10 Tips to Prevent Rape

[coldwed]

Should this leaflet be handed out to the public?

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2141096

Rape is sex without consent. You can't give consent when you are asleep. It's just not possible.

What's disturbing is that on a thread about holding men who rape accountable for rapes they commit, excuses are being found for some of them.

The implication that it is some kind of faux pas to address this on a thread about rape is appalling really.

Thunderbolt, if the woman who is having the sex says it aint rape, then it aint rape. Or are you trying te redefine rape so it become absolutely impossible to believably define a rapist?

(Wonders if Thunderbolt is a lackey of The Patriarchy)

"Or are you trying te redefine rape so it become absolutely impossible to believably define a rapist?"

What does that mean? Point out the redefinition of rape. In fact it's the other way around, people are attempting to redefine rape to make it OK for a man to penetrate a sleeping woman without moral or legal judgment.

Rape is penetration without consent. It's not posssible to consent to sex when a person is sleeping because they are sleeping. Consent requires consciousness.

Lots of women who have been raped don't describe their rapes as rapes, because we are encouraged to think of rape in stereotyped terms.

Fucking hell thunder! just bloody drop it.

Or are you trying to tell her that she is not allowed to consent to something in her own fucking sex life?

If she is happy and I honestly believe she is happy then leave her the hell alone.

What does that mean? Point out the redefinition of rape.

You are essentially arguing that rape is rape even when the "victim" is vigorously claiming it isn't.

How is that going to work in a court? Who is going to prosecute? How much confusion does it sow into rape policy overall (already a difficult enough area) when Yes Yes Yes also means No?

Rape is penetration by a penis without consent.

It's not a word that gets redefined by every person using it. If someone has been penetrated with a penis without their consent e.g. when they've been sleeping because it's not possible to consent when they are unconscious, they've been raped.

when I was date raped I would have vigorously denied it was rape

that was then

I know better now

The definition is one thing, but the emotional response is something else. So it may technically fall into the category of rape - but clearly the wives here DON'T have any sort of emotional trauma which we (rightly, obv) associate with the emotive term.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with that because it open the door to 'It was rape but they love it' type of attitude.

The alternative is to sy in some cases prior consent can be given, which of course opens another can of worms.

And the other distinction is, as mentioned above, the difference between real sexomniacs who manage it, and the faux-sexomniacs who turn up in court.

I never called it rape - Robin Warshaw

Masses and masses of rape victims deny that it was rape when it happens to them.

I agree with SinicalSal, there's a difference between naming something as rape and then telling women how they ought to respond to it.

After all, one of the most pervasive rape myths, is that if the victim doesn't behave the way we as spectators or witnesses require her to, then she hasn't really been raped.

I have such a struggle with the whole sexomnia thing. Mostly, I think it's a bullshit rape-charter thing and totally agree with thunders that penetration without consent is rape. Yet, I do believe the posters with partners are fine with this (although I do wonder about the practicalities, the thought-gymnastics etc).

I have a MASSIVE problem with the myth of prior consent being accepted and encouraged so blithely. Consent is for that act alone. If you are awoken with a penis inside you, you have not consented to that penetration. It doesn't mean that you have to go to the police. But it remains true. And the consequences of buying wholesale into the prior consent thing means that more rapists will not be found guilty.

As for the original discussion, there was a parallel thread here if you want to continue the discussion about posters.

And giving prior consent is all OK until it's not.

You just can't have a workable system where the state has to prosecute rape but neither the victim nor the accused says it is, and in fact both deny it is and claim it is consensual.

That is the easiest way to bring the entire rape law system into such disrepute that you will never get a conviction again.

The state doesn't have to prosecute rape - quite often accused rapists aren't prosecuted. Why would they prosecute if no-one's even gone to the police?

No-one's talking about prosecutions. If someone gropes my breast on a crowded train, it's still sexual assault even if I don't report it to the police.

It is clear in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that consent can't be given when the person who has been penetrated is asleep.

Don't be silly, the state doesn't have to prosecute rape unless a rape victim makes a complaint.

|If both the perpetrator and the victim are happy with the rape, then the state doesn't need to get involved.

All this "grey area" stuff is a lawyer's dream.

Let's face it, the state doesn't prosecute the rapes that are reported now. And given that most rapes aren't reported and the state isn't doing anything to prosecute them, I can't see a shock horror time when they move to prosecute rapes where the victim says it's not rape.

I wonder about R v Brown in this scenario. Any lawyers about?

Men do not understand rape sufficiently well, until you tell them this true tale.
4 young guys go to Amsterdam, get seriously drunk, and wandering about 2 real hot women attach themselves to 2 of them. They suggest they go somewhere more comfortable, and the selected 2 agree, encouraged by the other 2.
At this new venue, the girls come on strong, they strip the guys, they themselves get undressed, but persuade the 2 young bucks to get in the stocks, bound neck and wrists while they perform on them. Drunk, they agree, and when restrained, the curtain peels back, to reveal a silent audience. At this stage the girls depart, and a guy comes in and rapes the captives- now men know what rape is, and can relate to his more strongly than anything else I have ever heard.

Although, the mens rea aspect would probably fail to convince a jury. As it often does,

So as Tcannys wife wakes up well before any penetration takes place and then he is then the sleeping one is she now guilty of a crime in your books?

I dont hear to many people condemning her. And quite rightly so as they are both happy with their relationship.

And as in her own words "can easily give him a shove and a bugger off if I so chose" and "And if I decided at the time that I dont want sex then a good push and a no deals with that nicely"

Sounds like consent to me.

So is she now the perpetrator and he the victim? Or are they both perpetrators? or both victims? Or none of the above?

The question was asked about that scenario earlier, Jan. Technically I think, yes, it is sexual assault,

As I said, prior consent is fine, until it isn't.

So would an MN campaign be a good idea? Did anyone start a thread in campaigns? Would this leaflet be a good starting point?

It's not in anyone's book, Jan.

It's the law of the land.

If someone is asleep and you are awake and you have sexual intercourse with them, they have not consented to that sex and therefore it is rape.

It's not any individual poster's definition, it is the definition English law gives us. |Other countries have other legal definitions of rape (for example in English law, rape has to involve a penis, whereas in some states in America, you can be guilty of rape if you use something other than a penis.)