nina, why must a man who may be uncomfortable talking about what is going on learn a behaviour that is foreign to him, simply so that the woman doesn't have to learn a behaviour that is foreign to her and is self-protective? If the issue is of consent, why must the onus fall always on the man and not on the woman, given no coercion?

The constant conflating of rape with all sorts of other things simply dilutes the seriousness of a genuine rape. A woman who changes her mind half way through or simply accepts when she doesn't want to and says nothing in a normal relationship has not been raped: at worst she has put up with it for the sake of an easy life, at best she has selflessly considered her partner's needs. He is not a rapist if he thought she was willing. Women fake enjoyment all the time, I'm told, so how does a man tell if she's acting?

In all of this, it's always the man who is responsible, while poor helpless women are tossed by the winds and whims of chance and men.
That must be the "feminist" part of the approach, I assume...

A-septic

So... you can't tell if a woman is enjoying sex with you right?

Since when is asking "how does this feel" become "foreign behaviour"? Why should loving a person be so "uncomfortable" for you? And why would you not be concerned about the woman's pleasure if she was willing and had consented?

ninaf,

You may be right about the letter of the law Nina. Fortunately it isn't enforced that way - if it were rape prosecutions would be much easier to get. The woman would say she didn't want sex. All over, jail the man.

There seems to be no argument that if the man knows the woman doesn't want sex, and proceeds anyway its rape. You seem to be saying if the woman doesn't want it but the man doesn't know, then it is always the man's fault. This is so regardless if they women made reasonable attempts to let the man know, or not. I can see how women might want it to be that way, but equally I hope you can understand we men think you are being unreasonable.

When there is a failure to communicate, automatically blaming one party on the basis of gender is just plain unfair. And as I said, regardless of the letter of the law, society as represented by 12 of our peers, agrees it is unfair and generally refuses to prosecute on that basis. I presume those peers consist of 50/50 gender mix.

In other words, when Fractelle's says: "I just don't understand how it can be so confusing for some men on OLO that they can't tell if a woman is enjoying having sex with them and is not cooperating out of fear", she is being obtuse. Teenage girls often laugh at their male peers ability to read and interpret another's emotions. That compared to you women we men are emotional cretins is a fact of life. I can't believe Fractelle isn't aware of it - or you for that matter. Yet despite that when communications break down because of it, you women want to assign all the blame to us.

Fractelle

I just wanted to say I think you r really brave to have disclosed that and I also think you add something really valuable to the discussion here as you have offered a real insight into what rape really looks like. Hopefully your story will help people understand the dynamics of rape a bit more. the most common form of rape involved no violence, no weapon.

However in general, I am getting a bit sick of arguing back and forth about what my idea of consent and rape is so I'm gonna just lay this out there and hopefully anti will find it not too sexist;

whenever two (or more) people engage in any sort of sexual activity all individuals should take full responsibility to ensure that they negotiate the sexual activity with the other person and that they regularly 'check in' with the other person (through questions and statements like "does that feel OK?" "are you OK with this?" "I would like to try this, but only if and when you want to" "what would you like me to do?")to make sure that all activity is consenual and pleasurable. This is not about signing contracts, its abotu resepecting self and others. Men and women BOTH need to take responsibility for this and ALL people need to understand that their idea of pleasure may not be the same as another persons and also that expectations vary and so these need to be negotiated.

There is that a fair enough view of things Anti? I honestly appreciate you being willing to debate these things as I think they are important issues and my aim is not to 'hate on' anyone for disagreeing with me. Im trying to work out a definition that works for all here.

Ninaf

Thanks for your clear post. If the act of sexual enjoyment is one thing it has to be about communication.

I too tire of trying to explain what rape is, however I will try with the following guide:

It takes two to have sex and only one for rape as the victim is not a participant.

JamesH: <"So Pynchme, how does your oppressor know when it is safe to approach you?

Unfortunately the situation has occurred where a few elite academics/activists dictate what is or is not acceptable behaviour">

Haw! My "oppressor" and I have been together for many years. He doesn't seem to find me too scary:)

As to what is acceptable behaviour; just assuming that anyone is entitled to stick their bits into another person's body without that person's agreement, is not it.

I fail to see what's so complicated about that and what's more, I wouldn't have thought that decent thinking people would need a few elite academics/activists to point it out.

rstuart: <"It is, however, relatively easy to make a "no" explicit. It is not final, as the initiator is often expected to try a different branch on the path that might lead to a yes...">

This part of your remarks just dazzles as well - in a not good way. Not only is the females' default position to be always at "yes" - so that it doesn't need (in your opinion) to be expressed, but even if she says an explicit, "No" <- that is still not accepted as her position on the matter. In other words you just keep nagging until she gives in just to get a bit of peace. Grrrr

Have you ever been annoyed by someone trying to persuade you to accept something despite you having said, "No thanks". Can you think about how the more they insisted the more repelled you were by the idea of the - extra cake, last drink, religious magazine, whatever.

Now imagine that what they're trying to insist you have is something that's invasive of your body - say, a prostate exam. How accepting are you of the notion that the option is THEIRS and not yours; that your opinion on whether it's needed or not, is irrelevant - even by law.

Well the basic human right to say yes or no to what is done to one's body and by whom; is all that sex without rape or coercion is.