Man's 'right' to have sex is more important than vulnerable women's right to safety.

I just don’t think that is the same thing as 1/3 of men continuing knowing their partner wasn’t enjoying it and wanted them to stop.

A lot of things “aren’t rape”, but we don’t do them during sex because we care about our partner’s enjoyment too.

If a man doesn't understand that my "stop" is a legally-binding instruction, I don't and can't trust him.

My "stop" during sex is a legally-binding instruction like the stop sign on a road (example pictured). We wouldn't issue a driving licence to someone who admitted to thinking that a road stop sign was advisory, even if they honour them as some kind of goodwill gesture.

@Goosefoot one of the most sensible things I've read on the Internet about this.

There appear to be a lot of different groups attempting to establish a legal right to sex at the moment and I guarantee that is not going to work out well for women.

This is a complicated idea, and as far as I can see it doesn't mean that everybody gets to have sex. It means we don't as a society restrict people's right to seek out sex in any legal way.

In a similar way, people have a right to own property, that doesn't give them a right to commit fraud or rob a bank. We don't have a right to steal a loaf of bread if we are starving though we might not get much of a punishment in that kind of situation.

The argument that the state has no business outlawing sex acts like homosexual sex, or oral or anal sex, comes out of the same thinking, that the state has to have a very high bar to interfere in people's sex lives because they are entitled to pursue those as they see fit.

1/3 of guys think that it's not rape to carry on if the woman changes her mind, even though it is rape by law

I read your post and understand that. I just don’t think that is the same thing as 1/3 of men continuing knowing their partner wasn’t enjoying it and wanted them to stop.

A lot of things “aren’t rape”, but we don’t do them during sex because we care about our partner’s enjoyment too. Either altruistically because we love them, or selfishly because we want to continue the relationship.

I am fully aware that a large percentage of both men and women do not count anything except violent stranger rape as “rape”, and even then only if there are multiple independent eye witnesses. You do not have to convince me of that, I have firsthand experience of it thank you. But believing rape myths is not the same thing as actually being a rapist yourself.

you are dreaming if you think “keeping rapists away from women” would result in any restrictions being placed on the men.

@Sashkin. This is very true. It’s the #1 purported reason why ISIS required a male relative escort a woman anywhere and everywhere at all times. To protect her honor (chastity).

1/3 of guys think that it's not rape to carry on if the woman changes her mind, even though it is rape by law.

It’s only rape by law if the woman also communicates that she has changed her mind. If she says and does nothing to indicate her mind has changed, ie asks him to stop, then it’s not rape. In other words, the man has to be reasonably made aware that her mind has changed.
The survey question in the report you linked was missing this crucial element of asking him to stop and thus the confusion.

Having skim-read that judgement, it sounds like the judge is saying that she isn't empowered to make a judgement on the basis of protecting women assault. Based on the arguments and laws brought before her, she is only empowered to make a judgement about the best interests of the man in question and she thinks it's not in his best interests to prevent him harassing women. The paragraph below is key - it seems like there will be further hearings later this month, the issue of protecting others from this person will be discussed then and the care order may be amended to protect women at that point. IANAL but I think I've understood it right.

In this context the protection of others falls squarely within the Mental Health Act 1983 as opposed to the MCA 2005. I did not hear detailed submissions on this aspect of matters which will doubtless occupy the court during the second stage of this split hearing in October this year. If these matters are agreed, they can doubtless be incorporated into any case management order which flows from this judgment.

On the Incel topic there is a podcast originally titled Incel which I have found quite interesting. It takes a very deliberate compassionate approach and gives the guys a chance to explain their feelings. Whilst some of it has been incredibly disturbing listening some of it has been illuminating.

One day I will put my entire reply into one post.

I’m going to give to as feel uncomfortable being seemingly the only person defending a man who probably is dangerous and not someone I would want to die on a hill for.

Right, one of the fun things about defending human rights and civil liberties etc etc is that you end up defending despicable people. Defending the right of all people to have a nationality means defending the rights of Shamima Begum, because she is currently stateless and that violates her human rights. It means defending the right of rapists not to be penectomised as suggested by my male relly, even though my gut feeling is "YEAH cut it off, disarm the bastards", because penectomy would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment". So I sympathise, because I find myself defending despicable people too.

Note that the above is not in any way an attempt to communicate with the men in question. It's a way of saying to the other women thinking the same "it's not just you and it's perfectly reasonable to feel this way and to act on that feeling by treating the men who provoke it with an extra layer of caution".

I regard the suggestion that we as a society need to be concerned about whether or not we're unfairly restricting the freedom of rapists as a rather obvious red flag. I don't think some men realize how that reads to a woman, but it's one of those things that if I see a man say it or anything like it even once it gets filed away in the "be wary of this one" tab and not forgotten.

Was more the general principles it threw up and how it might be applied elsewhere rather than just to a specific individual.

General principles:
What you said about how cases like this shouldn't be down to a single psychologist (or any other person) to decide but that courts should be involved, that's a legit point. Checks and balances are a good thing. I also think that this thread's posters would agree that restricting someone's actions should not be taken lightly.

The disagreement about this specific case is whether the judge made a mistake, based on P's likely risk to others.

As an aside, re my own advocacy of restricting rapists' freedoms around women after release: a (male) relative I was talking to last weekend expressed the opinion that "rapists should have it [the penis] cut off to stop them from doing it [raping] again". Compared to that, my proposal is very reasonable and civilised.

Actually to be fair the forum itself seems to be taking the piss out of incels from an economics doesn't work that way perspective,

Re the link to an incel forum, if anyone should wear placards advertising their affiliations and history it's them. Maybe the card can say "I have a seething hatred of women that makes me dangerous to be around, please proceed with extreme caution".

