NO, YOU CAN’T STEAL A KISS

Timothy Chambers

Here, Timothy Chambers argues that rape is not a

sex act. In the follow up piece, I suggest that it is.

I guess my first feminist role-model was Marilyn Sokol.

Think Spring 2009 † 63

She played ‘Stella,’ the boisterous best friend to Goldie
Hawn’s ‘Gloria,’ in the 1978 blockbuster, Foul Play.
I first saw it when I was eight or nine years old.
There’s a scene where Gloria reveals that she gave a
ride to a hitchhiker.
Stella is incredulous. ‘Really, Gloria! Do you know the
percentages of rapes from hitchhikers?!. . .And look at you,
with no protection.’ (By ‘protection,’ Stella means mace or
brass knuckles, both of which she owns.)
‘Well,’ Gloria considers, the hitchhiker ‘didn’t seem to be
after sex.’
‘Rape is not an act of sex,’ Stella booms. ‘Rape is an act
of violence! Remember that.’
I can’t speak for Gloria, but I surely remembered it. I’m
reminded of it every so often. In her tantalizing attempt to
define sex (entitled, ‘Are We Having Sex Now Or What?’),
Greta Christina declares what should be a deal-breaker for
any candidate definition. ‘Even the conventional standby –
sex equals intercourse – has a serious flaw,’ she writes.
‘[I]t includes rape, which is something I emphatically refuse
to accept. As far as I’m concerned, if there’s no consent, it
ain’t sex.’
And yet, I’m unsure whether this truth has percolated into
society at large. I’m reminded of this every so often, too.
Sometimes it’s a careless phrasing, which I spotted in the
New York Daily News in 2005 (‘. . .who lost her virginity at
gunpoint in 1991 when a gang of thugs. . .’). Or else it’s a
potentially misleading headline, compliments of a 2007
doi:10.1017/S1477175608000389 # 2009 The Royal Institute of Philosophy
Think 21, Vol. 8 (Spring 2009)

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Feb 2009 IP address:

 article in the London Daily Mail (‘Doctor rejects evidence of
patient who says that he hypnotized her and took her virgi-
nity’). And then there was the August 17th 1999 story in the
New York Times, citing a rising demand for ‘virginity tests’
in South Africa. The article never notes the obvious: if a
woman had been assaulted, then the ‘test’ would yield a
false negative. The list goes on and on.
All of these cases, which describe rape survivors as
Chambers No, you can’t steal a kiss † 64

having had their virginity ‘taken,’ get matters dead wrong.

To me, it’s axiomatic: a survivor who was raped didn’t
thereby ‘have sex’; a person is not a virgin only if they have
‘had sex’; ergo, it’s conceptually impossible for a rapist to
‘take’ or ‘rob’ his target’s virginity.
Now, I’m an academic philosopher by training and tem-
perament. This means I can only tolerate cognitive disso-
nance and mixed messages for just so long. At last, I find
myself needing to sit somewhere comfy, put some jottings
on paper, and sort out the truth once and for all.

II

Why does Stella find it obvious that rape is not an act of

sex? And why has society been so slow on the uptake of
this obvious truth?
It helped me to notice how many amorous activities
require reciprocity before we credit the act as happening.
Take holding hands. It’s not enough that my hand comes
into contact with another’s hand – otherwise, I’ve held
hands with everyone whose hands I’ve shaken.
Hand-holding also seems to preclude coercion, however
subtle. Suppose I spot my friend, Grace, on a date at an
uptown bistro. The next day, I remark to her, ‘It looks like
your date went swimmingly.’
Grace scowls. ‘As if.’
‘But you were holding hands,’ I protest.
‘We weren’t ‘holding hands,’’ Grace corrects. ‘He took my
hand – practically grabbed it. The feeling wasn’t mutual.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Feb 2009 IP address:

 I didn’t pull away because I already sensed the guy was a
jerk, and I didn’t want him making a scene in my favorite
restaurant.’
Dancing provides another activity with links to reciprocity.
I once witnessed a friend of mine, Cerrisa, at a dance-
party. Some young guy, dripping with desperation,
approached her. She declined, politely.
Then the man starts to dance in front of her.

