'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?

FANTOME that's not what I said AT ALL - time you went and sobered up I think.

I don't want to say much about the details because it was her thread and clearly difficult to talk about.

She had chosen to make sounds to imply she was enjoying the petting that preceded the sex. He took this to mean she had given non-verbal consent for penetration. She hadn't intended to indicate she wanted to take things further, just that she was enjoying what was happening. Even though she wasn't.

I don't see how that's simple.

That was an utterly depressing and bizarre thread full of people failing to read what the OP was actually saying.

Convenient that one of the details you choose not to include is that he penetrated her, from behind so she had no way of anticipating it, without warning her and without a condom. You're painting it as him interpreting her enjoyment of the activity leading up to him penetrating her as consent to penetrate her. Without a condom, natch. Because that's something she totally conveyed consent for with her noises of enjoyment of oral sex.

Convenient that one of the details you choose not to include is that he penetrated her, from behind so she had no way of anticipating it, without warning her and without a condom.

I had wondered if it was a different thread being talked about as this was omitted.

Certainly, it's not an example of the most painstaking attempt to get consent.

No attempt and absolutely no reasonable belief to think he had consent.

I agree that it would be wrong to dissect the detail here. But wrong of you to misrepresent it. As I recall the poster was very eloquent in response to the shite posted there and actually quite clear about her feelings.

The comments on that article are vile. I wish I could say it surprised me though but it doesn't. I expect if the man was ugly and unfriendly he may not have got as many but they'd still be shits defending him. Because people have warped thinking. I'd hate to think that, given the statistics, theyve probably aired their shitty opinions to someone affected by rape. Sadly they probably have though.

Good looking so called charming man though...I know someone like that and people fall over to defend his shitty behaviour already, they'd be first in line to defend the fact he's a rapist. One of the many reasons that he wasn't reported, 'he was too nice no one would believe her'.

Slender I just want to pick up on what you are saying about blurred lines around consent.

There is as far as I know something in the law about whether a man had reasonable believe she was consenting. This is why initially Clayton was found not guilty but Ched guilty.

What I will say is I've had 3 different relationships and I've also had a few flings and one night stands.

One man I had a long term relationship with was rapey.

It's difficult for me to explain but of all of the relationships no flings Ive had all but that one have managed not to rape me. I've been with my husband for nearly 8 years and he's managed not to rape me, men I've been with drunk haven't raped me. I'm not going to go into every detail of how consent was established but I think with the one that did it came from him not actually caring if I was consenting or not.

I don't think it's as difficult as people make out to establish consent.

fucking

I gave no opinion on whether ithought rape had occurred in that case. The OP there was clear about her feelings but not at all clear if she thought rape had occurred. There was little consensus on the thread but on the whole it leaned towards thinking that it hadn't.

The only relevant information to my point is that she wasn't sure and neither were many posters given that she had deliberately given a false impression of her enthusiasm, something that feminist would probably never do. That's not simple, at least not to a broad cross section of posters, so why insist no further clarity is needed?

Fwiw my feeling was that it that been rape but without knowledge of the man in question and with no agreed lower bar for what consent looks like, I couldn't hazard a guess as to whether he knew that he hadn't sought consent adequately, given that he thought he was with an enthusiastic participant.

I don't know if he genuinely didn't care if he had consent or genuinely didn't think there was any reason to question her willingness to have sex. Pointing out what he could have done to be 'sure' only works if we are going to make that gold standard of behaviour a hard and fast rule that will be widely available to men and women. And yes, I do think some men need it spelt out. Some men have genuinely odd and mistaken ideas about what women like and while this is irrelevant to a deliberate rapist, it may be relevant to someone who doesn't realise it's expected that you always ask, or whatever it is that men should always do (it's still unclear).

What matters is how things appear to most people and the expectations that are transmitted to most people; not how things appear to a handful of ardent feminists who can look after themselves and will never be pretending they enjoy something that they don't. Or their partners, who are likely to represent the extremely well informed end of the spectrum in knowing what does and does not constitute consent.

