She turned and stared at the furniture. She wished herself away. Anywhere but there.
On Sunday’s episode of Mad Men, “The Mountain King,” the character of Joan was raped by her handsome physician fiancé on the floor of her boss’s office. She deals with it by apparently dissociating – focusing on the mundane details of the office furniture rather than on what is being done to her body as well as her mind and heart. For many women, her reaction will be familiar and chilling in its accuracy, and what is being done to Joan will be clear if unspeakable.
Yet on the official write-up about the episode on the Television Without Pity website, the show’s (male) recapper initially wrote that Joan “is borderline raped.” (Perhaps the dismay expressed on the TWOP discussion forums about this qualifier is what led to the deletion of the word “borderline” within 24 hours.)
However, the wording accurately reflects the ambiguity with which such acts have been viewed until very recently. In the era that Mad Men depicts (the early 1960’s), what happened to Joan wouldn’t have been considered rape at all, borderline or otherwise. It was just 30 years ago this week that the concept of “marital rape” was argued – unsuccessfully -- both in the courts and in society during the landmark Rideout case. It wasn’t until 1993 that marital rape was recognized as a crime in all 50 states. The term “date rape” only came into being in the past two decades. So, historically speaking, a man has had a legal right to sex with his wife, or his fiancée, or even (at least under certain circumstances) his date, no matter what her feelings about it were.
Women have always known that these sorts of violations can be perpetrated even by intimate lovers and partners. Yet despite the fact that we now have words to describe and circumscribe these experiences, few women will talk about them, even with other women, much less with men. Which can lead one to think that women having less-than-consensual sex with a man they’re already intimate with is a rare and shocking thing. But over the years, I’ve heard enough “confessions” on this topic to think that it’s less rare than we’d hope.
One young woman I knew was awakened from a sound sleep to find her boyfriend having sex with her without a condom, apparently feeling free to make use of her sleeping form without either protection or consent. Another friend described being in a remote mountain cabin with a long-time boyfriend who forced her to have sex after she’d said No. Another women confided (years into our friendship) that her first husband’s abuse had included sex she didn’t want to have. And before I was even 30, I’d met not one but two women who’d lost their virginity to date rape by men they'd thought they knew and could trust. I’ve known many other women who’ve been assaulted, but it’s these stories of betrayal in spaces that the women thought were safe, with men they thought they knew, that most haunt me.
Yet it’s a very small minority of men who are sexually violent. Surely women should be able to spot these dangerous guys?
Despite all the women’s stories I’d heard, I felt something like that myself, thinking that after many years of dating I’d learned to sense danger and avoid it. But then I too had an experience with a guy I dated briefly that crossed the line from consensual sex into something else. And like Joan’s fiancé on Mad Men, this guy was no one’s idea of a sexual predator. Mild-mannered and even a bit nebbishy, educated, cultured, he was the very model of an attentive gentleman -- until the moment turned sexual, at which point he turned as well.
And so did I. Like Joan, I removed myself from the moment, went numb to all feeling and passively waited for it all to be over so that I could leave. He seemed not to notice that I’d left the body that he continued to use for his pleasure -- not at the time, or later, since he kept leaving messages about what a great time we’d had and seemed mystified as to why I abruptly stopped speaking to or dating him.
So, we have language for “it” now, and the law to back us up. And yet none of the women I’ve described ever took any action about what happened to them. And they never called it “rape” but instead fumbled to find words to explain what had occurred. Like Joan, most stayed with the men who’d done these things to them, for a while at least.
And that’s perhaps the hardest part for anyone to understand. But my guess is this: That both during the act and in its aftermath, to some degree, they too dissociated, telling themselves that this couldn’t possibly be happening to them, especially not at the hands of a man who cared for them. That would make him truly a “mad man."
On Sunday’s episode of Mad Men, “The Mountain King,” the character of Joan was raped by her handsome physician fiancé on the floor of her boss’s office. She deals with it by apparently dissociating – focusing on the mundane details of the office furniture rather than on what is being done to her body as well as her mind and heart. For many women, her reaction will be familiar and chilling in its accuracy, and what is being done to Joan will be clear if unspeakable.
Yet on the official write-up about the episode on the Television Without Pity website, the show’s (male) recapper initially wrote that Joan “is borderline raped.” (Perhaps the dismay expressed on the TWOP discussion forums about this qualifier is what led to the deletion of the word “borderline” within 24 hours.)
