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.
“You ARE innocent until proven guilty.”
That’s what the mra and drug dealers love. It’s true as hell. Presumed innocent. So many jack asses get off on technicalities. Just research “Search and Seizures” and the 14th amendment. Pounds of coke found in a car, but if there is one mistake in the search a cop makes, that verdict will no doubt be remanded by an appellate court and the trial court will try him again WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE. Happens all the time. The law says you’re INNOCENT until that state proves you guilty.
The new definition is WORSE than the previous one.
Mutual-intoxication now has a clear victim, and a clear perpetrator. This is what you bigots wanted all along. Your weak, pathetic, and dishonest protestations notwithstanding. EVERY case of mutual intoxication will now be crystal clear — just like the femi-fascists want it. Man = bad, woman = good. The heart of feminist discourse.
So, who wants to be the first to pretend like this is not what was intended all along?
And now we see a descent into incoherency.
The new definition is WORSE than the previous one.
So you prefer one that does not include men at all?
By the way, you are aware that the FBI definition of rape is not a legal definition, right? It’s a statistical one.
@Antz Me! Me! Can I be first! “This is not what was intended all along.”
I don’t actually work for the FBI, or even live in the US, so I’m sorry to say I didn’t personally change the definition just to irritate AntZ so he could call more people bigots.
Somehow, though, I think acknowledging that force isn’t required for rape to occur and that rape can happen to anyone and be perpetrated by anyone is, y’know, good.
Oops, hit Post Comment too soon. That should be:
“This is not what was intended all along.” [sly wink to feminists in the audience]
Pretend? pffffttt fuck that, I revel in it!!!!! As a straight guy who’s only a part of the bar/club hook up culture, I am overjoyed that I will FINALLY be accused of rape. I mean, I have to try a little harder still, since my mutual-intoxication encounters have all been mutually enjoyable (though I can’t claim I was always satisfying :$), but don’t you worry AntZ, my grand scheme to be labelled a rapist have finally come to fruition!!!
AntZ really is in bizarro-land:
Rape definition that implicitly entails men can be raped = bad
Rape definition that excludes virtually all men = good
Whereas, no one here thinks the new FBI definition is without problems — but it is a vast improvement on the previous one.
@Viscaria
For real? I hacked my way into the electoral system just to place a vote! You’re slacking girl!!!
Yes, that’s exactly what happens, and exactly what should happen. A ‘mistake’ with evidence can just as easily be counterfeited evidence. Any improperly handled evidence isn’t admissible by the state. That same protection helped OJ get off… and if some heterosexist, sexist, or racist cop ever manufactures evidence against me, it’ll get me off. Wouldn’t have it any other way.
Also, the presumption of innocence is a legal burden. We’re not obligated to throw our brains out, *even if you are found Not Guilty*. That’s why I can *also* say that of course OJ did it, and you probably don’t want to date him because he’s insanely jealous (And also a convict now). And if some dude is found to have done everything that we would call rape, and the court disagrees that it’s rape, there’s really no reason to stop saying he’s a rapist; this happens far too frequently if you actually study the case law of rape (BTW, don’t do that, it’s bad for the soul)
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 trolls who post here are so ridiculous. They come in here and shout their bullshit, pre-prepared speeches at the wall without READING any of the other posts. I guess that’s what living in a vacuum(spearhead, AVFM) does to your idea of a conversation /debate.
Antz, the American Dental Association’s mission statement says, “The ADA is the professional association of dentists that fosters the success of a diverse membership and advances the oral health of the public.”
So according to the ADA, men are not dentists?
For the record, I am not a dentist, which in Antztopia proves that I both wrote and fully endorse the ADA’s every move.
XD Shadow, why are you always so much better at being Canadian than me?
I love the exquisite nonsense of accusing every last one of us of wanting it to be legal for men to raped. Dude, I AM a man. No, I don’t I don’t want to be legal for a woman to rape me.
*I [don’t want it]*
So, who wants to be the first to pretend like this is not what was intended all along?
Yes, mister Antz, it’s all part of our Evil Master Plan, which I’ll explain to you as I lower you slowly into the tank of sharks with laser beams on their heads.
*grins evilly while stroking fluffy white kitten*
Oh wow, he really said that. LIke I said, parallel universe nutjob.
