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.

Hairy - I said a court case would go against him - as it should. We agree.

My post wasn't directed at you bluejug, although I responded to your last post?

I also did not read the cake thingy - picked up the discussion later.

If you do, you might find that it is not meant to be an analogy to attempt to establish what is or isn't sexually ethical behaviour, but to attempt to establish what is or isn't "consent" in law. Or at least, what the author thinks this ought to be.

Pestering or guilting someone until they agree is not sexually ethical, but whether you think it ought to fail the concept of "consent" is another matter. The author does not, clearly.

If they are correct then teenagers need to be taught sexual ethics, and not just simply what the law allows.

If you do read the article this thread is about, you might find it is an attempt to mansplain away the tea analogy so many women find illuminating and helpful and replace it with something that argues that consent is a "nice to have" but really it's fine to go ahead without it.

I think part of the problem is many people do not really understanding that sex with someone who lacks the capacity to consent (due to alcohol) is actually rape. It is not merely immoral, under uk law it is illegal. And you don't have to be unconscious to lack sufficient capacity.

If a person is teaching boys that drunkenness is a 'grey area' then that does run the risk of not clearly explaining the legal reality to them. Which, in turn, runs the risk of them committing rape. Surely the "if in doubt just don't" rule is what we should be teaching? Rather than trying to proscribe a checklist.

hairy genuinely wondering how that could be proved or what the outcome of a case like that would be? If all parties accept there was 'consebt' but the victim claims it was under duress and the defendant claims it wasnt. I think that's a grey area, no? A grey area as in who do you believe if both parties stories seem perfectly believable. Im presuming if there is evidence from the run up to the incident (like a PP pointed out when he worked in a bar) that the guy was spiking drinks etc then that would be used as evidence against the defendant.

Agsin, no doubt certain posters will claim I'm an apologist by asking but I am interested. im not relating it to my case as it was clear cut and persuasion was never an issue.

If you do read the article this thread is about, you might find it is an attempt to mansplain away the tea analogy so many women find illuminating and helpful and replace it with something that argues that consent is a "nice to have" but really it's fine to go ahead without it.

Does the article say any of that or is that your interpretation? Where does "fine to go ahead without it" come from, for instance? P.S. I thought "mansplain" was something only men could do?

I think a patronising explanation done to gain male approval also comes under mansplaining.

Yes, that is my interpretation of the article. It really is a work of utter turdiness.

I think the tea analogy is really good. It simplifies things: if a woman is consenting, crack on. If a woman says no, leave her alone. If you have any doubt, err on the side of caution and don't have sex.

The cake analogy is total shit and actually really offensive.

I think maybe the issue lies with the men that don't actually care whether the woman is consenting or not. Surely most men wouldn't want to sleep with a woman who wasn't enjoying it too?

We do need better education for both males and females in regards to consent. But it should be easy: if in doubt, don't do it.

We obviously need to target those males that are happy to hump on regardless of the woman's enthusiam. How we'd do that though, I'm not really sure.

Also RE false allegations. No one is denying that it's a problem and truly awful for those involved. But really, how many women would want to go through reporting a rape for no reason? All the cross examination, physical examination, having to give evidence in court. Many women don't want to go through that when they have been raped

m1nnie, it still isn't a grey area. Legal consent cannot be obtained under duress. Therefore it would be rape. A jury may not be sure beyond reasonable doubt and the man might be found not guilty, but that doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen. Hence why people are found 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'.

AmeliaNeedsHelp, if you teach 'if in doubt don't do it' then you surely are acknowledging grey areas. But still if someone follows it they will always be fine, both legally and ethically.

Note: I'm assuming that in reality woman wasn't lying - on statistical evidence this is a reasonable assumption, though obviously not how I'd approach the thing if I were on a jury.

I acknowledge that some people may have difficulty in reading a situation (though I don't really understand how).

I don't accept that there is any grey areas in rape. A sexual encounter is either consensual or it is not.

It may be impossible to know for sure after the fact, but an outsider's inability to distinguish doesn't change the fact that a rape either happened or it did not.

if you teach 'if in doubt don't do it' then you surely are acknowledging grey areas.

Ahhhh, it finally dawns so late. This is yet another time where the argument comes down to seeing things from a woman's perspective.

Yes, I suppose if you believe that consent is in the eye of the person seeking consent, then you might imagine there are grey areas.

Because there will be times when you can't tell whether you have consent.

That isn't a grey area as to whether there is or is not consent. There is no grey. It's black and white. There either is consent or there is not.

What is grey is your perception of that consent.

If you think that your perception of someone else's consent should take precedence over their actual consent, then yes, you will imagine it is a "grey area" if you can't be sure but go ahead anyway,

But you will be wrong. A wrong rapist. Exploiting the grey.

Completely agree, constant under duress isn't consent. Trying to prove that that took place or not is the problrm I guess. I also agree with the 'if in doubt keep it out' way of explaining it.

M1nnie isn't saying that if it's under duress it's a grey area. She's asking how can you prove whether or not it was under duress if one person says it was and another says it wasn't.

"But if by grey areas, you mean a blurred boundary where sometimes no might mean yes (which I understand to be the usual meaning of that term)"

I don't think these are the 'grey areas' being referred to here. I think we're talking about whether or not consent has been obtained/is possible if the person is drunk or if someone says they only agreed under duress when the other person says they agreed willingly.

Grey areas are grey only inasmuch as some men wish them to be. So they can tell themselves they're not rapists when actually they are.

Don't worry bumble if I said the sky is blue bath would say it's yellow and call me a rapist breeder.

Yes it's obvious that I wasn't referring to 'she said no but she meant yes' type scinario seeing as I pretty much spelled out what I meant. Most rational people reading it would get my point, the delightful bath isn't one of them

It's grey in as much as it is hard to convict. I suspect that puts a lot of women off reporting it, besides the trauma of the proscess.

m1nnie, I don't think that's the normal use of 'grey area', not in my locality at any rate. Round here it seems to mean 'not sure if it is morally / legally right or wrong'. I've never heard it to being used mean 'might / might not be provable in a court'. That distinction does make your posts seem less upsetting (to me at least). I honestly thought you didn't think that it was even possible to be too drunk to consent without being unconscious.