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.

JourneyodDragons
“Well it would mean changing one of the basic principles of English law - innocent until proven guilty.“

Somehow it seems that women are assumed by the law to be guilty of lying until proven otherwise.

Not that I know what the answer is.

Do you say to girls and women.

Don’t drink because someone might pick you off, rape you and say you didn’t remember if you had consented or not.

Don’t go off with anyone to a private place to kiss because they might rape you and you will be deemed to have consented by going there.

Don’t send a nude photo no matter what because apart from other dangers that could be deemed consent to rape.

Don’t wear tight or revealing clothes because that could be sending a message of consent.

Don’t flirt because that could be seen as consent.

Watch out for having intercourse with anyone because the consent to that will be also seen as consent to rape ( added violence)

Watched this and tbh, I could tell which cases would fail straightaway. Whilst I have to say that one police officer's comment was deplorable, one said that he could not find the man guilty but believed otherwise. This is because a jury cannot convict if there is any doubt at all. In the case referred to here, there was too much doubt but I believed her totally.

Such horrific cases, the young girl raped by her mother's partner and why the case did not proceed. I wonder if she will ever get over it.

The two girls who went for Choir practice then back to their hotel, well I also thought he would walk. Their distress was just terrible to watch. One girl was simply unprepared for the attack by the defence counsel. Yet on this occasion the Police thought they would get a guilty verdict. It summed up Who's On Trial perfectly.

The only justice went to the 16 year old whose attacker received 9 years and pleaded guilty eventually. So pleased she did not have to endure a trial.

My own family member's case went to the Police, and they submitted the file to CPS who rejected it on the grounds they would not obtain a conviction. I actually wrote to head of CPS and he wrote back detailing his reasons. As time went past, I realised that going through a trial would have finished her at fifteen years old. He could not deny sex because she had his baby. I was totally shocked at the low number of cases actually submitted to CPS. Sad and shocking viewing.

“ElsieMc
As time went past, I realised that going through a trial would have finished her at fifteen years old. He could not deny sex because she had his baby. I was totally shocked at the low number of cases actually submitted to CPS. Sad and shocking viewing.“

I am sorry about what happened to your family member.

It is very interesting you say this because in the debate following the programme the defence barrister said that someone under age could not consent, what ever had happened.

In practice the law doesn’t always seem to uphold this principle. If your relative had a baby aged 15 one would have thought it was clear cut.

Wasn’t there a case recently aired on the radio of a woman who was exactly such an offspring of rape who, as an adult, after massive efforts, finally got the police to try the rapist? He was found guilty. I wish I could remember more.

1. Innocent until proven guilty.
2. Criminal liability is beyond reasonable doubt - so hard to prove
3. Women (and men) can withdraw consent at any point.

Apply those 3 facts to situations and it can all be very hard indeed. I remain of the advice that for men and women you can best protect yourself by keeping sex for when you know each other very well.

I feel as though the drive towards quick casual sex disadvantages women in particular. I mean, it does men no favours, and along with porn harms their ability to build strong, emotionally intelligent relationships. Women are actually endangered by it though, in my opinion. If this, currently normal, behaviour is seen as tacit consent, then women have lost the opportunity to withhold consent.

How can we have a situation where women are expected to, but cannot, demonstrate they withhold consent?

@notanothertakeaway

This seems to be modern version of wearing a short skirt = asking for it

Flirting, sending suggestive messages and topless photos and then going into a pub toilet with a man aren't really the same as wearng a short skirt.

But is it the same as not bring allowed to say no to any sexual encounter thereafter? Does that just mean a blanket, across the board, yes - forever?

It's not consenting to anything imho

The other question is whether, even if it had been decided that consent to sex had been implicitly given (on the basis of flirting. Photo, and going into the toilets) had consent to violent sex also been given?

This "he said/she said so it's hard" thing is bullshit. It always gets trotted out as some kind of gotcha moment! The vast majority of rapes are he said/she said. There's rarely CCTV, witnesses, audio etc. Internal examinations only prove sex took place. Bruises ,wounds,lacerations are explained as "she liked it rough your honour". Even when there is proof it's either explained away or the rapist's circumstances come to play. His reputation, his future, his remorse, his depression/alcoholism/career/family. A rapist is a perpetual victim.

