Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is a very good analogy

226 replies

Babycham1979 · 03/11/2015 09:25

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/consent-its-a-piece-of-cake/17594#.Vjh4hpiUR6Y

I appreciate the aims of the campaign to promote public understanding of 'consent', but I agree with the author in that this seems to be dangerously blurring the lines and criminalising behaviour that is, at worst, antisocial (ie persuasion).

Rather like the recent events with 'safe spaces' and censorship, I suspect this will ultimately backfire on its proponents.

OP posts:
m1nniedriver · 03/11/2015 13:03

I agree disturbed. It should be that simple. The situation I was involved in was not rape but that guy will always have that hanging over his head.

AnotherCider · 03/11/2015 13:05

if alcohol prevents you from being able to consent, why do we hold drunk drivers to account

Because in this case, they are not the victims. They are the offenders. They are actually making someone happen.

With sex, the reality of the situation is that men can have sex with an unresponsive woman, but women can't have sex with an unresponsive man in the same way.

BathtimeFunkster · 03/11/2015 13:09

Yes but if you have 'coaxed' someone into sex, you might be a bastard but not necessarily a rapist

Not necessarily a rapist.

But possibly a rapist.

If you're OK with possibly being a rapist, then you probably shouldn't be having sex at all.

A non-rapist isn't interested in exploiting whatever loopholes and grey areas they can identify in order to put their penis where it might not be wanted.

Original poster
Babycham1979 · 03/11/2015 13:10

With sex, the reality of the situation is that men can have sex with an unresponsive woman, but women can't have sex with an unresponsive man in the same way.

Utter crap. Drugs and alcohol affect different people in different ways. It's certainly possible for a man to be aroused without him being compos mentis or even fully conscious. You could be accused of minimising vitcims' experiences there.

OP posts:
LurcioAgain · 03/11/2015 13:14

I don't think it's infantalising women to say to men "ypu know, if it looks like she's not enjoying it, stpp." It is, however, buying into a whole screed of myths which infantalise women and deny their sexual agency to keepppushing that tired old trope that women need "seduction" bordering on harassment at best andccrossing the line into rape at worst if a man is going to get them to accept having him fuck them. What is so revolutionary about the idea that women actually like having sex with men of their choosing and are capable of letting men know that they actively want sex? And how does that article, with its ghastly "grow a backbone" comment, differ in any way from some sort of Victorian "women as gatekeepers" idea?

In short, why does society insist on placing the onus on women to say no repeatedly and with enough force (often when in vulnerable and isolated situations with a man who is physically stronger and larger) and not place the onus on men to listen and back off the first time the woman says "no"?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 03/11/2015 13:15

You seem to be missing the point hugely
It is the duty of a driver not to drive when they are incapacitated by alcohol.
It is the duty of a male to ensure that the person male or female that he is having sex with has consented and is still consenting to the sex.

It is not the duty of the victim of rape to state he or she does not consent. Consent is not to be presumed because of silence or an inability to refuse coherently.

m1nniedriver · 03/11/2015 13:16

So any man that has sex with a drunk woman should be aware that they could be accused of rape, and that's okay?? Shock wow! MKes me thankful I'm a woman!

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 03/11/2015 13:21

no one is saying that Hmm

it is very simple what is being said is that consent should always be given

and that everyone women and men should always have full autonomy over their body so have the right to change their mind at any time during being intimate or having sex

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 03/11/2015 13:21

m1nnie
Given how low the statistics are for rape reporting let alone rape prosecution I don't think there is a huge issue with false accusations (that doesn't mean they are not serious when they happen).

The indication is that a large number of rapes are never reported so why are you more concerned about the risk to men than the rather larger number of women who might have had sex when they weren't really consenting.

LurcioAgain · 03/11/2015 13:22

Why do people pretend it's so hard toread oother people's body language?

Couple, both drunk, she has her tongue down his throat and her hands on his arse... she is drunk but wants sex.

Couple, both drunk, she's turning her head away when he tries to kiss her and ineffectually trying to bat his hands away. .. she's drunk and doesn't want sex.

Not exactly hard, surely?

BathtimeFunkster · 03/11/2015 13:28

So any man that has sex with a drunk woman should be aware that they could be accused of rape, and that's okay??

Any man who has sex with any woman could be accused of rape.

The best way to protect against that is to make sure you have enthusiasm.

thelittleredhen · 03/11/2015 13:45

Bathtime - make sure you have enthusiasm - LOVE IT

bumbleymummy · 03/11/2015 13:57

So drunken enthusiasm is ok then?

m1nniedriver · 03/11/2015 14:04

Well, any enthusiasm, drunken or not, is most likely an indication of consensual involvement Confused

bumbleymummy · 03/11/2015 14:07

I would have thought so Minnie but then there seems to be an idea that you can be considered too drunk to consent even if you are enthusiastic at the time. I was just trying to clear that up.

m1nniedriver · 03/11/2015 14:08

Can of worms Confused

GruntledOne · 03/11/2015 14:09

But in recent cases in the media, we've seen people who have been seen by witnesses and on CCTV as fully capable and conscious succeed in convincing a court that they're too drunk to consent.

