'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?

"Nah it's good old goady fuckery, Datun."

Rufus said she feels sorry for my partner, yet I'm the one who's being goady? Just because I disagree with something.

Yes, the man has to be sure that she consents. Really and truly. Not just that there isn't any protest so he can go ahead.

WRT my PP about consent education resistance - remember this chap who objected to going to the consent classes?

I find it rather ironic that a man who is the spitting image of Ted Bundy can hold a sign like that

You saying it was "prude shaming" was the goady bit. I don't care about your sex life. It is not relevant to the issue of whether a man should get explicit consent before he sticks his cock in someone. But do carry on with this angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff about reluctant/enthusiastic sex. It's truly interesting.

" The tale of the night in question was the same in both trials"

Ok, then it would have included his claim that she said something very enthusiastic to him.

It's also worth pointing out that, while education around consent is absolutely not a bad thing, men are very resistant to it Where is this evidenced?

I'm not trying to dismiss the idea of consent education I think the resistance from men is a valid point So its the fault of me n again.

Indeed Pinky! He was being discussed on another thread recently.

"You saying it was "prude shaming" was the goady bit."

Rufus criticised me for being inhibited (despite claiming to be inhibited herself) and said she felt sorry for my partner. That's prude shaming.

Yes Gwen and in the first trial this wasn't enough to determine that he didn't rape her. Hence his conviction for rape. The only difference in the retrial was that her former lovers gave evidence. Not that the £50k reward from Evans had anything to do with it of course

Comforting I think the resistance from men to consent education is men's fault, yes. who else's fault would it be?

"Yeah it's all the fault of men, again! They are only responsible (note appropriate use of word) for the majority of violence and nearly all rape globally! Feminists just won't let that drop, will they!"

Well if its a bunch of feminists jumping up and down yelling at them Im not surprised they are resistant.

It's also worth pointing out that, while education around consent is absolutely not a bad thing, men are very resistant to it

Where is this evidenced?

www.independent.co.uk/student/news/warwick-university-student-george-lawlor-divides-opinion-after-opposing-union-s-sex-consent-lessons-a6694781.html

I don't think sexual education is a bad thing, not by a long shot, it's desperately needed. I do also think it should spell out consent- always ask when you have the slightest doubt, find out how far your partner is willing to go. Teach kids that it's OK to say you're not ready and that your partner has to accept that, if not please distance yourself immediately.

But this won't prevent rape I don't think, I do think it'll help opt for healthier, more fulfilling relationships and encounters.

But not rape as rapist won't give a fuck about something like this. But they would if the consequences were dire for them.

Also, notice that I didn't mention any genders when talking about sex ed, that sort of talk is useful regardless.

Whilst this guy is obviously a fool, it is one man and not men in general as Pink implied.

Not sure what social event he thought he was attending.

A few years back we had Schrödinger's rapist letter and there was an immense amount of backlash because men generally but not exclusively, insisted they were all being tarred with the same brush and that they, personally, were good guys that don't go around raping women despite the essay outlining exactly that.

I do wonder if sex ed were started earlier and this sort of topic was broached in an age appropriate manner if there would be less resistance because it would become normalised.

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.

Scenario A) 17 year old couple, both virgin's, guy says 'let's have sex tonight' girl says 'I'm not sure I'm ready' he says 'if you won't sleep with me I'm not going to go out with you anymore' she sighs, says 'ok then' but looks unhappy about it. They have sex, she continues look unhappy, but he doesn't risk asking her how she is feeling because he doesn't want her to stop him.

Scenario B) different 17 year old couple, both virgin's, he says 'let's have sex tonight' she blushes looks at floor and says she had been hoping they could. They have sex, she doesn't touch him, initiate anything, move much or make a sound, but he asks her if she wants to do things before doing them and if she's enjoying it and she nods, or looks away embarrassed and says yes with a smile. After sex he asks if she wants him to go down on her and she blushes and looks away silently. He then asks if she'd rather they just cuddle and she nods so they do.