I think this is different from ‘giving’ someone a right to sex. No one has or should have an automatic right to sex but I’m going to give to as feel uncomfortable being seemingly the only person defending a man who probably is dangerous and not someone I would want to die on a hill for.

Was more the general principles it threw up and how it might be applied elsewhere rather than just to a specific individual

There appear to be a lot of different groups attempting to establish a legal right to sex at the moment

Yup.

• Trans privilege activists trying to undermine the definition of "lesbian" and coerce female homosexuals into accepting dick.
• TPAs trying to decriminalise rape and sexual assault by deception when the deception is about birth sex and sexual anatomy, even though this puts women at risk of pregnancy, STIs, and allergic reactions to transmen's latex prosthetic phalluses.
• Men's privilege activists, and "incels" specifically, trying to legalise brothels and have state-issued brothel vouchers.
• MPAs want to legalise the rape of women who've had more than nine sexual partners. Disabled people men* being used as a foot in the door to get prostitution legalised.
• Rulings like this one that use "right to have sex" and similar worrying language.

You're right that none of this bodes well for women.

sashkin Read the report I linked to. 1/3 of guys think that it's not rape to carry on if the woman changes her mind, even though it is rape by law.

you are dreaming if you think “keeping rapists away from women” would result in any restrictions being placed on the men.

Sadly, you are probably right. Ideally, the rapists would be restricted, just as we already use court orders to keep paedophiles away from schools.

If that continuation is not rape, it's not wrong.
If an act is not wrong, there's no reason to stop the act.

I don’t think 1/3 of men would agree with that logic there. Some would, obviously (is it 6% of men who are meant to be rapists?). But not 1/3. I have never had any trouble making men stop. I have been raped, but that was a literal stranger jumping out of bushes.

My concern with banning convicted rapists from having contact with women is that that would mean either whole-life sentences, and given how low conviction rates and sentences are now that is simply never going to happen. Or it means restricting the rights of women so that poor convicted rapists can go about their business without inadvertently infringing their parole conditions. So segregated workplaces, segregated shops. If you look at KSA, Iran and other repressive countries, the restrictions on women are all in the name of “safeguarding” them from nasty men. UK society already believes that women are asking to be raped if they walk home from work alone after 6pm, you are dreaming if you think “keeping rapists away from women” would result in any restrictions being placed on the men.

There appear to be a lot of different groups attempting to establish a legal right to sex at the moment and I guarantee that is not going to work out well for women.

The argument that men's civil liberties must come first in this kind of situation is often a de facto argument that women's civil liberties must be disregarded so that the men can remain as free as possible.

And I'm not even sure it can be correctly applied to this case:

• Sexual Offences Act 2003 section one criminalises rape.
• Human Rights Act does not list anywhere a "right to sex" (and the judge appears to be trying to legislate this right from the bench in her ruling). Therefore exposing women to increased, foreseeable, and preventable risk of rape to grant a man a non-existant right is a violation of women's* civil rights.

The argument that men's civil liberties must come first in this kind of situation is often a de facto argument that women's civil liberties must be disregarded so that the men can remain as free as possible. Which is why, since many feminists have heard it before, it will tend to be greeted with a fair amount of side eye.

Get a second psychologist's opinion then. Checks and balances are a good thing.

My only interest here is in civil liberties.

Women's civil liberties are, in practice, massively impaired by rape and the fear of rape. I refer you back to "I went to secondary school with a girl who was severely visually-impaired. She will never be allowed to ride a bicycle except as a tandem stoker with a sighted pilot and will never be issued a driving licence." Are her civil liberties unfairly impaired by these restrictions placed upon her transport options, or are they reasonable given the risks she would pose to others? Ordinarily, we regard cycling as a right, but she will never be allowed to. Why is sex different?

Different PP: Your prediction that P will deny women agency is crystal ball thinking. He may or he may not just like any other person does to another when they commit a criminal act.

Rape always denies the victim's agency, by definition. The rapist denies the victim's agency as whether to receive a penis into his/her body. Sexual assault likewise denies the victim's agency. The only "crystal ball" is my prediction that he will sexually offend, and there's plenty of red flags for that in his past and ongoing behaviour.

"he acknowledges not being able to judge women's reactions to him and that he is unwilling to directly ask for clarification of these issues"

Why doesn't he want to ask? I also have difficulty judging people's reactions and so I ask. I am always alert with partners for signs of them dissociating or "checking out" and if I am not sure then I ask. Why doesn't he ask too? Could it be that he doesn't want to be told "no" because then he "might not get to fuck her"? That unwillingness to ask despite self-awareness is a huge red flag for entitled rapey behaviour.

He's been on a care plan to protect women for five years. LA won't have done that without good reason.

I don’t think one sole psychologist should get to just decide though. Who gave them that authority. Hence why it should be up to the courts

He could be a rapist in waiting. Perhaps this is a clear cut case most people can agree on. But I make no apologies for being uncomfortable with thought policing as just because this one seems to stack up what about others and where is the line drawn.

A lot of people are skeptical about social services as they often get things massively wrong. They might leave a kid in a challenging environment who gets murdered and there’s a huge outcry. Other times people have had children removed from there care when they’ve been subsequently found to be totally innocent.

The public’s support for a better safe than sorry approach is reliant on how much faith they have on those making the decisions usually behind closed doors and away from the courts. My only interest here is in civil liberties. It’s like surveillance when people say you shouldn’t worry unless you have nothing to hide. Most agree until something happens them