, because I understand why they put that label on it. It's up to you to define your own experiences, just like it's up to them to do the same.

I wonder if part of the problem here with the was-it-rape/wasn't-it-rape discussion is that, rape is a specific act in a continuum of acts of sexual assault, all of which are wrong. While people should be supported in naming rape as "rape" (which, legally, is coerced/forced intercourse specifically, right?) they also shouldn't feel that until they can name it as rape, what happened was okay/justified/their fault.

And "thanks" to all of you who liked my "affirmative consent" idea . . . I hadn't really articulated it in so many words before, but I'm really liking it too. I agree that specific scripts aren't called for, but that "checking in" is a good habit to be in. I don't know how that would translate into sexual harassment policies, which have to have concrete guidelines of some sort, but I'm sure they could find a way.

It's bad enough that rapes and date rapes (same thing) go unreported. Now I have to wonder how many women I know are doing what the postcard creator expresses, and how many of their boyfriends are such perpetrators.

annajcook and everyone else-
thought you might all be interested in seeing Antioch College's "Sexual Offense Prevention Policy." It was pretty much the first of its kind for any school (and probably for any institution) and is a great example of a community trying to encourage annajcook's idea of affirmative consent.
Here's some of the part on consent:
"Consent is defined as the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual conduct. The following are clarifying points:
* Consent is required each and every time there is sexual activity.
* All parties must have a clear and accurate understanding of the sexual activity.
* The person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent.
* The person(s) who are asked are responsible for verbally responding.
* Each new level of sexual activity requires consent.
* Use of agreed upon forms of communication such as gestures or safe words is acceptable, but must be discussed and verbally agreed to by all parties before sexual activity occurs.
* Consent is required regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual history, or current activity (e.g. grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity).
* At any and all times when consent is withdrawn or not verbally agreed to, the sexual activity must stop immediately.
* Silence is not consent.
* Body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans are not consent...."

I think the last two speak specifically to most of the debate going on here.
The rest can be found at http://www.antioch-college.edu/Campus/sopp/index.html

Enjoy everyone! The Antioch rules make me happy, and I hope they make you happy, too (though I am SURE some people won't like them).

If a boy keeps touching you, and keeps trying to have sex with you, and, because of your personal issues, you can't say no, and end up having sex with him even though you don't want to, that's horrendous and sad. I know; I've done this myself. But he didn't rape you. You raped yourself. Rape (except for statutory rape) has an element of intent, or at least knowledge --- the guy has to know that you don't want it for it to be rape

I can't agree with you. The problem, I think, is in how you view sex. I think that a major problem with the way that you're treating sex is that you seem to be opperating from the "Lack of 'no' means 'yes'" position, and I reject that. A poster on here named thomas once posted about sex not being a commodity, and I think that this attitude is exactly why. In the situation you're describing, the man is pursuing something that the woman has but doesn't want to share. The man pressures her until she stops saying no, and suddenly it's not rape, because she didn't say "no" anymore. That's not how it should be, though. It's not enough to get someone to stop saying "no" before you have sex with them, we should be teaching people that enthusiastic/affirmative consent is required. If a woman isn't encouraging and participating in sex, then she's not consenting. Pressuring her until she gives up is not getting consent. Sex should involve respect for another person's limits and body. If someone says "no" or doesn't respond enthusiastically to your advances, then you should have the respect for that not to keep pressuring.

My problem is with this statement:

"Sometimes, someone might have raped someone else and not even realize it"

A person is not a rapist if he/she reasonably believes he/she has the consent of the partner.

The problem is that some people, as I noted above, still think that "lack of 'no'" is consent. It's not. You can absolutely rape someone without really realizing that's what you're doing. I think that there are men who think that they're "just taking advantage of the situation" when, for example, they have sex with someone who is on the verge of passing out. They may not think of it as rape, and may justify it to themselves as "Well, she hasn't said 'no'" but that's absolutely rape. Until we reframe our conception of "consent," it's entirely possible.

I think we, as feminist women, do ourselves no favors in ceding our power to men in this situation, by claiming that it is their responsibility to recognize our inability to consent. How insulting and infantalizing to women is that?

I don't see how it's insulting or infantilizing at all. I think that it's absolutely up to all involved parties to be aware of the others' consent or lack of consent. It's each person's responsibility to make sure that s/he is not raping someone. That doesn't infantilize the potential victims, it recognizes that it's up to all of us not to become a criminal.

It's my responsibility to make sure that I'm not drunk driving.
It's my responsibility to make sure that I pay for things before I leave a store.
It's my responsibility to make sure that I don't hit someone or shoot them or kill them.
And it's absolutely my responsibility to make sure that I'm not raping someone. I do that by making sure that my partner is not only not saying "no" but is, in fact, saying "yes".

You are a good guy, roymacIII.
:)

I second that!

