'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?

'Prick tease', wow, there's one I haven't heard in years.

Yes young people sometimes fool around.

Nothing really to do with inserting your penis before checking it's ok.

Ever heard of the term 'pricktease?

This is definitely a windup right?

Its a very 80's phrase

There's a good reason why that phrase should be left in the 80's.

Along with views like the ones scary seems to hold.

According to you then, every male is a rapist, even if he doesn't rape?

Who ever said that? You referred to "our lads" being called rapists. Are you saying nonlads are rapists?

'Pricktease'? You really are a patronising apologist wanker, and I sincerely hope your son hasn't taken heed of a word you've said.

You really have in your head the way a victim should behave don't you? It's really really really not hard to figure out consent. Unless you've met some astoundingly stupid men in your time?

scary on a serious note I'm extremely concerned that you're a teacher with that attitude. Tell me you don't go near sexual education...or anything that involves talking about sex with children?

Pinky Why do you hope I am not a teacher? I have seen the damage at work from false allegations, and thus, I have told my son to be careful and obtain explicit consent before having sex, which is what you want to happen. Does it matter why he is obtaining it, or do you just want to change the goal posts all the time?

Not guilty means exactly that in law. You may choose to interpret not guilty as not proven. Withdrawn means insufficient evidence, in some cases, or no evidence, or the CPS doesn't think the case will fly, but that doesn't always mean guilty.

I think you need to potter off and consider that stigmatising all males as rapists doesn't help your cause; neither does calling women who don't agree with you, misogynists. I could equally call you a misandrist.

Fyi, I do teach my son that it's best not to rape people...ffs.

Thinking back to my sexual encounters (and I'll admit there were many pre-DH) I slept with some really thick-about-sex blokes in my time, including one who thought you could only impregnate a woman if she orgasmed

Not a single one of them had trouble with consent. If I ever gave off "I can't be arsed" signs they took the hint and left well alone. They all made sure I was going in the same direction as them, be it asking if I was ok, if I was enjoying it or the ever articulate "shall we fuck?"

Some many were selfish lovers but never seemed to have difficulty in knowing that I was going in the same direction as them. I may have played the 'prick tease' character by means of arousing both me and them, but if at any point I was de-prickedteased (be it because I was unwell or had a pain or changed my mind) they seemed to sense a change in mood and would stop.

So it begs the question: who are these thick men whose minds boggle at the concept of consent?

Why do you hope I am not a teacher?

Because you are a rape apologist and I don't think rape apologists should be educators.

Not guilty means exactly that in law. You may choose to interpret not guilty as not proven. Withdrawn means insufficient evidence, in some cases, or no evidence, or the CPS doesn't think the case will fly, but that doesn't always mean guilty.

None of these indicate innocent. This is basic legal knowledge

Again, out of the 35 women convicted of false allegations of rape crimes per year, how many have you been privy to? I'm assuming there were convictions seeing as you believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

I have told my son to be careful and obtain explicit consent before having sex, which is what you want to happen. Does it matter why he is obtaining it

Because you should be teaching him that obtaining consent is about the other person's feelings and his respect towards that person. Not because she might accuse him of rape. That is teaching him women are untrustworthy, and perpetuating very dangerous rape myths. Simply ticking the "I've taught him consent is important box" isn't enough, you need to tell him why it's important.

I think you need to potter off and consider that stigmatising all males as rapists doesn't help your cause; neither does calling women who don't agree with you, misogynists.

I have already asked when someone said all men are rapists and you didn't answer. Because you've made this part up to strengthen your argument. Of course I don't think that, but far too many men are rapists and there's always people like you waiting in the wings readyto make excuses for them, which is really not helping victims.

I don't call women who don't agree with me misogynists. However rape apologists who deem sexually active women untrustworthy and perpetuate rape myths - yep I'm happy to say they are misogynists.

I haven't seen anyone even suggest that all men are rapists, quite the opposite, and for me, like pinky, of the men I've slept with including drunken, immature encounters, they've all managed not to rape. The one that did was in a relationship and he most definitely knew what he was doing, and btw, he wasn't charged, but there was no false accusation.

Don't back peddle scary you clearly said that you tell your son to get written consent so that he covers his back if he gets accused.

Pinky

With all due respect, I don't care what happened anecdotally to you. I'm not asking, but I'm guessing you were fairly clear about what you wanted, did what you wanted and you are obviously articulate. You are likely to have chosen partners who were similar. And even if this wasn't the case for you, it would do nothing other than lend anecdotal support to the idea that what you are claiming is usually true.

I don't deny your experience happened but I will certainly write off your experience as proof that someone else's experience couldn't happen.

I also dislike the feminist habit of declaring that what is true for them will be true for every woman and their experience is Everyman's experience. You have a limited perspective and so do I. None of us are in a position to insist that something is always a particular way, any more than I can say anything else with certainty about the sexual behaviour of every other couple in Britain.

slender I'm not saying every woman's experience is the same as mine (and indeed as a feminist I would never as I know many women Haven't been as lucky as me). Not sure where you get your "feminists think their experiences are everyone's experiences" from, I feel the exact opposite is true. That's not what I'm trying to articulate here. My point was that even the most unedcauted in the sex department male can figure out consent. The default position of men is not 'clueless' when it comes to consent.