However, the wording accurately reflects the ambiguity with which such acts have been viewed until very recently. In the era that Mad Men depicts (the early 1960’s), what happened to Joan wouldn’t have been considered rape at all, borderline or otherwise. It was just 30 years ago this week that the concept of “marital rape” was argued – unsuccessfully -- both in the courts and in society during the landmark Rideout case. It wasn’t until 1993 that marital rape was recognized as a crime in all 50 states. The term “date rape” only came into being in the past two decades. So, historically speaking, a man has had a legal right to sex with his wife, or his fiancée, or even (at least under certain circumstances) his date, no matter what her feelings about it were.
Women have always known that these sorts of violations can be perpetrated even by intimate lovers and partners. Yet despite the fact that we now have words to describe and circumscribe these experiences, few women will talk about them, even with other women, much less with men. Which can lead one to think that women having less-than-consensual sex with a man they’re already intimate with is a rare and shocking thing. But over the years, I’ve heard enough “confessions” on this topic to think that it’s less rare than we’d hope.
One young woman I knew was awakened from a sound sleep to find her boyfriend having sex with her without a condom, apparently feeling free to make use of her sleeping form without either protection or consent. Another friend described being in a remote mountain cabin with a long-time boyfriend who forced her to have sex after she’d said No. Another women confided (years into our friendship) that her first husband’s abuse had included sex she didn’t want to have. And before I was even 30, I’d met not one but two women who’d lost their virginity to date rape by men they'd thought they knew and could trust. I’ve known many other women who’ve been assaulted, but it’s these stories of betrayal in spaces that the women thought were safe, with men they thought they knew, that most haunt me.
Yet it’s a very small minority of men who are sexually violent. Surely women should be able to spot these dangerous guys?
Despite all the women’s stories I’d heard, I felt something like that myself, thinking that after many years of dating I’d learned to sense danger and avoid it. But then I too had an experience with a guy I dated briefly that crossed the line from consensual sex into something else. And like Joan’s fiancé on Mad Men, this guy was no one’s idea of a sexual predator. Mild-mannered and even a bit nebbishy, educated, cultured, he was the very model of an attentive gentleman -- until the moment turned sexual, at which point he turned as well.
And so did I. Like Joan, I removed myself from the moment, went numb to all feeling and passively waited for it all to be over so that I could leave. He seemed not to notice that I’d left the body that he continued to use for his pleasure -- not at the time, or later, since he kept leaving messages about what a great time we’d had and seemed mystified as to why I abruptly stopped speaking to or dating him.
So, we have language for “it” now, and the law to back us up. And yet none of the women I’ve described ever took any action about what happened to them. And they never called it “rape” but instead fumbled to find words to explain what had occurred. Like Joan, most stayed with the men who’d done these things to them, for a while at least.
And that’s perhaps the hardest part for anyone to understand. But my guess is this: That both during the act and in its aftermath, to some degree, they too dissociated, telling themselves that this couldn’t possibly be happening to them, especially not at the hands of a man who cared for them. That would make him truly a “mad man."
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
JK Brady
Douglas Moran
Will Someone Feed The Cat?
Kathy Riordan
Thomas Rogers
Deborah Sosin
Salon.com
Comments
I like "Mad Men" a lot and I love the character of Joan. I wanted her so much to leave the guy right there. Sadly, they went off together after it all happened.
I think the show is all about "becoming". All those people (and the country) are becoming something quite different than they were when the show started. In fact, in this episode, they said something like "there is no before". I took that to mean there is only what they're becoming.
I fear for Joan - I want her to become free and powerful, but I don't know if any of the characters are becoming anything good, really. I so wanted Joan to succeed with her foray into TV advertising.
It's an interesting show - I will stay tuned to see what becomes of these characters.
During the nearly five years I spent with my ex girlfriend we enjoyed a wild, furious sex life accented by loving and tender moments of calm sharing. There were, however, a number of times when my body demanded release and I asked for sex. We had "pity sex" with some regularity, perhaps on average once monthly. Looking down at her as I entered a body that was physically barely engaged, I could see her soul leave her eyes and her mind shutdown. I could feel her absence. She left the room. She may have even left the universe, her thoughts, her energy, her mind and soul distancing from her physical body.
Nearly every time I had "pity sex" with her I came away from it with no satisfaction. Orgasm may have provided me with physical release, but it was never physically satisfying. Worse, I could feel the emotional distance between us. The ritualistically cold and sterile act erected a wall between us. "I need a towel" were the only words she would speak afterward, with the rare exception of "Huh, I actually like it that time."
