Saturday, August 22, 2009

Gaining Genuine Consent vs. Overcoming Lack of Consent

False Rape Society [you can find the link if you want to] quoted the following from my post, Safety & Crime Prevention Tips for new Students with Emphasis on Sexual Violence:

"Sexual assault is more than forcible rape. Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault."

And FRS responded with this revealing snippet:
Did you get that? "Any" -- not just some, "any" strategy that is "designed to eliminate re[j]ection or overcome . . . resistance . . . ." So if you buy her dinner, or treat her nicely, or promise to go visit her mother with her, or agree to fix her car in an effort to "eliminate rejection" or "overcome [her] indecision" and thereby increase your chances of taking the relationship to the next level, you are acting out "a strategy of sexual assault." While it is written in a gender neutral manner, make no mistake it is designed to address male sexual advances because since the dawn of man, males have been the ones pursuing and females have been the ones playing "hard to get."
What FRS is failing to notice is that there is a huge and important difference between overcoming someone's lack of consent and seeking freely given consent from another person.

Under this model a man who has communicated no interest in a sexual relationship with a particular woman can think certain non-sexual actions are earning him his way into a sexual relationship when they are not. At some point under this model the man will try to cash in his chips while fully expecting the woman who he assumes to be consenting through her gender and her presence in his company to play, "hard to get."

And "hard to get" will most likely be expressions of the woman's lack of consent. By definition expressions of lack of consent nullify the presence of consent which makes continuing an act of rape.

This model is dangerous for women but it is also dangerous for boys and men. This model makes it easy for boys and men to dismiss the absence of consent or to dismiss the presence of clear communication of non-consent as nothing more than an expected falsehood on her part which can be ignored.

This model sets up boys and men to rape and to then dismiss rightful accusations of rape as wrongful accusations.

What is the second worst part of this model is if the man directly communicated his sexual interest with the woman he was interested in rather doing task after task until he feels it is time to cash in his chips that woman might freely and eagerly consent.

Every time this model fails to get a boy or man the sex he expects that will likely build his resentment against women rather than revealing to him that the root of his problem is with the strategy and model he's using.

FRS's portrait of all men as predatory when it comes to sex slanders many men who do not deserve in any way to be lumped in with all the male sexual predators who paint themselves as victims when they are rightfully accused of sexual violence.

Update (8/23): I need to place a trigger warning on the comments from men who found this post through the Men Are Better Than Women forum.

Update (9/1): Results of a survey of teenagers in the UK about violence found:
One in three of the teenage girls questioned in England, Scotland and Wales said their boyfriends had tried to pressure them into unwanted sexual activity by using physical force or by bullying them.

The NSPCC said the unwanted sexual activity ranged from kissing to intercourse.
A quarter of the girls interviewed for the survey had suffered physical violence, including being slapped, punched or beaten.
This shows the scope of the behavior FRS is trying to minimize or excuse. In comparison only 1 in 17 boys reported being pressured or forced into sexual activity.

This behavior of pressuring someone else should never be viewed as more acceptable than physical force. Agreement under pressure is not consent, only compliance.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 9:43 AM   67 comments links to this post

67 Comments:

At August 22, 2009 9:53 AM, Anonymous Melissa said...

Yes! A lot of people fail to realize that coercion is not the same as consent. Consent is when both parties happily agree to whichever act. Coercion is when someone agrees after being worn down psychologically. Thank you for writing this.

 
At August 22, 2009 11:24 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Melissa, you are welcome. You are right that many people fail to realize that coercion doesn't result in consent even if the coercers don't rape until after getting the response they want.

 
At August 22, 2009 11:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent piece. The distinction between compliance and consent is one which all too many people (mainly men) don't want to draw.

[SunlessNick]

 
At August 22, 2009 12:38 PM, Blogger JENNIFER DREW said...

Unfortunately far too many men continue to be socialised as boys into believing and uncritically accepting 'their pseudo male sex right to women and girls.'

The 'common sense' view that men are supposedly entitled to use coercion, acts of pseudo kindness etc. in order to obtain unwanted sexual access to any woman or girl absolves men of any accountability and blames women and girls for not 'gatekeeping' men's pseudo sex right to women and girls.

Contrary to myths, no one has died from being rejected and no woman 'owes' any man sexual access. I am certain all men at some time in their lives have experienced rejection because this is a common factor of life. Anyone who has applied for a job must at some time have experienced rejection, despite having done everything possible to represent themselves as the 'ideal candidate.' No one suggests that if a male represents himself as an 'ideal candidate' he should automatically be given the vacancy. Rejection is a fact life but when it concerns pseudo male sexual access to women, too many men believe women do not have the right to reject or deny a man his supposed sex right to women and/or girls.

When it concerns male sexual access to women and girls, there is still a widespread presumption women and girls should not have right of bodily autonomy, instead they must always be aware of the 'messages' they are supposedly sending to men. This is why consent becomes meaningless when one group (men) defines how and in what manner the other group (women) are supposed to enact consent or non-consent.

