BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Defining Coercion: This really belongs in the Sex&Body forum

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Sekhmet
20:25 / 02.03.06
I was surprised by the attempt to reconcile legal with definitional (use of non-legal was careless on my part, Sek possibly should have focused on the caveating), it doesn't seem like it could prove to be that valuable.

Good point. I understood the sense of it, but I should have quoted "definitional" rather than "non-legal".

I wasn't really trying to reconcile them, actually, just being a bit startled that there was such a stark difference between them. It made me wonder what was "wrong" with the legal view.
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:17 / 02.03.06
Now, for the record, I thought at the time that he was a nice guy and that he really liked me, but after the fact found out that the guy was a creep and a sexual predator. He did the same thing to about five other girls I know of, and finally got arrested a couple of years later when he had moved down to 11 and 12-year olds.

Almighty gods, what a creep! If that took place in my somewhat un-civilized (but very beloved) country, that fucker would not last a week in prision. He would have been gang-raped for a couple days, than flayed alive (literaly) and hang to death in the cell bars. Such is what our inmates call "justice" 'round here.

I'm sorry you had to go through such ordeal at the onset of your sex life, Sekhmet. First times should ideally be magical romantic moments, but how often are they, really?


Loneliness is so utterly spirit-crushing for a teenager, you know?

You have no idea how much I understand that feeling, my friend.
 
 
elene
21:38 / 02.03.06
You people sure are busy at the moment. I can't keep up with all the interesting threads. Going out for the evening doesn't make it easier, of course.

... dom/sub is taken as so "normal" for male/female relationships, and it's that normality that's the problem. Intentional d/s relationships work because they are regulated by carefully constructed conventions that must be agreed upon in advance, because everyone knows that they are in dangerous territory. The privilege of male dominance taken as a norm thus leaves straight men vulnerable to seemingly being "blindsided" by experiences of sexual assault.

Yes, that's right. Thanks, alas. I think all the other things I mentioned matter too but that this is how these debatable cases come about, and why they're debated too. I think in a healthier society we'd all recognize these things as rape immediately, but they'd rarely occur.
 
 
Dead Megatron
22:00 / 02.03.06
Just as a foot note, I'd never say what the inmates do to sex offenders is a good thing. It's just an example of extreme primitive pay-back. "eye for an eye", you know. And it does nothing to curb such behavior, since rapists, being in a very, very bad power-trip, usually find themselves "too smart to be caught".

I deeply apologise if that account offended the very people I was trying to show support to.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:10 / 02.03.06
DM, I know you mean well, but possibly something like this:

And it does nothing to curb such behavior, since rapists, being in a very, very bad power-trip, usually find themselves "too smart to be caught".


Might also be a little offputting in a thread attempting to sort out the very complex question of what constitutes rape, unless you are actually a criminal psychologist.
 
 
Dead Megatron
22:47 / 02.03.06
I'm no criminal psychologist, But I do work as a reporter covering police occurences, so I eventually run into some really nasty stories. I mean, the very extreme end of the spectrum to the darker side of humankind (go to the miserable thread and you'll see some examples). I see cases that constitute rape for sure so profoundly it makes my skin crawls - no ambiguity whatsoever. Also, I do have some personal experience on the matter, which you'll forgive me if I choose not to go into details, thank you very much.

The idea of what's done to sex offenders in prisions do not excite me. Not in a good way at least. But the subject - rape - does press a big red button marked "self-destruct" of mine, so it's a bit hard for me to keep a clear head and a sensitive posting (as previous posts of mine may have made obvious). I apologise for those who feel unconfortable about it or who were themselves victims, though. I can't really help it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:03 / 02.03.06
I have been talking to another 'lither about this thread and subsequently tried to post but found it very difficult. It was suggested that I might put my response to trying to write about my feelings here instead so...

this is too difficult, it's too complicated because the issue is consent and not rape and it all rests on individual cases, the ability to state no, whether people are liable, what that means, if it's even an issue in a discussion like this. Because coercion isn't really rape
and coercion is really about our childhoods, male or female dominance, how supported we are by our families and
whether our mothers or fathers taught us to say no... I can't apply my ability to say no to anyone else because I personally can recall conversations with my mum about rape, coercion and power.

In addition- I have been in situations where people have tried to coerce me into sexual acts that I didn't want to engage in and I said no and wheedling only made me elaborate (somewhat uncomfortably for the other person I should imagine). However I grew up in an environment that was quite matriachal, that was very protective, that emphasised our own power over ourselves and our rights. I can't imagine having sex without consent outside of violence and that complicates my view of issues of consent.

Is coercion rape when your objection is heeded by something inside you? When it's not necessarily about the other person at all but your own emotions and emphasis on certain acts? This is the problem with concession to one sex over another. Can we define something as rape if there is no rapist?
 
