Is this rape?

ChunkyPickle
You still don't get it though - you're saying that the person who gets to decide whether there is threat involved is the man doing the raping.

I am not saying that the man decides. The court decides. Although presumably it will not decide ahead of time there was a rape and a raping.

Notice how in the programme, in the discussion between the girls following the bedroom scenes, not one of them interpreted or even mentioned the possibility that she was scared or feeling threatened and going along with it for those reasons. Some of them even said things like 'I think this was one of those times where you go along with it because you can't be arsed' and from another 'yes, we've all been in situations where you can't be bothered but think "whatever"'. I rewatched that bit because of your suggestion that this is a male/female thing.

So if even some women perceived no threat, if I was juror am I meant to believe beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have reasonably believed her to be agreeing (even if only in perfunctory 'whatever' sort of sense), free from threat?

And yes I know you think that this is the wrong question to be asking, and it is more important what the woman's perspective was or wasn't.

JAPAB I think it is morally necessary, at this point in history, for female perceptions with regards to threat/non-threat to override objective justice.

Yes, Vestal, I like Twisty's suggestion that consent for sex should not exist. Consenting to sex is a ridiculous concept anyway. Is it 'Yes' or 'No'? And who is going to be believed? In fact I more than like it, I think it's an excellent idea.

Consider the contract to having a new mobile phone provider. There are reams of conditions in the small print, there is even a 'cooling off period', in which you can change your mind. This is consent in a legal way.

I'm positive that the legal concept of consent should not be applied to any sexual activity.

Vestal virgin I love that!

I am lucky enough to have several lovely men in my life who I have discussed consent, abuse and rape with (grew up with most of them can discuss anything).

They all take the view that unless consent is given freely and obviously (undressing them, explicitly saying you want sex right now eg) they do not WANT to proceed with sex.

They would never even consider a sexual act with someone who is drunk, high, asleep! 2 (and this includes my frankly in all other regards arse of an ex) don't even have a problem with sex stopping mid thrust! (2 wives with gynae issues causing pain during sex) - IMAGINE THAT!

Decent men don't think 'would this be illegal if I did x y z' but 'will this be enjoyable for both of us'.

One of these guys even turned down my advances when I was very drunk and upset as a result of a recent break up. Because he knew I'd regret it and I wasn't thinking straight. That's what DECENT men do.

JAPAB as you are ignoring me, I will conclude that your motivation is that you are just a sad misogynist arsehole. Thanks for clarifying.

Why is JAPAB blathering in about the "test in law"? Pub bores trying to sound like lawyers are so ridiculous.

Twisty's consent scheme would remove all doubts for people like Japab:

blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/consent-or-the-legalization-of-womens-humanity/

In short: "women would abide in a persistent legal condition of not having given consent to sex"

As is the actual reality. Some people men just don't want to face the fact that most women do not want to have sex with them.

Oh, and I think that the law is exactly there - it's the people who's deciding what's reasonable that aren't.

You still don't get it though - you're saying that the person who gets to decide whether there is threat involved is the man doing the raping. ie. the mugger, not the woman being raped, ie the person having their wallet stolen.

The presumption seems to start at the man being reasonably entitled to have sex with a woman, rather than, why would the woman want to have sex with this man.

There are lots, and lots of men in this world, the vast majority of whom I would never want to have sex with. Surely, logically, that's where we should start with rape? That just like my wallet, a man isn't entitled to have sex with me? That just as a mugger has no reasonable expectation that they can have my wallet, a man has no reasonable expectation that he can have sex with me unless I actively participate without fear of repercussions?

Does that really sound unreasonable?

ChunkyPickle I do get it. You think the priority in law should be the woman's perspective and the man's either considered irrelevant or at least be of lower priority. This may not be where things are at, but it is where you think they ought to be.

JAPAB, as another man, I'm nonplussed as to why you'd spend so much time and effort on a feminist message board, defending the interests of borderline rapists.

I was wondering if you could explain what's motivating you to do this? This is a genuine question, and I will think more of you if you try to engage with it.

Still, if the test in law for whether a crime has occurred is whether there is reasonable doubt as to whether I could reasonably believe you to be agreeing free from threat, well in the mugging and torturing case we get beyond it. In the last example we do not (IMO).

you do not get it.

Ever other women on this thread gets it - because most of us have been in the situation of having a man do a bit more than we'd like because we're worried about the reaction if we don't.

Interesting huh? That the man, who wants the sex feels they get to decide whether they reasonably believe that they have consent, not the woman who has the experience of threatening situations?

No-one even asks the mugger if they reasonably believed they could have the wallet, because, well, it's not their wallet, they're not entitled to it.

Everyone believes the man who says he reasonably believed he could put his penis inside someone, because, well, it's a woman, it's what they're for, why wouldn't they agree?

We don't have this approach with anything else. With anything else things matter less than people - you can't shoot a burglar because they're just stealing things, and their life matters more than things, the burglar obviously isn't entitled to the things, but they are still more important. Yet, in rape, where it's two people involved, it's the rapist who's believed over the person being raped.

Anyone would think that woman's body integrity was less valued than a wallet given the way society acts and which side is believed in a crime wouldn't you?

