"Rape...is not caused by rapists" WTF!?!

[Unacceptable]

If you aren't aware of the rapist Brock Turner and the campaigners who think he's getting a hard time, have a read of this guardian link.

AIBU to think that the statement from Leslie Rassmussen decrying political correctness that harms poor boys like Brock is the dumbest piece of shit I've ever read?

Even in their drunkest, most ridiculous states my Husband, Brothers and adult sons would not rape a woman because, and I'm sure Leslie wouldn't want to entertain this notion, they wouldn't rape somebody because they aren't rapists!!!!

Brock clearly is.
Having sex without consent is rape.
Forcing yourself upon an unconscious person is rape.

You don't have to be a stranger in a dark alley to do that, just your normal, average, everyday twat.

I know it is hard to accept the wrongdoings of a loved one.
I know we'd all fight to protect those we care about but you can still fucking accept the mistakes that people make...even if you can't get your head around it, don't bury your head in the sand and pretend it's less of an abuse because 'he's a nice guy'.
When will people wake the fuck up?

Link: gu.com/p/4kk46/stw

Looks like he won't be swimming competitively again www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902190/brock-turner-stanford-rape-usa-swimming

Yes, and it appears the ban has come in response to his unrepentance and his father's ridiculous statement - and the associated publicity - rather than the conviction itself.

That Have a cup of Tea video seems useful Odfod, but I feel a little uneasy after seeing it.

I think it still leaves room for the tea maker to feel guiltless (because they did not throw the cup/actually rape) so long as the person being offered the cup of tea agreed to having it - even if he/she did not really want to accept it.

The tea situation is far too inherently bland and harmless compared to other more complex situations in life to teach a real message or be really comparable.

I think they need to show real life situations and what non-drunk true consent might be like.

What if this is the scenario?

'Would you like a cup of tea?'

'No thanks'

'Oh, go on! I made it specially. It's very nice tea. I bought it for you specially. It is tea time. Everyone else is having some. You'll be the odd one out. I'm sure you'd you like it'.

'Oh, okay. I'll have some then. Just a small cup."

With a cup of tea that is OK. With a cup of sex that scene would not be rape but it still would be harmful, sad and damaging.

Go further. Imagine the scene with an older person with a newly legal sixteen year old - or any person not yet sure of themselves - with someone more forceful, or insistent.

Augusta, Leslie Rasmussen has reportedly withdrawn her statement, but if you read the actual 'apology/retraction' (which she's since deleted, but is available on Buzzfeed) it's mostly one of those bullshit apologies, where most of the blame is put on misunderstandings, and most of the regret is about how she's been affected by this. Essentially:

• I'm sorry that you've all misconstrued or totally distorted what I wrote, and that, thanks to social media, people all over the world have shared this same misapphrension.
• I'm sorry that I'm now being obliged to defend something I wrote and believed to be private -- I wanted to help a convicted rapist get a shorter sentence, but obviously that should've just been between me and the judge. What has it got to do with the public?
• I'm really, really sorry that my gigs are being cancelled about this. I've been working on my music for ten years! (She's twenty.) I deferred college for this. I can't believe all the hatred that has been unleashed on me. It's so unfair.

Fuck it -- there's no need to paraphrase. Worst paragraph here:

Unfortunately, due to the overzealous nature of social media and the lack of confidence and privacy in which my letter to the judge was held, I am now thrust into the public eye to defend my position on this matter in the court of public opinion. Now, my choices to defer college to write and play music, to finally introduce 10 years of hard work to a national audience while working consistently and intentionally on my own personal and professional integrity, has led to an uproar of judgement and hatred unleashed on me, my band and my family.

And, yes, it's prefaced by more grandstanding about the evils of alcohol and college partying (despite the fact she's never attended college and is still legally unable to drink), and concluded with the groundbreaking admission that Brock 'was tried and rightfully convicted of sexual assult'. Elsewhere, though, the assault is still 'a tragedy' and she's offering her 'perspective on the complexities of what may have happened'. In other words: same old bullshit, but everyone stop being horrible to me. The overwhelming emotions of the statement seems to be petulance, self-pity and self-righteous outrage. It's one of those 'apologies' where you feel angrier after you've read it, and I'm not surprised she deleted the whole thing afterwards.

www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/friend-retracts-defense-of-stanford-sex-assailant-as-bars-ca?utm_term=.sbRqBNkaz#.akQR159ZO

There's also another FB statement she made being circulated, but I can't find the original; just media references to it. Here she apparently said that she understands the outrage over her original statement, and she's committed to learning from this mistake, and 'I am 20 years old, and it has never been more clear to me that I still have much to learn'. This would be more convincing without the original retraction. And it's also bullshit. You're only 20? You don't know about this stuff? Then why the fuck are you writing a personal statement that has directly affected the lenient sentencing of a rapist?

The whole thing much like Brock's case reeks of this priviliged disbelief that there would ever, ever be unwelcome consequences for your own actions.

"People choose to have sex for all sorts of reasons, often, sadly when they'd rather not. I have no doubt that most of the time that choice is clear and the majority of the time it is easy for everyone to distinguish consensual but unwanted sex from rape.

Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that there aren't times when women allow sex to happen without giving verbal consent to it or participating much, but without signalling that they want it to stop, either. Far from exonerating men, defining sex as rape in those circumstances would be raising the bar. "

Well, you know, I've been in both situations.. and the difference is really clear, actually. It goes back to what is being said about how we are hard-wired as human beings to pick up on our partner's moods and sensations in everyday life (limbic resonance, mirror neurons, all that jazz) so when you're actually in someone's FACE with your bodies enmeshed, unless you have some sort of disorder with reading relationship OR ARE A RAPIST you will know the difference between "erm, she doesn't seem that in to me, this is a bit shit, oh well, I've started so I'll finish" because the woman isn't that keen but is going along with it and a person who a) has said no, b) is trying to push you off or stop the sexual encounter or c) is UNCONSCIOUS.

An awful lot of women have had shit sexual encounters. Sometimes the sexual behaviour between men and women is a bit unskilful and people get hurt. That's not the same as rape. Anyone who tries to argue there are "blurred lines" has no fucking clue, to be honest with you. We all know. I did some awfully self-degrading things sexually after I was raped, but they weren't rape. I knew the difference. I had power, control and agency - even though sometimes it was really not that good for me. When I was UNCONSCIOUS and raped, it was terrifying. I didn't even know if he'd worn a condom and I couldn't walk for a week. That never happened with consensual sex, no matter how it unfolded.

How difficult is it, in the "this is a bit shit but I've started so I'll finish" scenario for the man to say "I'm not sure you're enjoying this, do you want to stop?" Pretty fucking easy, really. I would argue that the reason most of the men who are the type of men women have unsatisfactory/unhappy/degrading/coercive sexual encounters with don't do that isn't because they're incapable of "reading the room", but because despite having a fairly good idea their partner isn't having a great time and may not/no longer be enthusiastically consenting, their ejaculation is more important to them than any other factor at that moment, certainly more important than the woman's feelings, and to suggest stopping risks them not getting their end away after all. Far better (from their POV) to pretend to be oblivious.

Yeah but at the same time, do you really want to make consent only something men are in charge of negotiating? Not a great idea, pretty paternalistic - no?

I think decent men do what you say in general once they have some experience. I think though there are younger men who are less skilful don't always read it as subtly.. I'm not talking about pressing on when someone looks distressed, just not massively enthusiastic. I do think we don't do ourselves as women much of a favour if we say that we don't have a responsibility to find our own voice in situations like this, where there is no ill intention or coercion happening.

I think it still leaves room for the tea maker to feel guiltless (because they did not throw the cup/actually rape) so long as the person being offered the cup of tea agreed to having it - even if he/she did not really want to accept it.

People aren't mind readers.

If I ask you if you want to have tea and you say yes, I will assume you want the tea.

If I ask you if you want tea, and you say no, and I tell you how great this tea is and you change your mind (as you are allowed to do) and say yes, I will assume you want the tea.

We've all had times when our partners have wanted sex and we were initially no in the mood, but were persuaded and had a great time. We've all been in the reverse where we've convinced our partners and both had a great time.

You're allowed to try and persuade a friend to have tea because it's so great, and they are allowed to still say no...or change their mind because you've convinced them that this tea is indeed fantastic.

But as a feminist my viewpoint is that regardless of what the law says, if a woman ever, in her life, ever has unwanted sex that is entirely wrong and she does not ever have to tolerate it for any reason. She may feel that she has to, but I don't want that for her and I wish she didn't feel that way.

