Is this rape?

[FayKorgasm]

Anyone watching this on BBC? Some very worrying opinions and stories.

[timelytess]

Seen it, its shocking and there's another thread on the telly section.

[FayKorgasm]

Oh I didn't realise. The guy with the glasses holds very worrying and sinister opinions.

[ImperialBlether]

I agree with you, Fay. Very, very worrying.

[FayKorgasm]

I watched it with both of my older teens,boy and girl. Very proud how they both pronounced it to be rape no ifs ands or maybes. Also dd elaborated by saying it was like a revenge rape. Gemma was Toms first therefore she "belonged" to him. He could do what he wanted.

I wonder how many of the girls realised that they were in similar situations as Gemma. Or how many of the boys had been in Toms. Rape is a suitable strong word for what is a vile despicable thing. Funny Not funny at all how they thought about Toms young life being ruined and not Gemmas.

[ImperialBlether]

Yes, I thought it was revenge rape, too. He was furious that she was with his friend.

I said on the other thread, too, that I found it sinister that Tom stayed behind after everyone left. I felt that was quite deliberate.

[BinToHellAndBack]

Just watched it this morning and can't find the other thread!

I thought it was interesting (and scary) how the group gave the response of >50% believing she didn't give consent and >50% also believing that he thought he had consent. Really highlighted the confusion and lack of awareness surrounding what actually constitutes consent. Those that said 'not rape' at first and then changed their minds seemed disturbed about how that now impacted their views on friends' past liaisons, which was good. Great to see it provoking thought, I hope lots of teens watched it.

I totally agree the glasses bloke had alarming ideas with the 'she would have said no if she didn't want it' etc. I got the impression though, that it was largely naivety on his part - he didn't seem to understand that fear can illicit different responses in different and that in her case she froze, or what consent means. Of course naivety can perpetuate some very dangerous attitudes and isn't an excuse... but it demonstrates the urgent need for some comprehensive teaching on consent in schools.

They (mostly!) seemed like very nice and empathetic young people, but had clearly picked up on lots of rape myths and were only just having them dispelled on the show. Would be great if workshops like that could be standard across secondary schools.

[Baconyum]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/2500166-Is-this-rape-BBC3-now

Link to other thread which I've also commented on. I was absolutely appalled by some of the comments! What on earth are these kids being told by their parents/school?!

If I were glasses kids mum is be UTTERLY ASHAMED.

[BinToHellAndBack]

Thanks for the link Bacon

[velourvoyageur]

ffs just because he believes he "has consent" doesn't mean it's not rape!
It's his responsibility to know what constitutes rape - if he's mistaken it doesn't mean he should be let off wth a slap on the wrist
If he's confused, that's not an excuse either

(3/4 way through on iplayer but am all indignant again now)

[feministmom]

With all due respect I think if one has to ask if a specific scenario is "rape" then it isn't rape at all.

If one really was raped there would be no ambiguity.

It's like asking if someone punched you in the face or not, either they did or they didn't.

[Lj8893]

What bullshit FeministMom!

[LurcioAgain]

FM has just started another obviously troll thread which I've reported.

[QueenStromba]

This is the second thread today where I've see massively unfeminist comments from the ironically named feministmom. In my experience if you have to ask if it was rape then it probably was.

[VestalVirgin]

feministmom why don't you just change your name to mom, that'd be more honest. I have read some comments by you, and all were antifeminist.

If one has to ask whether something is rape, the answer, in 99% of cases is: YES, IT IS.

Because if there really was no rape, there is no ambiguity.

[JAPAB]

ffs just because he believes he "has consent" doesn't mean it's not rape!

Indeed, the belief has to be reasonable. Whether the fact that she did not say no or make any move to push him away or stop him, in conjunction with the fact that she must have been doing something to help matters along, makes it reasonable for him to believe that she was at least consenting to the oral sex, is another matter. Many think it not likely such a case would get to court to even get to a jury deciding on the matter.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

I just love that "with all due respect" at the beginning of the hilariously inappropriately-named "feministmom"'s post. Too, too cute when what actually comes across from his post (I'm assuming his) is "with absolutely zero respect to you, anyone else or, to be honest deep down, probably myself".

Do bore off and take your rape myths with you.

I also take exception to the depressingly unconsensual sounding low bar of consent expressed above, if I have read it correctly, because the sentence structure is a bit impenetrable - I'm reading "well, you can't really put your penis in someone's mouth if they don't want you to, and if the person whose mouth it's in doesn't directly say no or push it away, she must really want it there". Er, no, don't think so. Am I reading this correctly? I haven't seen the programme, I'm just going on what's described here.

[JAPAB]

I'm reading "well, you can't really put your penis in someone's mouth if they don't want you to, and if the person whose mouth it's in doesn't directly say no or push it away, she must really want it there". Er, no, don't think so.

Neither do I, but that is not what was said. A jury would have to decide whether the lack of no and making any attempt to stop it, in conjunction with the fact that she must have been doing something to help matters along, could lead the lad in question to reasonably think she was consenting to the oral sex.

It is about whether the belief of consent is decided to be reasonable, not just the fact that someone has the belief.

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

Selkie... Japab has a bit of an issue with women being able to say no. To pretty much anything. Thinks cat calling is just fine, that kind of thing.

And Japab, if you want people not to think that's what you're saying, then trying to write sentences in such a way as to make it look less like that's what you were trying to achieve.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Thanks playswell, I see that now - I had to check because though it did read like rape apologising, there was a possibility that it might have been the unfortunate sentence construction...

I've watched the programme now and it's abundantly clear to me there was no consent, and I can't honestly imagine where Japab's got his (again, I assume his) notion of Gemma "helping things along", which doesn't appear anywhere in the narrative. Bleurgh.

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

Yes. His.

[velourvoyageur]

No Japab what I meant was it's irrelevant what he believes, he should take the time to educate himself on what constitutes rape, that way there's no maybe, might be about the whole thing. If he hasn't informed himself then that's his fault, not a get out of jail free card. Bloody hell.
If someone is raped, there is a perpetrator and should be a punishment. Ignorance isn't an excuse.


Also bloody worrying that none of them got angry about the questions the first lawyer was asking. I did and I knew the BBC were doing it to provoke debate!
I did appreciate some of the guys' comments though. A few of them were clued up.

[velourvoyageur]

feministmom I'm very interested in getting your catch all, watertight, ultimate definition for rape that's so obvious that everyone knows about it.
Incorporating the knowledge that different countries even across the EU have different definitions for it of course.

[JAPAB]

PlaysWellWithOthers
Selkie... Japab has a bit of an issue with women being able to say no. To pretty much anything. Thinks cat calling is just fine, that kind of thing.

I do? News to me.

velourvoyageur
No Japab hmm what I meant was it's irrelevant what he believes

Not to the law it isn't. If a jury agrees that he could reasonably believe her to be consenting, then it is not rape. Even if they were to also believe at the same time that in her mind she was not consenting. That is my understanding anyway.

[velourvoyageur]

But belief can't be proved can it. So there's that.
Then you have the scenario where the rapist thinks they've done nothing wrong where at the same time the victim will have been forced into a sexual act against their will, because the rapist has the wrong idea about things. That's not rape? The focus should be on the victim's version of events don't you think?
Screwed up legal decisions if you ask me.

[JAPAB]

But once again there's the "reasonable" qualification. A man might believe that agreement obtained under threat is consent, but a jury is unlikely to find this to constitute a reasonable belief of having consent.