Dimension of consent and non-consent

This thread started out as a response to discussion in 'Is Loving Wives becoming a dumping ground'; but I realised that I was about to commit a major thread-jack and so moved it here.

JamesSD said:

Ok, first off, BDSM and abuse are not the same thing, and are actually opposites. BDSM is a consentual act, where abuse is by definition not consentual. On this site "non consent" doesn't strictly mean rape - there are other good threads on the subject. Same with interracial... just because two characters are of different races doesn't make a story "interracial", especially if the races and cultures of the individuals in question aren't central to the plot.

Click to expand...

Oh, God, no, it is not that simple. There is a big fuzzy area around the edges of consent and coercion - it isn't at all straightforward. I agree that BDSM implies that people at least go into the situation with their eyes open, knowing what may happen. But...

Pretty much all my stories occupy at some level that debatable territory. I've one story which I'm working on which looks at five dimensions of coercive sexuality, and tries to illustrate all the variations:

Dimensions (present to a greater or lesser extent in all sex):
consent: granted <-----------------------------> denied
force: none <-----------------------------> violent
authority: none <-----------------------------> great
trade: none <-----------------------------> vital
relationship: lover <-----------------------------> stranger

Modifiers which may affect any dimension:
Perception: affects the degree of injury caused?
Intent: affects the degree of guilt which can be ascribed?

-- Examples

Sex without explicit consent
- within the context of a relationship
- outside the context of a relationship
- without any significant force
- with some degree of force

Sex where consent is modified
- granted during the act but subsequently revoked
- denied during the act but subsequently granted
- withdrawn in the process of the act
- granted in the process of the act

Sex where consent is exceeded (there was consent for sex but not for sex in this particular manner - e.g. anal penetration where consent was given for vaginal penetration)

Sex where denial of consent is feigned - 'play rape'
- where the partner knows that denial is feigned
- where the partner believes denial is genuine

Genuine ambiguity about consent e.g. at end of a relationship in which 'play rape' has been a feature

Sex as trade good
- in explicit trade (e.g. prostitution)
- in implicit trade
- in trade for trivial item or service
- in trade for basic necessity for survival
- where the item traded for is subsequently withheld

Sex in the context of mistaken identity
- Sex where consent is granted in the mistaken belief that the partner is an acceptable person
- Sex where consent is denied in the mistaken belief that the partner is an unacceptable person

Sex where consent is granted under the influence of inebriation ('date rape')
- where the inebriating substance is freely and knowingly taken
- where the substance is 'slipped' with the partner's knowledge
- where the substance is 'slipped' without the partner's knowledge

Sex in the context of employment
- where it is explicitly part of the contract
- where it is implicitly part of the contract
- where it is clearly not part of the contract
- where alternate employment would be hard to find

Sex in the context of authority
- where the authority figure is formally entitled to order sex
- where the authority figure is exceeding (his|her) formal authority
- where the authority figure is breaking a taboo (e.g. incest)

Sex in the context of religious authority
- where the religion endorses sexuality
- where the religion represses sexuality
- where the act forms part of a recognised religious practice
- where the act does not form part of a recognised practice
- where the person compelled is a believer
- where the person compelled is not a believer

An act in which sex is compelled, but choice of partner and circumstances are left open
- where the choice includes partners and circumstances which might otherwise be chosen
- where it does not

Compelled sex where if it had not been compelled it would have been chosen

Consenting sex where it is clear that if consent is not given rape is inevitable

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that that is a complete typology of non-consenting sex. I'm not saying there aren't other dimensions which I haven't considered. But there are at least that many variations.

