Boycott the Good Men Project

[Cleo Catra 178382]

http://arewomenhuman.me/2012/12/13/boycott-the-good-men-project/

 

The info contained in this article is very hard to read. The fact that there are people out there trying to convince others that rapists aren't 'bad guys', and supporting a man who raped a sleeping woman but thought she wanted it because she was a sex worker...

 

I can't bring myself to click on all the links contained here. This is the first time I've ever heard about the 'Good Men Project' and I can't yet bring myself to directly look at their website, I'm so saddened by the info just contained in the link I provided.

[April Dawn 12207]

Well I don't really see it that way at all. I actually read the good men project (and I believe cristy curves does so maybe she can weigh in) I've read one of the articles in question and will read the other one later as I'm at work and just indulging in a quick cerb fix. The tone of the article is written completely different then that sensationalist article would have you belive. I strongly reccomend that you read the article as there is no being victim blaming and its more saying that anyone can be a rapist, not just a boogie man in a dark alley.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Cleo Catra 178382]

I do see it the way my original link sees it

 

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/nice-guys-commit-rape-too/

 

This whole article is saying 'yes, rape is bad. But this guy IS really nice...'

 

It talks about how dressing sexy does not mean 'she deserved it', BUT points out that men can't always be blamed for mis-reading signals. It is written in a way that is totally trying to make you think 'Okay maybe what he did wasn't THAT bad'.

 

I think this 'good men project' is one of the worst things ever. Anything trying to illicit sympathy for men who rape is wrong. No question.

[April Dawn 12207]

I guess its all in the way that you read it. From what I've read in comments from the site ect, its seems like a pretty even split of people who feel like it Wasn't about trying to gain sympathy for the rapist and people who feel like it was. I think when writing anything on the internet you should always go into it with the idea, how can this be taken wrongly by anyone because (as proven on this site amongst others) the absoulte worst possible intention will be made out of it and people will be offended. People love to be offended over the internet. Read the comments section of the most innocuous article and its obvious. In the case of this article which is about a very, very sensetive topic people can take anything they want and make almost any point they want out of context for either side.

I agree with you that anyone who tries to ellict sympathy for a RAPIST (not neccesarrily a man) is usually misguided and in most cases wrong but there arew situations where I do feel sympathy for a rapist. I used to work with at risk youth. The stories I've heard and some of the learned behaviors that have come out of awful situations are terrible. There is no black and white when it comes to life. There are a lot of shades of grey.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Gia Wren Marlowe 67985]

The one thing that didn't seem to be addressed in the article is how the nice guy thought that a woman who was asleep actually wanted to have sex with him at that moment. I understand why he would have thought they were going to have sex eventually, but I don't get how he could think she would like what he was doing and wanted it when a woman is ASLEEP. What is she going to be enjoying, exactly, while she is unconscious?

 

I really feel like this was the wrong case to be having the debate around. It's not a case of them both just being drunk. She was unconscious and apparently that is not debated at all. The man who put his penis inside her agreed that she was unconscious when he did it. So I think that talking about all the mixed signals he was receiving due to cultural factors is a bit moot in this case. Of all the time they spent together, flirting and drinking and all of that, he chose a time when she was passed out to penetrate her. How can he have thought she wanted that?

 

I understand that one will have a reasonable expectation that a series of flirtatious interactions may lead to sex. I don't get how that leads to penetrating someone while they are asleep, and then being so confused as to how that wasn't okay. I think if you really have the expectation that a woman is going to have sex with you because she actually wants to, then you would also expect that she needs to be conscious when the sex happens. It's pretty hard to think she's enjoying it while unconscious. Because, you know, she's unconscious. I'm sorry. I just can't get over that.

[April Dawn 12207]

Oh I'm not saying this guy was in the right at all. He raped a sleeping woman. I get that completly. I just don't feel like the writer was saying that what he did was ok. I'm not debating the rape or situation at all. People who know me know I've lobbied for chemical casteration for rapists. I just don't really like seeing someone put on the cross for an article that I don't feel is trying to garner sympathy for a rapist but is just putting it into the perspective that men who consider themselves "nice" can do a horrible, awful thing.

Posted via Mobile Device

[PhantomKnight 7914]

Any man that rapes a woman should be placed in the kneeling position facing the open end of a shotgun.

[Gia Wren Marlowe 67985]

Oh, I know. But I have issues with the case she used to make her point. I don't see a discussion about mixed signals having much to do with penetrating an unconscious woman. Just saying that nice people can do bad things isn't anything new. I'm sure a lot of people check their empathy at the door in some situations. But it's not really relevant to the argument the author is making as far as I can see.

 

In terms of boycotting the good man project, I have no opinion on that. I'm just commenting on the article in question. I have a feeling the good man project is a mixture of well-made cases and bad, just as any other blog or news source.

[piano8950 32577]

I don't think it was a rape apologist article. I think the author didn't even factor in alcohol and how many completely idiotic ideas suddenly seem like a good idea, including having sex with a girl while she is sleeping.

 

Just to be clear, that's rape. Just like driving drunk and killing someone because of it is murder. Go straight to jail, do not collect $200. But people who drive drunk aren't cold blooded murderers. They should be punished for their completely reckless decision. That's what I feel about some guy getting drunk and doing something stupid. It wasn't for power, and they didn't have the intention to rape. They were careless and hurt someone so badly. Some of them (in both scenarios) might have been average people, even nice. But they did something stupid that was their fault entirely end of story.

 

It talks about how dressing sexy does not mean 'she deserved it', BUT points out that men can't always be blamed for mis-reading signals. It is written in a way that is totally trying to make you think 'Okay maybe what he did wasn't THAT bad'.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think the author is pretty much disgusted with what the guy did. Imho

 

 

I think this 'good men project' is one of the worst things ever. Anything trying to illicit sympathy for men who rape is wrong. No question.

 

I'm a bit confused with this one. Prior to this, I didn't even know this website existed. After checking up on some of the articles (Stories dad read to their kids, hats to wear, stuck at a boring job, a few about sex/relationship that seem pretty much the male equivalent of what's on female oriented magazines/websites) it seems to me that the Good Men Project goal is being confused with an opinion piece on it's website.

[CristyCurves 169032]

I agree with the other posters I don't think this article is saying rape is okay as we know it's not, it's a horrible, crule and brutal act, been there. I think it was an article that was trying to make and the point made could be taken in different ways. I simply read it as she was saying "a nice guy" can rape and that society thereis a thinking that if a girl dresses provocatively they are asking for it. However I'll argue the nice point, I don't think he is a "nice guy", as in my opinion nice people are always nice-it's a strong title and I only place it on people that are nice all the time and to everyone. I say nice people don't do NOT nice things nor are they selective to whom they are nice to -if you are nice you are nice to everyone.

[Athos 108589]

I'll confess to not having read the website or articles, I'll go back and do it later. But, based on the discussion in this thread, it may be true that "nice" people can commit crimes ... but when they do they still need to be PUNISHED. There is no mitigation because you're nice all the rest of the time "except" when you commit rape.

 

Just my .02.

 

Porthos

[Gia Wren Marlowe 67985]

I'm not sure it's new to suggest that good people do bad things (in fact, I'm sure it's not). I think it's great to look at why good people do bad things, so I'm not suggesting this premise is wrong or that it shouldn't be examined. In fact I applaud that kind of analysis. But I thought the point of the article was to suggest that we have a culture which makes it easy for "nice" men to rape women without realising that it's rape. And the issue I have is that they're making their case badly with an example that doesn't prove their argument. The article is suggesting that our culture convinces men that sex is the end game in a lot of interactions with women and that consent is implied in all kinds of ways. So the nice guy who had sex the unconscious girl had reasons to think that it wasn't rape when he was doing it. That's the argument they seem to be making. I think there are plenty of cases where a conversation about explicit consent and the definition of rape should be debated (as mentioned by an earlier poster), but I just don't think this is one of those cases.

 

If the argument were that our culture teaches men that sex is just for them, and a woman's enjoyment isn't important, then I could see the point they were trying to make. At least it would make sense in this context, as there doesn't seem to be any understanding on the part of the guy that the sex he had with said lady should have been enjoyed by her as well as him. From what is mentioned in the article, he seems to have just penetrated her without any preparation while she was unconscious. I just don't see how anyone, drunk or not, could think that a woman would actually be able to enjoy that. But that's not their argument. What they are actually saying that all the signals he received led him to naturally believe that she wanted to have sex with him. I don't think it's really debatable that he would reasonably assume she wanted to have sex at some point, but it doesn't square with the idea that she wanted to have sex with him while she was unconscious. I don't see how our culture made it hard for him to understand that, based on the signals he was getting. It just doesn't follow.

 

The issue I'm having with the article is that the case is poorly made because the example they use is a bad one. These two people didn't miscommunicate, they weren't both drunk but conscious, there was simply no consent or implied consent. There are LOTS of debates to have about rape. This one is poorly done. That's all I'm saying.

 

I guess I am also getting my back up, truth be told, about the idea that sex with a woman while unconscious is something a nice guy would do just by mistake. I know that no one is saying it should be forgiven, or that it isn't rape or isn't wrong, but the argument in the article is that he didn't understand it was wrong when he was doing it. The argument is that it's confusing and hard to tell. I don't think it is and I'm frustrated that so many people (in general, not on here) think it could be. So I'm not trying to suggest that anyone who finds the article interesting food for thought is excusing rape, nor am I'm trying to present myself as a simpleton who sees things in black and white terms. But is this really the case we're going to use to suggest that consent is hard to figure out?

 

(P.S. sorry that all of my posts lately are a mile long...)

