Resurrection After Rape Community Group
Discussion, question-and-answer, general social support, and journal processing for progress-oriented rape survivors. No crisis, no damaging or triggering conflicts--this is for individuals who want to contribute to collective, cooperative action toward the goal of making actual PROGRESS through rape trauma. Much of this work is based on the book "Resurrection After...
Someone said the following to me : "The guy doesn't have had to be aware that I wasn't consenting in order for this to count as rape, he should have made sure that I was indeed consenting in order for it not to be; for it to qualify as sex rather then abuse. "
For some reason this reply really irritated me. Why is it up to the guy to check in? Maybe in a perfect world if Mike Domirtz ( of The Date Safe Project) was in charge there would be active verbal consent from both individuals all the time. And after a case in Maryland that found someone guilty of rape after removing himself from his partner 5 seconds after consent was withdrawn -- maybe that verbal check in needs to happen every 4 seconds during any physical contact. (The case was retried, I don't know the outcome).
Am I the odd one out here? I'm prepared to be.
I fully appreciate the idea of active over passive consent. But I don't know the last time I experienced active verbal consent. I tend to operate more from a place of active dissent. Maybe active consent would save a lot of headaches and Dr. Franzoi would be write when he wrote in his textbook that acquaintance rape could be reduced with better communication.
Part of me wonders if I'm engaging in victim blaming by thinking these things but there's some part of me that says if you don't want something maybe you need to at least clue the other person in somehow that you aren't on board with it otherwise they might not know.
For some reason this reply really irritated me. Why is it up to the guy to check in? Maybe in a perfect world if Mike Domirtz ( of The Date Safe Project) was in charge there would be active verbal consent from both individuals all the time. And after a case in Maryland that found someone guilty of rape after removing himself from his partner 5 seconds after consent was withdrawn -- maybe that verbal check in needs to happen every 4 seconds during any physical contact. (The case was retried, I don't know the outcome).
Am I the odd one out here? I'm prepared to be.
I fully appreciate the idea of active over passive consent. But I don't know the last time I experienced active verbal consent. I tend to operate more from a place of active dissent. Maybe active consent would save a lot of headaches and Dr. Franzoi would be write when he wrote in his textbook that acquaintance rape could be reduced with better communication.
Part of me wonders if I'm engaging in victim blaming by thinking these things but there's some part of me that says if you don't want something maybe you need to at least clue the other person in somehow that you aren't on board with it otherwise they might not know.
Actually, I don't see what the problem with seeking informed consent is. We live in a culture that has created a presumption that people are "ready" for sex unless stated otherwise. Hence our issues with rape. When I was at school we were told that if we weren't able to ask for condoms in a shop, then we weren't ready for sex. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent that actually was butte premise is simple: if you're not mature enough to get the condoms, then you're not mature enough for sex. The same applies for talking about it.
Aside from some personal rape triggers that I struggle to discuss, my partner and I have good communication. We don't presume physical arousal = consent because we both know that it doesn't. It can make the experience seem more manufactured but if one partner doesn't seem as enthused as usual then it's important to check.
As for your top quote, I've had something similar said to me in the context of my healing and understanding. There are many indicators for consent not just verbal. The onus isn't on the guy solely but of it helps it might be easier to think of it this way.. Say you want to go out somewhere and you ask partner if they want to come. They aren't overly either way. So you ask again a bit later. You decide to go out and you spend a lot of time asking them, over and over, are you sure? Are you enjoying yourself? Probably feeling selfish and mean for bringing them out when they hadn't been overwhelmed with excitement at the suggestion. Firstly, why can't me apply the same consideration to their naked bodies? Second, we feel the responsibility because we are the initiator to the outing. The driving force. The same can be said for attempting sexual intimacy. Whomever starts the encounter or suggests it, is the one responsible for making sure the other is comfortable with it. If the other then suggests new position, the roles switch.
What you say makes sense and after I wrote what I did I thought about non-physical things like asking someone if they want to go out or watch a movie or eat a particular type of food and that seems so normal and easy to do.
I also have to think about the one who is initiating as being the one "in charge" of the agenda and should check to see if everyone is in agreement before proceeding.
I also watched the promo video on the date safe website and that reinforced the idea that checking in should be the norm and I know a part of me knows that.
Maybe I guess so much of my experiences were tied into not being asked and actions just taking over until something wasn't ok, which was exactly what Miked talked about being the problem. Maybe in my experiences it is a fantasy land to have someone ask first.
There isn't really that much open discussion about it and so we take on these beliefs and believe that people who advocate for consent are being overzealous, prissy, unrealistic; the list goes on. And why wouldn't we when even teen mags (especially teen mags) cant get it right. Our parents are as uninformed as us.
