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.

@Brefugee

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 am amazed at how many posters just shrug at this. It might be better if instead of always believing the man, the woman was believed? Even if the CPS brought in a "we're going for an across the board 50/50 policy on this" (so 50% of he said/she said believed the women and prosecuted based on that) we'd have WAY more convictions for rape.

In the UK we have a principal innocent until proven guilty. We should only prosecute with evidence and sadly there seems to be little in this case. I wouldn't like to see the CPS bringing cases against people who are not likely to succeed.

Yes - rape is penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus with a penis without the victims consent. Hence why a female can not rape a male, but a male can rape another male

In this case - it would be sexual assault by penetration.

i am amazed at how many posters just shrug at this. It might be better if instead of always believing the man, the woman was believed? Even if the CPS brought in a "we're going for an across the board 50/50 policy on this" (so 50% of he said/she said believed the women and prosecuted based on that) we'd have WAY more convictions for rape.

That’s not how the legal system works though is it? It’s not a case of believing one party or the other.

The accuser needs to be able to satisfy a court that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t need to prove anything.

You could argue that the standard or proof should be lower. In civil cases it’s decided on the balance of probabilities - if that were the case in criminal matters no doubt there would be more rape convictions. But would it be right to give people prison sentences and criminal records on the basis that it was considered ‘more likely than not’ that something happened?

I could agree to sex with my husband and 20mins later be in bed naked with him and say no I’ve changed my mind. Regardless of the circumstances before if you say no you’ve changed your mind then you’ve changed your mind.

From Twitter
Don’t flirt. Don’t accept a drink. Don’t accept a phone number. Don’t ever be drunk around men. Don’t wear provocative clothing. Don’t get a bus at 5pm. Don’t sleep in the same house as men. Don’t assume you’re safe,ever. How about, men, stop raping women?

In the UK we have a principal innocent until proven guilty.

Quite, but my thought experiment still stands.

We have to start from the position we're in: many rapes, very few convictions (and sentencing isn't a deterrent, apparently, either)

And then we have to work out how we're going to approach it.

I'm guessing there will be some women on this thread who have been raped, due to consent being withdrawn even, and they haven't been to the police because "he said/she said" "but you sent him a photo of your knickers" etc etc (incidentally: if sending pics is an invitation, if i get a dick pick can i then go and cut it off if i don't like dicks, and he can't tell me he wasn't inviting me to do that? probably not...)

And one of the easy wins the police can have in terms of a) catching rapists and b) encouraging women who have been raped (and sexually assaulted) to come forward. This easy win would only need the police not to dismiss most women (that is how it feels) with "but you sexted him" etc etc

And then we move on from there.
The other thing is understanding consent. The tea consent video is brilliant. But how many schools show that to the kids? not enough, i think. That's also a very good place to start with this: education about consent.

It's true that it's been a LONG time since I flirted with a man in a bar, and even longer since I flirted with a man in a bar that then led on to any kind of sexual contact, but certainly, if was flirting with a man in a bar and decided to exchange sexy pictures of my breasts, if I then went into the toilet with him I would not have assumed he'd be going straight to penetration of some sort. Is it just me?

I mean, in that situation I'd expect some pretty heavy snogging, maybe a little breast groping. Anything further I'd expect there to be quite a lot more clearly given consent on my part. Because quite frankly, going from flirting to penetration in 3 seconds has never been something I've done or expected to do. It's the kind of thing that possibly might be a fantasy and you might agree with your partner in advance. I don't think it would ever be a usual expectation (and frankly, it's one of the reasons why that scene in the first series of The Morning Show is so jarring - he goes from a hug, to shoving his hand down her trousers in literally 2 seconds. It's just not normal).

One of the other cases presented in the programme was very sad and upsetting.

A teenager raped by her mother’s boyfriend m, in what they believe was a case of mistaken identity (boyfriend thought he had got into bed with her mother). Mother was woken by her teenager shouting ‘no’ and witnessed it. The boyfriend claimed it didn’t happen/couldn’t recall it happening, but there was genetic evidence. It was going to trial but the boyfriend committed suicide.

I saw on another programme a few months ago a case of two young girls under 16 separately raped by a man in his caravan.

It turned out they had sent sexts and done web chat. When the police found that out they nearly dropped the case. The only thing that saved it was the fact that a police woman noticed on one of the web chats that one of the girls said she was 15 therefore he could not claim he did not know.

So, the sext nearly got the case thrown out.
He claimed consent.
He could have claimed he couldn’t know she was under 16.

@TimeForTeaAndG

Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Consenting to one act does not consent to all or even repeat of a previously consented act.

The police officer sounds like an arsehole.

When I reported my ex for DV and sexual assault, the detectives (both women, and apparently both specialist SA/DV officers) told me "well if you consent to [A] then you're really consenting to anything and everything".

pretty much... ACAB

Imagine the common scenario of teenage parties such as those seen on the “Everyone’s Invited” website.

A girl goes into the bathroom or bedroom with a boy for a smog. He rapes or asssults her.

She reports it. It turns out that like many teenagers now nude photos had been sent.

Was going into the bathroom consent to penetrative sex?
Was the sext consent?

