We have already had part of this debate recently on this site. I think the article gets into deep water when trying to look for answers in society as a whole for the problem of sexual violence. "sex must not be used to sell everything from cars to toothpaste to chocolate to magazines" says the author. While I might agree, I would not do so on the ground sthat using sex in advertising promotes attitudes that lead to sexual violence. I am not aware of any proof that this is so.

"But where popular culture is so imbued with (idealised) sexual imagery that many men and women conceive of their sum personal value in direct relation to their sexual attractiveness, there’s a problem.'

Again, while I might agree that there may be a problem with such a self image, I am not sure about the link with sexual violence. I thought that research shows that the essence of sexual violence is just violence. It is a sadistic desire for the perpetrator to dominate, humiliate and hurt the victim, rather than to violently seek sexual release. The means to prevent or reduce sexual violence are therefore much more complex than the article would have us believe.

Thought provoking article. The author raised a point I would like to elaborate on. Sexual violence in a committed relationship. She referred to a hand pushed away, man being persistent, woman giving in. Then woman allows herself to be used to satisfy the man. While this may not be a violent act physically it is an emotionally damaging one. Guilt is often the precursor emotion.

Conclusion, not enough good communication between the couple, and the expectation that the woman is there to serve the man. Ironically this expectation may not come from the man.

So in conclusion, women still need to work on themselves. Men will rise to the level of expectation. If a woman has self respect she will not be manipulated by guilt and will have the strength to say no and mean it. If women have self respect they will be able to recognise when they are in danger of assault before it happens in casual dating encounters. A woman who has self respect can recognize a creep because her radar is working properly.

On another front, men have a responsibility too. They know other men who do not respect women. They have a responsibility to pull their misogynistic buddy aside and educate him.

There is a danger here, I believe, of continuing to travel down a path as objectionable as the hypothesis of the article. That of regulated and mechanical humanism.

There was an issue in an American school, the details of which are sketchy to me at the moment, where all relationships were set out in detail complete with contractual understandings as to their responsibilities. The understanding was that with the acceptance of a date proposal the participants signed a charter of understanding about each other's responsibilities etc. Hopefully that has gone the way of the dodo but not before, I am sure, damage was done to the relationship skills of those that went through it.

The thought of a compulsory subject on sexual etiquette complete with bedside text references brings to mind a numbing blandness in place of the spontaneity in the exploration of intimacy. However, it would stop the problems associated with a post-coital emotional error of judgment, as you would never reach that point in the first place.

Sex sells many things in our society because it is a defining part of what we are regardless of the "It’s what sets humans apart" mantra that is a compulsory addendum to any discussion that argues a case for a mechanical and defined humanity. Sex even sells articles.

There is no doubt that respect is in dire need of revitalisation in contemporary society. We have long since done away with even the most basic of common courtesies in our everyday life because it has become dog-eat-dog and who gives a crap. From the courtroom to the shopping mall queue, we exist in, perpetuate and accept an adversarial lifestyle because the winner takes all.

There is no 'adversarial propensity off button' that allows us to isolate areas of our life because life is holistic. It is just one of the things that doesn't set humans apart.

I liked the fact that the author understands just how muddy some of the issues within a relationship are. In part some of the issues seem to be about power rather than respect in relationships.

When I read the example of the guy with the wandering hand I thought of another example of sexual violence which does not seem to get addressed. The story goes something like

"Imagine a couple in a long-term, committed relationship. He might start to touch her, she moves his hand away. He puts it back. She moves it, he won't agree to buying that new house with the big mortgage which she wants and she is unhappy so there is no way he is getting what he wants. She says no and will keep saying no and keep badgering him about the house until she gets it. He's angry that what should be a healthy part of the relationship can be used so wrongly but what can he do. He's not going to start cheating but sex and intimacy are very important to him."

How do we deal with consent in committed relationships when differences occur? When the decisions and choices of one so strongly impact on the freedoms of the other.

Is the hand that keeps going back any better or worse than the tongue that keeps nagging or the intimacy that is withheld as strategy? Its an issue that we need to be aware of and think about as we find ways to make healthy relationships. Not many answers here but hopefully some food for thought.

R0bert

Well there are some interesting issues here, perhaps not entirely viewed from an objective viewpoint. Sex sells things and there is no problem with that at all, a chicko roll wouldnt be as much fun without at least considering the fine work that the girls on the old nortons and triumphs do.
Yes, even motor oil can be brightened up in ther same manner.
Mysoginistic...I dont reckon, if so what about the "keep your knickers nice" campaign which is clearly aimed at the female market. Lets not get too uptight about things, Respect and decency would be far more important surely. As a male I've experienced intimacy that I wasnt fussed either way about, and my partner would've too. Sometimes people dont feel like cooking either, but do it for their partner.
There is no room for any grey areas with such a serious subject, its rape or it is not.
Consider that if theres grey areas of what IS rape there are also grey areas of what ISNT rape, in my opinion it would be a retrograde step for civilised society.