I deeply agree and thank you for responding sparrowhawk. It's helpful to read that perspective and difficult to imagine any decent individual disagreeing. As far as having a hard and fast rule (that always holds) for what's rape, though, I'm sorry to say I'm still struggling. From what you are saying (and I do support it), sex is often a coercive affair anyway and this is often down to large scale coercion that began long before a specific sexual encounter, making it very difficult for women to name these feelings of coercion or pinpoint at what point a line has been crossed. That sounds tragic but I'm not sure we can expect her partner to be able to invariably pinpoint this moment if she cannot always do so at the time. If there was a widespread understanding among men and women that men are always to verbally ask for consent, it would be simpler. But there isn't, not that I'm aware of.

I agree that we can demand a higher standard from our society in terms of the value we ask men to place on our willing participation, rather than the 'I've scored' mentality which implies that sex is a game they play against us. It is my impression that men in search of casual sex are often driven by the notion that other men expect them to be able to 'score' and an element of persuasion is, unfortunately, expected within that context, and not perceived as coercive.

Surely it's possible that there are men who think they'd never be rapists because they would always stop the moment they heard the word 'no', like the campaigns said men are supposed to, not realising that there are other scenarios in which women may start off half-heartedly going along with things and end up enduring them, all without necessarily physically resisting? I feel desperately uncomfortable with the woman's lot in that scenario (and wish I could protect her) but I also feel uncomfortable saying the man involved is invariably a rapist or predator. I don't know if all feminists grasp how the ultra-high levels of compliance expected from conservatively raised young women may cause them to act (or not act).

I don't want rapists to get off lightly, I really don't. At the same time, I don't think it's the same as a cup of tea in many situations, as has been helpfully illustrated by kinddog.

Can I also say that I find the incessant use of the word 'fucking' aggressive and manipulative. Not saying anyone shouldn't use it if they want to, but that's how I receive it.

Senpai
You're allowed to try and persuade a friend to have tea because it's so great, and they are allowed to still say no...or change their mind because you've convinced them that this tea is indeed fantastic.

Whats the difference between being persuasive, pestering, and not accepting no as the answer?
What so hard about saying 'Oh well, maybe another time.' and walking away leaving the offer open?

fusion

I'm sorry you had those experiences. Truly.

They sound like polar opposites and neither sound like the particular kind of experience I'm thinking of. You had no choice whatsoever the first time. And made choices the times thereafter. You knew the difference. But you are just one woman, not every woman.

As for people being hardwired to 'know' what their partners are thinking and if they're not into it - I think we must be on different planets. My DH is taller than I am - making eye contact would be very tricky. Not unusual. It's often dark when we have sex. Not unusual. I don't always move very much. Not unusual. Once, he was shocked to find me in tears at the end of sex. I was keyed up about something, doing that thinking-of-two-things-at-once thing that women do, and had burst into tears about it at the wrong moment. But I was also perfectly (albeit not very passionately) up for having sex. I just got distracted and he hadn't noticed. I don't think he's unusual either.

Perhaps my DH and I are just crap at all this and that's why I assume others may be. But we do find vast potential for misunderstanding each other during sex.

Senpal
My point was that I think the 'Have a Cup of Tea' video is a poor education tool for teaching young people about what enthusiastic consent means.

Sex is not tea. It is far more complicated. It is OK to persuade someone to have a cup of tea. Persuading someone to have sex when they don't want it, may be coercing them.

Gone, are you serious? My partner is six inches taller than me. There's not moving and not moving... I presume you are not totally still and unmoving? You were crying and he didn't know at all? That sounds really awful. Do you feel connected to him during sex usually - was that a one off? Sorry to be personal but it doesn't sound very enjoyable when you write it like this? Maybe I am on a different planet too.

LizKeen I was reading through the earlier thread and saw I had not properly taken in that you had been raped and you were explaining you had shut down after at first trying to say 'no'. I hope you are not blaming yourself anymore and feel very sorry that happened to you. It absolutely wasn't your fault

FusionConfusion I am very sorry that you were raped and that you were unconscious too like the victim of Brock Turner

Sex is not tea. It is far more complicated. It is OK to persuade someone to have a cup of tea. Persuading someone to have sex when they don't want it, may be coercing them.

Persuading and coercing are two very different things. Sex doesn't change this fact.

Persuading is simply changing a person's mind and they have full enthusiastic say over that choice.

Coercing is more of a power play or type of bullying, making a person feel like they have no other choice but to surrender to what you want. So punishing you by sulking, stonewalling, or withdrawing affection would be coercion.

Basically, if you do not feel comfortable saying no, it's coercion. If you know you can withdraw consent at anytime, it's persuasion. The bottom line is that you are in full control of your consent either way.