And that's for posting the Antioch policy, raimileh. I've seen it before, but it's always worth a re-visit :). Can't have too much talk about the need for consent, clearly.

If a boy keeps touching you, and keeps trying to have sex with you, and, because of your personal issues [pearatty]

I didn't have 'personal issues' before I was raped. I was a virgin, and was raped by my then boyfriend.

If anyone keeps pressuring you to change your mind about anything, that's coercion. If that person gets anything out of it that you didn't want to give, you've been raped, and that person did it.

and end up having sex with him even though you don't want to [pearatty]

that's rape.

the guy has to know that you don't want it for it to be rape [pearatty]

The guy has to admit to himself that you have rights that should be respected, and then respect them, and then NOT RAPE YOU for it to NOT be rape.

As long as he's working from the premise that whatever he does is fine, as long as you eventually give in, it IS rape.

Was I raped? I'm still not sure. After all, he was my boyfriend and I never explicitly said no. [Niquey13]

Did you ever explicitly say 'yes'?

I did say no. I pulled away, curled up into a ball to protect myself, and said "I don't want to do this".

Both situations? Still rape.

It took 10 years and therapy for me to identify my experience was rape, because 'he was my boyfriend', and 'he loved me'.

The mental leap I made to justify his raping me was "we're going to get married, so it's okay". We weren't, and we didn't, but since my mind couldn't wrap itself around the trauma, my defense was to try to make it not have happened.

So yes. I could have written that postcard, too.

I have (thankfully) never been raped, but I was in an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with my first boyfriend when I was 14. [Cara]

As I understand it, rape is a common component of sexual abuse. See below.

We didn't have intercourse, but there were many times when he wanted to engage in sexual play that I didn't, and just kept trying and asking until I eventually gave up and did it. [Cara]

I don't think vaginal/anal penetration is required for forced sexual activity to be defined as 'rape'.

Although sexual abuse covers rape, plus.

See above, i.e.: anything sexual you're forced/coerced into doing without your consent/willing participation = rape.

In order to leave my post on a more positive note (i.e., so I can sleep tonight):

* The person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent. [antioch-college.edu]

And it's absolutely my responsibility to make sure that I'm not raping someone. I do that by making sure that my partner is not only not saying "no" but is, in fact, saying "yes". [roymacIII]

Plus, I just like the principle of affirmative consent ("yes, this feels good,") rather than a constant emphasis on "no means no." It seems like it would get us all into the habit of articulating our positive desires more fully. [annajcook]

Sounds good to me. I'm going to put all of those things into practice in my own life.

So much good stuff here, folks. Thank you. And thanks especially to all the other survivors who have shared.

Thanks, too, for putting up with my long post.

Reading this thread caused me to think back over my experiences, thinking about the women I've been with and how I judged consent.

I was surprised replaying one experience in my head to realize that the opposite happened. I was with a woman in bed, naked, and fooling around, but I distinctly didn't want to have penatrative sex, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that we didn't have a condom. I told her specifically where I wanted to draw the line.

And so we continued, making out and grinding against each other, and then she reached down and made the decision for me.

At first I just let her do it, and let it continue, but I eventually reasserted myself and stopped it.

I definitely don't think of that experience as rape. It certainly hasn't traumatized me at all. Maybe because I felt the whole time like I could physically stop it if I really wanted to. It wasn't that I didn't want to experience sex with this woman, I just didn't want to expose myself or her to STDs or the possibility of pregnancy.

But I don't know. I definitely withdrew consent and she definitely took matters into her own hands. In some sense that's clearly rape. But it's not the emotional, violating kind of rape others here have recounted.

The survivors' posts here are powerful. Well said, folks.

I have to say that the idea of affirmative verbal consent is not something that I think about, partly because I've never had sex, partly because of the way sex is portrayed in the media. People just kind of start going at it.

But it makes sense. I can't imagine having sex with someone, even wanting to have sex with someone, without some kind of unambiguous indication that not only is she willing to consent to it, but that she actively wants it. Preferably as much as I do. I'm not interested in sex as anything but a collaborative experience.

The idea of sex as some kind of prize or conquest has never appealed to me on any level, which is probably the main reason why I haven't gotten around to The Act yet. I wish I could say it was willpower, but the truth is that I've never really shown enough interest for the matter to come up.

Cheers,

TH

I must admit I have a hard time thinking about a man being coerced into penetrating a vagina as being the same thing as a woman having a penis forced into hers. I rather think of the clitoris as the organ most analogous to the penis. I imagine that a man being coerced into letting his dick penetrate a warm moist orifice would be more like a woman being forced into having her clitoris stimulated by a warm moist orifice. Now, I’ve been raped and then, on the other hand, I’ve been coerced into allowing a man perform cunnilingus on me even though I don’t really enjoy it and didn’t really want him to. Those are 2 entirely different experiences. Being forcefully penetrated, knowing that my pain was bringing someone to climax, being able to feel the battering my insides took for days afterward, was MUCH, MUCH worse than my awkward coerced cunnilingus experience. In fact, I have never even though of the cunnilingus incident as rape at all – at worst, it was sexual assault. I just wanted to throw that out there because false comparisons between the rape of women by men and the rape of men by women just drive me absolutely insane. The correct analogy to the rape of women by men, if there is one, is the rape of men by men, not getting their dick sat on by a woman. And even then it’s off because a woman could be anally raped as well.

