Rape within marriage

[tabouleh]

Yes unashamedly a thread about a thread.

It is like entering the bloody twilight zone over there.

Jeez there are MNers basically caring more about OP's husbands right to sex rather than believing OP and helping her.

Totally understand if this gets deleted for being a thread about a thread - but if it gets more of the feminist viewpoints onto that thread then great.

Much as I hesitate to defend larrygrylls, I think the pernicious "he was trying to give her pleasure" comment referred to another thread (which I am definitely NOT going to link to for obvious reasons). In fact I am not defending him, because it was stupid and crass to assume that that thread related to this one, especially when it has been repeatedly stated on this thread what happened, and it's a totally different circumstance to that of the other thread.

Marantha - that's right, and if we were the police, I would make sure that we interviewed Anchor's husband as well, I wouldn't slam him in jail on the basis of an online thread. BUT amazingly we aren't the police, we are in the position of listeners to Anchor, and as we have no reason to disbelieve her account of things I think it's polite to give her the credit of taking her at her word.

Do you go onto the SN threads and say "How are we to know whether your child has SN? You could be lying and it's only the internet so we'll never know!"

Gigantaur I agree, they both need to understand the gravity of the situation, and he was totally misguided and out of line.

My situation isn't the same, but I do feel akin to her in many ways. She said it's a loving relationship - he tries to persuade her to have sex despite her low sex drive. This isn't a crime. I hate to bring up details from what she initially posted but I think it's important that it's recognised that she said categorically that they were spooning and cuddling, he tried to initiate sex during this and she declined, then lay still, falling asleep. He then put his penis in her, and she immediately leapt up. She said that often he would persist in trying to get her to make love and that - and this is key - she would usually get into it and enjoy it. This is what rang true with me. I'm not excusing what her DH did, but I think it's a strong possibility that it wasn't about control, violence or selfishness but about a misguided seduction attempt. They need to have a frank discussion about where to go from here, and Anchor needs to communicate how it made her feel. If he fails to understand that he was wrong, they should go to Relate. I have said previously and I say again that I would have reacted in the same way as Anchor, it was rape, he was wrong.

Larry women on this thread who have been raped by strangers have already said that they are not at all offended by what happened to Anchor being described as rape.

The reason for this is that rape has quite a simple definition. If you put your penis in a woman who has not consented to sex, then that is rape. That is what it is, that is the definition of the word.

Anchor's husband tried to initiate sex, she told him NO. She then went to sleep and awoke when he shoved his penis up her.

By defintion that is rape. It's really very simple.

Why people keep coming on and saying "ooh but what about this similar but different thing that happened to me once, that's not rape, now is it" I don't know. What are they hoping to achieve? For everyone to say "No Anchor wasn't raped. Even though she said NO and went to sleep and then he put his penis inside her, that's not rape".

I would like to ask again of everyone who has a problem with this, if that definition of rape is not acceptable to you, what definition do you want?

I am also that someone who came on to say what a bunch of horrible man-haters we are, and argued based on the wrong bloody situation, is still insisting that they are right. Credibility down the pan with that one. Drunk? Pregnant? Different thread, not seen it. This one is about Anchor, and you obviously haven't read it. Maybe you should do that, before commenting further.

larry do yourself a favour and skim the thread, there are several other posters who have been raped (some on dark nights, some not) who have posted extremely clearly about why they do not regard it as insulting to call rape rape, no matter what the circumstances.

sleepyPjs Look why don't you just go away, eh? For someone so extremely sensitive that you take offence at the scenario of a woman giving non-verbal sexual signals to a man, you can't half be bitchy.

smallwhitecat,
Yes, perhaps I am more careful about this thread then others.
I suppose it's to do with MY value judgements at the end of the day.
Perhaps some threads I comment on are regarding by myself as not having serious repercussions for the poster.
I guess I regards certain crimes as more serious than others and regard rape as being as serious as they come so am naturally wary about deeming someone to be a rapist.

This probably makes me biased in some way and, yes, I do approach some threads with more caution than others, but don't we all?

And please don't bring words like 'judge' into this. If this WERE a courtroom, other evidence- such as husband's version of events- WOULD be taken into account.
And the jury would be told to listen to ALL the evidence.

snoozathon, Anchors said that she had not said no before. This situation that she was in, was a new one. It was not something that had happened before in their relationship.

