To be so lost after PSHE comment on consent/alcohol and now situation with DD. *trigger warning, mentions rape*

[Itssohothere]

I have tried my best to word this post best as I can, but if anyone is offended then I do apologise. I did consider the feminism section but this is also about general parenting advice as well so hopefully here is okay.

DD is 16 and currently doing GCSE’s. Study leave has been removed for the whole year due to lack of said studying. The school have decided to continue with PSHE, God knows why, so DD is still attending hourly PSHE sessions once a week.

The PSHE teacher has reportedly said, “if a man and woman have sex and either is drunk, it’s rape.” Bear in mind this is my 16 year old DD’s account.

DD has come home very angry with this statement and has asked me to explain this. According to my DD, she has had sex when drunk before at a party and doesn’t consider herself to have been raped. I knew DD was sexually active but this conversation has thrown me and I don’t think I’ve done DD justice in explaining the teachers comment.

I tried to explain that a woman cannot consent if drunk, which is as far as I got really. But DD then went back to the point if she didn’t think she has been raped, surely not every woman who has drunken sex has been raped and if the man is drunk he cannot consent also. Which again, please bear in mind is my DD’s opinion, not my own. And she is 16, very strong headed and opinonated. I know many people will disagree with her here.

So AIBU on several points here:

A) to be concerned that my DD has had drunken sex at a party? I knew she had had sex with her ex boyfriend, and she was fully advised and prepared in terms of protection, but I wasn’t aware of drunken sex at parties. She shouldn’t be drinking, so I can punish her for drinking... but at the same time I feel like I’d be punishing for having sex which I don’t want too do, as obviously this wouldn’t be healthy at all. What do I do here? Let it go and accept she’s just at this stage now? We are close, she’s always told me stuff so I’m grateful that our closeness has led to conversations about protection, etc... and has allowed me to help her get herself on the pill, talk her through the confusion of when she first had sex and felt upset after, etc... and I don’t want to ruin this. I like the fact she trusts me so much and is willing to confide in me and I don’t want to lose this.

And B) she’s leaving school soon, but AIBU to be annoyed at how sloppy this PSHE lesson was? And want there to be some sort of follow up? Clearly some girls have been left confused and angsted.

And finally, what the hell do I say to my DD? A woman can’t consent if she’s drunk, but if you have sex whilst drunk and are perfectly happy with the activities, then of course you don’t have to think of yourself as raped- but have to bear in mind that a woman still cannot consent if drunk, you cannot speak for other women, therefore another woman in the same situation may very well consider themselves to have been raped and in which case this will have been rape?

But then by saying this I feel like I am telling my DD that a woman chooses if she has been raped, which of course isn’t true.

So can someone more articulate please provide me with an explanation, resource or input I can share with my daughter here? I feel like this a chance I have to make a positive impact on her development and I don’t want to eff up here but explaining something terribly.

Thank you.

Actually, I think Pengggwn and Spaghetti are both right...

The thing here is that as a matter of public policy, the bar for counting anything as coercion is very high; simply put, we do not want people committing the most 'orrid crimes and then pleading "they made me do it". In some circumstances, clear, unequivocal threats of physical violence to the defendant and his family have not entitled the defendant to use duress as a defence for the crimes he committed.

So no, emotional blackmail and psychological manipulation don't automatically make it rape.

But that does not mean these are acceptable forms of behaviour. Nor does it mean that the woman or man concerned can be considered to be fully consenting, just because a rape charge wouldn't stick.

These behaviours are reprehensible, and they are reasons why the guideline should be enthusiastic consent.

Yes, enthusiastic consent should be the bar to aim for, in our personal lives. I think most people agree with that.

But declaring anything short of that standard to be rape is simply incorrect.

Nor does it mean that the woman or man concerned can be considered to be fully consenting, just because a rape charge wouldn't stick.

I get where you are coming from, but actually a rape charge won't stick if the crime wasn't rape. We must be clear on this, as it is so dangerous for rape to be considered to be in any sort of grey area. It is better for women that the definition of rape is crystal clear: sex where the person penetrating had no reasonable belief in consent.

Yes, I suppose those lines are a bit slapdash.

Consent isn't just verbal though, it is also physical, consent should be gained from multiple perspectives and involves speech, tone of voice and body language. A verbal yes doesn't indicate consent, if there are other indicators that the woman doesnt want it, and this is in any aspect of life. For example if a Dr wanted to carry out a medical procedure and you said yes but it was clear from your tone of voice and body language you weren't happy he does not have consent to carry out the medical procedure.

For consent to be valid, the man has to have reasonable belief that you a) want to have sex with him and b) have the capacity to make the decision

A man 'nagging' a woman into sex does not have reasonable belief that she wants to have sex with him, because despite the verbal yes the physical signs of consent will not be there, and he is also aware that she doesn't want sex with him because she has said No multiple times, he knows that she doesn't fully consent to having sex. He does not have her consent and therefore it is rape, a verbal yes is not consent, it might be part of consent but the verbal yes alone is not an indicator of true consent.

