I don't believe in We Believe You

Cajoled is such an innocuous term for what can actually be a very threatening and frightening experience - especially if you don't know whether the "cajoling" will escalate into physical violence if you say no.

As a young student, I had a near miss where I ended up cornered in a stranger's room (he'd "white-knighted" me and pretended to escort me past some very drunken threatening blokes in the street, then played on my naivety and the social pressure to respond to an act of kindness by agreeing to further social interaction). As I sat there, his "cajoling" went from the "I get very lonely" (to which I was thinking "yeah, right" - I was not that naive) through to eventually saying "I'd like you to share my bed." Now at this point (he was between me and the door) I thought it's now or never and got up and walked to the door, but thinking all the time I don't think he's the type to physically restrain me, but I don't know for sure, but I'm going to have to take the chance anyway. I can easily imagine another woman in the same circumstances simply freezing at the thought of the possible physical violence. (And I later found out from friends who moved in the same social circles that this guy was notorious). If that woman had frozen, would she simply have been cajoled into bed, or would it have been rape? I'd argue rape - rape is sex the woman does not want, but acquiesces to because she is too frightened of the consequences of resisting.

I think a lot of men simply can't imagine what rape is like. There are lots of out there

I agree. I could be cajoled into watching a play I'm not interested in, it would be very hard for me to be cajoled into having something inserted into me, unwillingly.

There is a difference between being cajoled into watching a play and being cajoled into having things inserted into your body.

What is the definition of 'cajoling into sex'? Someone said this unthread

I suppose it's tied to and mixed up "enthusiastic participation" but is "enthusiastic participation" essential?

In a long term relationship is "I'm not that fussed to be honest but you'd like to" good enough?

To put it another way I've been talked into sitting through some excruciatingly dull stuff at the theatre because other half wanted to see them and I knew I didn't - was I coerced or cajoled or just being nice to him?

We believe you is perhaps better thought of as "we don't disbelieve you".

The burglary analogy works well. Almost nobody starts from the position of "we don't believe you"- even insurance companies and it's in their interest to find you out if you are lying.

Of course there is a fair chance they will find out if you are lying but they don't start from the assumption you are trying to defraud them.

"I think that most women do a bit of a traige on their own rapes and decide whether to report on that basis. That's why reporting rates are so low - women know there's no point a lot of the time."

Yup.

In exactly the same way that most women experience sexual assault it is probably challenging to assume any man could ever be innocent.
Odfod - Most women have experienced sexual assault, and yet a sizeable number are still happy to believe it when a man protests his innocence (even if proven guilty). Go read comments on any news article about rape - Adam Johnson is probably a good place to start.

What is the definition of 'cajoling into sex'? Someone said this unthread.

The point is most men aren't rapists, so when they are trying to insert themselves into a scenario where they are the man (the accused) the default assumption will be one of innocence. In exactly the same way that most women experience sexual assault it is probably challenging to assume any man could ever be innocent.

If a man can empathise with being accused of rape, he should look at how he approaches sex and his understanding of consent.

Most women don't have to imagine being a victim of sexual assault.

I suspect that the bar for the presumption of innocence would find itself suddenly raised were it the husbands/sons of some of the more vociferous proponents of "we believe you" finding themselves in the crosshairs of a trail.

I think there is a case of in group preferences at play here. Of course most men will often empathise with an accused man, as it's a situation they can imagine themselves in being men. So too of course women can find it easy to imagine themselves in the shoes of a rape victim.

I think "we believe you" is right and proper when there is no opportunity cost, like for example discussing a case that has hit the media, or when just dealing with people day to day. However taking it to the extreme of automatically taking against a son/husband/family member would be a bit bizarre.

The problem with reasonable belief is that I can't see any other test. And whatever the test was the accused man would claim it were met

If only there was someone else there who could tell you if they'd consented to having a penis put in them.. hmmm..

This isn't a 'tree falls in the woods and no-one was listening' situation. As things stand, the man can freely admit he had sex with the woman, in court, and with a vaguely competent barrister he can be virtually certain he'll get of scot free, and that's in the cases that even go to court. There's just no way that most of these rapes even get to the police, let alone court. With no evidence other than my word, who's going to believe that my second boyfriend pushed his penis in, whilst my hands were on his chest pushing and saying no? What 18 year old would call the police in that circumstance?

I've slept (actually slept, not had sex with) men when drunk, I've had sex with men when drunk, I've had sex sober. I've kissed men, then we've stopped there - most men are decent, with most men, it's fine. Then there's the rapists - and I can tell the difference between when I consented and when I didn't, and who cares what he thought. He should have been certain.

'The point is that in some situations it seems to be that the man is required to know the woman better than herself if you see what i mean. Anyway - i'm not sure what your own opinions on the female who has had a drink inciting a man to commit crime by asking him for sex scenario. I don't want to derail.'

Having consensual sex with a drunk woman isn't a crime.

I think there is an element of that in there already "Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.".

Anyway might be a bit OT, sorry pooch

I often wonder what would happen if cases were tried in a civil court, where it is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt".

However, rape is a serious crime so civil court is inappropriate. I don't know if anyone has ever done this. Failed at criminal level and taken them to civil court and won.

Yeah one it should be "x says he had consent because of x, y, z, would the reasonable person beliEve that constituted consent?" Kind of shifting the reasonableness test from the rapist to the jury

It's true that the court will be presented with conflicting accounts growapear which is why the vast majority of women never report their rapes.

The reasonable belief shouldn't be "X claims he had reasonable belief of consent, do we believe he's telling the truth?" because obviously if X is a complete scrote their standard of reasonable belief is on the floor. I don't really know what you could replace it with though as it seems that people will stretch the boundaries of imagination in order to find someone not guilty when it's blatantly rape.

Why are we talking about CE?

This was about the We Believe Her campaign from a few years back on MN.

There was no need to believe CE victim - she never accused him of rape. It was the police who decided a crime had been committed.

Do I believe that she told the police and the court the truth? Yes, I do.

I don't think that a man can claim he had consent from a woman he never even spoke to.

Evans claimed she did speak to him, instructing him to perform certain sex acts on her. I think most people would consider this to be a indication that she was definitely consenting to him having sex with her. I don't believe she did say these things to him, but the point is that whatever the test - even if it were enthusiastic (which it couldn't be) - the defendant would claim that is what happened and would make the story sound as if she was enthusiastic.

I think that most women do a bit of a traige on their own rapes and decide whether to report on that basis. That's why reporting rates are so low - women know there's no point a lot of the time.

Remember the woman in the CE case never reported him for rape.

As for the rest - agree with others that for men to see "stranger in an alley" as rape is much better because then they can carry on as they are. I don't think that most men who ignore a few "noes" and a woman who freezes, or have sex with someone who is too drunk to move, really see themselves as rapists. They see it as maybe stepping over a bit of a line. A bit. But, you know, no harm done.

No in order to believe him guilty you have to believe she didn't consent, either through choice or because she was unable to consent due to lack of capacity. Her "enthusiasm" was a red herring.
I don't think that a man can claim he had consent from a woman he never even spoke to. Especially not one who was so drunk that the receptionist was asked to "keep an eye on her - she's sick" by the guy she actually went to the hotel with