Can't win for losing

There is a park near where my parents live. It's a beautiful place--there's an open, grassy area with a large circular path and a couple of playgrounds adjacent to it. There are wooded areas with small creeks. The place is bordered by a church and residential homes. I went there for walks when I came back from Japan and was staying with the folks.

Usually, I stayed on the path on the open, grassy area. It's safer, you know. There were people all around. There was no place for people to hide, the better to jump unsuspecting walkers.

It was just safer.

And then one day, I got sick of walking out in the grassy area. Yes, it was nice, but it was also a hot day, and I wanted some shade. I wanted a change of scene. I wanted to explore the park some more. And so I did. I made a turn and followed one of the paths into the woods. And at the small creek, I sat and listened to the water and breathed the air.

Then, I heard a snap behind me. Two guys seemed to come out of nowhere and the only thing I could think was oh god what have i done i'm all alone here and out of pure reflex, I got up to leave.

"Jesus, what's her problem? I showered today."

Well here's the problem.

Being trusting can mean peril. Most of us know that. Those of us who don't know it, or who forget it for a minute, or who make a bad judgement call may find they got lucky. They may find themselves in a horrible situation--namely, rape or assault. And if that happens, they are quickly used as examples of What Not To Do, the perfect argument to put the rest of us in our place.

My first date with a previous boyfriend ended with a peck on the cheek at the front door of my building. Some people I knew asked why I didn't invite him in, and I said it was because I didn't know him that well. "Well, you don't want to be paranoid," they said, and they're right, I don't. Problem is, I didn't know if he was an okay guy or if he was just a good actor. If he was just a good actor, people would have asked what the hell I was doing letting him into my house when I barely knew him. If we had a drink or two, it would have gotten worse--what was I thinking? Didn't I know enough to be safe? I'd get both the slut charge and the stupid charge, all in one setting.

Pseudo Adrienne has a lot to say about this:

When we list whose to blame for the attack and crime, we list everyone, including the victim, but rarely–if ever–the attacker. Or he’s at the bottom of the list and is portrayed as the least responsible for the attack. It’s the "we can’t help what guys do, but women should bear all the burden when it comes to prevention of sexual violence," mentality of our culture. Rape Culture 101; guys are entitled to get sex on demand, to sexually harass, commit sexual assualt, and rape. And it’s all your fault if it happens to you. Guys can’t help themselves after all.

Amanda puts it succinctly:

The possibility of being raped is such a huge factor in our lives that most women don't really go a day without taking precautions, usually multiple ones. I walk to my car at night with my keys poking out from my knuckles in case I have to blind an assailant. I lock my doors at night and make sure the windows are bolted. When I walk down the street and a man hollers at me, I go stiff and make sure I have something heavy to hit him with if he makes good on his threat. But I refuse to be so paranoid that I won't be alone with a man I trust, though statistically speaking, that's the most dangerous thing I can probably do.

We are already aware--painfully aware--about the dire consequences of talking to strangers, leaving a bar with a man, accepting a drink from a stranger (which was just fine not too long ago), walking alone at night, walking alone during the day, walking alone, oh, the list goes on.

Trust me, we get it.

What I don't get is why it is we are man-haters for holding men accountable for sexist behavior, for rape, for assault, and for battery. I don't get why the "men-can't-help-themselves" contingent don't see their own contempt for men. Men are animals? Men are too base and stupid to control themselves? If that's the case, why on earth are they allowed out on the streets--following this logic, they should be kept indoors to protect us from them (and them from themselves).

Jake Squid, on the Alas thread, has some harsh words for men who claim they just can't help it and are dogs:

Maybe I’m just unimaginably far from the norm, but you guys seriously creep me out.

Other people who have pointed out that no, they don't just smile at and talk to strangers for safety reasons had the same reaction. Man-hater. Paranoid. Not all men are like that. How dare you stereotype them.

Then, when someone smile at a stranger, talks to him, walks alone at night, invites a date in for a nightcap, accepts the offer for a drink, we look at her behavior if she's raped. Because, you know, the onus is on her to prevent rape, not the rapist, who made a choice to force his will on someone else. The onus is on her to hate men, think they are scum, and treat them like criminals. But if she says out loud that she's afraid for her safety and therefore takes precautions, well, that's bad. We mustn't ever admit this--we should just do it.

