Oh Crikey has drawn my attention to the type of programme Rape Crisis is running for students. It seems to me they are redefining what constitutes rape. Not legally of course, but by suggestion. Sorry if you find the following a bit off but this is an important subject. This is copied from the PDF file they use;
Is this rape?
Jo is a Year 13 Student at XX High School. She is at a party on a Saturday night. Jared is going to be there and she’s been trying to hook up with him for awhile. She’s wearing a short skirt, boots, and a low cut top –she’s sure to catch his attention –She looks great. Jo and her friends drink a few bottles of wine before
they get to the party and she feels pretty drunk by the time they arrive. At the party she starts talking with Jared, he asks if she wants to go up to one of the bedrooms –they walk up the stairs followed by comments from Jared’s mates as they close the door.
In the room they start kissing, and Jared is putting his hands up her top and down her pants, she likes it and starts touching Jared. Jared then takes off his pants and hers. Jo starts to feel uncomfortable and pulls back a bit, and pulls her underwear back up. She doesn’t want to have sex with Jared but doesn’t know how to stop it. Everyone at the party thinks they’re having sex, and she doesn’t want Jared to think she’s tight. Jared pulls her knickers back down and they have sex.
Apparently under students responses one says, "...I didn’t know the things I do are rape.”
What is your answer? I say no it isn't. Neither is it sexual abuse.
(Links still not working)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
So what does the 'need' to pose the question say??
"Jo starts to feel uncomfortable and pulls back a bit, *and pulls her underwear back up. She doesn’t want to have sex* with Jared but doesn’t know how to stop it."
I'd say thats bordering on unconsensual.. but then I'm a guy. They way I read it theres an element of force in there...
For a sexual encounter to be rape, there needn't be force, merely a lack of consent and no reasonable belief in consent.
This one would be pretty easy for a prosecutor: "Dude, you undressed her and then she was started to get dressed!"
This example, if such facts could be proved, fits well within the long-standing legal definition of rape.
Sexual violation by rape has a starting point of 8 years and a presumption of imprisionment.
Based on the broad facts above it seems defendable. Clearly there was no express non-consent (no means no does not apply). The prosecution would have to build a case around the pulling up of the knickers (and the tacit, notwithstanding Jo's inner-misgivings, approval of them being removed again) in the context of consented sexual conduct. There is no suggestion of criminal coercian on the part of Jared or any further actions that would (or should) led Jared to believe she is not consenting in the resulting sex.
Jared should argue that he believed on reasonable grounds that Jo consented to sex (s128(2)(b)).
For:
* She went to the party with a plan of, at least, getting to know Jared better
* She agreed to go to a bedroom with Jared
* She, at the least, new there was a liklihood of sex at this time
* They begin to kiss
* Significant groping - the facts suggest that there is consented sexual connection, masturbation and other touching
* Consented undressing
* No steps taken to stop knickers being removed
* No facts suggesting any lack of consent to the subsequent facts
Against:
* She put her knickers back on
On the other hand I think this scenario has some very good educational uses for both sexes.
For females the absolute right to say no should be reinforced. Perhaps strategies and approaches to reinforce this right.
For blokes - reinforce the need to be clear and read signals. If a girl puts her knickers on asking if she is ok and happy with what is happening would make sense. Even Not Guilty is gong to be an expensive and stressful situation.
GPT
I think you're missing the point. Reguardless of the legal ramifications, and the moral application of blame, the emotional consquences to Jo could be the same as if she had been raped. It is good for young men to understand that even though coercion may go unpunished by the legal system, the social consequences of this kind of forced consent by silence can be just as damaging as rape. It is also good for young woman to hear this kind of scenario, and to understand that it is necessary for them to be preprared to stand up for themselves. In a hypothetical situation such as this, the legal ramifications should be irrelevent. No-one should be under the impression that the only thing that matters is what a person can get away with under the law.
Clearly Rape.
He failed to obtain written consent on the appropriate MSD form.
Next case...
If you don't want to get eaten then don't temp the starving tiger...
While Jared needs to control himself as a human being is capable of ,Jo needs to realise and learn that she is the main cause of the situation she finds herself in and that its up to her to not put herself in these situations by giving cared the undoubted come on.
Maybe if women were made aware earlier in life just how strong the male sexual urge really was they would be better prepared to deal with it and not find out the hard way...
Mothers educate your daughters...
