The thread below this post has gotten sidetracked in a variety of typical ways. Noumena wrote:
How to not get raped’ workshops are legion and often mandatory for new college students, but I’ve never heard of a `how not to become a rapist’ workshop, to say nothing of `having a healthy sex life at college on your own terms’.
And I mentioned that I’ve facilitated a variety of workshops that deal with these issues, though not with those titles. One workshop I helped design years ago, and which I would love to do again, was something we called “Consent and Beyond”. Originally growing out of the work of Peer Sexuality Outreach at Cal, the workshop was designed to create honest discussion about how young people can communicate more effectively about desire, boundaries, limits, and, of course, consent.
Most boys, for example, get the “no means no” message pretty loud and clear in high school and college workshops. It’s a worthy if basic message, and one well worth repeating over and over again. But as anyone who works around young people and sexuality will tell you, in and of itself a “no means no” reminder is woefully insufficient. Many of the young men and women I work with, for example, talk to me of what I’ve come to call the “stoplight” phenomenon. Traffic signals, of course, have three colors: red for stop, yellow for caution, green for go. Good drivers are taught to stop on “red”, which functions as a “no”. But of course, even at the busiest urban intersections, no light stays red indefinitely. If you wait long enough at a stoplight, every red will become green. And when all we do is teach young men that “no means stop” when it comes to sexual boundaries, we often send them the message that if they just wait long enough (or pester, push, nag, beg, play passive-aggressive games) they’ll get the “green light” they’re so hungry for. Good “sexual boundaries workshops” go beyond the “no means no” message. Specifically, we look at the ways in which many men will accept a “no” as a “yellow light” rather than a red, assuming that if they simply keep up unrelenting pressure (often abetted by alcohol or exhaustion) they’ll get the permission they seek.
Part of being a good man, I teach, is not being a relentless advocate for your own pleasure. Part of being a good sexual partner is not using a variety of psychological (and chemical) tactics to turn the red light to green, to turn the “no” into a “yes”, or even worse, to simply wait until the young woman has grown tired of saying “no” and falls into a resigned silence. This is all part of the “how not to be a rapist” workshop. And while one hears anecdotal stories of young women persistently pressuring male partners for sex, all of the evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of the pressure is uni-directional, from boys towards girls.
The message that needs to be repeated over and over again is this one: true consent is never tacit, it is never silent. Too many young men become date rapists by confusing silence with a clear, verbal affirmation. “No means no”, but with folks you don’t know well, you need to presume that silence (especially when accompanied by physical passivity) is also a loud, clear, shout-it-from-the-flippin’-rooftops, “NO!” How many women have had sex they didn’t desire with men they didn’t want simply because they were too tired of fighting, too tired of resisting, too eager to just have it over with?
A dangerous line I sometimes use: “The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm”. It’s dangerous because it’s shocking, and of course, it’s dangerous because it twists the purely legal meaning of the term “rape.” But from the standpoint of one who cares desperately about the well-being of young people, my goal in offering workshops like these is not merely to prevent sexual assault that meets the legal standard of a criminal act. My goal is to prevent that, of course, but to also offer shy and uncertain young people tools to prevent them from having bad sex characterized by obligation, confusion, and detached resignation. I always argue that anything short of an authentic, honest, uncoerced, aroused and sober “Hell, yes!” is, in the end, just a “no” in another form.
That sets the bar pretty darned high. But given the consequences of unwanted sex to the body and the heart and the mind and the soul, given the potential for sex to be life-affirming and ecstatic, our young people deserve to have the bar set just that high.
Hugo, your post is a good one, and one that posits something that needs to be discussed more often. But as you point out above, the direction for most of this sexual pressure is male –> female. I am coming to learn that the default model for sexuality in our society is just out and out wrong. The Sex as Competition approach to relationships is really a lousy model for a number of reasons. One is, it posits an unequal approach to sexual desire. “Men want it and women want to keep men from it” is untenable and effaces female desire entirely, making women less than human. Sex isn’t for woman’s pleasure, says this model. Sex is about conquest and scoring points with his buddies.
The collaborative model of sexuality is one I am learning to appreciate more and more. Sex isn’t a competition, it is a musical performance. Until we get to that point, “No means no” is going to be an incomplete approach at best.
Hugo-
Some good points as usual. I’ve always been a fan of a holistic approach to problems.
There is confusion and ambivalence among SOME women about what they really want. Two things - let’s work to reduce the female fantasy about coercive men AND let’s work on reducing the drinking.
1. Female Fantasy
I’ve read (skimmed) a dozen or so romance novels in an attempt to understand the opposite sex. I remember a well-worn novel that a neighbor wanted us to sell at our garage sale in the late 90’s. The heroine of the story is a 23 year old woman who has been hired as a secretary at a fortune 500 company. The hero (knight in bright armor) is a handsome man in his late 30’s whose wife has died in a tragic accident.
This dude becomes her mentor and sets about helping her succeed. He tells her how to act and dress and walk. He tells her that she would be “sexier” if she were 120 instead of 135! He tells her to cut and style her hair a certain way. He tells her what jewelry to wear and provides her with a necklace as a gift to help “further her career.” When they kiss she doesn’t want to initially, but he pushes her against the wall and they then make out for hours. When they eventually make love she says no at first, but eventually they do it on his desk. He proposes on a business trip.
