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.
I would love to be present at a trial in which the defence attorney attempts to argue that arresting someone who you don’t already know for sure to be guilty is kidnapping. If the judge managed to keep a straight face I would be tempted to buy them a drink.
@Quackers
Sometimes just one word is half the story … where is “envelopment”?
@Dracula
Quackers likes the FBI definition, so you are also full of it.
I would call this “two birds with one stone”, but given that the stone is Quackers herself, it is actually more like TWO STONES WITH ONE BIRD.
I totally agree that the FBI definition should include envelopment.
I think most (if not all) the commenters here agree.
You’re arguing against a real injustice, but you’re pinning it on Futrelle and feminism when they’re actually on your side in this one. Dumbass.
@Kyrie
LOLLL
G-man is an older term for FBI agent (like ’40s and ’50s, possibly earlier)
@CassandraSays
Only if I see the corner of their mouth curling. Otherwise I’ll conclude that they have no soul, and maintain my distance lest they attempt to steal mine
AntZ, way to be stoopid. How’s the VR coming along?
I love these internet lawyers dudes, they’re funny.
Y’know, I saw nothing in Quackers’ statement that implied that she thinks the FBI definition goes far enough, actually.
Actually I think that would be more likely something a plaintiff’s attorney suing the state would say during the trial on if the officer’s arresting the plaintiff was a blatant violation of the law.
Oh, the crazy guy ranting about divorce and VR Wives wasn’t there *before*?
After Sandursky, hearing MRAs pretend they give two shits about rape, ever, is a tiresome game. Although I wish no harm on anyone, it’d be really awesome if their computers would just simultaneously explode in a Star Trek-like way. They need to never, ever, talk about rape. The ones that aren’t in a parallel universe (really, perpendicular, because there are no similarities between their world and our’s) like Antsy and Milkboy are just horrible little shits.
I’m liking the part where it’s particularly malicious to arrest a guy if he has no criminal record, because as we know, crimes are only committed by people who’ve committed crimes before.
@AntZ
You realise that you can’t just switch shit around, strike a heroic pose and expect us to be impressed right? Unless you’re claiming to kill two stones with one bird (a stupid thing to do in itself), this makes shit sense.
Also, that section that Quackers quoted IS inclusive. If a man is penetrated without consent, HE HAS BEEN RAPED!! The absence of envelopment, and the definition’s problems re: female rape of males is a valid objection, but that does not mean that this is not a better definition than the previous one, just that there is a lot more room for improvement.
@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?
I think he stabs his brain with a q-tip every time he hits “post comment.”
@Holly
Besides, conviction rates have nothing to do with race, of course not!! (I think gender plays a part too but since the comment is male-centric it’s irrelevant)
WTF is wrong with you Zarat?
“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object”
a woman can penetrate a man with an object without his consent. That is rape.
“or oral penetration of a sex organ of another person”
a woman can penetrate a man’s anus with her tongue without his consent. That is rape. A woman can give a man a blowjob without his consent. That is also rape.
You’re concluding that just because the new rape definition leaves out envelopment, that men can never be victims of any type of rape, which is bullshit as I just demonstrated above. Yes the new definition should add envelopment, but the fact that it actually says that males can be victims of rape is a step in the right direction and better than the previous definition don’t you think?
Its so typical of you MRA assholes to twist shit around and put words into people’s mouths so you can confirm your lies about what feminists think.
Oh, by the way, Antsy, there are numerous, lengthy critiques of how law enforcement is trained to respond to rape allegations, how the legislature defines rape, and how the case law actually defines it. You have no earthly idea what the shit you’re talking about if you think feminists are just fine with them as they’re written. Those critiques are, granted,w ell beyond your capacity to comprehend, but you know, a lot of things are. Seriously, just stop talking.
Since no one’s mentioned it, well done David for cramming in a reference to an über-cool X-Files episode, with thousands of cockroaches and shit.
Is AntZ playing some sort of bizarre game where he demonstrates how badly he comprehends external references? Having failed to make a valid point, by doubling down it looks like he’s going for the epic fail.
@schism
I’m becoming more and more convinced that there isn’t a q-tip long enough
Isn’t this pretty much the core of the MRA belief system? Most of them aren’t actually insane enough to believe the shit that, say, NWO does. They know perfectly well what’s actually going on, they just choose to pretend otherwise, as demonstrated on rare occasions such as this where they’re worried about actual consequences.
I’m pretty sure that they know that most of what they advocate is both socially unacceptable and complete nonsense. That’s why they’re permanently pissed off. End Quote.
You got that right! Well stated.
Been seeing a whole lot of stuff on the net pretty much making some pretty hard allegations against those mra folks for the shit they post and the comments they support. Seems like the site owners are trying to tame their bullshit lies and instigations of violence against women down. It’s easy to go find the shit they wrote and link it for all to see. They are some immature misognyists to be sure.
I’m not to familiar with him as I am with NWO, but yes, I don’t know why I’m even bothering since he seems just as bad.
The Sandusky thing pissed me off so fucking much. Not a single peep from them which proves they don’t give a shit about male victims, let alone children. No. They only jump all over rape cases where women are the rapists because all they are interested in making women look bad, not actually bringing awareness to male victims. Meanwhile I’ve seen posts about the Sandusky case on Feministing, Feministe, etc.
I second this.
Every word is true! Since David has said that he wholeheartedly supports the new FBI definition of rape as the definitive definition (what?) and as the FBI definition states that it is impossible to rape men* (huh?) David is obviously revealing his belief that men aren’t people (what is this I don’t even).
*Before you say otherwise, AntZ, yes of course envelopment should be in there. However, there are still a non-zero number situations where a man’s lack of consent would be defined by the FBI as rape. For your claim to make sense, none of those situations can be defined that way.
AntZ does seems to have made a radical shift in tone since last he graced us with his presence. Less calm but utterly nonsensical explanations of how his sci-fi VR and artificial womb technology will save men and women from the horrors of having to interact with each other like grownups, and lot more raging, utterly baseless accusations.
Better feed that hamster, AntZ!
“AntZ does seems to have made a radical shift in tone since last he graced us with his presence. Less calm but utterly nonsensical explanations of how his sci-fi VR and artificial womb technology will save men and women from the horrors of having to interact with each other like grownups, and lot more raging, utterly baseless accusations.”
Seriously. And I, for one, am very disappointed, AntZ.
@Dracula
Says you, bigot
Yes of course I think envelopment should be in there, I mean. I am the worst worst worst worst at proofreading. Ever.