Ginger clued me in to this article by The New Republic's Gregg Easterbrook, whose assertion that "'no' doesn't always mean no" proves he doesn't have a very good grasp of the English language:
Here's a good rule of thumb for any guy who is afraid, as Mr. Easterbrook frets, that they will be falsely accused of rape: STOP. If there is any ambiguity about the consent issue, if the woman you're with seems like she may be uncertain about the encounter, if there is any fucking question that what you're doing might be construed as non-consensual sex...get up and leave. That's right: zip up and walk out the door. The ignominy of jerking off in your bathroom is a thousand times less repulsive than taking things too far when you don't have explicit permission to do so.
Easterbrook asserts that, because it's such an ordeal for women to accuse a man of rape, prosecuting attorneys (and jurors) automatically assume such accusations to be true. He then goes on to bemoan the hordes of victimized men who suffer false accusations at the hands of vindictive women, which is the same manner of chauvinistic paranoid bullshit that Joe Eszterhas put forth in "Basic Instinct."
Easterbrook doesn't argue that a woman shouldn't be allowed to instigate a "social ritual that often leads to sex," which is very enlightened of him. No, he asserts something far more sinister:
...because in the real world "no" does not always mean no--speaking the word "no" is not the ideal way to communicate to a man that what is happening has changed from persuasion, or pressure, to compulsion. Men not only want sex, the male mindset holds that overcoming the woman's "no" is part of manliness. Few men will rape if that's what they think they are doing. Many try to push past "no" and tell themselves that what they are doing is manly persuasion of the naturally hesitant female.
Gregg Easterbrook must watch a lot of Cinemax. "Overcoming the woman's 'no' is part of manliness?" "Naturally hesitant female" or not, if you hear "no," you sit the hell up and start grabbing for the car keys. Better safe than incarcerated, as my grandfather used to say.
But wait, Gregg has an idea for how we can sort through all this confusion:
Here's my proposal: If the line is crossed, women should say, "This is rape!"
The statement is clear, unambiguous, and can't possibly mean "not now, but maybe after more wine," which is what men often think the first "no" means. Saying, "This is rape!" won't stop the hardened criminal rapist, who already has decided to commit a crime. This phrase should work on the majority of men who are not criminals. Just hearing the word "rape" in this context would give chills to the majority of men who are not criminals.
By Jove, I think he's got it. But don't stop there, think about how this could be applied to other crimes:
"This is a carjacking!"
"This is molestation!"
"This is homicide!"
We can all sleep soundly knowing that such behavior will prevent the majority of those "who are not criminals" from going forward with their heinous deeds. Hardened criminal rapists, after all, make up the vast majority of sexual assault perpetrators.
Of course, that's not the case. The "vast majority" of rapists are men who know - personally - the women they're victimizing. Articles like Easterbrook's, which encourage the delusion that most women somehow "want it," are more damaging than anything represented in the Harlequin Romance dimesnion that Gregg Easterbrook seems to occupy. Does he really share the company of men who think the first "no" is just an invitation to pour a little more Cabernet? If so, I suggest he start reading something besides Maxim and try to peel himself away from daytime soaps.
Stay tuned for Easterbrook's next article, where he defends the use of Rohypnol because it cuts through all that annoying "age-old male-female play."
Bastard.
Everyone knows that The Woman is responsible for The Man's sexuality.
Why do you think they invented chastity belts? I'll tell you why...it was to guard the chaste, wholesome man's virtue against the unholy carnal predations of the insatiable woman.
Well, that and the vagina dentata.
I'm so glad you wrote such a reasoned and satisfying response to Easterbrook's asininity. I tried, and I kept getting so angry I couldn't type. His entire "men think it's manly to change women's minds, and women think it's wrong to give in" attitude is WHY date rape is such a problem. The more people who read and believe his bullshit, the more women who begin to think they don't have the RIGHT to say no, and the more men who think it's their job to push past it if they do.
Sheesh. This guy is a boil on the ass of society.
Kodi,
Saying "no" is the best indication of a lack of consent there is and I view it as being a necessary one. I remember when in college being told that silence (ie the lack of a "no" or physical resistence) is not consent, which leaves the burden of proof for rape vs. consensual sex inordinately low. One of my bigger concerns is accusations made after the fact when little or no indication was made that the advances were unwelcome. The main term in the military for it is "Fort Bliss rape accusations".
So in effort to avoid such things, it strikes me as a good idea to have certain keywords that indicate a lack of approval. "No" or "Stop now" are pretty good ones and then it is incumbent upon all action to cease when someone says them, but absent them being said (or physical resistence or drugs in her system) make it rather difficult to pursue charges.