YIKES!!! This is a popular book with women?
Clearly, there is a market for this stuff; it ain’t being sold to guys. I don’t believe that fantasy is always harmless; it can be a rehearsal for our reactions to situations. If a certain percentage of women fantasize about their “no statements” not being taken seriously, that might lead to some women giving a halfhearted “no” in certain coercive situations.
2. Booze
The second problem is drinking. I personally have an evening drink limit of 2 and can easily drink those two without getting even a buzz. I love the taste of beer, but I hate feeling out of control. Limits of 2 drinks for folks over 170 and 1 for folks under that weight would help reduce the circumstances under which coercive sex flourishes. Drunk people do stupid stuff and can be easily manipulated.
Rape-sex continuum:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4067/1946/1600/sex.gif
This image is helpful in describing how much of heteronormative sex is non-consensual and it clarifies the idea that the opposite of rape is enthusiasm.
davev,
you sound sincere, so i’m going to be gentle. But perhaps the reason that you think there is ambivalence or “confusion” among some women about what they really want is because you turn to trashy romance novels as a way to understand the opposite sex for more convenient generalizations rather than individual exchanges.
a better strategy instead would be to talk to the woman that you are interested in becoming intimate with and find out what she wants, because i can guarantee you it is not exactly the same as the next woman.
furthermore, pointing to books, tv shows, friends, ex-girlfriends, magazines as evidence that some women like (insert whatever here) demonstrates how that attitude transcends into rape.
YIKES!!! This is a popular book with women?
If so, that certainly explains why your neighbor was trying to sell it for nickel at a garage sale. Oh wait.
You do understand that people sell books at yard and garage sales when they can’t sell them for real money anywhere else? You do also understand that the vast majority of garage sale books have to be boxed up and given away for free to some hapless local library, which usually ends up throwing them away, because nobody wants to read forgotten mass-market paperbacks from thirty years ago? You do understand that a ratty dog-eared novel you saw at a garage sale in the 90s was almost certainly published somewhere between ten and twenty years before that, which is to say, before many women who are currently in our twenties were s the pushy frat boy with sweaty hands is just like the dashing corsair who undresses ever born?
If you are interested in finding out what womens’ leisure reading says about our fantasies, you are going to have to go to the incredibly burdensome step of, first, looking up what sells, to what demographics, in what numbers, and secondly, actually checking out books that women read. The bestseller section of your local Barnes & Noble will do nicely for this. Your neighbor’s moldy box of yard-sale books will not. Also, reading with attention is more helpful than skimming.
(I admit that due to some stereotypes and unconscious biases, I am a little shocked that an adult man, who has the time to read trashy romances (for research purposes only) has somehow never sampled any of the vast cornucopia of pornography and erotica produced by and for the pleasure of men. Perhaps if you were to do so (for research purposes only, mind you) and write up a plot synopsis of a few of the titles you find, you might find it illuminating to compare and contrast with the incredibly outrageous women’s smut you shared with us. )
If a certain percentage of women fantasize about their “no statements” not being taken seriously, that might lead to some women giving a halfhearted “no” in certain coercive situations.
That may not seem like a crazy hypothesis on the face of it, but it’s not really how it works in reality. The more sexual fantasies a woman has, however silly or lurid or politically unsound, the more likely she is to know exactly what she like. Which means she will be less embarrassed or ashamed to say no to what she doesn’t like.
What really makes women susceptible to sexual pressure is being shamed out of admitting to whatever real sexual feelings they have. Being told that your fantasies are bad for you will make you afraid to assert your sexual desires in the real world, too. So it works in the opposite way to what you’re saying.
That’s what I get for writing too much and not proofreading. The end of that second paragraph was supposed to read: You do understand that a ratty dog-eared novel you saw at a garage sale in the 90s was almost certainly published somewhere between ten and twenty years before that, which is to say, before many women who are currently in our twenties were ever born? If you go by currently popular romance novels, you might conclude that many young women want to be seduced by 200 year old vampires, but that, too, would be incorrect.
The bit that was supposed to be deleted was just a passing thought that pushy dates are not easily mistaken for dashing heroes of romance novels.
Hell yes! Oh, I mean, great post. :)
Hugo said: “And while one hears anecdotal stories of young women persistently pressuring male partners for sex, all of the evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of the pressure is uni-directional, from boys towards girls.”
What “evidence?” Got some citations to scientifically-valid, peer-reviewed credible sources for this?
And to think of all the years I wasted teaching my daughter that it is okay to say no, and to mean it.
Very, very, very interesting stuff. Did you ever happen to put together a handbook or resource packet for folks who are interested in running something similar in their own youth groups/college orientations/&c.? I recently got in touch with some friends from back in my college orientation leader days, and I think they might be interested in this.
Darn it, Noumena, no I didn’t. Typically, I had notes and slides, all gone…
Sassywho-
I appreciate the gentleness. Many men enjoy visual pornography and many women enjoy romance novels. I thought I would see what was so interesting.
Sophonisba-
I appreciate your points, but the romance industry is pretty freakin’ big. If I recall correctly, that novel was written in the late 80’s. I have a masters degree in library science, know loads of public librarians, and have a fairly good understanding of the publishing industry. Over 60 million Americans (mostly women) read romance novels, and the genre accounts for more than half of American fiction sales in any given year.