The feminist argument for consent being simple hinges on the fact that 'everyone ' who is genuine understands it easily. That is probably true most of the time.

I appreciate your efforts to explain but I disagree with virtually everything you say about that posters experience and thread.

But the biggest thing that bothers me is that your post - about gold standards of behaviour, or an agreed lower bar re consent and deliberate rape (accidental, unintentional rape??) - is about a situation where a man took a woman by surprise by penetrating her from behind without a condom. FFS I can hardly think of a worse example to justify/illustrate confusion.

Consent really really is not a grey area, I don't understand all these confused people, we manage to ascertain consent in every other area of our lives! I think people do think it's something feminists have come up with to trick men but really is quite simple.

I remember once a thread (on FB not MN) about a woman who had given birth 2 weeks earlier and her OH was pestering her for sex. She'd had a 2nd degree tear and was still very sore down below so said no several times through the day. At bed time she was in her nightie and knickers and they were kissing passionately on the bed, she was touching his penis. All of a sudden he pulled her knickers down and penetrated her. She was too shocked or scared to say anything so just went with it, but was in agony afterwards, could barely walk. She asked the group if it was rape.

I'm sad to say the people like me who confirmed this was rape were in the minority. Many berated her for accusing him of such an awful crime, poor guy, lives are ruined by false accusations you know . It baffled me that people couldn't see that saying 'no' several times in the day was the very opposite of consenting and that her vagina won't have magically healed come the night time! TBH it turns my stomach that a man is so selfish he thinks of his cock before he thinks of his GF's bruised and torn vagina which pushed his baby out just a number of days before.

I know these groups don't require an intelligence test before entering so you're bound to get a few thickos, but the thickos really went for her and it clearly affected her as she left the group

I often think of that girl and hope she left him, she said he'd started to have sex with her in her sleep in a few times so was clearly a serial rapist.

The lines really aren't blurred, if she isn't consenting and enthusiastic about intercourse at the moment you feel like sticking your cock in her, it's probably because she doesn't want sex, and not pushing you off her doesn't mean she's going with it, it maybe means she's scared or been taught all her life that women are there to give men what they want and those who object are making a fuss over nothing. These incidents happen all the time. There's currently a thread about how mothers of boys are sick of hearing about how awful they are and sick of hearing about how they don't respect women, their boy is lovely so you know NAMALT. I wish these women would stop being precious for a second to look at men's behaviour as a class and perhaps educate their boys instead (even if they're not one of the 'bad boys') about consent and respecting women and how their penises are not above a woman's feelings and safety.

Something desperately needs to be done about our rape culture, and women (be it mothers, partners etc) to stop making excuses for shitty male behaviour would be a good place to start

Pinky I agree, from your description it sounds like rape. That poor girl experienced a terrible event and there is so much wrong with her relationship, BUT you can't say 'people like me who confirmed this was rape '. Nobody can sit in the comfort of their home and read something and decide definitively what it is or isn't as though they are an expert on the matter.

Sorry but I disagree comforting. It was rape plain and clear and the girl asked so we told her, in faith that she was telling it like it was. I would think it strange to say to someone "that sounds like rape" when you are certain it was.

I don't understand all these confused people...it really is quite simple.

I don't think you're trying to trick men. I think you may be so sure that men would exploit any firm guidelines that you're reluctant to give any. Which is silly IMO because clarity can only be a good thing.

If it is so simple, but others do not seem to find it so (both men and women), why not try to find out why people may be confused or why they think it's complicated, rather than assuming they are trying to fudge rape? If it's simple, it must be easy to spell it out. That would be helpful.

People manage to ascertain consent in every other area of their lives

Actually people misunderstand each other in big and smaller matters all the time, and that's without considering that sex is loaded with misconceptions and both parties can often feel unable to act how they're feeling. Look at AIBU. Loads of people do things they thought others would be fine with and it turns out they're not. I'm not suggesting rapists are suffering from some delusion that they think women are fine with being raped BTW! I'm saying that occasionally a genuine mistake may occur - men may think the other person is assuming penetration is on the agenda when the woman is, perhaps, assuming she will be asked first. Why do feminists resist spelling out what the specific expectations are in such a situation?

The devil is in the detail here. 'If you're in any doubt don't' doesn't cut it when people need to know exactly when they should be doubting. No offence intended to anyone, but look at how much tripe is out there. Plenty of people are staggeringly uninformed and unreflective, especially about sex. IMO, it's better to slightly patronising than overestimate ability.

Some people make me want to vomit.

Of course a man pestering his wife 2 weeks postpartum then penetrating her when she's said no, several times is rape.

On what fucking planet would a man think this was ok.

Some people sadly have some very skewed views about sex.

My husband would never have presumed he could have sex after the baby until I told him that I was ready, he never just shoves his penis inside me without warning, and if I showed any signs of not enjoying the experience such as being quiet, being still, he'd stop and check if I was ok.

Don't couples know each other well enough to read each other and know when each other are into it? It worries me that people think there can be confusion over consent.

It's quite simple slender, no decent male would presume he could penetrate his partner 2 weeks post birth.

I think it's totally fucked up that some couples are apparently so out of tune with each other that apparently these so called misunderstandings can happen.

If I was touching my husbands penis 2 weeks post birth he might assume I was going to do something else, he might ask if he could touch me too, check it didn't hurt, he'd never assume penetration.

If you're in any doubt don't' doesn't cut it when people need to know exactly when they should be doubting.

"If you are in any doubt don't" is extremely good advice for any man who is bothered about being a rapist. Baffled as to why it doesn't cut it.

Lighthouse Not everyone has loving, respectful relationships with their partners. Certainly, no decent man would put his partner through that.

But some women end up with violent men through poverty, fear, mental health, poor education, even love. You and I would have ended such a relationship when the early signs started, getting out before the 'rape' happened, some women can't or won't.

I know that comforting I'm not blaming the woman. I'm appalled that anyone would tell her it wasn't rape. Or at the very least tell her to get away from him.

Why the fuck have you put 'rape'?!!
It was rape and it's not ok at all. Just because the woman can't or won't leave the relationship doesn'the change the fact that's rape.

I just don't get it. I don't understand what people don't see.

Some murderers murder random strangers in the street, these are rare.

Some murderers murder vulnerable drunks.

Some murderers murder their partners in their own homes.

They are all still murderers.

Well I think some people have issues in their own relationships which mean it suits them to think consent is complicated and that's why they find themselves having sex when they don't really want to.
Very sad.

I can't understand what the issue is in clarifying if someone want to have sex, I really really can't.

If you want to avoid being a used of rape- seek consent.

Would you talk your mates car without first seeking consent? No of course you wouldn't because your mate would report it as theft.
There really is no difference.

When I say i have been asked if I wanted to have sex, it was after kissing and cuddling and frankly it made me respect the men.
It showed they were decent men and this increased their attractiveness to me, which was obviously there to begin with.

I believe the only reason for a man to pussyfoot around establishing consent is that he doubts whether consent would be given.
So this in turn established that actually consent isn't given so for him to force the issue and have sex is non consensual and therefore rape.

It is very very simple.

Stop trying to complicate a simple matter.
If you're a man seek consent, this ensures no misunderstanding.
It doesn't in anyway detract from the heat of the moment just as talking whilst in the throes of passion about what you want your partner to do is very sensual.

Of course men rape their wives girlfriends and children just as they murder them too.

Would you talk your mates car without first seeking consent? No of course you wouldn't because your mate would report it as theft.

But if he's taken it before without asking and there were no repercussions then its reasonable to assume it again.