'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?

I give up gwen

And if we believe there are nice accidental rapists, if they take the time to check that their partner is ok with what is happening they are much less likely to accidentally rape anyone and face an accusation of rape.

Oops

Should say goodness...not goddess

Literally no one else apart from Gwen gives a fuck about Gwen's sex life. So I'm not sure why she thinks it's so relevant.

Rufus you say that you're the same as me, then that you're surprised that I can lie motionless. You've obviously not the same as me.

"Literally no one else apart from Gwen gives a fuck about Gwen's sex life. So I'm not sure why she thinks it's so relevant."

But Rufus feels sorry for my partner and is very surprised at my behaviour so she clearly does give a fuck.

I think its gives a fuck

I have clearly got the wrong end of the stick

Gwen - what I mean is that the post you were replying to was talking about the enthusuastic consent movement stopping rapists from getting away with rape. Rather than stopping rapists from raping.

You said "How does it make it harder to get away with raping someone? A rapist is by definition someone who doesn't care whether the victim consents."

So I said that the point was that if society cared about enthusiastic consent etc. then they wouldn't get away with it. Because more of them would be convicted.

Like i said gwen

You win

"So I said that the point was that if society cared about enthusiastic consent etc. then they wouldn't get away with it. Because more of them would be convicted."

How would more of them be convicted? We're presumably talking about a crime that happens in private. Unless there's bruising or other signs how would the jury know whether the rapist's claim that the victim consented - either enthusiastically or quietly was true. How would the need for 'enthusiastic participation' change conviction rates?

I think you are, you're prude shaming.

This isn't a thing now, is it?

They could put them on the stand and cross examine them about exactly how they obtained consent and what happened. Then it would be up to the jury. I'd like to see this happen in many more rape cases.

Nah it's good old goady fuckery, Datun.

I hate the term "he said v she said" but for the sake of this conversation I'll use it. It's a myth that "those rapes" (he said she said) don't reach court. Of course they do and it's up to a jury to use logical thinking and judgement to decide whose "side" they're on. If jurors were instructed to look out for signs that a woman consented enthusiastically, and that this was a key part to their decision making, it would increase conviction rates. Look at Ched Evans. He admits he never spoke to his victim let alone obtained enthusiastic consent. If this was the "rule" (which IMO it absolutely should be) he'd have been convicted, as would many other rapists I imagine!

I would just really like to be in a place where we held men accountable for their behaviour, without every man and his dog objecting to that. I hope that, at least by the time my DD is an adult, we get to that point.

In fact, if a man is operating on the basis that it's all systems go unless and until he gets a tangible sign of non-consent, he's being reckless and likely to rape someone.

I agree. The rape apologist argument about how 'women have to give a clear no or how else will the poor hapless man know' assumes that men have the right to sex unless they are told not to.

And the apparently radical feminist idea is that actually you should NOT assume that you can perform any sex act on someone unless you know for sure they want it. That doesn't mean you need them to 'sign consent forms ', and it doesn't have to be verbal, but if a person isn't sure then expecting them to say 'you wanna x?' really isn't a big ask.

Gwenhwyfar I think you have completely misunderstood 'enthusiastic consent' to mean 'enthusiastic in bed' (ie loud, etc) and those are completely different things. No one is saying women have to have a certain sexual persona or act any particular way, just that you should make sure your partner 'enthusiastically wants' to do it (as opposed to 'reluctantly').

I think it should be fairly obvious that if you are having sex with someone who is screaming "Yes! Yes! Harder!" you probably won't feel the need to ask if they are happy for you to keep going. But if you were having sex with someone very quiet and still and you asked if they were still happy and they nodded with a shy smile that would also be enthusiastic consent.

I.e. The enthusiasm is what the person feels, not how they are acting.

pink

No, it's not that people are more offended by personal insults than by the rape conviction rate. It's just that they're more likely to express their reaction about the personal insult to you because it's just happened and you've insulted them (whereas the rape conviction rate has nothing to do with you).

No, your arrogance is mistaken. You don't know who has messaged me but I don't recognise itsmine.

It always amazes me the way you people think there are only a handful of dissenters. You have no idea how many women don't agree with you and you can't sweep them all aside because you know, they're as much women as you.

