TheAgitator.com
The Common Sense of Consent
Friday, January 9th, 2004James Bowman in National Review writes:
Pre-feminist common sense suggested that a woman who comes alone to a man’s hotel room late at night has already consented to sex with him, but on the all-or-nothing principle so dear to ideologues everywhere, feminist orthodoxy insists that the adoption of this rough-and-ready but extremely useful guide would be tantamount to saying that a woman who has slept with other men not her husband, or even who dresses provocatively has already consented to sex. And the feminist interpretation of the law is now almost uncontested in the courts. No means no ? even though no one else hears it, even though everyone knows that it may mean yes ? because feminists want to reserve to women the right and freedom to be indiscrete.
The brilliance at NRO continues to shine forth unabated. Perhaps there is a generation gap here. Or perhaps Bowman is so irreparably lascivious that he cannot conceive of the possibility of having a woman to one’s hotel room late at night for the purpose of a conversation, splitting the cost of Titanic on pay-per-view, a drink, or just a little innocent positive-sum smashface.
Bowman conjures in imagination this conversation:
“Why don’t you stop by my room for a drink? A little nighcap and a chat?”
“Why yes. That sounds nice.”
. . .
[Woman crosses threshold. Door closes. Man grabs blouse and yanks, sending buttons flying, exposing lacy feminine undergarments. (Sorry.) Pushes her on to bed.]
“I know what you’re thinking you dirty minx! Poppa’s gonna give you the what for!”
Yes, clearly, she’s asked for it.
We should thank Bowman for his elegant reductio of “pre-feminist common sense,” ably exposing it as a vehicle of a retarded moral and sexual sensibility.
It is undeniable that “no” sometimes means “maybe,” or “yes, but try harder.” And that “yes” can mean “I’d rather not, but ‘no’ doesn’t really seem worth the trouble,” or “yes, but I’ve now changed my mind, so please stop.”
This can be confusing, no doubt, because sexual emotions and intentions can be confusing. Such is life. It’s a matter of interpretative context, and our duty as morally decent human beings is to develop a sensitivity to context that allows us to understand the intentions of the speaker behind the utterance.
If my wife of twenty years wants me, her husband, to pretend to be a burglar who breaks into the house and rapes her, then adamant and strenuous “no”s are required by the performance. And my husbandly duties in turn require I brazenly dismiss her protestations as I handle her roughly. On the flip side, if one’s smitten, bashful, and drunken date tentatively, uncomfortably, and meekly assents to a sexual suggestion, then there’s a good chance she’d say “no” under more chemically and emotionally favorable circumstance, and a gentleman will decline to press forward, despite her nominal consent. Even if she has come up to the room.
This, I believe, is common sense, both pre- and post-feminist. Bowman should look under the cushions, or behind the dresser, because he’s lost his.
[Nod to Atrios.]
I think the notion that a woman gives up her right to say “no” at any time during a sexual encounter really caught on during the William Kennedy Smith trial. Everyone – and the way I remember it, EVERYONE – said, basically, that he was not guilty of rape because the victim was a mature woman out late drinking in a bar who knew she was with the Kennedys and went back to the house and made out with Smith – so what did she expect was going to happen?
I guess I felt that way too…until one time I was in grad school, making out with a woman in her bed after a night of drinking, assuming things were going to develop in a certain way, until – at a most inopportune moment – she said, “No”.
Now, I didn’t really see that I had any choice but to stop. After all…she said “No”. I wasn’t happy about it. I tried to change her mind, unfortunately to no avail. But I certainly wasn’t going to ignore her and force myself on her. I don’t think it ever would have crossed my mind to do that.
But that’s exactly what Smith did – and it seems to be exactly what that article is condoning. If I had done that, not a single person would have thought I did anything wrong. Except, of course, the girl and me.
By the same token, a lady does NOT put themselves in a position where such a thing could happen (alone with a man that is not their husband/BF.)
The sexual misconduct incidents at the Air Force Academy clearly demonstrate this. The girls (and no, I won’t call them women because an ADULT wouldn’t do something this patently stupid) would go to a male cadet’s room and drink – both already prohibited by the AF Academy and then get surprised when something untoward happens.
