Coerced sex IS rape

Oh Cailin, that is fantastic, thanks.

I've posted about issues like this before. What I think is that, when it comes to describing what a woman should expect from a loving relationship we should move away from what is/isn't rape and focus on what is and isn't loving, genuine sex with a caring partner. When you try to dissect rape it's far too easy to get bogged down in semantics, as this thread has shown. Rape is a criminal offence and as such it needs to have a fairly narrow definition, otherwise it's difficult to prosecute.

Sex should be a fun activity that two people engage in willingly, either to gain pleasure or to make a baby, or both. Sometimes people have sex to make their partner happy - again if this is entered into willingly, to gain the pleasure of pleasing a partner, then great. If sex is entered into unwillingly for some other purpose then it might not be rape, but it's not genuine, loving sex, it's something else.

Having a black and white rape/not rape mindset does not do women any favours. Yes, it is necessary in a court of law, but as laypeople discussing what is right for women we should forget the rape/not rape dichotomy because it is destructive and belittling. It implies that if what happens to you, no matter how negative, doesn't fit under the strict definition of rape, then it's fine, you have nothing to complain about.

Do we really want to teach our daughters that? What we should be teaching them is that yes, rape exists, it's a very serious offence and this is how you recognise it. But beyond that there are many ways for a partner to disrespect you and take away your autonomy that don't fall under the strict definition of rape, and just because they're not legally defined does not make them any less wrong or damaging. Your partner won't be convicted for them, but you sure as hell shouldn't put up with it.

The bottom line is, sex is supposed to fun. If you don't want it, don't have it. If someone doesn't respect your right to enjoy sex, then get rid of them. If they go one step further and deny your right to say no to sex then they have committed a crime and you could prosecute for that.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves
"This thread is about women. Maybe uppercut we can have one thread in feminism that isnt about men?"

Many threads in Fem' are about women. Thanks to you several of them are nonsensical, although this one is is better as it's merely ill-thought out.

"larry - going out for a meal really is not the same as sex. That is why we dont have a criminal offence of - being forced to go out for dinner. It is a totally false analogy."

Well, actually we do. Coercing any adult to do anything against their will is an offence. If you are physically dragged to a restaurant and food is forced down your throat, you have been assaulted and maybe falsely imprisoned, all perfectly good offences in law. That is why it is a good analogy. It forces one to confront the big difference between cajoling or persuasion and coercion.

Surely we should be looking at the man's behaviour in this. A man who thinks it is OK to "persuade" a woman who has already said no to sex through whining, bullying, pestering etc. What kind of man wants to have sex with a woman he has to whine to? As Eleanor says it is abusive, it shows a sense of entitlement that he should have access to her body, despite her wishes and it shows a lack of care for his partner. Does that not sound a little bit rapey to you? Why would a man want to have sex with a woman he has to persuade? Why can't he just accept "No" from the off?

I think bullying, pestering, whining and sulking go further than just persuasion. They are designed to wear someone down with a drip drip effect. First few times the woman may feel strong enough to say no but it will wear her down in the end. A man that does that intends to have sex with the woman in the end, her desires aren't a factor.

I think consenting to something that you don't really want to do is a whole other discussion and goes back to how women are taught to please men. and I totally understand where you are coming from whistlestop.

The reason I don't want to have sex is because I put on weight after the birth of my second child. I'm not even huge but I was very thin before I had children and had unhealthy issues with food. I look in the mirror and I don't feel sexy, it's possible that I have "issues". I don't want to discuss my feelings with dh. I would rather have sex than talk about how I feel. When I lose weight I will want sex again. I'm probably screwed in the head but there you go.

Whistle- youre free to label your own experiences as you feel appropriate. Why take it personally?

I remember being told on here once i had been raped, i entirely disputed that and still do, because i am a grown-up and feel/felt absolutely zero negative feelings about the incident whatsoever (consent/sleep issue) But i would MUCH rather the very black and white facts about what constitutes rape continue to be clearly stated.

I can decide for myself about my own personal experiences but dont feel the need to argue against the entire premise of consent in order to justify it.

Well I pestered dh when we were ttc but I really don't think that I raped him.

That sounds awful to me, I'm sorry.

I am not really sure how to respond to you, because obviously you know how you feel and what the situation is with you, and I can't know that.

To me, though, accepting that if you don't want sex, you don't have to have sex, is basic. I don't understand the concept of consenting to something you don't want to do.

I consent, I go along with it. It's even ok when I'm doing it. I would just rather not be doing it.

whistle - if you don't know that someone you're having sex with wants it, you stop. Simple.

We're talking cross purposes, aren't we?

Despite what rape apologists think, women (and men) sometimes want sex, and sometimes do not. At some point we change our minds - now we want sex; now we don't any more.

I can decide I want sex after DH gives me a massage/I take two paracetamol and they work/I go out for a lovely romantic meal. Or I can decide out of the blue, just because he's walked in the door. So what? What matters is that I'm consenting and happy, and he's consenting and happy.

If I'm not consenting, no amount of coersion or whatever you choose to call it, is going to make rape less rape.

"Many women have sex without really wanting to"

"Let's be clear I call that rape".

Surely it depends on the circumstances? My partner doesn't even know that I don't want to do it, so how can that be rape?

The idea that they do is a rape myth spread by rapists. Spot on.

IMO there are three separate categories that we're talking about here.

Persuading and being persuaded, consensually, with no pressure = absolutely fine, (hopefully!) normal sex.

Mild coercion where the coercee knows that the consequence of refusing will be unpleasant but bearable, e.g. putting up with moaning or sulking or the other partner leaving when there isn't that much invested in the relationship isn't rape because the coercee is still making a choice, it's not a very nice choice and it's still wrong but it's not rape. However I think this is where the argument about how rape law shouldn't centre on consent comes in, because it's not exactly consensual either.

The kind of coercion where agreeing/consenting is the only reasonable option because the other option/consequence is so terrible is rape even if the victim agrees/consents. So this covers stuff like fear, threat or implied threat of violence or use of force (if you don't agree I'll just do it anyway), threat of removing financial or physical assistance when that is relied on, threat of divorcing if there is a high level of shame attached to it for the victim, threat of harm or removal of access to children, physically refusing to let someone leave a space until they give in etc.

What creeps me out is someone reads a thread like this, and thinks 'ah, I can just re-define what I do as 'persuasion' and then they can't argue back'. That's the same kind of logic that has people saying 'well, it wasn't really rape because she has had sex with me before' or other similar crap.

I don't see why we need to discuss what is coersion and what is 'persuasion' or 'cajoling' when acting as if it's difficult to define is just going to make rapists think they have an excuse.

If you didnt really want to have sex but were persuaded, threatened, whined or sulked into it, then it is rape.

Nonsense. If my partner wanted sex and whined about it I'd tell him to go and wank himself off in the shower.