DH didn’t stop when I said stop

RandomWordsStuckTogether

Of course you are saying one is less bad, otherwise, why attempt to draw the distinction? Unless, of course, you are saying the penalty for 'conditional' rape should be the same as the penalty for 'rape', which would make them both 'rape', which is what we have at the moment.

You bewilder me.

Although my confusion illustrates perfectly how it would be easy to bamboozle someone with semantics. If there weren’t apologists and there wasn’t a need to argue that withdrawal of consent means any continuation of sex is rape, then confusion wouldn’t be an issue.

@mathanxiety I know, I’m sorry. I realised that and said so just as you did.

x-post

You need a better justification for that than 'some people are thick'. Why does the fact that I consented to sex initially make it less of a crime to continue to penetrate me after I have withdrawn that consent? Surely consent is either mine to give and therefore mine to withdraw, or it isn't? I don't understand why you think there should be a sliding scale of rape

It doesn’t make it less of a crime.

I explicitly said there shouldn’t be a sliding scale.

Yes, consent is absolutely yours to withdraw at any time.

All of that was in my post.

And I think it’s necessary to have different descriptors or language to describe the different circumstances in which rapes happen because, unfortunately, lots of people are thick.

No I'm not, Smeddum.

I am saying the complete opposite.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. Ugh I’m confusing myself.

All you have to do is understand the radical idea that even though one party to the sex is a woman, she still has the right to say No or Stop, and even though the other party is a man, he still has to do what he is told to do by the woman. In other words, women have the absolute right to give and to withdraw consent and men are absolutely obliged to do what they are told. Topsy turvy world, eh?

If DP asked me to stop, I would. Immediately. Because sex has got to be consensual. It has to be. You’re making out that women don’t have the right to withdraw consent and that’s not true.

So in other words, there is not a scale of seriousness.

It is not a question of perception.

The context - marriage or being dragged into an alley/ your husband or a stranger - is immaterial.

The basic element is lack of consent. Without consent, sex is rape.

This is not rocket science.
All you have to do is understand the radical idea that even though one party to the sex is a woman, she still has the right to say No or Stop, and even though the other party is a man, he still has to do what he is told to do by the woman. In other words, women have the absolute right to give and to withdraw consent and men are absolutely obliged to do what they are told. Topsy turvy world, eh?

@Pengggwn you’re right. I wasn’t thinking about the important thing, I was thinking of trying to persuade the apologists and that’s the wrong way to approach it. Because apologists will always be apologists.
I guess I was clutching at straws to see if that would make them understand, but it didn’t. I was wrong.

JAPAB

We agree they might not convict. We do not agree about the implications of that. It is not reasonable for a person told to stop not to stop, it is deeply presumptuous.

But this is not what happened here. The woman said stop. He didn't. There was no 'Oh go on then' (consent). It was rape.

Since we agree they would not convict for rape over a hypothetical scenario of "please stop", "but I'm just about to finish" "go on then", then the question then becomes of when it becomes reasonable to think the woman is letting him carry on

Please stop is when she withdrew consent. Why is that difficult for you?

Smeddum

But it wouldn't. It would do the opposite of that. It would lead to more people saying, 'Well, it wasn't really rape, was it? It was conditional rape.' Because the problem isn't semantic, it's attitudinal. Too many people still don't understand the idea that my body is mine, and no one has a right to 'finish' or to negotiate that premise with me.

Pengggwn as with a lot of things there is what the law technically says, and what the humans who administer it would actually do.

So the law says nothing about a grace period, and strictly speaking even if the male withdraws as quick as he can the instant he understands the "stop", he is still breaking the letter of the law for a few moments by simultanously penetrating her while knowing there is no consent. But the humans who administer these things will excercise common sense.

Since we agree they would not convict for rape over a hypothetical scenario of "please stop", "but I'm just about to finish" "go on then", then the question then becomes of when it becomes reasonable to think the woman is letting him carry on.

Once again, none of this is even an ussue or a question in the scenario where its 'no from the get go', and perhaps that is the difference that poster was getting at?