Yes, on some occasions she would retroactively express that she was at least slightly into it. When she did, as if by magic, the tension in my body would escape and I would feel the warmth that follows rewarding, truly consensual sex.
Although she agreed to these encounters, and thus by definition they were consensual, I could sense that every time she lost a part of herself and our connection faded. I've learned my lesson. I never have "pity sex" with the woman with whom I'm now involved. Even further, when we make love, if for any reason we find ourself losing the connection or she becomes turned off, I stop. I'd rather go without cumming than hurt her or rob our relationship of emotion.
All that said, I'd be curious how women feel about "pity sex." How do you really feel? Does it take a piece of you away, rob you of a shard of your soul? Emotionally distancing yourselves from the men you love and who love you must be painful. I, for one, refuse to inflict this kind of pain on the woman I'm now falling for.
To me, that is the basis for what you described about the guy you dated who couldn't understand why you stopped talking with him and stopped dating him after he raped you. A lot of men have been conditioned to believe that they can force sex on a woman, even if she protests, and it's OK... just because they want it. The woman must succumb to their egotistical, selfish *needs*, just because that's what they want. From the same thought basis, of men thinking that women are their possessions, so many men still use the EXCUSE that... "we're men and have sexual needs and desires and therefore, we need a certain amount of sex to fulfill those needs and desires." What COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!
No one NEEDS sex. Sexual pleasure exists more in the mind than it does physically. It's a connection between mind, body, and spirit, but if one's mind is not in tune with the *desire* for sex at a given moment, then they won't experience sexual pleasure. I know this from experience.
So, to say one NEEDS sex... it's complete bullshit. Maybe at a given moment, one's mind is more in tune with the pleasure they may experience when they engage is sex or masturbation, but no one needs it.
So, when a guy tells a woman he needs sex and then forces it on her, he's using it as an excuse to feel justified about raping her.
I also think that when men and women don't think these situations are rape, it's because we, as a society, have been conditioned to think they're not and should be accepted. Again, the basis for this kind of thought stems from men thinking that women are their possessions and also that they need sex (which stems from the possession thing). We've been led to believe that when a woman is dating a man or is married to a man, he can force sex upon her, and it's his right to do so (possession).
I've also been in similar situations... when guys engage in sex while you are sleeping.... selfish bastards.
In the 1980's, a situation in which a husband abused his wife wasn't considered domestic abuse. I know this, because my mom was a victim of it. Despite the fact that the police were called in these situations, they did absolutely NOTHING to protect my mom and reprimand my dad. My mom was told that the situation was their problem to deal with.
I'm thinking that similar thoughts about different types of rape have made many women think that those situations aren't rape.
To answer your question, it is VERY important for me to be connected emotionally, energetically, spiritually, physically, etc. while engaging in sex. I've always been that way, and the few times that I've engaged in sex without any kind of compassion being present were completely shallow, not fulfilling, and unsatisfying to me. I actually felt sad afterward a few times. It's completely meaningless for me to have sex without feeling compassion for the man I'm with.
So, pity sex is not good for me. If a man feels that he needs to release and his partner is not interested in sex, then he needs to masturbate. Thinking otherwise is being completely selfish. Men should respect the wishes of their partners and become aware of their emotional and spiritual state when they're trying to convince them to have sex when they don' desire to.
I'd give an arm to be with a man who is UNSELFISH like that.
Thank you so much for all your thoughtful, sensitive comments on such a difficult topic. I confess that I thought my post would either be lost in the shuffle of the many postings here (most likely) or generate some angry responses (I've spent too much time on other internet sites!). What a relief to instead encounter such engaged readers and compassionate souls.
I want to respond to some specific comments and questions that people posted, but that will take a bit more time. For now, thank you so much for all your comments, and I hope others will continue to post their reactions to this topic.
Regardless of the circumstances, at the point of no return and even if you are sure that the answer will be positive, you must ALWAYS ask your partner, "Does this mean that you want to have sex?"
Hilarity ensued, such as a male roomate coming over, putting his package on the table and standing there, expectantly. The only response was "Does this mean that you want to have sex?"
A woman walks past your table on the way to the garbage can and deposits a can, you then ask, by way of introduction, "Does this mean that you want to have sex?"