Feminists are decried for being frigid and sex phobic, but there's more than just a little projection going on here. Being with a sexual woman means never having to check for consent. It means it's okay to drug and rape her. It means she has bad judgement and shares some responsibility in what happened. Even though she would be pilloried for frigidity in the house of mirrors that passes for logic when it comes to men's entitlement.

What I'd like to know is why we're supposed to be the ones taking all of these precautions when we're not committing the crimes. Every time you hear about a series of rapes, women are exhorted to stay indoors, don't go out alone, don't go out at night (and too bad if you work the night shift).

Yeah, on one level it makes sense--people have to take precautions. Even I rolled my eyes at the Natalee Holloway case (where we assume she must have been raped). First because it happens here and happens to all sorts of women, but most cases garner little concern. Second because--and I'm not proud of this--I did wonder, "What were her parents thinking?" Until my mother pointed out that my sister went on a similar trip (but sans chaperones) at the same age of 18. The age of legal adulthood.

Look, I get just as irritated as the next person when friends insist on putting themselves in potentially dangerous situations, when they act like I'm some sort of paranoid prude for saying that leaving with this guy you barely know, moving in with this woman you've known for all of two months, traveling two hours for a date, is maybe a bad idea. But get it straight--if anything did happen to someone I know, I wouldn't go off on how stupid their choices were in the guise of exploring how they could avoid rape or assault in the future. I'm not immune to being unwise or trusting. I have yet to meet anyone who is.

We look for someone to blame, and it's never the guy who made the choice to rape.

Comments

[Ravenmn]

Oh, hell, another incredibly progressive man has been scared off by my amazing abilities to confuse and contort his purely innocent messages. How can I survive such a cruel world?

I shall endeavor to carry on.

Brian, your comments about police escort services are an interesting topic that was widely discussed when I was in school many long years ago. A lot of us came from environments where the last person you would turn to for safety was a lone police officer. Not all cops are bad, of course, but even one bad experience can destroy any hope of trusting "the system" again.

We had an escort program that relied on women escorts (with radios and back-up systems) who worked in pairs. But it was a ton of responsibility for volunteers who were working full-time jobs or going to school full-time and up to their ears in other activist work. Eventually, the program died out from sheer exhaustion. But when it worked it was awesome.

Hiding from the world from fear is no way to live. And discouraging people from exploring the world and living their lives is no help -- it is, in fact, yet another attack.

Yet, in fact, it is the way many of us feel we must live. Or if we dare to live fully and without fear, we are blamed the second anything bad happens to us. Or, as Girard's post indicates, it is assumed that we were never taught the basics of personal safety.

In my future and perfect world (under the righteous leadership of Sheelzebub, of course) the male and police escorts would be reserved to "escort" the predators while the rest of us will romp and play in all hours of the day and night.

[Brian Vaughan]

I took some flak on Alas, a Blog some time ago, for complaining about the police "safety programs" and escort services I remembered from college. A lot of people said, and reasonably I must admit, that there were a lot of times they'd wished there'd been some sort of escort service available to them.

However, what always troubled me about these programs was that they seemed all about indoctrinating fear, and insisting that the counter to that fear is complete reliance on established (and overwhelmingly male) authority.

For instance, in one of those safety seminars, a young woman talked about how she was worried that despite many arguments, her roommate would insist on sticking aroung after a lecture to talk to the professor, which meant that they'd miss the shuttle bus to their dorm, and would have to wait fifteen minutes for the next shuttle. The police officer advised her to stay inside the building.

What's the net effect of telling young women, again and again, that they dare not go to a bar, or walk by themselves, or even spend a few minutes talking to a professor?

Hiding from the world from fear is no way to live. And discouraging people from exploring the world and living their lives is no help -- it is, in fact, yet another attack. That's part of what's wrong with the "blame the victim" business.

[Sheelzebub]

Geez, I do the whole Father's Day thing and get some work done, and I miss the whole darn kerfuffle.

I was instantly angry. Not at my then wife. But rather at the inherent unfairness of the whole thing. What man could reasonably be expected to divine when any given woman's protestation of "no" is intended to be interpreted as "yes"?

Mind you, this was an article in a woman's magazine, written by women and intended for women... and supposedly compiled from women's sincere feelings on the subject of cross gender relations.

Kevin, I give no cred to these magazines, which buy into the archaic and funhouse-mirror views of sexuality (nice girls don't, or they do under these circumstances, men always do, blech). Quite a lot of them are either run by men or by women who made it by playing into these archaic ideas. They are owned by corporations that aren't all about accuracy in reporting or critical social commentary.