That was in response to Erik's tale of woe, by the way.

I think it's entirely possible for women to realize, after the fact, that they have been raped.
I also think it isn't just about penetration... it's any act of sexual coersion and/or violation.
I also think calling it 'sexual assault' diffuses its meaning, as well. I know it's politically correct, but it's so clinical. So akin to 'sexual harassment', which makes one think of catcalling at an office.
Rape shouldn't be described in such a way. It can't be reduced to such cold rhetoric.

this was indeed a very powerful secret, and i'm very glad the person who wrote it sent it in.

i was raped. i was raped by a man who was my boyfriend, and had been my boyfriend for 4 months. i was raped by a man who was too drunk to argue with, stronger than me, and jealous. i was raped by a man who i loved, after i told him i just needed a place to sleep and that i didn't want to have sex with him.
did i fight him off? no. see, i'd been coerced into sex before, i'd been assaulted before. i hadn't recognized it before, but it had happened. and so, i froze. the man i loved was raping me, i froze, and i didn't fight, and when he was finished, he blamed me. i didn't say no more often, or not at the right opportune time, or whatever his drunk mind wanted to use to justify his rape of me.

but raped me he did. i didn't consent. i wasn't coerced. i said no to sex, but consented to a little kissing, and then he just... was there inside me.

and when i curled up in a ball on my side and cried, wept, and shivered, he blamed me. he blamed me with all the privilege that an educated "artistic" white man could.

it hurt then, it hurts now. it hurt then, it hurt when a later partner just entered me when i wasn't awake yet at 6am for a "quickie". it hurt when that same partner DID IT AGAIN after promising not to, after i explained my rape and my past and my reaction to him just doing his thang with his wang when i was asleep and couldn't consent, my crying after freezing up again.

to this day, consent is a big big thing for me. sex isn't the same for me. my rapist will never admit he raped me, probably doesn't even remember he did it.

and i'm the bad one, i'm the one who "chews men up and spits them out" (to quote the latest ex with the 6am quickie problem), i'm the bad person.

i refuse to relent the power of my accusation: iw as raped. i refuse to give up the power of my voice: i was raped, i was raped by someone i loved, i was raped by my boyfriend. that i was 23 rather than 16 means nothing. i was raped, and i refuse to be silent about it.

thanks to the other tellers of sad tales. the more we talk about this, i have to hope, the more we all learn. i know i've learned, from my victimizations and from my loving friends, how i'm going to teach the younger generation about sexual assault and rape. i have to hope. or there's no hope for me and all of my strong friends who have been raped too.

subgrrl8, as much as having an anonymous stranger send you some good thoughts counts, I send you mine.
Thanks for sharing your story. I hope it helps you.
((((internet hugs across the Pacific))))
Keep fighting the good fight. Maybe one day, your story won't resonate; it'll be a historical case-story that is a thing of the past.

Let's please not be too quick to dismiss the very real possibility of a man being raped by a woman. It is physiologically possible, and too many male survivors of rape have to contend not only with the idea that their masculinity has been erased, but also that what happened to them must have been wonderful, rather than an assault.

And subgrrl8, I am sorry. I am sorry that so many men have such difficulty taking responsibility for their actions and learning to treat women with respect. Good for you that you refused to accept your exes' attempts to re-frame what happened.

I, too, have been accused of being "hard on men," despite the fact that the men I've been so "hard on" dumped me, left me holding the bag financially and emotionally, deliberately put me in hurtful and dangerous situations, lied to me repeatedly, emotionally abused me, thought of me as a commodity, and/or raped me. I guess people just assume that any woman who gets mistreated by men but is lucky and/or strong enough not to throw herself in front of a train or land permanently in a padded cell must be a man-eater. Because, you know, "good" women just die or find other ways to decorously absent themselves once they're "ruined."

It is physiologically possible, and too many male survivors of rape have to contend not only with the idea that their masculinity has been erased, but also that what happened to them must have been wonderful, rather than an assault.

Unless a woman rams something up his ass or in his mouth, I'm afraid I don't see it as rape. A woman "forceably" or "coercively" sitting on a man's dick MIGHT be sexual assault. But it isn't rape. I don't buy this notion that the damage done by one set of genitals equals the damage done by the other. I'm not sure I even understand the urge to equate the two. We may eventually achieve equality of human worth, despite the differences in our genitals, but when it comes to damage done, I refuse to pretend they're equivalent.

justicewalks, rape is not just about physical damage. It's also about psychological damage and the trauma of losing control over your own bodily agency.

Let's please not be too quick to dismiss the very real possibility of a man being raped by a woman. It is physiologically possible, and too many male survivors of rape have to contend not only with the idea that their masculinity has been erased, but also that what happened to them must have been wonderful, rather than an assault.

Yeah, it would be assault. But unless the woman was shoving something (a penile substitute like a broom handle or dildo) up a man's ass or into his mouth, it wouldn't be rape. Let's not get so wound up in the notion that there are no differences between men and women that we refuse to acknowlege that the damage done by one set of genitals in no way compares to the damage done by the other. I'm talking physical damage. If you really think pussy inflicts as much real-world pain and suffering as dick does, you're seriously deluded. We may one day achieve equality of human worth, despite differences in genitals, but the genitals themselves will NEVER be equal in terms of harm inflicted.

I agree with you, justicwalks, that a penis can do muuch more physical damage than a vagina. I'll even agree that the act of being penetrated is much more psychologically harmful than other types of forceful stimulation. But to say that it's not rape when a man is forcefully made to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman, I think, is wrong.

And no, it's not JUST about physical damage, but it's not JUST about psychological damage either. I have my control over my bodily agency undermined when someone pushes me off the path I was walking, which is why a push in considered assault. It isn't rape though.

Sorry for the "double" posting of similar posts. I didn't think the first had gone through and couldn't remember verbatim what I'd written.

I don't think the relevant difference is in the genitals, actually. I think it's in Erik's observation that he "felt the whole time like [he] could physically stop it if [he] really wanted to." That's not the position most women are in with most men. Every man I've ever dated has been stronger than me, with that male upper body strength (though not every guy I've ever slept with--not my favorite, for instance), to say nothing of the cultural conditioning that often pressures women to subordinate their own desires to please men. That sense of control, of being able to make it stop if you want to--not by saying something, but by actually forcing the other person to stop--of not actually being in danger is a huge difference.

That said, the girl Erik was with should not have done that. Nobody should ever overstep their partners' sexual boundaries.

I have a confession to make. I think some of you will respect me less, but I feel like I have to do it anyway.

I overstepped a partner's sexual boundaries once. I don't even know why. I don't even know what I could possibly have been thinking. That maybe he would like it? He didn't.

All I could do was apologize afterwards, for weeks, and he seemed ok. But to this day, I wonder if he was just burying his feelings because guys aren't supposed to be upset about hot girls wanting them.

I've always championed affirmative consent, and that day, I DIDN'T GET IT. He never said no, but he wasn't his usual enthusiastic self, and I ignored it.

He was bigger than me and taller than me and could pick me up with one hand, but he just let me keep going because it's hard to say no to someone you love if they're not listening.

I will never do that again, but I don't know why anyone would want to risk that kind of guilt. Ask your partner. Wait for them to say, "I want you to fuck me." It doesn't ruin spontaneity. It's hot. And it's the only civilized way to do things.

My hugs to subgrrl8 as well. That's a horrible experience and I'm in awe of your strength - very few people can assert their view of the situation - their own sanity, in fact - as utterly valid in the face of overwhelming opposition.

Tom - ah, there should be more men like you in the world. I, too, could not imagine doing anything without a partner who is not equally into it, but so many men want the power or the sense of control or the conquest.

EG,

You are right that men's greather physical strength, along with society's suppression of what physical strength women do possess, puts women being raped by men in a much more precarious situation than a man being raped by a woman.

At the same time, though, even if you control for physical strength, being attacked with a vagina or vagina-like substitute (like a [toothless] mouth or a lubed hand, I guess) is just not as traumatic as being attacked with a penis or penile substitute (like your broom handles, gun barrels, bottles, etc.). Even if you take the MRA's favorite scenario of an adult woman molesting a male child, that boy is in no way has harmed as a girl is by an adult man. If either of the adults resort to other types of physical violence, that's a crime separate from the actual rape.

I'm arguing that the rape itself is inherently worse for the victim of the male rapist than it is for the victim of the female one. I think this difference is such that we need a new term, if sexual assault won't do, to describe being attacked with a vagina (or vagina substitute) because rape isn't it.

I take what you're saying, JW, but I really hate your example, because except for the physical damage caused by an adult penis in a child's vagina--which I agree is in no way equivalent to the physical experience of a male child being raped/molested by an adult woman--boys are extensively, deeply hurt by childhood sexual abuse. The difference in physical pain strikes me as a legitimate one (though I'd be interested in hearing from male survivors of childhood molestation/rape by adult women before settling on it), but the lasting emotional and sexual scarring carries on long after the vagina heals, and causes the same lifelong pain for boys. Children are not adults' peers; they don't have the same physical power, obviously, and as importantly, children are socialized to defer to and obey adults, and to blame themselves when adults do something wrong. It's not the same situation.

