I don't agree this is victim blaming

[TeeJay1970]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-45232993

I know what victim blaming is so there is no need to define it for me.

Surely this is just good advice?

The police have had to apologise for encouraging

"friends to look after each other on a night out to prevent someone becoming vulnerable or separated from the group"

Isn't that what good friends do?

Morally, someone who spouts the stuff you do is as bad imo, because it benefits rapists to have people making them seem “not that bad” or making it ambiguous.

Just because there’s more than one person that thinks previous consent or more than one sexual partner means a woman’s disclosure of rape is dodgy, doesn’t make it ok.

So you can keep your faux concern, because it’s about as genuine as your arguments.

While there are people in the world who make excuses for rapists, or who believe that a woman’s previous sexual history is relevant to consent, this problem will never end.

Because while people minimise it, it doesn’t seem so awful.

Funny how it’s never the women who’ve been through it making statements like that though eh?

"Funny how it’s never the women who’ve been through it making statements like that though eh?"

More opinions presented as facts. You know nothing about me nor other women nor the statements we make.

"So you can keep your faux concern"

It isn't faux concern. I really do think you're struggling to read or think clearly or keep yourself from calling anyone who agrees with you as bad as a rapist.

I proved the "stuff" I spouted. You keep rambling on though.

Don't quote me saying rapists are "not that bad". That makes you a complete twat. I didn't say anything of the sort and nor has anyone else.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that more women are raped by people they have not had sex with than people that they have. This does not mean that a woman’s previous sexual history should be taken into consideration in a rape trial. Even if she has previously had consensual sex with the accused.

What bertrand said

yetalk

@shite

"You seem to have a flair for inserting things nobody said"

@Bertrand

"I am perfectly prepared to believe that more women are raped by people they have not had sex with than people that they have."

That contradicts previous statements.

I said "I suspect that having sex with someone once means that subsequent sex is less likely to be rape." and you questioned this. Now you agree?

As the thread has taken a new turn, I'll answer your question.

"This does not mean that a woman’s previous sexual history should be taken into consideration in a rape trial."

Often it's necessary. Without it there's (simplified)simply 'we had sex, I said no but he raped me' and if there's reasonable doubt or alternative evidence we should find not guilty.

Do you think previous behavior and character of accused and victim aren't pertinent?

No she doesnt agree

Are we reading the same posts nanny

Id say what i think bertrand means

But she's likely to pop back herself

So I shan't

“I said "I suspect that having sex with someone once means that subsequent sex is less likely to be rape." and you questioned this. Now you agree?”

No, I don’t agree. I think a woman’s previous sexual history should be completely irrelevant. If I have said anything which suggests I think differently, then I have not expressed myself clearly.

"I have not expressed myself clearly."

Correct. I think I must be failing too.

Me. I suspect that having sex with someone once means that subsequent sex is less likely to be rape.

You. Are you really saying that if somebody has had sex with somebody once, they are less likely to be raped by that person?

(I take it the "really" suggests you disbelieve me)

Me. Yes.

Me. [here are facts which prove so.

You've now moved on to false equivalence. My statement is provably correct but now you talk about the relevance of sexual history. That isn't anything like the point I made.

-----------

We've now moved on to "This does not mean that a woman’s previous sexual history should be taken into consideration in a rape trial. Even if she has previously had consensual sex with the accused."

I think I disagree.

How do you define 'sexual history'. Should a witness be able to testify that the accused was leery, had groped someone in the past and raped someone else? I think they should. Is it relevant? I think it is.

Should the victim having sex with 20 people but being raped by the first but allegedly raped by the 21st be made known to the jury? I think it should because it's relevant as for various reasons, rape is often about likelihood of 'motive' (I don't know the proper term - presence of consent?) and therefore the situation is very important.

For better or worse, I think I'd be more likely to say guilty to the previously coinvicted rapist and not-guilty to the woman who was allegedly raped by the 21st partner of the day. In the absence of other evidence, why am I wrong?

Sorry, nanny. I don’t understand what you’re talking about. I’m out.

I don't understand you either nanny

You seem to be saying (and apologies if ive got it wrong) that its unlikely that someone could be raped by a previous sexual partner

The lawyer isnt allowed to mention past crimes

Less likely rather than unlikely and I proved it.

@Bertrand

You seem to dislike debate and disingenuously leave rather than ever answer a question which contradicts your ideology.

and I proved it

Alright...

I think there has been some confusion over the language being used...

I have tried to clarify before making statements

Its those damn statistics again

Tricky little buggers

Relationship board always has 'have i been raped...' questions. I think there is a lot of confusion

I said "I suspect that having sex with someone once means that subsequent sex is less likely to be rape."

And no, this statement still makes no sense to me

"And no, this statement still makes no sense to me"

Really?

Assuming you're being genuine, it means 'rapists are far more likely to be strangers than a (previously consensual) sexual partner.'

I’ve been reading to see if I can make sense of things, but I have to query this-

“Assuming you're being genuine, it means 'rapists are far more likely to be strangers than a (previously consensual) sexual partner.'

When did the idea of strangers come in? I thought we were talking about men a woman had had consensual sex with and men she hadn’t. Strangers are a completely different discussion, surely?

This thread has gone rapidly downhill, which is a shame but not surprising as there have been some dangerous myths expressed on here. It's not at all the case that rape is more likely when there has been no consensual sex previously; there are a lot of women in abusive relationships who are forced to have sex against their will, are you saying this isn't rape? Rape within marriage is a crime now, after all.

Are you saying that once a woman has had consensual sex with a man, she is therefore not allowed to refuse thereafter? I've had to pull out of having sex with my DH on numerous occasions because it's been painful, and because of flashbacks from the childhood SA I went through.

Are we supposed to 'lie back and think of England', my DM's view? No, a woman can change her mind at any point and her partner has to respect that. If he doesn't stop when she withdraws her consent, then that is rape.

we live in a society that despises rape and punishes/stigmatizes rapists.

I think that society despises a particular type of rape. The 'hiding in the bushes with a knife in broad daylight and jumping out on an unsuspecting virgin jogger who put up a huge struggle and set off her rape alarm but unfortunately no one was around to hear' type of rape.

The 'well she wasn't responding but she wasn't saying no either/she didn't struggle enough/she came back with me' type of rape... Not so much.

Re what I said earlier about admissibility of previous sexual conduct, I believe it is only admissible if it shows something about the case and not to show generalities.

For example it does not matter how promiscuous you are if that is not a part of your evidence. If however (for example) someone says ‘I would never go home with a stranger unless my drink was spiked’, this opens the door to counter testimony of the witness willingly going home for sex with strangers. I think there was also a case of an alleged rapist saying that certain words were used to jndicate that the sex was consensual. The alleged victim denied she would ever use such words. This again opens the door to her previous sexual partners being allowed to testify about her behaviour during sex.

Often (usually?) what is in dispute in a rape trial is consent, not the act itself. In the 21st century women can and should be able to behave sexually however they like. However, equally, when it is germane to testing factual evidence, you cannot ban all previous sexual behaviour as evidence.

To repeat again, to be sure to not be misunderstood, texting witness evidence is essential to justice, sexual ‘morality’ is irrelevant.

mrbatmun

Agree completely with you...i think thats the problem with this discussion

rapists are far more likely to be strangers than a (previously consensual) sexual partner.'

Its the way you are saying

I wouldn't disagree with your last statement

Although i would still not agree with the strangers bit...