Romance novels are a huge industry and there are niche areas. Perhaps there are some that may have egalitarian plots. It has been a long while since I’ve read one, but my colleagues in the public library assure me that the forceful stud/ demure vixen stereotype is alive and well. On the positive side, I’ve been told that the man is usually an incredibly good at listening to the woman’s problems.
I’ve definitely seen pornography intended for men. It is not helpful for my mind or my spirit. I have not seen anything that shows a man responding to an aggressive woman by saying “no” and then giving in to her. Maybe it exists somewhere out there as a particular fetish, but this intiatial refusal followed by caving in to the passion seems to be standard fare in romance novels that are written for women by other women.
Am I correct in stating that you think that fantasizing about saying “no” and then giving in is helpful to women?
I don’t think that porn is healthy for men because it can end up being a rehearsal for how an individual will act in a certain set of circumstances. I think that romance novels where the woman resists for a while, but then gives in and “LOVES “ it can be equally harmful.
Then again, Noumena, given the time, I could re-create it.
I keep thinking that in my abundant free time I need to start creating these training models, and travel about doing some of these seminars/workshops. It’s the marketing that takes so much time.
I’m laughing really, really hard at the phrase `abundant free time’. Just so you know someone caught the joke. ;-)
“What “evidence?” Got some citations to scientifically-valid, peer-reviewed credible sources for this? ”
What it make any difference in had “evidence”
Opps Typo
It should be >>>Would it make any difference if he had any evidence?
I have not seen anything that shows a man responding to an aggressive woman by saying “no” and then giving in to her. Maybe it exists somewhere out there as a particular fetish, but this intiatial refusal followed by caving in to the passion seems to be standard fare in romance novels that are written for women by other women.
Well, davev, the particular fetish you allude to would probably be a variety of bdsm and it’s not that uncommon. (Or maybe my perception is skewed by having lived in SF, where it tends to be pretty out in the open.) My understanding is that practitioners tend to more, not less, diligent than most people are about dealing with consent and boundaries.
But more importantly, and more on topic, I think the whole point of examining porn by/for men is to look at how it deals with women’s consent. How often does men’s erotica involve a woman who says “no”, but then enjoys it? I suspect that’s at least as common a plot in men’s erotica as in women’s, but I am honestly asking because I haven’t really wanted to find out for myself.
Laura Kinsale (among others, I’m sure) suggested that romance novels are best read as a romance “between myself and myself,” as the struggle to integrate two disparate halves of the heroine’s (or reader’s!) self. The heroine may have a dark side, an animus, that wants to do all the things that her outward persona rejects… and that dark side emerges personified as the dark and fascinating and forceful rogue.
So many romance novels whose gender politics at first seem so horrible are basically a symbolic representation of a woman falling in love with and marrying the repressed parts of her own psyche. They’re not about wanting to be ravished. *g*
Great post, Hugo, and great quote. And indeed, it is very frustrating that women are constantly the targets of rape prevention education when they’re not the rapists…. It makes me recall a horrifying incident among the undergrads when I was doing my PhD at Notre Dame (late nineties). Right before graduation a man date-raped a woman–both were seniors–and she had indisputable physical proof that it was non-consensual, i.e. he had forced a tampon deeper into her body. She went through the crucifixion of the university’s sexual assault reporting process and he was spared all consequences of his behavior and allowed to graduate with his class because “it wasn’t clear that he understood her ‘no.’” I.e., they agreed she hadn’t wanted the sex and could prove it but still thought she had no right to redress because he had a default right to use her body regardless of her wishes unless her resistance was effective enough (by his and their standards).
The critical difference between romance novels and real life is in the books, we know what the woman is thinking. We know she’s saying, “No,” while thinking, “Dang I want this.” And, what we know as readers, the man, hero and mind-reader that he is, also knows. He seems to know her, inside and out. There is no such x-ray-into-the-head in real life. Men don’t really perceive our every thought. They don’t know when we’re saying “no” and meaning it or saying “no” and meaning “not yet, maybe later.”
I like Hugo’s suggestion everything is “no” until it’s an enthusiastic “yes.” Why would I want to be with anyone who couldn’t be enthusiastic about it? I am just not a one-night-stand sort of person.
Interesting post, Hugo. You make some excellent points, however I would go a bit farther: I would suggest that ‘consent’ isn’t really an appropriate word at all for the situation. ‘Consent’ implies allowing someone to do something to something else - I can consent to lend you my car, for example. To use the term ‘consent’ with regard to sexuality seems to me to be reinforcing the not only normative male-dominant, female-submissive dynamic of patriarchy, but also the idea of the female body as a consumable object that depreciates its value with use. I think it’s much better to think in terms of sexuality as a shared experience (a symphony, I think an above poster called it) rather than a commodity. I know you weren’t suggesting the latter, but I think it’s best just to be clear.
Along with this, part of the problem in our efforts to teach women to say no is that we don’t yet teach them to say yes. Not until women can enthusiastically consent to sex can they also give a refusal that has any meaning.