 
Dead Megatron
23:15 / 02.03.06
Weel, here's another story from work. There's this accusation against a priest (yeah, you can guess where i'm going) who was having sex with his underaged altar-boys. It was consentual, voluntary, all that. They were all between the ages of 13 and 19, so they knew what they were doing, although, in the legal point of view, it still constituted rape.

But, the thing is: the priest was always passive. so, in the case of gay statutory (I think I'm mispelling here,but whatever) rape, how does being active or passive changes it, if it changes it at all? I don't have an answer for that.

The priest has gone awol, btw
 
 
iconoplast
23:42 / 02.03.06

But, the thing is: the priest was always passive. so, in the case of gay statutory (I think I'm mispelling here,but whatever) rape, how does being active or passive changes it, if it changes it at all? I don't have an answer for that.


The whole idea of statutory rape, IMO, is that, when one of the parties is under a certain age, they are unable to give informed consent. Hence the Priest, in all these cases, was the active party.
 
 
Dead Megatron
23:46 / 02.03.06
In principle, I agree. But, then again, the choosing of an age limit may be very arbitrary. Those boys seem to have known very well what they were doing - and, for the accounts I've receive, quite enjoyed it.

So, sometimes it's easy to tell a rape, sometimes it's not. (as everyone here already know, of course)
 
 
Olulabelle
00:18 / 03.03.06
Thank you Nina for articulating problems that I also have with this thread in such a measured manner.

I absolutely agree that how you are taught to consider these things must surely relate to how a person could react or relate to the things in this thread. Like Nina, I have been brought up in a matriarchal household and have been taught from a very early age to question patriarchal society and to assume that females had equal power specifically with regard to sexuality and position in society. (Which isn't actually unreasonable.) I was also taught that a women is very capable of changing a tyre and doesn't need help, and I truly am, I did it yesterday.

That's important because I seriously believe in learning behaviour, whether in regard to sex or in regard to male dominated tasks.

I can't comprehend giving over the responsibility of me not being able to say no whilst within a sexual situation that I have been part of creating and that is my problem here in this thread.
 
 
iconoplast
00:59 / 03.03.06
"They were all between the ages of 13 and 19, so they knew what they were doing..."


"Those boys seem to have known very well what they were doing - and, for the accounts I've receive, quite enjoyed it."


A quick google search reveals that "...[g]enerally it takes five to seven years after college or nine years after high school (*)" to become a Priest. Hence, a priest is minimum, say... 16+9=25 years old.

What you seem to be saying is that, through some quirk of outdated legalese, sex between a 13 year old and a 25 year old has been misconstrued as nonconsensual.

I would like to point out that you said ...[t]hose boys seem to have known very well what they were doing... (emphasis mine). See, that's the thing - the reason that an age of consent is set is that, while a 13 year old may seem to enjoy sex, or even seem to be consenting, 13 years old has been decided to be too young to give informed consent.

Because the power dynamic between a 25 year old (esp. one already in a position of ecclesiastical authority over the other) and a 13 year old is too skewed to allow for consent.

* - From here
 
 
Dead Megatron
05:41 / 03.03.06
good point
 
 
Ex
07:50 / 03.03.06
Yes, to throw in my handfull of crumbs - when I was 13 I wanted to have sex, often with authority figures. But I was also clued up enough to realise that if any of them had wanted to have sex with me, it would have been very seriously wrong. I hate to think what might have happened to me had I not worked that one out. It was generally articulated in my peer group, too - and I think a different kind of group culture might have changed my opinion about that, but not changed the underlying wrong-ness of the situation, just masked it temporarily.

I don't think whether I had been sexually 'active' or 'passive' would have made any difference (also, see Head Shop thread on power and blowjobs for useful confusion on what' active and passive anyway). You can be encouraged and incited into doing something that looks traditionally 'active' but which isn't a sign of your agency and control over the situation.

I fancied teachers in part because of the power differentials - they seem older, and in charge, and that can be attractive. Any authority figure that doesn't realise that this is a side-effect of being older and in a position of power, and thinks its an informed, egalitarian appreciation of their personality that they can act on sexually, should be removed from their position of power.
 
 
*
20:22 / 03.03.06
Yes, precisely.

I'm remembering a time when I was rather emphatically propositioned by a 15-year old (I was 21.) Having been in this situation, I feel really comfortable asserting that anyone propositioned by someone who is a minor should be able to say no, no matter how many times it takes for this person to get the message. This person was emphatically not mature enough to make that decision, no matter how vigorously she insisted she was.