Men must accept that not all women will agree to sexual contact with a male and this applies equally to women who seek sexual contact with a man who does not want sexual contact.

Mutual agreement not 'consent' should be the definition of sexual contact and if one person refuses the other person must accept the rejection.

Women are human too and were not put the earth to sexually service men and not have the right to reject male sexual advances or male claims 'I paid for your meal therefore you owe me sexual access.' But the False Rape Society promotes this dangerous lie and until such time as women are commonly given the same right of sexual autonomy as men; organisations such as FRS will continue promoting their lies concerning pseudo male sexual right to women and girls.

 
At August 22, 2009 10:57 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

Oh my!

I just do not know where to start or what to say.

OK, you need to hear it how it is. I ain't gonna sugar coat it for you honey.

If you gotta pay, you gonna play.

You think it is OK to be a prick tease & have no accountability for your actions? You want to lead a guy on, have him buy you things, take you out to a nice diner & drink all night on his tab? Then you are feeling all warm & cuddly, so you start dry humpin him & start playing your little girl games of no no no I want you so much no I can't will you respect me well do you love me yes yes yes oh god feels so good no stop I didn't mean it you raped me!

BULL SHIT!

You are feeling like a dirty little whore after the phone didn't ring so you cry I am a victim he raped me.

No Bitch you got humped & dumped!

If you don't want the guilt on your conscious then don't spread your legs, don't let him buy you things, don't let him pay for your diner, don't get sloshed & drink his alcohol, don't dry hump him, don't take your panties off if you wore any to start with, don't dress like the slut you were behaving like & don't lead him on & be a prick tease!

If you played that game & it went farther than you anticipated & you got your cherry popped then too fucking bad for you. Learn from it & don't do it again. Know you can always get out of it by giving the guy a hand job or just suck his cock & swallow!

But don't sit here like some poor innocent saint & say I had no responsibility for what happened. The fuck you didn't! The burden is on your shoulders & your mother & fathers if you are underage still living at home. As a matter of fact, if you are in that category your dad should have sent your mother along too, to give him a two on one. If you are going to ruin his life with your Bull Shit Fucking lies you may as well make it worth his while & tag team him.

I am so sick & tired of listening to you little hypocritical psycho fucking whores. You give women who actually do get raped a bad name. I feel sorry for the woman who is jumped in a parking lot or has their place of residence broken into & is brutally raped & beaten to within an inch of their life.

You wonder why the grudge fuck exists? There you have it, in black & white.

Deal with it!

For those women who are true victims of rape I am as passionate about your defense as I am over the prick tease who got what she had coming to her.

If some Bunny Balled sorry excuse for a man can't be a gentleman & charm the panties off of some hottie & you violate the sanctity of her innocents, god have mercy on your sole. If it was my wife or daughter you did it to or just someone I came across while it was happening, you will have tapped your last box! I would take you on an all expense paid by you vacation to the longest living hell that you could ever imagine. I would do everything in my power to keep you alive as long as possible while I violated you in every way imaginable. You would think an afternoon with some Al Qaeda Terrorist was a vacation in the finest of five star resorts in comparison to what I would have planned for you!

I have a wife & two daughters & a son. I have said to my wife & will say to my daughters this exact train of thought. As a matter of fact I will save this for my daughters for in a couple more years when this may become an issue for them & for my son, if he decided to just be gay it would save him all the trouble of having to deal with this crap!

Sorry if you were offended but someone has to tell you how it is in the real world. Enough of your poor me, I am a victim, I had nothing to do with it, I have no accountability for what happened, it is everyone elses fault mantra.

 
At August 23, 2009 8:53 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Wel,

Your rant exposes the raw ugliness and bitterness behind the behavior of men which FRS defended in his response to my quoted statement. You have exposed the truth behind his sanitized description for all to see.

From your own words and the emotion behind them it sounds like you have forcibly raped at least 1 girl or woman, been called on it by her (or them) and are desperate to shed that label by slapping nasty labels on all those who hold you accountable for your own actions.

If you buy a girl or woman things you are responsible for doing so yet you refuse to be responsible for your own actions. Apparently, personal responsibility is for girls and women only.

Of course you would need to believe that what made that girl or woman angry was only the fact that after you raped her you didn't call her.

Your projections about my history of rape is telling since you are accepting that he used force and still refuse to see his actions as rape because of your assumptions about my non-criminal actions.

If you truly believed that you are not a rapist you would write this comment using your legal name since you claim to be an advocate for personal accountability.

The problem is not that women aren't putting out when men do things for them. The problem is that men are doing these things, mostly non-sexual, as a way to earn themselves sex, fully expecting women to protest and maybe even fight when those men try to get the sex they believe they are owed.

When men who take this approach don't get sex they are bitter and when they ignore a woman's lack of consent and then are rightfully accused of rape they are bitter. In both cases these men are likely to incorrectly view themselves as victims of those nasty women.