The other thing I thought of that I wanted to add is that girls can be molested without being penetrated as well, and the resulting emotional scarring and trauma is no less horrible. I have a good friend whose father molested her for years while she was growing up, but she had a very difficult time naming the experience for what it was because, she said, he never actually "raped" her. He never put his penis in her vagina. But he molested her in terrible ways, and I've not found that she is any less traumatized than a friend of mine whose father raped her.

I just have to say that I'm really uncomfortable with defining assaults away as "not rape" just because the victim wasn't penetrated by something. I don't see the value in telling the victim of a serious sexual assault that their pain and suffering is somehow not as bad as this other person's pain and suffering. If any person forces themself sexually on another person, against or without that person's consent, that's rape.

I've been ruminating on this topic since yesterday, and I just... it makes me really uncomfortable. The victim of a sexual assault doesn't get to choose the violation, and I can't help but think how awful it would be to have been the victim of one only to have someone tell you that "You weren't really raped, and your assault wasn't as bad as this other person's, because you didn't get penetrated."

roymac, thank you for expressing your discomfort. I completely agree that to define "rape" so narrowly as to refuse certain people's experience simply because they were not penetrated is worrisome and unfair to all those who have survived such traumatic experiences.
As feminists, we strive to never say that "our oppression is worse than your oppression" (at least that's all the feminists I know, and I certainly hope most others). Similarly, I can't imagine telling someone that someone else's pain is worse than their own simply because their experience does not meet the definition of rape in my eyes. As I said before, we should never tell people how to feel or how to name what they have experienced or feel. That is simply taking away the agency that they have already been denied.
Moreover, this insinuates that experiences and feelings (specifically pain) are quantifiable. And I have a very hard time with that.

If I say that I was traumatized by molestation that did not include rape, how have I minimized the experience?

I feel like this whole thing stinks of a zero sum game. It's like when the US was deciding whether or not to call the massacre in Sudan genocide. The misguided thinking seemed to be that if f we called it genocide, then we’d have to do something about it. If we didn’t, (and we didn’t) then we could just let the situation fester, which we have. I say this thinking is misguided because, while our government was oscillating, there were others saying that, regardless of the parameters of the slaughter, regardless of whether we call it genocide or not, something should be done. And that was the right way to look at it. While there may be something to having distinctions between the horror of one atrocity and the decidedly worse horror of another - clarity in terminology helps to elucidate the discourse - that doesn’t mean that nothing should be done about the lesser atrocities. The rush, then, shouldn’t be to call every murder a genocide in order to garner aid for murder victims, but to acknowledge that any effort to eradicate genocide will necessarily be an effort against murder. Similarly, if rape is ever to be eradicated, it will only be as a result of bringing all sexual assault, including sexual assault that is not rape, to an end.

Now that I’ve been thinking about this and congealing my thoughts for a few days, though, I would say that the big difference between the 2 (penis attack vs vagina attack), aside from physical damage even, is the fact that patriarchy was built upon the one and not the other. One enforces and confirms social hierarchies. The other doesn’t. One is an attack by a social superior on a member of the sex class. The other isn’t. Each incidence of (PIV) rape is like eau du patriarchy. Assault with a vagina is not the essence of patriarchy. In the context of the patriarchy, calling assault with a vagina rape is like calling critiques of white culture ‘(reverse) racism,’ which we all know only serves to support the current racist hierarchy. Following the parallel to its natural conclusion, the patriarchy is the main beneficiary when we call assault with a vagina ‘rape.’

In the context of the patriarchy, calling assault with a vagina rape is like calling critiques of white culture ‘(reverse) racism,’ which we all know only serves to support the current racist hierarchy.

I don't think this analogy works. The racial equivalent of a woman raping, or sexually assaulting, if you prefer, a man is not critiquing white culture or the white power struction. The racial equivalent of a woman raping/sexually assaulting a man would be, say, a group of black people attacking and lynching a white person. The gendered equivalent of critiquing white culture or the white power structure is critiquing patriarchy. Critique and physical attack are never the same thing.

We've had conversations before about whether or not penetration is the sine qua non of rape; I'm not convinced it is. It smacks to me of the patriarchal idea that a woman's value lies in her untouched vagina; if that vagina is violated, then she's been damaged, but otherwise, she's still new goods for her husband, so no harm done. The idea that this is the defining feature of rape is what made it so difficult for my friend to be able to feel validated about what her father did to her, and I don't think that the absence of a penis in her vagina made her father molesting her any less quintessential patriarchy.

EG raises a lot of the points that I was thinking as I read your post justicewalks.

Another thing I'd point out is that you seem to be treating it like a binary situation- it's either men assaulting women through PIV assault, or women assaulting men through PIV assault. It's possible to force oral sex, manual stimulation, anal sex, etc on people as well. If a woman forces herself on another woman, I think that it's absolutely rape, even if she doesn't penetrate the other woman.