It's horrific that a large majority of people, myself included, will only discover what the truth about seeking consent is because of sexual assault. Very backwards and a large contributor to date rapes..in particular
However, let's also be clear about another aspect of this: expression of consent doesn't have to be verbal any more than expression of resistance has to be verbal. But it DOES have to be clear in whatever form it is expressed--an essential point to understanding what I'm about to propose.
We've all covered the topic of whether a person has to actually say the word "no" a thousand times, with the same conclusion each and every time--refusal to consent can be expressed in many nonverbal ways, including situations in which a woman can't verbally say the word "no." So this notion that consent is about formal, contractual speech isn't a good scenario to use for exploring your question. But if a person is able to verbally express his or her consent/non-consent, it's important to do so--especially if the other person may not be aware that he or she is *innocently* misreading cues in the situation--and that's why I agree with your argument, "why is it up to the guy to check in" as opposed to consent being mutually expressed. It's NOT up to the guy only; consent is a shared responsibility of both expression and comprehension. This is a critical point precisely BECAUSE rape is not the same as "bad sex."
Before anyone misunderstands my point--and inevitably, someone will (and will rush to the "reply" button before processing what I've said)--please don't skip the part where I am describing only an AUTHENTIC misinterpretation of consent cues. I'm not talking about someone who commits rape and then lies about his misinterpretation of cues in order to contrive a bogus defense of his conduct. So for the record, anyone who thinks "Matt just said men who commit rape because they misunderstand consent aren't really rapists" has badly, badly misread everything I've written. But somehow, someone will still think that's what I'm writing here, even though it's far to the opposite of my point. To make it simple, here's my point: Consent is not unidirectional, and not up to only one party to ascertain. It's up to both parties to ascertain AND express. Therefore, in the real world--and this is true whether we think it's fair or unfair--I doubt any court would uphold a rape conviction against someone who believed he or she had consent, and proceeded with sex and never received any communication (verbal or otherwise) that indicated anything to the contrary. Rapists eliminate the entire option of consent, but when that option has NOT been eliminated, expressing clear messages about consent or non-consent becomes the shared responsibility of both partners. One person can't simply withhold information that would correct the other person's clear and ongoing misunderstanding of having consent, and then later describe that other person as a rapist. I don't believe men become "accidental rapists."
That is why I've written before that rape is not a grey area or a relationship "oops" or a miscommunication--all of which do happen without meeting criteria of rape. A man who is forcing sexual intercourse without consent knows that's what he's doing. He knows it because he's using force, trickery, power, control, and manipulation. So what are we to do with the man who isn't using any of these things, and is engaging in sex that he authentically believes is consensual? I know it's a question that can hit emotional trigger points, but it's also a very fair question as well.
I've read through your response several times and I come back to this piece:
"expression of consent doesn't have to be verbal any more than expression of resistance has to be verbal. But it DOES have to be clear in whatever form it is expressed-"
So what expressions can truly be clear to all people involved? For example, if my husband finds himself feeling tickled by something I'm doing and he squirms I stop what I'm doing. He asks why I stopped I said you got all squirmy, he said that just because he did that doesn't mean he didn't like it. In my head if I'm squirmy, I don't like it and don't' want it. Turn that situation around and he's doing something to me that got me all squirmy and If he were acting based on his own logic of squirmy being enjoyable and I couldn't verbalize that I didn't like it and didn't want it he might not know I didn't like it because of his own experiences. This is where I think it can become complicated and leads into the following question you posed (at least in my mind it does):
"A man who is forcing sexual intercourse without consent knows that's what he's doing. He knows it because he's using force, trickery, power, control, and manipulation. So what are we to do with the man who isn't using any of these things, and is engaging in sex that he authentically believes is consensual?"
As for what to do, I'm not entirely certain but I don't think this behavior is criminal.
Healthy sexuality doesn't have to be made "rape proof" (no, really! it's true!) because we're not walking a narrow line between sex and rape in a healthy relationship. There's no fear in my marriage that if we fail to verbally contract for consent prior to every sexual moment, it'll mean we've casually slipped over into "rape" behavior. This fear that the difference between sexuality and rape is as small a matter as that is what might keep people in dread of sex, even in otherwise-good relationships. Rape is clear, unmistakable, and INTENTIONAL (deserving all-caps on that one!), so it's not "just a word away" from mutual, appropriate sex. There is so much more than a word that distinguishes sex from assault that even the inevitable misread cues between partners in a healthy relationship don't begin to approach rape territory.