We live in a country where "i tripped and fell" was literally used as an excuse for an innocent verdict. Our judicial system and society lets women and girls down and gives free reign to predators.Whether the victim is 5 or 50, a virgin or a prostitute, a cleaner or a lawyer, a woman in a swimsuit or one in a parka, a runner in a park or a mum at home. They're all free game.

There was an AIBU the other day about someone who'd put an item on gumtree/fb marketplace or something and someone had arranged to buy it, however last minute OP realised she still needed it so had to message the buyer to say sorry she was no longer selling it, and buyer was a bit annoyed and shirty.

There were lots of people saying OP was U, however nobody suggested that since she had sent someone a picture of the item and initially agreed to sell it, that the buyer would now be fully entitled to come round to her house and forcibly take it from OP, even though OP had changed her mind, and in fact it would be OPs fault if the buyer did break into her house and steal the item. Strange that.

@onceandneveragain
That is a good analogy

I don't think there can be much confusion if a woman is saying stop. Anybody who claims they had sex without realising she didn't want it is most likely being dishonest unless the woman laid there and said nothing. Even then most guys would sense something off and ask if she was ok.

However, after some steamy messages, photos, and a mutual trip to the toilet, I can see how the man might press against and kiss her whilst slipping a couple of fingers in. This could happen within just a few seconds.

I can see how the man might ‘slip a few fingers in’ (UGH) but I cannot see how he can legitimately think he’s entitled to do so, nor how he can think she definitely wants that just because she’s flirted and sent him some photos!

No.

Oh apologies, *a couple (for the sake of accuracy)

@HollyandIvyandAllThingsYule

While I have no experience joining men in toilet cubicles at bars - I can certainly see that once in the cubicle hands start to roam. I can a woman reaching down for the guy's dick without explicitly asking if she can touch him.

As an adult who was sending sexy topless pics and agreeing to join someone in a toilet - I can't see that person being so naive as to think the purpose for that would be a chaste peck on the lips.

That doesn't change the fact that no means no - but I don't think it is strange for either party to start to touch the other person's body after a mutual rendezvous in a pub toilet.

Midlifemusings
“That doesn't change the fact that no means no - but I don't think it is strange for either party to start to touch the other person's body after a mutual rendezvous in a pub toilet.”

Yes, the thing is though, in this case, it wasn’t ‘starting to touch’ and it was instantly unmutual. He shoved her against the wall hard, put his hand around her throat, kissed her in a violent way, pulled her tights down and put his fingers in then stopped suddenly and left when the other man came in.

This woman who by her own account had been flirting and wanting to be with him for kissing was left extremely distraught.

Something bad happened in there. Why would she have flipped from liking him to trauma for no reason?

Was this a real case? Because if real life its very unusual.

1. She bothered reporting (women know how it is)
2. The police heard report and bothered doing anything
3. It went to court? Even cases with massive evidence don't get to court
4. Of course not guilty. Which is why I assume not real? Consent has been taken as given in court by judges/ juries in plenty situations where it's just... Eh? Even when accepted she was too incapacitated to consent. Or it was just obviously totally just no way....

If this was real I'm amazed tbh.

@ScrollingLeaves

Midlifemusings “That doesn't change the fact that no means no - but I don't think it is strange for either party to start to touch the other person's body after a mutual rendezvous in a pub toilet.”

Yes, the thing is though, in this case, it wasn’t ‘starting to touch’ and it was instantly unmutual. He shoved her against the wall hard, put his hand around her throat, kissed her in a violent way, pulled her tights down and put his fingers in then stopped suddenly and left when the other man came in.

This woman who by her own account had been flirting and wanting to be with him for kissing was left extremely distraught.

Something bad happened in there. Why would she have flipped from liking him to trauma for no reason?

Because it wasn't nice or enjoyable. That's the only reason there needs to be. She felt unsafe.

But that doesn't make it assault. If she'd told him to stop and he didn't that would be assault no question. But it only seems to have taken a very short amount of time and there was no chance for much more to play out.