When you and a lover start a rough sex session without an explicit safe word or signal, or where you restrain your lover in such a way that they cannot say the safe word, basically you're flying blind and you both have to be aware that the limit of consent may be overstepped without malice. If you pre-negotiate all the things which you may or may not do, or if you have a 'safe word', then a lot of what gives rough sex it's bite, it's ragged edge, it's thrill is automatically lost. So many people who are into rough sex do fly blind, and occasionally you find yourself in places you really didn't want to get to. And that's just in the context of genuinely loving relationships. Once you get out of the context of genuinely loving relationships, all this gets very complex.

just for the record, 'non consent' category at Lit is a bit loose. mostly it's the old pornish fantasy of Stranger enters and grabs woman; she says, "oh my god, no, not there, it's so huge, ah, ah, i'm coming.... please stay and do me again."

but there are rape stories,i.e. genuine nonconsent, in the Literotica category, of varying degrees.
------

simon, can you get me one of these jobs:

- where the authority figure is formally entitled to order sex

(some desert Sheikh and his newly purchased slave?)
---

i'm sure there are 99 'flavors' of non consent.

another, related to modification of consent, is 'after the fact regret', where the person themselves was, according to their own perception in some gray area of consent/nonconsent. but they decide after, it was NOT wanted.

another, particularly relevant to BDSM is 'blanket consent,' i.e where one says, in effect, 'you may do as you please for the next week, regardless of my protests.' this is a kind of contract for a fixed period. within it, of course, the 'plan' of at least the top is for there to be 'unwanted [by the bottom] sex' entirely under protest.

You have also left out sex in a 'slavery' context, either a modern SM attempt to create it, or actual traditional slavery arrangements; woman sold to pay off father's debt, etc. At least traditionally, the 'consent/nonconsent' issue cannot arise for forced sex with a slave.

prostitution or trade has nothing to do with consent, by and large.
in the ordinary transaction, even if it's to buy baby formula, the woman consents to the use of her body.

'mistaken identity' has to be broadened to include deceits, as for instance where someone pretends to be a dr conducting some kind of 'internal exam.'


the last category is fictitious: if a woman 'consents' to the inevitable, that's not consent; 'consent' under coercion or threat (i.e. a gun is pointed at her) is not consent.

Thanks, SimonBrooke, for fleshing out more or less what I meant when I said very vaguely that "On this site "non consent" doesn't strictly mean rape". It sometimes does mean just that, but it's usually far more complicated than that

Most of the porn sites I've seen or written for recognize a few levels of non-consensual sex (and BTW, I'll never understand why it's "non-consensual" and not "non-consentual", but there it is.)

Rape is one extreme, and many sites don't allow rape stories. In rape, the victim is basically assaulted and experiences only harm and sitress from the act.

Then there's "reluctance", in which the victim is coerced or foced into sex but ends up a willing participant. That's a different story, and a lot of popular fantasies and romances are based on that.

Then there's the gray area of "mind-control" stories where it's impossible to say whether the victim is a willing participant or not.

To me, BDSM is more of a sexual technique than it is an issue involving consent or non-consent. The sub has already consented to be treated non-consensually. See?

I do BDSM and reluctance but I have no interest in rape. Unless both parties are sexually aroused, the story's simply not sexy to me.

I tried to write a non-con story once, but my characters wouldn't agree to that...

that's what would have made it a nonconsent story! i did a rape story once.

Pure said:

just for the record, 'non consent' category at Lit is a bit loose. mostly it's the old pornish fantasy of Stranger enters and grabs woman; she says, "oh my god, no, not there, it's so huge, ah, ah, i'm coming.... please stay and do me again."

but there are rape stories,i.e. genuine nonconsent, in the Literotica category, of varying degrees.
------

simon, can you get me one of these jobs:

- where the authority figure is formally entitled to order sex

Click to expand...

I wrote a story once in which one of the characters is a priest in a theocratic state religion in which sex is an accepted sacrament. A foreign refugee, not a member of the same religion and not familiar with its practices, accidentally did the symbolic act that required her to take part in the sacrament. The priest has, within his society, the formal power to require sex from any of his co-religionists, and normally, because they're co-religionists , it wouldn't be that non-consensual. But the foreigner allowed me to set up the situation where it's definitely going to be non-consensual. The priest is a 'nice guy'; he finds rape abhorrent. But he's required by the customs and practices of his society and his religion to carry it out.

That's a very interesting situation in which to examine issues of consent and non-consent. Unfortunately it isn't a very good story partly because I didn't have the moral courage to follow through the consequences, and partly because although I was in my late thirties when I wrote it it's very immature.

If anyone is interested the story really starts here.

Pure said:

(some desert Sheikh and his newly purchased slave?)

Click to expand...

That's another example, yes.