Also, to davev: I’m not even sure where to begin. As Sassywho suggested, you may want to consider thinking of people as individuals rather than as stock caricatures reducible to a few essentialist cosmo-girl stereotypes. In my experience, it’s proven unfruitful to try to understand individuals by making boxing them into broad and artificial categories, whether these categories are a) gender, b) sexual orientation, c) religion, d) belonging to the Emperor, e) embalmed, f) tame, g) sucking pigs, h) sirens, i) fabulous, j) stray dogs, k) included in the present classification, l) frenzied, m) innumerable, n) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, o) et cetera, p) having just broken the water pitcher, or q) that from a long way off look like flies.
You do, however inadvertently, raise an interesting point. Many women do read romance novels (many of my female friends’ favourite book is ‘Pride & Prejudice’). More importantly, however, is the question of why this is the case. To my mind, it stems from the pandemic absorbtion of these dominant-submissive dynamics. We’ve eroticised the difference between men and women to the extent that we can’t envision any other possibility of sexiness. Gravdal gets it right when she says that (in my imperfect recollection of her words) ‘male dominance and female submission are coded to be emotionally satisfying and aesthetically pleasing’ (from her book ‘Ravishing Maidens: Writing Rape in Medieval French Literature and Law’ - sorry, I’m a medievalist grad student and I can’t help but get my geek on when I think about these issues!). In other words, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that romance is popular among women, not only because romance exaggerates male-dominant and female-submissive caricatures (which we’ve already established evokes sexiness in a pavlovian way in our society), but also because romance is an aestheticisation of suffering. It holds out to women the illusion of societal success and happiness if they would only submit. It’s a sort of escapist fantasy - because let’s face it, if you’re stuck in a society oppressing you, and also can’t imagine any other way for society to be organised, so conditioned are you by the BDSM dynamics of normal patriarchial society, then at least you can at least dream the cold illusion that the oppression has the potential to be beautiful.
I’ve read (skimmed) a dozen or so romance novels in an attempt to understand the opposite sex.
davev, you’re tellings us that, on the one hand, you’ve “skimmed” (not even “read”) perhaps a dozen romance novels, and therefore are confident about women’s sexual fantasies; and on the other hand that you can authoritatively state that romance novels do reflect the female psyche because the romance-novel industry is big.
This is about as logical as my saying that I’ve “skimmed” about a dozen or so copies of Penthouse Letters collections, and the straight-male-orientate porn industry is really huge in terms of both dollar volume and circulation, therefore I can assume that all men really are sexually interested in being 10″ long and treating women like masturbatory devices.
Elaine,
What does that chart have to do with heteronormative (as opposed to all) sex?
davev; There’s a difference between fantasy and reality, and it’s a wide one.
When I was a young woman, I read a lot of hard-boil detective mysteries starring women (ie: more Marlowe than Marpole), and I identified with the protagonists. Yet I would be someone fainting and vomiting at a real crime scene, and in no way would enjoy a life of B&Es and being shot at. How weird, this? I returned to the same fantasy theme, and yet the reality would be completely distasteful and probably traumatic. Do women who read murder mysteries wish to look at dead bodies all the time? No.
Metamanda-
The portrayal of some women in romance novels who are in typical, every day situations and give in to the passion after saying “no” AND the portrayal of men “having their way with women” in pornography for men are working different ends of the same fantasy. I think that rehearsing coercion AND submission to that coercion are both dangerous practices.
As for the BDSM, ( I am no expert, but I have seen some online) it seems to feature stylized setups and the use of a safe word for protection. The situations seem to differ significantly from the portrayal of some women in romance novels where the situation is not a dungeon, but rather some banal place like where she works.
Emily-
I googled Laura Kinsale and found that she is . . . a romance novel writer. She will certainly not say negative things about her own literary genre. Falling in love and marrying her own psyche??? Would a man reading a sexy novel or watching a video about forced sex be helpful or harmful? I worry that if it is arousing it might serve as a rehearsal for his interactions with women.
Mother Laura-
That story, if accurate, is absolutely an outrage.
Skylark-
The scary thing about some of these romance novels is that they show a woman who doesn’t really know what she wants “untie a man shows her “ . . . an initial “no” is followed by earth shaking passion.
English_Rosebud
Glad you stopped lurking. I don’t think that I’ve boxed anyone into categories. The reality is that somebody is buying these books. The publishing industry estimates 60 million readers and most of them are women. 60 million is a lot of people. That’s more than the number of people who voted for John Kerry in ‘04.
I do think that novels that happen to have romance in them can be awesome. My grandmother read “Jane Eyre” to me when I was 9. She read “Gone With the Wind” to me when I was 11. Jane Austen has some great political commentary. The modern romance novel industry is something quite different from those works.
I do think that you have a good point with the subject dominance and submission as it relates to gender roles in literature. Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?
Mythago-
I can read quickly and accurately. I’ve been blessed that way. The few romance novels that I have read have not been difficult to read very quickly. I guess I could have slowed down, taken notes, and gotten all textual . . . but I got the gist anyway. There definitely seems to be a formula to them
Who is spending money on these novels? . . . a genre that makes up half of fiction sales in the U.S.
Penthouse Letters are pretty “interesting, “ too. There’s a formula . Read 5 or 6 letters and you will get the gist. Future editions will just have different details. I think they are not good for men because they might cause men to want to treat women like masturbatory devices. :)
I think that rehearsing coercion AND submission to that coercion are both dangerous practices.