But at the risk of being so blunt it comes off as trite, let me suggest this: if one person is proceeding sexually because he/she BELIEVES they have their partner's consent, and the partner would be able to freely express contrary information to correct them of this false belief but doesn't, I don't think that partner would have good legal grounds for a rape case. So I share your concerns with the advice you heard that prompted your question in the first place, especially since it depends on outdated gender cliches (men seek sex and women merely play the defensive role, as opposed to sexual consent being reciprocally expressed and understood). I'm very black-and-white about rape (the whole concept of "Grey rape" is downright offensive), which is why I'm just as stalwart about the importance of consent--it needs to be clearly expressed when it can be, and when it can't be expressed there's no question in my mind that it's a condition of rape under any understanding of the law.
Can be a difficult concept to meander though because of responses during genuine rape that prevent a clear and loud no. Also, post trauma can be a hindrance to expressing in any form a no. But, having said that, if I were to be clear that being still and quiet were a no for me then that behaviour would be a clue to my partner. And then, in the times I wanted a continuance I would have to explicitly express consent.
I have had to go on a long journey of self discovery to understand my own responses and motives. So that I can operate in a way that doesn't keep me in a place of _feeling violated_ and, prior to my current relationship, actually being violated.
There is some advice given to survivors that suggests we wouldn't question a consensual act but, again, that over simplifies the issue. I have questioned a consensual exchange because somatic memories have knocked me emotionally over and I was re-experiencing the violation of my rape. Not that I was immediately aware of that process. Actually, questioning can be vital in differentiating between rape and that didn't feel good for me.
This made me think. At first I resisted it because I've even said before, "if you feel like you've been raped, you have been." But you know, I'm starting to re-think that point of view. Over the years, I have come to realize the difficult and controversial, truth that there are some who are perennially convinced of their own constant victimization. The "professional victim," you might say. Before anyone thinks I've gone harsh and cruel, let me defend that I do indeed think that there are some disorders and personality traits that manifest as a tendency to interpret every interaction, conflict, disappointment, and motive as sinister. So I have to affirm Hep's statement as true.
And this isn't just me saying it; there's a growing body of academic research into precisely this phenomenon. In layperson's terms, we call it "crazy-making" or "chaos-making." Clinicians call it "prejudicial negative filtering." And what it means that we can't make a blanket statement that every sense of having been wronged is authentic confirmation of having been wronged. We've ALL been in the situation where a person has accused us of being purposefully hurtful and cruel, and we think to ourselves, "are they nuts? Because I know what my intentions were, and they don't resemble ANYTHING like the terrible motives they're attributing to me!" But there's no defense, because they are resolutely convinced that feeling betrayed is proof of having BEEN betrayed. They feel it, therefore they know it, and anyone who doesn't see it is just deluded.
How does this relate to the topic? If anything, it underscores yet again the importance of communication in all its forms, verbal and otherwise, in order to preserve equality and accuracy in human interactions.
This made me think. At first I resisted it because I've even said before, "if you feel like you've been raped, you have been." But you know, I'm starting to re-think that point of view. Over the years, I have come to realize the difficult and controversial, truth that there are some who are perennially convinced of their own constant victimization. The "professional victim," you might say. Before anyone thinks I've gone harsh and cruel, let me defend that I do indeed think that there are some disorders and personality traits that manifest as a tendency to interpret every interaction, conflict, disappointment, and motive as sinister. So I have to affirm Hep's statement as true.
And this isn't just me saying it; there's a growing body of academic research into precisely this phenomenon. In layperson's terms, we call it "crazy-making" or "chaos-making." Clinicians call it "prejudicial negative filtering." It means that we can't make a blanket statement that every sense of having been wronged is authentic confirmation of having been wronged. We've ALL been in the situation where a person has accused us of being purposefully hurtful and cruel, and we think to ourselves, "are they nuts? Because I know what my intentions were, and they don't resemble ANYTHING like the terrible motives they're attributing to me!" But there's no defense, because they are resolutely convinced that feeling betrayed is proof of having BEEN betrayed. They feel it, therefore they know it, and anyone who doesn't see it is just deluded.
How does this relate to the topic? If anything, it underscores yet again the importance of communication in all its forms, verbal and otherwise, in order to preserve equality and accuracy in human interactions.
I hate to seem prudish after a colourful past myself but I believe this entire topic is the reason why I wouldn't advocate one night stands. We share our consent signals (likes and dislikes plus how we express those) in and out of a sexual context. If we remove those moments of learning it makes it difficult to create gut feelings that can be a clue that it wasn't rape. There isn't a built trust. Also, when we're unable to give what others would define as a clear no or not right now, a boyfriend or husband may/will have learnt your subtle cues.