Coercion is not always physical, in the same way that abuse isn't always physical. It can involve emotional manipulation, for example inducing feelings of guilt in the woman.

Back to the OP, the alcohol removes the women's capacity to Consent, a tipsy woman most likely has the capacity to Consent but a drunk woman has impaired judgement and is unlikely to be able to give true consent.

Saying "drunk girls can't Consent" is aimed at men, drunk is a scale and at the earlier stages a woman may be able to Consent but it is safer for all parties if men are taught "drunk girls can't Consent" because it allows them to ask the question "is she drunk nd if there is doubt hold off sex until she is sober. If a man knows she wouldnt have sex with him sober then he probably shouldn't be having sex with her drunk anyway.

Pengggwyn but if he has nagged her he does not have reasonable belief she has consented. Because he knows full well that she doesn't want to have sex with him, hence why he has had to nag her. You can't say that one reluctant 'yes' = reasonable belief in consent

TheDishRanAwayWithTheSpoon

It IS consent. You nag, they say yes, that is consent. I don't like that fact, but it is the law.

jamie, separating criminal behaviour from socially unacceptable behaviour is quite important too. Some things are both - such as drink driving. Somethings are criminal but appear to be socially acceptable - speeding on the motorway. Most behaviours which are socially unacceptable are not criminal tho - pretty much anything which is considered "bad manners" falls in to this category, as well as some more serious things. Nagging/begging someone in to sex are not criminal but are (IMO) unacceptable.

It does those who are victims of rape not good at all to lump a whole lot of other unacceptable sexual behaviour in with the same thing. It's a bit like misuse of the words "bullying" and "anxiety" - if you muddy the waters too much the word becomes meaningless and that really doesn't help victims at all.

Coercion is not always physical, in the same way that abuse isn't always physical. It can involve emotional manipulation, for example inducing feelings of guilt in the woman

Again, I am sorry but that isn't legal coercion. It is grim, but before the woman has sex with the man in those circumstances, she consents, because she feels guilty, not because she is afraid.

"A man 'nagging' a woman into sex does not have reasonable belief that she wants to have sex with him, because despite the verbal yes the physical signs of consent will not be there, and he is also aware that she doesn't want sex with him because she has said No multiple times, he knows that she doesn't fully consent to having sex."

This is just not true. This might be the advice that they give in a university consent class, but it is not an accurate statement of the current UK law.

If a woman (and of course this could be woman or man but lets keep using man/woman for simplicity) gives a verbal yes and seems to have the freedom and capacity to give it, there is not (legally) a rape. The law does not go on to say "well yes, she may have said yes, but were her arms crossed/pupils dilated/this was after two prior refusals".

"You can't say that one reluctant 'yes' = reasonable belief in consent"

Yes. You can. The law deems that to be a reasonable belief. I suggest that if you find that unconscionable you write to your MP.

'But it doesn't really answer what I asked about, which is the line beyond which nagging/begging, or even just any real or supposed negative consequence, turns into coerced consent.'

As you've said, there is a feminist view that given that women have never had real control over their own sexuality, because it's always been in some way controlled by men through social institutions and consequences, then no consent is truly valid as women haven't had the opportunity to understand what their consent would look like outside the strictures of a patriarchal (and by definition, coercive) society.

For most feminists that argument is a philosophical one rather than a practical one - it's about exploring the idea of sexuality and consent and placing it into the cultural and societal context that we're working with. There are feminists who believe that the only way to live as free a life as possible as a woman is to avoid getting involved with men, but they're relatively rare and are of course perfectly entitled to feel and live that way (though in the past they would have been treated with deep contempt and suspicion by society - women living without men and not in a religious context are always framed as dried up old crones as a way of devaluing them).

In terms of how it applies in practical terms - I think this thread is a good illustration. We live in a situation where in theory women have bodily autonomy and it is a criminal offence to have sex with a woman who doesn't want it. But in practice, men have ways to get around that that even women will argue aren't criminal - in other words some forms of getting sex with a woman who doesn't want it aren't a crime. So we live in a world where a man can get sex from an unwilling woman, if he uses the right methods and women themselves aren't willing to argue for that being a criminal offence.

TBH in that context the ardent feminist in me would wonder 1) when women will start valuing themselves to the extent that no unwanted contact is ever acceptable no matter how its obtained and that it is always a criminal offence and 2) when men will develop enough respect for women that they will stop treating them as warm fuckholes.

I suppose my question back to you would be, if it were the case that only women could initiate sexual contact because of an understanding of women's weaker position meant that was the only way to decrease rape, would that be a huge problem?