Perhaps we need a lot more clarification on what we define as rape, I'm just not sure that defining a crime by the power relationship is a good idea. If women eventually acheive relative equality to men, does forcing a woman to engage in PIV sex against her will no longer count as rape? I don't think it does.

I think that it's fair to say that rape against women by men is and has been used for poltical means- I'm not sure it's fair to say that men, as a result, are incapable of being raped, or that women are incapable of raping.

I wasn't comparing physical attack with critique. I compared attack with a penis to attack with a vagina. Then I compared critiquing/belittling black people while white to critiquing/belittling white people while black. The only parallel I was drawing is that similar behavior by disparate groups of people (with differing sets of tools at their disposal, of course) serves disparate ends.

The idea that this is the defining feature of rape is what made it so difficult for my friend to be able to feel validated about what her father did to her, and I don't think that the absence of a penis in her vagina made her father molesting her any less quintessential patriarchy.

It really is too bad that we, as a society, refuse to acknowledge rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment for the continuum that they are. But like I pointed out with the Sudan “is it genocide yet?� debate, I’m not arguing that people who are assaulted/molested but not raped aren’t traumatized. Does every assault HAVE to be called ‘rape’ in order to validate the suffering of the victim?

I’d prefer to have society acknowledge that sexual attacks of any nature, from harassment to rape, are traumatizing and not to be tolerated. By insisting that every traumatic incident be classified as rape, you seem to be saying that only rapes are worth society’s concern and sympathy, and that if your friend could just call her traumatic experience rape, then she could get in on some of that societal (including your friend’s; she’s part of society too) concern and sympathy. I say we expand society’s concern and sympathy to include the victims of “mere� sexual assault, and then people wouldn’t have to say, “Well, I feel raped,� when what they really mean is that they feel violated, in order to feel supported.

I agree with that in principle, but you have also said that it is the absence of penis in vagina rape that makes women's sexual assault of men less traumatic, and that only penis in vagina rape is the essence of patriarchy, so it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.

justicewalks, by starting out arguing that calling a woman raping a man "rape" was like calling critiquing white people "reverse discrimination" you seemed to be saying that calling it rape gave it more meaning, or made it worse or something. I saw you as being the one making that assumption.

I agree with all of you that sexual assaults of any kind are traumatic, and that we are not going to get anywhere by telling people whether or not their experience of sexual abuse was less traumatic than this other one.

And yeah, I agree with EG that comparing critiquing with physical violence is bad, bad idea

“If any person forces themself sexually on another person, against or without that person's consent, that's rape.�
I don’t know. I think there are still *degrees* of assault and they cause *degrees* of trauma. I was molested when I was 10 by a playmate and distant relative, five years older than me, no penetration of any kind involved. I was very innocent even for my age and couldn’t understand what was going on. I did not protest; I just basically froze and I never told anyone later (to this day). That incident most certainly affected my dealings with boys throughout my teenage years. I stopped playing with him after that day but I am still in touch with that guy and now that I think about it I do certainly resent him. But I have never thought of myself as a “victim� and I can assure you that what I experienced was in no way comparable to the pain and suffering of a rape survivor. Had there been penetration or had this gone on for period of time rather than a one time incident, the effect would have been different.

Sojourner, I read a really great article in Bitchfest about the problem with the "victim" label. The author was talking about how we, as a society, expect that rape and sexual assualt will completely destroy women, and that any woman who doesn't break down or crumble in a very visable fashion after being raped is seen as somehow "not dealing with" the trauma.

The reality is that everyone is different, and people are going to have different ways of dealing with and reacting to a sexual assault. I don't think someone has to feel like their life is over, or like they've gone through the worst trauma ever for something to be counted as rape. I think that it's better to define it in terms of the action itself, rather than the impact it has on the person the action is taken against.

I don't understand where I've contradicted myself. I came in saying that I don't think being assaulted with a vagina is rape. I'm still saying that. I have developed arguments for my position, as I'd never really given much thought to my discomfort with the idea that a woman "forcefully" sitting on a man's penis is rape. I just knew that it didn't feel right and that it played right into the hands of the patriarchy to assert such a thing. Of COURSE patriarchy wants women to feel as though they have as much agency (even when that agency is raping people) as men do. It makes what they (men) do look less damning.

The racial equivalent of a woman raping/sexually assaulting a man would be, say, a group of black people attacking and lynching a white person.

OK, let's talk about lynching then. If a group of black men (let's not pretend as if it was white "people" lynching blacks. It was men.) lynched a white person, the discrepancy in the tools at each party's disposal would still favor the white victim more so than any black person, victim or perpetrator. The police, the legislature, the National Guard, the local government, and even the KKK are all tools that the white victim (and the perpetrators, too, but we're talking about white lynching victims) can use to seek justice. This is certainly not the case with a black lynching victim, which I would say makes puts the black lynching victim at a further disadvantage (in addition to being lynched, of course) than the white one. What power structures does the black lynch mob have at their disposal?