Pure said:

i'm sure there are 99 'flavors' of non consent.

another, related to modification of consent, is 'after the fact regret', where the person themselves was, according to their own perception in some gray area of consent/nonconsent. but they decide after, it was NOT wanted.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant by

Sex where consent is modified
granted during the act but subsequently revoked

Click to expand...

And that's why I think rape is such a difficult concept. Essentially, I think, whether a sex act is rape or not repends on how the participants feel after the event; if one of the participants (yes, usually the female) feels raped, then it's rape, in my opinion, irrespective of what was agreed before hand. There are plenty of examples of people who entered into a sex act expressing consent who subsequently feel utterly defiled, abused and traumatised, and it doesn't seem to me that the trauma they experience is necessarily less intense or debilitating than the trauma of those who didn't express consent.

Furthermore there is a whole spectrum of ways in which people can be coerced or persuaded or bullied or seduced into expressing consent. I don't think there is a simple divide between rape and non-rape at all.

Pure said:

another, particularly relevant to BDSM is 'blanket consent,' i.e where one says, in effect, 'you may do as you please for the next week, regardless of my protests.' this is a kind of contract for a fixed period. within it, of course, the 'plan' of at least the top is for there to be 'unwanted [by the bottom] sex' entirely under protest.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. I know that one.

Pure said:

You have also left out sex in a 'slavery' context, either a modern SM attempt to create it, or actual traditional slavery arrangements; woman sold to pay off father's debt, etc. At least traditionally, the 'consent/nonconsent' issue cannot arise for forced sex with a slave.

Click to expand...

That's under 'authority to order sex', isn't it? Although, I agree it's a particular case.

Pure said:

prostitution or trade has nothing to do with consent, by and large.
in the ordinary transaction, even if it's to buy baby formula, the woman consents to the use of her body.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. There's a big difference, I think, between the situation where there are plenty of jobs available but a person chooses prostitution, having other options; and the situation where a person, desperate for food or with a baby to feed, accepts prostitution because there are no other options. Yes, she formally consents, but the consent is forced - by the economic situation rather than by an individual man, but it's still forced.

Pure said:

'mistaken identity' has to be broadened to include deceits, as for instance where someone pretends to be a dr conducting some kind of 'internal exam.'

Click to expand...

Good point. Interesting case in point, something you don't get taught in primary school: when the English peasants revolted in 1381, one of the key grievances was that the new poll tax was collected on all adults, and tax inspectors claimed the right to check whether girl children had pubic hair - if they had they were taxable.

Pure said:

the last category is fictitious: if a woman 'consents' to the inevitable, that's not consent; 'consent' under coercion or threat (i.e. a gun is pointed at her) is not consent.

Click to expand...

It is, of course, the classic 'non-consent/reluctance' fantasy - a woman is raped by force and in the course of the act comes to enjoy it and forgive or accept the rapist. It is, in my opinion, a very ugly fantasy. But that doesn't mean that it can never happen in reality. Human beings are variable, flexible, adaptable, and unendingly strange. And it's a well known phenomenon that abductees - including female abductees who have been repeatedly raped - can become intensely loyal to and protective of their abductors.

Pure said:

just for the record, 'non consent' category at Lit is a bit loose. mostly it's the old pornish fantasy of Stranger enters and grabs woman; she says, "oh my god, no, not there, it's so huge, ah, ah, i'm coming.... please stay and do me again."

Click to expand...

I resemble that remark...

SimonBrooke said:

It is, of course, the classic 'non-consent/reluctance' fantasy - a woman is raped by force and in the course of the act comes to enjoy it and forgive or accept the rapist. It is, in my opinion, a very ugly fantasy.

Click to expand...

Since that is a recurring theme in my stories, I can't really agree that it is an "ugly fantasy".

It appears to be a very common fantasy - and one that quite a few of my female readers enjoy reading.

SimonBrooke said:

But that doesn't mean that it can never happen in reality.

Click to expand...

Reality is a completely different kettle of fish. The appeal of fantasies is that they're safe - we can fantasize about breaking all taboos - and yet it will have no consequences.

