You know what they say about stopped clocks – they’re right twice a day. The same is true with MRAs, though it happens a bit less frequently. Consider a Spearhead guest post from a while back titled Caveat Amator: Strategies for Men Before, During and After False Allegations, recently brought to my attention by Manboobzer extraordinaire Ami Angelwings, whose Escher Girls blog you should totally go look at.
The post, by Ken Kupstis, is mostly a bunch of standard-issue MRA hysteria about false allegations and evil false alleging ladies, complete with a bunch of possibly dubious legal advice.
But mixed in with the paranoia there’s some advice that is actually quite sensible and that, if followed, will not so much help men avoid false rape accusations as help keep them from raping women.
In the section of the post dealing with that supremely fraught all-caps moment BEFORE HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN, Kupstis recommends that men stop and ask themselves a few questions:
Is she SOBER? Very inebriated women may claim to want or even demand sex, but it may be wise to see if “that was the alcohol talking”.
Good advice! Fact is, seriously inebriated people cannot consent to sex! If you have sex with someone who’s wasted (or unconscious), that is actually rape, and you may well find yourself the target of a real rape accusastion – nothing false about it.
Has she verbally consented to sex? It is better to ask “Do you want to make love?” and receive a positive response then to merely assume she’s consenting to sex via body language.
Also good! Consent should be crystal clear. People who actually do want to have sex with you will not be offended if you ask to make sure! If you’re worried that someone will say no if you ask them directly, you should not be having sex with that person! If you ask and they do say no, respect that no. If your idea of “seduction” means pawing at and pressuring a woman until she gives in, you’re not a master of seduction. You’re a rapist.
Does she display or claim enthusiasm for BDSM (bondage and sadomasochism) activities? As exciting as it may seem, do not permit a barely-known woman to handcuff you to anything (that you can’t break loose from on your own)!
Also good advice! Don’t let someone you barely know anything about put you in handcuffs! (No ethical BDSMer will try to pressure you into anything like this.) Here’s the thing: Because of the inherent dangers of bondage and whipping and other such activities, BDSM has the potential to go very, very wrong very, very fast. BDSMers know this.
And that’s why the BDSM community has set in place safeguards to try to prevent this from happening — essentially codifying an explicit bunch of rules and practices to make sure that everyone involved in a BDSM session has consented at every step of the way. (This can sometimes mean literally filling out a checklist before the start of a session.) The slogan? “Safe, Sane and Consensual.”
Which is a pretty good slogan for sex in general. As sex blogger Clarisse Thorn notes, even those who would never dream of trying anything kinky can learn a lot from the ways in which the BDSM deals with the issue of consent — and incorporate this into their own sex lives. (Even the checklists, if you so desire!)
Kupstis continues on with this theme:
Does she claim to ‘like it rough’? Even if so, that claim does not obligate you to play rough. No matter how insistent she may be, you should not bruise or break the skin.
Also good advice. You are not obliged to “play rough” with a partner if you don’t want to. (That’s how sexual consent works: everyone has veto power, at any point in time.) And you shouldn’t leave bruises, not with a first time partner and not unless you know they’re ok with that. Plenty of BDSM submissives don’t mind, and in some cases actually like bruises. But you need to ask first. See my comments about BDSM above.
During foreplay, or before or during coitus, does she ‘tense up’, act frightened or apprehensive? Does she cry? If so, she may have been previously raped or molested. Her sex drive still exists, but she may psychologically equate sex with pain, servitude or dishonor.
If a woman “tenses up,” seems scared, or otherwise freaks out during sex, STOP IMMEDIATELY. Aside from the reasons already listed, there are any number of other things that might cause someone to react like this. For example, you could be raping her. (Did you remember that bit above about getting clear consent?) Or, even if she did consent at first, she may have changed her mind (consent is an ongoing thing, and anyone can remove consent at any point for any reason). Or you may be hurting her. The list goes on.
Whatever the reason, STOP AT ONCE, comfort her (don’t confront her), and try to figure out what is going on. (This all applies regardless of gender and/or sexual oriantation.)
Other advice in the Spearhead piece doesn’t really bear on the rape issue, but is simple common sense:
Are you using Birth Control? Note that while she may claim to be using birth control, it does not automatically mean that she is…she may normally be on birth control but has forgotten to take it, or is experiencing a false period, or is using a form of birth control with a lower rate of effectiveness. Most of these factors have not legally excused men for having to pay child support, although they should.
Using birth control is good! If you are having sex with someone you don’t know well, you should use a condom, no matter what birth control they are using (or say that they are using).
Do you know her FULL NAME? (Thousands of men have only needed to hear “Hi, I’m Bambi”, and it’s good enough for them.)
Another good question to ask yourself! (Though admittedly some of us have probably broken this rule once or twice.) Knowing a bit about your sexual partner is always good!
Also, if she’s named Bambi, ask her if she’s an entomologist, because entomologists are cool.
My favorite Spearhead comment for this article comes from intp:
Geez. After reading this article I’d rather play catch with a beaker of nitroglycerine than get near a woman.