Which I think is the crux of it--the women I know who have bought such magazines do it for pure escapism--to look at the clothes or hair, to laugh over the incredibly stupid quizzes, etc. I wonder how many indignant letters to the editor they got (and if any got printed).

Those magazines aren't "for" women. They are for the fashion industry, for advertisers, etc. The articles are based on what the editors and publishers think is true, think women want to read, think women believe, etc.

(Flea at One Good Thing had a hilarious take on an article in O Magazine about how to treat men--she tried it out and her husband thought she lost her mind.)

If you want to get angry, get angry at the distorted views of sex foisted upon people depending upon their gender. Get angry at the attitude that some women really mean yes when they mean no. Get angry at the ignorance of the article.

But don't be angry because an article had you think that some women expect you to read their minds.

Sexual assault aside, who wants to second guess everything someone says? Forget that.

[Kevin]

Well ladies, here's what I said: The onus of responsibility is, or should be, always on the rapist. That is my starting position. Everything else... all other factors merely qualify that starting position. None of them replace or or preempt it in any way, shape or form.

Part of why I posted here was because I expected the reaction that I got. I expected that some would deliberately twist my words. Dittoheads of every stripe are always blind to their own prejudices. But, others can see the disconnect.

If you're not getting the kind of support you clearly think you ought to be from "progressive" guys... perhaps spending a little time examining your own biases might be constructive.

Last but not least, if you want men to honestly listen to what women have to say... consider, just consider the notion that that ought maybe to go both ways? You might just find that the party not listening isn't always the party you presumed it was...

Adieu.

[Ravenmn]

Kevin, you may choose your words carefully but you haven't read mine carefully. Your arrogant and condescending statement was not about all women, some women or women's magazines. It was condescendingly arrogant toward all men.

As Pseudo-Adrienne says with far clearer language than me, we're heard the argument that men are helpless and clueless victims and we're not buying it. It's time to take responsibility for yourselves.

Again, my best advice for you is to try listening[ to women. An honest effort on your part might go a long way to solving any concerns you have.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

Avoid discussion much, Kevin? You come on here and make an offensive comment about "some" women acting or saying "this" or "that" when they really meant "this" and confusing poor guys who are too inept to seriously ask a woman to be frank and honest with them about sex, and then when we confront you about it, you piss and moan about being misinterpreted, and derail the entire discussion over this tedious shit. You don't want to discuss this, you just want to complain, get some attention, waste space, and find validation for your woefully ignorant and immaturely sexist first comment. You are far from the enlighten man you boast to be. Probably one of those so called "progressive/liberal" guys we female bloggers have been putting up with who are far from progressive/liberal or "enlighten" when it comes to women's issues like sexually based violence. How about owning up to what you said and admit that you're trying to find an excuse and even excuse poor confused guys who "accidently rape/sexually assault," because of "some" women who play mind games. And it's all because of those "no means yes" women that a magazine talked about.

Oh the poor dears, they just can't help themselves if they rape. Some women are so wishy-washy when it comes to sexual consent and you can never tell which ones really mean no. So there's no point in taking the time to ask them what they really meant or get a clear answer from them. We'll just check out this magazine instead and go from there.

Congrats Kev. You've shifted the entire focus of this thread, and made it all about you, and the very cliched romance misadventures between the sexes. This was a thread about rape and sexually based violence against women, and why we need to stop stigmatizing and berating women, their actions, and their sex lives (because no one deserves or "was asking" to be raped or sexually assaulted, no matter what "they did wrong" before the attack), and put the focus back on the misogynist fucks who commit these horrible acts against women, and the society that encourages it. Now, this thread is about Kevin and his "issues", and the 'mixed-signals' women you learned all about from some pop-culture women's magazine. More bullshit excuses for guys who just can't help themselves because some women say "this" when they mean "this." Well done. Objective achieved.

[Kevin]

P.S., read what I actually said again. Words have very specific meanings and I said "some women" on purpose. There simply is no way to go from what I said to your characterization of "...coming to conclusions about all women..." unless you either didn't take the time to read and understand my comments or you're trying to put words in my mouth.

Raven, Indulge me for a moment. Precisely what was condescending about what I wrote? I don't control the magazine or it's readership. I didn't write the article. I simply reported what it said and made the observation that no man can reasonably be expected to read a woman's mind. What's condescending about that?

