'It might not have been rape, she might have had sex and regretted it afterwards'

[BravoHopeful]

This statement makes no sense. If you had consensual sex and the next day regretted it, why on earth would you go through the whole horrible experience of reporting it to the police and everything that follows? You would just move on and put it behind you.

It's always trotted out as a likely explanation in 'date rape' type cases. But it makes no sense whatsoever. AIBU?

Oh ffs
I think the number of unreported rapes is far higher than the number of false allegations.

I'm sick to death of hearing rape apologists.

I was repeatedly taped as a child.

It was never reported to the police.

It did happen.

The man went on to father children.

I have no intention what so ever of reporting him.

Rape apologists can thank themselves for this.

I'm not prepared to put myself through the shitiness of a trial-ever.

How do you think trial could be made easier for rape victims?

Why dont you frequently hear

'It might not have been theft, he might have had given that item away as a gift and regretted it afterwards'

And then have people interrogate the theft victim on whether they had clearly and loudly said 'no', to make it clear it wasn't a gift. Because if they didn't fight to keep their possession, well, it was probably a regretted gift, not theft.

I mean I'm sure misreporting a gift as a theft must have happened, but it's hardly a common fear is it?

I have a house full of nice possessions. I often give people gifts. Yet even poor 'easily confused by grey areas' men have no problem understanding thar my things are my things unless I clearly and explicitly give them away.

We never have to 'sign forms in triplicate', or formally ask 'do you consent to me taking this item as a gift' and yet somehow, miraculously both parties clearly understand the difference between giving and accepting a gift, and stealing.

We teach our children that taking something without permission is stealing, and stealing is wrong. Nobody worries that it's too confusing.

The inescapable conclusion, is that culturally and socially we believe a person's possessions belong to them and no one has the right to take them. And culturally and socially we believe a woman's body belongs to whoever can get their hands on it, and every man has the right to try.

That's the sad truth unfortunately. :-(

How do you think trial could be made easier for rape victims?

Banning sexual history questioning completely for a start.

Better briefings for juries about rape myths, and for these to take place BEFORE the listen to the evidence, not afterwards. That might stop the defence agtessively using rape myths when they question the victim (if they think the jury won't be impressed by it).

An ISVA for every victim in court, automatically. There are far too few ISVAs, amd most of the organisations that employ them are having to deal with funding cuts.

That's what I'd start with.

I think trial would be made easier if the victim wasn't on trial.

And that of course!

I was cross examines for four days. My rapist was cross examined for less than one day. What does that tell you about who is really on trial in a rape case?

Oh and I probably didn't scream stop raping me and i didn't fight my adult male attacker off as a very young child.

I do remember crying out in pain though but I guess I was probably asking for it over the years that it took place.

It's terribly unfair on non-sexual criminals.

It is an unacceptable discrimination that just because you like stealing rather than raping women yiubare far more likely to end up in prison.

Apparently it would be massively unjust to rapists to bring their conviction levels up match those of other crimes.

Instead we should reduce the convictions of other crimes.

We need to force victims of all crimes to prove they didn't really want it.

jacket I think you missed the word "likely" in the OP. Here it is again:
It's always trotted out as a likely explanation in 'date rape' type cases. But it makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm confused by your response. Do you think its a possibility but rare? In which case it's not any more relevant to the op than any reason someone makes a false allegation?

Or do you think it's common? In which case you are biased (because there is no evidence for that at all)

I'd also like to see judges clamp down hard on defence teams that use unethical, bullying or intimidatory tactics.

The defence barrister in my case did all sorts including rolling her eyes when I was speaking, telling outright lies (she described being fully clothed, totally covered, with a winter coat on top as 'lightly dressed' to imply that I was flaunting myself), and using other tactics to bully me.

On one day she claimed that I'd said something while I was on the stand that contradicted my statement. I told her I had not. She insisted I had, calling me a liar.

They listened to the recording after the day had finished to check. I was right, and the next morning she had to aplogise to me in front of the whole court.

But overall she was allowed to get away with far too much. Presenting a defence case is one thing, but judges need to be active in stopping abuses of the system.

Woman

I was cross examined for four days.
WWA Amazing that you got through that

In most modern cases that length of time wouldn't be needed. But my original statement predated the use of video statements (there was >15yr gap between reporting and trial), so I had to go through all of my evidence from start to finish. It worked out as roughly 2 days of prosecution Qs and 2 days of defence ones.

A victim who has given a video statement provably wouldn't have to testify for that length of time as they cover a lot by playing the video.

I get the impression that 4 days is unusual anyway, from I've heard. So that post is probably very outing to anyone who knows me!

WomanwithAltitude, I'm in awe of you for having the strength to go through that.