In those cases the jury has seen the CCTV, and has also seen and heard the witnesses, including hearing them being cross-examined. I do hope you're not suggesting you know better than they do on the basis of a few highly selective and probably inaccurate newspaper reports?

goodnessgraciousgoudaoriginal · 03/11/2015 14:11

mini You are being deliberately obtuse.

Yes. Genuine victims is a disgusting turn of phrase when you consider the overwhelming bias in favour of the accused in rape cases. It's also very close to saying a woman isn't a "genuine victim" unless she allowed herself to get beaten to a bloody pulp trying to fight her way out, or had been drinking, or is unable to magically conjure 12 male witnesses to testify she didn't consent.

I don't doubt that in an absolute minute portion of cases someone might be deliberately lying about not consenting. However, I would question why the fuck anyone would focus on these cases when they are so epically dwarfed by cases where the woman has been raped and not believed/no conviction has been made/she is made to feel like total shit throughout the entire legal process/she is blamed for what happened.

If a woman has one glass of wine then of course she can consent. It's not saying the instant a woman puts alcohol to her lips she is incapable of giving consent.

Is it really so difficult to understand that a man should be making sure that the person he wants to fuck genuinely wants to have sex with them before having intercourse?

Presumed consent is not a thing - and thank christ it isn't.

Presumed consent would be "she definitely wants me to have sex with her unless she can prove otherwise".

m1nniedriver · 03/11/2015 14:35

I'm focusing on it because it happens yet anyone that points it out is shot down in flames and words out in their mouth exactly like you have Perhaps it is such an issue to me because I have seen, first hand, the result of it.

I in now way am dismissing or invalidating the issue of rape, it'd horifgic. But the issue of consent seems to be blurred in some cases

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 03/11/2015 15:30

It is not blurred the woman in the case you are taking about did she not give a false allegation

Or are you suggesting she didn't and your friend thought she had consented bit she thought she hadn't

m1nniedriver · 03/11/2015 15:42

I can't go into details but she claimed she didn't consent. She said she was too drunk. It was awful. She dropped the claims eventually but mud sticks. She should have been charged for wasting police time, everyone present was interviewed, but for some reason she was allowed to just walk away from it. Obviously her reputation was ruined too but there are still, to this day, people who say 'there's no smoke without fire' and shit like that. He had never really got over it Sad

Original poster
Babycham1979 · 03/11/2015 15:43

*You seem to be missing the point hugely
It is the duty of a driver not to drive when they are incapacitated by alcohol.
It is the duty of a male to ensure that the person male or female that he is having sex with has consented and is still consenting to the sex.

It is not the duty of the victim of rape to state he or she does not consent. Consent is not to be presumed because of silence or an inability to refuse coherently.*

Same old lazy assumptions. Why is the man the driver if they're both drunk? Why are you automatically assuming he's the sexual predator and she's the victim? Why aren't they both predators and/or victims?

Again, this whole paradigm is shaped by outdated and sexist Victorian attitudes to sex.

OP posts:
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 03/11/2015 15:50

Babycham

You really don't understand what you are talking about do you?
Have you looked up the legal definition of rape?
It involves putting a penis into vagina, mouth or anus without consent.

Consequently rape is only possible by somebody who has a penis.

If a woman forces herself on a man it is Causing sexual activity without consent.

They are two different offences with two different names.

Original poster
Babycham1979 · 03/11/2015 16:01

Chaz, if you'd read my previous comment, you'd realise I've already said that the law is an ass on this subject, as men can technically be rapists (even with the partner's consent); but women can't. It's a logical and moral absurdity that does nothing to serve the interests of equality, fairness, or respect (for the law or each other).

OP posts:
AmeliaNeedsHelp · 03/11/2015 16:10

m1nnie, you seem to be assuming that the woman's claim was false. Where you actually in the room and able to witness what happened? If not then you don't know why she dropped the case - maybe due to pressure of the people around her refusing to believe that it is possible to be too drunk to consent without being unconscious. Maybe there was just insufficient evident. Maybe she didn't consent but he had 'reasonable belief' in her consent. Maybe it was completely false. I don't know. But neither do you. And you are giving him the benefit of the doubt, and not her.

And she didn't just walk away unscathed did she? You (and by the sounds of it a number of other people she knew) accused her of making a malicious rape accusation. This is exactly the reason so many victims of rape fail to come forward.