I think I see my problem. I was a young teenager in the seventies when resisting was the norm - whether it was genuine or not - successful or not.
I forgot (how remiss) there is no stigma attached to even casual sex now and so the male has to take any sign of non-consent as unquestionable.
What a revelation.
Anon 1. Love it Oswald.
Clearly I was wrong Lindsay ... interesting.
All your responses, aside from Oswald, appear rather naive about life & the art of gentle persuasion, & successive approximations that are the game of love - not proactive at all.
Obviously none of them would have got their first choice of partner.. 'they also serve who only stand & wait,' I guess, for that unambiguous declaration... & Edgeler is a lawyer isn't he? They are generally a far more worldy & accommodating group of folk.
Anon, What a delight.
There is a song, the lyrics of which roughly describe your sentiments. "Paradise by the dashboard light" Meatloaf.
A seventies song, naturally.
Anon 1.
Lindsay, you obviously know that if you maintain a reasonable talking relationhip with your kids they take on your 'world view' in large part ... even the errant ones tend to, despite themselves, return approximately to the 'fold,' if you like. i.e. they do become little clones of you. Soooo.... resistance is still endemic & it is entirely proper that it remains so ... proabably a relic of the 'protestant ethic' ... if something's worth having ... or something.
I've posted on this matter at http://anarchia.wordpress.com/2007/01/13/this-is-rape/
anon 1.
Gosh Lindsay, you're not held in overly high regard at all by the 'sisterhood.' Must say I'm surprised given the nature & tenor of your posts & extent of your conviction & action on certain topics -pursuit of betterment of all is probably a failing.
I think the reason that there’s any discussion about this is that there’s more than one meaning of the word rape. Rape is sex without consent. It’s also a horrible violent crime. predators that commit this crime should be locked up to protect the public and severely punished. Many people don’t think about degrees or types of rape. They hear the word and assume violent rape. The kind of action that isn’t about sex, but about hurting women. I didn’t see anything in the scene that makes me think Jared was violent, or that he wanted to hurt a woman.
cute little question raiser from rape crisis but unhelpful. I hope they are not accusing men of rape purely on the "facts" in that scenario
In the circumstances given no decision can be made.
Excuse the bluntness but did jared immediately pull her knickers back down and shove his cock in or did he respect her reluctance and engage in further foreplay before slowly and gently testing her willingness.
No means no is just so much bullshit. No so often means yes as redrag's anecdote over at dpf suggests
Take a look at the circumstances: we have a situation where a huge numbers of adolescents in NZ would be guilty of rape according to some here, and liable to a long period of incarceration at Her Majesty's pleasure. Or maybe the one's that don't get incarcerated are just lucky their partners for the night didn't have second thoughts. Her "resistance" was arguable after the initial hesitation. We have no information as to what interaction occurred between those two points and that is highly material to the outcome.
My wife read this and said "no way is that rape" and gave her reasons, which I agree with.
So preach from your high altar and lock 'em all up if you will, or allow reasonableness to prevail (as if it would if push came to shove in this PC world!).
The problem is that once these adolescent episodes are dragged into the cold light of day and people with an axe to grind in this area get involved, the guy's gone.
"If you don't want to get eaten then don't temp the starving tiger..."
I remember a certain Islamic religious leader saying something similar a few months back... something about uncovered meat?
DAVID wrote: "I remember a certain Islamic religious leader saying something similar a few months back... something about uncovered meat?"
You are dropping context David. In that case he refered to women who refuse to cover up according to Islamic code. In this case we are talking about a woman who climbed into bed with a man, fondled him and other than a very weak, easy to miss sign, went along with sex that she had participated in from the get go.
By the logic of the feminist left a woman can have sex with a man, consent to it, have him penetrate her, have the act reach the final seconds of climax, yell out "no" and if the man doesn't get his wits about himself instantly and withdraw he is rapist. The man is held responsible for such things but not the woman. Why is responsibility here only incumbent on the men? Are women too weak to be responsible for themselves? Are they too mentally confused to be responsible.
What is presented as "understand" and "pro-women" is condescending and demeaning. It treats women are irresponsible. There was a time when the law treated women, idiots and children on the same level. The theories here claiming that this is rape do the exact same thing.
James said,
"Maybe if women were made aware earlier in life just how strong the male sexual urge really was they would be better prepared to deal with it and not find out the hard way...
