Dr. Ruth: Women can't say no to sex once naked in bed

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Click here before you think that the issue of consent is close to being resolved.

 

[jacknife]

What a dumb thought.

 

[keith99]

What an absurd idea. I'm assuming the difference between men and women is not so huge that there are no women who simply prefer to sleep naked as many men do. If proof is presented that there are no women who simply prefer to sleep naked then I'll entertain arguments for the claim.

I'm thinking I will not need to entertain the idea.

 

[Armoured]

Um... hope this isn't TMI, but my wife and I habitually sleep... au naturel... and you better believe that by itself doesn't constitute consent.

 

[dgiharris]

lets be clear, we aren't talking about two people in bed naked equating to sex...

no we are talking about two AROUSED people lying naked in bed.

Her quote is:

Appearing on the Diane Rehm Show, on Monday, Westheimer said that once two people are "aroused" and "in bed together," the time for saying no or changing one's mind has passed.

and as unpopular as it might be to say so, I have to agree with her.

The urge to reproduce is perhaps the most POWERFUL biological imperative that we have hardwired into us. Once action is hot and heavy and you are BOTH lying naked on the bed and up to that point consent has been giving by both sides, then neither party can be faulted for being unable to "stop" the act of sex and at that point, if either party wants to stop the act of sex that party might have to use force....

I would equate this to having gone days without eating and then being set down in front of a buffet. You are given a knife and fork and told you eat whatever you like. You take a big bite of hamburger begin to chew and then right before you swallow someone orders you to spit the food out....

If you do NOT want to have sex, then you simply need to do any abortive action prior to arousing your partner and then having both you and your partner lying naked in bed... that is beyond irresponsible. Sorry.

At some point we need to be held accountable for our actions. If you don't want to have sex, then don't put yourself in the above position.

The universal rule for "no sex" is keeping the underwear on. That rule has been firmly established since Junior High for crying out loud. Other than that, both of you "agreeing" prior to being naked to take things only so far is also acceptable. Anything other than that is just way irresponsible for either party to allow things to get that far without intending to have sex...

 

[StephanieSomer]

lets be clear, we aren't talking about two people in bed naked equating to sex...

no we are talking about two AROUSED people lying naked in bed.

Her quote is:



and as unpopular as it might be to say so, I have to agree with her.

The urge to reproduce is perhaps the most POWERFUL biological imperative that we have hardwired into us. Once action is hot and heavy and you are BOTH lying naked on the bed and up to that point consent has been giving by both sides, then neither party can be faulted for being unable to "stop" the act of sex and at that point, if either party wants to stop the act of sex that party might have to use force....

I would equate this to having gone days without eating and then being set down in front of a buffet. You are given a knife and fork and told you eat whatever you like. You take a big bite of hamburger begin to chew and then right before you swallow someone orders you to spit the food out....

If you do NOT want to have sex, then you simply need to do any abortive action prior to arousing your partner and then having both you and your partner lying naked in bed... that is beyond irresponsible. Sorry.

At some point we need to be held accountable for our actions. If you don't want to have sex, then don't put yourself in the above position.

The universal rule for "no sex" is keeping the underwear on. That rule has been firmly established since Junior High for crying out loud. Other than that, both of you "agreeing" prior to being naked to take things only so far is also acceptable. Anything other than that is just way irresponsible for either party to allow things to get that far without intending to have sex...

I appreciate your presence of reality in your post.

I agree wholeheartedly that rape is NEVER justifiable. What does trouble me somewhat is that no one ever has anything to say regarding the wrong done to a guy by encouraging his stimulation up to the point of sexual readiness and then saying, "No". THAT is pure evil. In my mind, I see that AND rape as equally base. The only real difference between the two is that one carries a legal punishment and one does not. But the effects on the individuals are not that different, except for the possibility of pregnancy. Many women seem oblivious to the sin they commit against a guy by essentially teasing him and then cutting him off. Some use it as a game to boost their own self-worth. The truth is, their worth is diminished, not enhanced, by treating a guy like that.