For those of us who hate rape myths and their use in court, it might be a good moment to remind everyone about this petition:
petition to ban the use of victims' past sexual history

Oh the people who are coming on here saying 'ooooooh, but it does happen you know' are completely missing the point. Of course it does happen, we know that women have been prosecuted for making false allegations. Although it is worth noting that a significant number of these women are very young and often vulnerable, and have had other crimes previously committed against them.

What people are annoyed about is the trotting out of the myth that women up and down the country are having sex with poor unwitting men, and then going straight to the police the next day. That men have to be careful because being accused of a rape you didnt commit happens all the time. It's just total unsubstantiated bollocks.

Anyone who believes that a woman would go to the police because she had sex and was embarrassed about it the next day, has obviously never ever reported a rape and gone through all that it involves. And therefore they don't know what they are talking about so need to shut the fuck up. Right now.

As someone above said, if you had had a consensual one night stand that you regretted, why the fuck would you report it as a rape and have to spend the next few months, years even having to think about it and go over it in detail again, as well as having the rest of your character and sex life raked over again as well?

If people just engaged their brains for a second and thought about their own embarrassing sexual experiences, they would know that they just would not do this on a whim. But people don't engage their brains. People are twats.

The vast majority of men go about their lives observing social rules perfectly well - they give other people personal space, they don't randomly shove people or put their hands in other people's mouths. Men are expected to behave courteously and are considered rude if they don't. And yet, there are men and women who seem genuinely to believe that once a man is in a room alone with a woman he suddenly becomes entirely unable to read any body language whatsoever. He also becomes unable to ask simple questions like 'are you ok?' and 'do you you like that?'
The idea that a normal man could genuinely not know anything about how the woman whose body his penis is in is feeling is beyond ludicrous. If a man has such little awareness then he's a danger to everyone around him and should be locked up.

Thanks, Mostly. Signed.

Also, I'm not too heartbroken about men having the terrible burden of being 100% sure that, when they shove their body parts into other people, those body parts are welcome. It really isn't much to ask.

What people are annoyed about is the trotting out of the myth that women up and down the country are having sex with poor unwitting men, and then going straight to the police the next day. That men have to be careful because being accused of a rape you didnt commit happens all the time. It's just total unsubstantiated bollocks.

I agree, total bollocks. But isn't it funny that that myth hasn't changed men's behaviour one little bit? I mean, you'd think that would want to make them get clear and enthusiastic consent, wouldn't you? But it doesn't... it's another stick to beat women with, but it makes not one jot of difference to men.

It's strange how we don't apply the same feelings to other crimes so:

Someone reports a person because they think they are selling illegal drugs. It goes to trial but the accused is found not guilty. I don't ever recall people up in arms demanding that the lying bastard who made up the allegations be named and shamed for all to see. Have their name and address made public property, that the innocent victim be applauded and admired.

That the accuser be put in prison.

Same applies to people who report benefit fraud why are they not named and shamed as the obvious lying bastards they are when a prosecution case collapses?

Boo quite simply because the rape case is a woman speaking out against a man and our society couldn't think of anything more absurd, abusive or horrific. It is the product of a patriarchy

I'm a man, so make of this what you will. (I find this thread v interesting btw). Having reached a "mature" age I can say that I have never asked before sex any question remotely like "is it ok if I stick..." or " can i put" or "do you want to have like...penetrative.." Although being a sensible young man I did find on the occasion that my partner didn't want to have "full" sex that using condoms provides the perfect opportunity to establish this really. Does it not ? I've had a few one night stands and I think the women i was with seemed to enjoy it, i certainly hope that they would, that was of course my intention :) I have never believed that verbal consent needs to be obtained before each "escalation" and I just can't understand a sexual situation where it would be.

I think an earlier poster raised a very good point about men who use prostitutes and how they don't care whether the other party is having a good time - I think there is lot in this. Only once have I stopped having sex and said I wasn't really into and the girl appeared devastated and i felt like shit about it...

re why rape is not treated like other crimes - i think it's because of the attitude that women like sex sometimes, so having sex is not something that is in and of itself bad like e.g. being hit or having something stolen. Framing sex as something that men are responsible for concerns me, it's both peoples responsability to make sure that the other person is into it and enjoys it, it's really not that hard. I think that for the vast majority of men knowing that the other person enjoys it and is into it is what makes it sexy and enjoyable, i cant imagine having sex with someone who wasn't responding enthusiastically and not realising this. If I felt that they weren't into it, then i would of course stop and check. I'm writing too much but i would also add that my own experience is that drunken sex is not anything like as much fun as sober sex and "brewers droop" is preceded by a general lack of sensation, the best bit about a ONS is usually the morning after where you can both wake up and do it again but sober. But - saying that women who have had a bit to drink shouldn't have sex is over the top.

I should clarify that I'm talking about the act of getting a condom out or being asked if you have one is pretty good indicator of where the other person sees the liason heading.