To think this is a very good analogy

[Babycham1979]

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.

What is your point about Annie Teriba?

Did anyone watch the program on BBC3 last night? It was 'Is this rape? Sex on trial'. It was quite an interesting watch, all about consent and perceptions of consent.

We can't pretend no woman has ever falsely accused a man of rape. We also can't ignore the fact that many more women than this are raped and don't report it, possibly due to how difficult rape is to prove?

I think with regards to being drunk, often both parties are drunk and I'm not sure either are able to consent more than the other. Perhaps the issue is when one party is significantly more drunk than the other?
I personally cannot imagine wanting to sleep with a man very much more drunk than myself, and cannot understand why a man would the other way around

As I said while drunk then you do make decisions that while sober you wouldn't normally make.

When I was 19 I was drunk and went into a tattoo shop, the tattooist gave me his card and told me to come back when sober. I am so greatful to this day that he said that.

I can remember going into the shop but to this day can't remember the design I picked.

Dh would never take advantage of me while drunk and for that I have a huge amount of trust and respect for him.

We have had sex after We have had a few drinks at home. But there is a huge difference as its been built up over the evening.

Why does being drunk make you incapable of consenting? No, it doesn't.

Yes, OP, being sufficiently drunk does indeed make you incapable of consenting. It is entirely possible for someone to be so drunk that they have the haziest perception of what on earth is going on around them, with no idea of where they are or what they are doing; it isn't at all unknown for them to think the person they are with is someone else. Any man who knowingly has sex with a woman in that condition is guilty of rape.

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on someone being conscious. Think about the scenario of a woman with a serious mental illness which renders her delusional. She may be fully conscious but under the illusion that some random man in the street is her husband, and therefore allow him to take her away and have sex with her. If that man knows full well that she is only consenting for that reason, obviously it is rape. The same would apply if he knows she is or might be only consenting because she is extremely drunk.

The point about the woman being drunk is that it makes it harder for HIM to be sure whether she consents or not. And if he can't be sure then he shouldn't proceed. Because if he does then he MIGHT be a rapist. If he wants to avoid that scenario then he shouldn't have sex with a woman unless he's certain she consents.

The idea that women should be responsible for someone else's behaviour because they've enjoyed a drink is nauseating.

But if a woman is 'enthusiastically' participating while drunk but wakes up with limited recollection - was she able to consent at the time or was she 'too drunk'?

It's not that complicated. If an accusation of rape goes to court, the prosecution sets out its case and the defence is either that no act took place or that the defendant had reasonable belief in consent. And the jury decides.

If enthusiastic consent is gained and explained, then (especially given the preponderance of rape myths among society and therefore the average jury) an acquittal will occur. For goodness sake, a man who penetrated a woman who he thought was his girlfriend was acquitted of raping a stranger, for goodness sake!

I don't get these threads. What kind of sex are people having to think that there are masses of grey areas?

Obviously it is complicated. If it wasn't it wouldn't be an issue!

Sodt:"what sort of sex are people having to think there are these grey areas? " I often wonder the same thing.

There is a fascinating American social scientist called David Lisak who studies campus rape. He finds that if you give randomly selected male students questionnaires asking them if they have ever carried out sexual behaviours which meet the legal definition of rape, but without actually mentioning the word rape (eg "have you ever had sex with a woman when you knew she didn't want sex but have used your body weight to hold her down? "), about 6% of men admit to those behaviours. If you repeat the same questionnaire actually using the word rape, almost as high a percentage will actually admit to being rapists. And they tend to be serial offenders with on average something like 6 rapes each. The idea that there are all those poor naive men out there who can't tell the difference between a woman so out of it she can barely remember her own name, a woman lying rigid with fear and a woman who is enthusiastically consenting is a myth. But it's a dangerous myth because one of the reasons that 6% can rape repeatedly and know they're almost certain to get away with it is that they know that in the very unlikely event that the woman makes a complaint, it will be her actions under scrutiny not his.

What is so shocking about putting an accused man on the witness stand and asking him "what made you believe this woman wanted to have sex with you," rather than putting the woman on the witness stand and demanding "how did you make your no so unambiguous that it couldn't be thought of as a coy way of saying yes?"

