Continued Ruminations on Rape

Posted by Joshua White on 02.14.2007

In the longest column I have ever written I discuss Valentine's Day, feedback, and write an original column. But don't be scared by the length, I have included a table of contents!


This column is very long (over 2500 words). The column only is a more readable 941words. For those who don't have tons of time and just want to read my column, or for those who want to pick and choose what they read, I have included a Table of Contents in this edition. (I think that this is another first for 411's politics zone.) I have split the column up into separate sections. Just refer to the Table of Contents for the section titles and the scroll down. Enjoy.

Table of Contents

1. New Title Update

2. Ramblings on Valentine's Day.

3. Feedback from Last week.

4. New Column

5. Read More!


1. New Title Update

I want to welcome you all to what will soon be called, The White Plague. Both my esteemed leader, Jason Easley, and lovable dolt and friend Brandon Crow have been seen calling my weekly column The White Plague and I have taken a liking to it. And like the plague my knowledge will spread the masses (infecting the weak and young first). However, unlike the real plague I bring nothing but fun times. So, be prepared next week, when my column actually has a column name.

2. Ramblings on Valentine's Day.

Next order of business: Valentine's Day. Today is the Valentine's Day. What does this mean to me? Nothing . What will I and the missus be doing tonight? Nothing special. Since I was a kid I have never really liked Valentine's Days. While I was in college I told my friends that I would never participate. All my male friends told me that wen I was married I would have to. The wife would make me. I denied this. Here I am married and I'll do nothing on Valentine's Day.

Now I know what most of you are thinking. You're all thinking that I'm that guy who says something like "Valentine's Day is a Halmark holiday that has no real meaning. It is just an attempt by the floral lobbyists to make billions on Ecuadorian roses!" My response: How dare you? Valentine's Day was not created by Halmark.

I don't care who created Valentine's Day or why it was started. I just know that I will not be told when to be romantic with my wife. (February 14th.) I will not be told what to buy her. (Flowers...specifically red roses.) I will not be told what to do with her. (Take her to dinner. You have never heard of Valentine's Day breakfast at Shoney's.) Further, why do women really want this? Why would they want men to feel obligated to take them out a this particular day? Sure, the men are supposed to want to celebrate Valentine's Day, but why? There is nothing special about it. In fact, everyone is doing the same thing as you. Being romantic is not taking your wife/girlfriend out on the night of February 14th. Being romantic is specifically not taking her out that night and instead bringing/sending her flowers on Wednesday, March 28th. When you take the lady (or man) out on the 14th you are doing the right things, but not for the right reasons. You're not giving the spontaneity, or true caring that real love deserves. We need to forget being nice to our significant others on February 14th and start being romantic throughout the year. Down with Valentine's Day and up with Valentine's Year!

Oh, and this applies to you, too, ladies. You should be giving the men in your life little presents and such. We aren't the only ones who should be romantic.

So I really hope that none of you do anything tonight. Later this month enjoy a romantic evening with your loved on...just not tonight.

As this is a politics zone, I feel obligated to relate this to politics. Here is my rationale: Valentine's Day is marked on every calendar. If a "holiday" is marked on a calendar then it holds some amount of significance for the American public. What holds some amount of significance for the American public has some amount of political import. Therefore, Valentine's Day has some amount of political import.


3. Feedback

I received more email about this past column than I have in a very long time. You people were all fired about about this subject. And much to my surprise more than just one person seemed to think that I was wrong. Many emails claimed that for various reasons the act of not pulling out as soon as the woman asks should not be called "rape." Because of the risqué nature of the emails, the authors' names will remain anonymous. Below are a few of the your feedbacks with my comments.

"If you're one or two pumps away from ejaculating, there's nothing in the world that can make a guy quit those last two pumps. That's biological and has really nothing to do with morality. Under your scenario, any girl can convert sex into rape by saying "no" one pump away from orgasm. Are you kidding me? Get real."

-I disagree with almost all of this. First off, there is nothing biological about "those last two pumps." Imagine that you're a man and as you're about to administer those "last two pumps" your mom walks in, or your child jumps on the bed. Do you really think that you would biologically be forced to finish? I doubt this. You may get frustrated (literally and figuratively) but you can, theoretically, stop. Further, no girl can convert sex to rape unless you continue to act like it's just sex after she says "no."

"If the lines quoted [from the decision] really do constitute the common law in Maryland, then in addition to the result you talked about, it would also seem to me to disallow prosecution of a female raping a male."

-This follower is exactly right. By defining rape in the way that Maryland seems to, a man can never get raped, nor can a girl rape another girl. And I think that both are not only possible, but just as horrible as man on woman rape.

The last piece of feedback comes from a reader who was very open with his past sexual experiences. His first sexual experience was with a girl who had rape fantasies. He says:

"[W]e started dating, but she still had that fetish and during sex we would often do a form of role playing that included forced sex, and lots of physical assault. Now, from my point of view at the time, this was consentual [sic]. She vocally asked and literally begged for me to do this to her. But what if she suddenly changed her mind the next day? I never entertained the thought at the time, though my family tried to warn me repeatedly, but to any outsider or court the situation could have looked like rape at any time."

