This new curiosity should generate a great bit of reflection: can a person who is not conscious - not even dreaming - experience orgasms?Answering this question presupposes that you are defining an orgasm in some way or another, so please make your definition of what might or might not constitute an orgasm as explicit and concise as possible.
Obviously there are a multiplicity of distinctions one could make about the main question, including whether the person is externally stimulated or not, for instance. Feel free to diverge as much as you want with these distinctions, but do try to get back to the main topic at some point.
Thinking about this issue might produce many other related questions, many of which might produce novel ethical phenomenological and ethical interpretations.
For instance, consider a woman who has been drugged with GHB (roofies), and is sexually abused. Whether she can have an orgasm under the narcotic's influence depends on whether it is even possible to experience orgasms when one is completely unconscious, but let's suppose she can experience this. Suppose further that she is able to form a vague memory of this incident, and interprets it afterward simply as an erotic dream (and not something that actually took place). Since she hypothetically experienced an orgasm, let's assume further that the memory she develops from this "dream" is a positive and pleasurable one. If her conscious experience of this incident falls completely on the positive realm, can the original act still be considered as rape?
If so, by whom? If she doesn't feel that she has been raped, has she been raped? Is rape an incorrigible phenomenological experience, or are there objective criteria to establish it? If the latter, it would follow that you can tell someone she has been raped, even when she does not believe this to be the case. Does this make sense?
Sure, one's first gut reaction is to say "of course it's rape," and there would be very good reasons to support this view, but I want to explore something more interesting than mere gut reactions.
We can create a whole spectrum, leading from my hypothetical example above to complete consent, with each small variation increasingly representing the difficulty in making this a black-and-white issue.
Consider just a few instances:
- Instead of being drugged, the woman was forcibly raped, but experienced an orgasm, leaving her ambivalent as to her own interpretation of the situation;
- or the woman willingly went to bed with someone, and changes her mind mid-copulation and says "no." Unfortunately, the man does not quite understand that she is serious, and continues until he is done;
- or the same case as before, but she changes her mind after having experienced an orgasm, but before he is done;
- or the woman willingly went to bed with someone, consummated the act and consequently feels guilty/ashamed/deceived, and somehow interprets the event as a case of rape.
Still, I think the original question is theoretically the more interesting one, so try to answer that, but if not, feel free to leave whatever comments you want.
First off - in your first proposition of unconscious orgasm, I would like to correct the mistake of GHB/Roofies. They are entirely different drugs, though as of late - used to the same affect of producing inhibition loss on its victims. On another note, if someone, usually the woman, is trying to have an orgasm on GHB, she is left with an extremely daunting task of concentration as orgasms are more difficult to achieve under the affects of GHB (though once achieved, they are euphorically heightened.) So, it is hard to assume that one who is drugged by GHB can in fact achieve orgasm and not remember the event the next day, and if he/she was raped during the experience, it would be a lot of energy wasted on trying to reach climax instead of trying to curtail your assailant.
ReplyDeleteThe other scenarios posed by the unconscious orgasm are indeed interesting, though again, unlikely. I would like to ask, in an instance of rape, when the person who is inflicting this crime is anything but selfish? I highly doubt that the person would satisfy her orally/manually to help her to orgasm. Also, I am assuming that most rapes are in the missionary position, a difficult position for most women to achieve orgasm, unless he's nice enough to let her get on top! That elminates the plausability of the man forcibly raping her and her liklihood of achieving climax in order to blur her feelings of being victimized.
The next question of a woman saying 'no' in the middle of consentual sex is questionable on two accounts: 1) If she meant 'no', wouldn't she try harder to stop the act? and 2) If she said 'no', is the man really "not understanding that she is serious", or is he just close to ejaculation and feels that a couple more thrusts won't make a difference? The rest of the situations posed can be answered with scales of two variables: 1. The intent of the man, and 2. The strength of the attempt of stopping the act by the woman. Can't those two variables define rape? If the woman says no, and even goes as far as trying to push the man off of her, and he still finishes, isn't that rape? Yet, if she barely utters the word, maybe just once or twice, and it can be mistaken for moaning utterances during the experience, it should not be the man's fault for failure to comprehend her mixed messages. The same is said for for the next proposition of the woman achieving orgasm, and then later saying no. I believe all rape can be judged with the intent of the man coupled with the efforts of the woman to clearly and succinctly state her position (no pun intended!)
The last hypothetical is embarrassing to most women. Sex with a girl who has been shown to have an elevated blood alcohol level (when back calculated from the time of testing to the time of the rape) in many states and soon in the UK is in fact considered rape. That is one of the only ways that I would even think it possible for a girl to consent to sex and then call it rape the next day. She woke up feeling guilty over the affair, and in order to console her obvious repressed sexual issues rationalizes her night as a rape - if she were not extremely intoxicated I would call her mental faculties into question. Though here lies the dilemma: Even when I have been extremely intoxicated, I remember the events of the night (mostly) and any/every act committed with someone else. To feel guilty the next day is a reflection of that person's own feelings about sex, whether they find guilt in the act, or were made to feel ashamed about sex from young. To then re-direct those innate feelings to the poor unsuspecting man who is probably waking up to tell his roommates that he got laid last night is cruel, and the repercussions of being accused of rape for that man are irreparable, thereby making the woman responsible for ruining someone's life by her failure to accept events that she had a part in creating - that should be punishable by law.