But of course your bitterness toward girls and women isn't your responsibility.

You reveal yourself when you make it clear you only feel bad for women who are raped by strangers in parking lots and during break-ins. Even then you leave the impression that they need to also be beaten to within an inch of their life before you feel anything other than hatred toward rape victims.

That you brag about your plans to spew this toxic garbage on your own daughters is disgusting. What's as troubling is that you are likely already passing on this toxic way of thinking to your son.

 
At August 23, 2009 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enough of your poor me, I am a victim, I had nothing to do with it, I have no accountability for what happened, it is everyone elses fault mantra.

That's rich coming from someone who's just ranted on and on about about his own self-entitlement, trying to play the victim with no accountability.


[SunlessNick]

 
At August 23, 2009 12:33 PM, OpenID sweetchild92 said...

wel-you are everything that is wrong with this fucked up, misogynist society. You are NEVER entitled to any sexual contact ever. EVER. How would you like it if someone made the tag teaming comment about your wife and daughter? Oh, and don't forget how easy it is to simply bite down when a penis is in your mouth. I am so disgusted right now I don't even know what to say. If a girl treats you to dinner, then by your logic, you better be ready to be tied up, whipped, and smacked if that's what she's into. Causing pain, bleeding? Too bad. She bought you something. By your logic, if she buys you dinner, you damn well better be ready if she decides to slip on a strap on. And your dad, too.

 
At August 23, 2009 2:06 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Wel,

Your description of the sadistic torture you have planned for any boy or man you believe to be a real rapist means that you fit the profile of those men who have assaulted and/or murdered someone accused of rape or rumored to be the guilty party or who are on the sex offender registry for the types of rapes which will acknowledge as real rapes.

In your passion of the moment you would give little thought about whether you are assaulting or murdering a boy or man who is innocent or who will not repeat that original crime. This means you and those who agree with you completely are not just a danger to law-abiding women, you are a danger to law-abiding men.

If you did what you promised and then found out you tortured an innocent man (no rape happened or you grabbed the wrong guy) instead of taking responsibility for your own violence you would likely blame your violence on a girl or woman.

Between labeling most male rapists as falsely accused because you believe their decision to rape was justified and your willingness to torture men you believe to be guilty, you are not a genuine ally to those boys and men who are genuinely falsely accused of rape.

 
At August 23, 2009 5:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey bitch too bad the rapist didn't finish the job. Now we have to tolerate your anti-male feminist-inspired victimhood rants about how evil men are and women are never wrong. You didn't get date raped, you got sloppy drunk, flirted with him like a slut, had consensual sex with the man and accused him of rape the next day because you didn't want to admit you were a tramp. When are women going to take responsibility and accountability for their own actions rather than shifting the blame onto men. When hell freezes over, that's when. Too bad the rapist didn't do his job, now we're all stuck with your male hatred.

 
At August 23, 2009 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 6:17 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous (who arrived here from the Men are better than women forum),

Your support for murder in the name of defending men does nothing to help men or to prove that they are in fact better than women in anything other than violence.

That you follow this with your own false accusations against me undermines any outrage you might pretend to have over genuinely false accusations against men.

Your mistake in labeling me a man-hater is your assumption that all men are sexually violent. When I hate sexual violence you take that personally and see that as hating not only you but all men.

My opinion of men in general is a thousand times more positive than yours.

 
At August 23, 2009 6:26 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous #2 from London(also from the men are better than women forum),

Your hatred of women expressed through your quote comes through loud and clear.

 
At August 23, 2009 6:42 PM, Blogger Jeeza said...

I think instead of calling yourself abyss3hope you call yourself abyss2deeperabyss. You've clearly lost it.

If a man approaches a woman at a bar, a club, at the beach, shopping mall, wherever, do you think that a woman is going to consent to sex straight away? Woman are reluctant by default, and so they should be or are you suggesting that women go around with placards expressing their intent to have sex?

"Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault."

If I approach a woman and tell her about myself I am trying to overcome her natural reluctance. Your description above of sexual assault makes me a rapist simply by telling her what I do for a living and what my interests are because in trying to impress her I am trying to overcome her reluctance.

Your description above DOES NOT MENTION COERCION it is pretty comprehensive and more importantly is indicative of your mindset more than anything else.

I realise how difficult it is to legally pinpoint where rape occurs and successfully convict a rapist where there is no obvious physical evidence.

But your attempt to widen the net so that nearly any ordinary decent guy can fall into your definition of a rapist is as hatred-filled and as callous as the act of rape itself.

For this very reason, men who in the past would have cared deeply about the issue of rape and even some women are showing complete indifference towards the issue.

You really need some kind of help in order to move on, or at least think rationally.

 
At August 23, 2009 7:37 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Jeeza,

Like others from the Men Are Better Than Women forum, you seem to have trouble telling the difference between trying to overcome a woman's lack of consent and seeking freely given consent.

If the only reason you tell a woman about yourself is to overcome her sexual resistance you are revealing yourself to be a very shallow person who feels the need to game women into having sex with him.

