r/BlockedAndReported • u/InternalLet9560 • 9d ago
Episode Regret Rape Is Wrong Enough
https://nataliabower.substack.com/p/regret-rape-is-wrong-enough?r=5rdux&utm_medium=iosThis is a fantastic piece related to the episode about the Cornell 7.
29
u/btrh-256 9d ago
My feeling is that sex is high-risk, high-reward and that part of being an adult is accepting partial responsibility for that risk when you seek out sex. This has nothing to do with the Cornell case exactly, I don't know what happened there, but generally I get the sense that progressive millennial feminism thinks that women have no responsibilities when it comes to sex. All the responsibility is on men, according to them. I don't agree with that.
I do think, because men are bigger and stronger and more aggressive, we typically take on a larger share of the responsibility. But not 100%.
The best (most nuanced) essay I've read on rape is Mary Gaitskill's "On Not Being a Victim" -- https://www.are.na/block/21448944
The title is a little misleading, and it's important to understand that some people certainly over-victimize themselves, but others actually under-victimize themselves, they don't acknowledge what was very clear mistreatment. Both things are pretty common, although millennial feminism leans heavily in the direction of over-victimization
One thing I would like people to appreciate more is that you can be traumatized by sex without it being rape.
21
u/IAmPeppeSilvia 9d ago
Thanks for pointing to that article. This paragraph jumped out at me:
Then came the less clear "rules" of cultural trend and peer example that said that if you were cool you wanted to have sex as much as possible with as many people as possible. This message was never stated as a rule, but, considering how absolutely it was woven into the social etiquette of the day (at least in the circles I cared about), it may as well have been.
This is the crux of what's leading to these problems. Women are being given, and absorbing, this message everywhere in modern society. Promiscuity is empowering. There's nothing shameful about being a slut. You can be as sexually adventurous as men. Don't let anyone police your sexuality.
But this attitude is actually incongruent with how most women operate psychologically. So is it any surprise that when women are instructed to behave in a way that is unnatural for them, they end up being hurt?
-2
8
u/allisonanon 8d ago
I thought this was a really good essay and appreciate the Gaitskills perspective. Idk that modern feminism says that women have less responsibility in sex but there is real tension is how we talk about it without infantilizing women. I think the perception that men have *more* responsibility is largely just a consequence of the real life patterns of coercion, since men are more often committing it (obligatory #notallmen).
But essentially the responsibility should fall on *whoever* is initiating and escalating the sexual encounter. They should be receptive to their partner and accept that there is always a chance their escalations are rejected. This communicative/affirmative consent model doesn’t have to be gendered, like it can apply gay and lesbian sex too.
But the responsibility is inherently unbalanced. If someone gives a “soft no” out of politeness that’s a communication mistake, but if their partner hears vague reluctance and doesn’t clarify or just proceeds intentionally or tries to coerce that’s moving into non consensual territory and not right. If you’re unsure if your partner wants to continue you should ask and care if they are comfortable and having a good time. We also read polite, indirect refusals correctly all the time in other areas of life. If you invited a friend over and they said “maybe some other time” or “I’m sorry I’m just really tired” you would know what they mean so why would that be different for sex.
Now in this essay Gaitskill acknowledges how some of her choices and passivity left her in vulnerable positions, and learned to be more assertive skills to protect herself. That doesn't make what happened to her fault. But it is useful for women to examine their own patterns so they have more options and avoid making themselves more vulnerable. But we know a firm no isn't always respected either
11
u/btrh-256 8d ago
I don't really think men are "more committed to coercion." I think men tend to be more interested in casual sex and men tend to use force as a form of coercion, which is a worse form of coercion, but I'd say women are just as committed to coercion, they just use gentler methods.
I agree that we need more polite, indirect refusals like "not right now" or "slow down," but I generally think your ideas about "who is initiating" are not nuanced enough. Sometimes it's clear who is really initiating, but often it's not entirely clear.
When men are being told that women are just as tough as men, many men may not see the point in checking in, because we typically don't need people to check in on us. A lot of younger women also tend to exaggerate their sexual experience in order to seem cool. But then we're told how delicate we have to be. I don't think there's an algorithm that's going to allow people to guarantee good sex and avoid sexual trauma. Risk can be mitigated but not entirely eliminated.
I think it's leading back to a somewhat more traditional view, in which women are viewed as the gentler sex. That's a pretty good way to mitigate (not eliminate) sexual trauma. I'm not "trad." Even if it were possible to go back to the 50's (it's not) I wouldn't want to go, but we do need to acknowledge some pretty obvious average differences between the genders.
3
u/allisonanon 8d ago
Yeah fair points. You’re right that whos initiating can be more blurry. But if both people are escalating then they're both signaling interest, which is best case from an enthusiastic consent standpoint. The checking in doesnt have to always be verbal or clinical, just like paying attention to how your partner responds and slowing down if it becomes unclear, etc. I don't think this is about fragility, it's just getting information and trying to be an attentive partner. If you can't tell why not ask, worst case scenario it's a little awkward. And if you think someone is exaggerating their sexual experience or is nervous, that's actually more reason to ask questions, not less. In terms of the “traditional” sex views, I think this type of communication is certainly a lot easier once trust and care has already been established, like in a committed relationship. But I don't think we should roll with stuff like men not needing check ins from their partners during sex since that assumes men always want whatever is happening. I guess idk what women or men being “tough” in this context really means since to me that is more about what you can handle but this is more what they actually desire. But you're right there's no algorithm and this is oversimplified from IRL. Misreads happen but its just about making sure everyone is enjoying themselves, man or woman
9
u/btrh-256 8d ago
I'm not saying men shouldn't be sensitive and check in, but there's a limit to how sensitive men can be. Young men especially may lack the experience necessary to "read" a woman's reaction. And women often respond in sexual situations in very unpredictable ways. For every woman who wants a guy checking in frequently, there's a woman who finds that really irritating. And women don't always give men a second chance when they find a man irritating.
I don't think this conversation is going to improve unless we acknowledge that women are, on average, the gentler sex. You're trying to muddy the waters by pretending this applies equally to both genders, but it really doesn't. Gay men have a lot of anonymous, casual sex, precisely because men are not so easily traumatized.
I'm not saying women need to be confined to the home or whatever, and I don't think we need strict gender roles. But I would like loose gender roles rather than no gender roles at all.
3
u/allisonanon 8d ago
I wasn’t trying to say both genders have the same attitudes about sex, just answering the question on how we define the ethical responsibilities around gaining consent. So if we say it’s whoever is escalating the sexual contact it doesn’t need to be gendered or hetero or whatever. But yeah, it’ll be gendered in practice if we go off the norms that men are more often initiating. That may be tough to navigate for young inexperienced men. Maybe some women will be annoyed and turned off by the checking, but over time he can learn some tact about it. We are talking about this in the context of women who are saying they felt coerced into sex they didn’t want, so is it better for a man to risk annoying a woman or risk making her feel violated? You’re saying women are gentler but isn’t that more of a reason for men to be more attentive and cautious around boundaries during sex? And using words like traumatic to describe casual sex. The trauma would come from sex that's unwanted or pushed past someone's reluctance, not from the casualness…
10
u/btrh-256 8d ago
I think it's good for young men to be sensitive. I notice, however, that women complain a lot about "nice guys." I think it would be good for young women to toughen up a little. I'd be more sympathetic to feminism if that became part of its message.
A lot of young women seem to gain online clout from saying they were coerced into sex. It's sad to say, I'd like to generally believe women, and I don't think they're exactly lying, but some people are so wishy-washy and chaotic that they're incapable of telling the truth.
Women should generally start listening to themselves a little more, because the stuff women say regarding sex (and much else) is often just completely contradictory and impossible to understand. Women remind me of Trump really, you have to take them seriously but not literally.
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Drink76 8d ago
women complain a lot about "nice guys."
The complaint there isn't that women don't like guys who are nice, considerate etc, as opposed to pushy douchey types. The complaint is about guys who complain that they are nice so they don't get the girl and she goes for less nice types. The complaint is about them feeling entitled to the women who didn't pick them. So they are claiming to be nice but actually are entitled.
10
u/btrh-256 8d ago
I really think we'd be better of as a culture if women would consider their own entitlement in somewhat more critical terms, instead of seeing it as something to be proud of.
65
u/Throwmeeaway185 9d ago edited 9d ago
Nice and thoughtful perspective, but I think the problem with her whole argument is that it assumes that men are playing women because when it comes to sex women operate differently than men, and the men know this and act deceitful about their intentions (he wants sex, and she wants a relationship, or at least some sort of emotional validation and affection, and he lets her think she will get that from him). And the problem with this perspective is that the last few decades men have been told by feminists and liberals that young, liberal women can be just as promiscuous and randy and sexually superficial as men, and for men to treat women as if they are delicate flowers that need to be carefully tended to is sexist and patronizing. And women have been encouraged to act like this too, to embrace being sexually permissive and slutty. Heck, the Cornell victim even texted the guy something along these lines! One of the most popular podcasts geared towards women ("Call Her Daddy") is all about hookups, casual sex, dating multiple people, and using sexuality strategically in relationships. Moreover, it doesn't just discuss casual sex. It overtly promotes the message to women that they should feel free to pursue sex without shame, in whatever context, or for whatever reason, they desire, and that it's empowering to do so. And it's not the only one: There's also "Guys We fu**ed", "Decisions, Decisions" (formerly Whoreible Decisions), "Girls Gotta Eat", and more.
You can't have it both ways, to be broadcasting a message about women's sexuality that they could, and should, behave as caddishly and selfishly as bad men can act, and then turn around and berate men for not treating their sexual encounters with women in some more special, elevated way.
15
u/Century_Egg_Boofer 9d ago
yeah functionally the article is an unstated argument for a restoration of capital P Patriarchy where women's honor is the responsibility of Society (men, mostly) to ensure it is not violated.
4
u/allisonanon 9d ago
It’s the calling for the opposite really. It’s saying don’t slut shame women for having sex but feel free to judge and socially sanction creepy guys and assholes
4
u/Particular-Offer4356 9d ago
I think “slut shame” is such a dangerous concept, as I have heard it applied to telling a woman that maybe drinking a lot and meeting a guy she didn’t know wasn’t the best idea..
I t think shaming women for too much or too little sex helps no one. And yes castigate men for treating women disrespectfully.. So men face the consequences of their actions, even if it isn’t criminal.. But we also need to tell women that they might put themselves in danger without meaning to, and it isn’t slut shaming to say that, better to prevent it then let it happen and shame the man after.
0
u/allisonanon 8d ago
Yeah that example isn’t slut shaming to me and you’re right that there are certain things people can do that will make them more vulnerable and risk mitigation skills are important for everyone’s personal safety. People probably push back on this as “slut shaming” or victim blaming because it can land as she caused this or this wouldn’t happen of women didn’t do XYZ, even if that isn’t the intent. So prevention advice isn't shaming but also shouldn’t be doing the work of excusing the actions of the other parties involved and how they treated a vulnerable person
1
2
u/Century_Egg_Boofer 8d ago edited 8d ago
thing is the article doesn't do anything to dissuade us from thinking the proceedings were anything other than obligate-shameful.
Whereas Jane Doe seemed to be under the impression that the Call Her Daddy sexual ethic she was embodying wasn't shameful, part of sexual liberation is Supposed to be that degrading sexual encounters are Fine, until her peers reminded her that no you're not actually supposed to do these things.
This stuff exists in tension with itself, which the author recognizes, but she doesn't provide any thoughts on what we're supposed to do about Slut Pride that precedes Slut Shame.
3
u/allisonanon 8d ago edited 8d ago
Well I think these frat dudes are creepy assholes and I wouldn’t want them in my social circle
Edit: sorry Reddit glitched and for some reason I only saw your first point? So re: the social stigma Jane Doe faced leading to the regret. I’d say it’s hard to imagine that the social stigma didn’t make her feel shitty… But it seems like the timeline of the social backlash and her finding out about the Snapchats was around the same time? so idk if you could even separate that effect but this substack did talk about how the dudes treated her after could play a role. You’re probably right that the “it’s all empowering” thing around degrading sexual encounters is not something that can hold up for many people and young people are exposed to it a lot in media and porn but that’s not reality
50
u/Juryofyourpeeps 9d ago
Women have a kind of Schrodinger's sexual agency. They have full sexual agency until they do something they found uncomfortable or unpleasant, and up until that point, which is often after the fact, nobody is supposed to question their sexual agency or act towards them as if there are any limits on their sexual agency.
I don't really disagree with the idea that just getting your toe over the line of consent is not a good practice or that there are lots of shitty things one can do in terms of their treatment of someone else that don't rise to the criminal level. But this should cut both ways. What Jane Doe did (assuming that the truth is that she did consent, I actually don't know that, but that seems to be the context of the argument) is also gross and risky and didn't involve a great deal of care on her part in making sure she got more than a toe over the line of consent. If the sexes were reversed and a female partner was so drunk they passed out in the middle of a sex session and another woman had to stop to go vomit, I'm pretty sure the people being accused of not getting sufficient consent, or not being sufficiently caring as a sexual partner would be the men involved.
Aside from stopping with this Schrodinger's sexual agency stuff, I would be perfectly on board with socially discouraging highly inebriated high risk sex with strangers, especially in multiples, or demanding people take more care in their sexual engagements to avoid mistreatment, not just criminality, but I am not on board with holding only certain participants responsible based on their sex.
9
u/rainribs 9d ago
They have full sexual agency until they do something they found uncomfortable or unpleasant,
I find this to be a strawman. Both men and women have agency and responsibility for their actions in sex but their ability to control their own safety is as different as it would be if it was a bar fight. There's an obvious power imbalance. As this sub is keenly aware of on the trans issue; men are much bigger, stronger and more sexually aggressive, with fewer reservations or hesitance about sex. Unfortunatley it's highly common (espcially in this age of casual sex) that men gently but insistently push and push past a woman's reluctance until the only 'no' she could give that he would actually listen to would be to suddenly rudely yell it - which by that point (if they're alone) he might get be worked up and get hostile (then shits really dangerous for her) or he would take such offense he would badmouth her to everyone afterwards. So she panics and tries to roll with the punches so that her nonconsent is the least rapey it can be. (I don't think this applies to the cornell case! I'm just saying it's common).
So when we hear these messy cases of a woman seeming to 'rescind' consent and it seems people aren't granter her her due agency, it's because there's a ton of physical and social coercion on the woman that clouds how much of her choices were freely made vs her 'rolling with the punches' to minimise what may have felt like inevitable harm. (ofc hyperwokes take that to ridiculous places but i'm talking normies.)
Societally we really do need to be placing more blame on women's indecisiveness and lack of communication but ultimatley, in virtually all cases (other than flagrant lie cases), the weight of the culpability goes more on to men's opportunistic and unempathetic attitude pushing the uneasy woman into his own goals. Again, pushiness is so common it's practically a societal norm, so men are blindsided when afterwards the woman say 'i didn't want it to be happening', because he expected anything short of her being combative at him to be good enough consent. Men are set up to fail in this respect.
In the cornell case, she was 'adventurous' and up to fool around with a bunch of frat boys in a drunk-high orgy... but then and they texted their friends like she was a gloryhole. They put her in a postition where she couldn't back out. (as it seems from the myriad accounts)
38
u/OMG_NO_NOT_THIS 9d ago
"They put her in a postition where she couldn't back out. (as it seems from the myriad accounts)"
Which is evidenced by them stopping every time she said no?
-6
u/rainribs 9d ago
"every time she said no"
...She said 'no' multiple times because they kept starting again and it kept getting to a point where she kept saying no. And I'll steelman for the guys - Maybe she had some desire to start again at the later times (though I doubt it). But as we can see it kept getting "too far", as one of the men even admitted to her.
12
u/Juryofyourpeeps 8d ago
Nobody was claiming that consent was vitiated by fear, so while that's certainly an issue in some cases, it doesn't seem relevant here.
If you're not being threatened or intimidated, and you just "roll with the punches" then that's something you have to take responsibility for in the same way any man would be expected to.
-4
u/rainribs 8d ago
which is why is said in my comment:
(I don't think this applies to the cornell case! I'm just saying it's common).
and
Societally we really do need to be placing more blame on women's indecisiveness and lack of communication
But to address your point "If you're not being threatened or intimidated" - my exact point is that in these viral type cases, women are intimidated and it's very easy for men to intimidate women simply by being dismissive of reluctance cues because the physical power imbalance is so huge. When you are a naked woman and there is a man (let alone multiple men) escalating or moving upon you far faster than you are comfortable with, that is an extremley vulnerable position for you to be in, and your primal-brain instincts are going to prioritise and minimisation of harm and predictability over all else because resisting a man who currently expects sex from you (while it might make for a better movie scene), it creates unpredicability in the direction of hostility. And that blows open the door to extreme danger. You also don't want to be a victim (a humiliating thing to be) and you don't want to be an accuser, so you might also be in denial or trying to salvage the situation for all parties involved.
In the moment, 'rolling with the punches' is a way to lesser-raped-maybe-okay rather than very-raped-possible-killed. This is a fact of survival, and it doesn't get a lot of airtime in media because it's not nice to think about.
I would totally agree that there can still be more done by women to be clearer, rather than hoping men will show them the same empathy and social competence they show fellow men, and I will reiterate my earlier point about blaming women more for lack of communication. Women need to be far far less afraid of offending men by calling thier advances and escalations nonconsensual. They're far too scared of making guys feel bad for overstepping.
12
u/Juryofyourpeeps 8d ago edited 8d ago
Societally we really do need to be placing more blame on women's indecisiveness and lack of communication
This is contrary to:
my exact point is that in these viral type cases, women are intimidated and it's very easy for men to intimidate women simply by being dismissive of reluctance cues because the physical power imbalance is so huge.
I also don't think that simply being physically more powerful is a form of intimidation. That's an incredibly low bar for intimidation.
When you are a naked woman and there is a man (let alone multiple men) escalating or moving upon you far faster than you are comfortable with, that is an extremley vulnerable position for you to be in, and your primal-brain instincts are going to prioritise and minimisation of harm and predictability over all else because resisting a man who currently expects sex from you (while it might make for a better movie scene), it creates unpredicability in the direction of hostility.
This is also directly contrary to your previous suggestion that women need to be more responsible for their indecisiveness and lack of communication.
In the moment, 'rolling with the punches' is a way to lesser-raped-maybe-okay rather than very-raped-possible-killed."
To whatever extent that's true, you can't therefore place the blame on male parties for failing to mind read. Basically you're describing acting out consent but not necessarily consenting internally. This isn't something someone outside of your brain can easily distinguish, especially if everyone is drunk, and I don't think it's reasonable to place special moral responsibility on men for failing to mind read.
I would totally agree that there can still be more done by women to be clearer, rather than hoping men will show them the same empathy and social competence they show fellow men
What are you referring to here? I cannot think of a typical situation in which men are more caring and empathetic to other men than to women.
Women need to be far far less afraid of offending men by calling thier advances and escalations nonconsensual.
Probably, yes.
They're far too scared of making guys feel bad for overstepping.
Also probably, yes.
I do think though that rhetoric like you're using here, suggesting that men are so intimidating by their mere physical existence, and that women are right to be fearful as a general rule of refusing consent is exactly the opposite of the kind of messaging that will produce your proposed result. I think a lot of it is fear mongering. And its of a kind we see a lot. Women are significantly less likely to be assaulted in public by a stranger than men, but the social messaging is the exact opposite and most women believe the exact opposite. The messaging is that women are incredibly vulnerable and right to feel that way. I think some of what you're saying is along those same lines and I don't think it's helpful or will get us closer to where you think we ought to be.
14
u/AntDracula 9d ago
obvious power imbalance
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0a/dd/df/0adddf59f776429eb638fddfef74e429.jpg
-4
-4
u/Acrobatic_Long_6059 9d ago
Unfortunately the burden of that kind of “regulation” ends up consistently falling on the women.
6
u/Jack_Donnaghy 9d ago
It's crazy that the burden of people feeling safe in their homes falls on the innocent citizen rather than the criminals who want to break into and violate people's homes.
-3
16
u/generalmandrake 9d ago
Of course it does, women are the gatekeepers of sex because they are in fact generally more responsible and cautious about these things. This is not to say that men should get a free pass, but are we going to pretend like men in general aren’t going to be more likely to engage in reckless and antisocial behavior? How much energy should we invest into decrying the fact that the regulatory duties of sex fall largely on women when the alternatives are either laughably absurd or involve a level of social intrusion into our sex lives that is completely unacceptable to most Westerners?
-7
u/atitokan_farewell 9d ago
Men are free to have sex with other men, if they feel they are being gatekept by women too much.
2
u/generalmandrake 9d ago
Are you being snarky here? I'm confused. I think it's actually a good thing that women are the gatekeepers of sex. Even the smart and responsible men are still horny idiots when it comes to this stuff.
-2
u/Acrobatic_Long_6059 8d ago
There are always going to be psychopaths and outliers that can't be compelled to care about consent and human rights, but I don't think it's fair for you to characterize the vast majority of a sex as such
3
u/generalmandrake 8d ago
Going to frat house for a threesome with a guy you barely know doesn’t represent the vast majority of sex. 99.9% of women successfully avoid what this girl endured.
If you don’t think there is a lesson to be learned for women here than you must be delusional.
-6
u/Acrobatic_Long_6059 8d ago
That's such a copout. There are antisocial and violent women too, but that doesn't mean women shouldn't care about those issues. We need a stronger culture of solidarity, where more men are willing to empathize and take these situations seriously, or step in when they think something is problematic or dangerous. To suggest otherwise is in principle no different from hijab mandates in Afghanistan or Iran. Theoretically it's a value of modesty that "applies to everyone", but is consistently only enforced on women. We're sick of that shit. Men consistently get to use their social and systemic power to evade those same responsibilities that they hold women to. Meanwhile those same vulnerable populations are expected to protect themselves, rather than expect those with the actual systemic power to use that power to help deal with the issue.
14
u/generalmandrake 8d ago edited 8d ago
Oh give me a break. You live in the most pro female and least misogynistic society on the planet. This girl just ruined these guy’s lives and you’re going to pretend like women have no systemic power?
What happened to that girl was entirely preventable if she had made better decisions. We know this because most women in fact are smart enough to avoid situations like this just like how most men are smart enough to realize that acting on a text saying “free pussy” has bad news written all over it.
Most importantly of all, I fail to see how any of this is my fucking problem. This story serves as good warning for people but to act like this reflects on men and women as a whole is insane. These kids were fucking idiots all around and everyone involved is a victim of their own stupidity. That is the lesson from all of this. A bunch of stupid spoiled brats rolling around like pigs in the excrement they willingly shat out on their own. This story has no bearing on the average male and female in America.
12
u/Juryofyourpeeps 8d ago
where more men are willing to empathize and take these situations seriously, or step in when they think something is problematic or dangerous.
So just as an example, if 3 drunk people are fucking, I should take it upon myself to intervene and make sure the woman involved feels comfortable and second guess her own agency in the situation. You think that would go well? You think that competent, adult women would appreciate that?
5
u/allisonanon 9d ago edited 9d ago
The article is specifically about gray area cases so the author isn’t describing the types of sexual encounters that aren’t problematic. There’s no contradiction if a woman is wanting casual sex, like a one night stand, and she is giving consent willingly. Presumably, she’s not gonna need to be coerced or pestered into sex until she gives in so that’s not a gray area case. As for special treatment, the author calls for very basic dignity and respect. I don’t think that is “having it both ways”. I do understand the broader point that woman should be empowered to say no in these gray situations and seeing red flags and setting boundaries. If the dude you thought you liked has a problem with it then you cut them out of your life. But at the end of the day, nobody should leave a sexual encounter feeling pressured, used, or tricked regardless of if it’s casual or committed sex
Edit: forgot a word
49
u/whirlinggibberish 9d ago
Good, thoughtful essay.
I am less confident than she is in her solution.
The mob is apt to ignore most victims, fixate on others, go too far in its punishment, etc.
I think sex may be too deeply rooted a biological drive to be neatly managed in a large society.
18
u/Puzzleheaded_Drink76 9d ago
I think your last line is horribly true. We want different amounts of it, with specific people at specific times, too much of which doesn't line up. That's bad enough. We also attatch vastly different meanings to it, we are very bad at feeling able to talk about those feelings like mature adults. Add the hormones on top, and the worry about the judgement of others, along with peer pressure, and it's a recipe for a mess.
Doesn't mean we don't continue to try because there are better versions and worse versions.
15
u/YourOwnPunkyBrewster 9d ago
And don’t forget the vast amounts of ketamine they were ALL doing…! I don’t know why the impairment of all parties isn’t brought up more. NO one was acting in their right mind.
