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?

I think it's akin to worrying about child abduction more than road safety or something - misguided risk perception.

Ok, I have a work colleague whose son was falsely accused of rape after a family BBQ.

He was 17 and hadn't had any physical contact with the girl at all.
She went to the police the next day and said he had raped her.
The family's world was turned upside down.
Her story really didn't add up and he was not charged with rape.

He did pack in his A levels and his plan to go to uni.

The girl obviously had issues as it was not the first time she had accused someone of rape.

It's nothing like fear of child abduction.

Child abduction is rare.

Rape is not rare.

What is rare is anything happening to you if you rape someone.

All the handwringing about "teenage sex" and people bring drunk is people pointing out that the loopholes that rapists could exploit are being closed down.

That was my point, BF. Road accidents are much more common than child abduction, just as rape is much more common than "crying rape" but many parents worry more about child abduction than road accidents because child abduction gets disproportionate media coverage etc.

Pax, that's shit. But it doesn't mean that false accusations of rape are rife - they are probably 2-4% of accusations, similar to false burglary claim rate.

Pax, that must have been hideous. But he was not charged with rape. So not arrested or cautioned or taken to court or anything like that. Nothing actually happened. So surely thwt proves that for him the system worked?

Sure, Yonic, but child abduction isn't used as a way of denyng car accidents.

People never say "no, that child wasn't run over and killed. He was abducted, that's why we never see him any more" as a way of pretending cars are less dangerous than they really are.

The idea of false rape claims is used to exonerate rapists and cast doubt on their victims.

It's not a simple matter of poor risk perception.

The risk that is perceived is that things that would previously have been covered by "false claim" will no longer be seen that way.

Because it is not false to claim you have been raked if you were too drunk to consrnt.

But rapists have been exploiting that idea for decades and they are not going to give it up without a fight.

The fear for "my boys" is that they will be caught out doing something that has always been technically illegal (rape) but which society wiped away for young men with talk of morning after "regret".

We all know that "regret" was actually the realisation that the man you were with raped you when you were unable to stop him.

I think it's not so much that people think "OMG my rapist son is going to be held accountable for raping someone" as they don't actually recognise what rape is, mainly because of the current definition of sex - the reason so many rapey blokes say they wouldn't rape someone if you use the R word but they would rape her if you describe the circumstances without using the R word, is because of the fact that so much heterosexual sex is borderline rape anyway and pretty shit for women.

The argument so many rapey types use, "OMG, am I going to have to get my wife to sign a contract?!" shows how shit their wife's sex life is - people who are having good sex look at each other, they engage with each other, they're responsive to each other's actions and reactions and they change what they're doing accordingly. They take care that the other person is actually having a good time and enjoying themselves. People who think in terms of contracts, reveal that what they're actually doing in bed isn't sex, it's basically glorified masturbation into someone else's body. (Sign here and I can insert my penis and pump away as if you're just a blow up doll rather than a living, breathing human being. I don't need to look at you, worry about whether you're enjoying it, ask you if you want to change position/ do something faster/ slower, harder/ softer, find out if you like it this way or that - I've got your signature, so I can just do what I want. Don't expect an orgasm or any enjoyment now, will you?)

It irritates me so much I did a blog post on it. Wah! How am I supposed to know if someone wants sex with me?

Ah, that's your blog!

I am one of your subscribers :)

The other thing that bugs me about the video/contract that "proves" consent, is that it proves no such thing.

The same coercion could be used to extract a video or signature from a scared, unwilling woman.

And even a woman willing to make a video might change her mind during sex and ignored by the man who is now raping her.

What these people want is a way to indemnify men who have decided for themselves that they are Not Rapists against any claims to the contrary, regardless of the truth of those claims.

Yes, the idea of a contract is so born of an idea that men are entitled to sex as long as they're not actively threatening a woman with physical violence at that particular moment. Once it's embarked upon, women have no right to change their minds or to set conditions, such as no ejaculation or you have to wear a condom.

#Gallowaytherapeapologist was on Question Time last night. His view absolutely encapsulates that whole belief that sex is some kind of posh wank with a living sex toy, rather than a collaborative fun activity in which both (or all) parties actively, enthusiastically participate.

It is so sick. And how the hell did the sexual revolution happen, without that misogynist view of sex being properly challenged?

What was galloway saying about it?

thank you for the link at 16:04:37 BOF

in fact thank you Basil, I see you wrote it.

Oops! Sorry I'd forgotten that link had already been posted on this thread.

Burke, they didn't discuss this issue on last night's BBCQT, but Galloway feels so strongly about men's right to use women's bodies as masturbatory aids once women have once consented to sex, that he went to all the trouble of making a nauseating, triggering video to tell women that once we're "in the sex game" with men, we lose all right to bodily integrity. It's here You need a strong stomach to view it, it's actually incredibly disturbing to see this man tell women that rape isn't rape.

AskBasil I just got up so sorry if I'm not looking at this right but he's saying essentially if you and me have sex, you change your mind half way through, let me know, but I continue anyway, that isn't rape?

If you think that was bad, wait until you see this odious barrister ridiculing the new guidelines. Repulsive.

I haven't watched it, Burke, but as Galloway has previously said consent from the night before means consent is automatically there the morning after, I wouldn't be surprised if he's saying that.

if this is how Galloway manages his "sex life" I am appalled to see that he hasn't been locked up already

just "followed" you, Basil