And I didn't say "i consent to intercourse" before each encounter, no. Probably because I didn't have to, because consent is not hard to figure out.

You can argue until you're blue in the face slender, consent is not, and never has been, a complicated concept. If one is struggling with the concept of sexual consent my advice is that they abstain until they figure it out. I know the thought of suggesting men don't stick their penises in people's vaginas is a horrifying concept to some, but if they can't do it without being sure they're not raping someone, I don't know what else to suggest

Scary The best advice you can give your son is don't have sex with a feminist.

I guess because feminists are the ones who run around falsely accusing men of raping them...

Pinky You think I am a rape apologist - I disagree. I doubt any of my students would agree with you either. I think that lines can be blurred and that it isn't always as clear cut as people like to make out in some cases.

If you were in court, and a verdict of not guilty was returned for shoplifting say, of which crime you were innocent, wouldn't not guilty mean just that? Afaik, there is no 'innocent' verdict; the choice is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty can mean innocent of that particular crime, so you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I teach my son to obtain consent to ensure he is safe, just as the Mum of a girl should teach her to make sure she has made her consent or refusal explicit for her own safety. Sadly, just as there are untrustworthy men, there are also untrustworthy women; making him aware that such people exist is not perpetuating rape myths, just making him see that not every one is kind or has his best interests at heart. That is not misogynistic, just realistic and practical, unless you want to claim that every female, sexually active or otherwise, any of us will ever encounter is entirely trustworthy?

You said on p20 that People will call "your lads" rapists for as long as men keep raping. So, even if they are not rapists, you will still term them that because some men rape, ergo, all men are rapists by your definition.

My point was that even the most unedcauted in the sex department male can figure out consent. The default position of men is not 'clueless' when it comes to consent. That's rather the point though isn't it? Not all of them can figure it out, hence the need for the consent or refusal to be absolutely explicit as many teenage boys don't get non verbal communication or find it hard to interpret non verbal cues.

I am hardly waiting in the wings to excuse rapists, but I would want to see the evidence before making up my mind, and also to bear in mind that consent can be a grey area in some cases, and it comes down to 'she said, he said' in many cases, and then we are back to the need for explicit consent again to ensure protection for both parties.

Not guilty can mean innocent of that particular crime, so you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It does not mean innocent but often that it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a crime took place. This does not mean innocent.

So, even if they are not rapists, you will still term them that because some men rape, ergo, all men are rapists by your definition.

No. FFS can you read? I have already said that I don't believe all men are rapists, why are you trying to put words in my mouth? You said "people will always call our lads rapists". My comment was in response to that. Who exactly are "ours lads"?

Not all of them can figure it out, hence the need for the consent or refusal to be absolutely explicit

If a man or teenage boy cannot figure out consent he really really should not be having sex. HTH. Stop putting the onus on women to spell it out for them. You're doing a massive disservice to men and boys as you are making them out to be rather stupid

I am hardly waiting in the wings to excuse rapists, but I would want to see the evidence before making up my mind

As stated earlier, for every 161 rapes convictions, there's 1 conviction for false allegation of rape. And many of these (35 a year) are not aimed at specific men and sexual encounters, but have been a story concocted about a break in and rape that never happened. What other evidence would you like to see that "false allegations" are rare?

Also you've stated several times that you've seen false allegations in your work destroy lives. I'll ask again - given your strong belief in "innocent until proven guilty", how many of the 35 a year convicted people making these allegation have you been privy to at your work?

I think that lines can be blurred and that it isn't always as clear cut as people like to make out in some cases.

I think it is clear cut whether or not someone was enthusiastically participating or enjoying things (or appearing to). Usually clear cut whether someone is consenting but perhaps not every single time since after all consent does not actually require enthusiastic participation or enjoyment.

People can agree to sexual activity they might not actually want or are enjoying for reasons such as say they feel it's normal or expected or wife/girlfriend 'duty' or everyone else does it or they want to please their partner or they feel obligated for some reason. I remember seeing a film or TV show once where a man and woman where having consensual sex, the woman must have got bored or decided it was a bit rubbish and wanted to end it, and told him something like 'I'm giving you five minutes to finish' then just lay there. So a person might know full well that the other is not enthusiastic or enjoying it, but this is still not rape because the sex is being agreed to or "allowed".

So you can have two people doing little and clearly are not enthusiastic, yet one is being raped because the man wrongly thought that she was nonetheless agreeing to it/allowing it, whereas the other is not because his belief was correct.

Oh well, all avoidable with either a consent form or only doing it when the other person is exhibiting enthusiasm etc.

PS you may not recognise how much of a rape apologist you are, but you honestly are. You are perpetuating rape myths by stating that "false allegations destroy lives" yet you don't appear to actually have known a single case where a woman has been convicted after making a false allegation?

You've also used 'prick tease' as an example of how a woman can get herself raped. How is that not apologist behaviour?

She was calling that from years ago...not now

Comforting I asked her how consent could possibly be confusing and she used 'pricktease' as an example. To me, that is saying that if a girl is a prick tease she could confuse a bloke into thinking she was consenting when she wasn't. Which is of course horse shit!

No comforting she was saying that behavior that would once get a women a name pricktease, is behavior that creates grey areas.

Now as far as I know women would be called prick tease for flirting and kissing men then not fucking them.

So that creates a grey area if they are raped?

Fuck I hate stupid people.