Coerced sex IS rape

AngryJoanna, I hope you realise that wordpress post is totally tounge in cheek. Your post did not make it clear if you did or not.

Rape prevention tips for women might be of interest to some readers: yourdaughterswillbenext.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/10-rape-prevention-tips-for-the-modern-day-woman/

I am one hundred percent sure that he knew I was not happy. But it is such a murky area that really I have chalked it up to experience and if, should I ever hit a manic episode again (unlikely as my health team were fairly certain that it was being on venlafaxine that triggered it, looking at the stats it does this for a quarter of people put on it) I will be heading straight to my pyschs office.

Princess - it is a very complicated scenario because there are so many factors involved. If it could be proven that you were not in a fit mental state to consent, it would still be necessary to prove that the man knew that, and had no reasonable belief that you were consenting. Given that it was a BDSM situation that muddies that water further because even if he did, deep down, know you weren't consenting, he could claim that your lack of participation was all part of the role play.

Do you think he knew you weren't happy?

Cote, can I clarify what you mean when you say "reasons why I consent are irrelevant"? You seem to me to be saying that once consent is given, it's given and it doesn't matter what came before that. So if a woman has a gun to her head and agrees to have sex because of that, she has given her consent and the man can go ahead, and what he does to her will not be rape. Is that what you mean?

Though it is interesting to consider, that given my mental state at the time, possibly, under law I would be considered incapable of giving consent, but how that would run in the real world would be interesting to see.

Sadly, as we know it is hard enough to get convictions on straight forward date rape cases and such, so I would never even consider pursuing criminal action.

Zippey - to quote from the article you linked:
"Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond."

No, no, no, it really really doesn't. And shame on Christina D for saying such a thing (if she got any say in the press release). Fluctuations in the degree to which women like (or don't like) masculine/risk taking/symmetric/dominant men say nothing about whether at any time women actively prefer that kind of man over all others. It simply shows that aversion may be weaker at some time points.

There's no evidence for you statement at all in attraction research, and believe me, I've spent 17 years reading it!

No, the law would not say that PS gave consent. She gave consent a particular scenario and that was not what she was expected to do. Consent can be conditional- on using a condom, for example.

It works both ways of course. Women do like sex. And men arent always up for having sex.

PrincessSym tells an interesting story of what happened to her. You're right, it is hard to define. The law would say you gave your consent, but the picture isnt black and white, because there were many moments you did not want to be in that situation.

The whole argument is an interesting one, but the whole sex thing gets too complicated if we think about it too much. I think most people have enough common sense to know when consent is given.

As for the "women want bad men" debate, here is a scientific article (on msn.com) to prove my argument extreme.mobile.msn.com/living/Love/Article/250099235

seeker - quite what I was thinking!

Big dramatic drumroll: women like sex too!

The constant sub text to all of this is the "given" that women actually don't want to have sex with anyone. They always need to cajoled, and men are panicking that their normal methods of persuasion will turn out to be unacceptable.

They way round this? Only have sex with women who want to have sex with you. You'll have more fun that way, anyway!

No, it isn't.

Consent is not the same in all contexts, and reasons are not irrelevant.

If the reasons as to why were irrelevant, it would be ok to get someone to say 'I give my ok' by force, or bribery. It is not.

It's not exactly funny, rape, by the way.

How did I know you would say that

I already answered. I'm talking about the meaning of the word consent, which is the same whether in the context of a school trip, sex, or selling property.

"I consent" means "I give my OK". Reasons why are irrelevant to the question of whether or not consent is given.

It isn't analogous either, cote.

Consent in the context of selling property and consent to sex are not analogous.

People love this rape myth, but comparing people's bodies to inanimate objects is pretty offensive.

zip I think you need to expand your ideas about how people verbally and non-verbally signify enthusiastic consent. I'm not saying people shouldn't take yes for an answer, so in your scenario the woman wouldn't say "oh, forget it" because - and here's a shocker for you - she actually really does want to have sex with the man asking her.

Here's a more likely scenario, here's one way you can imagine someone initiating sex from a talking about it - to -foreplay scenario....

Partner 1: Okay?
Partner 2: Yeah, yeah.
Partner 1: Yeah?
Partner 2: OH, yeah
Partner 1: like that?
Partner 2: YES!
Partner 1: uhuh?
Partner 2: YES! YES! YES!

I, for one, do not at all mind having sex to the sound of my partner rapturously saying "yes! yes! yes!" - in fact, it's rather wonderful.

I didn't say or mean that sex is the same thing as property. I talked about the meaning of the word "consent" and gave those two as examples and said that reasons why I consent are irrelevant.

I consent to DD going on a school trip (my reasons are irrelevant to whether or not there is consent)

Now waiting for your indignant "How can you compare sex to school trips?" To which I will again answer: That is the just the example. My point is that reasons for consent are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is clear consent.

op,your post 11..53am "If you want to have sex with a man,why would you need to be persuaded"?
Do you think the couple of perspectives that you have in your own life help you to ask this question?

I felt like I had taken away the option of saying no by even being there.

'This is true for a financial transaction (i.e.[sic] selling property) and it is also true for sexual relations. It is just what we mean by "consent".'

No, it's not. They are not analogous situations. Why would you think sex is like selling property (or any other type of financial transaction, of which there are in fact many, not just that one).

This is a rape myth.

PrincessSymbian- what do you think would have happened if you had said no?

Zippey "women do not tenant go for overly nice guys"

Are there any more myths you would like to prpetuate?

So here is a scanario that is hard to define. Last year I was having a bit of a crazy time of it. I am quite into bdsm and for reasons of mental health, mania caused by a drug I was on, was seeking out casual encounters with a bdsm edge.
One guy I met over the Internet, persuaded me to meet him with what I thought was going to be a very specific scanario.
When I got there, it was not along the lines of what I thought it was going to be, but having agreed to no safe word first, gritted my teeth and got through it. There were parts I enjoyed but overall, I would have rather have not been there.
I don't think it was rape but under the ideas of coercion, possibly it could be.
Now I am not manic, there is no way I would have been there in the first place.

Hi Black - You think too much of me if you think I make the rules - Id hope common sense would prevail. If you think my terminology is offensive then I will stop saying it, I can see how some people may find it offensive.

I can also see where you are going with the "enthusiastic consent" model, but I do think that is going above and beyond, and it is unlikely to happen and unnecessary. I like the thought of advising your male children to behave that way, but Id also be afraid that it would hold them back in the world of women as women do not tend to go for overly nice guys.

Man "You sure you want to have sex?"
Woman "Yes"
Man "You sure sure?"
Woman "Yes I said, how many times do I have to say it"
Man "You triple sure"
Woman "Oh forget it"

(This is in conjuction with your scenario where you want the woman to say yes a lot)

I would think having a healthy respect for your fellow human beings and having your head screwed on correctly should be suffice.

"Consent" is saying OK to something. Reasons why you just gave that OK are irrelevant to whether or not something is consensual - maybe you were paid, maybe you actually wanted to do it, or maybe you were pestered and thought "What the hell, let's just do it".

This is true for a financial transaction (i.e. selling property) and it is also true for sexual relations. It is just what we mean by "consent".

oh my god "real rape" and "false rape" ? Let me guess: YOU are the one who gets to make the distinction here, zippey?

No thanks.

Hence why I insist on the 'enthusiastic consent' model. There's no so-called 'grey area' of rape when having someone as 'jump your bones' up for it is your minimum requirement before you get naked with them.