This does not mean I have no sympathy for my former classmate who was found guilty of statutory rape, but my sympathy comes from a feeling that he himself is not socially mature enough to handle sex, despite legally being old enough. I can't back up this feeling with any kind of evidence, and I certainly don't think this absolves him of responsibility.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:05 / 09.03.06
I'd like to pick up something from earlier in the thread:

It's possible to be so afraid of someone you decide the best way to handle the situation is to let them fuck you, and, in spite of your supreme competence, afterwards to be completely destroyed.

This is actually pretty common in intimate partener abuse, especially where the perpetrator and the victim live together. Sex becomes a way of distracting the violent person, diminishing, postponing or altogether forestalling a violent attack. The victim may permit or even persuade the violent partener to have sex with hir, not because ze wants to but as a defence. From the abusive person's point of view the sex would be entirely consensual, even something that the person on the recieving end of the abuse has encouraged. Whilst I'd hesitate to call this rape, I'd say it was definately coercive sex even though no specific coercion may have been applied at the time of a particular incident.
 
 
elene
12:45 / 09.03.06
Yes exactly, MC. The coercion is implicit in the power imbalance, above all in the willingness and ability to use violence to get what one wants. Some people grow up in an environment where one does use sex for such purposes, and some where the only affection they ever get they get in this way. For such people it's not simply a matter of walking away from a bad relationship. One can't walk away from oneself.

On consideration I suppose just about everyone knows people like this. Sorry, but it's still worth pointing out for the one or two who don't.
 
 
alas
15:04 / 09.03.06
Whilst I'd hesitate to call this rape, I'd say it was definately coercive sex even though no specific coercion may have been applied at the time of a particular incident.

I just want to add to the points elene & MC are making--both of whom seem right on target to me, and articulate things so clearly that I have never taken time to sort out. This is very helpful to me. And, it reminds me, that part of why I find the Gaitskill article mentioned above also to be helpful is that she also talking about the lack of adequate language for different kinds of trauma.

You can also see the inadequacy of language being expressed in the "Women who perpetrate sexual violence" thread in the headshop at various points; I've linked to one poster's brief narrative of his experience that I found particularly compelling. Where he's struggled with the fact that his horrible experience has no word that seems to match his experience--the vulnerability and the shame and the sense of being emotionally "violated" even while (I infer) penetration doesn't seem to have been the issue.

From a strictly legal perspective, in many places, the only act that counts as rape is penetration of one body by an object or body part of another; other acts are "sexual assault" which, while still a crime, clearly does not have the emotive power of the word "rape."

A person coming out of such an experience or a relationship like the ones MC and elene and the linked story describe, who are trying to sort out what happened, and trying, probably sometimes in a kind of "shorthand" to establish the trauma as real, as deserving attention--even just attention from themselves--will I think sometimes use words like "rape" in order to say: "this was a really big deal. it was horrible. it has left me in a very bad place."

Some may be very tempted to say: oh those people shouldn't do that; they are "crying rape" (a phrase I loathe). I accept that to a certain extent that may be true (especially, probably, if legal action is involved). But unless we accept that there are horrible traumas that don't have an accurate name, and that people flounder to express the emotional reality of what they've experienced, we're unlikely to solve the problem.

In fact, another part of Gaitskill's point is that sexual relations that are problematic in their power dynamics, but which aren't strictly speaking "rape" in the clear "I said no, ze didn't stop" sense of the term, can actually be, for some people, more difficult to resolve and come to terms with, because your own "complicity" in the event leaves very little space for legitimately acknowledging the trauma and finding ways to get beyond it. This can mess up relationships and lives for years after.

I bet a huge percentage of people--probably more women than men simply because female bodies are framed as "permeable" in our cultures in ways that male bodies aren't--in their teens and twenties experience a relationship like this, something that they feel horrible about because they didn't want to, but did out of some sort of fear. Outsiders may then try to determine whether the fear was "legitimate" or not, which can be a pretty tough matter to determine. A better question, to me, is where's the fear coming from? Can we do things differently to make young women, especially, less fearful of saying no, more likely to say what they do/don't want in a more clear voice? Wouldn't we all be better off if they could?

So, to answer a question asked earlier in the thread, I do think this stuff often goes beyond being simply "bad sex," not in an explicitly criminal/ "let's lock up the bastards" sense, but in a sense that people are unnecessarily creating pain in each other's lives, and I don't think it has to be that way. It doesn't mean I think we'll ever get to a point where all sex is earth-movingly fabulous, but I don't think it has to be as likely to cause trauma as it currently does. I still think elene's point about power and the clear contractual agreements of D-S relationships really bears thought, and I also suspect there are other ideas out there.
 
 
*
18:15 / 10.03.06
US soldier's rape sentence cut due to Iraq stress

ROME (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier who raped a Nigerian woman in Italy was given a lighter sentence because the court deemed his tour of duty in Iraq had made him less sensitive to the suffering of others.

According to an Italian court document obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, James Michael Brown, a 27-year-old paratrooper from Oregon stationed in northern Italy, was sentenced to five years and eight months for rape in February 2004.