So, to sum up my theory - rape should be defined as the intention of the man and the rate at which the woman tried to prevent the act. The other dumb bitches who cry rape after consenting should be brought up on charges - simple as that! Orgasms are just a fortunate by-product of events - but not that easy to come by in a rape scenario.
Thanks so much for your insightful comment, Mary.
ReplyDeleteYou do seem to assume, as perhaps many of us do, that experiencing an orgasm is something that requires a good deal of concentration. This obviously presupposes some level of consciousness, so it seems your answer to my original question would be that orgasms cannot be experienced without conscious awareness. That may be so... I don't really know...
That part of the comment led me to possibly believe that you are approaching my question from a rather personal point of view, as also betrayed by the comment on how most women cannot experience orgasms in the missionary position. That is an empirical question, and I'm sure there is some sort of comprehensive study out there confirming or denying your claim. From my own experience as a porn star (just kidding), the missionary position is actually the easiest way, and in some cases the only way, in which many women can reach orgasms.
The variables you propose to determine whether a rape has occurred, though interesting, seem to me to fail on many accounts.
First, you seem to suggest that if a woman fights very hard, then one condition would be satisfied. That seems to require that you define what "very hard" is. But never mind that for now. Suppose a woman is sedated with drugs and ends up anywhere on the spectrum between incoherent and completely unconscious. Most instances that fall in this spectrum are probably going to make her fall short of the first requirement, in which case your logic seems to conclude that because she did not fight very hard, there was no rape.
Second, it seems that unless you can somehow manage to read minds, most of the time you will be unable to establish whether a man "intended" to rape a woman, since he could always claim some sort of innocent naivete... sorry about the redundancy... or misunderstanding of what the woman meant, especially if this is confounded by my counterarguments above
And although I think I probably agree with you that women who cry rape after consensual sex are themselves guilty of rape, since they really do ruin a man's future prospects in almost every possible scenario, I'm not sure how easily it follows that these "dumb bitches" should be prosecuted without getting all kinds of feminist groups complaining that we are persecuting the victims.
In the end, in murky cases, and most probably fall in this category, it seems that it's going to be a case of he said/she said...
I was not aware that we were defining rape in terms that would aid in the prosecution of said crime. I was defining rape in the strict sense of the act itself, not by 'who would win the case if it went to trial' terms. In that sense, yes, my definition would not assist greatly in the criminal proceedings following the rape. It may aid the case if the girl does "fight back" with hair samples or skin samples under her fingernails, but then again I may have just seen one too many episodes of Bones or CSI. However, in your one example of a girl being drugged and then being raped, I think that the undeniable intent of the man to rape the woman would outweigh the need for her to fight back, especially if she is unconscious.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, my attempt at flippancy I see was not well received in my "dumb bitches" statement. I do not, however, agree that one must silence their opinion or even legal case against a girl who cries wolf in order to ward of the bulldogs of feminism. I am very proud of the woman's movement, extremely proud of how far we've come as of late (go Pelosi!), but do not believe in Feminism as a sport.
Now onto my personal point of view: I did not speak personally about GHB (in fact have never tried it - heard that with a girl's chemistry it lends her to "G-ing out" more often than guys, meaning that she will experience deep sleep convulsions, probably why guys like it as a date-rape drug...no fight with added vibration!)
I did not speak personally from the missionary position either - if you do a bit of research on the subject (or watch all those interviews with "Sexperts" explaining why only 35% of women will ever experience an orgasm during intercourse), missionary position is stated as one of the least likely positions to achieve one as it does not lend to direct clitoral stimulation - a must if a woman is to have her moment. However, congratulations to you Mr. Porn Star - you have managed to place your ladies in the 15th percentile of all women that can achieve an orgasm in said position. :) Good job!
The question in terms of concentration and orgasm, your original question in fact, is if one can achieve it while unconscious? There has been evidence of many women getting an O while sleeping, akin to the man's version of a wet dream. So I guess it can be done. Wish I could've been part of that study!!!
I wanted to end insightful comment #2 with a thank you for your blog. It has now become one of my favorite sites. Muchos gracias.
I'm enjoying our dialogue immensely, Mary, even though I don't know who you are, other than the name you've posted. Interesting dynamic, huh?
ReplyDeleteYour first distinction of whether rape actually occurred vs. whether it could be prosecuted is a good one, and I think it helps you overcome most of my counterexamples from last time.
I'm sure you know guys, though, and regular, non-criminal types, who have no problem buying a girl a few drinks. Technically speaking, that seems to be an instance of drugging a girl with the intention of subsequent sex. Would this qualify as rape in the real sense? I don't know. My point is merely that there is going to be a spectrum ranging all the way from innocence to guilt, with the accompanying mental states ranging from lack of intent to full intent. I'm sure guys on one extreme of the spectrum know their intent is to rape, but I'm not sure every guy who gives a girl a drink hoping to score has rape on his mind.
