To think rape should not be considered a form of sex

[CailinDana]

In my mind, sex is a caring act completed between two people who are comfortable with each other. It involves an understanding about what each other likes and dislikes, and a constant awareness of each other, so that if one partner starts to feel uncomfortable the other picks up on that and checks what the matter is, and stops if needs be.

The impression given by media discussions about rape is that sex is something a woman either agrees to or doesn't agree to. The issue of consent is contentious because it is not the experience of most people who have had normal sexual contact that there is agreement or disagreement, it is just a constant process where through body language, eye contact, verbalisations (not necessarily words), physical response and laughter you and your partner send each other signals that everything is ok or not ok. A person who genuinely wants to engage in sex will want to do so only if their partner is responding positively, as for a non-rapist that is the main reward and turn-on in sex. Without that response, most normal people would feel deflated (literally or figuratively!) and not be able to continue. It's not a matter of "yes" or "no," it's a matter of ongoing mutual respect where each partner is highly aware of the others' state of mind at all times. In a caring situation such as this, the likelihood that you will go ahead and do something that your partner really doesn't want or like is very low - you will see straight away that they are not happy and you will stop.

Rape is not sex. It is not a caring act. Just as stealing is not a form of borrowing, rape is not a form of sex. It is a denial of the other person's right to have control over their own body, and any level of that denial - whether it be holding the person down, or not stopping half way through sex because they were enthusiastic to begin with - turns the act from sex into rape. Once the sense of awareness of the partner is gone, sex ceases to happen.

Also, a lot of things from the night before look different the morning after. But I don't want to be accused of defending rapists so I should probably shut up.

chandellina - you're beginning to sound an awful lot like a rape apologist. I'd be really grateful if you'd step away from the thread

Spuddy in that example the woman would have committed a sexual assault on the man. But the approach OP is talking about would be ingrained enough to considerably reduce such incidents eg now if you think you are going to drink more than one glass, you don't drive - if you decide when out to have more, you get a taxi or the bus. So if you think you might be on the pull, you dont get blotto under a similar "new social code".

Fine, some things just can't be rationally debated. But it's naive to think there will ever be one "right " legal definition of rape that covers all scenarios and can be supported by evidence.

Anditwasyellow - but if you reverse the roles then the woman is in the wrong for "not controlling her urges and nit keeping her pants until she is sure".

BTW I am not excusing any form of rape at all and feel just as frustrated about all of this as everyone else, but I am just suggesting that excessive alcohol can play a big part for both men and women.

Sorry thedoctrine i meant if both parties consent whilst drunk.

If you were pissed and showed signs of getting in your car, a less drunk mate would stop you, or the bar staff would call the police.

How about if everyone thought "hmm, my mate is too drunk to consent or to check he's got consent - I'll be a good mate and look out for him."

Chandelina - It is simple. If you don't know that the drunk person would engage in these activities with you when sober DON'T DO IT. How hard is that? There's nothing grey about that, and it's perfectly rationally put across.

I dislike your implication that men are not capable of this, and must have clear guidelines, it should be common fucking decency - If you nan had dementia, would you walk into her home and take money, even though you didn't know whether she would give it you if she were in sound mind? - And also, Your comment about being rationally debated.. Rape victims are not in a permanent state of hysteria, Nothing here has been said that is notrational, or well thought out!

I was aware of a campaign a few years back to have rape turned from a 'sex' crime to a 'hate' crime: in my opinion, understanding rape as a hate crime highlights the violence of the act and the degradation involved, and also frames it as an act of misogyny which it is. Who wants to have sex with someone who is unconscious, upset or frightened?

On apologists, all I can say is that a) these instances of ambiguity seem to be a myth - no-one I have ever known who has gone through this has been raped through a 'misunderstanding' or provocation (the woman used in the mythological 'cry rape' scenario are always abstracted as drunk or 'some women' - I don't think a sane person would want to characterise what happened to them as rape unless it really WAS) and b) often, people just don't want to acknowledge the horror that can be committed between human beings and so they minimise it in their own minds.

That's my two cents...