I knew a lawyer who was fond of saying “When people say that “he got off on a technicality”, I tell them we in the legal profession usually call that technicality “The Constitution”.”
I also think that the wording of the definition could include male victims of female perps. As someone mentioned before, it’s a statistical definition and not a statute, but it would be perfectly possible to rationally interpret a cis female on cis male rape as meeting it.
A cis female enveloping a cis male victim involves “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person” and is “without the consent of the victim”. While in some ways, many people’s first reading might be to presume the penetration must be of the victim, it does not technically say such, and, we do live in a culture where we discuss PIV in terms of penetration almost exclusively.
It’s worth noting as well that the old definition left out a lot of rapes of cis women and other female assigned at birth people too (trans women were often legally grouped as men, or are excluded if they are anally and not vaginally raped, etc. as well) , something that the multiple feminist groups who campaigned for the definition to be changed (including the Feminist Majority Foudation’s campaign that resulted in over 16,000 letters and emails to the FBI on the subject). The old definition would not have, for example, included my rape, despite the fact that I was at an age where most parents would only let their kids use safety scissors, because there was no PIV penetration.
If a man and a woman are both inebriated, and sexual activity occurs, and neither party intended to coerce the other, and neither party considers themselves to have been coerced, according to Futrelle’s absurd definition, rape has happened. Should both be charged? Or neither? If one should be charged, should their maleness or femaleness be a mitigating factor (and why)? And assuming that either or both parties are charged, will one be charged more severely than the other (and will the sex of the defendant justify by itself the disparity in the charges)? Moreover, even both are charged with identical charges, who do you think is more likely to receive an acquittal, and who is more likely to be convicted?
These are questions that thoughtful people must consider and address, especially when strident statements about what constitutes a crime are concerned.
My opinion is that we shouldn’t throw around “definitions” of rape without qualifying whether they are based in opinion and/or whether they are based in law. Show me the statute — cite it please — which criminalizes the actions of mutually inebriated people who engage in sexual contact.
Secondly, if you have the slightest inkling in your mind of a sense of justice, I think you couldn’t justify criminally charging either party in this scenario, because (1) both consented, (2) neither accused the other, and (3) there is a strong liklihood that if indictments were made the female in this scenario would receive preferential treatment in (a) the charges, (b) whether she was acquitted, and (c) how lightly she was sentenced if convicted.
A thoughtful person would consider the adverse implications of such an absurd statement as David has made here. Just because you are inebriated you are not automatically a victim. nor are you automatically a perpetrator. David, of course, will not consider the adverse implications, because his statement was not thoughtfully made. Yet, out of hubris or to save face, he sadly stands by it.
@Viscaria
It’s cos I’m Tamil. If there’s one thing we know, it’s how to be Canadian! ;):P
@Coltrane
I thoughtful person would note that David talked about having sex with someone too drunk to consent. A thoughtful person, who is even remotely knowledgeable about the issue, would know that David didn’t pull this out of his ass, and that the revising of the definition of consent is something that has been going on for a while, and that the issues you bring up have already been discussed and accounted for. A thoughtful person who has not read up on the issue, at least a little bit, would have read up on these discussions, and would then make up his mind on whether or not they have been addressed properly. A thoughtful person does not raise objections without finding out whether or not they have been addressed. Food for thought!
God, MRAs always think “what if they’re both drunk?” is some kind of giant trump card that’ll make our heads spin around and steam like a computer told “this statement is false.”
If two people are drunk and they have sex, then the one who initiated sex is still responsible for initiating sex with a drunk person–i.e., committing rape. However, if no one feels they were coerced then it’s a non-issue because no one’s going to report it.
Also, I think the “both drunk” argument is frequently used as a smokescreen for instances in which someone who’d had a couple drinks unambiguously and forcibly raped someone who was passed-out drunk.
Or simply as an awkward MRA attempt to make the entire concept of rape as a crime sound absurd.
I’m sorry Roscoe, at what point in the thread has David said a single fucking thing in response to anything AntZ (or anyone else, for that matter) has stated? In fact, at what point in this thread has he said anything at all? “Hasn’t responded yet.” is not the same thing as “Sadly stands by it.”
Seriously, is this Make Up Shit About Futrelle Day?
I heard David Futrelle has three kidneys.