Hep, none of it would apply to you anyway, without regard to which term we'd use. "Crazy-making/prejudicial negative filtering" describes a person who doesn't have a legitimate complaint of having been harmed, yet remains convinced that any irritation in her dealings with others proves real and deep abuse. Like I said, it's the "professional victim"--the person who, rather than deal forthrightly with conflicted feelings and thinking errors, chalks up personal difficulties as "well, the OTHER person obviously changed, or lied, or was out to get me, or is mistreating me!" They tend to see sinister agendas in whatever other people do that irks them, with the result that they have a lifelong sense of being constantly rejected, done wrong, harmed, exploited, etc. While most people would deal with conflicts by reasoning and communicating their way through them, a crazy-maker simply presumes, "I don't like what you did, and I *used* to like you, so that proves that YOU'VE changed--or lied--in order to intentionally harm me!" One way to spot such a person is to notice when their disagreement with someone on an ideological level manifests as deep, aggressive dislike or hate, so that they don't merely have a difference of opinion but rather have a personal rage that they express. "We disagree" becomes "I detest someone for what they are." Because they are convinced of their own legitimate victimhood, they expect to be treated with special sanctity. So if you try to confront them or "call them on it," they will become irate and retreat still further into the "you're a bully/I'm a victim" stance. There is no easy way out of this standoff.
Clinically, there is quite a bit of discussion about whether these traits reflect a deeply-entrenched narcissism or a form of Borderline Personality Disorder. If anyone's curious about the clinical work on this issue, Dr. Otto Kernberg and Dr. Ofer Zur have written eloquently about it (Kernberg, however, believes that BPD and narcissism are a continuum pathology, not separate). For layperson's discussions, just Google "Crazymaker" or "crazy-making."
Frankly, I don't think we have anyone who fits this description in the RAR group--we did, at one time have a few, but they've long since left or been banned for being toxic. You know, because they couldn't abide all the abuse they endured by merely being disagreed with at some point!
Sorry to divert this thread into a discussion of PNF (Prejudicial negative filtering), but it's a good topic that kinda grew out of the first topic about consent.
To me her behavior is a kind of a covert control, albeit one that is not [consciously] intentional. It’s her way of bridling a hidden agony by exerting an indirect, mostly passive, power over her environment. She’s projecting her own self-judgment onto other people. I see it as a reaction to something that has been done to her once, and personally I wouldn’t be surprised if she has been controlled this very same way as a little girl. And now she needs her surroundings to save her from herself and her past, because her constant ancient helplessness tells her she can’t do it herself. And all this is happening unbeknownst to her.
And yeah, no one here behaves like her, including me.
However, I’m still traumatized myself, so there are situations where victim-me does threaten to take over, and my behavior is PNF-ish. It’s no easy feat for anyone to walk that fine line between attempting to honor and listen to what one feels while not letting oneself be carried away by one’s emotions.
This means I do understand her to a point. Sometimes I really wish I could help her in some way, but I also realize I can only do so much. And it’s difficult to communicate with her as she misunderstands a lot. Her fear and anger dictate what she’s able to receive.
This brings me to your original post, HealingJourney, about communication. I think we communicate all the time, both verbally and non-verbally. We feel something, want something or need something at all times, don’t we? We do so even when we dissociate, repress or suppress things. And I’m sure it shows in some way. But in order to more readily be able to tune in to what another person is expressing, verbally or non-verbally, one needs to be in tune with oneself enough first. Personally, I’m not there yet. I’m sure I’ll get better at it once I become more at ease in my own skin, but I’ll never be able to read the mind of another. Here verbal communication plays a pivotal role.
When it comes to equal, respectful sex, I don’t think one partner is more responsible for interpreting signals and communicating their own than the other one. I don’t think the instigator has more responsibility than the one who agrees to it. Once I have consented, I’m just responsible as the other one for the wellbeing of both - even though I’m traumatized, and can’t always be clear about what I want. But in a good relationship existing traumas aren’t kept secret, which of course makes sex less of a fearsome act. Revealing such things might even strengthen the bond between the two, as well as make interpretation of what is and isn’t a ‘no’ less of an effort.
Suddenly going limp is one clue that something’s amiss, and in my mind is an abrupt ‘no’. Squirming away is another ‘no’, and squirming towards might be a ‘yes’. With emphasis on ‘might be’. Again, here, at least in my case, verbal communication is paramount.
We also have the right to withdraw our consent at any time, even when we’re the instigator, although that carries the risk of the other one’s frustration. And so does our partner.
This reminds me: I meant to write a satirical book someday called "How to be a victim for the rest of your life."