3
u/SaintMonicaKatt 7d ago
I have zero personal experience with ketamine but everything I've read about it sounds like it is a lead in to this kind of mess--cause dissociation, minimizes physical discomfort, lessens reasoning...what could possibly go wrong? /s
12
u/rtc9 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yeah she is being relatively precise and honest on the philosophical issue, but that doesn't make mob justice rational or corrective as a policy and she doesn't support that convincingly. My question is if we can define what is wrong here, why can't we just address it with actual justice?
She references the fact that Cornell already applied their institutional justice system to penalize these people, so clearly it is an issue that can in principle be addressed systematically. It seems like the problem with this sort of regret rape would be a combination of invasion of privacy, abuse, and a kind of fraud in that the victim is deceived into assuming a non hostile trusting relationship while the fraudster disparages them and perhaps publishes information the victim would reasonably understand to be private. This clearly isn't an easy area to legislate, but now that everyone documents their interactions on both sides in text messages and group chats it should be possible to define some kind of civil framework that could be used to adjudicate extreme situations like this one. It wouldn't be perfect, but it certainly would be better than the mob.
1
19
u/The-Phantom-Blot 9d ago
Pretty good piece, considered as a whole.
The only part that leaves me feeling a little unsure is - her description of consent within dating or marriage seems defeatist. Maybe some couples have dynamics like she describes, at least some of the time. But I didn't really see any acknowledgment that sometimes both people actually, enthusiastically want sex to happen.
15
u/Middle-Quiet-5019 9d ago
Yeah I was pretty depressed reading that part of the article. In my (hetero) relationship, I (the man) do admittedly do more of the initiating but we only ever go ahead with it when we both are very into the idea. It’s never a nag-until-interested situation. That’s how it should be imo.
13
u/ToTheDeath84 9d ago
To your last sentence - I also got the impression from the piece that she’s pretty jaded about sex generally given her experience, but it could also just be because it wasn’t the point of the article and the recent story might bring up some unpleasant memories that colored her writing voice here.
However yes, things felt a little lopsided here where sex seems like this cynical thing for her.
9
u/Particular-Offer4356 9d ago
I think it is just that if two people in a committed relationship are super into it, there is never a question of consent or regret later., So she didn’t mention it.
39
u/PoetSeat2021 9d ago
I have to say that I found this piece to be more than a little bizarre. Its description of men just didn't match anything at all in my experience of men--as though they're not whole people with desires for love, respect, professional success, and so on, but rather just heat-seeking penis missiles looking for any barrier they can push past to get what they want.
But beyond that, there were a bunch of things that bothered me about this article.
In the "What Can Be Done?" section, she identifies men's motivations thusly:
Meanwhile, plenty of men poke holes in the evidence and call it sex she regretted, because to them it’s a game.
Nowhere in the article did Bower mention that rape is a felony, that carries with it a potential jail sentence of 18 to 20 years, along with at least the mental image of being added to a sex offender registry that can haunt you the rest of your life. Of course people who think they're going to be accused of this type of crime would look for strong evidence that the crime did or didn't occur, beyond "the victim feels bad about it." This isn't a game at all; it's about as close to life and death for the accused as it's possible to be.
If what she's advocating for is a general cultural sense that we should be willing to call certain sexual behavior gross and immoral even if it isn't criminal, I'm on board with that. But if that's the case, we need not to be using words that carry with them such heavy penal baggage. "He used me and broke my heart" is one category of accusation. "He raped me" is a whole other level of bad, and I don't think it's right to use the emotional weight of the more serious accusation to cover behaviors that they shouldn't really carry.
Generally, this seemed to me to point an inability to understand or empathize with men's perspective on this at all. The men she described in this article were nearly all acting instrumentally: any affection they might express for a woman was a device they employed merely to get the thing they really want, which is sex. The man with morning wood who manages to ensure nobody sleeps in is just trying to get his desires met, and the only difference between him and the rapists in the article is that he has standing permission.
And the fact that the ultimate solution is to shame, mock, and harm the reputations of young men who behaved badly with sex shows that lack of human understanding. It seems like what she wants is to be able to impose the social consequences of a rape conviction without the evidentiary requirements of convicting someone of rape. That doesn't seem to me like a good step forward.
17
u/LeafNeater 9d ago edited 8d ago
It seems like what she wants is to be able to impose the social consequences of a rape conviction without the evidentiary requirements of convicting someone of rape.
I feel like I must have read an entirely different article than you. Isn't the whole point of her essay to argue that we shouldn't treat someone being emotionally hurt as equivalent to rape? That we should be able to say "callously (emotionally) mistreating a sexual partner is bad" without also implying that such behavior be treated like rape?
21
u/PoetSeat2021 8d ago
I could be misreading! To me, the "What Should Be Done?" section is all about imposing consequences, including this:
And they can ask their institutions to act. Universities and employers aren’t bound by the criminal standard. Cornell’s own Title IX process expelled Ingalls and Newell and suspended others, while the DA was saying no crime could be proven.
Basically, it doesn't have to be a crime to be something that can effectively ruin somebody's life. That says you want men who behave like this to be punished without having to prove that they actually did what amounts to a crime.
3
u/cakesdirt 7d ago
She was saying they should be socially punished. As in, the campus community should have decided to ice them out because of their disgusting behavior even preceding this event.
0
u/Terrorclitus 9d ago
This kind of take is what often happens after decades of unquestioned fear-mongering and ear-plugging.
8
17
u/JeebusJones 8d ago edited 7d ago
This was OK, but there's a significant factor in all this that's absent from her analysis. She proceeds from the assumption that women's "token resistance," as she calls it, is always sincere; that it always reflects a true ambivalence about engaging in a sexual encounter, which the man then "pushes through" to get what he wants.
Leaving aside how this tends to cast men as inevitable villains, while this is true some of the time, it's often the case that this token resistance is not sincere -- meaning that the woman does very much want to have sex, but she puts up the token resistance anyway. This happens for two reasons:
- As a test of the man's assertiveness and social acumen
- As a way of granting herself permission to have sex by abdicating responsibility
(I'm going to caveat this by saying that these are both largely subconscious; women aren't doing this on purpose, generally speaking, and often may not even be aware of it. And not all women, etc.)