There is no inherent difficulty in pinpointing where rape occurs as you allege. If you don't understand the clear line between rape and not rape you have no business having sex with anybody until you learn that difference.

If you proceed with your admitted current lack of understanding of that line then you only have yourself to blame if you are accused of rape.

That you could possibly twist my words into meaning that all women will freely consent to have sex with you if you only ask them is telling.

When you use my words as an excuse to not care about rapes which you acknowledge to be true you are revealing who you are at your very core. I'm not to blame for that but am only a handy scapegoat so you don't have to take personal responsibility for your lack of negative feelings regarding rape.

 
At August 23, 2009 7:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marcella, the 5:51 Anon exposed his little white belly with the following comment to you:

"You didn't get date raped, you got sloppy drunk, flirted with him like a slut, had consensual sex with the man and accused him of rape the next day because you didn't want to admit you were a tramp."

This type of negative skepticism is exactly why women did not begin coming forward until the 1990s. Anon and his ilk thrive on it. It helps them get away with rape ... again and again.

Georgia Girl
http://www.georgia-tech-rape-victim2.blogspot.com

 
At August 23, 2009 8:18 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Georgia,

I don't consider the accusation made against me to be any form of skepticism. It is instead a mantra of those who desperately need to drown out the truth told by victims of non-stranger rape.

And that mantra makes as much sense as men seeking out blogs of those who have disclosed being victims of identity theft by someone they knew with, "you weren't a victim of identity theft, you got sloppy drunk, faked the identity theft from an innocent friend's computer so you'd get the cash for free and then accused him because you didn't want to admit you were cheating the credit card companies."

In both mantra's the motives are clear. To get people to assume the victims' guilt and then make all non-stranger victims prove their innocence in order to not be treated like a criminal.

 
At August 23, 2009 8:28 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 8:31 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 8:36 PM, Blogger Jeeza said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 8:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of goblins creeping about today.

[SunlessNick]

 
At August 23, 2009 8:55 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Wel,

Your attacks on me were expected, but your criminal accusations against my father, implying he raped me and turned me against all men shows that you happily make false allegations of rape with no concern for the innoocent men you are slandering.

That you see anything short of torturing and killing sex offenders to be approving of their crimes tells me why you need to deny most rapes. If a man doesn't in your view deserve to be immediately tortured and killed he can't be a real rapist.

 
At August 23, 2009 9:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, My God... This is sad.

What is freely Given Consent, and what is not?

Where exactly do you draw the line?

Is it where the woman just walks up to the man and asks for sex?

Because that never happens, Believe it.

No, no, no, no...

Rape is physically forced Intercourse, nothing more.

If the woman is not psychologically strong enough to make up her mind, despite some dude "Macking" on her, what makes you think that this woman is Equal to a Man?

What makes you think that you are speaking of anyone other than a Child who displays a personality and sense of self so PLIABLE.

You think that a man attempting go get laid by conversation, impressing the girl, pick up lines, and the like somehow override her willpower?

Do they negate her self esteem?

You really don't have a very good opinion of women, do you?

"Verbal coercion is RAPE because the woman is incapable of making up her own mind."

Nice... Real nice.

-E (@mabtw.com)

 
At August 23, 2009 9:16 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 9:27 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous,

The law in all US states contradicts your claim that rape (or sexual assault) is physically forced intercourse and nothing more. Your attempt at blaming and insulting victims for all non-forcible rapes is pathetic.

Your quote related to coercion aren't my words and you know it.

If you need coercion to get sex the problem is not that women are incapable of making up their minds. That's nothing more than a handy rationalization for sexual violence.

 
At August 23, 2009 9:40 PM, Blogger Jeeza said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 9:43 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

OK I am totally convinced now.

You are a fat fucking pig that no one will fuck much less rape...

Too bad for you I was going to give you a couple of good detailed rape tails to excite your readership with.

Oh well, if you change your mind put my posts back up & I will give you all the gory details. Right down to pulling the bitches hair & swoppin holes on her.

You know they start to like it when the tears dry up & they begin to smile. The pussy tells you much faster though, it gets nice & sloppy wet once they have a change of heart.

 
At August 23, 2009 9:47 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

I see that Toy Soldiers has written the following false claims on his blog:

"Marcella's opinion that women never lie about rape and that there are no falsely accused boys or men* seems to have severely distorted her willingness to view the issue of consent objectively."

I have never said that women never lie about rape and I have never said there are no falsely accused boys or men. I have in fact acknowledged that women and girls and boys and men have lied about rape. And I have acknowledged false criminal accusations against men and against women.

But hey, Toy Soldiers and others who claim to be against false allegations don't let their stated position stop them from making false allegations against me.

Clearly my discussions about the difference between what many people call consent when attacking those who report rape as false accusers and genuine consent has caused an uproar in anti-feminist circles.

 
At August 23, 2009 10:13 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Wel,

Your response to my deleting your follow up comments has led to a very revealing comment which in its vileness and violence speaks volumes about who you are at the core.