Recall that in my very first comment here I specifically framed my following context thusly: "some, but not all, woman..." Unlike your reply, there simply is no way to get a broad generalization out of what I said, least of all contort it to imply that I was talking about you. As I said above, words have very specific meanings. And I chose my words carefully.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

"What man could reasonably be expected to divine when any given woman's protestation of "no" is intended to be interpreted as "yes""

Which outcome is better Kevin; going without sex for a night, or spending a decade or two in prison? Always take the "no" seriously. If she really wants sex, then let her verbalize a "yes" before you even make a move. If it's that confusing for you then don't get into bed with the "ambigious temptress" mentioned within the Pop-Culture women's magazines, and she can be the one who pouts about not getting sex that night. You're not a mind-reader so always take the "no" seriously, and make sure she tells you "yes". Better safe than risking violating someone and being prosecuted. It will save you a lot of trouble with the law, and you won't violate someone who actually meant "no" when she said "no." If you don't want to be labeled as a rapist or be convicted as one then always take the "no" seriously, and let 'her' be the one pissed off because she didn't "get any."

"Could it have been a deliberate ploy to avoid dealing with the thrust of my comment?"

The thrust of your comments is your frustration of not being a mind-reader of women, coming to conclusions about all women based on some shit-for-brains pop-culture women's magazine (and they always make broad and offensive generalizations of women), and you just can't understand us crazy chicks. Women have to put up with enough shit when it comes to rape prevention. How about you guys pull your own damn weight and take some steps to stop raping women? The oh-so frail male ego and the "ambigious temptress" defense does not justify rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, so quit using them as excuses for poor guys who can't read women's minds. Take the "no" seriously, not matter what 'her' hidden agenda might happen to be, because 'she' doesn't represent all women. Let 'her' take responsibility for her actions by not getting the attention that she wanted, because no one runs the risk of violating or being violated in that. Better that than you or any other guy applying her little game to every other woman you encounter after that.

[Ravenmn]

What man could reasonably be expected to divine when any given woman's protestation of "no" is intended to be interpreted as "yes"?

Kevin, I feel that my statement was given with the same level of arrogant condescension as the statement I just quoted from you.

I don't view men as hapless victims of female plots to confuse them over the meaning of yes and no -- plots that are driven by inane articles in women's magazines. But that is what your statement seems to claim.

Men have done amazing things in this world and have proven fairly intelligent in all manner of issues. So, I don't understand why communicating effectively with a woman causes them to throw up their hands in dispair. That defeatism strikes me as a ploy to avoid discussion.

I was unfair, however, in limiting my statement to you alone. So I will broaden it to include all men who feel that same hapless inability to understand what any particular woman is saying:

Talk to the woman. Admit that you don't understand. Ask her what she wants. Ask her if you should stop or continue. Ask her to make her wishes clear.

[Kevin]

Most enlightened men know that they aren't going to find answers about what women think by reading a popular women's magazines.

Raven, at the risk of stating the obvious..., I wasn't looking for answers. And even if I had been, I wouldn't have sought out a pop-culture magazine. It was laying on the coffee table, I was bored, and I was secure enough in my masculinity to not be uncomfortable being seen leafing thru a woman's magazine.

Feminists have been bemoaning the content of popular women's magazines for years.

Be that as it may, the more accurate way to have stated your point would have been to say that men aren't going to find answers to what feminist woman think by reading a popular woman's magazine. The self-evident reality is that if the magazine didn't reflect what at least some woman think then it wouldn't have become a magazine popular with women in the first place. Which goes to my point about mixed signals from at least some woman to men in the area of romance.

Tell them you are confused about what the words "no" and "yes" mean.

With all due respect, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if I addressed you with an equal level of arrogant condescension. Since you don't strike me as ignorant, I'm at a loss as to why you tried it with me. Could it have been a deliberate ploy to avoid dealing with the thrust of my comment? Perhaps gambling that my male ego would take over and I'd go on a rant which would conveniently shift the focus away from what I'd said?

[Ravenmn]

I remember leafing thru some popular woman's magazine....Being a reasonably enlightened man I was curious.

Kevin, those two sentences are oxymorons in my view. Most enlightened men know that they aren't going to find answers about what women think by reading a popular women's magazines. Feminists have been bemoaning the content of popular women's magazines for years.

Sure they have women's editors and women writers and tell stories about women to women. But their job is to sell advertising, not information.