So we live in a world where a man can get sex from an unwilling woman, if he uses the right methods and women themselves aren't willing to argue for that being a criminal offence.

But we also live in a world where I can get sex from an unwilling man, if I nag him enough. I'm not raping him if, as a result of my asking, he says yes. Depending on how I go about that nagging, I am happy to accept I might be guilty of emotional abuse, but the actual sex is consensual.

I'm as horrified as anyone by bullying, nagging and generally entitled sexual behaviour. It's wrong. But blurring the lines between those things and rape does women no favours. It just creates excuses for rapists to say, "See - daft women don't know what they're talking about and they see rapists everywhere! She'd had a few but she definitely wanted it; I mean, look, she consented on Monday. Yes, she was a bit out of it on Tuesday but she moaned when I touched her. She was enjoying it!"

Pengggwn, I'm genuinely confused by this post. Surely if a man nags a woman and she gives in and that's not considered an offence, then that puts the man in a far stronger position? Say a couple has been in a relationship for two years and he constantly nags and she regularly gives in against her will, to keep the peace. Then one night, he nags and she says no and doesn't give in, so he holds her down and rapes her. He can argue, truthfully that many times in the past she said no and then went along with it, so he thought that that's what was happening this time. If he can just admit to nagging and getting his way every other time, without any fear that that is considered criminal then he can argue that this was just one step up from that, rather than an escalation of previous criminal behaviour. He can argue a misunderstanding rather than a pattern of coercion.

I don't want to live in a world where a man can nag my sister or my daughter into sex and then get away with it.

Spaghettijumper

It isn't coercion. She isn't forced to put up with the nagging, she isn't forced to have sex. She can leave him. Her free will isn't compromised by the nagging. Her response to that - to give in and have sex - is done by choice.

Obviously coercive control is real, and if a picture is built which shows the person has no free will because all aspects of their life are controlled, I will obviously accept a coercion argument.

For general nagging for sex, I won't. She can say no.

If she can say no, why doesn't she?

Spaghettijumper

I have nary a clue. All I know is, absent a viable threat, she can say no, and the law agrees with me.

If you look at it another way, if a man has reasonable belief that a woman has not consented (i.e by her repeatedly saying no, body language) then he does not have reasonable belief in consent. It might be that the woman will struggle to get a prosecution however it does not mean that she gave her willing, valid consent.

Sexual Coercion is the use of violence, threats, harassment and other tactics to force someone to have sex with you. Repeatedly pestering someone to have sex with you is harassment, especially if there is the use of aggression and power etc. Again, without obvious threat of violence this will be hard to prove but it does not mean it is not coercion. It does not mean that the woman gave her willing consent.

TheDishRanAwayWithTheSpoon

I'm sorry but it does. If you are not coercing someone, and they say yes, your belief that they meant yes is reasonable. Their body language might suggest they are not comfortable with that answer, and I would be disgusted by anyone who did not take account of that and stop, but I would not have a rape case against them if verbal consent was given absent coercion.

In many cases the woman doesn't say no because she has grown up in a society that makes her feel that she owes men sex and that if she doesn't give sex she will lose her relationship, which she values because it validates her in a world that says that getting and keeping a man is vital to a woman's worth.

For other women it'll be another thing in a string of subtle abuse - sulking, name calling, control.

How would you classify a 'viable' threat? Does it have to involve physical violence?

Spaghettijumper

The law suggests it has to be a threat in a level where a reasonable person would feel they had no other choice at that point in time. I would define that as physical, but I am sure there are other circumstances where a non-physical threat could act in the same way.

I'm sorry but it does. If you are not coercing someone, and they say yes, your belief that they meant yes is reasonable. Their body language might suggest they are not comfortable with that answer, and I would be disgusted by anyone who did not take account of that and stop, but I would not have a rape case against them if verbal consent was given absent coercion.

This really bothers me Pengggwn. If you ask me for £20 and I say no, then you spend the next hour asking and asking and asking me, telling me you won't speak to me if I don't give it to you, saying nasty things to me and eventually I say 'Ok have it!' would you genuinely think I 'agreed by choice'?

blimey we're still going!

So, say I know if I don't have sex, then my partner will sulk for the week and I know I can't cope mentally with that, so I have no other choice but to have sex in order to avoid that situation.

Is that a viable threat?

Spaghettijumper

Of course you did, because I didn't force you. You had every opportunity to tell me to fuck off and walk away, didn't you?

Spaghettijumper

So, say I know if I don't have sex, then my partner will sulk for the week and I know I can't cope mentally with that, so I have no other choice but to have sex in order to avoid that situation.

You cannot make the other person responsible in law for your MH. You have the choice to say no and seek help with your MH. It isn't coercion just because you cannot cope with someone not talking to you/sulking. I am sorry but you are being ridiculous - you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, accusing someone of raping you because you couldn't cope with them sulking when you said no.