How about this? Until all the Communists, corrupting our institutions in the West, have been identified and expelled or executed just avoid women in the West.
Treat Western Women like the malignant cancer they have become.
Intp, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS STRATEGY FOR YOU. At least the part about you avoiding women (not so much the executions thing). Stay far, far away from women. And the rest of us, too, while you’re at it.
Oh, and in case anyone is keeping score, intp’s comment (including the murder) got two dozen upvotes and no downvotes from the Spearhead crowd.
And so grapefruit are on average more expensive than pineapples?
(I assume we are playing a game of responding to other posts with bizarre non-sequiturs.)
No, according to Futrelle, if you have sex with a man who is too inebriated to consent, you have effectively raped him and deserve to be charged as a rapist. It’s almost as though, when he said people, he used the word deliberately!!
@Holly
I can’t stop you from using your misandrist (misandristic?) slurs, but I would appreciate it if you would add a trigger warning when you sling slurs like “creepy” around. I mean c—-y.
“Fact is, seriously inebriated people cannot consent …”
So according to Futrelle, men are not people?
What in the living fuck are you talking about, Antz? Do you know what inebriated means?
@Poster
Have you read the FBI definition?
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/10/23/fbi-redefines-rape-to-mean-like-rape/
Futrelle says that “… seriously inebriated people cannot consent …”, the FBI says that consent is not needed if the victim is male … I conclude that Futrelle thinks men are not people.
Yet if David wrote “Fact is, seriously inebriated women cannot consent …” that would imply only women can get raped. Which would be misandry. Which Zarat would also be screaming about.
I conclude that Futrelle is not the FBI, I wonder which one of us is likely to be right?
Hey Antz: Shut up or go back to robo-hos.
According to the FBI, I could be inebriated, passed out, tied up, and have a gun to my head all at the same time … and the woman doing all these things to me would not need consent. Nope, because, as Futrelle points out, I am not “people”.
Arrest warrants, even for misdemeanors, can and do remain outstanding for years and depends on which law the warrant was issued under on when they actually are quashed by a judge without the Defendant ever appearing.
Search warrants typically expire within a few days.
Pretend Internet Lawyer Guy also seems to have major problems distinguishing between “what the law is” and “what I think the law should be.”
“I could get hurt being arrested, therefore threatening to get me arrested is totally assault.” Mm hm.
I literally slapped my forehead and made a “derp” sound when I read this little bit of logic. Seriously did it. There’s no other reaction I can have.
This just in: due process is cruel and unusual punishment.
The Bill of rights is now, topologically, a Mobius strip.
Mmm hmm. Sure. Whatever you say. The police arresting someone who isn’t later convicted is kidnapping. In other news, every police department has just been charged with 50,000 counts of kidnapping.
So, because some other people said a thing, David F. also said that thing? Or something? Seriously, you make no fucking sense, guy.
The game of bizarre non-sequitur continues. Not bad, Zarat, but I raise you with:
And therefore the number eleven does indeed taste like lemongrass.
Let’s be clear here. Seriously inebriated people (men and women and everyone else) cannot consent to sex.
End of story and nobody disagrees.
Do you disagree, Antz? Because I’m pretty sure that makes you the rape advocate here.
What Futrelle did say was “Fact is, seriously inebriated people cannot consent …”
What Futrelle did not say was “according to the FBI, seriously inebriated women cannot consent.”
Which means, once again, you cannot read or comprehend.
Have you read the previous FBI definition, Zarat? I’m pretty sure no feminist rely on the FBI to define rape, the fact that the new definition is a bit better than the previous won’t change that.
I mean, “carnal knowledge”, come one, who says things like that?
No, you fucking dipshit. It means people -men and women- who are seriously inebriated are not capable of consent.
@Zarat
are you deliberatly being obtuse or are you really that bad at understanding what you are reading?
how on earth did you get from
to
“without the consent of the victim” is not gendered. It means the victim could be either male or female or trans.
you’re bordering on NWOslave territory now, I would go see a doctor.
Honestly I can think of only a couple of cases here locally where malicious prosecution and/or arrest was not laughed out of court.
One, the officer arrested the guy for a civil traffic violation.
Two, the officer hauled someone off for saying mean things about the officer’s boss.
And that is it. And I live in Maricopa County where our Sheriff is currently under federal grand jury investigation and has been found by the Dept. of Justice of not being quite kosher. By a magnitude of like a gabillion.
But why not: David Futrelle, male owner of this blog, hates all men and thinks they’re not people. Sure.
@AntZ
Serious question though, is this all your original work, or do you consult with some key minds in order to replenish your wells of stupid?
G-men.
I gotta tell ya AntZ, I seriously doubt you’re gonna find anyone here who doesn’t think that the FBI’s redefinition of rape is inadequate. It’s better than it was, but still not good enough. So your beef is with them, not any of us.
The dame’s right!
“Serious question though, is this all your original work, or do you consult with some key minds in order to replenish your wells of stupid?”
You know the monkey that are trying to randomly type to reproduce Shakespeare’s work? I think Antz has hamster who do the same thing for him. The result is not Shakespeare.
What’s a G-man?