Mothers educate your daughters..."
which indeed is very laughable, but does he actually have any evidence to back up his claim of men's near-illimitable sexual power? And surely if our hero (Jared) suffers from this terrible sexual urgency, it would be unreasonable to expect him to moderate his appetites (i.e. to obtain consent).
And please tell us exactly what would be the "better way to deal with IT"? I'm not quite sure of what I should be telling my daughter.
And shall the same mothers tell their sons to "just stick it in anyway" if a girl who appears to want to have sex subsequently pulls her knickers up and acts uncomfortable, because, after all, she's a "cockteaser"? Will Lindsay, who is so concerned with teenage pregnancy, be passing on this gem of advice?
Furthermore, has no-one noticed that in this fictional scenario, the girl is actually trying to say no to casual sex? (Which those who are against the causalisation of sex might find commendable, no?
(Of course not, she's just a cock-teaser... Stick it in! the crowd cheers!)
Jeez, try an unwelcome schlong in one of your orifices one day and then tell me it's not rape.
Chuck makes the most sensible comment of this debate.
There is still another point nobody has addressed. She acquiesced. She gave into peer pressure, both intimate and broader. She let what other people thought override her own feelings. That is typical teenage behaviour. That is why the teen years are particularly risky. As usual the debate is really about people taking responsibility for their own actions, as touched on above by one of the Anons. This unwillingness to take responsibility demands more 'rights' and more law.
I think deciding whether it is rape or not is something we can do, but it won't do much to change the behavior as long as 7:32 Anon's point holds which is that not explicitly asking consent for things like kissing or sex or whatever seems to actually get you the girl (and asking can easily lose her).
Girls will just dodge the law abiders and the same amount of rape will go on and your law will achieve nothing.
Yes Lindsay: "She acquiesced" but then she withdrew her consent: she did not acquiesce.
Putting aside the question of law, which many contributors have above, what about Jared "taking responsibility for [his] own actions"? Whether or not he commits a criminal offence, is he not personally responsible for pressuring Jo into a sexual act that she was reluctant to enter into?
Chuck, I'm not sure I understand your scenario. Are you suggesting that "they" (immature women?) would believe that HIV infected persons should not obtain properly informed consent (i.e. disclose their HIV status) to a prospective sexual partner? I very much doubt that there are many people at all that would agree with such a position.
I guess it's in the way you read it. Reading it chronologically, she resists then has the conforming thoughts and then, when he tries again, acquiesces.
A lesson in absurdity.
Mother: "daughter, if you don't want to have sex with a man then don't be a cockteaser."
Daughter: "What's a cockteaser?"
M: "A cockteaser's a girl who appears to want to have sex with a man and then says no."
D: "But what if I think I want to have sex and then change my mind?"
M: "You can't do that."
D: "Because I'll be a cockteaser?"
M: "That's right."
D: "But Mum, I thought you were a liberal who believes that individuals have an absolute pre-legal right to freedom of association. Surely, if your views were logically consistent, I should be able to change my mind and say No."
M: "I am NOT a philosopher! Go to your room!"
Chuck,
you say,
"very good advice to give [your daughter] would be not to get involved in casual sex because I and other taxpayer[s] might have to pay for any mistakes. Or maybe you think young girls have a perfect right to get pregnant any time they like and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab."
Firstly, this comment makes little sense in the context. As you should be aware, my reading of the scenario is that Jo is coereced into sexual activity. That is, as I see it, she attempts to say No to casual sex (casual penetration, more accurately). So even if I gave the advice you suggest, it would be of little use here.
But, secondly, let me be charitable and (hypothetically) accept that there was no force in the scenario. You appear to assume that any "mistakes" (i.e. falling pregnant) that might result would be entirely the fault of the girl. Is it somehow inherently impossible for Jared to show enough personal responsibility (let alone respect for his sexual partner) to wear a condom? A logically consistent position would entail that, as a taxpayer, you should be as resentful of "Jared" as you are of "Jo." Or perhaps, to use a rhetorical device not unlike your own, you think abortion an easier method of contraception than the condom?
James said,
"Maybe if women were made aware earlier in life just how strong the male sexual urge really was they would be better prepared to deal with it and not find out the hard way...
Mothers educate your daughters..."
which indeed is very laughable, but does he actually have any evidence to back up his claim of men's near-illimitable sexual power"
I never said that Anon....what I said was the male sex drive is very strong and at its most eroused peak can easily over ride reason and thought.As a male I have been there and felt that...and Im sure the other guys here would be able to confirm what I said.