Let’s now try to impose the inherent physical differences between men and women (the fact that one set of genitals causes more physical trauma than the other) onto the lynch mob scenario. We could say that white people always use nooses, while black people only have euthanasia injections at their disposal. While they’ll both land you a dead person, one – and I have the US penal system on my side here, barbaric though it is – is decidedly more brutal and inhumane than the other.

When you combine all these things, the societal privilege of white people, the sociopolitical structures in place to maintain their privilege, AND the inherent brutality of their methods, the lynching of the white person by black men is an entirely different animal than the converse. Comparing the 2 would only serve to reassure lynching-friendly white people that they’re only giving as good as they’re taking, which would be a lie.

Also, is anyone else having issues with Type Key?

Everyone always has issues with TypeKey. It's constantly saying that there's an error when there isn't really one. Do not be fooled! TypeKey cannot be trusted.

Here's where I understood there to be a contradiction: you first said that a woman forcing a vagina or other orifice onto a man's penis wasn't rape, because it didn't cause physical damage in the way that forcing a penis or other foreign object into a vagina did, and you said that therefore that kind of sexual assault wasn't as bad, and shouldn't be called rape. My understanding, then, was that you were saying that rape was a term that should be reserved for sexual assault of the utmost severity, and that forced penetration of a vagina was what constituted that utmost severity.

This impression was reinforced when you went on to say that forcing a penis into a vagina was the very essence of patriarchy, implying that other forms of sexual abuse were not as purely misogynist.

So, while I agree with you that all forms of sexual abuse are horrible and need to be taken seriously regardless of penetration, that was not the impression I got from your first series of comments.

OK, so now let's talk about lynching. Indeed, if a group of black people set upon and kill a white person, they do not have the historical and contemporary institutional racism as support. But I don't think that will make a difference to the victim, because dead is dead, regardless of whether you're hanged or poisoned. I agree with you that context matters in terms of how we address behavior and on that behavior's impact on the surrounding culture. So that, absolutely, I agree that a woman raping a man does not reinforce systemic subjugation of men by women or operate in a terroristic way to inflict fear on all men, and I do think that those are effects of men raping women (reverse the gender in my previous example). But I'm not convinced that makes a good deal of difference to the actual victim in terms of personal trauma. In the aftermath, certainly, as the man is not likely to be blamed for dressing too skimpily, or leading the woman on, or whatever. But in the emotional consequences of being assaulted, I don't think so.

I think that it's fair to say that rape against women by men is and has been used for political means- I'm not sure it's fair to say that men, as a result, are incapable of being raped, or that women are incapable of raping.(roymacIII)

Does every assault HAVE to be called ‘rape’ in order to validate the suffering of the victim? (justicewalks)

One of the difficulties I keep seeing in this thread (that I don't really have an answer to), is that we are dealing with two definitions of "rape"--the legal and the cultural.

Rape, legally, is defined as penetration, which can happen to someone of either sex, and be done by someone of either sex. But it's narrowly defined as a certain act within the spectrum of illegal sexual assault.

On the other hand, as a culture, we use the word "rape" to describe a broader idea of violation of bodily integrity and selfhood.

I don't know how to reconcile these two uses of the word. It seems like a valid cultural use of the word to describe the sexual trauma of people who have been assaulted, whether or not penetration was involved, and regardless of the gender of those involved. While we might argue that "sexual assault" ought to be recognized as equally evil, the reality is that it doesn't carry the same linguistic connotations. I think it is valid for men (and women) who have been assaulted, but not penetrated, to speak of that violation as "rape." It gives them a powerful tool to talk about their experience.

Maybe at the same time, we can work hard to help people recognize that ALL forms of sexual assault are WRONG (no hemming or hawing about it).

Then, perhaps someday, the legal definition of "rape" will be sufficient, since "sexual assault" will carry the same punch.

So, while I agree with you that all forms of sexual abuse are horrible and need to be taken seriously regardless of penetration, that was not the impression I got from your first series of comments.

You didn’t get that impression from my first series of comments because you seem to think that rescinding the label of rape to describe assaults with vaginas means that I don’t take them (assaults with vaginas) as seriously (as assaults with penises). I don’t have to call it rape to take it seriously. I don’t have to call murder genocide to take it seriously, either. In fact, I can acknowledge murder’s less atrocious place (in relation to genocide) on the taking-of-life scale and still take murder extremely seriously. Does it mean that I think murder is just as disturbing as full-fledged genocide? No. I don’t. Just like I don’t think sexual assault is as serious as rape, but I realize that the one encompasses the other and we’ll never get rid of rape if we don’t also get rid of other non-rape forms of sexual assault, which are also traumatic in their own right.