But spuddy maybe there is a blood alcohol level beyond which consent is not possible - for male or female. If both were beyond it, both would be committing sexual assault or rape on the other.

I for one don't believe chandellina should leave the thread. I would rather she would elaborate on her views so we can address them.

By the way chandellina, my OP didn't mention anything about being "supported by evidence." I'm not talking about a courtroom situation, that's entirely a different thing. I'm talking about whether a rape occurred or not, in real terms.

Horatio, I get what you mean about not always enjoying it, particularly when ttc. I suppose the ideal would be always enjoying, but the absolute minimum would always be wanting it to happen. If you don't want it to happen and it happens anyway, it's rape.

Having sex for a quiet life is rape. In that situation you do not want the sex to happen but you are pushed into it by a bullying partner. That is rape.

Yes that was my question really thedoctrine . The trouble is drugs/booze obviously effect judgement. When you are drunk and the other person is too and you have both consented. How are you to know they wouldn't consent when sober. I once slept with someone whilst both of us was drunk and in the morning he told me he was married. He would never have consented when sober and neither would i. Neither of us new that as we'd just met.

Right I'm no rape apologist but I disagree with the statement " you can't want or enjoy sex if you are very drunk'.

I've never had 1st time sex with anyone without being drunk.

The interactions and dynamics of a drunken shag are very different from 'couple sex'.

Maybe it's the lack of experience of these kind of encounters which makes juries so reluctant to convict (as they see these women as consenting as soon as they kiss/wear a short skirt/go home with)?

i totally agree op great post

there are no grey areas rape is rape, no consent is no consent.

i have been in relationships where we would have sex in the night one may start kissing and touching the other in a loving way and the other joins in, they show that they are interested, they are aware of what is happening and respond in a similar way if they did not or not aware its rape quite simple there is nothing confusing about it

my mum is another one who thought jodie foster's character was askign for it and any women that goes to bed with a man is up for sex, changing her mind is not fair on the man but she also thinks feminism does harm to women too another

What a great thread. Thank you for starting it Cailin.

I can see your point of view Cailin. I think I'm still stuck in the 80s style 'no platform for racists' POV and would like to extend that to rape apologists.

Sometimes discussion makes people change their minds, sometimes it just makes them dig their heels in :(

Margery I said you can't want or enjoy sex if you're extremely drunk. By extremely I mean in a situation where you barely know what you're doing, never mind actually enjoying it. Lots of people have drunk sex, I've had it a good few times, the problem arises is when one partner is so drunk they are not in a position to participate.

For the record, two very drunk people can merrily have sex as long as both people want it. No problem there and no rape.

Horatia I would argue that 'consenting for a quiet life ' is rape. In that scenario, you are looking at coercion. Coercion is rape regardless of whether it is through physical threat or emotional abuse.

I wasn't thinking of anything as obvious as bullying though. I was thinking more along the lines of "hmm, he's horny, which is fair enough because I am undeniably hawt, but I've had a long day and can't really be arsed to fake it" and then saying "oh all right then" but still not being up for it.

How the fuck in that situation is he supposed to tell it's rape, if it is? She hasn't said or done anything cogent to indicate her non-consent, and has used consenting words. No crystal ball available.

In that case, Horatia, the woman genuinely wants sex, to satisfy her partner. She's not doing it out of fear or coercion, she's just doing it to please someone she loves, which is a positive thing. It's not rape.

i think if we were to get rid of this myth that men need sex it would help greatly with many peoples attitudes towards rape. men do not need to have sex they want to like women do, it is often used to excuse rape and often used to excuse men using women for their own sexual gratification excusign men going to prostitutes (though apparently many because they are lonely too boohoo) or pay lap dancers, young women to rub against them purely for their own enjoyment

Agreed Freudian. Sex is pleasant and you need to do it if you want to have children, but beyond that it is not a requirement. No one has to engage in sex, ever, if they don't want to.

Hmm, yes I suppose so, although we are therefore introducing a grey area between "if it makes you happy" and "if it'll stop you shouting".

FreudianSlipper makes excellent points.