I sincerely doubt that the readers I mentioned above would want anything like that to happen to them in real life. (Although I sometimes get response along the lines of "Oh yeah, I'd love to be raped by four men" - I guess they're just hoping to turn me on...)

bonfils said:

I resemble that remark...

Click to expand...

You're a bit loose?

___

I wrote a non-consent story. I'm never posting it, and sometimes wonder why it is still on my hard drive. I don't like it that much.

dr_mabeuse said:

Most of the porn sites I've seen or written for recognize a few levels of non-consensual sex (and BTW, I'll never understand why it's "non-consensual" and not "non-consentual", but there it is.)

Rape is one extreme, and many sites don't allow rape stories. In rape, the victim is basically assaulted and experiences only harm and sitress from the act.

Then there's "reluctance", in which the victim is coerced or foced into sex but ends up a willing participant. That's a different story, and a lot of popular fantasies and romances are based on that.

Then there's the gray area of "mind-control" stories where it's impossible to say whether the victim is a willing participant or not.

To me, BDSM is more of a sexual technique than it is an issue involving consent or non-consent. The sub has already consented to be treated non-consensually. See?

I do BDSM and reluctance but I have no interest in rape. Unless both parties are sexually aroused, the story's simply not sexy to me.

Click to expand...

Agree totally.

For porn, erotica or even romance to work, there has to be desire on both sides. As a female, I can read reluctance, domination and embarrassment even, and get totally drawn in. I just lose it totally when the male POV goes to violence, rape or mental cruelty. All those things exist in the world but they don't fit here.

My underlying problem with Loving Wives is the undercurrent of misogyny that permeates there.

if misogyny is an objection, that rules out a majority of Literotica stories. IMO.

my pov, elfin, is that 'literary/erotic' value is the only relevant standard regarding the stories we're talking about. 'correct attitude' [as inferred or hypothesized by the reader] is not and cannot be a requirement for value.

it's important to emphasize the bracketed part, since in fact 'author's attitude' is not usually a given, for the reader. for instance if there are women who uninhibitedly enjoy fucking, that being their main interest, *someone* reading it is going to say, "this is disrespectful; women are reduced to animal level."

historically, a nice example of this problem was the reception of the "Story of O": it was generally inferred that 1) the author was a man, and 2) that he, without foundation in fact, imputed a desire for debasement [and eroticization of it] to the woman lead character["O"], and hence to women generally. the first was wrong, and the second, shakey.

SBSex where consent is modified
granted during the act but subsequently revoked

P: i meant the additional category to mean that 'consent', at least for the object, was murky, neither there or not there. this might range from grudgingly 'going along with' to 'unthinkingly yielding.' in legal terms, 'acquiescence' fall short of consent, in some circumstances.
the unfortunate thing is that 'acquiescence to the inevitable' sometimes becomes "clear" to the object only after the fact.

P: Essentially, I think, whether a sex act is rape or not repends on how the participants feel after the event; if one of the participants (yes, usually the female) feels raped, then it's rape, in my opinion, irrespective of what was agreed before hand. There are plenty of examples of people who entered into a sex act expressing consent who subsequently feel utterly defiled, abused and traumatised, and it doesn't seem to me that the trauma they experience is necessarily less intense or debilitating than the trauma of those who didn't express consent.

this was a feminist legal position for rape and sexual harassment. it never got embodied in the law, in US, Canada, and (afaik) Britain. that's fortunate IMO. the criminal courts are not for therapy--making someone feel better; they're for remedying an offense to society. people do things they regret, all the time. what you propose is somewhat analogous to prosecuting a seller for fraud where the buyer after the fact decides, this isn't what i wanted.

Pure said:

if misogyny is an objection, that rules out a majority of Literotica stories. IMO.

my pov, elfin, is that 'literary/erotic' value is the only relevant standard regarding the stories we're talking about. 'correct attitude' [as inferred or hypothesized by the reader] is not and cannot be a requirement for value.

it's important to emphasize the bracketed part, since in fact 'author's attitude' is not usually a given, for the reader. for instance if there are women who uninhibitedly enjoy fucking, that being their main interest, *someone* reading it is going to say, "this is disrespectful; women are reduced to animal level."

historically, a nice example of this problem was the reception of the "Story of O": it was generally inferred that 1) the author was a man, and 2) that he, without foundation in fact, imputed a desire for debasement [and eroticization of it] to the woman lead character["O"], and hence to women generally. the first was wrong, and the second, shakey.

