New rape guidelines - what does it mean for your average perfectly decent man?

[FamilyAdventure]

I heard a report on R4 that made me worry for my DSs, currently young teens.

I have always taught them to respect women (everyone) and that sex is best with love. In fact when they were tiny and I taught them that no or stop is to be acted on immediately in play fights, it was with an eye to their relationships when they're older. Now, I absolutely don't believe they will become rapists and I'd like to think they'll only have sex in long-term loving relationships, but that might be an expectation too far...

The expert on the radio was saying that the onus will be on the man to prove he had consent, rather than the woman to prove she didn't, which sounds reasonable, but how is he supposed to do that? What checks does he need to do beforehand?

Also, doesn't it walk all over the premise of innocent until proven guilty if the defendant has to prove his innocence rather prosecution proving guilt?

Family, they prove it the same as now, nothing has really changed.

Consent was required previously and it is still required now. There's no change in legislation.

But it may change attitudes about presumed consent. Also whereas the focus previously has been 'no means no' we may now see a shift to 'yes means yes'. (Obviously not including situations where there's an imbalance of power in the relationship).

What some people are saying with this, is that asking men who are suspected of rape and saying there was consent, what led them to believe there was consent, is so so terrible that rather X (very large number) of men, women and children be raped and see no justice, than have that question asked.

I understand that is their view but I am not swayed by it.

I think it is perfectly fine for the police to ask people suspected of crimes, pertinent questions related to that crime.

Can I just clarify, I'm not saying the guidelines are wrong, just hoping to have a sensible discussion of what they actually are and how they should be interpreted.

Hairy, do people actually do that in RL? I'm not the most experienced person sexually but I've had a number of very satisfactory sexual encounters, all consensual. No one has ever actually said "do you want to have intercourse with me?" or words to that effect.

X post.

If the accusation is false then surely it makes no difference?

Woman lies. Claims that she didn't consent to sex but he continued anyway.

Woman lies. Claims he didn't ask for consent.

Where's the difference?

Well the reason this guidance has been issued is that the authorities have been shit at handling rape.

At the moment all too often people reporting rape are not taken seriously, there is no investigation. Many cases with evidence not being processed, being disposed of, not being logged. Cases being "no crimed" when they shouldn't. Victims being told flat out by the police that they don't believe them. etc etc etc. This approach has led to some serious serial rapists continuing unfettered for years, victims losing faith in the "system", a lot of serious criminals facing no consequences.

Telling the police to take reports of rape seriously and ask the suspect some questions about it is hardly outrageous is it? Well I'd say not but apparently some people think so.

The question will be "why did you believe you had consent" not "did you get consent in writing" or "did you ask can I have permission to insert my penis"
The first question is completely different to the second two

I've never had the phrase 'do you want to have intercourse with me?' (although might try using it on DH ) but I have had men check that I'm comfortable with the situation before too many clothes have been removed.

Your opening post explains very well why it has become necessary to spell out what the law currently is.

Teaching your boys to stop if they hear a no is the wrong way around. What boys should be taught is quite simply that they don't start unless they hear a yes. That yes can be verbal, it can be by action.

The law hasn't changed - the worry is that both rapists and some police forces have been interpreting it differently from the rest of us.

Yes, TheCow and that's the bit I'm struggling with, when the woman on the radio said that being an enthusiastic participant, providing the condom and not asking him to stop are not necessarily reasons for a man to believe he's been given consent. So, in the example above of two young people, both had a few drinks, neither incapable...he says "I believed she consented because she was enjoying herself and didn't ask me to stop", that's not good enough, or is it?

Sardine, of course the police question the suspect. Didn't the existing guidelines require that of them? The fact that it doesn't always happen has nothing to do with the guidelines.

'Did she consent'
'Yes'
'How do you know?'
'She never said no'
Versus
'She kissed me enthusiastically and undressed, she got out a condom and put it on me, she was smiling and kissing me throughout'etc

Second scenario, he didn't ask for permission in those words but he can describe how he knew she consented. The onus is on him to explain why he believed she consented.

As to women regretting it the next day and crying rape - it barely happens. And when it does it's most often women who were too drunk to consent and that is a scenario that men need to understand still constitutes rape.

Blistory, that's not fair. In the playfight situation they had "consent" because both parties were participating in and enjoying the game. I taught them that as soon as one party decided they want to stop you stop. That's exactly what this is. If one party either by their words or actions didn't want to play in the first place, then they don't start, but that's more clear cut.

Familyadventure I dont know who said that on the radio but I think that's mistaken. Enthusiastic consent can be given via body language and participation. It's not that hard to work out whether your partner is enjoying her/himself.

Yes, Ehric but the expert on the radio specifically said that consent can't be assumed in the second scenario you describe. e.g putting on a condom could be a way of protecting yourself rather than consenting.

Who was the expert?

I don't know, but it was on R4's Today programme yesterday morning (or possibly Weds) not some local chat programme

The law has not changed. The man is not guilty if he reasonably believed that the victim consented regardless of whether or not that belief is correct (which is in line with other crimes). In the absence of a change in the law it is possible this new guidance will result in more prosecutions but little or no change in the number of convictions.

That's a very dismissive response FamilyAdventure.

The statement is that the guidance has been issued because the authorities have been failing to properly investigate rape:

"Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders told the BBC: "This is really about making sure investigators and prosecutors look at the whole context, so we're able to put strong cases before the court and we don't just focus on what a victim did or said."

She added: "We know there are too many myths and stereotypes around rape and consent and this is about making sure we really examine cases."

The guidelines were launched at the first national conference on rape investigations, held jointly by the CPS and police forces in England and Wales.

Speaking at the conference, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt said: "There is still far too much variation in the way that forces move a complaint of rape through the system."

He highlighted problems around police deciding in favour of "no further action" or recording "no crime"."

But the people who issued the guidelines saying that is the reason is not good enough for you? You think there must be another reason? What do you think is the reason for issuing these guidelines then?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31037876 BBC link with quotes in my previous post]]

statement on cps website so definitely worth a read as it's "from the horses mouth".

Hopefully will set some people's minds at rest

Dismissive? I just said I don't know her name, but she appeared credible.

I have never said I don't agree with the need for better guidelines. I started the thread simply in the hope of understanding them better, specifically the bit about consent not being assumed when a woman appears to be enjoying herself.

This was dismissive when I said that the guidelines had been reviewing because the authorities were failing with rape:

"Sardine, of course the police question the suspect. Didn't the existing guidelines require that of them? The fact that it doesn't always happen has nothing to do with the guidelines."

It has everything to do with the guidelines. This is a large part of the reason why they have revised the guidelines. That is what the organisation that reviewed the guidelines has said. So what do you think is the reason they reviewed them then, if not for the reasons that they have given for doing so?

The guidelines are to tell police and the CPS how to do their job properly IRO rape, as they weren't before.

Does that clarify things for you?

If you read the link you will see it reiterates items that one would hope go without saying but actually often don't. Like if someone is unconscious they can't consent to sex.

Unfortunately these things do need to be "spelt out" to get the police etc to fulfil their obligations around this crime.

Although as you point out if they aren't doing it at the moment then this may well make no difference to that.

Just watching EastEnders. Police officer did seem to question his account and that lack of 'resistance' = consent. Which is all these new guidelines ask.