 
At August 23, 2009 10:21 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 23, 2009 10:39 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 24, 2009 9:51 AM, OpenID vagabondsaint said...

Perhaps I am having a mentally slow week (it does happen from time to time), but the line between "overcoming lack of consent" and "seeking freely given consent" appears rather blurry and very open for interpretation, which has perhaps contributed to the vitriol being spouted in some of the above posts, most of which I couldn't even finish reading.

So I'm just going to ask questions to attempt to clear my confusion.

"Overcoming lack of consent" is, as I read it, the only of of the two situational models that could lead to rape but, depending on the situation and strategy selected for overcoming said lack, does not necessarily constitute rape. For example, if a woman rejects a man's sexual advances, and he, say, sings show tunes in an attempt to change her mind and does so, well, he has overcome her lack of consent by persuading her to give consent freely. Where you have stated in your post that any attempt attempt to overcome lack of consent after said lack has been communicated constitutes rape, I do not believe that additional wooing would constitute sexual assault. Now, if, instead of singing show tunes, the male in the situation decided to drug her drink, verbally berate or physically abuse the woman into consenting or at least not putting up a fight, then yes, I would call that rape.

I can also see the argument being made that, in my example, the male started off seeking freely given consent, and, once rejected, continued to seek freely given consent with wooing instead of choosing to overcome the lack of consent. However, as you state in the post, any continuance of seeking or overcoming consent after consent has been denied constitutes an act of rape, and I do not believe that such is always the case.

I can see what you're getting at, Marcella, but your language is ambiguous enough that there's plenty room for misinterpretation. It might have been better to say that any to attempt to dismiss or deny a lack of consent would constitute rape, or, better yet, any attempt at sexual congress which does not seek freely given consent is an act of rape.

I agree with what I think you are saying, but i believe that stating it more concisely would have avoided some of the resulting nastiness. On the other hand, you've done an excellent job at making the FRS supporters expose themselves for what they really are.

VS

 
At August 24, 2009 11:31 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Vagabondsaint,

I disagree that changing my wording which FRS quoted would have prevented the nastiness shown above. I'm not sure at all that you do agree with what I'm trying to communicate.

To you this concept as I worded it may be confusing but that doesn't mean it is invalid or in need of any correction.

The fatal flaw of the entrenched and highly gendered concept of overcoming another person's lack of consent (and the inherent inequality at the heart of this concept) is that it will always be compatable with unethical, abusive or even overtly violent actions by boys and men who buy into it and who consider themselves to be against all "real" rapes.

This concept positions the boy or man using it as an opponent to the girl or woman he is interested in. That sets up a very different dynamic from someone seeking to have a mutual sexual relationship with another person (short-term or long-term).

This overcoming non-consent approach is often a consensual sex repellant since it turns off many of those it is used on.

When this concept is combined with attitudes which place all personal responsibility for everything related to sex onto girls and women the ability of boys and men to justify committing sex crimes while telling themselves and others they have done nothing wrong skyrockets.

If someone doesn't take rejection as a requirement for a full stop then continuing until that person gets what they wanted is sexual assault. Always.

It doesn't matter if that person defines the subsequent actions as wooing (a vague term which has been used to describe physical intimidation, sexual harassment and stalking).

An alternative approach which too many boys and men fail to even consider is to communicate their willingness before backing off and letting the girl or woman then take the initiative if she changes her mind. For some people this is an unacceptable approach because it gives that girl or woman power.

 
At August 24, 2009 11:51 AM, Anonymous Jeeza said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 24, 2009 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"An alternative approach which too many boys and men fail to even consider is to communicate their willingness before backing off and letting the girl or woman then take the initiative if she changes her mind."

Women do not take the initiative.

MEN take the initiative.

Women get offended if the man does NOT take the initiative.

Women play "Hard to Get" trying to weed out the strong potential suitors from the weak.

There is a VERY big problem with your Theory... and that is the burdon of proof ammounts to your FEELINGS.

And we do not make laws based on FEELINGS.

IT is easy to say that "Continuing to chase consent after being shot down is rape" but that is how the mating game is PLAYED!

Women shoot down men, (That they are interested in) to see how he recovers, to see how strong he is, to see how easily he gives up, to see how desirable they see her.

Women reject men to TEST THEM.

Blaming men for RAPE if they overcome rejection is insanity.

IF they are trying to change a NO to a YES, it is *NOT* rape.

If they are forcing themselves (Physically) then that IS rape.

The difference *IS* the Rapist is not trying to turn a NO into a YES...

You are attempting to vilify completely natural courtship rituals, and hand over judicial power to one gender in all cases, based on sayso alone.

This is WRONG.

Let them play... if he is trying to seek consent, and overcome rejection, then he has a LINE that he will not cross...

Get it?

-E(@mabtw)

 
At August 24, 2009 12:21 PM, Anonymous recursiveparadox said...