[Cleo Catra 178382]

I guess I am also getting my back up, truth be told, about the idea that sex with a woman while unconscious is something a nice guy would do just by mistake. I know that no one is saying it should be forgiven, or that it isn't rape or isn't wrong, but the argument in the article is that he didn't understand it was wrong when he was doing it. The argument is that it's confusing and hard to tell. I don't think it is and I'm frustrated that so many people (in general, not on here) think it could be.

 

That's my exact issue, but worded much more eloquently than I could have said it. It is NOT HARD to figure out consent. A sleeping woman can't consent, period. I don't see how anyone could suggest that a nice guy could have been 'confused'

[touchwould2 727]

Very well put indeed Gia. And good on you for raising the subject Cleo.

 

 

Too bad and a bit ironic, that the author intends to disentangle what she perceives is a muddle, byessentially reproducing it.

[neebleton 2940]

Kind of tangential to having sex with someone who is asleep by mistake, but an interesting take on the situation of consent with unconscious partners.

 

Consider the case R. v. J.A (summarized here). which was recently heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

In it, a woman consented to sex with a partner, and for her partner to choke her unconscious. While unconscious, he penetrated her with a toy. She regained consciousness, and they continued having consensual sex. Later, she complained to the police about this behaviour, though she ultimately tried to withdraw her complaint. However, prosecution proceeded.

 

The court ruled that the penetration while the woman was unconscious must be considered an assault because consent in sex is predicated on the ability to withdraw that consent at any time during the activity. Being unconscious removes that ability, so consensual sex cannot exist while one partner is unconscious even if that partner consented initially.

 

There are a couple of issues with this reading - ie, if you kiss your partner while s/he is sleeping, have you committed a sexual assault?

 

Additionally, in the dissenting opinion one judge noted that this ruling deprives women of the right to partake in activities that do not result in bodily harm. Conceivably, someone might love getting fondled while sleeping. I don't understand why someone would, but there's a lot of things people do sexually that I don't understand.

 

Anyway, my point is that if you accept the court's ruling, even if you are a 'nice guy' who gets consent to have sex with a sleeping women, because she cannot withdraw consent, you are committing an assault.

[baileydog 9367]

that is the point I was trying to make ... thank you for pulling up the court reference

 

yes you can sexually assault your wife, husband, partner, SO, etc.

 

so, don't ever wake your sleeping partner up by going down on him/her ... you could end up in a lot of trouble

 

I guess you could get them to sign a limitless waiver

 

it seems the world gets more complicated every day

 

 

Anyway, my point is that if you accept the court's ruling, even if you are a 'nice guy' who gets consent to have sex with a sleeping women, because she cannot withdraw consent, you are committing an assault.

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

Later, she complained to the police about this behaviour, though she ultimately tried to withdraw her complaint. However, prosecution proceeded.

If I recall correctly, the woman consented to sexual activity while unconscious, but had not consented to being anally penetrated with a dildo. This is why communication is important. This is also a difficult case, because the woman withdrew her complaint, which she said she initiated due to a fight with her partner, but that prosecution proceeded because usually when a complaint is withdrawn it is because of pressure on the complainant.

 

That said, I feel that some leaps have been taken in this conversation in terms of consent. Sexual activity with someone who is intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness is completely different from a non-invasive sexual activity that has been clearly communicated and consent has been obtained (and hey, it doesn't hurt to check in with them when they wake up. Yay communication!). Can we please not confuse the two?

[castle 38816]

I really don't understand why it's complicated. If someone's unconscious.....they can't consent. If they don't consent......it's fucking rape! End of story! I honestly don't give two shits if you consider yourself a "nice guy" or if others consider you a "really sweet person". If you forced yourself onto someone who is unconscious....you're a rapist! And I'm not a fan of you!

 

 

I'll agree with Baileydog that sometimes it's fun to be woken up by your SO who wants to make love to you. I agree it's a nice way to wake up (again, I say this in the case of a significant other with whom you have a healthy sex life). I've had GF's do it me and I've done it as well. Difference being we never performed sexual acts on each other while the other was unconscious.

 

Sexual Assault is not restricted to strangers. It can happen with SO's too. If you wake up and you're in the mood, there's ways to do it....lean over and spoon with the person in such a way that it may wake them up, maybe give them a peck on the neck or on the lips. Or if all else fails......hey, you can always just poke them till they wake up and then say "You wanna?" (Although this last technique has rarely worked for me :p)

 

If they don't wake up....BY GOD leave it at that! Don't take that as an invitation and proceed to have your way with them! Because...ummmm....that would be RAPE! If they wake up and give clear indication that it's not happening... Again....BY GOD leave it at that! Because otherwise......that would be RAPE! However if they wake up and indicate (without any doubt!) that they are ready and willing....hey, go nuts and have fun!

 

Honestly, if I were to be woken up by my wife/girlfriend riding me or giving me a handjob or blowjob.....I'd like to think I'd be cool with it....truth is...I may very well feel pretty damn violated.