Mothers educate your daughters is just good sense.Even more valid is fathers explaining to their daughters what's going on in a mans mind and physiology when sexual release is in the offing and the blank out that can occur in their pursuit of that release.This is why fathers are very protective of their daughters "honor "as it were...they know what the young guys are thinking and feeling having been them once.
This all may sound rather primitive and blunt but don't forget nature made the sex act very enjoyable and easily ignited for a reason....to ensure we did it and continue the species...Identifying the fact that human males can get sexually fired up in a heartbeat and reach critical mass would go along way to ensuring females were well aware of just what they are getting into if they send out what are precived as very definate "go" signals.
James said:
"what I said was the male sex drive is very strong and at its most eroused peak can easily over ride reason and thought."
Common sense comment. And in the heat of the moment (or in "paradise by the dashboard light") are we expecting too much of an immature adolescent to make a critical distinction between coy hesitancy and implied lack of consent?
One results in a mutually agreed experience and the other results in a rape charge and jail.
As with much in life a healthy dose of serendipidity may be all that determines the outcome.
Tragic when you consider the life destroying consequences for one of the parties.
But then in the minds of some - all men are rapists.............
Chuck,
you are still being blatantly inconsistent:
"If a girl chooses to have [unprotected] sex with someone [who she hardly knows (irrelevant)] then why should I and other taxpayers be obliged to not only support the child but also her for the next 16 or 18 years?"
You should also say:
"If a boy chooses to have [unprotected] sex with someone then why should I and other taxpayers be obliged to not only support the child but also the woman he impregnates for the next 16 or 18 years?"
You have also misread the original post. It is Jared who invites Jo upstairs to the bedroom. It is he who starts groping her first. How do you then come to the conclusion that Jo intiates the sex?
"The chance of Jo having an STD would be relatively high."
How do you come to this conclusion? Apart from making an obvious base-rate error (the chance that any person has an STD is not relatively high) you also make the false assumption that any woman who dresses in a short-skirt is more likely to have a STD.
"On this planet men generally ask women out, pay or offer to pay, initiate the first kiss and later foreplay and sex."
Sorry, but things are not the same as they have been for thousands of years. Your account does not accurately describe the experiences of many young persons today, and certainly not the scenario in question. Thus parents who try to "educate" their children in the ways you suggest will merely be left floundering in the dark. They will promptly reject your ideas, and rightly so.
I'm having trouble understanding this "doesn’t know how to stop it" bit. Maybe I've just forgotten my long-gone teenage years, but is it really that hard to say "stop it" if you want him to stop it?
Chuck,
"People who engage in casual sex and have a lot of sexual partners obviously have a much higher chance of having an STD."
Yes, obviously. But there is no evidence in the text that "Jo" is such a person. "She" may be a virgin prior to the scenario; we simply are not told. You have no basis on which to form your assumption.
"When I was a teenager and in my early twenties a girl who slept around was known as a slut. A guy that had a lot of girlfriends or sexual partners was known as a stud. That may not sound fair but life is not always fair."
No, this isn't "fair", or as I would rather put it, a very inconsistent position. And my belief is that inconsistent beliefs and false assumptions ought to be challenged and corrected. I think many persons who contribute to this blog also believe this; otherwise why bother with debate? I also do not believe that the traditional view that excuses male promiscuity while condemning the female is held by most young persons today.
And yes, I STILL think you are being inconsistent in your allocation of blame in the case of accidental teenage pregnancy. The question of who should support the child in these cases is a much larger one, but I think it only rational to believe that both partners are equally at fault.
And Chuck,
just to point out another glaring problem in your style of argumentation:
"If a boy and a girl choose to casual sex - condom or not- and the girl becomes pregnant then why should I and other taxpayers be obliged to not only support the child but also the woman for the next 16 or 18 years?"
to which I could easily give your own riposte:
"That may not sound fair but life is not always fair."
you have to do better than that...
You're all missing the point.
She was intoxicated. Therefore, the law would say that she is unable to give consent.
If Jared knew that she was intoxicated, then it's his fault for having taken advantage of her intoxicated state.
If they were both intoxicated, it is possible that they both raped each other (but what attorney would bring such a case?).
What Jared should have done, once she pulled back and pulled her underwear back up, was STOP. Just because a man has a strong sex drive doesn't mean he is therefore unable to control it. She pulled back. End of story.
Post a Comment