Click to expand...

I distinguish between "erotica", which is literature that deals with the subject of human sexuality, and "pornography", which is sexual literature specifically designed to arouse and titilate. There are any number of serious works that treat rape as the traumatic violation that it is. It's when and author tries to milk it for it's pornographic value that I have trouble. The woman's not enjoying it at all, and so I just don't find anything arousing in it.

It's similar to the very clear distinction that the BDSM community makes between being whipped or spanked on the one hand, and being punched and beaten on the other. One is erotic and one is just cruel.

The situation is complicated by the fact that real passion and desire have a big transgressive element in them by their very nature, and the entire bodice-ripper genre of the Romance market thrives on just this kind of dangerous attraction between a man and a woman which usually ends (or begins) in a quasi-rape, followed by its redemption and legitimization through the love that develops.

But to my mind, a hot story has to have a transgressive element of some kind. Purely loving, totally consensual sex between two people might be sweet and might even be warm if it's graphic enough, but it never has the incandescent sizzle of people swept up in their emotions.

I think it's also true that the hottest stories always have an element of danger, mental rather than physical. Love is dangerous because we risk losing our autonomy, and it just so happens that a man's desire often manifests as physcial desire and coercion, and a lot of women respond to this, in fiction if not in real life.

Ethics, the law, and experience

Pure said:

SimonBrooke said:

Essentially, I think, whether a sex act is rape or not repends on how the participants feel after the event; if one of the participants (yes, usually the female) feels raped, then it's rape, in my opinion, irrespective of what was agreed before hand. There are plenty of examples of people who entered into a sex act expressing consent who subsequently feel utterly defiled, abused and traumatised, and it doesn't seem to me that the trauma they experience is necessarily less intense or debilitating than the trauma of those who didn't express consent.

Click to expand...

this was a feminist legal position for rape and sexual harassment. it never got embodied in the law, in US, Canada, and (afaik) Britain. that's fortunate IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree.

There needs to be a distinction here between the responsibility or culpability of the perhaps-raper, and the experience of the perhaps-rapee. Let's assume they are male and female for just now, because that's overwhelmingly the most common case, and it makes the discussion easier...

If a man takes care that a woman consents before sex, and he doesn't overstep the consent that was given; and if after sex she regrets it and feels defiled, I don't see that the law can treat him as culpable. But that does not mean that real harm has not been done, and does not mean he does not have some responsibility for that harm.

The law is a blunt instrument, and doesn't deal well with the subtleties of what is after all one of the subtlest pieces of human interaction. One of the problems is that we in the English speaking world have just one offence, 'rape', which covers everything from two drunk kids stumbling into bed together at a party and one of them subsequently regretting it, all the way through to a stranger breaking into a woman's hone and forcing her with extreme violence. It would be a better thing (and easier to get convictions, I think) if there were some gradation.

But I also think there are times when a woman says 'yes' because of peer pressure, or as a consequence of all sorts of subtle coercion, and I really don't think that just saying 'yes' makes sex 'all right'. I think both parties have some sort of duty of care to one another to be respectful of one another's needs.

This doesn't mean I think coercive sex is always wrong. It means I think it's subtle, and the more coercion you use the more responsibility you have to ensure a good outcome for your partner.

Because, lets face it, dangerous sex has bite - has an edge that legalistically careful sex doesn't have. If, when getting together with a stranger at a party, you both had to sign forms in triplicate and get them notarised before you could go to bed together, sex would lose a lot of its thrill. We've most of us fucked someone who was at least a bit drunk. A lot of us - particularly men - have bought drinks for women before we've seduced them. And for some of us there are times when we deliberately go into BDSM-style situations without a safeword. For me, at least, that's something with a real edge - a real edge I enjoy. It doesn't seem to me that it's impossible to do that carefully, and careingly, and responsibly. It doesn't seem to me it's always wrong to do it. Yes, limits may be passed. You ought to be sensitive to that possibility, and you ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences in a manner that supports the other person.