I really hope there is a circle of hell reserved for women who contribute to rape culture.

That cake article is rather yuk.

I think one of the issues I have with it is that it seems to be pushing that old thing of "oh, she wanted it really".

The whole comparison with cake seems to be starting from the assumption that cake = lovely and women (all) love cake, any time. So yeah, they may put up a bit of resistance because, ooh, calories and whatnot, but according to the author you just need to give them a drink or persuade them a bit and then they will eat the cake because, y'know, they wanted it all along really..... but then will blame you afterwards for "making" them eat it.

Now sex, yes, women sometimes want sex.. but this is kind of suggesting that we are in a regular state of "wanting it" but pretending we don't/putting up resistance because, ooh, naughty, calories (or something). Rather than the reality, that most of the time we actually would NOT want it right now because - busy, trying to sleep, not in the mood, wrong time/place, scared, don't fancy/know/like the guy, in a relationship with someone else, risks of STDs/pregnancy... or whatever the heck other reason that is nobody's business but ours. Not to mention that if we DO genuinely want sex with someone at a given time, we don't tend to make a big secret of that. So - surprise - if we say no repeatedly (as in the example she gives) it generally does mean "I DON'T WANT SEX WITH YOU SO FUCKING BACK OFF YOU TWAT", and should be taken as such.

But instead the author seems to think that "it doesn't matter how many times you said no", it is OK to keep pestering and if you eventually said yes it is your fault cos you wanted it really eventually gave in. Regardless if it was because you were afraid of the consequences of refusing, because you knew your "no" would be disregarded anyway so it would be easier/safer to say yes, because you were being emotionally abused or whatever. And there's no point going to the police, because who would consider forced "cake eating" to be a problem, cos hey, women always want sex cake?

The author actually scoffs at the very idea that ‘if they don’t feel free to say no, it’s not consent’

Obviously it is complicated. If it wasn't it wouldn't be an issue!

More rape myths from the sadface rape apologist.

It's an "issue" because it suits the people who have the most power in our society (and their supporters) to pretend it is complicated.

It used to be so "complicated" that if a man saw a woman lying prone on the ground unconscious she was to blame if that man was forced to rape her by his overwhelming lust.

It is still, in some cultures, so "complicated" that women must be kept covered and excluded from public life to prevent men from being tempted into raping them (but of course, really they want it, the dirty whores) should they be exposed to a face or hand or hair.

It's only "complicated" if you believe men are all basically rapists who would penetrate a woman given half a chance and need protection from the consequences of that urge.

A man who is interested in not raping a woman knows how to make sure she is keen.

A man who likes women and enjoys sex with individual women at times when they both feel like having sex does not imagine there are "grey" areas he can exploit. If she's drunk enough to black out, which is very drunk indeed, then he will know that attempting sex is not the right thing to do.

Only rapists and rapist supporters need to claim that there are any grey areas when it comes to sticking his dick where there is even a chance it might not be wanted.

I don't think it's really that complicated at all. Somebody who wants to have sex with someone and doesn't care if they want to have sex is a rapist. Someone who would happily penetrate someone who has fallen unconscious, has repeatedly said no, is only interested in sex because they are blind-drunk or having an episode of psychosis is a rapist. They are someone who doesn't care if the person they have sex with actually wants to have sex. Some of the comments on that article are stomach churning... Men who don't see themselves as rapists talking about wanting to rape unconscious women who "consented" to sex before getting drunk. Fucking terrifying! Others talking about "transactions" where they ought to be entitled to sex if they buy a woman dinner.., comparing it to paying for something in a shop and then the shop refusing to hand the goods over! That's the type of message some men are taking away from that article.

I was raped.

I imagine my rapist thinks he was covered under one of your "grey areas" because I was asleep when he started to penetrate me.

But sure. I have no idea.

The woman who has been raped is the sicko, not the one coming up with every excuse under the sun why rape is terribly complicated and we should just let men get on with it and stop blaming them (sad face).

You are the keyboard warrior with your lies about a false accusation that sounds like a rape victim bullied (in part by you) into saying she made up a rape to avoid further bullying.

But sure, grey area, so confusing and complicated, drunk women are fair game, poor men can't be expected to actually care if they are raping someone.