It's just occurred to me that the men who would like to rape but don't because they're afraid of the consequences do very well from the men who do rape. I recounted my story upthread, my rapist did get rough with me.

There are other times when I was young and naive where I hadn't realised that men were engineering situations to get me alone (I used to describe this as me getting myself into situations but that's not what happened). With some of these men I was happy to give the brush off and nothing bad ever happened as a result. Others I had sex with because I wasn't sure how things would go for me if I didn't. I don't know how many of them, if any, would have raped me and none of them said or did anything explicitly to intimidate me but they got sex because some men do rape and I was worried that they were one of those men.

BirdintheWings
I don't. It was just an example to illustrate that consent does not require enthusiasm or anyother positive mental attitude to whatever is being agreed to.

ChunkyPickle, I know threats can be implied. There is an unstated "..or else" even if the mugger just says "give me your wallet". I can still be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the mugger could not have reasonably believed the person to be agreeing to hand over the wallet free from any fear of what will happen if they do not.

It is also possible to perceive a threat even if there is nothing that explicitly or implicitly suggests danger. I could see you opening a packet of cigarettes and ask if I can have one, and you could entirely on your own decide that you are under threat and something bad will happen if you do not give me one. Whether its my size, or my expression, the fact that someone who looked like me once hit you when you refused to give a cigarette, or whatever. And I could have totally not intended this and be shocked if I thought that you felt you were in actual danger from me.

Still, if the test in law for whether a crime has occurred is whether there is reasonable doubt as to whether I could reasonably believe you to be agreeing free from threat, well in the mugging and torturing case we get beyond it. In the last example we do not (IMO).

We can go back to the mugger if you like as an extra example. Someone doesn't have to come up to you and say 'give me your wallet or I'll stab you' - they might just come up a little too close, smile in a disturbing way and ask for money. You'd be very clear what was happening, despite the lack of overt threats, and you still wouldn't be reasonably thought to have consented to giving that person money. You would be believed when you said 'I felt threatened, so I gave them the money'

Women are just asking for the same belief that you'd give someone who was mugged, regarding their body autonomy. You don't assume that because someone doesn't say no that you can reach in to their wallet and take money. You certainly don't assume that because someone doesn't say know that it's OK to put part of your body inside part of theirs.

I think the fact that Japab puts sex for a woman on a par with clearing up cat sick speaks volumes...

Ahhh - JAPAB - I see your issue. You don't realise that many, many women are all too aware that the man with them is bigger and stronger than them, they've probably been in other situations where not doing what a man wants has lead to aggression and possibly violence.

This man is already signalling that they are not a good person by putting their penis in a woman. That woman runs through all the scenarios in her mind, that this is already a dangerous situation, and she looks for the safest way out. I think quite often, when faced with someone like this, a woman feels that the safest thing is going to be to lie there and wait for it to be over.

There is no need for an explicit threat - they are already threatened because unwanted, a man has put his penis in them without them in anyway asking him to!

Elendon, that one paragraph followed another in which I said

To my mind, to consent to something means simply to agree to it (free from threats or being paralytic etc).

If a person explicitly threatens someone with torture to do something then I can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they could not in their own mind have reasonably believed the other person to be agreeing, free of threats.

JAPAB - If someone not only does not say no or make any attempt to move away or stop things, they also participate, I can envisage how a person can reasonably think that they are consenting, ie agreeing, to do it.

If someone is being interrogated and tortured and they make no attempt to move away or stop things or speak are they participating in the interrogation/torture?

Those doing the interrogating/torture have the mindset of a rapist.

It's the mindset of a rapist to look at a drunk woman and think "is it legal for me to have sex with this woman", because no decent man has such a pitifully low standard as his fucking benchmark! "put it in her"?!?! Jesus wept.

Decent men get to have sex with enthusiastic women who take off their clothes for them and jump them. A decent man looks at a drunk woman and thinks "no. This isn't a good idea for either of us. I'll have a cup of tea and get some kip and maybe when she sobers up I'll see if she's interested in sex". A decent man looks at a sleeping woman and thinks "No. She's asleep. I'll have a cup of tea and get some kip and maybe when she wakes up I'll see if she's interested in sex".

A decent man looks at woman and sees a person. If you look at a woman and see a legal situation, then you're doing it wrong. She's not an object. This stuff is really, really easy, but all you have to do is take the starting point that she is a human being. It all flows from that.

Surely if there are doubts about their credibility it is right to raise them though? The entire thing stunk of a US operation to get their paws on him using Sweden as a proxy. What things did he say that you think sounded familiar of rape apologists?

Well, unfortunately it's fairly standard to attempt to raise doubts about the credibility of people who allege they have been raped, isn't it?
I am also aware that he has not been tried or convicted of these offences and that they may indeed be a pretext for the US authorities to get their hands on him but i seem to recall he said a few arsey things about the alleged rape(s) that sounded somewhat familiar, and fairly typical of rape apologists.

The embassy quote may be amusing, but there were serious doubts raised about the credibility of the people Assange is alleged to have raped. He also hasn't been tried or convicted of anything (computer offences notwithstanding)

Hmm. Is Japab posting from the Ecuadorean Embassy? Just wondering....