I don’t know that I’d see them as problematic in exactly the same way. I think the potential problem is at least somewhat different in each case: Men may come to actually believe that the woman saying “no” doesn’t really mean it. Women, on the other hand, have to know that their own “no” is real and doesn’t conceal some secret desire to be ravished. So I think the problem with the whole submission scenario is more one of not having enough stories in which the woman gets to be more assertive and enthusiastic.
The scary thing about some of these romance novels is that they show a woman who doesn’t really know what she wants “untie a man shows her “ . . . an initial “no” is followed by earth shaking passion.
And that’s exactly the part which a woman isn’t likely to confuse with real life; when you’re really saying “no,” you know that earthshaking passion isn’t just around the corner if you let yourself be ground down into saying yes. You may still be ground down into saying yes, but it will be for other reasons. But if you’re reading that kind of story because the only way you feel OK about the woman experiencing earth shaking passion is if she’s first shown a proper resistance, then you may be missing something in the “enthusiastic consent” department.
Falling in love and marrying her own psyche???
Well, that fits well for Heathcliff and Catherine in Wuthering Heights, so I suppose similar themes could be filtering into some of the popular market type romances. I’m not convinced it’s a universal explanation of what’s going on with the dark and fascinating rogues of romance, but an explanation for some stories, maybe.
Davev, have you considered that some of the women reading these books may be identifying with the male characters as well as the female? There’s some evidence to suggest that women indulge in safe fantasies of active sexuality through romance novels, and that identification is very fluid. There’s also the fact that women aren’t necessarily reading romance novels as purely sexual fantasy - there are lots of other factors, ranging from the simple pleasure of reading for escape to a need for a vicarious romance to replace an unfulfilling real-life relationship. I can recommend Laura Kipnis’ Bound and Gagged, and Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance if you’re interested in this kind of thing.
I can read quickly and accurately
Me too, and I can still tell the difference between reading and skimming.
One reason romance novels, like porn, sell so well is that they are formula and they are disposable; most of them are not classic, meaningful literature that will be read again and again and stand up to that repeated reading. They’re not as much about What Women (or Men) Really Think as they are about the feelings from those books - the happy ending, good punished and evil rewarded, in the case of romance.
And, if you’ve been paying as much attention to the market as you claim, you’d note that let’s-not-use-the-P-word romance novels that are, essentially, porn have become more and more popular.
Romance novels are hugely formulaic, but there several different formulas, so it’s easy to get the wrong idea of their range if you happen to pick ones with one type of formula. For instance, when I was in high school, I skimmed through a couple, and concluded that they were all utterly chaste, with the hero and heroine finally kissing on the last page. The ones I looked at had no rape scenarios whatsoever, but heroes that I found annoyingly domineering, and extremely innocent heroines, so that I didn’t much like the love stories.
I’ve since learned that was just one particular category of romance, and that they’re heavily sorted into lines, by criteria that include sexual explicitness, how contemporary they are, what sort of heroine they have, and so on.
I’ve thought of trying to write chick lit myself, since it seemed a subgenre where I could use a suitably assertive heroine and play a little with gender stereotypes, but it turns out that writing romance isn’t what really sparks my creativity, so my chick lit story morphed into a completely different genre, and the romance part of it dwindled into a small subplot.
What Hugo seems to want here is to chivalrously protect women from NAGGING on the part of men.
I don’t quite understand why. If the woman doesn’t want to put up with his nagging, she can leave the man’s house or ask him to leave hers. Period. I frankly think that the other side of the coin is that some women like playing that game (”teasing”), and young men should be told that an option is to immediately leave and find someone else if he doesn’t want to play the game.
In any case, I doubt very much that Hugo, as the chivalrous protector of young women against NAGGING, is going to tell women in no uncertain terms not to nag. They simply nag for other things.
Well, you know, taking the garbage out isn’t supposed to be fun. Nobody finds it fun. Sex, on the other hand, is great fun, and women are eager to have it, so why you’d want pressured, unwelcome sex from the people who don’t want to have it with you is beyond me.
Worse, every bit of pressured sexual activity you take part in takes away your natural joy and enthusiasm for sex, and reduces your ability later to have actually pleasurable sex. So, the more men pressure women into sex they don’t really want, the less actually eager and enthusiastic sex is available to heterosexual men.
Lynn says:
every bit of pressured sexual activity you take part in takes away your natural joy and enthusiasm for sex, and reduces your ability later to have actually pleasurable sex. So, the more men pressure women into sex they don’t really want, the less actually eager and enthusiastic sex is available to heterosexual men
Indeed. Hence one of the appeals of porn, where the starlets are always hungry for sex, regardless of whether the boy frantically masturbating to their images has showered, taken out the trash, or made any attempt at an emotional connection before pushing for his own release.
Hugo, I’m interested where you would draw the line (and, secondly, why you are interested in doing that):
If a woman isn’t interested in sex at the moment, and the man is, would it be proper for the man to change the setting or situation so that the woman is more interested in some way? Is “chasing” behavior appropriate (e.g. a college boy trying to impress her that he’s going to be a big-wheel something-or-other someday)? Is a discussion allowed at all? If so, to what extent?
