Rape apologism (not a real word, sorry) on a MN thread!

(227 Posts)

Sorry - a thread about a thread, but I feel that input is needed from as many people as possible, to counter some of the ridiculous things one particular poster is saying. The woman the thread is about was so drunk she was blacking out, can't remember what happened, but is sore, so is pretty sure she had sex - and someone is saying this doesn't mean she was raped!

Here.

Mitchy1nge Wed 11-Dec-13 21:29:09

I didn't mean that sort of thing, but from the very outset of this thread people weighing up the probability of the man facing any sort of prosecution and if so the probability of its success - a peculiarly inhumane initial response isn't it

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 11-Dec-13 15:15:32

Well I can only tell you why I mentioned a trial.

I mentioned it because when I've participated in other discussions about rape, the notion that the default mode should be belief in what the woman is saying (firstly, because who would put themselves through the horror of an investigation if they didn't have to, and secondly because the rates of malicious accusation seem to be on a par - or slightly lower - than that of other crimes) the next stage in the discussion is to accuse feminism and feminists of wanting the law changed so that men are guilty until proven innocent.

I was just pre-empting that argument.

Mitchy1nge Wed 11-Dec-13 14:10:22

why does everyone keep leaping ahead to the imaginary trial anyway, people were talking about the CPS and jurors before expressing any concern about the woman in question

fucking weirdos

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 11-Dec-13 13:51:19

Yeah Beatrix but on this board the accusation that feminists want to deny men a fair trial is levelled. It is this accusation that I find hysterical, not, as you claim, people who insist upon this fundamental human right. Was my meaning not clear in some way?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 11-Dec-13 10:12:06

Nobody's suggesting for a moment that people shouldn't have a fair trial.

Sadly though, evidence suggests that a substantial number of reported rapes are not investigated properly, end up 'no crimed' or don't get to court. Considering the majority of rapes are never even reported, thats an awful lot of rapists walking free.

I'd say it has everything to do with the police believing victims when they report - John Worbuoys was free to rape women over and over again because the police did not believe the victims that did come forward.

Beatrixparty Wed 11-Dec-13 09:04:38

Buffy

The default position of the Police ought to be to take all allegations of criminal offences seriously and to investigate them accordingly - not sure, though, if you can make the Police 'believe' allegations.

It is a human right (Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) in this county that all those prosecuted by the Crown should have a fair trail, whether they be promising or not, young or not, men or not - and to insist on this human right ought never to be flippantly dismissed as hysteria.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 10-Dec-13 22:06:57

Eh?

Mitchy1nge Tue 10-Dec-13 20:29:31

sound bite
soundbite

?

Mitchy1nge Tue 10-Dec-13 20:28:54

I think someone just wants a soundbite.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 10-Dec-13 20:25:50

Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down

It seems to me that the aim is to create a terms of reference that will allow men to have sex with women comfortable in the knowledge that they aren't in a legal sense (rather than a moral one) raping them.

My question is why would they want to?

I am curious to know (but of course it's very unlikely we ever will) how many rapes would be investigated by the police if our default position was to believe women who say that they had sex they didn't consent to, rather than the default mode being disbelief.

Before we get back onto hysterical accusations of denying promising young men a fair trial, no, I'm not saying convict every man accused of rape, merely investigate it. Properly. Thoroughly. Would this be a terrible thing? And if so, why?

Beatrixparty Tue 10-Dec-13 09:54:48

We do seem to be going around in circles.....

scallopsrgreat Tue 10-Dec-13 09:29:36

It was also a point that Sabrina made further up the thread too. Do we continually have to repeat ourselves?

scallopsrgreat Tue 10-Dec-13 09:28:40

Well exactly Beatrix. So why ask the question? Why the fixation on it? As Basil says (and I did) there are many other indicators.

Beatrixparty Tue 10-Dec-13 09:04:49

Sorry - should be 'too drunk'

Beatrixparty Tue 10-Dec-13 09:03:56

Scallop

As I said 5 days ago and from a personal perspective, I think if you are too drunk to remember you are too drunk to consent. I hope answering the question three times for you is quite enough for you now snowshepherd.

The trouble with that is, its a judgement made in hindsight - you cannot know whether the man or woman was to drunk to remember, until the next morning (usually) - when they have either forgotten or not, as the case may be. (Dear me...)

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 21:39:13

"Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down because it will depend on a number of factors, rather than discussing what the basic standard of common decency would be?" Yes I'd like to know that?

"If everyone strove to be decent, instead of to get consent, there wouldn't be a problem." Yep. That.

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 21:16:28

Did you not see the sentence "I expect for some people consent can be given", snowshepherd?

Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down because it will depend on a number of factors, rather than discussing what the basic standard of common decency would be?

If everyone strove to be decent, instead of to get consent, there wouldn't be a problem.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 21:08:04

"You answer was, you can't know/probably not. No definitive answer" No it wasn't. The only non-definitive statement I made was about a woman's feelings if she woke up the next morning thinking something had happened that she hadn't consented too. And the only reason for that is that I was not presuming to tell another woman how she should feel about her experience. And as you told me that hadn't answered the question I am not sure why you are citing it.

As I said 5 days ago and from a personal perspective, I think if you are too drunk to remember you are too drunk to consent. I hope answering the question three times for you is quite enough for you now snowshepherd.

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 21:04:13

It isn't a rule of thumb as to whether a rape has taken place or not.

It is a rule of thumb a decent person should bear in mind in order to avoid causing horrendous pain to another person.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:51:37

Of course you should teach your sons that. I hope you are.

I think if you consider consent being void if a couple of drinks have been taken. Then I would think that rape/sexual assault will be up around 90% of British adults. I know that I have been sexually assaulted more than once under this rule of thumb and probably raped.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 09-Dec-13 20:48:12

Yes, Basil.

x1000000000

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 20:44:24

I expect for some people consent can be given.

But I'm not interested in consent. I'm interested in enthusiastic participation.

I'm not interested in finding the lowest bar I can, to get away with sexually assaulting someone who wouldn't otherwise fuck me, without my behaviour being recognised as sexual assault. I'm interested in every single sexual encounter I ever engage in, being fully consensual on both sides.

Hey, imagine that. I don't ever want to fuck someone who doesn't really want to fuck me. Imagine if we taught our sons that that's the lowest bar they should aim for. We'd abolish rape.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:39:43

So 1 pint of lager or a small glass of wine. Something around that? At that point consent can't be given?

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 20:36:30

I think a good rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't want to get into a car with them driving, then you probably shouldn't be fucking them. Because having sex with someone can be at least as serious a decision as driving 2 tons of metal and if you don't know the person very well, then err on the side of caution - on the side of assuming that having sex is a big thing for them.

But no one requires men to have that bar. They just need to be able to legally get away with rape for most people to feel their behaviour has no moral implications whatsoever.

It's fucking sickening.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:26:35

Basil
I think you should prosecute rapist, I think sentencing should be harsher, and victims should get more support.

The points we are discussing is what is 'too drunk' (as sab says)? I agree don't have sex with drunk people, what is a drunk person?
You have clear driving alcohol limits, you have clear age limits. I'm interested in people's interpretations

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now