 

[Hank]

@ first post
Oh my ...
So you finally, finally got your girl in bed, and then she says no, just at the very last moment. Yes, the political correct laws are there, but please don't tell me you are not playing with fire here. Sure this expert is a bit over the top, but she has a remote point, if you don't know when you play with fire, don't play.

 

[dgiharris]

...Many women seem oblivious to the sin they commit against a guy by essentially teasing him and then cutting him off....

More or less agree, however I would change the above from "sin they commit"... to "the danger they put themselves in..."

I honestly do not believe women understand how strong the sexual urge is in a man especially when that man is in his prime. It goes beyond arousal and desire... when a guy is aroused and naked with a woman the reptile brain takes over and we are swimming in a hormonal soup of pure animalistic primal need. Sure, for most of us when we get older we have more control over the beast... but when we were/are in our sexual prime (15 to 25), that beast is really strong. We can keep it under control up until a point and that point will vary a bit from man to man. Most of us can keep control up until the point where underwear comes off. Beyond that, it's tough to say.

I for one am glad I've never had a woman play that game with me. Then again, i've always been mindful of consent because I never wanted to be put in that spot.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually, Doctor Ruth does make some sense. If a woman is naked in bed with a man, that could reasonably be taken to be implied consent. Why would she be naked in bed unless she intended to have sex?

Context does matter, and there may be some contexts in which this wouldn't hold true. But the point is a good one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Armoured]

lets be clear, we aren't talking about two people in bed naked equating to sex...

no we are talking about two AROUSED people lying naked in bed.

Her quote is:



and as unpopular as it might be to say so, I have to agree with her.

The urge to reproduce is perhaps the most POWERFUL biological imperative that we have hardwired into us. Once action is hot and heavy and you are BOTH lying naked on the bed and up to that point consent has been giving by both sides, then neither party can be faulted for being unable to "stop" the act of sex and at that point, if either party wants to stop the act of sex that party might have to use force....

I would equate this to having gone days without eating and then being set down in front of a buffet. You are given a knife and fork and told you eat whatever you like. You take a big bite of hamburger begin to chew and then right before you swallow someone orders you to spit the food out....

If you do NOT want to have sex, then you simply need to do any abortive action prior to arousing your partner and then having both you and your partner lying naked in bed... that is beyond irresponsible. Sorry.

At some point we need to be held accountable for our actions. If you don't want to have sex, then don't put yourself in the above position.

The universal rule for "no sex" is keeping the underwear on. That rule has been firmly established since Junior High for crying out loud. Other than that, both of you "agreeing" prior to being naked to take things only so far is also acceptable. Anything other than that is just way irresponsible for either party to allow things to get that far without intending to have sex...

Either party is free to withdraw consent at any time. Now, sure, it might be frustrating if your partner is naked and changes his/her mind at the last second, but it happens.
In my varied and storied career, I can only think of one time someone has withdrawn consent at that point, but I certainly respected it.

"But you promised" isn't justification for rape. Why on earth would you want to have sex with anyone who's consent wasn't full and enthusiastic?

Now, usual caveats apply, I fully agree it's foolish to get yourself in that situation unless you are very sure about what you are doing. Also, it must be said, that while nothing justifies rape, it's certainly making yourself extremely vulnerable to being raped.

 

[Moral Orel]

So let's say a girl is all ready to have sex, naked in bed, then she finds out he wants to have anal sex, does she owe it to him then?
What if it turns out he wants to be really rough and he punches her, does she have to have sex then?
What if, after she's removed her clothes, he removes his and he has sores on his genitals, does her implied consent obligate her then?
What if she just stops being in the mood for absolutely no reason, does that mean that she deserves to be pinned down and raped causing a lifetime of psychological trauma?
Are those consequences really just as bad as a man having to go off to the bathroom to finish by himself instead?

 

[Armoured]

Actually, Doctor Ruth does make some sense. If a woman is naked in bed with a man, that could reasonably be taken to be implied consent. Why would she be naked in bed unless she intended to have sex?

Context does matter, and there may be some contexts in which this wouldn't hold true. But the point is a good one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's certainly implied consent, yes. Right up until the point when she says "no". At which point, naked or in bed as she may be, she has withdrawn consent, and has every right to do so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's certainly implied consent, yes. Right up until the point when she says "no". At which point, naked or in bed as she may be, she has withdrawn consent, and has every right to do so.

Yes, I agree. She has withdrawn consent.

However, if she has already been penetrated and intercourse is already in progress, it would be absurd for her to call it rape even after saying "no".

You may have a point if intercourse has not yet begun. Perhaps saying "no" before being penetrated is enough warning, even if both partners are already aroused. Still, I at least agree with Doctor Ruth that it is irresponsible to let things get so far.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Armoured]

Yes, I agree. She has withdrawn consent.

However, if she has already been penetrated and intercourse is already in progress, it would be absurd for her to call it rape even after saying "no".

You may have a point if intercourse has not yet begun. Perhaps saying "no" before being penetrated is enough warning, even if both partners are already aroused. Still, I at least agree with Doctor Ruth that it is irresponsible to let things get so far.


eudaimonia,

Mark

IIRC, at least one of the rape kits I was party to when I was a nurse was a young lady who's partner felt the best way to tell tell her he had slept with her sister was mid coitus. She had been penetrated, and most assuredly withdrew consent. I don't know what the legal outcome was, but the police took it seriously enough to charge the guy with sexual assault.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This explains consent rather well:

 

[dgiharris]

Either party is free to withdraw consent at any time. Now, sure, it might be frustrating if your partner is naked and changes his/her mind at the last second, but it happens.

I would also add the word "dangerous".

As I've previously stated in my earlier post, the urge to reproduce is incredibly strong and getting all the way to "that point" and then being forced to reverse course is something not everyone will be capable of doing.

You can be all proper with technicalities and what not and say that both parties have the right to reverse their decisions at any time... Sure, legally they do, but both parties open themselves up to "crimes of passions". What I mean is that for some human beings, it is possible to be pushed "too far" and thus lose control in the heat of the moment.

Here is an example. You are a parent and you hear your child scream. You run to their room and find some stranger naked on top of your child. The stranger immediately jumps off of your child and lays on the ground in the fetal position screaming, "I'm sorry, I surrender". Technically he is subdued and has surrendered and technically you can call the police and have him be arrested. However, how many of us would have the strength of character to resist beating said man to within an inch of his life???

I just feel that situation posed in this thread is not a trivial, you are talking about intense human emotions, actions, and consequences. There is the "on paper" theoretical shoulds and coulds and then there is the real life actual. For the record, sure, theoretically either party may withdraw consent at any time. Absolutely, but in reality putting yourself in that situation is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous if you are a woman.

Conversely if you are a man, getting involved with a woman who likes to play these sorts of games is also irresponsible and dangerous. Women like this aren't quite right in the head and have issues and should be avoided like the plague.

Lastly, these issues don't happen when there is open and honest communication about sex and sexual matters.

 

[Armoured]

I would also add the word "dangerous".

As I've previously stated in my earlier post, the urge to reproduce is incredibly strong and getting all the way to "that point" and then being forced to reverse course is something not everyone will be capable of doing.

You can be all proper with technicalities and what not and say that both parties have the right to reverse their decisions at any time... Sure, legally they do, but both parties open themselves up to "crimes of passions". What I mean is that for some human beings, it is possible to be pushed "too far" and thus lose control in the heat of the moment.

Here is an example. You are a parent and you hear your child scream. You run to their room and find some stranger naked on top of your child. The stranger immediately jumps off of your child and lays on the ground in the fetal position screaming, "I'm sorry, I surrender". Technically he is subdued and has surrendered and technically you can call the police and have him be arrested. However, how many of us would have the strength of character to resist beating said man to within an inch of his life???

I just feel that situation posed in this thread is not a trivial, you are talking about intense human emotions, actions, and consequences. There is the "on paper" theoretical shoulds and coulds and then there is the real life actual. For the record, sure, theoretically either party may withdraw consent at any time. Absolutely, but in reality putting yourself in that situation is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous if you are a woman.

Conversely if you are a man, getting involved with a woman who likes to play these sorts of games is also irresponsible and dangerous. Women like this aren't quite right in the head and have issues and should be avoided like the plague.

Lastly, these issues don't happen when there is open and honest communication about sex and sexual matters.

Being human is about taking control of one's emotions and being responsible for them.

IMHO, if you are so emotionally unstable that you don't think you can withhold yourself from raping someone in "the heat of the moment", you have no place pursuing intimate relationships.

I understand your argument. I don't think "really, really wanting to" is adequate justification for rape.

We're talking about a fairly extreme situation. If my partner and I had gotten to the "naked and aroused" state, and she suddenly told me she wanted to stop, is that, in itself, not suggestive of her having a very, very good reason?

 

[The Cadet]

The urge to reproduce is perhaps the most POWERFUL biological imperative that we have hardwired into us. Once action is hot and heavy and you are BOTH lying naked on the bed and up to that point consent has been giving by both sides, then neither party can be faulted for being unable to "stop" the act of sex

Yeah, no. You absolutely can fault the party who continues after consent has been withdrawn. I mean, this isn't even mid-coitus, this is "we're about to have sex, but suddenly I don't want to". At that point, you need consent.

and at that point, if either party wants to stop the act of sex that party might have to use force....

And that party would be completely justified in using force if necessary, then calling the cops. I don't understand what's so hard about this. If you try to have sex with someone without their affirmative consent, even if they're lying naked with you in bed, you do not have their consent. Period. If the act is not consensual, it is not sex. It is rape. This is not a hard concept. If one party does not consent to sex, it is rape.

I would equate this to having gone days without eating and then being set down in front of a buffet. You are given a knife and fork and told you eat whatever you like. You take a big bite of hamburger begin to chew and then right before you swallow someone orders you to spit the food out....

The difference here, of course, being that sex is not necessary for an individual's immediate survival, and that that hamburger isn't a thinking, feeling human being. This analogy is terrible, as it both paints recreational sex as some urgent, necessary thing (as opposed to, you know, recreation) and objectifies women completely.

If you do NOT want to have sex, then you simply need to do any abortive action prior to arousing your partner and then having both you and your partner lying naked in bed... that is beyond irresponsible. Sorry.

I agree, it's crappy for a woman to lead you on and then say "no". It's kind of a lousy time for that woman to change her mind.

You know what's even crappier?

RAPE!

Because the former is a temporary annoyance. The latter is a traumatizing, horrific event.

What does trouble me somewhat is that no one ever has anything to say regarding the wrong done to a guy by encouraging his stimulation up to the point of sexual readiness and then saying, "No". THAT is pure evil. In my mind, I see that AND rape as equally base.

What, exactly, about being a cocktease, is so traumatizing and awful? Does it somehow violate a man's bodily sovereignty? Traumatize him? Scar him mentally? No? Then there is no comparison. I'm sorry, there just isn't. One is a kinda crappy thing to do that will leave someone really disappointed... The other is rape.

But the effects on the individuals are not that different, except for the possibility of pregnancy.

...Un. Be. Lievable. Are you serious? Until I saw your gender I was going to assume that you were some jaded /r/redpill men's rights activist or something. What? I can't even wrap my head around the fact that anyone would make such a bizarre claim, let alone a woman. Let me just tell you from the perspective of a man: they are not the same thing and the effects on the individual are not even in the same ballpark. It's like comparing Chinese water torture to getting stuck in the middle of a water balloon fight.