Real life does seem to involve a bit of pursuit in many cases. If you want to reduce life to the man asking out of the blue, without any attempts to interest or persuade the woman, “Do you wish to perform sexual intercourse with me, check the Yes or No box” and the woman simply determines what it will be at that moment, no further discussion permitted, I don’t know if that is reality.
If you want to give boys the hint that nagging her into the ground is not a great aphrodisiac, I agree. Just as a nagging wife can kill a marriage. But I don’t think that’s what you’re getting at, you’re trying to simply restrict boys in chivalry towards women. If so, why? Are women too weak to be bugged by it and leave?
If you ARE just trying to work the nagging angle, why not open it up to all humans?
Jack, this isn’t about nagging. It’s also not about equipping young people with a strategy to “get some.”
The bugging you refer to is one thing that some men use to get their girlfriends to give in to sex, but there are other forms of psychological pressure that are far more severe. And the consequences of giving into nagging for sex are much worse than (sticking with a stereotype) giving into nagging to take out the garbage. Having sex you don’t want can be soul-destroying; performing chores you don’t enjoy isn’t.
Great sex is radically mutual; the focus is not merely on orgasm or release or “getting booty”. The focus is on mutual pleasure and connection, and on creating mutual enthusiasm. One way I think about it is to say “I’m not ready until we’re ready”.
As others have pointed out, there’s plenty of evidence that suggests that women have just as strong sexual appetites as men. And there is equal evidence that men are just as interested in connecting sexual pleasure with emotion as are women. But since we live in a culture that shames and represses male emotion and female horniness, we need to be aware that men and women will often experience arousal differently. Women sometimes need to do a lot of work to be open and bold about their libidinousness; men need to do just as much work to connect sex to emotion.
So where do you draw the line at what you want to restrict in the behavior of other people?
I don’t really believe that your full and only motivation is for people to have better sex (although that seems to be the only argument presented up to now).
What if two dumb people who aren’t as evolved want to have rotten sex by the man whining about wanting sex and the woman giving in? What if someone has better ideas about how YOU can have better sex … should he present it as trying to restrict you and shame you into it?
No, my motivation is not for people to have better sex.
I don’t want women to get raped by men who (sometimes) don’t even realize that they’re raping. That’s my motivation.
And even “dumb” people deserve to live in a world where mutual enthusiasm is a cornerstone of sex.
You want to reduce rape on American campuses?
Simple, get rid of those excuses for bacchanalia called frats and sororities.
Oh, and while you’re at it either install metal detectors at building entrances at buildings or DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR GUN LAWS.
“I don’t want women to get raped by men who don’t realize that they’re raping.”
——–
I think it’s strange then that both you and Lynn presented a different argument (sex is better).
You may have a situation in which neither the man nor the woman recognizes that there was a rape in your scenario, and both may think, “Why does he want to treat us like children”?
I am absolutely sure that women exist in the world who want to put up a bit of resistance to a man, not even necessarily with regard to sex, to see if he is interested enough to pursue her, or if he is just going to move on to the next one. I am absolutely sure about that. Given that, a man may have to pursue a bit if he is interested in that particular woman.
Your instructions for life don’t acknowledge the reality of human interactions.
Jack, it is quite possible to convey sincere interest without being in the slightest bit coercive. Even a dim-wit can be taught the difference between admirable tenacity (such as a willingness to be patient and wait for his partner to be ready) and persistent pressure.
“Even a dim-wit can be taught the difference between admirable tenacity (such as a willingness to be patient and wait for his partner to be ready) and persistent pressure.”
——–
The presupposition here, apparently, is that you know exactly where that line is. My assertion is that some women want a lot of attention, some don’t, and that can also change as a function of time.
I won’t take a cheap shot and go any deeper into your stated past, but you apparently don’t have perfect knowledge either.
And that’s not so bad - it has to be a bit of give and take. I’m not talking about major issues - stalking, rape, completely unwanted attention - I’m talking about the fine tuning. My sense is that if the woman is OK being with the man, I don’t friggin’ care if they have good sex or bad sex or what is going on. I don’t CLAIM to know all about the fine tuning.
And I wonder why you have the outlook you do - men are not supposed to nag (and that’s what we’re talking about here, not rape), but I will hear nary a peep out of you, ever, about nagging on the part of wives actually destroying marriages. Maybe you are trying to force the perfection you don’t personally reach onto other men. I don’t know.
Jack, this post is about rape. Men rape women more often than women rape men. Women and men can both nag, but men are very, very rarely violated as women so regularly are. I want the rapes and the assaults and the shame and the violence to stop.
I don’t preach perfection, I preach transformation. There’s a huge difference. And I’ll be the first to admit that my past has been hugely flawed. One of the blessings of a colorful past, however, can be the chance to learn — and I have learned a great deal. I know what it is to live one kind of a life and then a very different one. I know that the past is not necessarily the best predictor of the future.
I have never claimed perfection. But when I was younger, I reacted to a bad day with drugs, drink, and compulsive womanizing. Today, I still sometimes have a bad day and I react imperfectly: I swear under my breath, or eat too much sugar to comfort msyelf, or go out for a run at too fast a pace and strain a muscle. My behavior is far from perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot less toxic than it used to be. I am not a unique or special man, and no better than anyone I teach or mentor. But I am committed to the notion that rape is about more than the absence of consent, and that those of us who teach and mentor have a vital obligation to prevent this horror in all its forms.