You support rape and rapists. With the usual dose of handwringing about how terrible rape is if it fits your definitions of "non-complicated" rape.

I fucking hope you have no sons you are raising as rapists.

There are no grey areas

Consent ok to have sex

No consent rape

attitudes regarding rape and sexual assault is what needs to change

What is is difficult to understand

Bathtime -

bathtime

I repeat, because obviously some if you are not getting it
"Would you pester your DP for a brew, repeatedly asking them for a brew, knowing they don't want to make one? And then they finally do it but are in a mood about it you're going to tell them they have no right to be grumpy because they agreed?"

Would you tell a woman that it doesn't matter if she was scared, she agreed so that makes it ok?
Would you tell the 11-13 year old me that I deserved it because I agreed? And no if wasn't a "man" it was a 14-16 year old. So was it my fault? Can I not blame him for what he did to me? I was scared for my life, but I still should have said no? I tried that. He took what he wanted anyway. I tried to tell, I wasn't believed. I was threatened and beaten and knives held to my throat, and it got to a point I was so scared I "willingly" met up with him. It wasn't "typical" rape. But it was still rape.

Wow - telling a woman who has described her own rape in order to explain why a set of beliefs constitute a dangerous rape myth that contributes to a culture that allows rapists to continue to rape with impunity that she's "insane"! That's one of the worst pieces of victim blaming I've seen.

This thread has it all.

Wilful conflation of false accusations and grey areas.

An absurd exaggeration of the importance of false accusations (rare - about 3%, and, given our jury system, almost never leading to actual convictions, and, as the report by Starmer indicates, hardly ever made maliciously, despite that tired old myth that women are queuing up outside police stations waiting to make malicious accusations after sex they regret in retrospect).

The "how's a poor chap supposed to know the difference between a woman who wants sex and one who, having said no repeatedly lies inert beneath him" myth.

That great straw man "no one will ever be allowed to have sex while drunk ever again".

I'm surprised we haven't had the "what's a man supposed to do, get forms signed in triplicate?" myth yet. Seems be the only one werwe're missing.

I think the poster up thread who pointed out that all this shit is born of a mindset which simultaneously sees women as perpetually available for sex but strangely at the same time not enjoying it.

If you accept instead that sometimeswwomen want sex with partners of their own choosing and are perfectly capable of saying no meaning no (not a coy "ooh I mean yes really but since that would be naughty I'll pretend to say no" bullshit myth) and are also capable of saying yes and meaning it (and indicating by their actions - kissing back, running their hands over the bloke's body - that they mean yes) then there aren't grey areas. And should a man still be in any doubt tgen the precautionary principle comes to his rescue - if you're not sure don't do it! No grey areas at all, no worries that you'll find yourself up on a rape charge - the chances of it happening are vanishingly small if you've behaved like a civilised human being. (And as a man you are far more likely to be the victim of being anally raped by another man than you are of being on the receiving end of a false accusation - which is even more unlikely to lead to a conviction).

And for you too Fatty.

I seem to remember an article someone posted a while back which talked about some cases where women had withdrawn rape allegations - and in some cases been charged with making false accusations (I think maybe even imprisoned) - and which then investigated some of the background to these cases. It seemed clear there had been several cases where it was very likely a rape HAD been committed, and yet the women had eventually "admitted" making "false" accusations after pressure or threats from family/police/the man involved. Would be useful to get that posted again if anyone remembers what I'm talking about and has a link?

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/08/rape-case-woman-appeal

Is this the article

Bath time I'm sorry that you were raped. I do think you've been unfair to Minnie though. She made it very clear that situations, such as the ones you are describing eg where the woman is unconscious/didn't consent initially but felt pressured and agreed eventually, are rape. She's not denying that or saying 'it's complicated' in those cases. I think that's pretty clear.

However, there are situations where it is difficult to establish whether or not someone consented if they were drunk. Conscious but drunk. Enthusiastic but drunk. Does that still count as consent? Can you give consent if you are drunk to the extent that you don't remember much the next day/regret the decisions you made? If 'enthusiasm' is alcohol fuelled is it still considered genuine? Some people think no. What do you think?

Raising these situations for discussion does not make someone a rape apologist or a rape supporter.