In thinking DH's attitude is absolutely ridiculous? I'm seething!

[justkeeponsmiling]

For reference, we have 3 DC: DD (17), DD (12) ), DS (8). DH and I got together when eldest DD was 18 months old, he treats her like his own and her biological father is not on the scene these days (her choice, he was being a total cunt and she cut contact last year).

Eldest DD will be 18 in a couple of months. She has always been quite nerdy and generally a "good girl", always very responsible, never really going out on the piss, only ever had one boyfriend last year and too my knowledge hasn't even had sex yet - though I realise I might be wrong on this front. So we've never really experienced most of the trials and tribulations that most parents of teenagers experience.

So a couple of days ago DD asks if she can go to her (male) friend's house in the afternoon, after work. She has met this lad through a mutual friend last summer and met him a few times, never been to his place. Not that it makes much of a difference I suppose, but he is 18 and still lives at home. She informs me she will be taking public transport home and get home around 9pm. Of course, no problem. She then asks I'd she would be allowed to have a few drinks at this lads house. I say yes, sure but don't get drunk (last year, one one of the extremely rare occasions DD went for a night out she got extremely drunk and was very lucky she didn't die, due to engaging in some pretty stupid behaviour. It was awful and she knows I still get a bit twitchy when she mentions having a drink, hence her asking if I would mind). So as not to dripfeed, DD was diagnosed with depression last year, mostly brought on by her biological father's cuntish behaviour, and has had a course of ADs and counselling. She dropped out of school and lost a lot of friends at the time. She is much better now and to be honest I'm fucking delighted she is making new friends and going out socialising again!

So as promised, DD came home an out 9:30 last night, obviously quite tipsy. I made her some food, we sat down together while she was eating and she told me she had a fab time - this lad had another mate round who DD knew from school and together they had a few alcopops and played xbox. DH overhears this conversation and halfway through gets up from watching TV and stops upstairs to the bedroom without a word, where he stayed until all DD had gone to bed. When he eventually reappeared I asked him what the matter was as I could tell something was up.

Apparently "he didn't like what he was hearing", so to avoid an argument he thought he would go upstairs. Turns out DH thought it was not ok that DD was in the house with two lads drinking alcohol. He kept asking me if I was ok with it - umm yes?! It was the afternoon, she informed me of her plans, checked if she was allowed a few drinks, didn't get legless and came home as she had promised. I really fail to see the problem! But no - apparently DH, who used to get pissed and take drugs in his mother's shed with his mates from the age of 15 feels it's wrong for a girl to be in the hose with two lads drinking. At very nearly 18 years of age. I was absolutely gobsmacked. I feel that given his own youth he clearly has horrendous double standards, and it makes me really angry that in his head he is turning an afternoon of fun into something seedy and inappropriate. I wasn't even able to discuss this with him - apparently I can't criticise his view because "that is his opinion", and what is he possibly meant to do if this is how he feels?!
I suddenly feel like I am married to some matron from the dark ages and I now absolutely dread our middle DD starting to go out and be a teenager in a few years. His attitude makes me so angry and his complete refusal to discuss the matter is IMO just ridiculous. AIBU to really struggle to get past this? I have no idea how to deal with his attitude!

I’m not going to insult you for being a man.

I wish I could say I was surprised by your attitude but - well, you’re a certain breed of man so I’m not going to engage with you about it any longer.

Pls forgive me if this comes out wrong or offensively, I'm having a lot of Fibro fog today...

Surely the fact that you DH did all those things as a teen is the reason WHY he's being a little strict? Perhaps he doesn't want your DD to end up meeting people like whom he associated with. Starting drinking whilst underage (albeit only marginally) is a slippery slope. Whilst it can be (and sounds like it was) harmless fun, it could so easily have resulted in these friends' having other friends who came round who happened to have drugs/be overly persuasive or pushy about wanting sex etc etc.