If you are in a relationship you don't feel you can say no in, you need to get out. But that's a completely different thread.

I know I can persuade my partner to have sex, because at the end of the day he can decide that he simply isn't in the mood and I won't hold it against him, and vice versa.

Dont decide for other people which no is the one you listen to.
Your partner already decided when he said no the first time.

I think that thing you're talking about of being persuaded to have the tea (sex) even if you don't really want to goes back to our conditioning to "be polite". So rather than saying "No, fuck off, I don't want your tea (sex)", we're all conciliatory and "Oh ok I'll try it then since you insist" and that has the potential to cause problems.

So we should all, while still learning manners (please) learn to say a definitive "No" and stick to it.

TBH, people who do try to persuade/insist are already in the manipulative and potentially abusive category, IMO. IF you've said No, then they should bloody well accept it and stop badgering you - it's completely disrespecting your own feelings and opinions to try and make out that they know better than you how you should feel and act!

On another point - this was flagged on my FB feed as being another e.g. of white privileged males getting away with assaults - this time murder - but it was flagged as them having their sentences reduced because of them being promising athletes, and I can't see any reference to that in this particular link. injusticebusters.org/2003/George_Pamela.htm

This link does say that one of the perpetrators starred on his basketball team though

I was molested when I was 8 by a 19 year old. We went to the police. Nothing happened. Dad found out years later that his influential and wealthy father was a known pedophile. They would move when their reputation became widespread.

It's people like this , and those that defend them, complaining about collapse of Western civilization too..

I think the only way the tea/sex analogy (which I otherwise love) falls down, is that sex, unlike tea, is an intimacy tool in a relationship (i.e. not a ONS or fuck-buddy situation, etc).

So, continually saying no to someone offering sex can actually hurt the offerer's feelings in a way that saying no to tea never would.

To give an example that we see quite a lot on here - and I know absolutely goes both ways gender-wise - a woman posting that she has given up initiating sex, because her DH always says no.

On the flip side, I'm sure there are many women who sometimes say yes to sex, even when they're really not in the mood - they've said 'no' several times previously, and it's been accepted perfectly well - but they know that having sex with their partner will reconnect them, bring them both back in the zone, whatever... Saying 'no' again, on the other hand, would again be accepted perfectly well, but thinking about the overall intimacy of the relationship, it wouldn't exactly oil the wheels.

With tea, this would never happen - because nobody has their feelings hurt, or feels rejected or unloved when someone doesn't want their tea.

This is, I think (to me), is the only way it doesn't quite equate as an analogy.

Please argue back if you disagree, as I'd be happy to see any flaws in this thinking.

In fact it is NOT ok to persuade someone to have a cup of tea when they are clearly uncomfortable and unwilling or reluctant. It is one of the pre-indicators of violence, in fact, when someone tries to persuade you to do something innocent (have a drink, have a cuppa, let me help you carry that, let me give you a lift home, etc) and will not take no for an answer, instead they try to persuade you.

Violent perps will often suss out their victims that way, by testing out how easy it is to pressure you to do something quite trivial (drink that tea) even if you said no and didn't really want to. Be very afraid of anyone who doesn't listen when you say no, even to small things like a cup of tea.

I think the tea analogy is a really good way to demonstrate that good people won't hound you about anything (not even a cup of tea) if you don't want it. I think it's a great analogy as it's one most people can understand, so there's no excuse for saying 'it's complicated, I don't understand, if she's unconscious does that mean she's consenting or not?'

The poster upthread who said she's so 'rational' that she can see how an unconscious girl might be signalling consent whilst unconscious, is doing exactly that - trying to depict consent as something so complex that only a sophisticated form of rationality (which can only be learned in a law school) can detect whether there's consent or not. So the tea analogy is great - it's not about 'rationality' or legal training, just apply common basic human decency and good manners, and you should be able to get through your life without raping other people.

As most of us do. It's really not difficult to avoid raping others. The tea example is a great way to make that point.

But the tea analogy isn't about how much you might upset someone. It even states 'it can be frustrating after you took the time to boil the kettle' etc, but the point is, it doesn't matter how 'upset' your refusal makes your partner; NO STILL MEANS NO.

It is your right to refuse sex at any time and have that respected.

If that causes issues in the relationship then that's something else to address.
But NO ONE has to have ANY sexual contact they do not want.

Particularly not to spare someone else's hurt feelings.