In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Jesus was such a cockblocker.

**Trigger Warning**

I grew up in the 1980s in a Jewish-Unitarian household in the middle of Manhattan. To say that I was not immediately exposed to strict Christianity/Catholicism would be an understatement.

It wasn’t until I was in college that I actually met anyone who had been raised evangelical, or talked about saving their virginity for marriage in a non-ironic way. Now I know a number of women who were raised this way and are in various stages of shedding the shame that you’re taught should come with sex. My favorite one of these is a former roommate of mine, Christina, who was raised evangelical, baptized in a river and everything. By the time she hit college she had shed most of her christianity, but still had a steady boyfriend who she never seemed completely happy with. She put this guy through the ringer — breaking up with him, getting back together, feeling like she was missing something but couldn’t explain what.

Until I moved out of the apartment and a new girl, Laura, moved in.

Laura had just gotten out of a relationship with her long-term girlfriend, single for the first time in a while. They began hooking up and it was like someone had turned Christina’s lights on. All of the sudden so many things made sense. The boyfriends she kept breaking up with for no apparent reason. Her love of dressing up as a boy for Halloween over and over, every year. She’s no longer seeing Laura, but has had a series of wonderful girlfriends, and is very happily performing on the drag king circuit.

Below is the other side of many of these stories — mainly women I know who were in long relationships with boys who, for religious reasons, were reluctant to have sex for the first time. It’s interesting when we talk honestly about sex how the “boys always want it more, and pressure girls into losing their ‘virginity” dynamic disappears.

    When I was a freshman in college I dated a senior named Scott. Scott was from Iowa. Scott was Catholic. Scott was certain that losing one’s virginity should not happen outside “the ties of wedlock.”

    I was less certain.

    Saying that I forced Scott to give up his religious ideals and sleep with me would be a bit of a stretch. However, after months of pressuring and nagging, Scott finally relented and we agreed to have sex.  Like all other parts of our relationship, our sex was scheduled. It had to happen on a Saturday night so Scott could go to church the next morning. I realize now, eight years after the fact, that he was likely going to church that morning to confess what we’d done the night before. We also determined that the sex had to happen in Scott’s room, as I had a roommate.

    On the night of “the deed” Scott and I sat awkwardly next to each other on the edge of his twin bed. Slowly, cautiously, Scott started kissing me. Undressing each other was a pathetic exchange of “I’m sorry” and “are you okay.” Finally, we were naked.

    Scott paused. “I’m never actually, uh, put on a condom before.” he said.

    He tried, he really did, but no matter what Scott did, he could not make that condom go on. “I think there are instructions in the box…” Scott retreived the instructions and spread them across the on top of the blue quilt his mother and sisters had knitted for him for his birthday. “Okay, I think I understand now.”

    The actual sex lasted about 20 seconds and I didn’t feel a thing. Scott wasn’t able to sleep with me in his bed, so once we finished, I self-consciously got dressed and walked back to my dorm room. Alone.

    We never had sex again. I spent the next few days writing impassioned e-mails to high school friends asking if I was fated to have horrible sex. Scott and I broke up about two weeks later. He married a girl from his hometown almost immediately after graduation. They now have enough children to make up a baseball team, and seem really happy. In an Iowa sort of way.

Posted in Sex

108 thoughts on Jesus was such a cockblocker.

  1. Both my parents are atheists, so I’ve been lucky to grow up without any real hang-ups about sex.

    I have to say though, that I find the story about Scott disturbing, especially this part: “Saying that I forced Scott to give up his religious ideals and sleep with me would be a bit of a stretch. However, after months of pressuring and nagging, Scott finally relented and we agreed to have sex.” I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. Sex is not something that anyone should be pressured into, and if someone is begrudgingly relenting to sex that they very obviously do not want to have, then that’s rape. Are religious hang-ups surrounding sex illogical and unfounded? Sure. But it shouldn’t matter why someone isn’t ready to have sex. If someone expresses that they are not ready, then that should be enough.

  2. I was raised by two nonreligious but vaguely spiritual parents who didn’t instill me with any guilt about sex. I’m incredibly grateful for that.

    My first boyfriend was a Unitarian Universalist agnostic- the most sexually liberal church I’ve ever seen. I had another friend who went to that church, and he taught comprehensive sex ed at the summer camps. It was broken up into groups- you could visit the LGBTQ station, the healthy relationships station, the STI and birth control station, etc. Free condoms and lube galore.

    So I have no idea why my boyfriend was so prudish, for lack of a better word, about sex. He was clearly fine with other various sex acts that we did, but he was really nervous about the meaning of penetration and about my virginity. (he was not a virgin when we met, but I was.) I dated him from the time I was 14 until I was 16, while he was 17-19, so that had a lot to do with it. He didn’t want to pressure me. We had sex once, and I organized the situation and took control of it completely. I broke up with him a couple weeks later.

    I still don’t see the significance of penetration over the other sex acts we did.

  3. It’s a difficult thing, being a woman who really wants sex. In the past I’ve pressured men into sleeping with me, which I’m ashamed of and regret terribly.

    The script society has says that women are the gatekeepers to sex, so if we want sex then there’s no problem! And men think about sex allllll the time! I have had a really strong sex drive since I was very young, so I grew up feeling erased.

    Sorry, that ended up being tangential to the story. And I bummed myself out…

  4. I dated one (male) virgin in college. He was into women and an atheist, but had constructed a moral code in which he didn’t want to have sex if he wasn’t prepared to potentially be a father. It wasn’t that well thought out, IMO, but hey, he was 21. I was not a virgin and really wanted to do it, so we talked about it plenty, but it didn’t happen until he was ready, and it was def. his decision all the way.

    Interestingly, the few months with him before we did do standard hetero p in v intercourse really stretched my definition of “having sex” since there was LOTS of other stuff going on. Just not the kind that gets people pregnant.

    Also: pretty sure all of my amazing, progressive, gay, straight, whatever friends from Iowa, living in Iowa, single in Iowa, married in Iowa, or partnered up in Iowa are happy in an “Iowa way,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Big boo to regional stereotyping. Midwest holla!

  5. Poor Scott.

    It’s difficult for me to believe that people like him actually exist. Instructions for a condom? I mean, can you boil water and turn a doorknob?

  6. “It had to happen on a Saturday night so Scott could go to church the next morning. I realize now, eight years after the fact, that he was likely going to church that morning to confess what we’d done the night before.”

    In the Catholic Church, whatever its other faults, confessions don’t happen on Sunday. They happen earlier in the week, because to receive Communion at Mass, one has to have been absolved beforehand.
    Also, confession in Catholicism is not public– you don’t go to church and make a confession on Sunday to the whole congregation at large– does anybody do that? I really don’t know. Anyway, confession is very private, between you and the priest, and presumedly God.

  7. Amen to that, Maven. Grew up in Indiana, live in Wisconsin. The midwest has its problems but hearing it used as a slam gets deeply frustrating.

  8. Hmm…first, I second the squeamishness about Scott. Coercing someone to have sex with you when they don’t want to (for whatever reason) and clearly are so uncomfortable about it they break up almost immediately after? Kind of seems like rape. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if his “inability” to put on a condom was related to his hoping not to have to have sex.

    Secondly, since Iowa is one of only a few states that actually allows gay marriage, AND is a blue state, it’s a bit rough to slag it off as a pit of religious conservatism. In fact, the Northern Midwest has been and mostly still is one of the most progressive areas of the country, and =/= bible belt.

  9. If Scott had been Scarlett and and the the narrator was a man this would not have gotten posted on Feministe! How exactly is it religion’s fault that this women pressured a guy into sex?

  10. I appreciate the perspective you wrote with, how meeting evangelical (or otherwise) Christians and seeing some of the stranger behavior and belief systems seemed so odd for you. It was something I grew up with pretty heavily. All of my friends and I vowed to wait until marriage… of course, the two most gung-ho about it, myself and my friend Adriane, were the first to join “the darkside” at 15… and within the same week of one another, too.

    I second the frowny-face comments about the upper Midwest, though. I live in Minneapolis, and we are bluer than blue. Nevermind Michele Bachmann; she’s an anomaly whose district is a small conservative island in a sea of progressives. NOW’s Action Vice President, Erin Matson, is also from Minnesota. And we have Al Franken. And I have yet to meet anyone who can’t wait to get a progressive to replace Pawlenty. And if Pawlenty does run for president, I wouldn’t be surprised if he lost the state.

    I know that’s MN and not IA, but I spend a lot of time in Iowa– in a small town with a huge GLBT population, which seems oxymoronic anywhere else– and I can say with certainty that, while it’s kind of dull for my tastes (I love “city life”), Iowa is awesome. Gay marriage is also legal in Iowa, and it’s one of the few states where no one seems particularly interested in overturning it.

  11. Maybe I am the only one that is laughing at this post. Life happens. Step in it. It’s crap sometimes and it stinks.

    On the other hand, pressuring anyone into anything is wrong but I’m sure it was a great lessoned for both parties.

  12. Yeah, thirded on the squick about forcing Scott into sex. Whatever the religious hang up, it seems like a clear cut example of rape to me…

  13. I’m going to add to the “OP did not do right by Scott here” chorus.

    That sounds like the classic wearing someone down to have sex with you for the relationship. Mind you, that kind of pressure is usually the sign of serious incompatibility and the fact they broke up 2 weeks later speaks to that.

    I have been pressured into sex by women before. I’ve caved a couple of times, and usually regretted it. (I’ve usually not stayed in much contact with those women, either.)

  14. Yeah, I agree that the lady in the piece did Scott wrong.

    But to talk about me, I dated a religious guy for a few years when I was younger (high school younger)- we would bone, but then he would have guilt attacks about how what we had done was wrong. So I would tell him that we didn’t have to have sex (because although I really really really like sex and it is super important to me, I was monster into this guy), and then I would see him again and he would get a boner and initiate and all that, lather rinse repeat. I would never be in a relationship like that again but it was a bit of a head trip back when.