This is indeed a grey area.
She may say "Don't. Stop". He may hear "Don't stop".

Is mise.

And for the upcoming Aussie Men’s Day, I suggest the following agenda for the year:

Men demand that women stop their over-servicing with household duties or other inconsequential or unwanted services. We can do them ourselves when really needed, or pay someone to do them. Go and get a job instead and contribute equally to the mortgage, otherwise do not expect to own half the house just because you kept it clean. When you have sex, it will be because you equally want it and it will hold no monetary value for us. And if you have children – children you decided alone not to abort, children you will take with you post divorce or have brought from a previous marriage, any extramarital children, or generally all children you have total control over (i.e. your children), please do not expect a child support contribution any greater than your own contribution, and certainly no greater than half the actual, mutually agreed, direct costs

No means NO, it is as simple as that, if men cannot take NO for an answer they should be charged with rape, within marriage or not.

Robert's "big house" theory is a figment of most couples imagination, most couples I know are flat out feeding themselves and their families, let alone the woman bribing hubby with sex to buy a new home. This attitude in itself suggests sexism, as if the man controls the money, instead of both partners having equal input.

No does "cut it" as far as I'm concerned, if you are asked in a cafe, "would you like a coffe, madam?" and the answer is "NO" there is no "misunderstanding" NO means NO.

SHONGA,

I'm not talking about bribing, I'm talking about withholding something that should be part of an monogamous relationship to force a different issue. Quite different things.

We were flat out paying the bills to but the ex was so stuck in the making money by investing thing (and some prestige issues) that trivial items like cash flow did not matter much to her. Nor did she (and still does not) appear to feel much responsibility to contribute to the cost of her life herself, much easier to find ways of getting others to do most of the work. For the record I did a significant proportion of the inside housework and child care and all the outside work at home.

When both partners have equal input and one says yes and the other says no what decision do you make. In my view the decision goes to the one held most accountable for the decison - in my case the banks cared about my income and wanted my signature first.

I agree that "No" should cut it but it should cut it in other area's as well. That has to be balanced by a need for both partners to try and meet their partners needs, as The all seeing voice points out sometimes it requires more cooperation than enthusiasm (and I enclude visiting relatives, clothes shopping etc or whatever things an individual might not feel like doing but which are important to their partner in this).

I think that some people loose track of what it means to be in a committed relationship - it means moving some boundaries, loosing some control over your life, it means that your no impacts on another in a different way to the way it does outside such a relationship.

Try reading my original post again and take note that I make it clear that there are no solid answers there, rather a call for thought. I point out that there are other kinds of sexual violence in relationships than just not paying enough attention to "No".

R0bert

Robert,
There is one good answer, know your partner very well before you marry them. If there is a disagreement in the home and the wife witholds sex, that is fine, No stills means No. Remember it is not only Men who need sex, it is also acceptable for the man to withold it.

I understand your arguement mate, it is not one of consent or rape, but an arguement of wills, which should be determined long before a marriage occurs. If only couples would communicate with each other, and find out whether they were in love, or in lust before they tie the knot. Much too late to discover differences of opinion after the knot has been tied.

I have had one arguement with my wife in 15 years, we find communication easy.

R0bert

Your relationship problems were not about sex but about power. I have noted before that it would appear that your ex was very manipulative. There are many reasons for refusing sex, in your case it was about power. As it was in mine - after deliberately picking fault with me my former husband would then expect sex. And often just to get some peace I would lie back and submit - was that rape?

Shonga

I think I should point out that often the worst aspects of our partners are not necessarily obvious until too late. You are fortunate if you got it right.

As for the author's curtailing sex in advertising - I really don't see what difference that would make at all. I enjoy sexy men as much as the next woman (or man) and am prepared to tolerate those stupid Lynx deodorant ads if it means I get to see some male eye-candy. Attempting a Victorian-era style of cover-up and denial hasn't and doesn't work.

I know who had it right and that was the wonderful Aretha Franklin.

R. E. S. P. E. C. T.

For each other. It is a two way street one cannot expect respect without giving it. I have no hesitation in pointing out to my sisters if I think they are behaving poorly to the men in their lives. Although this doesn't happen very often simply because I don't associate much with 'user' type women. The same applies to men (as Patty pointed out) it behoves men to point out that using force (or manipulation) for sex is unacceptable.

Only when the sexes are more equal will rape become less of an issue. There will always be the criminal element. But for the majority of us the more empowered women are the less they are likely to use sex as a form of currency. And the more men accept women as fully human and not objects the less they will see sex as some kind of reward and more the expression of affection between two people.