Sure, the male in this case shouldn’t be doing bad stuff to the female, but the female shouldn’t be rolling the dice in this manner, either.
And on top of it all, they used the wrong spelling of “indiscreet.” “Discrete” is a mathematical term, while “discreet” applies to human behavior. I’m not even sure that “indiscrete” is a word.
So if the girl comes back to wherever with a male…it’s assumed that she has given consent?
SO what I’m getting at is I can’t club women over the head, drag them back to my cave by their hair and have my way with them, BUT if I coerce them to coming back to my place for a drink, coversation or to pet my puppy then all is fair…I’m retiring my caveman club.
Judge, when I told her I wanted to come back to my place to pet my puppy, I was not talking about a dog. ~DUH~ Can I go now? Thanks.
I have male friends that I visit at their houses/apartments once in a while. Who’d a thought I was actually consenting to sex all this time? Thanks for letting me know what I am consenting to.
I think everyone is missing the point
Mr. Bowman is trying to make. He is not talking about consent in the bedroom, he is talking about how we judge the encounter from outside.
Men can be evil. Women can be evil.
How does society ‘know’ the difference
between rape, ‘date rape’, ‘bait and switch’, and regret? If there is no witness, how do you judge? Can you Judge? When it’s he said, she said,
context is all we have. The law must
be careful, both men and women use sex
as a weapon…..
Bob, Sure. But still the “threshold” rule is still moronic. There are all sorts of circumstances in which a woman might come up to a man’s room without a whit of sexual intention. This just seems obvious, or at least it must to anyone who maintains a group of close female friends. In he said/she said cases, with a lack of any witnesses of physical evidence, the guy should be judged innocent, unless his story is inconsistent or whatnot. The presumption of innocence already tips things in the alleged rapist’s favor. So what’s the point of assuming consent in circumstances where most reasonable people whould see none?
Will, you have agreed with the theshold rule in your post. These cases
come down(as a rule) to he said, she said. For the outsider observer, presumption of innocence is the same as consent in these cases. I don’t think it’s a treshold rule, I think it’s a treshold warning. Context is important because of this. visiting good friends at their home is a far different situation from going to the hotel room of someone who you met in a bar. Physical evidence becomes a problem as more people become creative in their sex play. Rope burns? some people pay good money to be bound. Bruises? some people pay good money to be beaten. Semen? in the cases i’ve seen, both sides agree that fluids were exchanged, the disagreement is over consent. Sex is very private, and often odd. The treshold works two ways. Consent is assumed( in a legal sense, looking from the outside) and it is understood that we( in a legal sense) aren’t looking into the bedroom. Unless we are willing to have the police in the bedroom, it should have a treshold quality, and women who aren’t sure they can trust a man shouldn’t invite him into their bedroom or go into his. Men who aren’t sure about a woman or her desires shouldn’t go into a women’s bedroom or invite her into his. Both sides should remember that bad people can talk a good game, and use public places, and witness until they are sure. It does slow down the ‘game’ but will forstall most of these ugly situations.
Of course a woman can change her mind about having sex… a point obvious to most today. However, the author was dead on accurate that if a man invites a woman over to his hotel room at 1:00 am, it IS NOT to split the pay per view fee so they can both watch Titanic for $5. And women know this. It’s called a ‘booty call’ folks.
By the same token, a gentleman does not ask a lady to put herself into that position. Man is made to protect woman, not abuse her. And the lady has a responsibility to know the kind of man she is associating with. It’s unfortunate that this ever happens, but it has since the beginning of time.
Sexual Mores of Days of Yore
Now, that paragraph is awfully uncharitable to feminists, and makes it seem like the author is saying that a woman shouldn’t be able to go into a bedroom with a man without the expectation that she will have sex with him, and without the possibility of…
Any guy that invites a woman over to split the cost of TITANIC is either gay or lying.
Ladies if you didn’t meet him over over a double-latte with a pinch of Madagascar cinnamon, while listening to Kenny G, I would be very suspicious.