It seems like this connects heavily to the "Nice" Guy Theory, wherein many guys will discuss how they were "Nice Guys", doing things for women, being kind and helpful, acting as part of a heavy support network and providing emotional support and then proceed to talk about how they're "taken advantage of" and don't ever get the girl.

It all goes back to this idea that women owe men sex because the man hasn't been a colossal asshole or showed friendliness.

That isn't "Nice". It's asinine. That complaint makes it really clear that the "Nice Guys" are actually an element of the rape culture, because they seem to think that doing things a close friend would do (much like "wooers" and "seducers" think the same about doing things a generous caring person would do) implies a tacit contract for sex.

For one, there's no goddamn contract. There never was one. Sex is only barter material when both parties explicitly state that it is (sex work, in situations where the sex workers have control of their business).

In the case of Wooing and Nice Guyism, there is this assumed contract, wherein the wooer/"nice guy" assumes that the target accepted the terms of the contract, that said nice guyism or wooing would be exchanged for sex. Well I can tell you, I can not think of even one damn case where this assumed contract was even brought to the awareness of the target. It is a fallacious little pipe dream, a delusion created by many guys (and some girls, unfortunately) to cover a pretty disgusting and unacceptable attitude that sex can owed in debt.

Nothing related to bodily domain is owed in debt. I don't owe someone who payed my way through school one of my kidneys for a transplant. And I don't owe sex for anything. There is no contract unless I agree there's a contract. Sooner people realize that owed sex is bullshit, the sooner the rape culture can be dismantled.

Good post Marcella, I just wanted to bring up the "Nice" Guyism angle, as that's pretty much just as bad as the wooers.

 
At August 24, 2009 12:33 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Jeeza, telling me that your deleted rants containing repeated personal attacks and false allegations against me aren't as bad as Wel's comments while failing to challenge his position on the issues (which includes calling the rape of certain women acceptable because they allegedly teased their rapists) won't get your comments undeleted.

 
At August 24, 2009 12:37 PM, Anonymous Kali said...

The line between "overcoming lack of consent" and "seeking freely given consent" is very clear. Consent cannot be freely given if you need to overcome its lack. What's not to get?

 
At August 24, 2009 1:04 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous (@mabtw),

That no woman has ever taken the initiative toward you and the other men you hang out with is not proof that women don't take the initiative. Instead it is evidence that your shared attitude toward women and heterosexual sex is an utter failure.

That you view women's rejection as nothing more than a test to see which men will ignore her rejection reflects on you, not on what women actually mean when they reject you.

Forcing women even in ways you don't personally define as physical is rape. It doesn't matter if this force gets a woman to do or say something you view as consent. That's not legal consent.

 
At August 24, 2009 1:25 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Recursive Paradox,

I'm glad you brought up the "nice" guys. I was thinking of them when FRS mentioned fixing a woman's car as a way to overcome a woman's lack of consent.

I've known men who were authentically nice and who would fix a girlfriend's car but for them it was not a transaction and it was not a facade of niceness which got stripped away the moment their girlfriends didn't do what they wanted them to do.

They were much more likely to have their girlfriends initiate sex. Also if they were seeking sex with a particular woman they wouldn't use the guise of just being a woman's friend.

 
At August 24, 2009 1:58 PM, Anonymous Toysoldier said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 24, 2009 3:36 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Toysoldier,

I deleted your comment because like others you've left on this blog it contains at its core a personal attack.

Since you are making specific claims against me you need to prove those specific claims. If you cannot do so then you need to retract your claims of fact and express whatever feelings you have toward me as your personal opinion and as your own speculation.

I don't believe that anything I've written which contradicts your claims will change your opinion so I'm not going to waste my time finding references as you demanded.

 
At August 24, 2009 4:21 PM, OpenID vagabondsaint said...

Marcella,

I did not say that your conceptual point was invalid, only that it could be phrased a bit more clearly. I also would not define sexual harassment, stalking, and physical intimidation as "wooing." My point is that, by your definition, even socially acceptable and morally proper courtship rituals are to be considered sexual assault (or at least attempted assault) if the person being courted has either not given consent or denied consent to a mutual sexual relationship at least once. (And yes, I am aware that some accused have tried to define their behaviour after a denial of consent as "courtship" and "wooing." I cannot speak for them, either to condone or condemn; I can only speak for myself as I understand the words.)

I'll try another example.

By your wording, if a man is dating a woman (or a man, or a woman dating a woman) and is seeking a mutual sexual relationship, and is rejected but continues dating the woman with mutual approval, still seeking a mutual sexual relationship, then the man in that case is guilty of rape because he's still seeking the MSR after a rejection.

Is that correct?

VS

 
At August 24, 2009 4:29 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

Lets make it simple instead of all this mumbo jumbo.

If it was not for the fact women had a pussy, men would have NOTHING to do with them.

There would be a bounty on them instead!

Good Day...

 
At August 24, 2009 4:41 PM, OpenID vagabondsaint said...