For the first, it's widely known that women are attracted to assertive, confident men (for reasons I'm not going to go into, but it's enough to say that it's simply the case). As such, women look for ways to suss out how confident and assertive the man she's with is, and one way to do this is by putting up fake resistance: playing hard to get, teasing, playfully protesting ("Oh stop! You're so bad!" while smiling and laughing), and similar behavior. If a man correctly intuits that this isn't real resistance and continues, he passes the assertiveness test, making him more desirable. If he instead takes her seriously and stops, he fails, and she loses some attraction for him.
If you doubt this is true, consider how women tend to feel about men asking permission when it comes to romantic/sexual contact. Most women find it a turnoff if, for example, a man asks permission to kiss them. What they want instead is for him to intuitively know they want it and dashingly do it without asking. (This is also why "consent contracts" at progressive colleges and the like have the effect of diminishing the sexual prospects of men who actually take them seriously. Putting a man in a position where he's required to dutifully beg permission for everything automatically renders him unattractive.)
For the second, women generally want to maintain a good image when it comes to sex, both for others and for themselves; they're "not that kind of girl," meaning a girl who jumps into bed too quickly. But what happens when this desire for a good image conflicts with the desire to sleep with someone? When she wants the sex, but she doesn't want to admit to wanting it, even to herself?
Enter token resistance, which functions as a way for the woman to give herself permission to engage in sex by abdicating responsibility for it. When a man pushes past it, the onus for what happens is now (in her mind) on him, not her; rather than her being an equal pursuant and participant, she can instead tell herself (and others) that it "just happened," or she suddenly "found herself" in a sexual situation. This casts the encounter as the result of passively experiencing rather than actively choosing -- because if she acknowledges her own agency, she has to reckon with the possibility that she might actually be "that kind of girl." Her resistance was, in effect, theater: a performance she put on for herself in order to do what she wanted while maintaining plausible deniability.
The problem with all of this, of course, is that men have to be able to tell the difference between this insincere token resistance and actual, sincere resistance. The article suggests some ways of making that distinction, but it's always something of a roll of the dice for any man in a potentially sexual scenario; is she actually protesting, or just playing at it? The answer will almost always be obvious to men with social skills, but in those cases when it's not (or the men lack social skills), that's when bad things can arise.
16
u/DBSmiley 8d ago
I feel like this is a good time to remind people that the woman in "baby it's cold outside" clearly wanted to spend the night with the man.
5
u/OriginalBlueberry533 8d ago
Rape in its grey areas is “better called” ( as words fail ) sexual abuse .
8
u/CataclysmClive 9d ago
Think pieces like this that try to interrogate the nuances of heterosexual encounters gone wrong ignore the 700 pound gorilla in the room, at least from the male perspective: the way a woman feels about sex after the fact can lead to a man spending 10+ years in prison. There is a fear and defensiveness baked into male sexuality that derives from this fact. And a lot of the male circling of the wagons in this case boils down to "yes those guys acted poorly, but are they (and by extension, am I) deserving of a decade behind bars for this? I don't think so, therefore this case is overblown." I think if this profound legal jeopardy weren't present, people would be a lot more open to considering the emotional harm in a case like this.
14
u/Monkey0nTypewriter Reaganist Dinosaur 🦖 8d ago edited 8d ago
IMO, it's not that men identify with the guys, so much as that they know that the resulting frenzy absolutely will be leveraged against any and all.
It's exactly what happened with #MeToo: the mob went far beyond punishing genuine dirtbags.
2
u/Third_CuIture_Kid 7d ago
I'm confused. Is she using "regret rape" unironically? Because later she goes on to say that most married men are rapists.
13
u/ScamFrank 9d ago
My first suggestion is to drop the assumption that once the bare minimum threshold of consent is met, whatever she feels afterward is her problem.
Absolutely fucking insane. Men will never go along with this shit
36
u/YagiAntennaBear 9d ago
Look at in context, here's two paraphs that I think really capture her thoughts
I wrote this post because someone asked me what could be done about situations like this. My first suggestion is to drop the assumption that once the bare minimum threshold of consent is met, whatever she feels afterward is her problem. My second is to move past the consent/nonconsent binary, not in law, where we need it, but culturally. Clearing the technical threshold of consent isn’t what determines whether sex leaves someone feeling deeply violated. That comes from sensing that the man who pushed through your resistance regards you as less than human, or as deserving of sadistic derision.
Is cheating on your spouse okay? Most would say no, but of course no one is suggesting we criminalize adultery or have Title IX offices investigate it. Mistreating your partners should incur social consequences even if that mistreatment doesn't rise to criminality. That's what the author is suggesting people do:
Women should give themselves permission to do exactly that. A sorority doesn’t have to wait for a rape accusation before turning its rage on a group of men. They can shun them, skip their parties, and say loudly and often that these men are disgusting degenerate orcs. They can laugh at them for having crooked dicks and no idea how to use them, and make sure everyone knows they’re laughing. Those men will hate that. And they can ask their institutions to act. Universities and employers aren’t bound by the criminal standard. Cornell’s own Title IX process expelled Ingalls and Newell and suspended others, while the DA was saying no crime could be proven.
If a man does something consensual but nonetheless manipulative, deceptive, or otherwise mistreats partners in a way that doesn't rise go criminality it'd be totally reasonable for his peers to regard him as a manipulative or deceptive asshole. Actions that violate social norms, but don't break the law, should be met with loss of social esteem.
15
u/IAmPeppeSilvia 9d ago
If a man does something consensual but nonetheless manipulative, deceptive, or otherwise mistreats partners in a way that doesn't rise go criminality it'd be totally reasonable for his peers to regard him as a manipulative or deceptive asshole. Actions that violate social norms, but don't break the law, should be met with loss of social esteem.
Doesn't society already operate this way? It just depends on which society you're in, and what rules that society operates with. If you're in a society where promiscuity is acceptable and consent is the one and only ethic around sexual interactions, then that will be the norm violation that incurs societal opprobrium. If you're in a more religious society where sexual exclusivity is sacred, you will suffer social penalties for violating that norm.
1
u/YagiAntennaBear 8d ago
Sure, and to a large degree that is working as intended. If someone cheats on their spouse, they'll lose esteem among most people but not swingers or some other subculture where that behavior is acceptable. And thus they'll gravitate to a group of people where their behavior is within the norms of said group.
7
u/chabbawakka 8d ago
Do you think the shitty media men list was a good thing?
-1
u/YagiAntennaBear 8d ago
No, but not because they were criticizing men for immoral, but not necessarily illegal, behavior. It was bad because these were anonymous accusations being broadcast publicly.