My suggestion is to listen to a real live woman that you actually know. Your mother, your sister, your cousin, your aunt, your co-worker, your neighbor. Tell them you are confused about what the words "no" and "yes" mean.

I'm sure you will get some informative answers.

[Kevin]

Very well written post and very interesting comments.

The onus of responsibility is, or should be, always on the rapist. That is my starting position. Everything else... all other factors merely qualify that starting position. None of them replace or or preempt it in any way, shape or form.

That said... some, but not all, woman bear a great deal of responsibility for sending deliberately mixed messages that no man could possibly be expected to sort out.

A number of years ago when I was married I remember leafing thru some popular woman's magazine my ex had laying around. One of the feature articles was a list of the top 50 things that women alledgedly wish men knew about woman. Being a reasonably enlightened man I was curious. What person interesting in better understanding the opposite gender could pass up getting the straight scoop like that?

One of the items on the list was: "know when no means no." All well and good. That made perfect sense. But, later on in the exact same list was: "know when no means yes."

WTF???

I was instantly angry. Not at my then wife. But rather at the inherent unfairness of the whole thing. What man could reasonably be expected to divine when any given woman's protestation of "no" is intended to be interpreted as "yes"?

Mind you, this was an article in a woman's magazine, written by women and intended for women... and supposedly compiled from women's sincere feelings on the subject of cross gender relations.

[Amber]

Zhoen, I understand that in the current cultural environment, it may not be wise for a woman to trust men, but that doesn't mean that's how it should be. Things will not change if we keep playing the game. We have to stand up and demand what's right. And what's right is not women needing escorts or taking measures no man would to avoid violence.

[zhoen]

I was raped within my "marriage." I could do nothing about it, because in the state I lived in at the time, a husband could not be legally charged with the rape of his wife, implied consent. I left, and it was not easy, and I have the scars to prove it. I am not afraid of men, but I am cautious to not take big stupid risks. I know well that there is no guarantee.

There are extremes. A woman in a cab wanted to smoke. Cabbie says sure, but you have to get in the front seat. She did. It was 2 am in an isolated area. He raped her. He is completely criminially responsible. She carries the personal responsibility of being stupid. Her punishment, out of proportion and awful as it was, is like being savaged after poking a viscious dog with a stick. It is not about fair, it is about natural consequences. She did not flirt at a party with friends around, she flirted with someone she did not know with no back-up. You can cry coulda shoulda woulda, not fair, and split hairs all you want. But if you cannot assess danger with a fair degree of accuracy, and you take risks, you also have to accept that there will be consequences.

Lets stick to our society without complicating it with the complex gender dynamics of other cultures. And certainly there are a lot of grey areas where reasonable can be argued, but I was referencing the blameless and the ridiculous.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

During the winter, when it was pitch black outside even in the morning, and I had to walk to my morning classes, I'll admit I was terrified. I was usually alone because of how early I had to wake up, and I wanted to get to class and get a good seat. There was the usual campus police doing their morning patrol but still. My alertness was heighten whenever I saw a guy because of the bad rep the guys at my college had. One fraternity is known as the "date rapist frat" because of how many date-rape cases came from that single fraternity. It amazes and pisses me off whenever I hear the "you're just being paranoid" tripe from guys. They're usually the kind that think women's fear of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, just stems from our "hysteria," "prudeness," and we're being "man-haters." What bullshit!

[Ravenmn]

Great points, PFH! My post on this subject owes a lot to the line of argument you initiated here.

[carla]

This is excellent. An extremely well done piece.

I also think this statement from the comments is outstanding:

Blame is not a finite quantity, victim behaviour and criminal behaviour are independent factors. I can completely condemn a rapist for his crime, and still say the woman was not reasonably protecting herself.

When I was in college (back in the olden days) I dated a fellow who I knew by reputation to have a bad temper and I'd heard had hit his previous girlfriend. I went out with him anyway, for a number of stupid reasons.

One night during an argument he slapped me hard across the face. Really hard. It was an open handed slap..but it felt like a punch. It seemed like my eyes were going to explode out of my skull.

I'd never been hit before by a man. I was so shocked and angry. But mostly angry. As he started to walk away, I picked up a mostly full soda can and threw it at him as hard as I could..landing the bottom rim square into his head. It cracked his head open and knocked him into the door. Come to think of it..that was more shocking than actually being hit.

By that time the noise had roused other people in the area and they came running to where we were. The guy left..and we called the campus police. Suffice it to say that he was in a lot of trouble.

