'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?

What is a rapey rapist-sympathising men?! Its late and my brain's shutting down - genuinely not sure what you're exactly what you mean but yes I do think it would be great to educate children and young adults about women, sex, consent, what has been wrong historically with their culture, all of it.

I'm cautiously hopeful about the impact it could have on the next generation of men but I don't think it will have an effect on many men right now, because evil is a choice and sometimes no amount of educating can prevent an adult doing something they know is wrong of their own free will. Hence we don't have too many signs saying 'Don't murder people. It's disrespectful and it's wrong.' Because to be educated about that is not going to make a different to the people who need to change their thinking (and will almost certainly not change it on the strength of a pamphlet, advert, open lecture in the townhall etc..

Education around consent could make a great difference to help women to know if they were raped (must be horrid not to be certain), how to spot controlling behaviour, how to trust your instincts, behaviours that are definitely not ok, things which you definitely don't have to do no matter the pressure, times when it's more than acceptable to walk away quickly to a public place or attach yourself to another group of women without worrying about embarrassment or fear of over-reacting.

And yes, I do think men need lots of education around consent since while since teaching consent may be unnecessary 99% of the time, for the inexperienced and clueless I do believe there is occasionally the potential for horrible misunderstandings which were genuinely the result of not having a clue what was expected. Educating in women to feel free to be transparent about what they want and don't want would be helpful here too.

sorry about the mistakes - brain's clearly shut down. Night!

I do believe there is occasionally the potential for horrible misunderstandings which were genuinely the result of not having a clue what was expected.

I know this to be the case, actually. The whole feminist stance falls down for me at this point. Because I know this to be the case.

You feminists are trying to do something good while closing your eyes to various inconvenient truths. Everyone else can see the things you're shutting your eyes to. That's why so many people disagree with you. I wish you'd drop the agenda for long enough to have a sensible discussion based on common sense instead of the automated answers and insults you all seem programmed to come out with on threads like these - it's slightly chilling, watching you go through the same formula every time. Women need to pull together and there'd be more chance of that happening if feminists weren't so arrogant and tyrannical. And if you didn't have a reputation for men hating it would be great. I'd like to do something for women and much as I hate rapists, I like other men. You don't seem to which sucks for everyone.

But that's one of the scenarios that men apparently find 'confusing'. Also on this thread people have raised 'prick teasing' (saying yes to one thing, but no to sex) as a 'grey area'.

I am not sure who thinks that you can know that a woman is too drunk to say no yet still be confused as to whether she is consenting, but I disagree with them if so.

As I've suggested, I believe it is possible to know what consent is as a concept yet still incorrectly believe someone to be agreeing or allowing something (ie consenting to it).

All avoidable of course, if one goes for the higher bar of 'is she enthusiastically participating' rather than 'is she agreeing to it/allowing it (ie is she consenting to it)'.

Everyone wants to stop rapists. It's a gimme. Some violent thugs don't care. Obviously. It's about dispelling myths across the board. If a rapist thought he'd be castrated by a jury, you could watch the statistics drop like an avalanche. Currently convictions are the lowest in Europe. No one is saying you shouldn't have a fair trial. But at the moment they are not fair. It would level the playing field if people everywhere, including those on future juries, (and the public, your mates, husbands, etc) were in full possession of the reasons that rape myths are myths. And the reasons why defence teams want to employ them.

If a defence team admitted a victim's sexual past and the jury thought 'oh yeah, that old chestnut' it WOULD be fair. And correct. And the conviction rate would go up. A deterrent would be in place.

OH slender please do stop blaming feminists for everything it's very boring and doesn't make any sense. Men are not raping because of feminists, they are raping because they're rapists. People aren't refusing to tackle the issues because of feminists, it's because we live in a patriarchy where women's issues aren't as important as men's. The only inconvenient truth on this thread is that consent is simple and only you and a small few others (who have all uttered rape myths from the MNHQ link) have objected to it. Most people find the concept simple.

slender am I correct in thinking you've NC twice on this thread?

Feminists hate all men? Oh pull the other one.

The only inconvenient truth here is that consent is very simple, because all it involves is a simple sentence. "Do you want to have sex with me now?".

Some people can't handle the truth because it means that sometimes, nice normal good looking 'lads' rape women. It could be their dads, brothers and sons 'their lads'.

