"Teaching men not to rape"

Buffy

....unless one is subjecting its discourse to post-structural critique, I suppose?

Up your own arse, more than usual today, I see

It's great that coercion is defined when it comes to court Beatrix but I do think there should be more awareness of the definition in general I.e in schools so that there can be no cases of genuine or feigned ignorance regarding persuasion/coercion.

Ideally, everyone should stick to the rule that everyone involved should be no less than enthusiastic but anytime I say this a million people pop up to defend crappy obligation sex.

I disagree. I think using enthusiastic consent as a baseline is better. It's not just about prosecutions, it's about general perception. Enthusiastic consent looks very different to "Oh go on then but be quick" or "If I close my eyes and pretend he's someone else maybe it won't hurt so much" or "I've got to get back to my children". Coerced consent is currently recognised as illegal but hard to prove.

Sandor

I have not given a definition of coercion, but consent is not consent if it is achieved by oppressive means.

What is this nonsense about 'enthusiastic' consent - if that is your baseline, that's what lying defendants are going to be saying, she was 'enthusiastic' - its still her word against his.

let's try it shall we: I'll be the defendant shall I ? you be prosecuting counsel. [No leading questions by the way]

D: No, that wasn't the way it was, she was up for it, really up for it - enthusiastic like...

{your turn}

It's great that coercion is defined when it comes to court Beatrix but I do think there should be more awareness of the definition in general I.e in schools so that there can be no cases of genuine or feigned ignorance regarding persuasion/coercion.

Ideally, everyone should stick to the rule that everyone involved should be no less than enthusiastic but anytime I say this a million people pop up to defend crappy obligation sex.

Buffy

You're no scientist, I understand ?

Bertie

Sulking as a control tactic ? you prove it, we'll come along quietly.

B xx

YYY it's definitely sulking as a control tactic! Not just having a crap day

maybe just a little of my humour.

Beatrix, if you've ever been with a sulker you will know exactly what they mean!

I note that sulking is given by Women's Aid as a sign of domestic abuse, here.

Keep smiling and be happy, Boys and Girls - else there might one day be a rat-a-tat-tat on your door by the good folks from the Department of Happiness - "Been a little down in the dumps have we, Sir/Madam ? - come along now, we don't want no trouble... "

I don't know if I'm reading it wrong, then, but at the time for me when I say "OK persuade me" then it definitely isn't "Oh go on then" by the time it gets to serious foreplay/intercourse, it's "Oh yes please"

I think for me that's been the same thing, I've said go on then when he's put the work in. If I say no and mean no that's all that gets said. I think I have twice had a man go on regardless (not talking about the time I was raped by a stranger) one time I hit him and shouted until he stopped and the other I was shattered and couldn't be bothered but made it clear.

I've had a few times I've been so tired that next day I sheepishly ask what happened and after a bit of ribbing found out I fell asleep before anything happened and was left alone. Which is as it should be.

What you're all saying makes sense.

It's that fine balance that men need to realise happens, to know how his partner is feeling and the times it's been shady

This is what scares me most. It's not easy to tell, particularly with the backdrop of societal conditioning. Far better to operate on a precauitonary prinicple angle than vear into suspect territory I think.

I think that from reading mumsnet in general I am unusual in this, but I never ever say oh go on then. It's always OK, I'm open to persuasion, persuade me. Or just no.

It might be because I've been in the "Oh go on then" category to avoid moodiness and sulking and blame in previous relationships and found it to be damaging, but I'm really intolerant to it now and if I'm not in the mood then I make it clear whether I'm open to being tipped into the mood or not, but I never ever have sex when I'm not in the mood at all.

Sometimes DH can't be bothered with the persuasion part so leaves it, occasionally the persuasion doesn't work so we leave it, but 99% of the time it does work and when it doesn't, the respect is still there. I think it's far clearer than saying "But it's OK if you do it when you don't really mind but you're not interested and it's a nice thing to do for your partner", but that might just be my previous experience talking.

OK, Buffy isn't as tired as me and did a better job

I think we're talking a delicate balance though, I've said that and not felt forced into it. Which I think is what you're saying SandorCleganeIsInnocent. It's a kind of "yeah, yeah, if you must" rather than, I really don't want to and don't feel I have a choice. I don't think a man is always aware that is the case, I'm not saying this is a conscious choice he's making and I bet a lot of men would be horrified if they thought it was. It's that fine balance that men need to realise happens, to know how his partner is feeling and the times it's been shady.

I've had a whole night without sleep so I hope I'm making sense, it is in my head but not sure it means anything on here.

Sander

there is a line where is crosses into coercion and maybe some firm guidelines surrounding that would be helpful...

Yes. coercion is not consent. Such guidelines are given to the jury when the judges sums up the case to them and he or she then invites them to retire to consider their verdict. Black or White. On the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, is the defendant guilty or not ?

Hidden, you must be able to see that one thing leading to another under one partner's instigation is different from coercion or pestering or her doing it because she can't be arsed to deal with a sulky, moany grump if she doesn't do it. Yes, the line is thin but most people with a conscience can see the difference here. I have been in a situation where at first I wasn't in the mood but after some kissing, touching or even just talking I can be persuaded into the mood, and by the time we were DTD I was totally enthusiastically consenting. I agree TTC must be a little different because it takes the romance out of it a bit.

I'm interested by this earlier in the thread. "[men rape because] they have the opportunity to take something they feel they are not otherwise entitled to."

What does it mean? Does it mean that rapists feel that other people are entitled to sex but they aren't so they have to steal it? I'm interested in looking at this as an idea but I'm not totally understanding what it's trying to say, I don't think.

Keepithidden

"oh go on then" bit. I think it probably can be described as rape.

Its back to the greyness again. Its seems you would convict on that facts. I would not. You're right that there is a spectrum - the 'oh go on then' would be a good example of the 'reluctant acquiescence' phrase for that end of the spectrum, as once mentioned in a court of appeal case (I'll see if I can find it)

Coerced consent is not consent.

I definitely think there should be education surrounding the definition of coercion in a sexual situation.

Because whenever this situation comes up there are always people who complain that that means you can't persuade or seduce your partner anymore. You can, of course you can, but there is a line where is crosses into coercion and maybe some firm guidelines surrounding that would be helpful...I mean it's perfectly fucking clear to me what's crossed a boundary and whats normal erm, 'intimate negotiation' (i.e. having sex after being persuaded or just to please your partner but that you could safely and easily say no to without repercussion) but a lot of people do seem to struggle with it.

I don't think 'teaching men not to rape' works regarding stranger rapes, but it might help in relationships.

Confuddled - RE: The "oh go on then" bit. I think it probably can be described as rape. It's simply different ends of the same spectrum surely? That spectrum itself starts and finishes with "No" so anywhere along it is rape.

It is easy to step over the line, because the line probably should be drawn prior to even getting to a situation that requires a point on the above spectrum. Men don't seem to realise that avoiding the situation in the first place is a precautionary approach to prevent this happening.

Or is it that a bit Rad Fem? Had too much coffee and too little sleep today.

that should have been "yeah but"