Also, while I agree with your statement in response to a commenter that women in fact do sometimes initiate sexual activity (based on personal experience), I also have with the commenter who said that women do sometimes withhold sexual congress or entering a mutual sexual relationship as a test of a suitor's character and intentions, and again, I must agree due to personal experience. You may not know any women that have done so, but it does happen. I am not making the argument that such behaviour justifies rape (nothing justifies rape), only making the point that it does sometimes happen, which you appear to no awareness of. I am not defending the testing practice, either.

VS

 
At August 24, 2009 6:01 PM, Anonymous Toysoldier said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 24, 2009 6:07 PM, Anonymous recursiveparadox said...

This one is for E(@mabtw):

Interesting name. Anyways there are a lot of flaws in your assessment.

One: You assume that every single girl wants to turn courtship into a vicious affair of humiliation on guys to make them prove themselves. What basis do you have for this? The fact that they've rejected you? Rejected your friends? Did it occur to you that there may be confounding variables? Like that women often gravitate away from overly aggressive douchebags or guys looking cool in front of their friends?

Either you're a guy who has no clue what women think, or you're a girl who has an amazingly fucked up way of treating guys. Don't project.

Two: Women initiate all the time. Just with guys who aren't asinine douchebags. Or are obviously practicing the insincere bullshit of Nice Guyism (the art of doing nice, decent things just to get some vag, not because one is nice or decent). Women also initiate with guys that actually present compatibility. Assuming you'll automatically be compatible to any woman you meet is beyond stupid, it's blatantly delusional. This applies even to girls who are just looking for sex, because safe, trusting, mutualistic sex requires some level of compatibility.

Unlike predatory targeted sex, which is more based around "scoring" and treating the people you're attracted to as targets to use and practice on.

If you practice the latter, well no wonder you don't get initiated with. It's because you're not a good option for sex.

 
At August 24, 2009 6:17 PM, Anonymous recursiveparadox said...

@Marcella:

Unfortunately, for a short time of my life (before my transition to female, I'm mtf trans) during a time that I was desperate to lose my virginity to stop the peer harassment about it, I practiced nice guyism.

And I hadn't realized how obvious the insincerity of such a thing was until long after I stopped the stupidity (when I realized, hey, why not just be honest and ask about sex? It happened awfully quickly when I was upfront and not a sneaky piece of shit) and actually talked to people about it.

And then after I transitioned, I really got hit with how irritating it is to watch a guy pretend to be nice while he sneaks looks at your breasts and keeps on getting more and more upset that you aren't interested in him.

The perspective was a painful thing to gain but in the end, I'm glad I've seen it from both sides, because I really know where so many of these guys went wrong and how to make it clear to them what's up.

 
At August 24, 2009 6:21 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Vagabondsaint,

Your summary of what my post means is incorrect. I never claimed that all courtship rituals are acts of overcoming someone else's lack of consent. You projected that claim into my words.

Non-abusive courtship rituals can and do seek freely given consent.

 
At August 24, 2009 6:49 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

VS,

I never claimed that a man who doesn't get the sex he asks for has to stop dating that woman and never ask again another day or another night. That is NOT overcoming her lack of consent and I never implied that it was.

On rejection as testing men, there is a difference between what one or more women have done or will do and statements about what women really mean when they don't consent. If a woman doesn't consent for any reason -- even if she plans to consent later she has not given legal consent. Period.

No proceeding as if she has given legal consent based on this assumption.

This is not the same as a woman who delays consent until a man has proven himself to her in some way or until she knows more about him.

The second example which men frequently quote nullifies the validity of women's non-consent as a group. This presumed nullification of non-consent is very dangerous and can lead to rape including forcible rape. "Your lips said no but your body said yes."

 
At August 24, 2009 7:05 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Wel,

Thanks for making your desire to commit genocide against women perfectly clear.

With that attitude how you blame any woman or girl who doesn't view you in a favorable light and who doesn't want to initiate sex with you I don't know.

 
At August 24, 2009 7:26 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Toysoldier,

Your follow up comment again contains personal attacks and was therefore deleted.

I never said that basic courtship constitutes the intent to rape. Never said it, never implied it.

To claim I said this or that this is my position is to make a false claim based on your own projections. You seem to see only what you want to see.

To successfully argue against a claim I never made is nothing to brag about.

The only way to genuinely believe this claim which I never made is to fail to understand the difference between overcoming lack of consent and getting genuine consent. And, hello, that's the subject of this post.

 
At August 24, 2009 7:45 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

@Recursiveparadox,

Thanks for highlighting your understanding of the "nice guy" behavior from both sides.

People lose valuable insight when they dismiss the receiving side of this behavior as subjective.

It is good to understand how people who don't intend to become creepy can get into that type of behavior since if we understand it then we can look for ways to give children healthier alternatives.

 
At August 24, 2009 9:50 PM, OpenID vagabondsaint said...

Marcella,

Thank you for clarifying that point. That was all I was seeking.