I asked much earlier in the thread for a scenario where a man could accidentally rape a woman but no one has answered.

NO ComfortingKormaBalls

If you believe some men are rapists, how can it ever be determined by a woman ??? Ever, ever, ever ???

Yuck korma. I'm reporting that in the hope MN will remove such blatant misogyny.

No comforting, that's a rape myth, and it's exactly why sexual history evidence needs to be banned outright. It's not right to judge a rape victim by her previous behaviour. No one deserves to be raped and it's impossible to know the true impact of rape on a person, it doesn't depend on circumstances. That's exactly why they brought in section 41, to stop ignorant jurors making judgements like yours on rape victims, and deciding there are good victims and bad ones.

I'd rather that post was left to stand. We need to show what we're dealing with. People here are more than capable of countering that ignorance.

Bloody hell, Korma, even the Daily Telegraph's chief sports writer can what's so utterly crap about views like yours (sorry for stereotyping male sports editors here): the day after the Evans verdict, he wrote a very good piece pointing out that she could have previously had sex with the whole Wales team consensually - and it would not have any bearing at all on how a jury ought to assess the events of the night in question.

Your views are some of the worst I have ever come across.

I was just about to say the same thing. Let it stand.

And you obviously don't believe a woman has the right to do those things, comforting, or you wouldn't be suggesting she should be able to be raped with impunity.

I think that post might make some people who previously haven't got it, understand why sexual history evidence is so wrong.

I've been thinking about this thread and I have my opinions. Just because they are not yours you automatically have to run to teacher, which is a little sad but not unexpected. Just like a jury of 12 men and women, each will weigh up the facts and give their verdict. They won't all side with you because you shout insults and refuse to debate.

I thought Slenders post was spot on: You feminists are trying to do something good while closing your eyes to various inconvenient truths. Everyone else can see the things you're shutting your eyes to. That's why so many people disagree with you. I wish you'd drop the agenda for long enough to have a sensible discussion based on common sense instead of the automated answers and insults you all seem programmed to come out with on threads like these - it's slightly chilling, watching you go through the same formula every time. Women need to pull together and there'd be more chance of that happening if feminists weren't so arrogant and tyrannical. And if you didn't have a reputation for men hating it would be great. I'd like to do something for women and much as I hate rapists, I like other men.

No one here is refusing to debate, korma. Just the having of a different opinion doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. And that is why I personally believe sexual history evidence should be banned. Because there is too much room for ignorance, like yours. Just as we need to assure a fair trial for the defendant, I believe it needs to be fair for the victim too.

Comforting do you think that something needs to be done about the rape conviction rate of just over 5%? Or do you think it's ok that only 5% of reported rapes end in conviction?

Do you think that 95% of women are lying?

Also you talk about promiscuous women and choice.

You have no idea what has lead that woman to make those choices, poverty and previous abuse are factors in behaviour.

What about prostitutes? They take payment for sex but can still be raped.

Plenty of prostitutes have no choice because they're being exploited.

Just because they took payment for sex 6 days a week doesn't mean on the seventh day they can't be raped.

What if she agreed to have sex doggy style but was then instead raped anally which she didn't give consent for. Is she fair game in your eyes because she was naked with her arse sticking out?

Okay, you want debate. Let's unpick your statement that a jury won't convict where a woman can be demonstrated to have a history of being promiscuous.

Is this because you genuinely think a woman who is promiscuous is unrapeable - once you've consented to one, two, ten men, you've consented to all? I am very much hoping this is not your actual view, because if it is, you really have views so extreme that they cannot be debated in a rational manner. It would be like trying to debate anti-racist measures with a fully paid up member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Or is it that you think, simply as a matter of observation about how juries behave, that once a woman has consented to one, two, ten men, it's very hard to establish that in this case she might not have consented, so it's very hard to get justice for a promiscuous woman?

And if you believe the second, do you agree that the justice system has failed her massively?

If so, what do we do about it?

Educate juries that just because a woman likes sex with partners of her choosing, that doesn't mean she doesn't care who the partner is? Educate them to realise that consent on one occasion does not mean blanket consent on all occasions?

Or if you think that juries can't be educated, perhaps we should make previous sexual history completely inadmissible?

Or a mixture of both.

To be honest it doesn't strike me that korma thinks rape is that big a deal, unless the circumstances were truly awful.