So I guess the next question would be whether a man's knowledge of intent, or lack thereof, would make a difference in determining rape.
I did not mind the 'dumb bitches' comment at all. Hey, sometimes bitches be crazy... it's true...
What's G'ing out? Now I'm starting to feel old...
I do know about wet dreams, and I assume there's an accompanying dream to the experience, but a dream would count as a form of consciousness, so I'm not sure it actually answers my original question.
And finally, about your last comment, thanks so much for those nice words. It's nice to know that people find my blog interesting.
People wouldn't believe me that in entertaining myself I could entertain others... I guess they thought that entertaining myself would be exhausted by watching porn, ha ha.
Feel free to spread the good word and share this site with others. I'd love to reach a much wider audience someday, maybe even go international... that's something to shoot for!
I too am enjoying our dialogue greatly. I'm sorry about the anonymity; I thought my name was posting. My sign-in should work now.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to your proposition of rape being the intent of the man who buys a lady a few drinks to get laid - I don't believe that it would be rape at all. I was just saying that some states & the UK are using it as a measure in the prosecution's case if there were a rape involved. I know that the gentleman is not saying "haha...two more drinks and I can take advantage!" The woman accepting those drinks knows very well what the man is trying to accomplish, and more than likely she went out that night with the intent to get a few free drinks and to hook up with someone. Let's face it, not many these days are venturing to their local pub to eventually find the person they might marry! I do agree that this rape topic is viewed in many shades of grey, so we may just be arguing in circles.
Now, 'the man's knowledge of intent' having an impact on determining rape, that is a good question. I am not well versed in the use of polygraph tests, but I do know that they are not admissible in court, unless the person volunteers (I could be way off in my assumption, of course). Would that perhaps eliminate the men that did not essentially set out to rape the victim? Thereby cutting some of the case loads down? I know there are ways to "beat" a polygraph, i.e. stepping on a pin at every truthful answer would confuse the results, but if one is volunteering for such an intrusion based test, wouldn't that in and of itself be a way to determine if the man is genuine?
Thank you for validating 'dumb bitches'. There are many of them out there!!!
'G'ing out' is a fun topic, though I do not believe you are much older than I, so please don't equate lack of street terminology in this instance to age! It occurs when someone takes an overdose (maybe one dose, maybe 5 - depends on the chemistry of the person.) Symptoms include passing out, convulsions, entering into a deep sleep state where it is difficult for another person to awaken the other, etc. From what I've heard about it, the need to feel excessively drunk by drinking a single capful of liquid coupled with the possibility of seizure kind of takes the glamour out of the whole thing. I'll just get excessively drunk the old fashioned way!
Wet dreams - it's funny how you put "I assume there's an accompanying dream to the experience"! Isn't that implicit in the term?! It made me giggle...but then I went up to your original post and right there in the first sentence it states "can a person who is not conscious - not even dreaming - experience orgasms?" So I ask you why dreaming is a conscious experience. I know about brain wavelengths and dream states, but always thought that when you are sleeping, you are not conscious (please pardon the naiveté.) If that is not the case, then is someone who is in a coma conscious, as they are often described as being in a perpetual dream? I would love to hear your side of that question. What denotes consciousness?
I will definitely pass your blog onto others - I've already done so to a few. Yes, porn can be endlessly entertaining, but generally leads to many computer viruses & crashes - you have undergone a much safer & useful endeavor (though I'm sure the useful vs. porn part can be disputed!) Thanks for the repartee!
I have decided to seek the answer to consciousness on my own. I read your post on the topic from an article on January 17th where it had detailed the brain scan of a woman in a vegetative state. It had said that neuroscientists had then re-coined the definition of consciousness, whereby being unconscious is a lack of brain activity, either being "knocked out cold" or by being in a deep sleep/lack of dreaming state. From that definition I understand your perspective of consciousness. However, today I asked a prominent neurologist in the area (in fact, he is regarded as one of the top experts in Northern NY) on whether one is conscious if they are dreaming. He denotes consciousness as response to one's environment, thereby if someone is dreaming, one is not responding to their external environment, thereby being unconscious. The woman who was able to understand the questions being posed by the researchers was in fact conscious as she was responding to her environment, but unable to express her intellect. So by saying consciousness is brain activity separate from ongoing basic functions (heartbeat, etc.) is really just another way to measure, by brain scan, sugars concentrating on certain brain areas, regardless of external environments. Since it is just a measure of any activity in the brain, I believe that to be conscious eliminates dreaming from the equation since one is not reponding to their outside environment. Thoughts? Comments? :)
ReplyDeleteI think I would just have to say that I disagree with the neurologist's definition of consciousness as being too narrow.
ReplyDeleteIt's a practical definition, for sure, but I'm afraid it fails to encompass the all interesting theoretical questions about the mind.