  15. I love the aggrieved tone with which the storyteller reveals that this person’s performance wasn’t all that great and he didn’t walk her home after. Why, it’s almost as though he didn’t want to have sex with her in the first place and wasn’t feeling particularly gentlemanly afterwards! Imagine that.

    It’s nice to know he ended up happily married in the end, but it would be even nicer to know that the woman in the story ended up figuring out that bullying people into sex is something to be deeply and lastingly ashamed of.

    Erica: you introduce this anecdote by saying “mainly women I know who were in long relationships with boys who, for religious reasons, were reluctant to have sex for the first time.”

    But of course, many people use religion as a safe excuse to say no to things they don’t feel able to say no to for personal reasons. “God would be mad at me” is the ultimate “my dad would kill me if he found out,” after all. It’s the trump card for girls who are afraid to be called frigid or prudes; a guy can always promise her parents won’t find out, but God is always watching. And it works just as well for boys.

    So maybe this poor guy really did want to keep himself chaste and holy, but then again, maybe he just didn’t want to have sex with her.

  16. Sixth vote for seeing serious ickiness in grinding someone down to have sex like this. I had a friend in college who dated a fellow student who had strong religious convictions of this sort. After some months she told me, “No matter how many times he tells me it’s about Jesus, I feel like it is about me.” I think it went something like this: having bought into the narrative that men always want sex and women are the gatekeepers, if he didn’t want sex with her, it spoke to some deep flaw in her – with a history of serious body loathing she was particularly vulnerable to this. But even though feeling rejected 24/7 totally decimated her self-esteem, she accepted that hurtful as it might be, it didn’t matter if he actually wanted her or was simply determined to repress his desire. Either way, in the end, his decision was about him. They broke up even though they were great together in other ways – hardly surprising.

    Someone else not wanting to have sex with you is about them, not you. If more people (usually men) could stop taking rejection so personally and taking it as an excuse to slander, manipulate or bully their rejecter, it would make life much better for everyone.

  17. Someone else not wanting to have sex with you is about them, not you. If more people (usually men) could stop taking rejection so personally and taking it as an excuse to slander, manipulate or bully their rejecter, it would make life much better for everyone.

    Something I need to hear recently, as I have been letting some rejections mess with my self-esteem. I like to think I don’t do the second part.

  18. As far as “forcing” the guy into sex, the way the OP told the story was very reminiscent of my first time. I was very anti sex before marriage. He convinced me, but did not force me, to have sex. I don’t regret the experience, because it was, ultimately, my decision. I sometimes wish it had been different, but I don’t hate him for the role he had in the experience. I read Scott’s “character” as being similar to mine. I broke up with my boyfriend– to whom I “lost my virginity,” about two weeks after :the deed,” too. It wasn’t traumatizing. Even though those experiences can be shitty, they’re not always that bad.

  19. Rather than joining the pile-on, I’d say that when you’re navigating territory without a map, it is awfully difficult to figure out what you’re doing, but it’s possible. But when you’re navigating territory with the WRONG map, you’re going to get thoroughly lost.

    I agree that Scott’s “inability” to put on a condom was probably related to his preference not to have sex.

    But I also think that the OP and Scott were both stuck in problematic territory with the wrong map, because the only map available for both of them said “Men want to have sex, women decide when to let them.” So if “Scott had been Scarlett”, to quote EDGY1004, and OP had been a bloke, they would have HAD the right map. And probably neither of them would have got lost.

  20. But of course, many people use religion as a safe excuse to say no to things they don’t feel able to say no to for personal reasons. “God would be mad at me” is the ultimate “my dad would kill me if he found out,” after all. It’s the trump card for girls who are afraid to be called frigid or prudes; a guy can always promise her parents won’t find out, but God is always watching. And it works just as well for boys.

    So maybe this poor guy really did want to keep himself chaste and holy, but then again, maybe he just didn’t want to have sex with her.

    Thank you. It sort of disturbs me to see that people don’t seem to be considering that there are other reasons someone from a religious background might not be wanting to have sex than religious issues (and as you rightly point out even if they say it’s their religion, that works as an excellent excuse).

    Seventhing (?) the ugh feeling. That story makes me feel sick, and the sex really does not sound particularly consensual.

  21. Erica, this post pissed me off on several counts. Nowhere in this post do you express any regret for haranguing the living shit out of your partner until he relents to have sex with you. The hell? Clue number one: If you have to pester the shit out of your partner in order to have sex: don’t. Your partner doesn’t want to. For whatever reason. You don’t have to respect the reason offered (or the reason suspected); you do have to respect the “no”. He did say no on multiple times previous, and his “no” was constantly expressed through his actions when he finally relented (you don’t really believe the not knowing how to use a condom part, right? That was your cue to drop the matter). That you were able to bully this man into having sex does not make it consensual. Also, consider that the reason you were able to bully him into having sex is because of the pre-existing sexist tropes that “men want sex all the time” and “you’re not a real man if you don’t” and “what are you, gay or somethin’ if you can’t screw your girlfriend?” Because mind you, even if you didn’t say any of those things, that was the script running in his mind.

    So, you used sexism and assholish behavior to bully your partner into having sex with you, then have the nerve to complain that the sex was lousy and you didn’t get off. All because of Jesus, apparently. DAMN, talk about projection.

    Oh, and nice touch with Mom’s handmade quilt. Was that thrown in for the Iowa flavor? Oh, you know those midwesterners and their downhome ways, they don’t have stores out there, you know. Isn’t it so quaint and exotic how they make gifts for one another?

    Sweet bedda matri, and I mean that with all sincerity straight from Flyover Country™. “In an Iowa sort of way.” How about fuck you, in an Illinois sort of way. For your information, Manhattan did not discover fucking.

    I knew this post was going to be something when I saw evangelical Christianity conflated with Catholicism. That especially boggled my midwest mind. Many evangelical Protestants do not regard Catholics as Christians. U.S. Catholics aren’t “evangelical”—for the most part, it’s a faith you are born into, with deep ties to ethnicity and culture. There is a vast, sweeping gulf (think: Grand Canyon-sized) between the practices of U.S. Catholics and U.S. evangelical Protestants. That you attended a Unitarian congregation tells me you should know this: many Unitarians (as do many Pagans) come from a Catholic background.

    Jesus wasn’t cock-blocking you. Your partner was. And you didn’t listen. Think about that.

  22. The OP didn’t rape her boyfriend, not even close.

    After months of negotiation, she convinced him to schedule a sex date in his dorm room. That’s consent.

    Scott was ambivalent. His religious beliefs had become a threat to his relationship. So, he decided to compromise. The key word here is “decided.” He had plenty of time to make up his mind. The OP didn’t put him on the spot or take advantage of him when he was drunk or anything like that. She appealed to his faculty of practical reason: If you want to be with me, then we have to start having sex.

    You know what? It’s okay to make sex a non-negotiable criterion for an adult romance. If sex is non-negotiable criterion for you, you owe it to your partner to make that clear. If s/he weighs the options and decides that your bond is more important than his/her chastity, that doesn’t make you a rapist.

  23. “After months of negotiation, she convinced him to schedule a sex date in his dorm room. That’s consent.”

    “Nagging” and “pressuring” is not negotiation. Either the original poster choose some really awful words to describe what happened, or what happened could indeed be described as at least borderline rape. I have been in similar situations. I have no problems describing those encounters as “borderline” or “basically” rape. Was it actual rape? ::shrugs:: I know I wasn’t willing even though I eventually gave -technical- consent – meaning that I eventually said yes – but I did not give consent because I actually wanted to give consent. I gave consent because I had finally been worn down so much that I felt like I just couldn’t say no any longer. Negotiation has nothing to do with hounding a person who has said no over and over again. That isn’t negotiation. That’s disrespectful at the least. Predatory at worst.

  24. Just to clarify, I don’t think that this story is Erica’s own — I was under the impression that she’s telling someone else’s story (hence the blockquoting).

    Doesn’t make it ok, of course, for the woman in question to harangue her boyfriend into sex. But I was under the impression that, like a lot of Erica’s posts here, this one involves Erica relaying someone else’s story, in the person’s own words. So of course let’s criticize and analyze what happened here and the language used, but let’s just also be clear that it might not be Erica’s own story.

  25. However, after months of pressuring and nagging, Scott finally relented and we agreed to have sex.

    Doesn’t sound much like negotiation to me. Sounds like the OP played upon pre-existing sexist scripts to pressure her partner into having sex with her at risk of losing his masculinity. Months is key. If having sex was a requirement to having a relationship with her, she would have merely broken up with him. For some reason, this power play was important to her.

    If s/he weighs the options and decides that your bond is more important than his/her chastity, that doesn’t make you a rapist.

    Yeah, that bond was so important to “Scott” that the relationship ended two weeks later.

    Months of nagging and haranguing. Yeah, that sounds like “negotiations” in a healthy, adult sexual relationship.

  26. There’s another gendered narrative at play here: Scott the innocent flower of youth, corrupted by OP, the wanton temptress.

    Scott was an adult who chose to have sex. He had other options. He could have broken up with OP, he could have held out, but he didn’t.

    In the eyes of many commenters, OP is the bad girl who is solely responsible for a decision the couple made together.

  27. I think La Lubu’s comment is spot-on. It is lazy to lump evangelical Christian and Catholic together; “in an Iowa sort of way” is really condescending and does not belong in this space; and the rest of the narrative is very disturbing based on the coercion that appeared to be present over time. Also, seconding whomever said confession does not happen on Sundays for Catholics (or at least, it doesn’t happen in the course of a regular Mass). I’m guessing Scott wanted to be able to go to Mass to pray about it or just feel the kind of better you feel when you have a safe space to go to.

  28. “Scott was an adult who chose to have sex. He had other options. He could have broken up with OP, he could have held out, but he didn’t.”

