I do want to say “allowing a grey area to exist allows men to wriggle out of it” is always an unfortunate possibility (not that this doesn’t happen all the time anyways). But for me, in this sort of environment (as in here at this blog), I don’t see anything wrong with discussing the different was people can be raped. (I think I’m gonna do my own post about “grey rape” in the next few days.)

A husband who coerces his wife into having sex with him by withholding the money to buy groceries for their kids is, in my mind, committing as unequivocal a crime as the guy who leaps out of the bushes and rapes a stranger.

Rape is rape – it doesn't matter whether it's a stranger or a spouse. The definition of rape is quite clear and I see NO grey area. I studied law for two years and spent quite a bit of time discussing this specific issue.

I have no understanding of why feminists allow the concept of a 'grey area' to exist. They should draw the line in the sand and stick to it because when it comes to defining what IS and ISN'T rape the definition seems perfectly clear and allowing a grey area to exist allows men to wriggle out of it.

It took me years to accept that I had been raped. Why? Because I wasn’t attacked in a way that was easily recognizable as rape. That is one of the greatest repercussions of rape culture in my opinion (that we are so narrow minded in what we view as rape that is). To think of rape as this simple black/white issue is not the solution to rape culture (nor is the concept of “grey rape” the problem*). Why? Because it only perpetuates the two dimensional idea of what a perpetrator and a victim are like. That is what makes us question what a woman was wearing or how much she was drinking before we condemn the person who actually did the raping. You can read one study here that found many men admitted to raping someone when the word “rape” wasn’t used.

*I am not saying that grey-rape should be seen differently in terms of right or wrong though. This is a very big distinction and either you have consent or you don’t. My point is that looking at the varying degrees of rape (though they are all equally horrific) is necessary anytime we have these sorts of discussions. One does not necessarily diminish the other. Manslaughter or first degree murder still ends up with someone dead.

Only joking. If that's how he feels, good for him. Personally, I find it difficult to be expected to shoulder the burden of my male ancestor's 'crimes' from birth.

(Crimes like those of my terrible grandparents! Supporting pioneering Scottish women through medical school in the late 19th century. SHAME ON THEM!)

Nothing 'grey' about it and the man who coerces her is FULLY aware that what he's going is wrong – if he doesn't see himself as a criminal, he's a sociopath.

If a guy just buys a woman a load of drinks until her sober 'no' turns to a drunken, but willing 'yes' than that's NOT rape.

After all, if she got into a car and drove drunk, the cops wouldn't care that a sleazeball bought her the drinks – they'd hold her responsible for drinking them and deciding to drive afterward.

Likewise, she's ultimately responsible for willingly deciding to sleep with somebody she might not have done sober.

Arguing otherwise is dangerous territory, because you're suggesting that women are too 'weak and fragile' to make decisions for themselves.

As long as they have the safety and security to say 'no' than if they say 'yes' we have to believe that they're responsible enough to make that decision.

If they don't have the safety and security to say 'no' than it's rape – ALWAYS.

No grey areas. If we open up the possibility of grey areas than we allow men the freedom to argue 'accidental rape' and that encourages rape culture. As I argued above, it undermines what you're trying to achieve.

This is just an idiotic mindset. Rape isn't an accident or a misunderstanding. It's a DELIBERATE CRIME committed by a DELIBERATE CRIMINAL. Normal men DON'T commit rape – nor do they steal stuff from stores or sell drugs to kids. Men are aware of the concept of 'right' and 'wrong.'"

You are incorrect here. You are referring to a very specific kind of rape. What about coercive rape? Date rape? And, yes, "gray rape?" These are men that *don't* see what they're doing as rape. They don't see it as coercion. Because they're not holding someone down and forcing themselves on them. But they're using pressure, guilt, coercion, etc. to break down a women's defenses until she is sick of fighting and resigns herself to the fact that this isn't going to stop until she just "gets in over with." That is coercive rape. It's sex that a woman doesn't really want, and is pressured or guilted into anyway.

And here's why these men don't see themselves as rapists: I want to use Schwyzer's stoplight analogy here. Men are taught, over and over again, that "no means no," just like a red light means stop. We see a red light, we stop. Men hear "no," they stop. But we also know that if we wait at a red light long enough, it will eventually turn green. So, beg, plead, guilt, feed alcohol, whathaveyou, and eventually, that red light may become a green light.

But what about yellow lights? What if a woman never says "no," but bats a hand away, giggles uncomfortably, or sends other signs that she wants things to slow down? Well, how many people speed up through that yellow light to make it before it turns red?

In our culture, men are taught that "no means no," but when they never hear an explicit "no," they take that as a sign to keep trying. The other signals don't register. They weren't a "no." And so, they keep trying to put their hand down the pants. They give them another drink. They try to make them feel bad. They do whatever it takes for the woman to give in.

Those men see nothing wrong with what they've done. She never said, "No." But she never said, "yes, " either. That's coercive rape. And that man is still committing a kind of rape, through pressuring, guilt, coercion, and substances to get what he wants.

Those men don't see themselves as criminal. There are more than one kind of rape. Remember that.

They're going to dismiss it as 'man hating feminist bullshit.'

It's Britni's blog and she can say and write whatever she wants – but if she wants men – the people who are supposedly going to benefit from reading it – to actually do so, she'll need to speak in a different voice.

You can lead a man to water, but if you accuse him of being a victimizing potential rapist you can be pretty sure he's not going to drink.

As Alana wrote earlier "God forbid the dominate group ever be made to feel uncomfortable."

That depends, Alana – if you want them to actually READ this stuff and LEARN FROM IT than yes, you do need to not make them feel uncomfortable. I'm not saying it's RIGHT or FAIR but it's a fact.

If you're not willing to make that conciliation then men aren't going to be engaged in the debate and all this kevetching will be utterly pointless.