AIBU to say that in practice sexting a person legally means consent to sex?

[ScrollingLeaves]

To see why I am saying this watch Channel 4:Rape - Who’s on Trial which is on now

A woman flirted with a man in a pub.
Willingly went to toilets with him. Text messages has passed between them.
He shoved her against the wall and violently shoved fingers in her while kissing her.
He left because he heard someone coming in.
Watching CCTV it looked as though she was telling the truth ( police woman thought so).
Alleged victim very upset.

Then they found she’d sent a bra photo and a topless photo to him.
Police man said something like “you have to ask what sort of message was that giving”

Case dropped.

Saying yes doesn't mean absolutely anything goes.

True but first times with someone new that you’re in a relationship with and a bed with are always difficult, I doubt they had a conversation about boundaries and likes/dislikes before going to the toilet.

Hmm I can see why the case was dropped tbh

Did she tell him no? If she did of course it's assault no matter what happened prior.

@growinggreyer

My very first sentence says she can withdraw consent at any time - I was just confused as it wasn't from sexy pics and texts to him sticking his fingers in her - she willingly went with him to the toilets so there was some kind of willingness to engage in sexual activity with him at some point. The sequence of events as to when she withdrew consent isn't clear or how she let him know that she no longer wished to be in the toilets with him engaging in sexual activity.

@Clementineapples

So she deserves to be penetrated violently? If she didn’t want sex why did she go to the toilet with him?

@Clementineapples Maybe she thought she might like a kiss & a bit of a grope. Maybe she wanted intercourse when she went into the toilet with him. Irrelevant, if she wanted sex then changed her mind, that is a withdrawal of consent.

I could take a b/f upstairs, fling all my clothes off & leap into bed with him - then change my mind. If he chose to ignore my change of mind & forced sexual contact on me after I said "no" - that is every but as much a rape as some stranger grabbing a "perfect victim" & making off with her.

Your attitude, along with too many men's, & societal bias, is that once a woman has conveyed her sexuality to a man, she somehow owes him consummation. It's dangerous bullshit. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, & needs to be respected.

@Mymapuddlington

Woman and man flirt and go to the toilets together to have sex. Woman finds the experience unpleasant so cries rape.

That’s what it boils down to in my opinion. Which arguably lessons the cases for real victims.

Woman and man flirt and go to the toilets together to have sex. Woman finds the experience unpleasant so says some variant of - "no, that hurts, stop, I don't want this". Man ignores woman's "no" & continues.

That's not "crying rape", @Mymapuddlington. It's rape.
And she is a real victim.

This is the cup of tea analogy for anyone who is interested. I’m my opinion it should be used as part of sex ed lessons.

Sadly it is the case that if you are remotely nice to a guy then proving rape is apparently nigh on impossible.

The police told me it was pointless even speaking to the CPS in my case because I had previously willingly had sex with the man, and encouraged it.
Five YEARS previously when we had a relationship…
The fact I had injuries and stitches still wasn’t enough.

'He shoved her against the wall and violently shoved fingers in her while kissing her.'

Being violently shoved against a wall is not bogstandard.
Shoving fingers (more than one) inside vagina with no lead up is not bogstandard.

That sounds scary to me. And there was not consent to violent shoving or stuffing fingers straight in. Those things aren't standard things to just do at all.

The fact is though that as a PP pointed out (I think they thought being reasonable) any previous sexual interaction will generally mean that whatever he does consent will be assumed.

So that's nice.

There's also the issue that with acquaintance rape it's a known thing that it's not uncommon for victim to be 'normal' afterwards with him. Text etc.

So that's going to scupper any report they make.

@JustLyra I am so sorry. You've probably heard all the words you can stomach about bastard, so I will spare you further platitudes.

This is the problem when proving rape cases. The CPS need to have enough evidence for a realistic probability of conviction, otherwise it boils down to he-said-she-said, and as we, rightly, have an innocent until proven guilty approach in law then there’s no point in taking cases like this to trial because it will collapse.
I believed her though, that she absolutely did not consent to being forcefully fingered. But that, with the circumstances given, it would be highly unlikely to be proved in court. And therein lies the problem.

You can't make a blanket statement like that, OP.

Taken together, the pictures at that moment and going to the toilet with him suggests that she intended to have sex with him, and it sounds like that is what the courts thought too.

It's unclear what happened after that, is it that he initiated sex, rather aggressively, immediately when they were in a private place, and she said that she had not consented? Or did she say that she had told him she was no longer interested?

I would say that if I sent photos like that, and went off to the toilets with some guy, I would tend to expect sex to follow without necessarily requiring some sort of further spoken negotiation about it. If I changed my mind, which I likely would with someone who was so rough, I'd expect to have to say so to communicate that.

This comes up a lot.

Thing is that it's not always he said she said. There's plenty cases with evidence of violence where it happened. Physical injury. CCTV or testimony that she was too drunk to consent. And even things like. The situation is just so terribly unlikely as to mean he's obviously talking rubbish.

There's also the fact that the vast majority of rapes aren't reported. Victims aren't silly- the vast majority know how unlikely it is to get anywhere and that he said/ she said no chance. As such the massive likelihood is that the ones actually reported are mainly ones where there's more than he said/ she said.

Maybe she thought she might like a kiss & a bit of a grope. Maybe she wanted intercourse when she went into the toilet with him. Irrelevant, if she wanted sex then changed her mind, that is a withdrawal of consent.