For my part, there have been two women in my past where "no" did not, in fact, mean "no." I only found this out when I immediately stopped and they got mad. So it does happen. That being said, I stopped and erred on the side of caution (and in one of the cases never got another opportunity), so I fail to see why Easterbrook couldn't do the same.
Okay, time to play a little devils advocate, just to spice things up.
I don't totally disagree with the idea that it is a very "male" for men to instinctively want to turn a coquetish women into a heaping pile of sexual desire. The feeling of being sexually desirable, and wanted by a women, make a man feel, well, like a "man."
Where I part ways with Mr. Easterbrook is that men should not put the burden on women to say, "no," let alone, "this is rape!" Instead, men should proudly take the responsibility for eliciting a, "yes, oh GOD yes!" from women. In this way, you remove any ambiguity (as well as potential criminal and civil liability) from the situation. And, in my opinion, getting her to say "yes" because she wants you is half the fun. It satisfies something very primal and sporting in a man similar to hunting. (That may not be PC to say, but there is some truth in it).
However, taking the hunting analogy a little further, I've never respected jackassess that sat up in deer blind with a 6-pack, a high-powered rifle, and a scope. That isn't hunting; there is no sport in it. Instead, I always respected my college roomate Dante: he hunted wild boar (yeah, the ones with the tusks) with a bow and arrow and bowie knife. Now THAT is a real man. He put himself out there, took a real risk, used his wits, and his skill. Moreover, his choice of weapons showed a great amount of respect for the animals he was hunting because it gave them a fair and sporting chance.
And so it sould be with dating (absent the green face paint, of course). It should be fair and it should be done with respect.
The only weapon a man should need when it comes to a women is his charm; that's all a "real man" should need. (Though a fat bank account and good looks never hurt). If you can't get her to say "yes" because of your personallity then you suck and are not a real man. If one needs force, booze, or drugs to get some action, then that person is akin to the jackass with the high-powered rifle. And if Mr. Easterbrook thinks we should be able to take things as far as we can until she say "this is rape," then he has lost the entire point of going on the hunt in the first place. In addition, he has lost all respect for that which he is in pursuit of. (Yeah, and I realize deer and boar can't say, "no." The anaology is imperfect, I admit).
Women deserve respect. At least, more than Mr. Easterbrook would give them. There is an complex art to the male-female interrelationship. There is some "chase me," "win me over" that goes on in dating. But even against that backdrop, no still means no. Shifting the burden to her, expecting her to use "magic words" to stop a guy from going to far shows no respect for women and even less respect for men. And even if she says, "no" but means, "yes" there is zero risk in interpreting her statement literally. I can pretty much guarantee that if you start putting your pants back on she'll stop you if she really meant, "yes." (I've had that happen to me).
So guys, take the high road on this and you've got nothing to worry about. And ladies, if you mean yes, don't say "no." You'll only confuse us and we're aren't all that smart to begin with. Especially if possibility of sex is in the air.
R. Alex,
Yeah, I should have clarified a bit that I was speaking in a moral context, not a legal one. "Without consent" has more than 50 different meanings in the U.S. alone, I'm sure. In Texas, it's not particularly clear from the statute that saying "This is rape!" establishes lack of consent all by itself. My point is that the offense and the crime are distinct, and that the restrictions on establishing lack of consent are practical ones, not moral ones. What Easterbrook seems to me to be doing is drawing moral conclusions from criminal standards.
With regard to innocent men being falsely accused of rape, the most recent statistic I've seen from the FBI indicates that only 2 to 3% of victims falsely report the crime of rape. This is the same statistic for false reporting of other major crimes. The myth that women "cry rape" because they are afraid of getting caught by their husbands or fathers or because they are mad at their husbands or boyfriends is just that - a myth.
Pete's Mom
Wherein MB waxes indignant about the state of modern law enforcement when it comes to telling little girls they're lying about being sexually assaulted. Also includes invective, plus helpful hints, tips and resources about sexual assault. Not a total d......
| --Posted to Supafine! on Mar 10, 2004 1:06 AM:. |
Pete: I like your mom.
I tried to write on this article myself but couldn't see through the red. Thanks for the tempered, if sarcastic, response.
Having thought about this some more, I realized better what Easterbrook's problem is. He's apparently heard "No means no" so many times that he honestly believes rape is "having sex with someone after they've said no," not "having sex with someone without their consent." Everything he says flows from that belief - that anything he does to a woman is fine UNLESS she says no; as opposed to AS LONG AS he has her consent.