VS

 
At August 24, 2009 10:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 24, 2009 10:44 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Vagabondsaint,

I think part of your confusion may come from not understanding how different the actions you think of as overcoming lack of consent are from what too many other men are thinking about and doing while trying to sell them as benign actions no different from the actions of any other man.

Besides experiencing a premeditated strategy by my boyfriend which helped him commit rape, I've had many men like Wel come to my blog and explain exactly why a variety of rapes don't count as real rapes and why certain rape victims had it coming.

In those explanations the other person's lack of freely given consent remains constant but something makes that reality no longer count.

I was calling these men out for specific premeditated actions and the responses you had a hard time reading were not based on any misunderstanding of my position.

It may help you to understand my point if you change the word "overcoming" to "defeating." You don't sound like someone who wants to defeat another person's lack of consent.

FRS tried to twist my meaning and I called him on it. He said that treating a woman nicely is a strategy of sexual assualt, I did not. Some men do use a veneer of niceness to get close to their targets and to then use it to justify why they are owed sex and why they can view her lack of consent as nothing more than a test which they will pass by continuing without her consent -- because females play "hard to get."

 
At August 24, 2009 11:02 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

For E(@mabtw):

I deleted your latest comment because of the personal attack against recursiveparadox. The rest of your comment was just a repeat including your false claim that only physical force counts as rape.

The problem is not that guys are trying to get laid. The problem is how too many guys are trying to get laid. Your claim that what you do is not a crime as long as you do not physically force yourself on a woman is provably false.

 
At August 24, 2009 11:02 PM, Blogger Wel Hung said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 24, 2009 11:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Marcella Chester

"Your claim that what you do is not a crime as long as you do not physically force yourself on a woman is provably false."

Really? you want to go down this road?

Have you ever heard of "Corpus Delicta"

It's latin... it means "The Body of the Crime.

In order to prosecute a crime, you have to establish the Corpus Dilecta.

The Corpus Dilecta consists of 3 elements:

1. Harm, injury or loss that was caused by an unlawful action.

2. Evidence linking the Accused to the Harm or loss.

3. A method for correction (Jail, fine, etc...)


In a case where a man "wears down" the womans "No" responce, and they end up having sex (When she eventualy says "Yes")

Where is the loss, injury, or harm?

Where is the Evidance?

(Sayso is not tantamount to evidence)

You see, you think you are doing something great, and grand for women's rights...

What you are actually doing, is attempting to mutate the law to define a crime as "Emotional" harm.

And you cannot PROVE emotion.

You are not looking at this from a legal perspective, so it is understandable why you are fighting for what you are.

Because you do not understand "Reason"

-E(@mabtw)

 
At August 25, 2009 1:14 AM, OpenID sweetchild92 said...

it's the sort of comments that have been left here (the hateful, misogynist ones) that make it really hard to think I can ever change a damn thing about the rape culture. I mean, goddamn, some of this shit is so triggering and overwhelming to read...

but amen to Ms. Marcella, I do not have the wherewithall to read through ALL the comments.

 
At August 25, 2009 7:49 AM, Anonymous Rach said...

Never has it been more obvious that those who defend coercive sexual dynamics are defending real material interests in the sexual availability of women. It demonstrates such discomfort with women's ability to interpret the actions of men in the way they perceive them and not how those doing them desire for them to be perceived.

If anything, the posts from commenters coming from Men are Better than Women help to clearly and concisely show the interests defended and the rationalisations of those interests.

Thanks for the blog Abyss. You're probably not told thanks enough.

 
At August 25, 2009 8:10 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

@ E(@mabtw),

Rather than proving your argument you have disproven it and provided me and my readers with your rationalizations for sexual assault.

So often victims of non-stranger rape ask themselves and counselors how a man who on the surface seemed like a decent human being could do something like that to them. You have answered their questions.

I'll show you why your defense fails to live up to criminal law in a separate post.

 
At August 25, 2009 8:20 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Sweetchild92,

I see these hateful comments as useful in the effort to stop sexual violence since they expose to many truly non-violent people the bitterness, premeditation and rationalization which goes into non-stranger sexual assaults.

These types of comments contradict the whitewashing efforts which present non-stranger sexual assaults as nothing more than innocent misunderstandings.

 
At August 25, 2009 11:38 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

I have now posted my response to E(@mabtw's)comment citing Corpus Delicta in my newest post.

 
At August 25, 2009 5:23 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Wel,

Enough of your women hating missives from Coos Bay, Oregon.

 
At August 25, 2009 8:37 PM, OpenID vagabondsaint said...

Thanks for clearing it up, Marcella, and I am very saddened that you had to suffer so many personal attacks in stating your position. They are more telling about the attacker than the intended victim, and proof that a lot of work remains to be done is changing attitudes towards rape and towards women in this country.

VS

 
At August 28, 2009 8:24 PM, Anonymous recursiveparadox said...

I linked this post in my blog here: http://recursiveparadox.dreamwidth.org/6104.html

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home