Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp1	4000+
orolan	4000+
Navigatr1	2500+
Silvert...	2500+
1dadof5	2500+
Valerie	2000+
steve	1500+
victori...	1000+
myoung	1000+
rabbitr...	750+
HPierce	750+
poetsdr...	750+
Renunci...	750+
lj	750+
fallenone	500+
DoTheCr...	500+
marta	500+
momhelp...	500+
prozac	500+
rebel51	500+
PVulcan	250+
anti	250+
rodsmith	250+
LockEmUp	250+
Quest	250+
artie	250+
KK	250+
LostTime	250+
TGoodman	250+
amberleaf	250+
deadmom...	250+
brennus	100+
scarlett	100+
mousein...	100+
thepar	100+
assumpt...	100+
lildrafire	100+
JakeLF	100+
MrTruth	100+
june5	100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
buttwaxer
chooch
genospice
hud123
kawaski
kelstress
unknowable

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 118138 (In Reply to Message 118093)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Posted by x_orolan on Oct 13, 2003 10:14 AM | Also by x_orolan

Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

Good article.
But it does nothing to solve the other "age-old" dilemma of how to achieve justice in a "her word against his word" situation, one where the jury predominantly will side with "her".

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 118093
"no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Posted by x_simon on Oct 12, 2003 03:58 PM | Also by x_simon

Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089687/

"No means no" is still a pretty good rule.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, October 10, 2003, at 3:12 PM PT

In a preliminary hearing this week in Eagle, Colo., the details of Kobe Bryant's alleged rape of a 19-year-old woman were recounted on the stand. Bryant's accuser, speaking through the police detective who met with her after the alleged assault, indicated that she said "no" at least twice over the course of the encounter. Today, Gregg Easterbrook suggests that the problem is that the word "no" is just not strong enough to signal that a rape has taken place. Why? Because, according to Easterbrook, "no" has come to mean "yes." As he observes (doubtless with the empirical evidence to back it up), "Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial 'no.' "

I'm guessing it's closer to 80 percent, but that still makes it rape, doesn't it?

Why is this? "Because," according to Easterbrook, "men know this—because in the real world 'no' does not always mean no." Sometimes, he goes on, "no" just means "not now, but maybe after more wine." His suggestion? Since the word "no" has lost all social and legal meaning, we should raise the bar a little and require women to say, "This is rape." That, according to Easterbrook, would stop all but the most callous rapists in their tracks.

It's tough to figure out when a rape has occurred, says Easterbrook, so let's put a heavier burden on women to clarify things.

Here's what Easterbrook's suggestion ignores: Once upon a time the word "no" had social meaning, too. It didn't lose its social meaning because the word "no" is ambiguous. (If someone asks to borrow my Honda and I say "no," it's clear I haven't consented.) The word "no" has lost meaning because in this situation we choose to ignore its directive to desist. So, why would we possibly take "This is rape" more seriously? Easterbrook suggests that the very word "rape" would chill any sentient man. Maybe for a year or two, until "This is rape" becomes subject to the same social forces that suggest to Easterbrook that "no" merely means "try harder."

Soon there will be Harlequin Romances featuring heroines in heaving bodices breathing, "But Sir ... This is rape," just before being delightedly ravished. Soon, "Oh baby, this is rape," will be the answer to "Oooooh, talk dirty to me."

The problem is not one of nomenclature. Words signify concepts and "no" still signals the concept of non-consent, for 100 percent of the world's English-speaking population, 100 percent of the time. The problem, as Easterbrook illustrates, is that we keep perpetuating stereotypes in which men are cast as ravening beasts and women are cast as confused madonna/whores. The word "no" isn't the issue. The fact that men (and some women) still think "no" means "yes" is. We already put the burden on women to say "no," which is complicated enough. (I don't have to say "no" when someone steals my car keys.) Now Easterbrook wants them to have to say, "This is rape," a sentence virtually impossible to utter unless you are truly being violently forced by a maniac. It's tough enough to say "no" in a fraught and nuanced sexual encounter. But Easterbrook wants us to have to read the guy's Miranda rights.

Saying "This is rape" instead of "No" bizarrely asks women to be even less precise than the status quo. It may not be rape. It may just be yucky sex. Why do I have to call it rape just to get it to stop?

It's not the place of the criminal legal system to resolve age-old ambiguity in sexual language. The criminal law exists to punish criminals. Books like "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" exist to resolve age-old ambiguity in sexual language, and it's not clear that's working all that well, either. So, let's not make our rape laws the social laboratory for fixing human communication. And let's not make it harder to convict rapists, just so that men and women can say we understand each other a bit better.

The law is perfectly clear: When a woman says "no," even — take note, Kobe's lawyers — after 5 minutes of necking, she really means no. If Kobe, or Easterbrook, or any other man chooses to hear "try more wine," then by all means, bring out the Chianti. But if a man chooses to hear it as "forge ahead, and force me, I may just be kidding," then he'd best be prepared for the consequences. The notion that men are hard-wired to dominate and overcome ambivalent women stopped being cute about 10,000 years ago.

Is sexual conversation confusing? Yes? Is it frustrating? Maybe. Should we change laws because women are conflicted and men are horny? No.

Thread

118093, x_simon, Oct 12, 2003 03:58 PM ["no" means "no"...or maybe &qu...]
      118098, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 13, 2003 02:19 AM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
      118125, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 08:25 AM [well considering.]
            118150, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:08 AM [Re: well considering.]
      118138, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 10:14 AM [Re: "no" means "no"...or ...]
            118164, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:36 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...o...]
                  118173, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 07:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...]
                        118192, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 10:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
                              118216, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 12:12 PM [Re: "no" means "no...]
                                    118236, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 04:00 PM [Re: "no" means "...]
                                          118247, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:31 PM [Re: "no" means &...]
                                                118252, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:41 PM [Re: "no" means...]
                                                      118265, x_losttime, Oct 15, 2003 05:11 AM [Re: "no"...]
                                                            118267, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 09:36 AM [Re: "no"...]
                                                                  118303, x_losttime, Oct 16, 2003 01:53 AM [Re: "no...]
                                                                        118316, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:45 PM [Re: "n...]
                                                                              118320, x_losttime, Oct 17, 2003 01:09 AM [Re: &...]
                                                                                    118334, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:06 PM [Re: &...]
                                                      118312, x_orolan, Oct 16, 2003 12:33 PM [Re: "no" m...]
                                                            118317, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:48 PM [Re: "no"...]
                                                                  118325, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 11:35 AM [Re: "no&q...]
                                                                        118335, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:19 PM [Re: "n...]
                                                                              118339, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 09:45 PM [Re: &qu...]
                                                                                    118347, x_marta, Oct 19, 2003 04:57 AM [Re:]
                                                                                          118351, x_orolan, Oct 19, 2003 06:56 PM [Re:]
                                                                                                118358, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 01:01 PM [Re...]
                                                                                                      118361, x_orolan, Oct 20, 2003 02:31 PM [...]
                                                                                                            118365, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 06:13 PM [...]
                        146015, Rejected
                  118188, x_losttime, Oct 13, 2003 08:29 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]

Forum Home | Top of Thread

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: Old Message BoardThread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118138 (In Reply to Message 118093)Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118093"no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Thread

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118138 (In Reply to Message 118093)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118093
"no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"