The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

That was a cross post to Leningrad, but it answers karmakameleon too.

I discussed being unconscious (or even obviously very drunk when he is not) is rape. And I asked why a woman would freeze when a man is escalating to sex as they will do in a sexual situation. Nobody has answered that yet (and its not just a rhetorical question, I'm curious as to whether I've forgotten a certain type of situation). A 'frozen' woman might even say 'yes' if she was so scared for some reason and asked, is that not possible, if she is incapable of saying no? Just say 'sorry, I don't want to do this' or 'not so soon, lets wait' I don't see how that is hard or unreasonable based on anything anyone here has said.

And obviously its not difficult to obtain verbal consent. But IMO most women don't want that to be the rule. I don't. We are mostly happy with the 'if I don't want to, I say no' system. I don't see how it needs changing. Yes, under some circumstances, if there is any doubt, a man should check for consent. But it is not necessary that verbal consent is required every single time, or the man is acting like a rapist, and could be charged with rape if the woman later thinks' hmmm, I never said yes, was I raped?' Unless she said no (or gave other clear signs of no, like struggling or shaking her head and looking scared), and he still carried on, then she wasn't. Because he is not a mind-reader and most people don't want or need a 'verbal consent every time' system.

MarySue, what do you think about the men in the research I linked to above who said they had sex with women who were too drunk to resist? They knew that their victims would'nt/couldn't say "no" because they were too drunk? These men admitted this themselves. It wasn't a case of the women not wanting to say "yes" because it would "spoil the moment" but more a case of them being unable to say "no".

"There is absolutely no reason why you cannot attain consent, and I fail to see why anyone reasonable person would have an issue with it."

But verbal consent is what is being put forward as necessary here, correct?

Most women do not want sex to involve them having to say anything like 'I consent' or even 'yes.' We don't need every man to ask if he may proceed. Our consent is implicit in our actions. I am not as bothered about men's reasons for not agreeing with this system, most women don't want to always have to be asked. Every time?! We will say no if we don't want to. How hard is that?

Sunshine, I swear that the reason they make such a fuss is that if they ask her, there's a chance she might say no. Oh god, can't have that happen. Better she regret it tomorrow than he doesn't get his sex now.

[Reminded of toddler tantrumming to get cake]

One of the main issues that affect this debate is what is the default state of consent.

IMO it should be that unless a woman clearly, and in unequivocal terms, says she wants to have sex, it should be assumed that she doesn't.

Unless you have consent on those terms, it should be considered automatic not to proceed. If you think she might change her mind in the morning, don't do it - because her consent is not unequivocal.

Like I said earlier, if a woman is unequivocal in her desire to have sex, then she is not going to 'cry rape' the following day, is she. Why would she?

You're probably right about alcohol. What if the woman hadn't been drinking and instead had taken some ecstacy? It's known to make people "loved-up" and have sex with anyone (Or so I'm told. Never taken it myself.)?

Would, "Come to the bedroom with me?" or something along those line be good enough?

Also, MarySue, the old consent arguement is surely a pile of shit. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot attain consent, and I fail to see why anyone reasonable person would have an issue with it. Yes, if you put it in a stupid way like, "May we proceed to intercourse now?" then it will sounds stupid.

However, I have asked before now, "are you OK with this?" or there was the first time I slept with DP, "are you sure this is what you want?"

It's like the arguement that putting on a condom ruins the whole thing, so you shouldn't do it. Should people stop to put on a condom?

I agree - it's not hard to tell when someone is bolloxed. I don't mean after one or two and are a bit flirty. I mean the point when it is obvious that they are not in a reasonable stait to give consent.

I thnk it's a myth that men who rape drunk women are unable to tell they are drunk or that the women give off positive signals to these men.

This blog quotes research where men were interviewed and asked if they had ever forced sex. The researchers didn't use the word rape, but found that a significant minority of men were willing to admit to partaking in scenarios they described that amounted to rape. Of the 120 men who admitted rape, 30% used physical force or threats. The majority, 70%, targetted intoxicated victims.

