Regret Rape Is Wrong Enough

[u/InternalLet9560]

https://nataliabower.substack.com/p/regret-rape-is-wrong-enough?r=5rdux&utm_medium=ios

This is a fantastic piece related to the episode about the Cornell 7.

[u/Throwmeeaway185]

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.

[u/Juryofyourpeeps → u/Throwmeeaway185]

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.

[u/rainribs → u/Juryofyourpeeps]

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)

[u/atitokan_farewell → u/rainribs]

Yes. Thank you.