‘Normal Sex’, Date Rape and ‘Real Rape’

This is an additional discussion we had in class (not really discussed in depth by the articles).

I wanted to show the way in which date rape may be erased by focusing on the view that violent attack from a vicious stranger is real rape. In this view ‘date rape’ and the rest only count as ‘rape’ in a secondary way (if at all).

In order to better understand the mechanics of date-rape, I think it is good to understand the general background rules and assumptions that underlie ‘normal’ heterosexual sex.

(1)   ‘Real sex’. I think it is a general assumption that ‘real sex’ is heterosexual penis-vagina penetration (i.e. intercourse). The view that this is the central, definitive, most important form of romantic or recreational sexual activity is an assumption.

(2)   Communication break down. I think that generally it is considered unromantic, and a ‘turn-off’ to talk about sex too much in a clear-headed, rational (non erotic way). This value-belief obviously discourages meaningful communication.

(3)   ‘Men are naturally sexually aggressive’. There is a myth that once men get to a certain point of sexual arousal they MUST have sex (or else will either die or have to do something violent to get it). The myth is connected to a notion of ‘the point of no return’. Once a woman has ‘led’ a guy get to a certain point, sex MUST happen, since the guy has been reduced to an unstoppable force of nature that MUST erupt.

I do not believe that men are mere animals or mindless forces of nature. I believe that they are capable of rational and moral decisions. I believe that they are capable of self-discipline and self-restraint.

(4)   ‘Women are sexually repressed’. It is true that, historically women have not been allowed to express their sexuality as freely. However, this view also leads to the assumption that women really want to have sex even though they say ‘no’ (the ‘no’ is just a form of repression, behind this is a genuine ‘yes’, i.e. the repressed desire).

(5)   ‘Women like to be taken’. This view derives from older views of women as naturally masochistic and submissive. Obviously, this view serves to undermine the force of the ‘no’. After all, perhaps she is just saying ‘no’ in order to put up a little fight in order to experience ‘being taken’. Or perhaps she is just ‘playing hard to get’.

(6)   Behavior and attire is often taken to communicate. (Studies show that men take these to communicate in ways that women don’t). For example: If a woman is wearing a short skirt, is she ‘advertising’ that she is interested in sex? Regardless of her own intentions, her attire may be taken to ‘communicate’ this to others.

(7)   Moral Obligations. Sometimes activities are taken to signal an agreement. For example, if a woman has dinner and then goes home with a man, has she agreed to have sex? In general such activities are unclear. I mean: All of this occurs in a haze of possible miscommunication, unclear intentions, and guess work But there is this belief that certain behavior generates a binding moral obligation to have sex. This is strange. Even when we make promises to each other (‘I’ll meet you tomorrow at the movies’), we are allowed to get out of it. (‘I am sorry, something came up. I can’t go). How does a woman find herself moral obliged to have sex when she hasn’t even verbally agreed to it. For any alleged “agreement” at all has occurred in the hazy cloud of non-communication!!!

But suppose that a woman DOES have sex because she believe that she is morally obliged to (even though she is NOT morally obliged). Is this date rape? If it isn’t, then we have to agree that normal sex has certain ‘coercive’ features built right into the background assumptions which help constitute it.

(8)   In general, it seems that these background assumptions disable the ability of a woman to say ‘no’ meaningfully. Moreover, her behavior is taken to generate bogus moral obligations that may subsequently guide her decision to have sex.

(9)   Because of this, I believe that – as part of ‘the game – heterosexual sexuality is set up in a way that helps facilitate date-rape, and makes ‘normal’ sex more coercive.

**********Notice that by focusing on ‘real rape (i.e. stranger rape), attention is diverted from the fact that sex is generally set up in a way that makes consent problematic. In this way the notion of ‘real rape’ renders the rape-like quality of the everyday game invisible.

Although I am not a wonderful source of solutions – I will make the point that explicit communication about sex seems to be an important antidote.