    People say the same thing about women in the same situations. People would say the same thing about my situations. Could he have broken up with her? Sure. But maybe he actually, you know, cared about her and didn’t want to have to hurt her feelings that way. Or maybe he was just afraid and insecure period. Regardless of whether or not he had options, it was still completely unacceptable for anyone to pressure him into sex. He has just as much of a right to say no as any woman and have that no respected.

    “OP is the bad girl who is solely responsible for a decision the couple made together.”

    No. She isn’t a “bad girl” or a “wanton temptress”. Those are your words; no one else here has used them. What she is, or was, is someone who refused to respect someone’s boundaries for her own personal pleasure and selfishness. Is she a rapist? I don’t know. But her actions damn sure put her right on the borderline of being a rapist, at the very least.

  29. La Lubu, we don’t know who broke up with whom. The OP writes: “Scott and I broke up about two weeks later.” Clearly, it was for the best. These two were emotionally and physically incompatible, not to mention immature. Neither party was at fault.

  30. Faith, right, those are my words. They reflect the tone that I’m detecting in various comments accusing OP of being a rapist, or a quasi-rapist. I’m sure OP didn’t use the words “All boys want sex and all girls are sexual gatekeepers” but that’s still a pretty accurate description of a very real narrative in our culture.

    You’re not going to deny that our culture has some very negative baggage associated with sexually assertive women, are you? If you identify a narrative, it’s fair to cite a counter narrative. A lot of people have decided that someone has to be the villain in this story and they’re putting the blame on OP. It seems at least as likely that it’s your standard bittersweet college romance between two people who turn out to have irreconcilable differences.

    Whether it was okay for OP to pressure her boyfriend depends on what she means by “pressure.” Obviously, it’s never okay to use threats or ridicule to get sex. On the other hand, a sustained campaign of rational persuasion/seduction is perfectly acceptable.

    Couples have ongoing disagreements about all sorts of issues, including their sex lives. Protracted, emotionally-charged negotiations over whether to have sex are so common in high school/college relationships as to be cliche. If a couple finally decides to have sex, it doesn’t make the instigator a rapist. Convincing someone to do something that they later regret is not the same as coercion.

    Are a lot of young relationships unhealthy? You bet. If Scott and the OP had been more mature, they might have recognized that they had an irreconcilable difference instead of a negotiable disagreement.

  31. @ La Lubu

    I don’t think she’s conflating evangelical Christianity and Catholicism–the first story (her own) involves an evangelical; the second (the one she quoted) involves a Catholic. Saying “strict Christianity/Catholicism” instead of just “strict Christianity” IMHO shows specificity and a distinction between the two, not conflation. (FTR my background is evangelical). But I guess the / can be ambiguous.

    On the other hand…biblically speaking, Jesus isn’t the cock-blocker, Paul is. :o)

  32. I have to second what Jesurgislac said about having the wrong map. I had a nearly identical experience to the author and still have a hard time piecing it all out. I had been very religious, but at 17 was starting to question and move away from everything I’d believed before. Add some serious emotional problems from being medicated out of my mind by my parents into the mix, and I was confused, to say the least. So when my boyfriend (Catholic) and I had done everything but PiV and were making out on the couch, it was me who pulled his pants down even though he clearly said “No”.

    Was it rape? I don’t know, that’s still hard for me to answer, though I know some people here will answer for me. Whatever it was, it wasn’t healthy. I had all these feelings and desires and I was told that everything I did with them was not just wrong, but evil; even their very presence was something dirty. And I ended up doing something dirty with them in turn.

    There’s blame to go around in the author’s story (her’s, religion’s), and in mine, but the ultimate conclusion I’ve come to is that when I have children we will talk about sex without shame, enforced gender restrictions, or any of the other things that add confusion to an already “touchy” subject.

    Also my Iowan transplanted to DC partner is currently ranting about how everyone in the comment section is assuming that “happy in an Iowa way” is somehow a derogatory statement.

  33. “On the other hand, a sustained campaign of rational persuasion/seduction is perfectly acceptable. ”

    To whom? “A sustained campaign of rational persuasion” is also a sustained campaign of actively (at best) ignoring your partner’s desires and (at worst) convincing them that their voice is not as important as your own ego. Just because we’re capable of fucking with other people’s identity, self-worth, and values, doesn’t mean we should.

  34. Honestly, I’m not sure what this post is doing on Feministe. If I had to write a parody, it would go like:

    “Ha ha, those religious people, they’re so funny! Sometimes they have hang-ups about sex and you have to pressure and nag them into doing it! Because any reason for not having sex that has anything to do with religion is invalid!”

    … yeah, no.

    I’m a Christian woman, and I’m currently abstinent– in fact, I’m one of those poor repressed women who wants to be abstinent until marriage! If my partner tried to pressure and nag me into having sex, we wouldn’t be partners any more. Not only is that not respecting me, it’s a form of coercion.

    “Scott” was certain— the OP*’s words– that he wanted to be abstinent until marriage, and yet the OP pressured and nagged him into changing his mind. Why on earth is Scott’s religion presented as the problematic part of the sexual encounter?

    *The woman whose story this is, not Erica.

  35. I think this post is woefully incomplete. You say that this anecdote is the “other side” of the story, but to me it reads like the same shit on a different day. What the hell was it that you thought we were going to get from this?

    What I picked up on was the attitude of shaming toward men for not being aggressively and competently* sexual, the idea that pressuring men into sex is not sexual coercion and rape (WTF), and the idea that people of particular religious backgrounds are inherently flawed and backwards and pitiable, as opposed to an analysis of how religious beliefs interact with practices and life experiences in a particular social context.

    In other words, toxic bullshit. Was this thought to be benign? Or is this post a substitution of controversy for content?

    *I don’t feel like that’s the word I want here, but I’m at a loss. Essentially, the assumption that men, even young men and men who are virgins, should be highly knowledgeable about sex and related behaviours, presumably because they are so consumed by their insatiable need for it?

  36. I don’t agree with Lindsay that the “sustained campaign” the OP describes (and yeah, it’s pretty clearly NOT Erica, that’s why I used “OP”) is “acceptable”.

    My point was that both Scott and the OP were almost certainly operating with a map where the OP was supposed to be the sexual gatekeeper – where Scott was supposed to be waiting impatiently-but-gentlemanly for his partner to “agree to have sex” – and a situation where the OP wanted to have sex and Scott was reluctant, meant their shared map was steering them in totally the wrong direction.

    So what happened, was wrong – was not acceptable. But it’s also not acceptable to lay a crapload of blame on OP for what happened. We live in a patriarchal culture: men and women do not have mirror narratives about sex, not even when the situation is a woman pressures a man into having sex when he doesn’t really want to.

  37. They reflect the tone that I’m detecting in various comments accusing OP of being a rapist, or a quasi-rapist

    Can we stop this right in its tracks? OP wasn’t a rapist. She was a contemptible sexual bully who not only bullied and pressured a guy into bed, but complained about his performance to all her high school friends after getting him to do what he didn’t want to. And she’s not sorry, and doesn’t appear to know she has anything to be sorry for — after all, he’s okay now. She’s scum.

    Rape is not the only bad act in the world. Rape is not even the only bad sexual act in the world. The fact is that she did a vicious and despicable thing, and still thinks it’s a funny story now, and not being a rapist absolves her of nothing. I dare say she’s not a murderer either. So what? The idea that “well, I didn’t rape you” excuses all manner of immoral nastiness is really sick.

  38. But it’s also not acceptable to lay a crapload of blame on OP for what happened. We live in a patriarchal culture: men and women do not have mirror narratives about sex, not even when the situation is a woman pressures a man into having sex when he doesn’t really want to.

    It’s more than acceptable, it’s intensely appropriate. Men and women don’t have mirror narratives about violence either, very far from it, and female assault is usually considered a joke. But it would be just fine to lay a crapload of blame on any woman who, unprovoked and not in self defense, up and beat the hell out of another person.

    It’s also just fine to sympathize with a woman who believes her boyfriend must want to sleep with her because it’s a law of nature. Right up until she asks him and he says “no.” There’s just no way to play dumb and claim ignorance after that.

  39. “You’re not going to deny that our culture has some very negative baggage associated with sexually assertive women, are you?”

    No. I absolutely am not going to deny that, nor am I denying that our culture in general has a problem with such a thing. But that has nothing to do with the criticisms at hand. This is not about gender. This is about every human beings right to say no and have that no respected. It’s about every human beings right to define their boundaries and not have someone try to talk them out of their boundaries. That is what this is about. This is about accurately acknowledging that one person sexually preyed upon another for their own purposes with little to no regard for their feelings.

    “A lot of people have decided that someone has to be the villain in this story and they’re putting the blame on OP.”

    I haven’t decided that anyone has to be a villain. I’m just calling a spade a spade. Unless there was some serious miscommunication in this post, what she did was wrong and it absolutely bordered on rape. You are confusing seduction with badgering and pressure. No means no. No does not mean try harder. No does not mean talk me into it. Apparently this can not be said often enough, even on a freaking feminist blog in a discussion with feminist commenters.

  40. Hi Everyone,

    Thank you for weighing in.

    I do just want to make clear first off that no, this is not my story. I collected stories from a number of people and published them as they came to me. I edited a little for grammar etc., but the intention of this project was to share peoples’ experiences as they had them. As such, I didn’t edit any for content.

    Secondly, I appreciate everyone for what they’ve weighed in. I’ll add that first off, knowing the author of the story, I think the somewhat snarky tone is a stylistic choice that can be easy to misinterpret. The statement “months of pressuring and nagging” stands in as a glib explanation for in for what I’m sure was a complicated and confusing process for both parties at hand.

    Not that pressuring someone to have sex when they really don’t want to is acceptable behavior. It’s not. And I appreciate what some has shared about how religion can be a stand in as an acceptable excuse.

    But let’s also not ignore the confusing messages that religion can give us about our sexuality. Yes, there are times when it’s a convenient excuse but there are many many times when religion succeeds in making us ashamed and guilty of what are very natural desires. I don’t know “Scott” so I can’t speak for him personally, but I know a number of folks who grew up very religious (and no, I’m not lumping Evangelicalism and Catholicism in lazily together — these two stories just happened to deal with both religions’ messages about sex) who have suffered through the agonizing struggle of trying to reconcile their honest desires with the shame and guilt that’s been heaped onto them from a very early age.

    That said, I appreciate the discussion that’s happening around this story. As I mentioned when I began this piece, I think we learn the most from sharing our personal stories, whatever they may be.

    ps – also, for the record, I may be a Manhattanite, but I have nothing but love for Iowa, and the mid west in general.

  41. Out of interest, Faith, how would you delineate between seduction and badgering/pressure? Isn’t it possible that it might often come down to context, or even perspective?

  42. (I’m sorry, Erica. I didn’t realize this wasn’t your story.)

    On the other hand, a sustained campaign of rational persuasion/seduction is perfectly acceptable.

    What does that sound like? “Sustained” is the key word here. There’s only so much “rational persuasion” and “seduction” that can continue to be used in the face of all that “no”. That’s why those sustained campaigns so rapidly degenerate into threats and ridicule. I don’t think it’s a failure of my imagination to assume that after months, there were threats, ridicule, shaming and other coercive behavior.

    There’s nothing wrong with being sexually assertive, whether you are a man or a woman. There is something wrong with not taking no for an answer. It’s unethical. The OP acted in an unethical manner. “Scott” did not. He was manipulated into having sex that he didn’t want to have. His actions after the sex took place aren’t remotely consistent with the narrative of ambivalence or compromise. More like shame and feeling used.

    Gee, why would the OP go to this extent for so long? I’m left with two possibilities: maybe “Scott” was really physically attractive. He fit the physical template of being a good boyfriend, if only there wasn’t that pesky “Scott” inside to deal with. So, the OP set off on a Pygmalion quest to rid this shell of a body unfortunately occupied by “Scott” in order to have a “new, improved” version created by the OP.

    Or, the sex was merely incidental to what the OP really wanted to get off on—the power of forcing someone to do something he didn’t want to do. Mission accomplished. Nothing left to do but break up.

    What the OP did was degrading and dehumanizing. Why are toxic attitudes and behaviors in and around sex considered “ok” as long as they don’t have religious underpinnings? In other words, how is the OP’s attitude any less toxic than the Vatican’s? (and might I remind those in this thread who have no personal knowledge of Catholicism—the laity should not be confused with the Vatican)

    No means no means no means no. It’s that simple.

  43. Paul S.K. — I think every time I’ve seen a thread on rape and sexual coercion come up, someone comes on and asks for a detailed list of exactly where the line is between the two.

  44. “Out of interest, Faith, how would you delineate between seduction and badgering/pressure”

    Seduction involves trying to have sex with someone that you know wants to have sex with you, or has not indicated whether or not they want to have sex with you. Once a person says no, or otherwise declines your advances, you are badgering/pressuring/engaging in predatory/rapist behavior.

  45. I’m talking about persuasion vs seduction, not coercion vs rape. I think we can all agree coercion is wrong. What interested me is that Faith implied that seduction is all well and good, and I wondered whether there really is such a clear difference. I’m sorry if you feel exasperated with the question, but I don’t think I’m engaging in apologetics here.

    My own understanding of the split in concepts is that seduction is treated as fine, because all you’re apparently doing is ‘uncovering’ an existent or latent desire, whereas persuasion carries the implication that you are actually trying to alter the other person’s mental state, and bend it to your own desire. Obviously anything touching upon rape is (deservedly) a sensitive topic, but am I being unfair in suggesting that there might be some overlap between the two? And if so, should we take the view that “seduction” could also be read as coercion, and shouldn’t be engaged in?

  46. No means no means no means no. It’s that simple.

    I see this story as a perfect example of why we need to push to change the culture of “no means no” to “yes means yes.” I would like it to become normal to view anyone who has sex with a partner who grudgingly complies (instead of enthusiastically participates) as aberrant. “No means no” leaves too much gray area in which sexual bullies and rapists can hide.

    This is also a perfect example of why defining PIV as the end-all-and-be all of heterosexual sex is silly. Quite frankly, it leads to bad sex. How many of these kinds of “rush to do PIV” stories end with one or both partners being stuck with an “is that IT?” feeling?

    The summer after I graduated from high school, I dated a guy who was a rising senior in college. He was Catholic and a virgin. I was not either. I wanted to “have sex,” which at the time I defined as PIV. He wanted to wait until marriage for that, but was willing and eager to do other things. And he was quite good at those other things too. He was the first sex partner who ever went down on me, and the first sex partner to bring me to orgasm. I also learned to put the “how to give a blowjob” instruction I had received from Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High into practice with him. He was the first sex partner to be excited by the idea that I masturbated and to encourage me to show him how I masturbated so that he could see what kinds of touches brought me pleasure. With him, I learned how to express to a partner what was working and what wasn’t as well as how to ask a partner what worked for them (and how to figure some of it out from paying attention to their reactions.) He was the first partner with whom I had what I would now describe as “good sex,” but it took me over a decade to even count what I did with him as sex.

  47. “but am I being unfair in suggesting that there might be some overlap between the two?”

    Yes. I gave a very clear explanation of the difference between the two.

    “And if so, should we take the view that “seduction” could also be read as coercion, and shouldn’t be engaged in?”

    No. See above.

  48. “I see this story as a perfect example of why we need to push to change the culture of “no means no” to “yes means yes.””

    I actually think that “yes means yes” is even more problematic than “no means no”. Situations like the one that we are discussing shows that. What we need to move away from is that idea that it’s acceptable to keep manipulating a person until they say yes. And as long as they do, it’s completely a-ok. As I’ve already stated, I’ve been in situations where yes did not mean yes. All yes actually meant was I was too afraid, too exhausted, and too vulnerable to keep saying no.

  49. Thanks Faith, I was actually responding to LC in my second post. Your own definition is very clear cut, but I’d argue that the word ‘seduction’ carries a lot of other connotations (in literature, popular media etc.) that aren’t limited to approaching somebody who already (or potentially) wants to have sex with you.

  50. This post sent up major red flags for me. Both parts are problematic, the part by Erica, admittedly less so, but still far from acceptable.

    I am a white, mostly straight, cis, guy and have over the past month or so been considering Christianity, in part because of an Evangelical (and recently celibate) partner and learning more about it. I have my issues, struggles and confusions with it and totally agree that lots of people (religious/christian, or secular) have hang ups about sex, and some of you probably have more than me. It is key though to acknowledge it is people with hang ups about sex. and not necessarily Christianity, which does have rules about who and when, but that does not mean it is categorically anti-sex. We all have rules about who and when, too.

    It’s really easy to knock Christianity, and otherise it, but that only ignores and marginalizes voices, which seems contrary to the message of feminism, or social justice in general. I am not saying there are not drawbacks, and those deserve discussion and analysis. But it is immature to shut down conversation about some of the potential advantages that striving for celibacy affords, whether you agree with celibacy for yourself or not.

    I think that the merging of religious certitude & intolerance with political might make for a more accurate root cause of peoples difficulties and struggles to claim a sexually positive identity within Christianity, and that is a discussion worth engaging in from a feminist perspective.

    From what I have learned, so far, in my introspection, is that Christianity / God offers guidelines that are not always easy to follow, but protect us in concrete and secular terms, STI prevention, unplanned pregnancy prevention, bad one night stands that you feel gross about after, avoiding using people, and being selfish. As guidelines, those seem helpful, to strive for, from any perspective. The thing is, within Christianity, we are expected to mess up. No one is perfect. That is the point.

  51. I am really not sure why Haley K equates belonging to a “sexually liberal church” (Unitarian Universalist) means that one cannot be reluctant to have sex with a specific person or at a specific time. That’s *exactly* what the Our Whole Lives curriculum is designed to do: teach children and adolescents to make their own decisions in a non-judgmental way. It sounds like her boyfriend did exactly that.

  52. I didn’t grow up with super religious parents, but we did got to church on a very consistent basis. I wasn’t raised to think of sex in terms of being restrictive until my sisters and I hit our teens. We were rebellious and wild so my parents hit the panic button. They decided we needed to go to a very conservative praise-and-worship sort of church. There, the sanctity of virginity as you’ve described was certainly advanced.

    I myself was very much in my rebellion phase at the time, so I wasn’t buying it. But many people in the youth group I was a part of did. They romanticized virginity, thinking how wonderful and pure and Godly it would be to have sex for the first time with your wife on the wedding night.

    I always believed in God, but I kind of cast aside Christianity for a while until fairly recently, after realizing that liberal Christianity was much much different from its restrictive, conservative version.

  53. From what I have learned, so far, in my introspection, is that Christianity / God offers guidelines that are not always easy to follow, but protect us in concrete and secular terms, STI prevention, unplanned pregnancy prevention, bad one night stands that you feel gross about after, avoiding using people, and being selfish.

    Spoken in the humble sincere voice of someone who is glad of his decision not to take advantage of anyone else, and never spent a single second worrying that he might be raped.

    Or: Obeying all the sex rules your Christian sect prescribes will probably keep you from harming others until you get married, and then it will limit the harm you do to a single spouse, and this is a good and valuable thing if you are worried that you cannot do a good job of limiting harm by yourself. It will not do one damn thing to keep others from harming you.

    The thing is, within Christianity, we are expected to mess up. No one is perfect. That is the point.

    Oh, is it?

    “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

    As some poor schuck once said. But he wasn’t a member of an Evangelical church, so what did he know?

  54. Christianity, which does have rules about who and when, but that does not mean it is categorically anti-sex. We all have rules about who and when, too.

    Sure, we do. We — individual people.

    It is blatantly disingenuous to compare an institution’s rules about sex with an individual’s rules. Why? Because my rules about who I sleep with and when are for my benefit, to keep me healthy and secure and powerful. And a church’s rules about who its followers may sleep with and when are designed to keep that church healthy and secure and powerful.

    This is a very basic principle of human nature and group behaviour. It’s how self-interest works.

    Any individual Christian may abide by any sexual rules she chooses, informed by her faith to any degree she chooses, with no mockery from me. But to assert that Christianity’s sex rules, or those of any other religious institution, deserve the respect that an individual’s private decisions do, is ludicrous and also dangerous.

  55. From what I have learned, so far, in my introspection, is that

    Christianity / God offers guidelines that are not always easy to follow, but protect us in concrete and secular terms, STI prevention, unplanned pregnancy prevention, bad one night stands that you feel gross about after, avoiding using people, and being selfish. As guidelines, those seem helpful, to strive for, from any perspective.

    Arguably, feminism does all that but better. I know which one I’m sticking with. ;p

  56. …maybe if Christianity would teach me to do blockquotes right I’d go back to it. ^^;

  57. Also, if you’re trying to have a productive discussion about feminism and some religion, deriding the religion’s deity in the title of the post is not helpful.

  58. I am absolutely disgusted by the second story. I am also disgusted by the number of people willing to defend a sexual bully. You see these sorts of people in the military all the time, and they do harm. Often they are males, but there are also females who go after subordinates or even other soldiers of their own rank who they for various reasons have influence over. I don’t care who you are philosopher, feminist, preacher or Pope, if you try to force someone who has said no to have any sort of physical relations with you, you are a monster. If you are willing to defend such people, you ain’t much better.

    Also, I find it very problematic that the point of this post seems to be that if you don’t agree with your partner’s reasons for say no, it’s totally OK to force them into sex anyway.

    Silly old religion? Pff, we know that’s not real. Pregnancy? Well I’ll wear a condom. STDs? Baby, don’t you know I just got tested? Just don’t want to? Well what about MEEEEEEE and MYYY NEEDS.

    It’s bullshit folks, self serving bullshit.

  59. The writer or the second story used the words, “However, after months of pressuring and nagging, Scott finally relented and we agreed to have sex.”

    So I’m going to take her at her word, because words mean things. If she wants to clarify, and/or pick better words, that’s cool. But all I’ve got to go on is her saying she pressured and nagged Scott for months to have sex.

    And that shit ain’t right.

    I’m atheist to my very core, but it’s writers like this one who turn their smug eye onto religion as a quaint little thing and looks down on its practitioners, that really make me very annoyed with atheists. Poor Scott and his common Iowa happiness. So, so sad compared to your awesome atheist life. Sigh.

    Maybe if everyone respected everyone’s beliefs, everyone could have good sex with people who wanted to have sex with them, really and truly.

  60. Yeah, this was a pretty sad story. Reverse the genders and everyone would (rightfully) call the male a horrible person if not a rapist.

    I am a mostly celibate cis male, and I have gotten flack for it sometimes. Girls will ask me stupid questions like if I am a virgin (no), etc. Sorry I don’t conform to stereotypes but leave me be, ya dig?

  61. As a Christian Feminist I was going to type something rebuking this post, but thankfully Aydan has done it for me. It’s really unfortunate that a website that condemns non-consensual sex would allow an article that depicts religious sexual boundaries as invalid.

    “It’s interesting when we talk honestly about sex how the “boys always want it more, and pressure girls into losing their ‘virginity” dynamic disappears. ”

    Really? It always disappears? So boys never pressure girls? This is news.

    “Saying that I forced Scott to give up his religious ideals and sleep with me would be a bit of a stretch. ”

    I guess my post here counts as spam as thankfully many people on this thread would agree that this is indicitive of nonconsensual sex and is therefore not in accordance with the values most commonly displayed on a website like this.

    Arguably, feminism does all that but better. I know which one I’m sticking with. ;p”

    -to the person who posted this, Christianity and feminism do NOT have to be an either/or. The two are in fact, quite compatible.

  62. I’m fairly religious. I’m sexually active. This post squicks the Hades out of me – starting with the title and ending with this sad, weird story of Scott.

  63. If you reversed the genders in this ‘story’ and put it in a comment, one of the moderators would be sure to yank it off. If such a story was part of a news item reported in this blog, it would probably (with reason) carry a trigger warning. I mean – nagging a person who the writer sees as a stereotype, and talking about a home-made quilt for no possible reason, and discussing his personal life, other than to look down on him… That’s just sick.

    Oh, and in case any of the people here have already stereotyped me into a convenient object – religious/male/antifeminist/anything, you can look up my other comments on several other threads here. This is the first one that’s made me freak out.

  64. * talking about a home-made quiltand discussing his personal life, for no possible reason other than to look down on him.
    That’s what I meant to say – Sorry!

  65. Feminist: If you reversed the genders in this ’story’ and put it in a comment, one of the moderators would be sure to yank it off.

    Would they? I’m not so sure.

    But in any case: as feminists, we know – or we should know – that you cannot simply reverse genders and have the story the same.

    sophonisba 6.27.2010 at 12:27 pm

    But it’s also not acceptable to lay a crapload of blame on OP for what happened. We live in a patriarchal culture: men and women do not have mirror narratives about sex, not even when the situation is a woman pressures a man into having sex when he doesn’t really want to.
    sophonsisba: Men and women don’t have mirror narratives about violence either, very far from it, and female assault is usually considered a joke. But it would be just fine to lay a crapload of blame on any woman who, unprovoked and not in self defense, up and beat the hell out of another person.

    That’s not an appropriate analogy.

    We’re all in agreement that “domestic violence” is bad whether it’s women hitting men or men hitting women. But the constant “Won’t someone think of the MENZ” whenever domestic violence comes up is anti-feminist not because violence towards men or men getting raped is funny, but because women get killed and seriously injured and permanently damaged by men they live with, and this happens a lot – and there isn’t a simple mirror narrative.

    The same for rape. We live in a culture which makes normal and acceptable men raping women, makes – at best – a nasty joke of women being sexually aggressive towards men, and does not acknowledge that a woman can rape a man at all. I don’t know whether the situation OP describes constituted rape: it seems clear it constituted sexual harassment: I do not defend or sympathise with her behavior: but I do say it is unacceptable to lay a crapload of individual blame on a young woman negotiating a complicated situation with the wrong map.

  66. “but I do say it is unacceptable to lay a crapload of individual blame on a young woman negotiating a complicated situation with the wrong map.”

    Then it’s unacceptable to lay a crapload of blame on males who engage in the same behavior too. Which, hey, I don’t agree with and I doubt many of the people who read and comment here would agree with either considering the amount of blame we tend to heap on males who commit sexual harassment and other predatory sexual behavior.

    Sexual harassment and bullying is wrong regardless of the person engaging in it. Women should not get a free pass for that type of behavior just because we are women and engage in the behavior less than men due to the “map” that we are given. Regardless of what map we are given, it is our responsibility to ensure that we do not harm another person with our selfish behavior.

  67. I agree that the actions of Scott’s partner are unethical as described here, but I am also interested in more discussion of young women in early relationships negotiating about sex with men who are the more reluctant partner. I think part of what Erica was maybe trying to post about was that there is a cultural narrative of male partners pressuring female partners for sex. Because of that narrative the situation is somewhat “expected” by those involved, and they have models available in the culture for how to handle such a situation. A “map” like Jesurgislac was saying. But when the female partner wants sex and the male partner is reluctant (for whatever reason) there aren’t as many models out there of what to do.

    I think it’s easy when you’ve had more sexual experiences to say “don’t have sex with anyone who doesn’t want to” but when you are inexperienced and in a first or second relationship, it’s much harder to know what “doesn’t want to” looks like, especially when both partners are at a stage in life when they are questioning who they are and building who they are. A lot of these relationships happen with people who are in the process of evaluating what they’ve been taught and trying to figure out whether they believe it or not.

    I was surprised in college to find a number of my friends in relationships where they were more interested than their male partners in initiating PIV sex. I don’t think there were months of pressure and nagging involved, and my friends were not sexually experienced themselves, but those boys did take some convincing. And in 2 instances I think the men were going through a process of evaluating the sexual “rules” or mores they had been taught/grown up with and deciding whether they held them as their own beliefs or had just accepted them as a default.

    Emphasizing the fact that there is a difference between someone who is “giving in to pressure” and someone who has re-evaluated and is willing and interested to try something he/she previously rejected is important. And talking about how to look at your own relationship, your own actions, and those of your partner, and tell which is going on in your relationship is important.

  68. Trufax – I have never known a Jewish woman who was sexually repressed, ignorant, or abstaining until marriage.

    Oh, wait… kallah classes? Yichud? The christians don’t have the monopoly on sexual repression and a culture of deliberate ignorance. If I have to speak to one more frum kid who’s being molested by anyone who can get their hands on them, but is told by their Rov/parents/teachers that “It can’t be possible, only husbands and wives can do that” then I will scream.

  69. It’s actually not true that, as some commenters have said above, that confessions don’t happen on Sundays before regular Masses. Before Vatican II, almost every parish had confessions on Sundays before Masses. Today, the practice is much more rare, but certainly it still happens in some places, particularly in parishes with more conservative/traditional priests.

    There was nothing in Vatican II that explicitly discouraged the practice of confessions before Sunday mass; it just became more rare for whatever reason.

  70. This “Without a map” business is ridiculous. It’s a pretty short line from “one partner says ‘no'” to “stop trying to force that partner to have sex.”

    This isn’t the fucking Northwest Passage here. It’s a simple rule. Somebody says no, you don’t get to have sex with them.

    Defending an individual who forced another individual into sex that they said ‘no’ to because you think it’s sad or unfair or irrational that the second individual said ‘no’…

    Christ, that’s saying that rape is fine so long as the Right Sort of person is raping to the Wrong Sort. Monstrous, monstrous, monstrous.

  71. This “Without a map” business is ridiculous. It’s a pretty short line from “one partner says ‘no'” to “stop trying to force that partner to have sex.”

    This isn’t the fucking Northwest Passage here. It’s a simple rule. Somebody says no, you don’t get to have sex with them.

    Defending an individual who forced another individual into sex that they said ‘no’ to because you think it’s sad or unfair or irrational that the second individual said ‘no’…

    Christ, that’s saying that rape is fine so long as the Right Sort of person is raping to the Wrong Sort. Monstrous, monstrous, monstrous.

  72. Well, I’m an atheist and I’ve a bit of problem with the idea that “religious reasons” are just an excuse that should be negotiated around.

    And yeah, nagging a partner into having sex is wrong. I would hope the OP wouldn’t do that again.

  73. Faith: Then it’s unacceptable to lay a crapload of blame on males who engage in the same behavior too.

    And you think this because you believe that young women and men grow up with exactly the same kind of attitudes to sex, there’s no gender differences whatsoever?

    Then we disagree.

  74. “there’s no gender differences whatsoever?”

    Of course there are differences in the way genders are trained to behave sexually in general. But that DOES NOT excuse poor behavior. Period. I’m not sure why this is so hard for some of the people reading to comprehend. And as has already been said, if the genders were reversed, everyone would be incensed. To be perfectly blunt, if you want to argue cultural differences: Females have even less of an excuse than males for engaging in sexually predatory behavior because no one teaches us to be sexually aggressive. Really, if we’re going to get pissed off at the males and tell them exactly why their behavior was atrocious, we have no reason to not do the same with females.

  75. Jes, I normally agree with you on things, but I do think you’re wrong here. A wrong action isn’t less wrong just because it goes against cultural narratives – if the dominant narrative is “Boys like to torment kittens and girls don’t,” it’s not less wrong for a girl to torment a kitten, because tormenting kittens is wrong no matter who does it.

  76. Why so patronizing to 17-year-old girls? You think they can’t understand consent just as well as a boy? Can’t keep their hands off a resisting person (or put their hands on them)? They can’t figure out exactly what they want from someone and then implement a plan of manipulation and shaming to get what they want?

    It wasn’t all that long ago that I and most of my friends were 17-year-old girls. We managed not to rape anybody, somehow. But it’s not like we weren’t capable of it — just about anybody is capable of rape.

    It doesn’t make her a monster any more (or less) than a teenage boy who sexually coerces someone. But her gender doesn’t make her magically not a person who has sexually coerced. Like, it’s probably less likely overall for young women to sexually coerce or rape young men, but that statistic has no bearing on this particular instance, in which the less “likely” thing seems to be the one that *actually* happened.

  77. RE: Ofneverwherelse

    It’s really easy to knock Christianity, and otherise it,

    Uh….I don’t know which country you live in…

    Look. Pressure is bad. Pressuring someone to have sex they don’t want is bad. So is pressuring someone to stay in a relationship that is not fulfilling their needs. So is pressuring someone to wait for marriage when sexual chemistry is an important aspect of a relationship for them. So is pressure to convert or express some degree of religiousness they do not feel comfortable with. So, while the narrator’s actions make me uncomfortable, “Scott” makes me uncomfortable, too. And if he was assuming that the narrator was going to eventually convert to his brand of Christianity, marry him, and be a “good traditional Christian wife,” then I think it’s reasonable to point out that “Scott” was engaged in emotional abuse at the very least, and I think that fact is hidden behind the fact that his expectations are considered normative for the society many of us live in. In fact, the fact that “Scott” was uncomfortable undressing the narrator suggests that “Scott” was withholding not only PIV, but also any other sexual contact, so I think it’s unfair to say that “Scott” was simply uncomfortable with one single form of sexual contact; it sounds like he was trying very hard to control the narrator’s sexuality entirely.

    I’m okay with Christianity (or any other religious or ethical code) being someone’s personal choice, and even “waiting for marriage” to be a personal choice, but the way it’s handled in the West, “waiting for marriage” and Christian-normative sexual ethics are portrayed as a choice that society has made. Abstinence-only is taught in schools and Christian-normative judgments are applied to the sex lives of people who do not adhere to strict Christian-normative sexual ethics. It seems to me that “Scott” was taking advantage of this environment to maintain complete control of the couple’s sex life. When he finally realized that he wasn’t able to maintain this control, he relented in a spiteful way, instead of being respectful and acknowledging that the relationship wasn’t going to work.

  78. JDR, you’re making a lot of assumptions that aren’t supported. Nowhere does the post say anything about Scott trying to keep the narrator in the relationship while denying her sex.

  79. JDP, you have got to be kidding. Your comment reads like classic rape apologia.

    In no universe does saying, “I am not ready for sex” or “I do not want sex” (or any particular form of sex) limit someone ELSE’s ability to be sexual. The OP’s sexuality is not dependent on whether this ONE PERSON wants to sleep with her. She has choices. She can choose to say the relationship is incompatible and find someone else who is more compatible.

    Seriously, the more I think about your comment, the more disgusted I get.

  80. I read this and wonder how many of these type stories Erica got with the genders reversed. How many tales of “well, he wanted sex but I wasn’t so keen on it then he started begging so I gave in…It was lousy. We broke up soon after” have come up in this exercise? And how many of those women call what happened to them rape?
    The author is at worse a bully and at best a confused girl pushing for something she thought she wanted but didn’t really understand. I think there is something disingenuous about screaming rape every time a sexual situation is complicated or doesn’t have a happy ending.

    1. The author is at worse a bully and at best a confused girl pushing for something she thought she wanted but didn’t really understand. I think there is something disingenuous about screaming rape every time a sexual situation is complicated or doesn’t have a happy ending.

      That would be fine if anyone were actually “screaming rape every time a sexual situation is complicated or doesn’t have a happy ending.” But that’s not what’s happening here.

  81. So, while the narrator’s actions make me uncomfortable, “Scott” makes me uncomfortable, too. And if he was assuming that the narrator was going to eventually convert to his brand of Christianity, marry him, and be a “good traditional Christian wife,” then I think it’s reasonable to point out that “Scott” was engaged in emotional abuse at the very least

    Where are you getting this from? Yes, that does happen. There are people who try to coerce dating partners into converting to Christianity (“missionary dating”) and annoying conservative Christians men who expect their wives to submit to them. It is also possible that Scott was one of these people. But we don’t know that.

    All we know from the narrative is that the narrator coerced someone into having sex. That’s all we know. We don’t know that Scott was also pressuring her to marry him or be a “good wife” or whatever. It’s possible he was. It’s also possible he wasn’t.

  82. Wait a minute, wait a minute, JDP, not wanting to have sex at all until xxxx time is not a form of emotional abuse. It’s not manipulating the other person, it’s simply stating preference or a standard. If the original poster, or anyone, is in a relationship with someone who openly and repeatedly says, “I will not have sex until marriage. I do not believe in sex before marriage.”, and that is a totally unacceptably stance, they should end the relationship.

    There is nothing at all wrong with saying you do not want to have sex until you are married or you will only have sex after three full moons have passed or only until you both see a firetruck.

  83. screaming rape every time a sexual situation is complicated or doesn’t have a happy ending.

    I haven’t seen any examples of this. Can you show some? Pretty much every time I’ve seen people “screaming” rape, it actually is rape. The only exception seems to be this story, in which rape is glossed over as some kind of “humorous” nostalgia.

  84. RE: A.Y.Siu:

    There are people who try to coerce dating partners into converting to Christianity (“missionary dating”) and annoying conservative Christians men who expect their wives to submit to them. It is also possible that Scott was one of these people. But we don’t know that.

    From the OP:

    He married a girl from his hometown almost immediately after graduation. They now have enough children to make up a baseball team, and seem really happy. In an Iowa sort of way.

    We don’t know what the narrator means by “pressuring and nagging.” It could mean that the narrator was being emotionally abusive, or it could mean that the narrator was saying “I would really like to try this” and “Scott” kept saying “Well, maybe, we’ll talk about this later.” I think it should be within the bounds of any relationship to say “I am unsatisfied with our sex life, and I want to have the opportunity to discuss this before terminating the relationship.” You don’t need to have sex to have a healthy relationship, but you do need to be able to talk about sex to some degree. I don’t think it is remotely ethical to manipulate or emotionally abuse someone into having sex, but I also can’t accept that it’s remotely ethical for one party in a romantic relationship to unilaterally dictate the terms of all conversations about sex except in the case of specific circumstances where the conversation itself can be traumatic.

  85. Rebecca: if the dominant narrative is “Boys like to torment kittens and girls don’t,” it’s not less wrong for a girl to torment a kitten, because tormenting kittens is wrong no matter who does it.

    But we’re not talking about kittens. We’re talking about a dominant narrative that, I strongly suspect, both Scott and OP subscribed to, which is that in a male/female relationship the man always wants sex and the woman is responsible for being the sexual gatekeeper. When the gatekeeper opens the gate and finds the person who is, according to both their narratives, supposed to want to come in at once, standing outside the gate looking uncomfortable and going “we shouldn’t”, I find it understandable that the gatekeeper starts harrying the person outside to come in, to fulfil the narrative. I don’t see it’s right, I don’t sympathise with it, but I can understand it, and I find it bizarre that so many feminists are saying it’s just the same thing as the person at the gate trying to kick the gate down because the gatekeeper won’t open it.

    Yes, we know that’s the wrong map for them to be on. We know it’s wrong for one person to be labelled the sexual gatekeeper because of her gender. We understand it’s wrong for either one to have tried to coerce the other into having sex.

    But we have the benefit of being outside this situation, reading it as a narrative on the Internet, able to judge without being emotionally involved, and looking on it as a past and complete narrative with an ending.

    When you’re inside the story, when you are that muddled teenager without a map, I remember things that now seem simple and resolvable, looking like huge complex mountains that I’d get lost in. Judging teenagers for being stupid about sex is something that I really don’t think I as an adult who remembers being a stupid teenager, want to do.

  86. “That would be fine if anyone were actually “screaming rape every time a sexual situation is complicated or doesn’t have a happy ending.” But that’s not what’s happening here.”

    Except that’s kind of what it feels like. It’s been well established that the author’s behavior was wrong but admitting to seeing it as anything less than pure evil gets a very negative reaction. Discussions of the deeper cultural and sociological pressure that may have motivated the girl are met with hostile accusations of rape apologist. It’s almost silencing to be faulted for not displaying the correct level of moral outrage. Sometimes sexual interaction especailly bad sexual interaction is more than just a “yes or no” question of consent and that is a subject worth exploring and discussing.

  87. Again, I don’t see how him marrying someone from his hometown necessarily means he was trying to convert the narrator to his version of Christianity or that he intended to even marry her. Again, it’s possible that was the case. We just don’t have enough information to draw that conclusion. We do have enough information to know the narrator pressured Scott into sex. “I would really like to try this” for months is pressuring and nagging, which is abusive. Sorry. If it was for a few hours or a day or two, it could just be a fun conversation.

    As others have said, if someone you’re dating has refused to have sex with you, you’re not supposed to then pressure him into having sex. You can easily break up with him and find someone else or you can respect his boundaries. That’s kind of how consent works. Yes, unfortunately, it means the person who wants sex more than the other person ends up being the one frustrated, but otherwise you end up with consensual sex just going out the window.

  88. This post gives me very mixed feelings, and I suspect that if we had a more direct interpretation by Scott himself it would be easier for us to draw agreed-upon conclusions.

    I grew up in a very strict evangelical Christian household, but had shed virtually all of those beliefs by the time I was a freshman in college. My boyfriend, however, had not.

    I made very clear to him that I wanted to have sex before we got married because I thought it was important to “know everything” before getting married, so all parties would make as informed a choice as possible before signing a contract that said “forever” on it. This went against his beliefs, but he loved me and so we argued. I don’t deny that a lot of our conversations would constitute “pressure” though I think not coercion, because I never said I would break up with him. But I told him, sometimes repeatedly, that I was getting very frustrated and upset. (I totally agree with the commenter who said, “He said it was about Jesus, but it felt like it was about me” because that’s EXACTLY how it seemed though in hindsight, it’s clear that was untrue and ludicrously self-centered of me.)

    I regularly told him that I didn’t want him to do anything he didn’t want to do but it was hard to sound sincere about it all the time because I _did_ want him to have sex with me. (Which, I might add, he wanted to do, and he’d said so. What he didn’t want to do was sin and make God unhappy, so he wanted us to get married ASAP so we could have “allowed” sex, but I was not interested in committing to one guy for the rest of my life if there was a chance I’d hate the sex or some of his other hobbies, aka habitual and extended MMPORGs and other video games, which heavily influenced how upset I was and that influenced, though it shouldn’t have, the whole sex discussion.)

    We had been together for more than two years by this point, pretty much decided we were going to get married someday, and had experimented at length with other sex (just not PiV or anal).

    One day, he texted me and said tonight was the night. I hadn’t spoken about sex to him that day. I asked if he was sure because I didn’t want him to do something he didn’t want to do. He said yes, he was sure. He came to my dorm that night, and we did it. It sucked. But it was as nice as it could have been, considering it was two virgins who were trying to do the best they could with something they’d only read or watched films about.

    We are still together. It’s been seven years. He can’t go to church (at least not the ones he wants to) anymore because he wants to help out, not just listen to the sermons, and he can’t help but be honest with the pastors and tell them about us and me (an atheist).

    He’s usually very good about it, but sometimes he gets mad and blames me and says I pressured him into it, which isn’t exactly wrong, but it also doesn’t account for the agency he clearly had, especially since -he’s- the one who chose when, where, and that he was ready for it to happen, so I have to tell him not to put all the blame on me for something that was his choice. He agrees when I say that, but he says I would have broken up with him if he hadn’t; I insist I wouldn’t have; he says it felt like I was going to, which I can’t deny. And I don’t know if I would have broken up with him if he chose not to, since at the time I was very unhappy for lots of reasons, the lack of sex being just one of them, so his fear isn’t unfounded. Since we’re still not married and I’m very good at resisting pressure not to get married, it’s probably safe to say we sure wouldn’t be together now, five years later, if he held out that entire time.

    I’ve volunteered several times since then for us to abstain if that’s what he wants; he always says no, he doesn’t want to stop. But every once in a while he still blames me, or at least insists I pressured him into it when he didn’t really want to. From my end I think that’s not true since I didn’t do anything more coercive but have conversations, it feels like, but I’m not him, and I don’t know what it felt like inside his head. Even if I wouldn’t have broken up with him I can see how he could feel that way.

    We were 18 and 19. It’s hard to navigate relationships, especially then, without hurting the other person. I can’t help but wonder if the situation with Scott was just as tangled and confusing for both of them, fighting conflicting desires and obligations and promises and responsibilities.

    At least for us, we were great for each other, we can say that now with the benefit of hindsight, even though we felt so contradictory at the time. It would have been fine if I’d married him without having sex probably, but I only know that now, and we’ve only really grown to fit each other in the last couple of years.

    Who knows how Scott and OP would have worked out if it’d been different? It’s never as black and white as it seems.

  89. RE: annalouise:

    Wait a minute, wait a minute, JDP, not wanting to have sex at all until xxxx time is not a form of emotional abuse. It’s not manipulating the other person, it’s simply stating preference or a standard. If the original poster, or anyone, is in a relationship with someone who openly and repeatedly says, “I will not have sex until marriage. I do not believe in sex before marriage.”, and that is a totally unacceptably stance, they should end the relationship.

    I am not objecting to people not having sex. I am objecting to “Scott” dictating the terms of any conversation about sex up front. Yes, the narrator in the OP could have simply walked away and dated someone whose sexual ethics were more in line with hers. Yes, that’s exactly what she should have done. But to deny “Scott’s” agency in this interaction would also be a mistake. “Scott” exerted an unconditional veto on open conversation about the couple’s sex life, and when he finally decided to have sex with her, he exerted agency by deciding exactly how and when that sex would occur, and controlling any discussion afterwards. In fact, when the narrator says in the OP:

    The actual sex lasted about 20 seconds and I didn’t feel a thing.

    I can’t help but think that “Scott” was in complete control of the sex itself, too.

    The entire situation is clearly dysfunctional, but to claim that “Scott” had absolutely no agency with respect to the conversations about sex, the planning of the sexual encounter, and the sexual encounter itself doesn’t really sound legit to me.

  90. Guys, I’d just like to jump in and say there’s a whole lot of assumptions about Scott and OP here about their behavior, motivations, and the history of their relationship which have NO BASIS in the story we’ve been told.

    We don’t know every detail about who was pressuring whom about what, how often, and other inner motivations.

    My own experience, in the rather long comment above, speaks to that. A lot of times, its:
    * Both partners want to have sex because it feels good and is enjoyable, but
    * At least one partner doesn’t want to do it really, because s/he wants to follow his/her religion
    * Possible solution of marriage is discussed, leading to either a) early marriage that often they are unprepared for (so they still lose their virginity at a young age, but it’s ok, they’re married!) or b) a lot of fighting because someone points out that marrying someone just to be allowed to have sex with them is not the best idea (or foundation to base a marriage on)

    After that it’s a negotiation between the two, when both are trying to respect the other person’s views and beliefs but have their own needs also met. Such negotiations can feel insanely compromising for both parties.

    In a word: It sucks.

    Every couple in this situation does the best they can but that doesn’t mean they didn’t screw up and hurt the other person. That’s how these situations and discussions start.

    Again, Scott probably has the best view of what exactly this was like, but we can’t hear his voice right now.

  91. Where the hell did you get this from? Sure, Scott liked things to be “scheduled”. So he might not be a very spontanious person – some people aren’t. The OP (Scott’s ex-girlfriend) says that “we” decided not to have sex in her room, which indicates that she did some of the controlling. There is no evidence at all that he “controlled” the discussion afterward- in fact, it sounds like there wasn’t any real discussion at all. They broke up quickly and he met someone else within the year.

    As for the short-lasting, unsatisfying sex? This is the first time either of them had sex. Most people aren’t very good at it their first time. Most people take a little while to learn how to put on condoms, too. There’s nothing terribly unusual about Scott in that respect. Even if he purposefully made it short, well, it’s hard to blame him for not spending a lot of time having sex when he didn’t want to have sex in the first place. Frankly, if someone gets to be a college senior without having sex, that means one of two things – either he or she is a complete social outcast, or he or she really, really doesn’t want to have sex.

  92. Sorry for the messed up blockquote. I was trying to quote this line of JDP’s post: “Scott” exerted an unconditional veto on open conversation about the couple’s sex life, and when he finally decided to have sex with her, he exerted agency by deciding exactly how and when that sex would occur, and controlling any discussion afterwards.

  93. OC, I agree with everything you say except this:

    Frankly, if someone gets to be a college senior without having sex, that means one of two things – either he or she is a complete social outcast, or he or she really, really doesn’t want to have sex.

    Not only is this a pretty rude thing to say, but it’s also just plain incorrect–there are many other reasons I can think of that a person may not have had sex by the time they are a senior in college.

  94. Frankly, if someone gets to be a college senior without having sex, that means one of two things – either he or she is a complete social outcast, or he or she really, really doesn’t want to have sex.

    Whoa there–we seem to have stumbled across a completely unwarranted and pointless assumption! I’m sure you didn’t mean to call every virgin over the age of 22 who isn’t totally against having sex a “complete social outcast”, did you?

  95. RE:OC:

    Where the hell did you get this from? Sure, Scott liked things to be “scheduled”. So he might not be a very spontanious person – some people aren’t.

    And that means that he expressed some degree of agency. And that’s not the only agency he expressed in the interaction. Discussion of sex happened on his terms. The sex itself happened on his terms. And discussion after the sex happened (or rather, didn’t happen) on his terms.

    There is no evidence at all that he “controlled” the discussion afterward- in fact, it sounds like there wasn’t any real discussion at all.

    Yes, because “get out, I can’t sleep with you here” isn’t a form of control.

    As for the short-lasting, unsatisfying sex? This is the first time either of them had sex. Most people aren’t very good at it their first time. Most people take a little while to learn how to put on condoms, too. There’s nothing terribly unusual about Scott in that respect.

    I wasn’t criticizing the tempo or quality of the sex. I was talking about the passive way that the narrator describes the sex.

    Even if he purposefully made it short, well, it’s hard to blame him for not spending a lot of time having sex when he didn’t want to have sex in the first place.

    I wasn’t concerned with the duration or quality. Bad sex is not necessarily unethical sex.

    Frankly, if someone gets to be a college senior without having sex, that means one of two things – either he or she is a complete social outcast, or he or she really, really doesn’t want to have sex.

    Wow, that’s not problematic judgmental language at all.

  96. kataphatic, you’re right. There are lots of other reasons, and I am sorry for being rude.

    I meant to say something like the paragraph below, and messed up.

    Scott was a college senior, not a freshman. That gave him three more years of living than his freshman girlfriend, including three more years of opportunities begin and end other relationships – and to have sex if he had wanted. Since he didn’t have sex, that’s a sign that he honestly did not want to have sex before marriage, no matter who he was with. It had nothing to do with his girlfriend at the time.

  97. Uh what? It could also mean that he was primarily friends with other men and didn’t have significant social exposure to women. It could also mean that his social exposure to women was never in a romantic context. It could mean that he had other hangups beyond the Christianity thing. It could mean that he was simply extremely busy with school and work and never really had time to dedicate to serious or casual relationships of any kind. It could mean that he was in love with someone who didn’t want to be in a romantic relationship with him. It could mean that he was extremely self-conscious about his body. The reasons people don’t have sex tend to be very complicated and person-specific. To say “well, he hadn’t had sex, so either he was a total social failure, or else he really didn’t want to have sex” and extend this to anyone else who reaches whichever arbitrary age as a virgin….that’s kind of disgusting.

  98. @ Sophonisba #55 & #56

    Hey, Ill take it point by point for clarity, but I don’t know how to block quote, sorry.

    In reference to: “Spoken in the humble sincere voice of someone who is glad of his decision not to take advantage of anyone else, and never spent a single second worrying that he might be raped.”

    Good call on me not addressing my male privilege. I should have been more careful to include effects that are not solely from my perspective.

    In reference to: “Oh, is it? ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

    I am assuming you are taking this from a secular perspective, and that you aren’t really interested in my explanation, nor am I confident in my ability to explain flawlessly, I am new to a Christian framework of thought, but I said what my understanding of things is. There is no one interpretation for everyone.

    In reference to: “Sure, we do. We — individual people. / It is blatantly disingenuous to compare an institution’s rules about sex with an individual’s rules. Why? Because my rules about who I sleep with and when are for my benefit, to keep me healthy and secure and powerful. And a church’s rules about who its followers may sleep with and when are designed to keep that church healthy and secure and powerful….”

    I don’t disagree with the principal of self-interest. Church’s do seek to gain political power, and this is something I don’t support. And equating an institution (corporation or church) to a person, is dangerous. I unclearly equated God with the institution of Christianity. I did not mean to imply that whatever church of the moment should be equally legislating our sexualities. Perhaps I was susceptible to this lack of clarity because I have a belief in an interested God who acts as a pure person who may know what is better for us, than we ourselves do in our shortcomings, and this God, while not of any church, is a Christian god.

  99. I have nothing substantial to say atm, but blockquoting is like this:

    [blockquote] blah blah blah [/blockquote]

    but replace the square brackets with “”s.

  100. Although I as a male am heartened by many comments to this post I am sorely disappointed that it didn’t even occur to ERICA that this probably should be labelled as triggering.

    And then there are several other comments which quite frankly make me feel rage (I guess this is where that frigging triggering warning might’ve been handy).

    Jesurgislac: It haven’t crossed your mind that your attitute is actually very much contributing to the culture which does not acknowledge that a woman can rape a man at all?!
    That what you’re saying is just yet another way to deny that women have any agency? That they have no moral compass to help them when they’re in social situations without a map? That they have no indivudual blame when they fuck up? Is that what I should expect of women?

    Saying that the situation with reversed genders is not the same (and claiming that all feminist should know that) reads a lot like considering men to be a second rate human. Let me put forth the radical notion that men are human too, because it sure seem like you don’t believe so.

    As for the map argument. One could equally easily make the argument that the guy following the socially acceptable map and ends up nagging his girlfriend into sex is equally or even more free of indiividual blame as the OP here. It takes more conscious effort to break free of already established maps as it’s clearly easier to just flow with the flow and do what’s expected. On the other hand, when one finds oneself without a map one is forced to navigate by oneself and what one then ends up doing reflects very much on one’s inner moral compass and core being. Personally I wouldn’t distinguish between these two. Map or no map – one is ultimately to blame for one’s actions.

    Maven: In your comment you mentioned this male virgin who wouldn’t have PIV intercourse untill he was prepared to potentially be a father. You thought this wasn’t well thought out.

    You are aware that your thought on this is in stark contrast with the majority of advice comming from feminists on threads where men laments the fact that women have all the reproduction power? It was a bit refreshing to see a diverging view although I’m not sure I agree with you. Given the situation we have I think men very much need to consider the consquences of a pregnancy and evaluate the risks for that happening before engaging in PIV intercourse. OF course women needs to do this too and I believe they already do to a larger extent than men because the consequences are more immediate for them.

  101. I am assuming you are taking this from a secular perspective, and that you aren’t really interested in my explanation, nor am I confident in my ability to explain flawlessly, I am new to a Christian framework of thought

    Well, I am not new to it, so you don’t need to worry that any imprecision on your part will be seized upon by a secular humanist eager to misrepresent the Christian position. I don’t judge any religion by its newer converts. I am very familiar with a few brands of rigorous old-style Protestantism, as well as with the bible, and my antipathy for the kind of religiosity you seemed to be alluding to stems from a certain affection for that rigor, not from my atheism.

    this God, while not of any church, is a Christian god.

    Well, okay. I had assumed your god was Jesus Christ himself. I guess we both made some unthinking assumptions.

    You will probably be able to get in at least one more response before we both get told off for “derailing,” but in anticipation of that happy moment I am going to try to let this be.

  102. Is it too much to ask for a warning on this post that it is potentially triggering because of rape/non-consensual sexual encounter/sexual abuse/whatever you want to call it? Please?

  103. When I was fourteen, I was “Scott”.

    I wasn’t refusing sex for religious reasons, and my boyfriend of the time managed not to rape me, though he didn’t stop putting the pressure on until after he had crushed my capacity to resist. (A little more and he could probably have gotten to “Just do it and get it over with”, but he had just barely enough empathy to realise that he had made a complete hash of things and STOP.)

    When I was fourteen, I was “Scott”. And the narratives I had were that “date rape” was this newfangled thing that probably didn’t even really exist, that there was no harm in *asking*, sheesh people. What is this “coercion and pressure” thing, how does that differ from perfectly ordinary seduction?

    Besides, it was probably my fault for leading him on and all, because my discomfort with the sexual pressure left me tongue-tied and anxious and frightened. So I’m left wondering if maybe “Scott” thought he was at fault for leading her on by that shameless being male thing.

    I was a confused kid. He was a confused kid. Fortunately, he was not so confused that he couldn’t stop before he turned into a rapist, because confusion wouldn’t have made it not rape, even if he had pressured me into the I’ll-give-in-so-you-stop place. Because we were confused kids, it took about ten years for me to recognise what happened to me as a real sexual assault, not just me fucking up because I was a kid who didn’t know better, who would magically have been able to make it stop if I’d only had the right map.

    We broke up two weeks later.

    When I was fourteen, I was “Scott”.

    I hardly flashback anymore.

  104. If s/he weighs the options and decides that your bond is more important than his/her chastity, that doesn’t make you a rapist.

    This is a massive oversimplification.

    When I was a teenager, I used to consciously think of the totally unsatisfying, non-reciprocal sexual activity I engaged in with my boyfriend as “relationship maintenance.”

    He would cry, throw tantrums, slap himself, punch walls when I said no or tried to stop before he was ready for me to stop. He would demand sexual servicing out of the blue — no buildup, no making out — and nag me about doing more for him.

    He was the religious one, not me, and he would shame me after it was over, to displace his own feelings of guilt; I was dirty, I was a slut because I had done what he wanted me to do.

    I was always sober during these encounters. He never hit me. There were a few occasions where he grabbed my hand or forced my head down or loomed over me, but there was never a time when I could not have physically stopped him. There would have been whining and crying and punching of walls, but I could have stopped him.

    Was this rape? Legally, no. I made a rational calculation, of sorts: I was willing to put up with sex I really didn’t want in order to keep having a boyfriend.

    It was a violation. It was traumatizing. I had panic attacks related to it for years afterwards. Only recently have I fully stopped saying no to partners when I don’t actually want to say no, just to prove that I still can.

  105. Hey all,

    I understand the post was triggering for some people, and I apologize for that. We’ve added a trigger warning to the beginning of both posts.

    I appreciate the discussion that’s gone on, and it’s definitely given me a lot to reflect on. The intention of the post was never to ridicule anyone’s religion, choice not to have sex, or to make light of sexual coercion, and I am genuinely sorry if that is the message that came across in my writing.

    At this point, this conversation has devolved passed the point of productivity, and for that reason we’ll be shutting it down. Thank you everyone again for all you’ve contributed.

    — Erica

Comments are currently closed.