tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post4766058693876673233..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: The Nitty-Gritty of Rape Culture, Part 1Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-54481893481210132432017-04-21T06:30:08.974+02:002017-04-21T06:30:08.974+02:00I imagine a similar scenario. In fact, the one you...I imagine a similar scenario. In fact, the one you describe looks a lot like one that I will be going through in part two from Norman Mailer's short story, "The Time of Her Time". The important difference is that the man forces the woman to have anal sex because he believes (rightly) that this is what will finally give her the orgasm she wants and he has invested his pride in giving her. She struggles and resists for ten minutes, but he keeps going. In the aftermath, there's no hint that either party thinks an assault has taken place, even though she is angry with him (for only slightly more complicated reasons).<br /><br />The parallel that I was trying to emphasise lay not in the objective fact of whether she says no, but in his subjective obliviousness about it being an assault. I agree that the situations are different; I guess the problem is that on Title IX's standard they aren't different enough.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-75001584652107160192017-04-21T02:14:31.495+02:002017-04-21T02:14:31.495+02:00I don't understand, or I disagree with, your p...I don't understand, or I disagree with, your parallel between 1) the story of the woman that said "no" but the man proceeded anyway, and 2) Title IX's elastic definition of rape as anything the survivor feels was non consensual at any time after the event. The two situations are entirely different. In #1, she is saying "no" at the time - expressing clearly, verbally, and contemporaneously with the behavior that it is not consensual and not welcome. In #2, she (or he, but it's generally she) can act consensual during the act, after the fact, even continue in the relationship and text him about how great the act was, and her desire to do it again soon, and still if someday in the future she decides otherwise, that for whatever reason she feels he had influence over her, or she feels threatened by his power over her career, then it couldn't have been consensual and he will be sanctioned by the Title IX machinery. Such scenarios are described in Kipnis' book. One hopes they are anomalies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-92224627073153959552017-04-21T01:57:03.277+02:002017-04-21T01:57:03.277+02:00Some thoughts on the linked video.
Kipnis is a be...Some thoughts on the linked video.<br /><br />Kipnis is a better writer than a speaker. <br /><br />The (black) woman in the audience doesn't hold the microphone, but she has the most interesting and succinctly expressed questions and comments. <br /><br />The (white) woman one row back holding the microphone struggles expressing herself, for at least four minutes, and presents a scenario which I imagine is as follows: a heterosexual couple has vaginal sex, but when the man initiates anal sex, she says "no" and tries to prevent it, but he forcibly has anal sex. <br /><br />The right answer is also the easy and simple one: the man should know what "no" means (unless as you imagined, he didn't hear it, but in that case, body language or another louder "NO" should do it). [ Those that might be practicing more aggressive consensual sex acts should have a safe word to turn off role playing. ]<br /><br />But these are tough issues. Hard to navigate. Your point is a good one that under Title IX he may very well get punished, but in the criminal justice system, he probably would not be tried, unless her anus was torn and his DNA was extracted from inside her. Even still, at the trial, the "he said, she said" would play out with respect to consent and when and to what degree it was revoked. <br /><br />Kipnis alludes to it, but it can be stated again. Part of the problem with the scenario is that the man wants something badly enough to take it by force. If he was in a loving relationship, developed over many weeks, his opportunity cost is high enough that he's not going to force anal sex, because doing so may end the relationship, which he is invested in. If he and she met via Tinder a few hours before going to bed, and if he's a serial jerk/assaulter, then he may take her by force. <br /><br />I recognize that "anal sex" is my own hypothesis for what the video does not name. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com