I think it’s strange then that both you and Lynn presented a different argument (sex is better).
I don’t get why you see a contradiction here. Part of the harm of sexual coercion (though not the whole of it) is the way it screws up your future ability to enjoy ordinary sex.
My assertion is that some women want a lot of attention, some don’t, and that can also change as a function of time.
Presumably women who want attention can actually communicate that they want attention, and women who instead want the guy to cut it the heck out can be taken at their word?
My sense is that if the woman is OK being with the man
Look, if you’re married and know all each other’s likes and dislikes, and she’s clearly let you know that she wants you to roleplay Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett O’Hara off, then obviously it’s not rape. But that’s still enthusiastic consent; it’s just enthusiastic consent among partners who, for whatever reason, are playing at something else. Presumably they know each other’s signals well enough that she has some way of making it darn clear when she doesn’t want to be Scarlett being carried off by Rhett.
But why anyone would think it a good idea for the default assumption, among people who don’t even know each other all that well, to be that any sex that A can pry out of B without outright force is good, is beyond me.
“Presumably women who want attention can actually communicate that they want attention, and women who instead want the guy to cut it the heck out can be taken at their word?”
—————-
I think older women have a handle on it, and quit the games, but here’s an example that I just heard:
My buddy has a son in college right now. The son started going out with a woman in his class. After they had gone out a bit, and the guy was interested, she started doing things like simply not showing up for a date. My buddy told his son that she was playing games to increase his obsession (maybe not even consciously), and to just ignore her. That’s pretty good advice. So she shows up at a party he was at and starts screaming at him because he stopped any contact with her (he just left the party) - she was good looking and absolutely used to her tactics INCREASING interest on the part of men. That behavior continued a while on her part; unfortunately he had the same class as her. She couldn’t even fathom that someone would play the game better than her, and she knew what she was doing (or so she thought).
That’s college in a lot of cases - most older people wouldn’t have anything to do with a woman like that, but young people don’t know the games as well. She was well aware of what the reaction would be if she started pulling that stuff, or so she thought.
My point here is that it’s not always the black-and-white scenario that Hugo paints, where the bully man is constantly pressuring the naive hothouse flower. Lots of crap goes on both ways.
And we’re NOT talking about rape or assault or stalking or completely unwanted attention here. If we are, I’m in agreement with Hugo.
but I will hear nary a peep out of you, ever, about nagging on the part of wives actually destroying marriages
“Nagging” being one of those gendered terms that refers to a woman who won’t STFU when her husband wants her to.
Sure, there are women who behave badly and men who are victimized by crazy and/or abusive female partners. I find it interesting that in contrast to sexual coercion, the “counterexample” you offer is–nagging.
And we’re NOT talking about rape or assault or stalking or completely unwanted attention here.
Rape and assault and stalking, though, are legal terms, which need to be narrowly defined and provable to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. So they’re inherently not going to include every level of coercion that’s bad and wrong. A woman could be seriously impaired by alcohol, enough that her impairment is obvious to the guy having sex with her, and unless it’s clear enough to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it’s not rape. A close friend of your parents, your godfather who’s known you since you were small, could “groom” you while you’re underage and have sex with you practically the day you turn legal (let’s say sixteen in your state), and that’s not statutory rape or any other crime, since “godfather” isn’t any kind of legal relationship, but it’s still messed up. A person could stalk you to a degree that a reasonable person would find threatening and scary, but that’s not quite severe enough to interest a prosecutor, and perhaps you don’t have money for a civil restraining order.
All of this, of course, is, of course, further along the coercion continuum than verbal pressuring of a sober person your own age. But my point is, what’s morally or ethically out of line has to be a broader category than just what ought to get you put in jail (or even what could get you put in jail or sued for harrassment). And the standard for figuring out what you should be doing, legal penalties aside, should be that both people are actually going to be happy about the sex.
I’d like to respond to the subthread about Romance novels, from a perspective that hasn’t been represented yet. I am an avid reader of Romance. Here are the things that I love about romance novels:
They are the only form of fiction overwhelmingly written by women, intended for a primarily female audience. I find it interesting how much disdain Romance novels are held in by men. They are almost universally reviled as worthless by the men that I have discussed them with. The subtext I have experience is ‘nothing a women writes about can be that interesting’.
They are not deep fiction - I learned to loathe ’significant’ novels in highshcool. I’m always shocked when I run across ’significant’ novels that are readable, and don’t give me nightmares or make me hate everyone around me.
They are idealized stories women tell ourselves about our lives. As a genre, historically, Romance has been almost hyper conservative. In the early days, bodice rippers came under fire for inflaming young women’s sensibilities, and so publishing houses came up with writing standards much like the film standards of the 40’s. The other women can never ‘win’. If you loose your virginity, you have to marry the guy, or be raped (ugh… the 70’s and 80’s were rife with rape plot lines, I can’t make myself read about rape for entertainment), or even better, be raped by the hero, and after sufficient abasement on his part, forgive him and marry him.
In the 90’s the formula began to change, and publishers took some risks and opened up new romance lines with new guidelines. There are now plots that specialize in beta males who get the girl (with some annoying titles, like ‘Nerd in shining armor’), and some new lines that are explicitly erotica. Online publishing opened up erotica to women in a way that print publishing is just beginning to catch up with. Check out Ellora’s Cave to see one of the biggest online women’s erotica publishers. Authors who started out on EC are making the jump to mainstream publishing houses.