My point in telling this story is that I was an idiot. I knew this guy was probably trouble..and I ignored what people were telling me about him AND my instincts. It doesn't justify at all what he did and he deserved everything he got. But it doesn't absolve me either.

[donna]

"I think this society has a serious problem with responsibility displacement when it comes to certain behaviors - if a guy gets horny from looking at a girl, it's HIS problem, not HERS."

Not just this society. Muslim society requiring women to cover themselves so they don't tempt men, Hindu society with similar modesty rules, etc, etc...

We need to think very seriously about how we raise boys. My own are responsible, considerate, and wouldn't dream of acting inappropriately to a woman. I put a lot of effort into teaching them to respect other people. If I had raised a girl, I would have had to put a lot of effort into teaching her to respect herself - our society is *constantly* telling us we are not good enough, we must try to please other people, we must llok our best at all times, etc. etc...

We live in a crazy-making, insane society. It's time to change it.

[Thomas]

Dru, I'm no altruist. I have to live in this world, and my feminism is all just enlightened self-interest. I have a sister and a wife and maybe someday a daughter, and I have friends who are women that I care a lot about. I'm also a straight guy, and I've spent more hours than I care to count pulling the dents out of women that bad, bad men have smashed into.

I was once an eighteen year old boy, and wonderful women came alone to my dorm room and explored with me a lot of things that they were just discovering themselves, often right around the edges of their limits. They could do that only because they had a reasonable belief that I would respect their limits. If our response to this young woman is anything other than outrage at the acts of these criminal men, if our response involves any criticism of her whatever, how will the kid who is now the guy I was then ever have the wonderful experiences I had?

[W. Ian Blanton]

First off, thanks a hell of a lot for this post. Well written, and neatly to the point.

I'd like to add, as others have that this starts as children. This ends with even "normal" guys thinking that they "need" sex. You don't "need" sex, you WANT sex. Two very different things. Having sex is not some right you have.

I'm not talking about rape here, as another commenter noted, direct rape is about a lot of other things usually. But rape is aggravated by this attitude. This belief that men can't control themselves, that women "withhold" sex from men. It really is insulting to men. What's even more insulting is that men buy into it.

[Amanda]

Of course, "reasonable" is a constantly moving target that no woman could reach. It's unreasonable to be near a man, touch a man, befriend a man, marry a man, because all these thing put you in danger of rape.

[zhoen]

There is a difference between saying a woman who has put herself in a stupid situation bears some responsibility for her situation, and saying "boys will be boys". Blame is not a finite quantity, victim behaviour and criminal behaviour are independent factors. I can completely condemn a rapist for his crime, and still say the woman was not reasonably protecting herself.

Young women being dumb about this is akin to young men being dumb about their own risk taking behaviours- both could wind up dead or maimed. Most of us escape to maturity unharmed through merest luck.

A woman who has done a reasonable job at protecting herself should not be censured at all. That some folks will blame even her- is indicative of not living in a Perfect World. Ideal worlds without violence, where you can take risks and reap no ill consequences, do not exist. Live in a big city with a lot of people, and you risk crime. Refuse to learn street smarts, and you increase your risk. Do everything right, and violent crime can still happen to you.

If we as women want to not be infantilized by being called girls, then we need to stop calling them boys.

Most men would never rape anybody. Most men are not criminals. Most men are decent human beings, just like most women.

[drublood]

there's a point I want to make, too. What if she didn't feel any pressure to go at all? What if she wanted to go get high on the beach? What if she was making out with one of them and wanted to score? Hell, what if she was entertaining the idea of fucking all three of them and ... changed her mind?

I DEMAND to live in a world where an eighteen year old adult woman can make these choices without incurring rape and murder as a penalty. I demand it from my fellow men. -Thomas

Thank you for this.

[WarriorMoM]

Excellent job covering this subject! I'd like to remind everyone, though, that rape is not a sexual thing. It is about power and control and mental illness. It is only tangentally related to sex in that the act involves the same body parts. The whole psychology of blaming the victim or the "natural urges" of men is intolerable. No need to be apologetic about making sure you're safe!

[WarriorMoM]

Excellent job covering this subject! I'd like to remind everyone, though, that rape is not a sexual thing. It is about power and control and mental illness. It is only tangentally related to sex in that the act involves the same body parts. The whole psychology of blaming the victim or the "natural urges" of men is intolerable. No need to be apologetic about making sure you're safe!