'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?

It is clear cut. Rape is rape. If there's no enthusiastic consent, it's rape.

Technically though, is there anything in the legislation or the statutory definition of consent which mentions enthusiasm (or the appearance of)?

As far as I am aware (though could be wrong) that even if someone is just lying back and thinking of England it would not be rape IF they were agreeing to this or could be reasonably thought to be.

You can question the morality of a man going ahead with this, and why some women/girls might feel like they ought to 'let' him, but that is a separate matter to what is illegal.

Doinitfine - I'm a very strong person and don't think for one second that your words (which purposefully misunderstand me) have any affect on me what so ever.

Well these threads are supposed to be for debate, not berrate :-)

You've certainly given me something to think about (those of you who have had an adult conversation about it and not resorted to insults). It's good to see these things from many angles.

I am sure you are as oblivious to being called out for the rape apologist you clearly are as Ched Evans was to being found guilty of the rape he admitted to.

JAPAB - I'd be careful if I were you. If you don't agree with these girls 100% you are in for a rough ride. I said something similar and all hell broke loose.

The things JAPAB has written on this thread are nothing like your rape apology.

He clearly accepts that consent actually matters.

I also accept that consent matters.
You are clearly oblivious to the fact that you need to feel you have someone to pick on to make yourself feel better. You are willfully misunderstanding me.

DoinItFine: Don't be an internet troll.

Witty - I have read through your posts and don't think you are a rape apologist, which is a horrible accusation. But I think the scenario you describe, where a girl gives mixed signals and goes ahead with sex even though she does not really want to [could happen] would not lead to accusations of rape. I don't think she would think it was rape or pursue it as such. You seem to be in agreement about what does actually constitute rape and that consent is important.

There was a thread last month by a lady who was thinking back to a sexual experience at university (I think) and wondering if it was rape.

Posters were divided. Most thought probably not but it was tricky.

Popular feminist posters were nowhere in evidence. Because cases like that aren't supposed to exist as far as they're concerned.

Of course they exist. Nothing in life is always straightforward. You don't have to be soft on rape or have an agenda to know that.

Why are all these young women having sex they don't want?

Good question. More research should be done into this - but isn't being done because it's a feminist area and acknowledging this big problem moves dangerously close to suggesting consent can be ambiguous.

Popular feminist posters were nowhere in evidence. Because cases like that aren't supposed to exist as far as they're concerned
I can't talk about the other "feminists" (and also have no idea whether I am a "popular feminist poster", I'm a prolific one anyway) but I didn't see the thread.

Polly, your experience is very similar to mine, same age, same situation, man in his early 20s. I'm still unsure as to whether I lost my virginity that night, or was raped.

A very dear friend of mine, who I've known since my teens was raped., by a senior P.O. She'd passed her probationary/training as a PC. She went out to celebrate, got very drunk, and accepted a lift home from him, with whom she'd been flirting and chatting with most of the night. On the way home he asked would she mind if they stopped at a friend's house, that he was keeping an eye on, because friend was on holiday.

The moment they got through the front door, he locked it, did something to scare the crap out of her, (can't be more specific, too outing) and raped her. Who knows, she may have chosen to have sex with him willingly, but he took that choice away from her. Even with all her self defense knowledge and fitness levels, she froze, and he raped her. She didn't tell a soul for over 10 years.

Dfriend didn't press charges, because she'd seen all the shit that rape victims/survivors are put through during statements, then re-living the whole hideous experience in court, and having one's personal life pulled apart.

Things have moved on a bit since then (I think?) Or have they??

No, I understand you perfectly.

I just recognise that you are a rape apologist.

As is anyone who goes online tontalk about how women need to be educated out of being raped.

And how it's really hard for men to know if they have consent.

And how if you don't say no forcefully enough it's not rape.

Wow, many things are just wrong here

• consent is required, not enthusiastic consent. Obviously enthusiasm is better, and its a good way of making sure the other person is consenting, but it's not a legal requirement.

• nagging someone, or putting pressure on them can be evidence that they didn't consent, but it doesn't necessarily mean its rape. It's more complicated than that. Coercion is rape, but there's a chasm between nagging and coercion.

• you don't have to explicitly state yes, body language and behaviour is sufficient

• the defence of reasonable belief in consent is important to consider. I its not just about what is going on in the woman's head, but also the man's.

• we don't know how many false allegations of rape there are, because most are impossible to prove (often either way), and the only ones in the statistics are the rare few where it being false is proved. Given most rapes (and allegations if) happen in a room with only the two people present, its difficult to prove with certainty what either person is saying. So we simply don't know. Further,its entirely plausible that both people could be telling the truth if their perception of what happened is different.

Rape is badically avkegal pastime enjoyed by many men and degended by many women.