In fact, if you are interested in seeing how explicit the instructions to authors are, check out http://www.eharlequin.com/articlepage.html?articleId=538&chapter=0.
Now, I started reading them when I was twelve, with Dame Barbara Cartland. She of the very chaste, kiss on the last page after getting engaged novels. She used to get smashed on champagne, and dictate a novel a day to her secretary. What I read and enjoyed at 12, I would snort milk out my nose reading now.
One of my favorite writers, Jayne Ann Krentz has been writing for at least 20 years. I collected the bulk of her early works, mostly written in the early 80’s, and find the writing elements that I like, combined with story elements that drive me nuts. The rabidly alpha hero. The bright and capable woman inexplicably letting herself be a doormat. Over time JAK’s plots changed as instructions to authors changed, and she is one of the most progressive blockbuster mainstream Romance authors. Almost every book of hers has gay secondary characters (positive ones), the main character (female) is not a virgin (in contemporary lines) and is financially and socially equal to the male character. Historical novels have to deal with the fact that women, historically, did not have equal financial or social power as men.
The 2000’s have seen the rise of paranormal romance, featuring very very strong female characters - women who are warriors, shape shifters, vampires, what have you. In many ways, the popularity of this genre is because the female characters are so strong - and the strong fantasy element allows the author to write female characters behaving very much the same way male characters behave without the feeling of social dissonance that would happen if you tried to have a physically and socially strong female in a normal contemporary romance. JAK’s novels have evolved from the romantic conflict being interpersonal (alpha male annoys female), to the plot conflict being external (romantic mystery). Her novels now feature a hero and heroine who are in simpatico, facing conflict from others.
As I read more about feminism, and transform my internal thinking, I find myself less and less tolerant of sexism and stupidity in the fiction that I read. Mercifully, the Romance genre is morphing along with me, so that I still find plenty to read that I enjoy. And even in the books with rabid alpha males, the source of conflict in the plot is the male’s behavior, and how the female doesn’t like/won’t tolerate it, and how two strong wills compromise to form a union both can enjoy.
Davev,
So, you read “a dozen or so” of a genre that includes hundreds of books published per year and now presume to understand it?
If you’re actually interested in learning more about sexual dynamics in romance novels, rather than simply scoring cheap points on a blog, can I suggest that you take some time to learn a bit about the genre?
Radway is generally considered outdated, but the anthology Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women would be a good place to start.
The blog “Smart Bitches, Trashy Books” would also be a good place to learn how actual romance readers experience these books. This thread directly addresses some of the issues you raised. Teach Me Tonight is a blog run by academics studying romance novels, and would be another place to start learning about what you’re criticizing.
Frankly, I read what you’ve written as another attempt to maintain that the responsibility of sexual gatekeeping should fall solely on women. Women don’t need to be told that if they only said no in the “right way” men would understand it better…trust me, we’re bombarded with messages that if men don’t get the message, it must be our fault. There is, however, a severe shortage of people willing to stand up and say that men’s responsibilities extend beyond avoiding actions that fit the legal definition of rape. Thanks, Hugo, for being one of them.
Psyche, sorry your comment got stuck for so long.
But if this thread does revive, let’s try and keep it off romance novels!
I just came across this posting. There appears to be a grave misconception about what consent means from a legal perspective in the current date rape debate. Consent under long-settled law really does mean consent. The trouble may be that young men are not properly taught what it means. The test for consent, as with all such concepts, is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would understand that the female has objectively manifested her assent to engage in sex. Consent can be, and usually is, implied from all the surrounding circumstances and may be conveyed by conduct, even silence (e.g., a young woman unfurls her robe and leaps atop her boyfriend). The young woman’s secret, subjective feelings are irrelevant.
The legal concept of consent is sound and is the only workable definition consonant with due process. Consent is often difficult for a jury to
I just came across this posting. There appears to be a grave misconception about what consent means from a legal perspective in the current date rape debate. Consent under long-settled law really does mean consent. The trouble may be that young men are not properly taught what it means. The test for consent, as with all such concepts, is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would understand that the female has objectively manifested her assent to engage in sex. Consent can be, and usually is, implied from all the surrounding circumstances and may be conveyed by conduct, even silence (e.g., a young woman unfurls her robe and leaps atop her boyfriend). The young woman’s secret, subjective feelings are irrelevant.
The legal concept of consent is sound and is the only workable definition consonant with due process. Consent is often difficult for a jury to determine, but so are many other things in the law.
Great post, Hugo, I completely agree - a really important message.
I get disturbed when I see on T.V (drama series, movies) women initially saying a half-hearted “no” but physically responding - or else seeing when the guy doesn’t stop pressing her/kissing her, that she ‘gives in’.
On T.V a “no” that is not strong is not a “no” - there is this message that women really want sex but they don’t want to be seen as promiscuous, so they say “no” but respond physically and have sex anyway.
If in doubt, guys should assume the woman means “no”. If she says “no” but she’s acting like she wants to go on (which I see a lot on T.V) they should stop, look at her, then ask her if she really means “no”.
“no” needs to be a powerful word.