Views » September 23, 2003

Kobe and the New Currency of ‘No’

By Paula Kamen

In debating the high-profile felony sexual-assault case against Kobe Bryant over the past months, media commentators have been largely been preoccupied with one single issue of social consequence:

What does this mean for the Nutellas and the Nikes?

But what about the bigger-picture story beyond the lost corporate endorsements of nut butter and sneakers?

This case is still controversial. But the fact that it made the light of day is unprecedented. Society has begun to accept the criminalization of acquaintance rape in its most traditionally dismissed form: an encounter that both parties admit started off consensually.

Meanwhile, but much more under the radar, the growing authority of a woman’s “no” has surfaced in other public arenas. In late July, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved a law stating that a woman has a right to change her mind at any point during sex—probably the first of many similar state laws. While it has become nationally controversial, the law is merely meant to make existing legislation clearer to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries. Lawmakers want to avoid the confusion that resulted from such a California case involving two 17-year-olds, that had dragged on for years in the courts and was finally settled in the state Supreme Court in January.

Or, as one young female Court TV reporter put it to a very leery John Hannity on a Fox News discussion of Bryant’s case: “If I give you $5, that doesn’t mean I have to hand over my whole bank account.” I especially took note of the spirited debate on Hannity and Colmes because a few days earlier I had witnessed the same one take place almost word for word, in an entirely different forum—among the audience after a performance of Sex Signals, a partly improvised and largely comedic play.

Since 2000, thirty-something producers and actors Gail Stern and Christian Murphy have made this play an innovative export of Chicago’s improv scene by turning it into some of the most influential and popular anti-rape programming in the country. So far, they have performed the play before hundreds of student groups, and thousands of freshmen starting college this fall are seeing the show as a part of their orientation.

The complexities and subtleties of Sex Signals reflect how far the issue of date rape has advanced, even since I was in college in the late ’80s, when the very concept of date rape was in question. In Sex Signals, with the central male character actually being portrayed as likable (just like Kobe Bryant clearly still is), this play stands in stark contrast to comparable educational dramas from even the ’90s. Then the men were characterized simplistically, as the purely devilish Sigma Chi with the Roofies. (A common scenario was the guy taking the woman out to an expensive dinner of steak and lobster, to weaken her resistance. As a result, the primary lesson that many of us absorbed was limited to indelibly associating felony-sexual assault with surf and turf.)

In this updated drama, the central case-study being debated involves a first date between two affable college students. The audience quizzes an actor, playing the male protagonist Matt, about just what took place that night. He reveals that he had ignored the woman, Joelle, when she told him to stop at the start of sexual intercourse. Just like in life, the situation seems complex. Joelle was not a passive bystander before quietly asking him to stop.

Clearly, the audience for this Chicago performance was not in complete agreement over every issue. And the laws in this country are often ahead of some popular opinion, especially among older women, who think that all bets are off once a woman visits a man’s hotel room, no matter how the “vibe” has changed. But the fact that this dialogue is taking place in such detail and with such new sophistication is very revealing.

While speaking at college campuses, I have observed a major generation gap. Young women take this issue of consent as being basic to their sex lives—not being anti-sex, or neo-Victorian, as some critics have accused—but being “pro-control.”

Unlike their “elders” from the ’70s sexual revolution, they define true sexual liberation as not only being able to say yes, but also being able to say no. The reframing of date rape is a part of the same growing “pro-control” and more clearly “pro-sex” philosophy of young feminists campaigning for student access to the “morning-after” pill or Emergency Contraception (EC)—also a major focus of today’s campus activism.

Yet, at the end of Sex Signals, Stern actually tells her audience to forget the legal issues, exact definitions of what does and does not define rape, and look at what is moral, how we want to treat each other. She asks if forcing sex means more to us than “hurting someone we like.”

Such public discussions about rape have replaced external social controls of the past, such as strict dorm codes that separated the sexes in the ’60s, and social norms that blamed the woman for immodesty. Instead, we are progressing toward establishing a simple Sexual Golden Rule. And that’s the very true type of sexual liberation for which this generation is striving, in their overwhelmingly unpublicized—and improvised—everyday lives.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Paula Kaman should be congratulated.  This is a great article with an exciting, pro-sex, truly feminist point of view.
  Entering someone’s hotel room is not consent and the freedom to choose whether and when to have sex at any time seems like an obvious right.  This article is fantastic & hopeful and well put.

  Posted by Risa Mickenberg on Sep 24, 2003 at 12:46 PM

  Five dollars and the whole bank account are not analogous to consenting to sex and then changing her mind once intercourse has commenced.  Let’s get real here.  There is a point of no return here, and that is only common sense.  Consent certainly may be withdrawn up to the point of penetration.  After that, all bets are off.

  Posted by Michael Nattenberg on Sep 24, 2003 at 2:02 PM

  “Get Real” is a current expression, it seems.  This scenario is so old.  All the heavy “Liberation” rhetoric distorts the real issue.  Going to someone’s room means nothing.  Saying “no” when the libidial act has begun is tantamount to trying stop a charging bull from goring one by saying “no.”  All the rhetoric ignores the fact that Nature has strongly programmed males of all species to complete the libidinal act once its begun.
    And, in espiocrat circles, the “honey trap” is as old as history. You lure your target until he begins to act, then “catch him out,” and yell, “RAPE!”
    Of course, none of these questions will be asked in court or by media.  The hype is so thick these days, one can barely see anything clearly.

  Wake up everyone. The polar ice caps are melting; the oceans are warming beyond ability to support plankton growth; species extinction is expanding too greatly to count, tho’ African lion populations have been verified as falling nealy 80% since 1960, etc.  Kobe was a perfect “mark,” and the “HUAH!” culture goes on and on and on.

  Posted by ryokan on Sep 24, 2003 at 6:09 PM

  Tough issue. No real apples to apples analogy exists since no one thinks of their bank account the same way as their sex life.

  I agree that no matter if a woman goes to a man’s rooms that doesn’t constitute agreement to have sex. But to wait until penetration occurs then say no and claim rape is a distortion of power, which is truly the real issue.

  I’m sure the vast majority of women aren’t interetsted in a simple power grab, but rather an equality of agreement and consent. But we all know in the real world some women will use the power in such a way as to ruin a man’s life with a rape conviction.

  Isn’t here some concept in law about better to let the guilty go free than convict the innocent?

  Seems like it will be easy to convict many an innocent man now if all a woman has to do is say she said no, even after initial concensual penetration.

  Good luck all you single folks out there.

  Posted by Chris Stevens on Sep 25, 2003 at 3:21 AM

  I can’t believe what I’m reading in these comments! Since when is changing your mind a “power grab”? People who may think they want to have sex and subsequently decide that they don’t want to after all are not being manipulative or making a machiavellian attempt to ruin someone else’s life—they’re just being human. (And hello—even though no one ever seems to talk about it, men change their minds about sex, too, sometimes.)

  The notion that men are such libidinous beasts that they are incapable of listening to a partner’s wishes once a certain act has begun is as insulting to men as the notion that a woman is consenting to sex by “leading someone on.”

  Posted by Lisa Jervis on Sep 25, 2003 at 9:11 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 23 posts.

Also featured Leaving Altar
Roller Coaster of Coverage
Work Space

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!