But I'm not convinced that [societal repercussions of white-on-black lynching] makes a good deal of difference to the actual victim in terms of personal trauma.

Perhaps the social implications of the assault do not mean so much to the victim, but the brutality of the attack does matter. I do think it matters to the victim whether or not they are strung up from a tree kicking and gasping or painlessly euthanized. It’s why there are different penalties, not standardized differences but juridically consistent ones nonetheless, meted out for shooting someone point blank and for hacking someone to death with a chain saw. One, the chain saw deal, is just more brutal than the other. Neither is something you’d want to have happen to you on any given Monday, but if you had to choose one (and the US penal system does choose), you’d be better off with the euthanasia. Similarly, even without all of the societal implications, which only bolster my point about the contrast between male- versus female-perpetrated rape, the one assault is just, in my mind, inherently more physically brutal than the other. If someone came to me today and said I had to choose between being raped by a man with the tool he was naturally born with or raped by a woman using the tool she was naturally born with, I’d pick the woman every single time. I’d pick her even in absence of the patriarchy, but having more than one reason, such as patriarchy AND physical brutality, to differentiate between male- and female-perpetrated rape doesn’t diminish the validity of any one reason on its own.

Please don't make assumptions about what I think. I didn't get that impression from your earlier statements because you said that penetrative sexual assualt with a penis was worse than other kinds of sexual assault. Not because you didn't want to use the word "rape," but because you said that it wasn't as physically traumatic, nor was it the essence of patriarchy.

You are contradicting your assertion that you will give all forms of sexual assault the same respect in terms of their trauma when you use murder and genocide as an analogy. In acknowledging that genocide is worse than murder, you are implying that what you call rape is worse than other kinds of sexual assault. What I am saying is that I see no reason to assume that, based on my experiences with people who have gone through it.

We just disagree then. Rape (penis in vagina or vagina substitute) is worse than other forms of sexual assault and is the cornerstone of the patriarchy. That doesn't, or shouldn't anyway, diminish the trauma victims of non-rape sexual assault feel. I do think that we can respect the trauma of individual victims of sexual assault without calling it rape. Trauma and rape are not synonymous. Victims of non-rape sexual assault are justified in their feelings of violation and outrage, just as victims of rape are in theirs. That doesn't make every sexual assault a rape, though. I see value in maintaining the distinction. I think that we, as a society, need to broaden the scope of our sympathies to include victims of non-rape sexual assault. You seem to be implying that people ought to be allowed to call their non-rape sexual assault experiences 'rape' in order to garner societal support and sympathy. In the end, we both want victims of any kind of sexual assault to feel supported. I just don't want to do it in such a way as to give comfort to male rapists and their apologists by saying that men are only giving as bad as they're taking.

In college, I read a paper on sexual assaults on men by women, involving "attacks by vaginas" as justicewalks puts it. The paper wouldn't call it rape because it didn't involve penetration of the victim, but their report came to the conclusion that it is JUST AS BAD for the victim as male-on-female rape.

One guy was tied up and assaulted by two women, who had knives and threatened to cut his penis off if he didn't get erect. Another one was an 18-year-old who was held down by two men while three women took turns forcing him to have sex. Both men reported PTSD-like trauma, inability to have sex, nausea at the thought of sex, fear and distrust of the opposite sex, and so forth. One of them was married and it ruined his marriage because he couldn't tell his wife what had happened. Neither of them felt they had any societal support, or could tell anyone what had happened.

I brought the article in to a gender studies class, and a pair of guys in the class laughed about it. "Oh, hey, forced to have sex with three women! That must have been so terrible!" I'm pretty sure these guys never had knives at their dicks and were berated and cursed at and threatened with castration by knife-wielders for not getting an erection.

I think that what happened to the victims in that paper was gang rape. No question about it. Justicewalks would argue that it was not rape because they were attacked by vaginas, not penises. But while yes, all other things being equal a vagina can't do the damage to a penis that a penis can do to a vagina, that isn't the point of rape. You can be raped very gently with lots of lube while drunk enough to be totally relaxed, feel no pain at all, and still be raped. Hell, you can be *aroused*, experience physical pleasure, and still be raped, if you didn't want it to happen. The definition of rape isn't "penile penetration that hurts", it's "sexual acts that are not wanted".

I think a lot of female violations of men don't cause men nearly the trauma that the same experience would the other way around, because men are socialized to think they always want sex and are not socialized to think they *can* be victimized by sex. But that doesn't mean they can't be. If a very religious teenage boy is forced into sex by an older female mentor who emotionally coerces him, and as a result thinks he's going to hell for fornication, I'm not going to say he wasn't raped because there was no physical damage to his penis involved. If a man was threatened into sex with a woman with a knife, he was raped. And I suspect the *greatest* trauma facing a man who was raped by a woman is the fact that no one in our society believes that what happened to him could possibly be rape.