Scenario A the guy knows he doesn't have enthusiastic consent as she doesn't really want to but says yes under an emotional threat, and scenario B the guy makes sure by asking that the girl really wants to as she is shy, quiet, inexperienced etc. in bed which would be hard to 'read', and thus knows he has enthusiastic consent.

"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 think you have because you stated that you believed 'the enthusiastic consent movement is all about teaching that there is only one proper way of having sex'. Enthusiastic consent is literally nothing to do with the way you have sex. It's too do with ensuring that no matter what kind of sex (loud swinging from the rafters sex or quiet reserved missionary position sex or role playing kinky sex or anything and everything else you could be doing) you are having, the other person enthusiastically consents to having it with you. That's all.

That one man got lots of support korma. Lots of people agreed with him that it was insulting to expect him to attend consent classes. Enough to prove that there is resistance anyway.

Because many rapey men rely on an element of coercion, but they might balk at going all the way and forcing someone who actively told them no. There are people on this forum who don't agree a rape occurred

This. I'm pretty certain that the boy who coerced me into sex acts at high school wouldn't have physically forced himself onto me (although he did admit that he'd been 'thinking about pretending to molest me in public' to see what I'd do, so who knows).

What he did was to take an inexperienced girl (although I was seventeen and over twenty years later still think I should have known better), take her to a multi-storey car park and use manipulation, threats and blackmail to try to get me to 'play' gradually sicker sex games for his own amusement. I'm not sure where any of that falls within the consent continuum, but I certainly wouldn't have given enthusiastic consent. I told him I was uncomfortable several times, he knew I was shaking, I tried 'nicely' to persuade him to please let's go somewhere else instead (somewhere out in the open, get a coffee or something). But ultimately, I didn't feel able to say no outright because I was scared about what he'd say about me in school. I'd had seven years of bullying and just wanted to fit in.

He never forced me to have sex with him, the worst act I had to perform was a blow job (as an apology for something he thought I'd done but hadn't) - and that was the point at which I 'froze'. The grey area (if you want to call it that - I don't) is that I had a crush on him, so even now I feel - and I know I'm wrong - that I was partly to blame and people will think I went along with his games willingly.

I also believe that because he knew I fancied him that he thought he could do anything he wanted with/to me and it would count as consent - which is what bugs me about the whole 'reasonable belief' thing in law, which is basically on his side - although he did have to resort to lies and threats in order to do it.

Just interested to know how the posters on this thread would interpret this.

Btw, I'm only just starting to discover my feminist side, am not particularly confident or articulate in my assertions yet, but I'm finding nothing threatening about Pinky or Woman et al's arguments - quite the opposite.

Does this only apply to women? Can men be raped by lack of enthusiastic consent? Or is it a case of if he can get it up then he is consenting?

Is that a real question.

Men can be sexually assaulted by women or raped by men (in UK law rape requires penetration by a penis), and yes - the enthusiastic consent bar still applies. A man who is being raped will often get am involuntary erection but it does make it consensual.

The reason we're not discussing men being assaulted by women is because it's so rare, whereas 80,000 women are raped by men each year. And because I've never heard someone claim that men cry rape if they regret sex, or 'give mixed messages' or that there are grey areas when it comes to men consenting.

^ doesn't make it consensual

The grey area (if you want to call it that - I don't) is that I had a crush on him, so even now I feel - and I know I'm wrong - that I was partly to blame and people will think I went along with his games willingly.

It's not a grey area. Women can be raped by their boyfriends and husbands (who they obviously). Fancying someone doesn't mean you consent to whatever they want you to do.

To take a topical example - look at Sundays episode of Poldark. She fancied him (said she was even in love with him), but that doesn't mean that she was up for sex when he broke into her house and forced her into bed while she protested. Fancying someone isn't really relevant at all - it's whether you want to do that thing with them on that specific occasion.

Having read your description, there was obvious coercion, amd he will have known this. I don't believe he can have thought you were a fully willing participant if he had to bully and threaten you. It sounds awful, I'm sorry.

^ (who they obviously fancy)

Thank you WomanWithAltitude. I'm starting to come to terms with it properly now, and threads like this one really help to process it, and ironically even the rape apologists help me to be even more firm in my own convictions.