Yes, I agree. She has withdrawn consent.

However, if she has already been penetrated and intercourse is already in progress, it would be absurd for her to call it rape even after saying "no".

Obviously there's a certain window here. If the woman tells you to stop and you keep going for another 5 seconds, it's probably not something that qualifies as rape - reaction times, processing the information, and the like need to play into it. If the woman tells you to stop and you keep going for another 5 minutes, there's a problem. She has withdrawn her consent; you're no longer having sex. End of story. If you continue to try to have sex without her consent, you are raping her. This is not a hard concept.

I would also add the word "dangerous".

As I've previously stated in my earlier post, the urge to reproduce is incredibly strong and getting all the way to "that point" and then being forced to reverse course is something not everyone will be capable of doing.

There's a certain irony here, in that many a Christian would claim that my lack of a belief in god somehow "denigrates" humanity in my eyes, but it's a bunch of Christians saying that the typical man is unable to control their impulses enough to not rape. Um, guys, I agree, not everyone is capable of doing that. The people who aren't capable of doing that? They need serious mental help. If you think you are that kind of person, then you need mental help. We don't make excuses for people when they do horrible, horrible things, regardless of how bad their impulse control is. At best, we accept that they are criminally insane and need mental help in a place away from other people and under constant watch.

I don't know how many ways this needs to be said; sex without consent is rape. If you think your impulse control is not good enough to avoid raping a woman if she's being a tease, then that's your problem, and it's one I strongly recommend dealing with before you, you know, rape someone.

You can be all proper with technicalities and what not and say that both parties have the right to reverse their decisions at any time... Sure, legally they do, but both parties open themselves up to "crimes of passions". What I mean is that for some human beings, it is possible to be pushed "too far" and thus lose control in the heat of the moment.

And yet, when someone murders their wife and her lover in a crime of passion, we don't excuse it. We don't pretend it's not murder. It is.

However, how many of us would have the strength of character to resist beating said man to within an inch of his life???

I'd like to think that I would. And if I didn't, I'd like to think that society would have the strength of character not to excuse a pointless act of violence like that just because I was justifiably angry. And of course, there's a wee bit of difference between "led me on and then didn't feel like it" and "raped my children".

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I think two aroused naked people in bed together have all the ingredients for sex mixed together and in the dish, but nothing should go in the oven unless it's still a mutual decision. If either says no (male or female) or otherwise resists, that's that.

There was a controversy at Stanford a couple of years ago involving two undergrads in such a situation. They were from the same small town in Alaska and were both home for winter break when they met up on New Year's Eve. They had dated in the distant past and had remained on friendly terms. They were both staggeringly drunk, and wearing clothes that were wet from walking back to his parents house in the rain. They stripped down, and went to sleep on an air mattress. She woke up to him on top of her. It was forceful enough to cause her tampon to be pushed up into her cervix and for her to need medical treatment. He'd at first claimed it was consensual sex, but then later said that he had a form of sleep walking that made him have sex in his sleep. The police couldn't prosecute him because there wasn't enough evidence. The matter was pursued in a student court system, and he was found guilty and banned from campus for a year, but permitted to finish out the term. Since he was graduating that year, it really wasn't much of a consequence.

There have also been incidents where guys have been unfairly accused of rape when in actuality the girl had consented but later changed her mind. It's a terrible idea for college students to get in bed together nude and revved up, but still doesn't justify pursuing sex if one has said no.

 

[The Cadet]

There have also been incidents where guys have been unfairly accused of rape when in actuality the girl had consented but later changed her mind.

It's important to remember two factors here. Firstly, the rate of false rape accusation is exceedingly small. 2%-8%. Secondly, the number of rapists who actually get prosecuted is also exceedingly small - 3%.