Brown beat and handcuffed the woman, a Nigerian resident in the town of Vicenza. He raped her vaginally and anally and left her to wander the streets naked in search of help.

The crime would have earned him an eight-year sentence, but the judges reduced the penalty due to the "extenuating circumstances" of the psychological effects of Brown's year of service in Iraq, the document said.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
18:31 / 10.03.06
That is a very damaging and dangerous precendent to set. There are a wide variety of people whom would be able to reasonably claim that they lead a stressful lifestyle that inhibits their capacity to appreciate the suffering of others. To allow them lighter sentances is an irrational step to take, particularly as he was deemed by the court as capable of appreciating that his actions were wrong.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:35 / 10.03.06
That was a political choice, more than anything. Italy is one of the few countries on US side in the Iraq issue, and they, under Berluscone (I'm sure I'm misspelling here) rule, they having been, well, sucking up to the Americans big time. And I'm sure they care more about the "good" American soldiers than a poor Nigerian woman (I'm assuming she's non-white).

of course, I'm just stating the obvious here.[

sometimes I wish I could leave humankind. But that'd be quitting
 
 
Olulabelle
18:41 / 10.03.06
Alas et al, are you are saying in essence that it's possible that people may have had problematic sexual encounters (perhaps as a teenager with someone much older; something that seems to be fairly frequent with young women) which felt somehow wrong and left them feeling bad about themselves, but which they have chalked up to learning experience, when in actuality it may have been sexual coercion?

If so I imagine that could be quite a difficult thought for lots of people. I would think that re-examining past sexual encounters with that reference point could potentially be fairly crisis-inducing.

If that's correct how does one begin to deal with addressing things in one's head without sending oneself into a horrible downward spiral of shame and despair at not having a/known or b/addressed it emotionally at the time?
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
19:06 / 10.03.06
Firstly I would think that would have to be understood that problematic sexual encounters are for everyone, not just for women on the bottom end of an age gap. They are one of the less pleasant aspects that can occur in the process of growing up that ends when you are dead.

The issue is to first understand the difference between the two. That is unfortunately where I run out of brane, lacking the ability to speak concisely on the matter. I offer the highest plaudits to those who can.
 
 
*
19:10 / 10.03.06
Lula: I had that experience. It so happens that for me it wasn't particularly crisis inducing, so I can't really speak to that. I fully acknowledge that for others, it might be. But for me— reexamining those memories in that light doesn't change my experience of them; I was reluctant, felt guilty and ashamed of being reluctant, and was encouraged to think there was something wrong with me for being reluctant. It was still a learning experience. Probably the worst part, and this bothers me relatively little, is that I think of this person as one of my best friends still, although I've heard that he has done this to other people he's been in relationships with, who are also good friends of mine.

I still think he may have been more damaged by it than I was.

Still, it's helpful for me to realize that at a formative period in my experience of relationships, I learned that I had a certain responsibility to meet my partner's needs sexually, which I could expect to feel guilty and ashamed about if I couldn't or wouldn't. It's helped me understand my own needs in relationships more clearly by allowing me to denaturalize that experience, to say "No, that lesson is wrong, I reject it now."

Probably, talking this over with a counselor at some point will do me good, but it's on the back-burner right now.
 
 
alas
02:06 / 11.03.06
If so I imagine that could be quite a difficult thought for lots of people. I would think that re-examining past sexual encounters with that reference point could potentially be fairly crisis-inducing.

If that's correct how does one begin to deal with addressing things in one's head without sending oneself into a horrible downward spiral of shame and despair at not having a/known or b/addressed it emotionally at the time?


Well, for me, it took 12 years, lots of therapy. I hit a point where I stopped eating and sleeping altogether, for about two weeks. One of the most important people in my life, someone I look up to and love dearly, has very nearly been broken by, apparently, this kind of a crisis. I still don't know if she'll make it.

To deal with it, most of us really do have to find some good, supportive people, and we have to let them support us while we sort some things out.
 
 
*
07:43 / 11.03.06
I hope I didn't come off sounding like a prick just now.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:19 / 12.03.06
I hope Insensate Fuckwit and chums have their champagne handy:

Jail sentences for rapists are to be slashed under controversial new guidelines for judges revealed just days before an official campaign against rape is launched by the government.

In a move which critics warned would deter traumatised women from reporting sex crimes, the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) is to recommend that future sentences for rape and other sexual offences be cut by 15 per cent for most offenders.


Nice to see that the Darque Forces of Feminist Politics can't maintain their stranglehold on the judiciary all the time.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:09 / 12.03.06
Indeed. Like the secret Jewish cabal which allegedly runs everything, the sinister femininati don't appear to be doing a very good job of controlling the world.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply