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.

What about forensic suggesting violence, struggle. Blood on furniture or floor.

I mean I'm no expert but sometimes don't forensics sometimes show someone was in a place they said they hadn't been.

That sort of thing?

Does semen/ DNA count as evidence?

I mean if he's saying never happened or something.

I don't know much about the case, but if they agree that sex has taken place and its the consent that's contested - then the forensics are not going to help you any further.

Forensics will be able to put them in the same place, or if they have had sex, but it wont add anything to the consent part. Blood on the furniture (depending on the quantity) may show that a violent struggle has taken place if it matches with injuries and blood splatter on clothing may reveal the proximity of persons to each other when that injury occurred.

Oh I thought it was general rather than this case particularly.

If it's a case where he says she consented and she says he was violent and raped me. Then I'd think that forensics would help. Potentially. I mean shouldn't be ruled out.

“LobsterNapkin
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.“

@LobsterNapkin it is an odd thing when one person’s experience is of something brutal happening to them that they never explicitly agreed to, while it is seen by others as just as not very nice sex.

She may not have screamed or said no. But remember his hand was round her throat and he was aggressively kissing her and she had just been whacked against the wall - so saying No or screaming wasn’t that much of an option. ( Apart from this isn’t it a rape myth that this is what ‘should’ happen as a response can be to freeze?

The very idea that rape is even really possible would be brought into question by this argument: that she had consented to penetrative sex just by agreeing to meet up with him in private for some sort of sexual encounter, and that whatever bad thing the man does next is may be ‘rough’ or ‘not nice’ but nevertheless normal sex.

I agree what you say about false expectations about freedom, hookups and ideas from porn but absolving men from all responsibility not to hurt someone isn’t the answer.

It is lucky it did stop suddenly luckily when the other man came in.

I presume that in practice a prostitute cannot be deemed to have been raped having given permission for sexual intercourse in exchange for money and rape sex would just be ‘rough’ or ‘not very nice’. Unless she were visibly half dead by the end.

I find the idea that namalt loads of men are lovely

Is totally undermined by the insistence that in general men lose all ability to notice any kind of ability to read body language/ reactions/ facial expressions/ etc in any kind of sexual encounter.

These things seem to be argued by the same people a lot of the time!

I think there was a suggestion though that his approach could be due to inexperience. Which was interesting.

To be totally honest I think a lot of the what did she expect posts. Are very much to do with the flirting/ pub/ pics/ toilet situation.

I imagine (hope!) that in a different situation a woman who had been treated that way as soon as alone with man, would get more sympathy.

25% of posters seem to believe that sexting gives legal consent.

Tbf I wasn't sure which vote meant what so I didn't! Very possibly some confusion there.

Just reread OP and there was this bit-

'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”'

I think that despite the work done for years to try to reduce the 'asking for it' attitude. And despite police etc saying yes we're really changing this within forces.

The fact is that on the ground, as it were, seems that much hasn't changed.

There's that survey they do every year or two which includes asking about whether a victim is partially or wholly to blame if attacked. In various situations. Things like. She was flirting, dressed in skimpy clothes etc. Result generally in news and always loads say yes to victim blaming.

On here and in RL conversations, or people talking on telly. The most usual reaction from men and women is to immediately focus on what she did 'wrong'. I don't think it's because they're all horrible.. There seems to be a really strong socially normal desire to find her error/s.

My best guess is it's because everyone has female friends relatives children / are female themselves. And it's a horrible thing to face up to could happen to any of them and the risk factor is being in vicinity of man who decides to attack. And that it can be anyone really and you can't tell who.

It's more reassuring to find the error and think well I won't be so silly and neither would X or y.

This goes hand in hand with another v widespread assertion that there is nothing to be done at all about men carrying out sex attacks. Again it means don't have to think about that side of it which is difficult and upsetting.

If others have different ideas interested to hear them!

Yes, the attitude seems to be, she ‘hooked up’ , sent sexts, so come what may. Par for the course.

ScrollingLeaves
Prostitutes can be raped - they may agree to one act, but then another act is carried out which they have not agreed to - this second act would be a rape.

What they can't do is say they have agreed to have sex and the customer refuses to pay afterwards. They then can't say that they only agreed to have sex if the person payed afterwards, therefore I've been raped.

CheeseMmmm
Forensics will only really say if sex or sexual contact has taken place. Injuries are normally photographed by a SOCO photographer and a doctor can give a medical statement if the injury needed hospital treatment.

And you totally correct about society often victim blaming - but its members of this society who make up the jury. Perhaps that needs to change.

@CheeseMmmm

I find the idea that namalt loads of men are lovely

Is totally undermined by the insistence that in general men lose all ability to notice any kind of ability to read body language/ reactions/ facial expressions/ etc in any kind of sexual encounter.

These things seem to be argued by the same people a lot of the time!

I think there was a suggestion though that his approach could be due to inexperience. Which was interesting.

Well it's easy to think most men are lovely when their abusive behaviours are explained away and nothing is ever their fault.

Don’t exchange nude photos.
Don’t go into pub toilets ( yuk) with someone you just met; it won’t be a romantic encounter.
If you u fo these things, be aware that, if it turns nasty , a prosecution is highly unlikely as it will be his word against yours.

@Pottedpalm

Don’t exchange nude photos. Don’t go into pub toilets ( yuk) with someone you just met; it won’t be a romantic encounter. If you u fo these things, be aware that, if it turns nasty , a prosecution is highly unlikely as it will be his word against yours.

Prosecution is highly unlikely, and a guilty verdict even more so regardless of the circumstances.

I think to educate women and girls, whenever they might be alone with a man for any reason. To think. If he sexually attacks me, what are the chances of him getting prosecuted successfully.

Is a really excellent progressive idea.

The fact that currently whatever the circs a successful prosecution is pretty much zero likelihood. Means we should not ever be alone with any man under any circumstances. Going to make life s touch tricky... Still. It's the only sensible approach.

Also moves us back to the idea that certain women cannot be raped eg those who sell sex. Seems very reasonable.

Yay?

@KrispyKremeDream

25% of posters seem to believe that sexting gives legal consent.

I think many will be answering it in practice what happens through the legal system rather than what they believe the law says.

There's that survey they do every year or two which includes asking about whether a victim is partially or wholly to blame if attacked. In various situations. Things like. She was flirting, dressed in skimpy clothes etc. Result generally in news and always loads say yes to victim blaming.

I'm sorry but how is the victim EVER to blame? Even if she did the dance of the seven veils a man is 100% responsible for their own actions. They're not helpless with no choice but to rape.

@katienana

It absolutely does not imply consent, if I sent you a photo of my dog does that mean you can have my dog? No. If I sent a photo of my tits then all it means is that I want you to see my tits. But. They would never get a conviction because it doesn't fit with the profile of a perfect victim.

Yes this is the problem. A victim must be virtuous and pristine. A victim usually can't be someone wearing revealing clothes, can't send sexts or enjoy sex.

“Felix125
ScrollingLeaves
Prostitutes can be raped - they may agree to one act, but then another act is carried out which they have not agreed to - this second act would be a rape.“

Felix, if a prostitute who agreed to sex could report the sex that actually ensues as rape rather than normal sex,

then why couldn’t the woman in this case - whom the police man deemed to have ‘consented’ to a sexual encounter in the toilets because of the sext - make a complaint that instead of having a normal initial sexual encounter, she had been sexually assaulted with violence and be believed?

I bet few prostitutes report being raped. And that if they did it would not get through the CPS unless they had bee n bloodily battered.

The World at One today had an interesting interview with the former Chief Constable about the effects of porn. He says it is absolutely leading to men harming girls and women and 80% Porn Hub shows violence.

He says kissing on porn sites is shown with hands round the throat and men see this as normal. Men are reenacting what they see.

This case of the poor woman in the toilets saw the man’s hand straight round her throat while violently kissing her.

World at One - 11/11/2021 - BBC Sounds

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0011c57

Sexts are consent to sex
‘Normal’ sex is carried out as a rape scene.

ScrollingLeaves
She can report a specific incident as rape/sexual assault. So in this case she can go in the cubicle with the man, kiss, grope, touch etc - but if he does something that she hasn't consented to, then that part is rape/sexual assault. So, in this case it would be the digital penetration which would be the sexual assault.

And I don't think the police man would be saying that (although I haven't watched it yet). I don't think that because of the text messages, he would have the view she consented to anything that happens. I think this was more a case of her initial account differs from what the investigation is revealing and then this would have a detrimental effect if it gets to court as all that must be disclosed.

Like i say the initial police encounter - we work from the premise that the victim is always to be believed and not questioned (unless there is something really obvious). As the investigation progresses however, we have to look at the potential inconsistencies with it (if they are any). In this case, it appears to be the topless photos she sent him weren't mentioned until later. Now there might be valid reasons for her doing that, but she needs to explain this - we can't just assume for her. And i think we need to do this at the police stage rather than having the challenge put to her at court.

We do have prostitutes reporting rapes & sexual assaults and we go through the same procedures with them as everyone else.

“@Felix125
We do have prostitutes reporting rapes & sexual assaults and we go through the same procedures with them as everyone else.“

How many of your cases with prostitutes (in cases where they are not visibly battered) get through the CPS into court I wonder?

I'd guess fuck all, even less than reports from women who aren't reporting a punter raping them. So probably next to none.

These days of course even being dead isn't as persuasive as it used to be...