Something like that. Not to put rape on a scale of seriousness, but to reframe the language around it so that it covers the grey areas that still exists in a lot of people’s comprehension around what rape actually is

Before this thread I’d have confidently said it wasn’t needed. Now? I think it is. Because if it stops one woman being made to feel like OP has been made to feel by some posters, it’s worth it.

I don’t think there are shades of grey I have to say. No means no, whenever it is said. I’ve asked DP to stop post childbirth twice and he always, always did. No question.

But the apologists/excusers on here have not only infuriated me, they’ve made me realise that some women will never get the support they deserve because these people will always get tied up with semantics or minor points.

So if it helps, even one woman, to be believed and heard. I’d be up for a change in the law.

No, it's never ok to pander to the assumption that it's ok to commit crimes against certain classes of people.

Different categories of rape would only reinforce the idea that men have the right to the bodies of women and that once past a certain point a woman does not have the full right to agency or to bodily autonomy.

What is needed is a lot more public education, a lot more consciousness raising.

The basic element - absence of consent - is what it is and rightly so. Any attempt to introduce different categories would involve diluting this basic element.

RandomWordsStuckTogether

You need a better justification for that than 'some people are thick'. Why does the fact that I consented to sex initially make it less of a crime to continue to penetrate me after I have withdrawn that consent? Surely consent is either mine to give and therefore mine to withdraw, or it isn't? I don't understand why you think there should be a sliding scale of rape.

At first I read the ‘there are different kinds of rape and some rapes are rapier than others’ posts with my head in my hands.

But I’ve been thinking about it a bit more and am wondering whether it would be useful to have different categories of rape. Not different degrees, like murder and manslaughter, but different categorisations.

Because so many people have difficulty understanding that rape is still rape, even in, what they might consider to be, un-rapey or mitigating circumstances.

So maybe if there was a different language around it like (for a shit example) unconditional rape - where there was no consent from the outset, and conditional rape - where conditions were attached to consent that were not then met.

Something like that. Not to put rape on a scale of seriousness, but to reframe the language around it so that it covers the grey areas that still exists in a lot of people’s comprehension around what rape actually is.

I really hope this makes sense.

Windthebobbinup1982

And in a court of law, those are two separate crimes: GBH (or ABH - can't remember) and attempted murder.

But rape is not differentiated in that way. The crime is the penetration without consent, including when consent is withdrawn and the dick isn't.

WFT!! So rape is a sliding scale??

No, her DH committed rape and what he did was appalling. But yes, as with all crimes there is a scale of seriousness. If I hit my partner in a moment of anger I would be committing assault, but I wouldn’t be committing as serious an act an someone who beat their partner half to death.

The claim is that Yes Yes Yes Yes No is absolutely no different No from the get-go. Given the circumstances here, you’re simply not going to get the entire jury to agree.

Can I add my own What The Actual Fuck to that??

1 - Consent can be withdrawn.
2 - Once consent is withdrawn continuing to thrust equals rape.

In this case your precious timing is not on his side - the OP told her H to stop and he processed that and replied that he was about to ejaculate and then kept going until he did. He knew consent had been withdrawn.

It is incontrovertible that he knew somewhere in the recesses of his very dim mind that this woman had recently delivered a baby and had had post partum vaginal surgery, and that there could be no other reason for her to ask to stop other than pain caused by him thrusting. But he kept on doing it.

mathanxiety

Exactly. I may be meat, but I am my meat.

Windthebobbinup1982

I am not saying the sentence would be the same. There would of course be situations where rape + violence or rape + kidnapping would = a higher sentence than rape. But rape is rape. There is no "rape lite".

But a person doing 31 in a 30 would never be convicted of speeding, because of the margin of error. You would have to be doing about 33.

Being raped a little is like being slightly pregnant.

Windthebobbinup1982

WFT!! So rape is a sliding scale??

Some rapes are more rapey than others?

SEX WITHOUT CONSENT IS RAPE.