And the converse, you walk in, put your grocery bags on the counter and tell your boyfriend, "This means that I want to have sex."
Despite the real mirth and to this day opportunities to send coke through my partner's nose, it did raise awareness of the problem of perception and may have deflected quite a few "dapes".
An older and more tired with a toddler in the house version of this is the now classic in our house, "Oh my god, what is wrong with you, does this mean that you want to have sex?"
We have to raise our girls to know what they want, and know how to draw their boundaries firmly and with a loud, loud voice, and never be afraid of what the guy will think when she says no, I don't want to. And we have to raise our boys to see sex as the sacred thing it is, not a right, not an entitlement, but something that is given to them, and how they handle that gift is a direct reflection of who they are as men.
First, thanks to those who welcomed me and encouraged me to keep writing here - I will!
Tom, I agree with you that at least one theme of "Mad Men" (which BTW is a show I adore and think is brilliant) is becoming. Joan is the one who tells her fiance that there is no "before" - that's in bed when he asks her where she learned to do things sexually that are threatening him. One take on what happens is that he violently refuses her attempt at self re-definition (as a virgin?), which is something that major characters (especially Don and Peggy) engage in.
Mark, I agree with you that one issue is that we judge on appearances and predators (of any stripe) often are deceiving in that regard. Coincidentally, I just watched a bit of the movie "Broadcast News" again the other nite and Albert Brooks has a great speech about how the devil would manifest himself precisely in the form of someone like William Hurt's slick, handsome anchor. (The movie also has a date rape angle, which is also an interesting coincidence.)
I also agree with your point that there are "sexually entitled" men who think that women must want to have sex with them because that's what they've experienced so far. And other people think so, too. I remember during Mike Tyson's rape trial that a woman spectator defending him said, "why would he rape someone? He can have any woman he wants!" And I thought, "uh, no he can't. He couldn't have me even if he did want me." That's the very problem - both he and women like this think that any woman would want him (because he was famous, rich etc). But even non-famous men can think that their looks, money or status mean "any woman" would want them. It's hard to hear No if you think it's impossible.
Noah, you raise some really interesting questions about "pity sex". I confess that I've never engaged in that, but then, the incident in my post aside, I've never had sex with a man that I didn't want to have. But when I was younger, I would certainly perform sexually for men, in the sense of trying to please them, and I think that's a similar thing. It's on a spectrum of meeting someone else's needs vs. your own, and yet you are also meeting your own -- probably to try to retain the love and attention of the person you're with. Many women feel they have to "perform" in various ways for men - sexually and otherwise. I'm guessing many men feel the same towards the women in their lives (e.g., act the role of the strong man, the provider, etc).
AFN as life calls. back later with more thoughts on your comments. Once again, keep the comments coming - I appreciate all of them.
I've been married to a lady who was a rape victim. It was an at gun point in a c-store held for a couple days until he fell asleep kind of thing. Read, the way we mostly think rape occurs. Now some 25 years later about a month before it happens she starts getting weird in her way until about a week after it happens. Her LP who has never been with a man doesn't understand. So go figure, she calls me.
Next let me say that no means no. The problem is, what does saying nothing mean? Someone earlier posted about their college campus making them ask. I've thought about consent forms for ladies to sign.
Sex with men is like starting a war. The military is controlled by groups in Washington. Once something starts control is handed off to a secure bunker someplace that takes over and makes war. With men sex starts with the big head and is soon handed over to the little head to take over. To the big head well.......... is a bad thing that needs to be considered. To the little head well............ isn't no.
I've taught my daughters that only no means no, anything else is still yes. You are to use no, use it plainly, clearly, and sharply. They were also taught that you only use it when you mean no. If you say no but, then no never has the same meaning again.
I have had lady friends who have said "get in here" and they wanted sex and got it. Wasn't what I had in mind or planned for right then but they did, and they got it. Of all the comments I don't remember reading one where the woman ever considered telling the man to preform. Hasn't anyone ever done that?
There are way to many comments about needing to "be connected" and the like to have sex. Well that's not sex, that's love. Doesn't anyone here have sex just because it's fun? I didn't read anything that would make me believe anyone here believes in NSA sex.
Finally, I have friends that I bowl with. I also have friends that I have sex with. Am I the only one here who has/is a fuck buddy? Anyone ever had one/was one?
I would never consider being on my friend or wife fucking for all I was worth while they were asleep. That far is, in my opinion, to far, but a BJ alarm clock is never a bad thing.