We should really just accept that and educate our daughters to expect many non-consensual sexual encounters throughout their lives.

As long as a man can convince rape apologists that his belief in consent was "reasonable", then there is really no point in pretending that consent is anything other than an abtract idea that means nothing in practise.

Teach our girls that no is meaningless, that syrughling puts you at further risk, and that complaining afterwards makes you a target for violence and abuse.

Why fight it?

It's a rape culture. Let's just own it.

Yes doinit
Reasonable belief in consent has been put in the law to protect men from all these grey areas. And what do they do? Abuse it to say things that aren't at all a grey area are (like the man who accidentally had sex with a woman in a hotel after going in the wrong room. Or the man who got in a bed another man had just left and didn't think to speak).
Section 41 put in to protect men from lying women by allowing sexual history to be admitted if it shows a pattern. Men abuse it, like Ched.
Maybe we should start from the basis women aren't likely to lie and not build on these loopholes.

So basically, you want to rip up the entire principle of innocent until proven guilty. Nice. Is that just for rape or for all offences?

we don't know how many false allegations of rape there are, because most are impossible to prove (often either way), and the only ones in the statistics are the rare few where it being false is proved. Given most rapes (and allegations if) happen in a room with only the two people present, its difficult to prove with certainty what either person is saying. So we simply don't know. Further,its entirely plausible that both people could be telling the truth if their perception of what happened is different.

This is true but, given that in 2011-12 for every 161 rape prosecutions (and let's not forget how difficult it is to get a prosecution for rape) there was 1 prosecution for false allegation, it does seem that the focus on women 'crying rape' is massively disproportionate.

Part of the problem as well is that there is still this idea that sex is something that is 'done to' women, rather than something that they might actually participate in and enjoy. Therefore, if she isn't participating actively in sex, it doesbt really matter, because it's not really for her anyway, she s just the receiver.

The CE case clearly showed that a woman who has ever enjoyed sex in her life is to be viewed with suspicion.

Not rip up the principle of innocent until proven guilty. But consider it legitimate to ask "what led you to believe this woman was consenting?" (Hint - not actually speaking to her at any point in the proceedings, having let yourself into a dark room as a complete stranger, does not seem to me like a convincing basis for reasonable belief). Be able to ask why courts find cases like the "oops I fell penis first into her vagina" excuse reasonable ones.

Because at the moment we live in a country where approximately 1 woman in 4 has been raped, and all those millions of victims have bugger all chance of ever seeing justice done.

The principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" has never existed wgere raoe is concerned.

The accuser is presumed guilty and a liar and the accused is treated as someone who has been harmed by the very fact of an accusation.

It is a crime done mostly to women, pretty mych exclusively by men.

The idea that the legal system has ever dealt with it with anything approaching justice is laughable.

The principle in rape cases, as exemplified by pur resident rape apologist earlier us "presumed consenting, unless proven to have put up a fight".

We can't take a woman's word for whether she consented, because far more impirtant is a man's entirely reasonable belief that thst it doesn't matter a fuck what she wants.

I have just read that a man got found guilty of raping two sex workers in Canada. He had many excuses 'reasons' as to why he couldn't possibly have raped them: because he has a micro-penis, because he was too fat, because his arms were to short, because his hernia meant that it would have been too painful for him to rape anyone. Some men will literally say or do anything to try and get off the hook. I'm glad the fact that the victims happened to be sex workers didn't count against them, which happens all to often in rape cases when it comes to the victim coming under scrutiny.

JAPAB - I'd be careful if I were you. If you don't agree with these girls 100% you are in for a rough ride. I said something similar and all hell broke loose

I agree. It's happened to me. Its intimidating and stops a lot of other people posting which is a shame for a balanced debate.

Comforting what kind of scenario are you imagining where a woman thinks she's been raped, the man thinks it isn't so it isn't rape?

What would have to happen for that to be the case?

Probably going to get shit for this but oh well...

Having seen the phrase "drunken consent is not proper consent" (or something along them lines) being thrown about since the Ched Evans case, I ask the question... How many of you actually gave consent during those drunken regrettable sexual encounters? What if you're too drunk to remember if you consented or not and just assume you did but regret it? Does that mean you were raped? Some women may wake up the next morning and just because they don't remember giving consent or believe they wouldn't of given consent they assume they must of been raped.

Not trying to say that they weren't one way or the other in the kind of scenario but how can you say for certain of you were raped or not if you were that drunk?

These are genuine questions... I'm genuinely on the fence with this one.

It's rather depressing that on a thread that's set out to dispel rape myths, people will still come on and fall over themselves to excuse men's behaviour and pile all the onus and reaponsibility on women and scrutinise her behaviour - including educating them on how not to get raped