It's not, if she doesn't tell him so. That seems to be the question. After seemingly agreeing to some sort of sexual encounter, did she actually say, no, I've changed my mind?

It seems like she didn't, if there isn't more to the story.

A lot of posts on here saying she went with him for sex and so what happened isn't a prob.

I don't get this.
Flirting pics etc. Is just flirting and pics, not consent to anything.
Going somewhere private isn't consent to sex. Nor does it mean she must have been intending sex. It's a bit 0-100 isn't it? Going somewhere private generally means a snog and a grope and see what happens from there. Not right we're definitely fucking. Surely? If it means consent to sex then that's a massive problem for all those who sneak off for privacy any time, anywhere.

And I don't know about anyone else but being violently pushed against a wall and shoving fingers in vagina sounds unexpected, scary and very possibly painful.

Is this really what women expect? At posh work do. Nip off with a bloke down quiet corridor. He does that straight off the bat. That's not ok. I'm surprised so many women are fine with being treated that way.

Lobster why can he assume her consent to the rough treatment? And that sexual intercourse is what's going to happen?

Rather than that she has said yes to privacy and when they get there proceed in the usual manner? IE without being aggressive and just doing what he did.

Do so many women really think if they say yes to going somewhere private then he can just assume she's up for whatever he wants?

That's really awful tbh.

@CheeseMmmm

Lobster why can he assume her consent to the rough treatment? And that sexual intercourse is what's going to happen?

Rather than that she has said yes to privacy and when they get there proceed in the usual manner? IE without being aggressive and just doing what he did.

Do so many women really think if they say yes to going somewhere private then he can just assume she's up for whatever he wants?

That's really awful tbh.

In this case, I would not say that going to the toilet after sending naked pictures was anything other than signaling intent to have sex. You don't go into a public toilet in that scenario to have a little talk and a cuddle, not least because it's going to have to be a quick encounter.

Sexual encounters like that tend to be utilitarian. So was he overly rough, or just inexpert, or what? Lots of sexual encounters with strangers kind of suck. Quickies in toilets kind of suck. Maybe almost universally if you aren't turned on by fast, dangerous sex.

That does not mean she isn't allowed to say no if she wants to at any point, but it doesn't seem like she did or even had a chance to, because they were interrupted. For all we know, had someone not come in, she's have told him to bugger off and he would have.

I mean - a public toilet is not privacy. One of them is likely there illegally, and anyone could come in.

'In this case, I would not say that going to the toilet after sending naked pictures was anything other than signaling intent to have sex. You don't go into a public toilet in that scenario to have a little talk and a cuddle, not least because it's going to have to be a quick encounter.'

So he can assume consent to sex. Vaginal sex? Anal sex? Oral sex? By who on who? With or without condom?
He can assume ok to push her hard against wall and shove fingers in?

No one should be assuming consent to anything. I thought that was a basic.

If it's aok for men to assume consent to... Whatever sort of sex he fancies.

The idea that obviously based on some behaviour she was consenting to penetrative sex, with zero build up. In a bog. I mean that's really extremely unusual for a woman. That it's seen as definitely the most likely scenario by plenty of posters then that's eye opening.

@LobsterNapkin

I mean - a public toilet is not privacy. One of them is likely there illegally, and anyone could come in.

It was a pub toilet- see OP.

No illegality in going into bog for other sex.

@Mymapuddlington

Woman and man flirt and go to the toilets together to have sex. Woman finds the experience unpleasant so cries rape.

That’s what it boils down to in my opinion. Which arguably lessons the cases for real victims.

It was 'unpleasant' because he was forcing himself inside of her. Hope that helps.

@Mymapuddlington

Woman and man flirt and go to the toilets together to have sex. Woman finds the experience unpleasant so cries rape.

That’s what it boils down to in my opinion. Which arguably lessons the cases for real victims.

Woman and man flirt and go to the toilets to possibly have sex, possibly just to flirt or chat or snog.

Man does or says something that makes woman change her mind.

Woman says no or pushes him away.

Man continues.

That is rape.

^A woman flirted with a man in a pub.
Willingly went to toilets with him. Text messages has passed between them.
He shoved her against the wall and violently shoved fingers in her while kissing her.
He left because he heard someone coming in.^

I can imagine a scenario that aligns to all these statements that would quite clearly be rape.

And I can imagine a scenario that aligns to all these statements that would quite clearly be consensual.

If there’s other evidence (CCTV, witnesses, physical evidence of bruising etc) that supports one interpretation over another that would change things.

But otherwise you are in a ‘he said she said scenario and that isn’t generally enough to secure a conviction whatever the truth of the matter.

I cannot believe the rape apologists on this thread.

This woman may have gone with this man to the toilets to have sex, but when he shoved her against the wall aggressively and rammed his fingers inside her, she did not want sex anymore. She likely froze from the fear that came over her for that second before someone walked in.

No man, even a virgin, would go from nice to nasty, aggressive and not expect to put a woman off right away. He was a fucking rapist. Thank god someone walked in when they did, is all I can say.

I hope non of the rape apologists on this thread ever go through rape or your kids/family. Oh and it's not only woman who get raped, men get raped by men too.

I believe this woman 100%. I've had men go from nice to nasty on me in the past just before sex, and yes, it's fucking scary. I wanted sex with all of them until they turned nasty and made me feel scared, unsafe and vulnerable. If you have never been in that position, you really should not talk like you have been.

This woman did not deserve what happens to her, just because she was at one point willing, until he, yes, he! Did something he knew full well would scare her. The people on this thread defending him make me sick!