The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

Active participation surely is a sign of consent, someone could say yes but lie as still as a statue you can obviously tell they are not into it.

I agree with SGB enthusiastic participation.

It's necessary in my LTR. People damaged by former experiences find saying no hard sometimes. I like to be asked. I have nearly no self esteem and am not much further on from where I was at 20. I would easily be coerced into something I wasn't happy with, which is why I'd be happier if there were a requirement to elicit a verbal response each and every time, no matter who and no matter when. I suspect I am not alone. I know it is not a black and white issue, nothing in life is. For me it would be easier if verbal consent were something that needed to be elicited by anyone who has power over another, be that emotional, physical, as a result of their incapacitation through drugs, alcohol or anything else. So for me blanket consent would be nice. I am not trying to win an argument though, this is a debate. I can see that for those fortunately less damaged, non-verbal consent in an LTR is fine, and that's great. Anyway, verbal consent is a moot point when you are faced with someone who has selective hearing, but that is another thread.

TAB that's awful. Both the incident itself and the lack of empathy from your "friends".

I think that as consent is required, however reasonable it is, if it is a new partner, definitely. I'm not saying it is definitely rape if it is. Just definitely a good idea to be sure you're both happy. Any other circumstances, reasonable doubt is needed - so it's a little more grey. Sometimes it's needed, sometimes it's not.

"So perhaps blanket attaining verbal consent is the way forward?"

No thanks.

"OK, MS, you agree that it is necessary for new partners, and some other occasions. Most of us have agreed that in LTR's, verbal isn't always necessary. I think that the arguement resolved, isn't it?"

To some extent - I was always interested in the opinions of those who think it is a black and white issue, because it seems unreasonable in a ltr, for example. Or who turn 'it's a good idea that a man gets verbal consent' into 'verbal consent is required, otherwise its rape'. I wanted to establish if anyone thought that, its an important point to debate.

Anyway, the funny thing is the story got out because someone photographed it on a camera phone. And I spent the next couple of months having the piss ripped into me about the incident, and how stupid I was to get into a state where this would happen. Just wanted to know what you all thought of it.

I see....

Actually, in that story, she is. By that, I mean that I know this story because I was the "she" (obviously, I am a he) and it was a girl who did this. I vaguely recal her getting violent when she wasn't able to arouse anything. It took a very long time, and I was basically in such a state that I was hardley aware of where I was or what was happening. And the scrams and such took a while to heal. I thought they would scare.

why that scenario, TAB ?

TheAtomicBroomstyick, I know of similar true stories, I think that's quite a common rape situation. He's a rapist.

OK, MS, you agree that it is necessary for new partners, and some other occasions. Most of us have agreed that in LTR's, verbal isn't always necessary. I think that the arguement resolved, isn't it?

right. I see now. Unfortunately we don't get to judge which 'couples' it is needed for, do we. Judges and juries do that. So perhaps blanket attaining verbal consent is the way forward?

Needed sometimes, for some couples, in some situations. I've said it is needed.

"I am shocked that you cannot see that even for some couples, verbal consent is needed and that definitely for new partners, it's a very very good idea."

Never said it wasn't. I've said it is needed. So stop putting words in my mouth its looking less and less accidental all the time.

I want you to analyse another story. This is another absolutely true, I'll explain how I know in a moment.

Anyway, a man this girl works with has asked her out before, and she has clearly said she is not interested. On a particular night out, she gets wasted. Unfortunately, it is not just alcohol. She smokes weed on the way out, drinks a lot, and somehow ends up taking speed for the first and last time of her life. The next few hours are an absolute blur. She knows she somehow ended up at a house party with a load of friends, including the man who has been asking her out. Somehow, she doesn't even know how, she ended up in one of the bedrooms. She is on the bed, but barely conscious. The man has sex with her whilst she is semi-conscious and in no fit state to say anything. She comes to half way through, and realises that he is actually shouting at her, scramming her (leaving some deep cuts in some places) and even slapping her becasue she is not participating enough. But she says nothing and allows him to finish, leaving the next morning and saying nothing about the incident. She doesn't mention it to anyone.

What is that? TYhis isn't an arguement at anything MarySue is saying. Just want to know what you think of it.

15:49 you posted
"Its up to them both to establish consent, he must see it, she should show it, or stop. But its not rape if he doesn't get VERBAL consent, as some suggested."
We disagree, there are situations where lots of us feel that it IS rape.

"MarySue, I still don't understand why you are so against men seeking verbal consent. What harm can it do?"

I'm not, misrepresentation of my position, been answered several times already.

"If non verbal signals are clearly positive, there is no harm in a second check and giving a woman the opportunity to back out.

If non verbal signals are unclear, then it is absolutely best to double check both for your safety and for hers.

If you are picking up clear non verbal signals that say she doesn't want sex with you, you should stop or you are a rapist."

Already agreed with this a few times, and said that is not the point I am debating though.

"It's actually all very simple, I don't see why you would argue that double checking that you have interpreted non verbal signals correctly could ever be a "bad thing"."

Never said it was a 'bad thing' Do you just make my posts up in your head?

I'm so very confused.

So MarySue you are saying that men don't need to get verbal consent every time.

You are then saying that if a woman doesn't want sex she has to say "no", even though people have given examples of where "no" isn't the easiest thing to say.

I'm with karma on this, why is there such a problem with men simply asking for consent? Is it going to harm anyone?

When people have already told you that the onus being on women to say "no" does sometimes result in harm, serious harm.

but now you are back to what constitutes 'incapable of giving consent', a definition which seems wider in my eyes than in yours, MS.

ah sorry TAB. I see. Sorry MS. In practice I am sure non-verbal consent works well for couples who know each other well, but I am shocked that you cannot see that even for some couples, verbal consent is needed and that definitely for new partners, it's a very very good idea.

"are you, though, saying that anyone who does not say 'no' explicitly cannot be a rape victim?"

What do you think? Of course not. This would be another silly or malicious misrepresentaion or daft extrapolation, and the answer you want is in my previous posts. If someone is unconscious, virtually unconscious or very drunk or incapable of giving consent, it is rape, I said that twice already.

"What are you talking about?"
well, it may be me, but it seems from your posts that overall you feel seeking verbal consent is OK in some situations but not others. That does mean in effect that you are condoning situations where men would have done well to seek and obtain verbal consent and did not, as being consensual sex when they are not examples of consensual sex.

I don't think she's saying that, unclefest. She's saying that consent can be non-verbal. I get what you're saying, MS, and I would agree in LTR or marriage, but not for one night stands or first time with a new partner. Personally.

MarySue, I still don't understand why you are so against men seeking verbal consent. What harm can it do?

If non verbal signals are clearly positive, there is no harm in a second check and giving a woman the opportunity to back out.

If non verbal signals are unclear, then it is absolutely best to double check both for your safety and for hers.

If you are picking up clear non verbal signals that say she doesn't want sex with you, you should stop or you are a rapist.

It's actually all very simple, I don't see why you would argue that double checking that you have interpreted non verbal signals correctly could ever be a "bad thing".

"Are you just issuing waivers for a man having to get verbal consent on a case by case basis MS?"

What are you talking about?