You suspect the same person is behind three usernames on a thread because three people couldn't all think like that. You presume someone is trying to goad you when they have no interest in your frustration levels but simply have a different view. You think you have a privileged experience of being women and get frustrated when you're not allowed to tell everyone how it is. You think people don't care about women if they don't do so in exactly the way you have prescribed. It's all very narcissistic and you're oddly willing to trample over and abuse other women in the process.

If you're only interested in engaging with people who are prepared to either share your views or overlook a lot of personal insults and incredible condescension/absolutist statements to talk to you, I'm not surprised you don't give a shit if you're living in a bubble.

In fact, if a man is operating on the basis that it's all systems go unless and until he gets a tangible sign of non-consent, he's being reckless and likely to rape someone.

You see, that's what people need to know. I've tried to raise that view and met with resistance to saying something so cut and dried. It takes education to raise awareness of that. That's what people who are banging on about consent issues are trying to say, not that men are innocent unless women blow a foghorn down their ear.

rufus

Then men should be told that saying yes please to one thing does not mean yes please to anything else you would like to do

Yes, Rufus! They should be told! Either by the woman herself or repeatedly in consent education class or preferably both!

You suspect the same person is behind three usernames on a thread because three people couldn't all think like that

Erm, it wasn't me who suggested that actually

You have no idea how many women don't agree with you and you can't sweep them all aside because you know, they're as much women as you.

I know they're as much of a woman as me, but I don't think it's my job to persuade them to care about women's rights and victim's rights.

And massive yawn at the 'living in a bubble' accusation again. Not sure how wanting men to take responsibility for their actions is living in a bubble?

You think people don't care about women if they don't do so in exactly the way you have prescribed. It's all very narcissistic and you're oddly willing to trample over and abuse other women in the process.

I think rape apologists don't care about women, no matter how much they say do do, and I won't pander to them. Not sure how this makes me a narcissist?

You're doing a great deal of extrapolation slender it's quite tedious.

The people who have spouted rape myths on this thread have not once expressed anger or disgust at what rapists actually do, what they put women through or how appalling our rape culture is. They have spent hundreds of posts arguing about grey areas. I personally think that is very telling as to how they really feel about women and rape. As someone who cares deeply about lowering rape and raising conviction rates, why on earth would I want to be pally with that type of person?

Yes, Rufus! They should be told! Either by the woman herself or repeatedly in consent education class or preferably both!

FFS why is it up to women or feminist to spell basic things out to men??! What kind of person thinks "oh she consented to X so she must be up for a shag, I'm sure she won't mind me just sticking it in!"

I'll say it again - let's have a culture whereby men are accountable for their actions. Is that really so hard?!

"Look at Ched Evans. He admits he never spoke to his victim let alone obtained enthusiastic consent. If this was the "rule" (which IMO it absolutely should be) he'd have been convicted, as would many other rapists I imagine! "

I thought he got off because of an enthusiastic instruction the woman gave him.
In any case, a rapist would just lie about it wouldn't he?

It's also worth pointing out that, while education around consent is absolutely not a bad thing, men are very resistant to it. Despite classes being mandatory in some Unis or colleges, men have staged boycotts or walk-puts. So unless we chain them to a chair and force them to take part Clockwork Orange style, I'm not sure how every man on the planet actually would be captured for consent education?

I'm not trying to dismiss the idea of consent education it I think the resistance from men is a valid point (and probably quite telling on how they perceive rape actually).

But it would be harder if he had to lie about it on the stand while being grilled by a prosecution barrister, don't you think?

"just that you should make sure your partner 'enthusiastically wants' to do it (as opposed to 'reluctantly')."

You can't reluctantly want to do something. It should be that the partner wants to do it. Why do they have to be enthusiastic? It's just that the man has to be sure his partner consents.

" I think you have completely misunderstood 'enthusiastic consent' to mean 'enthusiastic in bed'"

I don't think I have if you look at the examples given.

I thought he got off because of an enthusiastic instruction the woman gave him.

No, he got off because for some reason the victim's previous sexual history became admissible in a retrial. The tale of the night in question was the same in both trials, and it didn't work in his favour in the first.

In any case, a rapist would just lie about it wouldn't he?

Ched Evans didn't. And even if they did again it's up to the jury to make a judgement on of he is lying. Men shouldn't automatically be believed (but often are sadly).