I realise there's a very fine line between keeping your child safe and being overly protective & smothering them. I just think that your mention of your DH being 'hypocritical' because of what he did as a teenager is wrong. A parent having a past of bad behaviour is not an excuse for a child to do the same/similar, just to avoid the parent being hypocritical!!! My brother refuses to rein in his almost 18yr old son from smoking (which he has done for a 2 years now!!!!) Simply because he "smoked at 15" I was staggered! Surely he should be doing all he can to discourage him from making the same mistakes?! Nope! Doesn't want to be a hypocrit! 🤦🏼‍♀️

I had a very and I mean very strict upbringing didn't do anything until I left home and so I didn't know about how to deal with relationships or men at all. Didn't help.

Actuslly, no I wouldn’t have liked this either especially if she is just getting back on her feet.

I wish I could say I was surprised by your attitude but - well, you’re a certain breed of man so I’m not going to engage with you about it any longer.

I'd rather not jump to conclusions so easily.
I don't assume people are guilty. I don't assume they are a certain 'breed' because they believe in the presumption of innocence. I don't resort to name calling.
If that makes me a breed, so be it.

It's not wrong to feel concerned if she is particularly vulnerable compared with other girls her age but I feel that men with this attitude are usually just male chauvinist pigs. There is something really superior about the "I know what I was like at that age" as if they had all the girls falling at the feet completely fooled by their lies charms. Chances are that the girls saw straight through them and if they did have sex it is because they wanted to.

Mumsnet is a parallel universe at times. It really is.

I would love to know what OP thinks now, and whether she is still seething. Some quite sensible stuff has come up on both sides of the debate here.

You constantly miss the point: the presumption of innocence is essential, and therefore fully protected, in a legal context. It is NOT essential when debating rape. If it were, nothing could ever change because everyone would assume justice was always done, and our society accurately and fairly treats all sides and nobody guilty is ever acquitted... and if you do not see the problem with that, then you are part of the problem yourself.

We are not in any way affiliated to the legal process these men faced, where due process is a completely vital protection against the tyranny of the state. We, however, are not that powerful. They don't need absolute protection against our honestly held and reasonable opinions. When you say THEY ARE INNOCENT BECAUSE THE ACQUITTAL PROVES IT you are showing ignorance of the law. The accused don't have to prove innocence; the onus isn't on them in any way at all.

By definition, by saying they are definitively guilty you do not believe the woman, and/or that whatever happened, she had coming. If you think she lied, you are by definition accusing her of a raft of serious offences. People are jailed for lying about rape. It's a serious offence.

Saying they were acquitted, ergo they are innocent and nobody has any right to raise the least question mark on the subject is to say the wom(e/a)n lied. It's inherently loaded against the accuser. Their acquittal can mean they didn't do anything wrong, or it can mean the case wasn't proven to a criminal standard of proof, and either way, they must not and cannot face any criminal sanctions. It doesn't mean people can't question their conduct. I'd argue that they must, or how can we move forward? No social progress happens because people sit meekly by and assume the perfection of the system.

We are not the jury. We are not the judge. We have no powers. We're just random members of the public discussing the problem that is rape culture. Therefore the due process protection of the presumption of innocence is completely by-the-by. It is not relevant. It is a dead parrot.

Your inability to disentangle the two is most unfortunate, as it renders you incapable of following the argument in any sensible manner. It is essential that these subjects are discussed and debated properly, in the public domain. It is equally essential that the criminal justice system supports and upholds due process. The two are not incompatible. They exist side-by-side.

And finally, if I want to insult someone whose posts in my view support rape culture, I will do so. I regard it as absolutely necessary, because your views on the responsibility of women to avoid being raped... well, they need to be challenged, and as forcefully as possible. Rape apologists are, in my view, scum.

Incidentally, it's fairly comical that you seek to lecture me on the law. I have an LLB and an LLM. From Cambridge.

Ah, a male rape apologist.

How... disturbing.

OP, I'm afraid I agree with your husband. If she's vulnerable, then she is at risk. There's a depressing amount of data on the way recidivist, unconvicted* rapists select their victims, and the majority select acquaintances or friends, when they're drunk. Rape is far more common than the statistics ever indicate, because most rape is within social groups, and most women never report. I'd suspect many don't even tell their friendship group, and miserably, I think in many cases that's wise, because quite often they will be met with rape myths and disbelief if they do.

*For the better understanding of those who might protest that definition, there is a remarkably consistent pattern whereby if you ask someone in anonymous self-reports if they have raped, they'll say no. And then if you go on to describe the acts, and the various situations in which they might have occurred, they will freely admit to raping. Many of them several people. Those people are self-admitted rapists, whether they use the word or not. There are plural reports across ages and occupations.

I think your DD was very responsible actually and has clearly learnt from her previous experiences. She told you where she was, that there would be alcohol and agreed a time to be home so you she was ok.

Your DH needs to give her space to grow up and find her own feet at bit. It's lovely that he feels protective of her but she can't be wrapped in cotton wool for ever.

I gave up after a few pages.

I would never allow/accept/ condone/encourage my vulnerable teenage daughter to sit drinking alcohol with anyone.

She needs protecting. YABU.

Here's a really approachable blog post (by a man, who gets it - most men I know do, thankfully) discussing that data.

So are you saying seeds that a nearly 18 year old cannot ever have a drink with anyone ?

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. I can tell you gave up after a few pages, you need to read what others have said

*Ah, a male rape apologist.

How... disturbing.*

Cheap, unnecessary and incorrect jibe.
It's not wrong to stand up for the presumption of innocence in ALL criminal cases.
That has never been, nor will it ever be an apology for rape.
Seriously, don't throw accusations like that at people, it's abhorrent.

You disagree with my view, that's fine, but first it's name calling and then a jibe like that. It's all too easy to throw out a line like that thinking people will fall for it. I think enough people here have enough sense to know it's nothing like rape apology.
Giving a toss about justice matters to me. I do not like the low percentage of convictions, but that is not because the victims are female and perpetrators male. It is because it is such a difficult crime to secure a conviction for.
How are you equating that for apology? or an excuse for rape? It's nothing of the sort. I wish there was a way to convict more, but it's not easy, and just because I know some get off with it, I can't know which of them do with certainty.

It's a horrible accusation to throw at somebody, it really is.

@TheBrilliantMistake

By defending the current system and its failings you are condoning the a: reporting and b: conviction rates.

you are also be rather alarmist stating the current system is better than Trial by Internet... of course it is, no one is suggesting that we replace our judicial system with mob rule.

But we wont change anything by lamely sitting back and saying its all good, nothing to see here, which is exactly what you are doing.

I've not defended it, I've said it has many failings, but I do still defend the tenet of innocent until proven guilty, for all crimes, and I don't subscribe to trial by internet.

There's plenty to change and can be improved, I just don't believe the right improvement is declaring people guilty because they are not nice people or because their attitudes stink.
The biggest problem with rape conviction rates is the difficulty of proving it. That's not condoning anything, that's just a reality of prosecuting this type of case. Even the presence of bodily fluids or bruises doesn't prove rape. Again, this is apologising, this is stating the harsh reality of how difficult it is to gain a conviction.

Should we relax the burden of proof? that's a huge question and one that would have massive repercussions. Maybe we should.

Alarmist is to call someone a rape apologist purely because he believes in innocence unless proven guilty. I just don't see how the two are related.

Again, I haven't defended the system, I have defended one fundamental tennet of our laws. I'll stand by that.

I completely agree with your husband here. This is irrespective of what has happened before.

Day time drinking isn’t something I would be happy about.

The thing is - it is different for girls.

I wouldn't be particularly happy about daytime drinking either but I think it is something most people do occasionally when younger. Hardly the end of the world considering she is almost 18. Being disapproving would just result in her not telling OP who she was with or what she was doing next time.

I also think the DD sounds very sensible in that she told her mother where she was and who she was with and she came home when she said she would which was quite early. Not all 18 year olds would do that.

I have to say that once upon a time I would have agreed with OP but in the light of the Ulster rape trial verdict and (no matter what you think of that verdict) the way those young men discussed teenage girls showed me how incredibly naive i have been. I know the accuseds’ school extremely well and grew up in that environment and never would it have occurred to me that I couldn’t have gone back to the house safely in that situation. Now I think I was just lucky. I will now be teaching my dd completely differently about how to behave and keep safe than I would have thought I had to. I now have no idea how to get the balance right between fostering independence and teaching safe habits.

Google steubenville too. And brock turner.

I really, really thought it wasn’t different for girls. I was wrong.

Oh, and I support perfectstorm.

@TheBrilliantMistake
Yes i agree there is difficulty in obtaining convictions, however, there is clearly something v wrong when such a personal and awful attack has so low reporting rates.

Defence barristers bring up how much the victim drank, her clothing or previous sexual history none of has nothing has anything to do with the case in question, why is this allowed? yet previous conducts of the accused is not questionable!

This is where i would start to amend the current system, not alter the burden of proof but make the trial and reporting experience more appropriate for this type of offence.

Roussette, I am saying that it’s unwise to allow a vulnerable young woman to drink alcohol in a house with two male acquaintances.

It is another mentality as far as I am concerned. I didn’t need to read further. I would never encourage my daughter think this is acceptable behaviour.

Defence barristers bring up how much the victim drank, her clothing or previous sexual history none of has nothing has anything to do with the case in question, why is this allowed? yet previous conducts of the accused is not questionable!

I don't know. In most cases, it should have no bearing, in some cases it may. That might not go down well either, but I think that's how it's evolved.
The issue of how much drink is important in establishing someone's capacity to consent, although as you illustrate it can also be used to suggest other things. If a woman is drunk, she can't consent in that state which should help her case, but it's often used against her.

Although not good reading, since the onus is on the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused (not just in rape, but other criminal cases too), then it's almost inevitable that the accuser is going to be the one questioned the most in order to establish that proof. In a rape or violence case, that's particularly problematic as it's very traumatic and victims are prone to making mistakes in their testimony, getting fine details mixed up. Again, I'm not saying this is 'ok', it's just what happens sadly.

I know there has to be a better way, but I don't know what that way is.
We're on the wrong thread for this discussion really, and because of the nature of the subject, it's always going to be very emotive. That's why it's so difficult a topic to discuss, but it's right that people do talk about it - hopefully without insulting each other etc.

I think 99% of barristers do want justice to be served, and do the judges and the jury. But they also have to apply the law as it currently stands. Despite the overwhelming statistics that most rape claims are genuine, and that most men commit sexual crimes, they still have to treat both sides as equals from the start, and have to work with the often limited or ambiguous evidence before them, which usually makes for a difficult conviction due to the nature of the crime which is often behind closed doors, and usually preceded by some interaction and level of consent to go to a party, or go to a hotel room. After that, it becomes so difficult to prove that sex was not on the agenda, or a specific sexual act was not agreed to. Again, not apologising, I'm really not, I'm just saying this is the difficulty the CPS face. A more unusual random sexual attack is easier to prosecute.

I wish I had all the answers. I don't.

There is another tenet that we'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be found guilty. That's a hard pill to swallow, a damn hard one. It sort of makes sense, until you realise that also means those 100 guilty people might go on to create 100 more victims (or more).

The media do not help. They sensationalise high profile cases, because sadly, it seems the public will buy that sort of news. Again, that's not a nice message to read, but a harsh reality of our society. The Evans/McDonald case, and the Adam Johnson case sold a lot of news. I'm not at all comfortable with that.