IF we ban negros and muslims coming here we will have less rapes

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38

"Rape? Not exactly. Consensual sex? Not exactly."

I love that. Rape is used so casually these days. It can be used as a threat against men, holding them to ransom. This is especially the case when you here about convictions based on drunken state of the woman. If I went to sleep in a place where a rave is held, I certainly would not expect to be protected by a mystical shield of heavenly goodwill, where I'll wake up in the morning to find all my expensive electronics intact and not a scratch on my body. Nor would I talk smack while I'm drunk and expect nothing at all to happen to me and to be completely safe. If you talk smack to drunken thugs, put up or shut up, and take it on the chin, like a man. Another case of feminism driven by eternal victimhood.

And, of course, I'm NOT saying rape is acceptable under any circumstances. I'm talking about misconception and the victim mentality.

I believe you're absolutely correct Steel.

But I wonder if anyone noticed the coincidence of this article being published one day after International Women's Day (March 8th) on which this subject was pushed world wide in the world's media? There were literally hundreds of stories about the "shocking" and rampant rape of women on that day. And they're still popping up even now.

The rape issue is one of feminism's favourite attacks on men. The statistics, created from advocacy research - women's institutions and academies - try to create a rape hysteria in women and are highly questionable. Mostly the data are falsified and as Steel correctly points out that the term rape is defined so broadly these days that it can mean almost anything as indeed this article by Monika Kruesmann also tries to spin too.

About the most interesting event to emerge from the recent International Women's Rape-fest Day, was the announcement by Ms Tony Blair and his feminist-left cronies about a new £500,000 rape hysteria propaganda program to demonise and humiliate English men whilst corrupting laws to achieve a higher rape conviction rate -

Guardian
Government plans anti-rape campaign
£500,000 advertising drive aimed at young men.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1725945,00.html

It is interesting to note that only about 5% of rape complaints in Britain result in a criminal conviction. So ask yourself what's going on in the other 95%! And we're talking about some 12,000 complaints a year.

It seems many must be very confused about what rape is.

But then, might I suggest, there are a lot of vexatious and frivolous false allegations made against men from a lot of women confused about just what rape really is. In fact, about 95%!

Maybe we instead of "NO means NO" we should instead be using "YES means YES" ie. assume the answer is no until you are absolutely sure that there is mutual and sober agreement.

"YES means YES" is all very well, but it does not protect a man from a woman who changes her mind after the act. If a marriage certificate does not constitute any sort of standing permission for sexual approaches it could be that we should try something that covers a shorter periods – something akin to rental lease perhaps. Say a 3 month agreement which upon expiry, reverts to a monthly agreement until a cessation notice (effective immediately) is given.

I can think of a couple of problems with this though. Any sexual aggression may be difficult to prove before the notice is registered with the local constabulary, and secondly, this approach does nothing to address the main gripe of this article - asking or gesturing more than once may constitute emotional pressure approaching that borderline rape.

One thing left then - witnessed legal agreements for each and every occasion (let’s call these consent credits) with “orders by consent” made by your local court for repeat violators. A consent credit could be obtained at your local convenience store as you purchase the condoms. Doing it without consent credits, or with, but not meeting expectations in some way, violates the consent credit. Get reported more than once, and you are a repeat violator. Your condom purchases just got very expensive for the next 12 months.

Women should probably get half of any commission rates of consent credits, since they are the ones granting consent.

Ah, the Tyranny of Ambuguity... the backbone of a woman's manipulative power over man.

Agreed... NO means NO, except when a woman says she didnt really mean it. Of course that never happens and l am sure these words have already labelled me as a meesogeenasty man. Whatever.

Too complicated. Its easier to just avoid the initiation of sex and leave it up to the the woman. In which case she WILL get VERY dissapointed/angry over time at the unreal man in her midst. Par for the course.

Failing that, maybe men in general should start doing what USA lawyers have advised their wealthy male clients to do... have the woman sign a Consent to Sex Waiver. No ambiguity there brothers.

Now, if you want to be guaranteed sexual union, just ply her with gifts, deference, fawning, feed her insecurities, play head games (yours and hers) and generally do all the things that foster mutual disregard and eventual relationship failure.

The article reads like a typical manifesto... ALL CARE and NO RESPONSIBILITY.

trade, true for some but there are also some really good women out there who behave as adults and there are some guys who are as sick as the women you describe (and your description rang true on a number of fronts).

It's far to easy to mistake our own experience for the whole. The extroardinary incidents are the ones we hear about or remember most.

It's also to easy to get manipulated into turning some of these issues into wars between good people as we seek to tell our side of the story and for all the horror stories some of us can tell about sick women there are women who have horror stories to tell about sick men.

In the end what many of us want is a surefire way of spotting the sick ones then avoiding them like the plague.

Cheers
R0bert