The Doctor is taking some heat over on OO. After 900+ years in time and space, people are still telling me to "grow up". Here's my latest:
Alrightee, I did some transcribing. Start at 12:40 on the mp3 download version (the one without the standard introduction).
[T]hen the question becomes: what does she have to say ‘no’ to in order to make it rape? If she says yes, kisses, but that’s all. If she then says ‘no’ when he says ‘French kiss’, and he gives her a French kiss, is that rape? Or she agrees to take off the shirt, and he goes to touch her breast and she says ‘no’. Is that ok, is that rape? Is that a case where he’s wrong? Maybe he just thinks she’s shy at the moment, maybe she wants something else, maybe he knows they have a loving relationship and many times she’s felt skittish at the beginning and then fallen into it? If you go by the way some of these people on the internet talk, if ‘Aunt O’ (????) comes out of the woman’s mouth then it’s a monstrous evil, is positively ridiculous.
I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.
At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own.
This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales. How is the man to know that a particular ‘no’ is not valid? What’s strange is that much earlier in the podcast he acknowledged that “cramps” are among the moral reasons a woman can say no before
the sex starts, you’d think he would allow that something like that can happen in the middle of coitus too. Or, as I suggested may have happened in the Kobe case*, the “parts don’t fit”, though I note that at this point he has established, fairly
well, that he’s no longer talking about a first-time encounter.
I’ve had the experience of a partner telling me, during the hot and heavy bit, that she wants me to finish. Not to stop, but to, y’know, take a shortcut to the homestretch, as in, let’s not run the full marathon this time. Then, there have been cases of a clear ‘stop’, and indeed it takes some number of seconds for that to register with the rational faculty; however, reason having returned to it’s throne, alas the business must cease.
Now, I’m trying to apply Peikoff’s formulation to my own experience, and it’s still not working. He sets up the “loving relationship” context, and ok, I’ve been there and done that, and it’s either she says ‘hurry up and finish’ (which, BTW, can be such
a turnoff), or she says ‘stop’. If she says ‘stop’, that’s it, thou shalt stop. If you’ve set up that ‘stop’ doesn’t mean stop, then we’re back to S&M and safe words, so for now let’s assume ‘stop’ means stop.
Can a woman unambiguously say ‘stop’ in the middle of coitus and expect it to be respected, whether she communicates a sufficient (according to whom?) reason, or no reason at all? I say yes, morally speaking. On the legal side, it’s still going to be ‘he says she says’, and whether a prosecutor ought to get involved is going to play out on a case by case basis. Is Peikoff saying that if the woman acknowledges that genital contact began consensually, then the prosecution can’t pursue a case on that basis? I don’t hear him offering any such strictly legal opinion here, but if he were, I completely disagree with that view also.
*BTW, another possibility the evidence suggested in the Kobe case is that the sex started consensually, then she was turned off by his trash talk during the act, and he kept going over her protests. If so, it bears on Peikoff’s new position, his “rational line” of “genital connection”.