--This reader was concerned that what was never rape could very easily be misconstrued as non-consensual sex. And further when it comes time to put the burden of proof on someone, the man will lose out.

While rape fantasies are fairly rare, they do exist. But, as I told this reader, in the end almost no woman actually wants to get raped. They want the physicality of a rape fantasy. They want the lack of control or power. But if you ask most women if they wanted to walk down a dark alley by herself, she'd most likely say no. Why? She wants the fantasy, not the reality. For that reason rape fantasy scenarios are not rape. The man has the consent. As for the change of mind: I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly confident that you can't claim rape after consent was given. Part of the horrible nature of rape is that the man doesn't care about using the woman's body. In all of these cases, the man did care about the autonomy of the woman. And if this was documented, then I think that the man has a fair shot at convincing a court that he didn't think that he was committing rape. And all along, my argument that I made in my last column still stands.


4. New Column

I realize that this column is already of Easlian length, but I ask you to keep going. Here is the all new, original material.

In my last column I argued that once consent is removed from the act of sex, the person who continues has become a rapist. This means that a husband or boyfriend can easily become a rapist if he doesn't respect the body and wishes of his wife or girlfriend. Now a few questions.

Once the man has moved from making love to committing rape, can the woman attempt to physically remove him from her?

I ask this rhetorically. I think that any time a rapist (traditional or one who started off with consent) is continuing to use the woman she has every right to try and get out of this situation. She can ethically struggle against her assailant. I don't think that there is any question here. Moving on.

If she can struggle to end the rape can she physically assault the rapist? Can she hit him? Bite him? Pull his hair? Again, I think that it is clear that the woman can go to this far to avoid the continuation of the sexual assault. On to a harder step.

Can the victim use extreme measures? Can she stab the rapist with a knife? If she gets a gun, can she shoot him in the leg? Can she choke him out to get him to stop him?

I think that it would be harder to do this to your husband/boyfriend than to the random man who jumped you in the park. But either way, I believe that a rapist is a rapist and we should treat them the same. If someone is attempting to rape you, you have every right to try to stop them. ( I realize that this is getting redundant, but I do have point that I'll soon make.) You can stab, punch, rip, tear, bite, pinch, etc. And I would argue that you can, if you must, kill the attacker in the name of getting him to stop. The reason that you can do all of these things is because you have the right to stop anyone who is using your body forcefully and without permission. You are the only one to have full rights to your body and anyone else has to ask to touch or use it. This is why if someone is trying to kill you, you can respond with deathly force. And this is why if someone is trying to rape you, you can kill to stop it.

Now here is an interesting question for you:

What differentiates what an unwanted fetus does and what a rapist does in terms of body violation?

I realize that this may seem just to be a shocking question just for the sake of shock, but let me explain. I just got done explaining that only the woman can give permission to someone else to use her body. Well, the fetus, when it is unwanted, it invading the woman's body in a way very similar to the rapist. The fetus has implanted itself in the woman's womb and it refuses to leave. The rapist has forcibly entered the woman's body and refuses to leave.

I just claimed that a woman can use any force necessary measure to extract the man from her body. Why wouldn't it be the same with the case of the fetus? The woman, just like in the case with the rapist, could ask the fetus to say (clearly in a non-literal sense). The fetus would refuse to leave, and then the woman would have the right to remove the fetus by any means. Right? If we won't allow for rape because it is using the woman's body against her desires shouldn't we also allow for abortion as the fetus is using the woman's body against her wishes (in the cases where she doesn't want the fetus in her body)?

I can already see an objection with my potential view. The rapist decided to actively violate the woman's body, the fetus had no choice but to be there. To respond to this, I ask you to remember 1988, the year that Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! came out. In Naked Gun, the villain, Vincent Ludwig has a device that hypnotizes a person and forces them, against their will, to assassinate another person. Imagine instead of Ludwig getting the person to murder he hypnotizes them to rape. The hypno-rapist (if you will) doesn't know what he is doing, but he is still going to use the woman's body without her permission, and I would claim that it is still permissible to use any method to stop him. While this example is somewhat silly, it shows you that because an agent is completely innocent it doesn't allow them to use another person's body. The fetus (in some instances) and rapist (in all instances) both use the woman's body without permission. The innocence of the violator does not matter. Either way, action can be taken to stop the violation.

I understand that comparing rapists to foeti might make some uncomfortable, but I think that there is a powerful analogy here. And this analogy might force us to alter our views on abortion. Am I wrong? Is my analogy completely incorrect? Is there a difference between how an unwanted fetus uses the body without consent and how the rapist does? If you have an answer to any of these questions, please feel free to email me.

5. Read More!

If your retinas are still functioning, and your brain hasn't melted away from the length of this column I invite you to read any of the following columns from my fine colleagues:

Joe Rivett tries to figure out why Rudy Giuliani is so popular at this point in the game. I like many of Joe's points here, but I think that name recognition plays more of a role than even Joe seems to believe.

We finally have a female on the staff here and she has a pretty funny and catchy title. Hooray. Check out Audrey Teagan's Aud Perspective. (Get it? Aud perspective...odd perspective...get it?)

The Dialogues continue...but I have to admit that I miss my partner in dialogue. I miss Crow. I always will.


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.