In law, in practice, it would be.

Wtf? NO! It absolutely does not mean consent for sexual activity

Poor woman

No it wont be - if he rapes her, then that is the offence complete.

So that will be investigated as a rape.

Its when it gets to court that the evidence will be tested as to whether the suspect reasonably believed consent was given.

People are getting confused between what’s morally right and what would lead to a conviction in a court of law.

Agreed. And rape cases are particularly problematic because they often boil down to one person’s word against another, in a situation where no other people are present. So - I was involved in a very unpleasant situation on the Tube a few years ago. Called the police….and of course there was CCTV and a carriage full of people who could agree with my account of what had happened. One on one in a public loo? Not so easy. And I don’t think we really do want a legal system which will convict/deprive people of their liberty without a very strong burden of proof/evidence. It’s very difficult. I completely agree that consent should be taught and better understood; maybe in the long term this will mean that the average juror won’t assume a sexy picture or message equals consent….precisely because this issue is much better understood. But it’s bloody difficult….and not in anyone’s interest for cases to be brought that realistically have little chance of success.

Is sending nude photos to strangers really that common now? I’ve never sent any I didn’t realise it was so common? It really isn’t a good idea people could do anything with them surprised so many are doing it now a days, with partners ok (still never done that) but with people you don’t know? Aren’t people worried about them being shared or put online?

Regardless of the circumstances before if you say no you’ve changed your mind then you’ve changed your mind.

But how do you PROVE that. That’s the question. Take your scenario, in one example you say no, husband forces himself on you. He rapes you but you have no proof. In another you have consensual sex, you have an argument and you tell him you’ll report him for rape, he has no proof.

That’s why we have to rely on evidence. Had the woman not gone to the toilet, had she screamed in there, had she scratched his face, done anything to provide evidence that she’s telling the truth that’s another thing. However it’s just a case of he said she said and you can’t condemn a person with no evidence.

I believe her - why would she lie and put herself through the degrading and humiliating process of reporting a rape?

Unless there's some huge backstory we should assume she is telling the truth.

Not seen the programme. Will watch on catch up
While a woman has the right the remove consent at any point the justice system says innocent until proven guilty and in a he said she said situation there is no actual proof.
If I was in court for something I would hope any conviction would take place on what could be proved rather than assumed.

I can’t open the link.

If she didn’t meet him until that night how did she send topless photos? Had she previously been to the toilets to take the shots and then sent them to him?

If I was a man who had been flirting with a woman who also sent me topless photos and then agreed to sneak off to the toilets with me then I would certainly expect something sexual would happen.

But that might be just how men perceive it.

As the woman it wouldn’t occur to me to think that I was obviously offering myself to him…..I would just see it as an opportunity to go somewhere for a cheeky snog.

The really sad thing is that it does come down to : her word versus his and we all know that it’s always a shitty outcome for the woman.

I don’t know how times will ever change

I don’t think we really do want a legal system which will convict/deprive people of their liberty without a very strong burden of proof/evidence

i don't think anyone wants that. I also don't want the current situation where women aren't believed, are investigated to the nth degree, their phones are taken, their sex lives are dissected and so on and so on.

So what is the answer? I am not in any acceptance of the status quo where even with proven DV a wife has to jump through hoops to get the police to be interested, and that often only happens when it's too late.

That’s the thing I think most men would be expecting sex if a woman sent nude pics, flirted and offered to meet him in the toilet, I don’t think most men would be expecting a kiss and a cuddle.

@ArblemarchTFruitbat

I believe her - why would she lie and put herself through the degrading and humiliating process of reporting a rape?

Unless there's some huge backstory we should assume she is telling the truth.

Police should always believe the victim at the point or reporting. However, during the investigation the evidence presented must be examined.

And you'll be surprised how many people report rapes and go through the full process for something that hasn't happened.

If she didn’t meet him until that night how did she send topless photos? Had she previously been to the toilets to take the shots and then sent them to him?

Couldn’t she just have had those pictures on her phone already and sent them to him? They don’t have to have been taken at the time.

The “Would you like a cup of tea” video does not work in real life.

There is ambiguity.

Was the question answered with ac’Yes’ when they went into the toilets?

Was it answered with a yes when she sent a sext?

Supposedly, she should have been asked “Would you like a cup of tea” before he pushed her onto the wall, put his fingers round her throat, kissed her violently, pulled her tights down and shoved his fingers in her.

So I don’t like that Cup of Tea video.

Another point about the man in the case:

He was married it turns out so he’d deleted the sexts, though he told the police about them when he said it was all consensual. They found them on her phone.

The fact that he was evidently a liar to his wife should throw some snall shadow of doubt as to his credibility imo.

One of the points made was that more effort should go into investigating the alleged perpetrators.

@TurnUpTurnip

That’s the thing I think most men would be expecting sex if a woman sent nude pics, flirted and offered to meet him in the toilet, I don’t think most men would be expecting a kiss and a cuddle.

But isn't his expectation irrelevant? I don't disagree with you at all, but a justified and even reasonable expectation of sex isn't an excuse to go ahead if consent has either never been given or has been withdrawn.