I mean, clearly, overtly coercive sex between strangers or people with no previous sexual relationship must be seen as a crime. And clearly, violently coercive sex between partners who have not previously discussed the parameters of violently coercive sex has to be a crime, too. Slipping intoxicants into a woman's drink without her knowledge and with the intention of having sex with her also has to be a crime, but it doesn't seem to me that it is usefully the same crime. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

However, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it's OK.

New story outline...

A story outline is forming in my head, as they do. I don't know whether I'll ever have time to write this, so I offer it to anyone else who is interested.

A woman at a party notices that her drink has been tampered with, and guesses (correctly) that it's been spiked. She thinks about it; and then drinks it anyway, to see what will happen. In due course she wakes up in bed with a stranger. What are the ethics of this?

Is he a rapist? I think he morally is, because he made no effort to gain consent, and had no prior indication that consent would be offered. Is she raped? I think not, because she chose to drink the drink with a very fair idea what would happen.

i'd say he attempted a rape, but no rape occurred. she consented when she voluntarily set out on the path that she knew would lead to sex, with no ability on her part to stop it. it's like a woman taking a bunch of sleeping pills and going to bed with someone she knows will not worry about her unconsciousness during sex.

incidentally, in Canada, i believe 'rape' is off the books, but 'sexual assault,' [in various 'degrees,' like murder] is the current terminology. this is an improvement since penetration of penis into vagina [or anus?] is a prerequisite for rape, by definition. i believe the definition, roughly is that an assault (non consensual application of force) becomes sexual when aimed at the gratification of the assaulter or involving the sexual organs, or breasts [secondary organs], of the assaulted person.

So is it possible for a man, as penetrator, to be raped?

Male rape

dr_mabeuse said:

So is it possible for a man, as penetrator, to be raped?

Click to expand...

Obviously male rape by male is possible. But there was a case in England in - I think - the 1980s where rape of a man by a woman was claimed. A young Mormon door-to-door evangelist was lured into a house, was tied to a bed, was kept there for about a fortnight, and in the course of that fortnight had sex several times and I think - but I can't remember for sure - with more than one woman. I don't think those facts were disputed. What was the subject of the case was whether he was unwilling to have sex, seeing that he did 'get it up' and did penetrate the women.

Personally, I think it is possible. We do have physiological responses even in circumstances where we'd rather not - women's physiological response in rape is well documented.

So is it possible for a man, as penetrator, to be raped?

no; just as a woman can't be raped if there's no penetration (in the slightest).

if a man is forced to fcuck someone he doesn't want to, he's been assaulted, and 'sexual assault' [against him] would probably apply.

dr_mabeuse said:

So is it possible for a man, as penetrator, to be raped?

Click to expand...

Pure said:

no; just as a woman can't be raped if there's no penetration (in the slightest).

if a man is forced to fcuck someone he doesn't want to, he's been assaulted, and 'sexual assault' [against him] would probably apply.

Click to expand...

I'll speak to the emotion/psychology of rape, rather than legal definitions, since I can't speak knowledgeably about the latter, and find the former more interesting to ponder.

As a preliminary digression, I notice that I have a very different, much cooler emotional reaction to the phrase "sexual assault" than I do to the word "rape." It's interesting (to me, at least) to ponder what the discursive shift from "rape" to "sexual assault" does to the perception of the act committed.

But back to the question raised by Dr. M. I would argue that a man as penetrator could be (and that men have been) raped. I've read of several cases with circumstances similar to the one Simon brought up, involving the Mormon man (though none lasting two weeks).

Something I've never really heard discussed much, but which is one of my weird little preoccupations, is the idea of a man forced against his will to commit a rape. In such a case, neither person physically engaged in the act is consenting. It's conceivable that the penetrator, in such a case, would have the harder psychological/emotional burden, since in addition to emotional responses normal for a rape victim, he'd likely experience the guilt of having perpetrated the rape (this article gives one example of cases like this, where Liberian soldiers forced men to have sex with their daughters and sisters as a form of terror during the civil war there).

Forced rape not limited to Liberia

Varian P said:

Something I've never really heard discussed much, but which is one of my weird little preoccupations, is the idea of a man forced against his will to commit a rape. In such a case, neither person physically engaged in the act is consenting. It's conceivable that the penetrator, in such a case, would have the harder psychological/emotional burden, since in addition to emotional responses normal for a rape victim, he'd likely experience the guilt of having perpetrated the rape (this article gives one example of cases like this, where Liberian soldiers forced men to have sex with their daughters and sisters as a form of terror during the civil war there).

Click to expand...

Forced rape is certainly not limited to Liberia; This radio programme (you can listen to it from the website) contains the story of a family who were set upon by their fellow villagers. The attackers tried to force the sons of the family to rape their sisters in front of their parents, and when the sons refused, killed them before killing the rest of the family. This happened in rural India within the past two or three years.

And of course the notorious sexual experiments carried out in the German concentration camps during the second world war included forced rape. I think I recall stories about this from the Bosnian war as well, but I can't find documentation just now.

hi varian and simon

the idea of a man forced against his will to commit a rape.

i have no problem with that; a 'man' (person) may be forced to rob, murder, etc. but those men don't become *Victims* of robbery or murder; they don't *undergo* being robbed or murdered.

the man forced to rape is not a 'rape victim,' for he has not undergone being raped.

--
this case differs from
A young Mormon door-to-door evangelist was lured into a house, was tied to a bed, was kept there for about a fortnight, and in the course of that fortnight had sex several times and I think

he was forced to have intercourse against his will, but iirc, the woman was willing. this is not the same as forcing him to rape his sister, for example.

which brings up the following puzzle: John Doe and his sister Jane Doe are beset by the likes of Idi Amin. He orders John to rape his sister. Sister Jane whispers to John, "we'll just pretend; i'll pretend to fight you off." In short she, after a fashion, consents (so as to make it easier on them both). Now [afterwards]; has John [been] raped? Has Jane?

Joyce McKinney

I can't find an image or much detail about her rape of mr kirk; here's the best account:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...nney.html+mormon+man+raped&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

ANTHONY DELANO
Joyce McKinney and the Manacled Mormon


Mirror Books, London, 1978
(price: 75p; 148 pages + 16 pages b/w photos)

The blurb on the back:
She called herself Little Miss Perfect.

But the Mirror's shrewd investigators soon discovered how much more there was to the 'innocent' and beguiling Southern belle who first hit the headlines in the bizarre affair of the Mormon missionary who claimed she had 'kidnapped' him.

Now read the full, amazing story for the first time, including:
* How she tried - and failed - to win an Osmond.
* How she marketed her weird sexual services - but may still be a virgin.
* PLUS the full story of how she made £25,000 in eighteen months in order to run down Kirk Anderson, the man she had vowed to win back at any cost...
Written by Anthony Delano, Chief US Correspondent of the Daily Mirror, one of the team that tracked down the truth about the amazing Joyce McKinney.

opening lines:
The face is unforgettable now. Heart-shaped. A little lacking in chin which, with the too-high forehead, always kept it on the losing side of beautiful.

I've done a couple of Internet searches for Joyce McKinney, and there's virtually nothing there at all. It's almost like she never existed. And yet for a few months back in the days of Jim Callaghan and Johnny Rotten, she was one of the biggest tabloid stories we'd ever seen.

If you were around at the time, then the words 'Joyce McKinney and the Manacled Mormon' should send you hurtling back to your youth, but in case you weren't - or in case you've forgotten the details - let me remind you of the salient points of the story.
Ms McKinney was a brilliantly intelligent, erstwhile Miss Wyoming who came out of the Appalachians to join the Church of the Latter Day Saints (better known as the Mormons) and who, after failing to get off with Wayne Osmond, began a relationship with a certain Kirk Anderson.

When he decided he'd had enough, she became seriously infatuated, following him around the country and harrassing him to such an extent that eventually he requested a posting overseas. Which is how he came to be in London in 1977.


But her determination to find him was greater than his ability to escape - she hired a private detective, tracked him down and came to Britain. With her was a friend, Keith May, whose position was always ambiguous, or at least unenviable: he seems to have been besotted with Ms McKinney, but to have accepted that he stood no chance of getting anywhere because of her own obsession with Anderson.