Think Spring 2009 † 65

My friend was unmoved. ‘I’m not dancing with you,’ she
said, and stalked off.
Did Cerrisa and her wannabe suitor dance? Obviously
not. He danced for her. But since she didn’t join his
motions, it would be false to say they danced. (Just
curious: would it be possible for two people to dance for
one another, simultaneously, without thereby dancing with
each other? With mirrors, maybe?).
The situation grows more nuanced with kissing, though.
I’m reminded of the 1988 film, Dangerous Liaisons. There’s
a scene where the villain, Valmont, calls upon a young
woman, Cecile, very late at night. She asks him to leave.
Valmont promises to go on one condition: ‘I just want you
to give me a kiss.’
Afterward, the villain still refuses to leave. ‘I promised to
go when you gave me a kiss,’ he explains. ‘You didn’t give
me a kiss. I gave you a kiss. Not the same thing at all.’
Valmont’s dastardly designs aside, his semantics ring
true. If I kiss you on the lips, but you don’t ‘kiss me back’
(as we say), then we didn’t kiss.
At the same time, we do have phrases like ‘stole a kiss,’ as
in ‘Valmont stole a kiss from Cecile when she was distracted.’
This sends a different message: the coercive or deceptive
kisser got a kiss from the victim. After all, I can’t very well
‘steal’ something unless I somehow take possession of it.
This is most unfortunate. One wants to protest that
speaking of ‘stolen kisses’ sins against the very institution.
Kisses are meant to be tokens of shared affection –
between parents and children, buzzes between friends,
linkings of lovers. The very idea that someone could ‘steal

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Feb 2009 IP address:

 a kiss’ seems a contradiction in terms. Yes, a man can
extort certain bodily movements from a woman. But this
cuts completely against the freedom of choice implied in
saying, ‘We kissed’.
In other words, you can speak of coercing (or deceiving)
a woman into kissing, but only if you turn a blind eye to the
woman’s autonomy and consciousness. ‘Stolen kisses’ can
only make sense if you view the woman’s participation as
Chambers No, you can’t steal a kiss † 66

purely passive – as if ‘she acquiesced and allowed him to

kiss her’ still means ‘they kissed’. But the image this
suggests is eerily asymmetric. Eerie, too, is how the myth
of the ‘stolen kiss’ commodifies a woman’s gestures of inti-
macy, parsing them as if they were property which could be
‘stolen’.

III

All of this helped me illuminate the two questions which

puzzled me at the outset.
Why isn’t rape an act of sex? Because, as Stella knew
well, having sex (like holding hands or dancing together)
presumes reciprocity. A rapist coerces a person into certain
bodily motions. But to term these forced motions as ‘having
sex’ adds insult to the initial assault. It only makes sense if,
as we saw with ‘stolen kisses,’ our image of sex is
seriously stunted: an image which renders irrelevant a
woman’s state of mind and whether she exercised her
autonomy. But that’s just obscene.
Why hasn’t society grasped this fact yet? I’m not sure.
Call it the Inertia of Unchallenged Falsehoods. The very
idea that a rape-survivor thereby had sex, or that virginity
can be ‘stolen,’ seems to stem from a deeply-entrenched
myth which casts women as ‘passive recipients’ in intimate
transactions. In her insightful essay, ‘Date Rape: A Feminist
Analysis’, Lois Pineau points to ‘a number of mutually sup-
portive mythologies which see sexual assault as masterful
seduction, and silent submission as sexual enjoyment,’

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Feb 2009 IP address:

 including ‘belief [in] the natural aggression of men and
natural reluctance of women’ in intimate encounters’.
How might we correct this marred image? For starters,
we’ll need to call out the false picture when it makes
media-appearances (which, as Lexis-Nexus assures me, is
quite often). We would also do well to replace the image of
sex which deserves discarding with an image of sex we
can cherish. Towards this goal, Pineau makes excellent

Think Spring 2009 † 67

strides: ‘In honest sexual encounters,’ she writes, ‘this
much is required. Assuming that each person enters the
encounter in order to seek sexual satisfaction, each per-
son. . .has an obligation to help the other seek his or her
ends. . . .But the requirement of mutuality means that we
must take a communicative approach to discovering the
ends of the other, and this entails that we respect the dia-
lectics of desire’.
Sex, in this sense of the word, is a dialogue. It doesn’t
happen when I only care about raising the points I want
raised. It doesn’t happen when I ignore the points you want
treated. It happens when we invite one another to perceive
our most personal perspectives, with the hope that it will
enhance the empathy we share.

Timothy Chambers teaches philosophy at the University

of Hartford.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Feb 2009 IP address: