Is this rape? BBC3 now

[ImperialBlether]

Anyone watching?

Just watched this. Although it was definitely rape, I do think it is pretty unlikely that a case like this would go to court let alone result in a prison sentence. PPs experiences seem to back this up.

Not trying to be goady but why in this instance would Gemma have not demonstrated her lack of consent? She said she was scared but I would have thought most people would have objected verbally ir by pulling away. Not that it matters I suppose. Its good that young people are being told that lack of "no" doesn't equal "yes".

I thought she was really drunk and half asleep. Like the girls said at the beginning, sometimes they can't be arsed objecting; they just want to get it over with.

That was so shocking.

Having had a similar experience in my case I didn't object verbally cos a my mouth was full and be he had his hands on the back of my neck and c I was scared and it was a case of trying to pretend it wasn't really happening.

Anyway dh and I are goung to watch this again but with ds1, it raises lots of issues as well as the obvious and though we have a do talk to him about stuff like this I think this type of exercise is one that needs to be done with teens.

Enthusiasm, sure she should have full autonomy. Thing is, that's not how it is at the moment.
If we just stopped having casual sex (or any sex at all) until men figured out whether they want to have casual sex OR victim blame rape victims, that'd give the guys a bit more of a motivation to oppose victim blaming.

At the moment, men get to have casual sex because women are trusting enough to be alone with them ... AND get the "get out of prison" card by being able to claim that the woman who went to their hotel room with them therefore must have consented to everything they wanted to do to her.

Don't look at what is theoretically acknowledged to be rape, look at what men are actually sent to prison for. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that date rape is considered rape by most people now.
However, as long as men don't actually go to prison in significant numbers for forcing unprotected penetration on a woman who had only consented to protected penetration, that whole change in thinking is pretty meaningless in terms of law.

Sure, it makes rape victims feel better when they are not victim blamed theoretically ... but as long as they still got raped, by a man who feared no punishment, I feel the progress is not that great. And as soon as a woman goes to the police, she is still accused of lying, and the whole game of "Yes, that would have been rape if it happened that way, but she cannot prove that it did!" starts.

He knew she hadn't consented. I think it was rape but I can gree with some of the teenagers who think he probably didn't. he seemed rather naive. he wasn't interacting much with anyone at the party, thought she'd sent him a personal text not a group text and didn't realise that teenage girls put kisses on all communications.
As mother of a girl teenager I'd want him convicted but as mother of a geeky male teenager I could see an inexperienced drunk boy misreading signals and 7 years in gaol does seem a lot as a minimum and won't help anyone.
Neither of my teenagers get opposite sex sleep overs.

In my house that is, my son is now a student so I've no idea what he's up to.

I wanted to see this but only caught the last ten minutes or so is it available online or something and if it is where?

iplayer

rebecca, you wrote "he knew she hadn't consented" and then you write you think he could have "misread signals" - are you talking about the same person?

Im catching up with this now.

Before the election Red magazine had a hustings and actress and writer Louise Brealey pointed out that a lot of young people dont know their arse from their elbow when it comes to consent and this programme proves that point.

I have a slight query about what the legal expert at the end said, specifically that he could not have reasonable belief of consent to the act, as she did not kiss him back beforehand, and left her hands at the sides etc. But as the lad said at one point, it was her mouth. For obvious reasons the act itself was not graphically depicted onscreen, but are we to assume that she remained slack-mouthed, slack-lipped, applied no pressure etc? Sorry if this is a little too much but not sure how to put it any politer. Yet this 'no positive action therefore he could have no belief of consent' seemed to be one of the legal experts three planks for concluding that a rape conviction would have occurred. Unless I misunderstood anyway.

Legal stuff aside, morally he was wrong. Not reacting negatively or not saying no should not be considered enough to make one think its OK to go ahead.

I wanted to see this but only caught the last ten minutes or so is it available online or something and if it is where?

I all else fails, it is being repeated in a few days and time should be findable in an electronic guide.

I would show it to a 15 year old. I think it was a good programme and got those teenagers thinking. I find it very hard to believe a case like that would get its day in court - shows my faith in the justice system.

It's depressing to think that teenagers think like that but having been one not too long ago I can relate to them.

I will be following the leads of pps and no overnight stays when my boys are teenagers and will be drilling into them the importance of consent.

Where the fuck have we gone so wrong in society that so many of them thought it wasn't rape?

Shocking.

Thaks for highlighting this, caught it on iPlayer. A really thought provoking way of addressing the issue and hopefully one which is seen by lots of young people. I found some of the attitudes shown depressing but was more impressed than I expected to be by some of the young people involved, particularly the boys.

It also made me think back to incidents I witnessed at parties in my teens and 20s with horror and some shame.

I assure you rebecca, 7 years as a minimum isn't too harsh when you consider the damage it does to victims. For many of us, it affects our whole lives. And as the criteria for conviction includes that the offender couldn't reasonably assume consent, those who are convicted are those who knew at the time that they were inflicting a potential lifetime of damage upon another person simply for the very brief 'reward' of getting their end away.

I thought it was an excellent programme. I will be showing it to both my children when they are old enough. Anyone suggest what the minimum ages they would be suitable to watch it? One of the lads was a voice of reason but I agree I would be so ashamed if the one in glasses was my son.
When they were all vacillating about the sentencing I desperately wanted someone to say 'but what about the life sentence the victim is facing' as ElderlyKoreanLady so rightly says.
I was shocked by the casual acceptance of the girls and admissions that they'd had sex because they couldn't deal with the hassle of saying no. What an eye opener this programme was. Hats off to the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-34656527
This is a good video to start discussing consent with young teens I think.

Many many years ago I was a student, went out for the night, had quite a few drinks (but I wasn't off the scale drunk), got off with a bloke that I liked.

He came back to my room, we didn't have sex but did fool around, it got to about 3am and I fell asleep.

Woke up to him leaving. Attempted to tell him he could stay. Couldn't manage to speak properly. Was still half asleep. Really tried..... Attempted a witty but fun farewell. Still couldn't make sense.

He laughed, kissed me on the forehead, told me to go back to sleep, left.

I really wanted to make sense. I really really wanted to get him to stay. Or to make my fun but witty farewell. (I really really liked him.)

It was really strange. I'd been working really hard and was very tired. Then alcohol. Then another late night. It was very weird.

The fact that she didn't say no doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm angry with the BBC for this.
Firstly for showing the case going to court. That case almost certainly wouldn't. The police take almost no sexual assault cases to court. That's an important factor I think. These kids should know about the justice system.
Secondly for showing a falsely accused person. Public opinion already assumed the majority of women are lying. We shouldn't be highlighting the tiny amount falsely accused. Found Not guilty doesn't mean it was a false accusation which many people believe too. The same with the police not taking the case to court, it doesn't mean it was a false accusation which many people believe.
When I was in college men touched me at parties and I minimised it in my head. All us girls did just like the girls in the programme did. Saying we give in out of ease. It's depressing.

Where the fuck have we gone so wrong in society that so many of them thought it wasn't rape?

That's an interesting observation U2, do you think that society has become worse in this regard? I would have thought attitudes were better now than they were even a generation ago (although still not where they should be). I think if a similar programme had been made in the late 80s/early 90s when I was the age of the participants, then there would have been a larger number of people saying that this wasn't really rape.

Obviously they showed the most "interesting" responses from the participants. There were a lot of kids in that room whose (presumably filmed) face-to-camera bits weren't shown. So we had kid with glasses and his horrible views, blonde girl who kept changing her mind and multi-pierced girl with experience of sexual abuse providing most of the direct-to-camera stuff.

Sent the link to my nineteen-year-old daughter who watched it and we've discussed it afterwards. To those asking about suitable viewing ages, I would have encouraged her to watch this programme from about 15 or so, I reckon. Maybe 14. Around the age when they start getting off and 'fumbling' with others. Even if they're not having sex yet.

You know what, though? I would have actively discouraged my daughter from participating in a show like this one. Teenagers are often idiots. They say stupid things. I'm sure I did. With or without this programme, kid with glasses may well have revised his views by the time he's twenty and felt thoroughly ashamed of the things he said when he was 16-18. But I have been on at least three different forums where he has been singled out for the (edited) things he said. That's not going away. His views will be on the internet forever. It was like that awesome "Sex in Class" programme earlier in the year. Would have loved my daughter to be part of Goedele Liekens' sex classes. Would have hated her to be on that programme though. So many stupid fifteen year olds saying stupid fifteen year old things. Captured for all time.