McKinney and May then proceeded to kidnap Anderson, threatening him with replica guns, bundling him into a car and taking him to a rented cottage, where he was held captive for three days. Whilst there ... well, look, this is how the London Evening News of 23 November 1977 reported the committal proceedings at Epsom magistrates court:

A young Mormon missionary told today how an ex-beauty queen kidnapped him and then made love to him while he was chained to a bed in a lonely cottage.

Kirk Anderson, 21, said the girl, Joy McKinney, and her friend, Keith May, tied down his arms and legs with leather straps, padlocks, chains and rope, so that he was spreadeagled.

May then left the room while Miss McKinney tore off his blue silk pyjamas.

'She grabbed my pyjamas from just around my neck and tore them from my body.

'The chains were tight and I could not move. She proceeded to have intercourse.

'I did not want it to happen. I was very upset.' (p.49)

That's the essence of the story and you can probably understand the media meltdown that resulted. You've got most of what you need for a decent tabloid sensation right here: an attractive young woman, a serious young man, kinky sex, and a religious group that might as well have been a cult for all the British hacks knew of the Mormons.

A bewigged Joyce McKinney in Bound To Please magazine
But more than that, Ms McKinney herself was sensational. It wasn't just that photographic evidence of her modelling career began to become available - though the pictures of course were eventually printed - but more that when she finally got into the witness-box during a bail hearing, she revealed herself to be a star.

She spoke in a Southern drawl that was fabulously exotic in itself and she had no apparent inhibition, absolutely no sense of reticence at all. Twenty-five years later and social standards have changed in Britain, but in 1977 people simply didn't stand up in court - particularly at a bail hearing in a magistrates court, when there was no need to say anything - and explore the intimate details of their and their partner's sex-lives:

'Kirk has to be tied up to have an orgasm. I co-operated because I loved him and wanted to help him. Sexual bondage turns him on because he doesn't have to feel guilty.

'The thought of being powerless before a woman seems to excite him.
'I didn't have to give him oral sex ... I did do it at his request because he likes it.' (p.98)

And in her most famous phrase, she declared: 'I loved Kirk so much that I would have skied down Mount Everest in the nude with a carnation up my nose.' (p.96)

The 'papers lapped it up. So apparently did the magistrates, who released her on bail and then presumably went home for a quiet lie-down.

We could hardly wait for the real thing, the actual trial, when Ms McKinney would be charged with kidnapping. (The charge of rape could not then brought when the victim was a man, and anyway there wasn't anyone in the country who gave a toss about the alleged victim of the alleged crime: the prevailing opinion then - as it would probably be now - was that he must have enjoyed it. Curious double-standards we sometimes display, no?)

And then Joyce McKinney did a runner. The trial was due to start in May 1978, but she wasn't there - she'd jumped bail, fled the country and arrived in America, via Ireland and Canada. At which stage, the tabloids really went wild. Without the sub judice restrictions, they were able to print all the salacious details they'd acquired of her career in soft-core porn and every last piece of tittle-tattle that had accumulated around this extraordinary woman.

The Daily Mirror led the pack, having built up a far more substantial dossier than their rivals. At a time when The Sun was beginning to take over as the most popular 'paper in the country, the Mirror had a fabulous story with which to fight back. It went to town and back again, even producing this book as an enduring tribute to their coverage.

And it's a fantastic read. Really top quality tabloid sensationalism, with the story padded out to fill up a paperback and 16 pages of photos. You don't often see it around, but take my advice: if you do come across it, leap on it and lap it up.

Later - after this book was published - Joyce McKinney was sentenced in her absence to one year's imprisonment. As far as I know, she has never re-emerged, leaving us with just one day's testimony in court and a handful of contacts with journalists. She remains the ultimate tabloid story.

Joyce McKinney and an unknown
assailant in Triumph magazine

Wow! Thanks for doing my research for me!

Pure said:

I can't find an image or much detail about her rape of mr kirk; here's the best account:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...nney.html+mormon+man+raped&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Click to expand...

Thanks! It's even more bizarre than I had remembered it - if anyone wrote that up and posted it to Lit, we'd all think 'nice story, but couldn't possibly happen in real life'!