These men can't have misunderstood the signals, or not realised that their victim was too drunk, because they themselves admitted to forcing sex onto a woman who was too drunk (or affected by drugs) to resist.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect men to be both mindreaders and carry around alcohol (or drug) testing kits. In some cases it may be that the man is sober and the woman very obviously drunk. Fine, call that a man taking advantage of her, rape. But drunk people don't always act like like a bad actor being 'drunk' all slurring their words. Many times they are just a bit more playful, or yes, uninhibited. If they have both been drinking, he may have noticed how much she has had, but does he know her limit? Maybe one shandy and she's 'not responsible.' If they have just met, how does he know how much she has already drunk, or what her 'sober' character is like? And if she then gives him the signals, or invites him back to her place and is the one initiating sex all the way, she was raped? If the man has no idea she is 'drunk'? It seems then that men should only sleep with women that have had absolutely no alcohol, and that they have seen that to be the case. If we accept there is rape in marriage, then a married couple cannot get drunk together and then do it, because the woman is incapable of consent? Everytime that has happened, the man was a rapist? I don't think many men or women will go along with that.

As for being a mindreader, if a woman - or man - is with someone who is escalating to sex, he must wait to be told, in actual words, 'Yes I do want to have sex with you'? Most women do not want to have sex that way. We will say 'no' if we don't want to. How hard is that? As for HerBex's supposed situation where a woman is a so frozen with fear she cannot speak, aside from the 'attacked in a dark alley' scenario, or if the man says 'haha, I'm going to rape you now,' why the fear? Why would the woman NOT think the man would stop if she said no? Even realistically she should be encouraged to say it because a jury is not going to convict him if all he did was proceed when she didn't say yes or no.

Rape is rape. Sexual assault is something different. They are clearly defined in law. Rape has to involve penetration of a woman. That's why women do not get charged with rape (unless it is aiding and abetting), although they can be charged with sexual assault.

If a man withdraws his consent a woman cannot penetrate him. If a woman withdraws her consent, a man can penetrate her.

That's why the liability is different.

I repeat again, how often does genuinely consensual sex - even when drunk - become something that either party regrets the following day and claims was rape? Hardly any.

The chances are that if a woman decides she was raped the next day it was because she probably was - her drunken state was taken advantage of.

I am not assuming anything,

I could equally say that your assuming women can't control themselves since you accept that alcohol makes people lose their inhibitions and make choices they may not make completely sober but even though both people will be in a similar state the man is the one who should have control?

Despite the woman giving positive responses and willingly having sex at the time but because she decides she rather they didn't have sex the next day what took place was rape.

If I am so drunk I cannot see how drunk my potential sex partner is, then in the same way that most drunks do not go sky-diving off towers because they know it is bad for them, most drunks should be capable of knowing that they should not be having sex because they can't tell if the woman is too drunk to give proper consent.

All that is required is a cultural shift in how we perceive rape. At the moment we don't take it seriously enough unless it is stranger rape a la dark alley.

And yes, I would consider a man to be sexually assaulted if the situation were reversed, but the degree of assault is significantly different for a man than for a woman, and the consequences bear no comparison.

Yes. If I am drunk, I am still capable of seeing if someone else is drunk. So I won't be having sex with them even if I fancy them and they have said it's ok. I have actually been in this position and the man in question thanked me for it the following day.

And yes, I was a bit disappointed because the opportunity never arose again, but I'd far rather be disappointed than know I'd sexually assaulted someone.

Why are we assuming men cannot control themselves here? The vast majority can and they can do it as easily as I did in that situation above.

So you are saying sex which you regret afterwards is rape even if you consented at the time with a person who was as equally drunk as you?

If so then would a man who has had sex which he regrets be sexually assaulted?

Many one night stands happen, yes. Those that don't involve alcohol and where consent is given fine. These go on a lot.

One night stands where alcohol is involved? Like I said earlier, if consent was that freely given, why would she change her mind the next day? She wouldn't.

It's as simple as that really. If your behaviour is so radically different when sober, then you are drunk. Therefore, you are not giving consent.

If the default position is don't have sex with someone who has been drinking and whom you don't know that well, because you cannot be sure about consent, that's a message that both men and women can internalise.

But liability will end up on the man because he is the one doing the act of penetration. The woman ends up bearing far more of the risk - physical injury, pregnancy, higher risk of catching STIs, trauma.

Well loads of 'one night stands' happen certainly many people have sex outside of a relationship. And in most situations that drunken consent is given both people are as drunk as each other, I think it's a bit unfair to expect one of them to think rationally when equally drunk and the other person is clearly participating.