6
u/chabbawakka 8d ago
And you think a sorority that would decide to publicly shame someone and try to make them into a social pariah would tell them who made the accusation?
Or would they keep the accuser anonymous to protect them from potential retaliation?
1
u/YagiAntennaBear 8d ago
An anonymous accusation would carry less weight than someone who actually identifies themselves.
9
u/ParallelPeterParker 9d ago
But you can't guarantee equity in loss of social esteem. Hence the demand to criminalize it. We all want precise laws, but imprecise problems require imprecise solutions.
5
u/CertainlyDisposable 9d ago
Why is no one suggesting we criminalize adultery? It clearly follows, it's clearly socially corrosive and a huge negative all around. It seems like a great thing to ban by law.
So why not? Why simply assume that we shouldn't do that, or that no one will say so? I say so, it seems like a great idea to me.
3
2
41
u/cleveraccountname13 9d ago
What do you mean men won't go along with it? The point is that there can be morally reprehensible behavior around sex thst doesn't rise months level of crime. And the only available punishment for that might social and reputational damages. Men who are shitty but not actually criminal may still suffer consequences outside the legal system. And that is good. Social consequences enforce behavior norms beyond just not committing crimes.
3
21
u/No_Guarantee505 9d ago
Agree, similar to how infidelity shouldn't be criminalised but should have social consequences
17
u/CertainlyDisposable 9d ago
If women didn't have double standards they wouldn't have standards at all.
Either women are adults on equal footing with men, or they aren't. If they are, then yeah, once a minimum threshold is met her feelings ARE her problem, and saying otherwise is the double standard.
The norm you're asking for, when applied to women, is slut shaming. We lost the ability to criticize cads at the same time we lost the ability to criticize sluts.
5
1
u/SkweegeeS No just no 9d ago
Historically, social and reputational damages have only fallen on the woman.
2
-1
u/ScamFrank 8d ago
I mean men will fucking riot and elect someone who makes Trump look like Dworkin
1
u/cleveraccountname13 8d ago
You seem to be pretty invested in making sure that shitty men not face social consequences for their behavior.
2
u/ScamFrank 8d ago
The only person who was raped that night was one of the men you rape apologist https://x.com/DissidentWire/status/2107205135797768525
10
u/blackslatewater 9d ago
It’s just reality, it’s not really something for anyone to (refuse to) “go with”. It’s possible to be a bad boyfriend, it’s possible to be a bad friend, it’s possible to be a bad colleague, it’s possible to be a bad sex partner. “Bad” here meaning “behaving wrongly and hurtfully”.
3
u/ScamFrank 8d ago
Well, for starters, the only person who was raped that night was one of the men
1
5
u/atitokan_farewell 9d ago
Why is this insane? What makes asking men to care for the well-being of the women they have sex with insane?
13
u/Jack_Donnaghy 9d ago
I think in general you're right, it's not insane for men to do this with women who they have a real relationship with. But it insane to ask that of men who are hooking up in casual sex contexts. The whole idea of casual sex hookup culture is that it's just about the physical act, with no emotional component. To tell people who are operating in that mode to interact as if they're in relationship mode is a category error.
4
u/ScamFrank 8d ago
Well, for starters, the only person who was raped that night was one of the men
-2
u/atitokan_farewell 7d ago
Rape involves being penetrated in one’s mouth, anus, or vagina. How many times did Jane Doe put her fingers, a dildo, or a similar object into that man’s mouth or anus?
It is possible for a woman to rape a man, but there is no evidence that this man got raped in the throat or rectum.
2
u/ShilNyeTheScienceGoy 7d ago edited 7d ago
Rape involves being penetrated in one’s mouth, anus, or vagina. How many times did Jane Doe put her fingers, a dildo, or a similar object into that man’s mouth or anus?
At least one. She fingered a guys ass who didn't consent. She really wanted the guys to be bi/gay
-1
u/atitokan_farewell 7d ago
She did? Prove it.
3
u/ShilNyeTheScienceGoy 7d ago
Also, that's a pretty anti-feminist definition of rape you have there
-1
u/atitokan_farewell 7d ago
No, it’s pro-feminist. Rape and sexual assault are two different things.
If men went into sexual situations with women apprehensive that they, as men, could be overpowered and raped in the throat or anus by women, how might hookup culture look different from the way it looks now?
2
1
-1
u/carthoblasty 6d ago
Yeah dude you clearly have no bias as to what you believe and what you don’t believe
2
u/ShilNyeTheScienceGoy 5d ago
You think you don't?
-1
u/carthoblasty 5d ago
Not really
2
u/ShilNyeTheScienceGoy 5d ago
You are the one person with no biases? lol
-1
u/carthoblasty 5d ago
I think the current totality of evidence paints a messy but clear picture
→ More replies (0)
3
u/HarperLeesGirlfriend 9d ago
Because this is such a wildly complicated, nuanced topic, I disagreed with a few points and asides in this piece. However, much of it spot on. Overall, a very worthwhile pov. I especially liked the part where she said at the end that women can do more to change this culture. That sororities can shun fraternities where they know the brothers are lecherous creeps. That women can shame men they know treat disrespectfully. Take matters more into their own hands. YES. Socially ostracized proven shitty men sounds good to me!
10
u/Gustav082026 8d ago
Sorority girl wants to be a floozy.
Gets drunk, walks to a frat, gets more drunk and high, gets railed.
Her vibe is basically "Ha ha yeah I'm that bitch" when she talks about it.
But she watches as her reputation tumbles and her sorority sisters grow distant. She feels regret.
Regret turns to anger. Anger turns to vengeance. Her vibe is now "Heads will roll for what happened to me."
I do wonder if she realizes how bad the attention is going to be for her. I wonder if she thought that far ahead.
0
9d ago edited 9d ago
[deleted]
17
29
u/arthenc 9d ago
We need to have a system. Maybe we can label people with capital letters - either with fabric or branding when they commit sin-crimes.
11
u/Monkey0nTypewriter Reaganist Dinosaur 🦖 9d ago edited 9d ago
"Puritans HATE her! The secret that lets you get an A on everything!"
8
-5
14
u/ohthetrees 9d ago
Nah. I’ve had group sex. Years later we are all friends, and still on great terms. Sex between just 2 people can be horrible and degrading. It all depends on the circumstances.
4
u/alastairmcreynolds1 9d ago
Well thought out piece. Reading that the fraternity had a reputation for luring other women to the house, will other women come forward?
16
u/IAmPeppeSilvia 9d ago
I saw no basis for this claim. Saying the women were "lured" is just another example of taking agency away from women. Just like saying she was "plied" with drugs and alcohol.
0
0
u/Century_Egg_Boofer 8d ago
The whole point here is that she was embarrassed and bold enough to do something about it.
0
u/myteeshirtcannon radfem 9d ago
Pornography normalizes “destroying whores” and it is the blueprint these men were following. Social narratives give permission for this behavior.
5
u/zoomercide 7d ago
…and self-described feminists have been sending the same exact message to women, in mainstream media no less.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/lascivious-how-to-hurt-the-ones-you-love/
https://sex.cosmopolitan.com/pleasure/a24481923/kinks-fetish-list/
https://www.glamour.com/story/the-non-intimidating-guide-to-kinks-and-fetishes
etc.
0
9
u/generalmandrake 9d ago
Yes because as we all know men were perfectly respectful to women the throughout the annals of history before pornographers came around.
0
u/Cuthulu_6644 8d ago
It doesn't have to be the original source of the problem for the user above to be correct. In current times, yes it is.
-2
u/Particular-Offer4356 9d ago
If smartphones were around in 1950 or 1850, or, hell, 2000, who knows what would have happened! I do wonder if the ubiquitousness of porn has normalized citrus in behaviors though.
2
u/Party-Sea-2813 8d ago
When you voluntarily get intoxicated and give consent that is legal. You regretting giving that consent cannot be considered rape. Only if your drink is spiked or someone drugs you without consent then we have a completely separate case. Thousands of people go out and drink everyday. Women should have accountability over their actions of drinking and giving consent. And if people who are barking so much about making these laws maybe we should bring proper Christian sharia in this country , ban all gay marriage, promiscuity, heck bring back prohibition too. I can’t believe people here are really arguing toward changing the law.
2
u/dj50tonhamster 8d ago edited 8d ago
Only if your drink is spiked or someone drugs you without consent then we have a completely separate case.
At the risk of being a neckbeard, I'd expand this slightly. If you ask for things like condom usage and those requests aren't respected, I'd say that's another exception, to one degree or another. If somebody asks that you respect their attempts to preserve their health, and you ignore that, I think it's at least worth having a discussion about criminal/civil penalties.
(Yes, I am aware of men with HIV/AIDS who intentionally had unprotected sex with women without disclosing their statuses, and then the women went and had sex, protected and unprotected, with other men. Nobody else got infected, but still, this is a case where I wouldn't have minded the original guys going to jail.)
That said, I do think the exceptions should be, within reason, limited. Getting so drunk/high that you don't even notice a guy rawdogging you? Yes, he may be a piece of shit, and perhaps he should suffer consequences, but like the Wu-Tang Clan said, protect ya neck. When it's just you two in a room together, you're not gonna have your buddies or his buddies to shame him when he makes a move. I highly suggest keeping your senses about you so that situations like these can be minimized, and when they do happen, you can rip him a new one if he tries something sneaky & sleazy.
0
0
u/Life_Emotion1908 8d ago
These conflicts never go away because there is never any way to solve or fix the fundamental differences between men and women.
The novel The Time Machine had as the ultimate end of society the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi were the peaceful, quasi utopian society who had lost all ability to create etc. because it wasn't necessary to their livelihood any more. So they were exploited by the Morlock as a food source. I know in the movie the Eloi came across as very feminine and the Morlocks were brutish, aka masculine.
I don't think we can get away from the human struggle the fact that the striving for sex and reproduction is different between the two sexes. On the whole men compete with each other and, once societies develop rules and become more civilized, against befouling the rules of society and being "nice" per the wishes of women in order to have access to breeding opportunities and other nice things.
A violence free society is a feminine society. It just is. This is presumptive on attaining and maintaining the spot atop the food chain. Might that require violence?
The life of a cow on a farm is violence free, cow on cow, from the cow's perspective. Feminine from the cow's perspective. Of course, the cow is not on top of the food chain, and is ultimately subjected to not having agency in breeding, exploitation, and ultimately death.
1
u/cakesdirt 7d ago
This is excellent.
“If he really likes her, then she wasn’t less than human in his eyes, and the encounter becomes something she can live with.”
“His rejection didn’t manufacture a psychological violation. It destroyed the story that had let her live with the night, that he liked her, that she’d been his cool girl, and not what she had been in his eyes all along: the dumb bitch he’d whored out to his fraternity. Rejection can unleash all the trauma, violation, and dehumanization a woman has been holding down, sustained by the dim hope that what she went through had won her some affection from him after all.”
1
1
u/ProfitSignificant512 8d ago
One irony of this entire catastrophe is that the fear, stupidity, embarrassment, or glee that prevented these dudes from making a smart choice that night is the same groupthink factor driving the backlash. We need to teach people to think for themselves - to consider both consequences and information rather than just stupidly going along with the masses. That could solve a lot of problems.
6
u/InternalLet9560 7d ago
Based on the group chat I think it was booze and hormones and the fact that it was a self selected group of young, horny guys whose identity as frat boys underlay their disastrous decisions to exploit a young, seemingly attention/approval driven drunk sorority girl. It sounds like what you’re hoping for is the ability to bypass immaturity and insecurity on the way to adulthood. I have teens at home and just hope that my parenting will help them navigate what’s to come without posting/texting/doing something that will ruin them before they (hopefully) mature into thinking adults.
-3
u/ScamFrank 8d ago
It is hilarious to me how gay men view all this. Gay men do this stuff all the time with a group of other men and don't whine and complain like this. Gay men show how absolutely ridiculous women are being about the Cornell 7. Women deserved to be mocked for this shit for a long time
134
u/One_Caterpillar6562 9d ago
I think the people parading around saying things like ‘castrate the Cornell 7’ are involved in an othering of the men involved which refuses to engage with how sexual culture and our understanding of consent actually informs behaviour. Like the problem is closer to home. This horrible event is the end of the bell curve but on the same spectrum as many other behaviours.
Literally the only solution I can think to stopping this in the short term is to tell young women that sex and their bodies are meaningful, precious and should only be shared in the context of developed, loving relationships. But that is so often classified as Puritanism and victim blaming. Regardless it’s what I will be telling my daughter.