A lot of young women think this kind of anonymous sex will be fun and exciting. It's part of the culture of going out and drinking and hooking up, they see it on tv and in porn possibly too. Very few find that it really is fun. The men are not devastatingly expert lovers. They themselves aren't ready for sex in the sort time available so it's likely to be uncomfortable. It can quickly become scary because they don't know this person who is stronger than they are and there is no trust.

That kind of scare will be traumatizing whether there is an assault or not. And maybe there would have been in this situation, but events interfered so it's not clear.

Your view is that men can assume consent to... Whatever? Based on things that are not explicit consent to anything.

Normal men behave... Normally. Assume nothing see how it goes. Same as women.

The idea that a man can read consent by whatever. And then can do whatever. And the woman needs to verbally withdraw consent (that she had no idea she had given) is really retrograde.

Because in fact in general. Most men don't assume anything in a casual sexual encounter. It's a two way thing.

A PP said when he heard someone coming he legged it out the pub. That doesn't scream nice bloke no issues does it.

@CheeseMmmm

Your view is that men can assume consent to... Whatever? Based on things that are not explicit consent to anything.

Normal men behave... Normally. Assume nothing see how it goes. Same as women.

The idea that a man can read consent by whatever. And then can do whatever. And the woman needs to verbally withdraw consent (that she had no idea she had given) is really retrograde.

Because in fact in general. Most men don't assume anything in a casual sexual encounter. It's a two way thing.

A PP said when he heard someone coming he legged it out the pub. That doesn't scream nice bloke no issues does it.

I'm not sure what you are actually saying here, but it doesn't seem to be much like what I said.

No one has said anyone can assume consent to anything.

Several people have said that after sexting, and heading off to the toilet, many or even most people would see that as initiation of a sexual encounter.

I suppose if people change their minds about something, or find it isn't what they intended, they could withdraw consent without saying anything. But it's likely to less effective than, you know, actually communicating.

He didn't communicate before he pushed her aggressively into wall and shoved fingers inside with no precursor though.

And I'm sure you said earlier what she did meant consent to sexual intercourse.

@CheeseMmmm

Was this a real case? Because if real life its very unusual.

1. She bothered reporting (women know how it is)
2. The police heard report and bothered doing anything
3. It went to court? Even cases with massive evidence don't get to court
4. Of course not guilty. Which is why I assume not real? Consent has been taken as given in court by judges/ juries in plenty situations where it's just... Eh? Even when accepted she was too incapacitated to consent. Or it was just obviously totally just no way....

If this was real I'm amazed tbh.

Yes, it was on the TV programme

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/rape-whos-on-trial

I've just watched this program off the back of the thread. Very frustrating to watch and the threshold to take something to court seems to pivot a lot on the believability of the victim and how 'innocent' her behaviour is.

Likewise the two women in the hotel and the absolutely vile opportunist who pounced on them.

It led to an interesting discussion with my DH who a few years ago was on a jury for a rape case. Details vague so not at all outing

Young couple, both in the drugs world. Woman broke up with man when she found he'd been cheating. He lured her to his flat with the promise of her things and drugs. Then raped her.

My husband thinks the prevalence of so many crime dramas now means the expectation of evidence is high. The jury wanted forensics, cctv, medical exam...the works to prove it. The reality was it came down to consent and each persons testimony. But the jury couldn't get their heads around not having this full suite of evidence as they felt they needed 'proof' before convicting.

He also said that many male jurors were fixated on the position they'd had sex and said it wasn't a male dominant position so she could have easily got away.

He was astounded by where the conversation went and how much focus was around the actions of the girl rather than than the man...she went there willingly...they'd exchanged sexual messages post break up...she had done drugs with him....their position meant she could get away....she didn't tell any friends afterwards etc.

Sadly, I think this is a realistic snapshot of a lot of jury conversations which is why there are so few convictions.

I think juries need to go for this sort of trial.
They will all bring some sort of prejudice into the court with them and get fixated on stuff that isn't relevant.

As the case above - forensics would be irrelevant as they are not going to tell you anything on consent. CCTV and medical examinations would be the same, unless there are injuries.