In the past, when he has tried to initiate sex, she has either gone along with it, and then got into it, ie consented. Or she has said NO, and he has stopped. On this occasion, she said NO, and went to sleep, and he penetrated her.

I do not understand why so many people are keen to say he misunderstood her. She said NO. He has always understood this in the past. On this occasion somehow he forgot what it meant? He misheard her? He thought "oh my mate larry said in the pub the other night that no means yes when it's women and sex so I'm going in"? No, he heard what she said, and he understood what she meant, and he ignored her. She has every right to be very upset and very fucked off.

Marantha - have you marked my posts "invisible"?

I am not going to put up with sexist insulting language Larry, demeaning to women, by you, Marantha or anyone.

Don't you come on and tell me that I am insulting people who have been raped by using the term rape survivor.

Don't come on here saying that I am writing out of context.

No poster on here who has been subjected to sexual abuse has said I have been insulting.

"woman giving non-verbal sexual signals to a man"

Well we all know about those, don't we.

Different men seem to take different things as "signals". Oh yes, and then they say that was a good enough reason to have sex with them, even if they protested.

There was a thread recently about schoolgirls skirts that were giving out "signals". Those pesky skirts.

Bottom line is, you can tell whether someone is consenting or not, you can tell whether they're enjoying it, you can tell whether your attentions are welcome. Difficulty is, many people choose to completely ignore those signals. Are we to believe that men are expert in reading women's signals when they mean YES, but are so terrible at reading signals that mean NO that they so frequently get it wrong?

Bollocks.

Anchors husband tried it on, she said no, and went to sleep, he put it in anyway. He knew damn well what he was doing.

Can any of the nay-sayers explain to me why it is apparently worse to be raped by a stranger in an alley than in your own home (where you should be safe) by your own husband (whom you should be able to trust and rely on?) I'm having real difficulties with that.

marantha

See now I am bitchy and sensitive because I objected to your sickening posts and was offended, I was not the only one... and anyway I am sure I asked you to leave the thread first.

this has been a real eye-opener. I had no idea that the new definition of "initiating sex" is "penetrating with a penis", I always though that was sex. If my DP tried to "initiate" sex by sticking his penis into me, without any previous activity or agreement (let alone if I had said no), I would consider that a massive breach of trust. If you're a woman and you share a bed with a man, IMO you do that on the basis of trusting them only to penetrate you when you want them to. I thought that was the basic requirement.

I am staying at the house of a male friend of a friend this weekend for work reasons. After reading this thread I am actually pretty scared. Am I giving off "non-verbal" signals by staying at his house? If something happened would the police/public/MN hold me responsible because "how was he to know"? The more I find out about people's attitudes to rape, the more terrified I get, and the more I understand the women and girls who don't report :(:(:(

Larry - I thought you'd fucked off?

"She was in no personal danger and had no fear of being injured or worse. "

Now, seeing as you're not a woman, you maybe didn't know that when a woman is not turned on, she is not lubricated and sex does hurt. Stop telling women how to feel! The definition of rape does not come with a stress caveat that if it wasn't a very scary situation, it doesn't count. It all counts larry.

god I know, msrisotto - personal danger of what? why worry about walking the streets at night putting you in "personal danger" when you can get all the personal danger you need at home?

"some of the thing being slung around are exactly what you would face if you did report a rape "

Jesus. I guess I had hoped that these psychos only let themselves loose under the blanket of anonymity.

I want the new and improved definition.

rape = having sex with someone when they have not consented is so last season

We need a better one.

I suggest keywords (as picked from the tabloids): The rapist should be covered by stranger; daytime; knife; near busy road; The victim should be married; small children; on the way to the library; do voluntary charity work; be dressed in sensible clothes and with sensible shoes; The situation should be that the man has struck before in the same place (to doubly confirm that in this case, for once, the woman might actually not be lying...)

Anything else is not rape, it's those bloody man-haters making a fuss about nothing.

sleepypjs Yes, you did ask me to leave the thread first. I wouldn't be so rude to ask you to leave otherwise.

threelittlepebbles I don't know, maybe it's because I feel it to be wrong to say someone definitely is (or isn't) a rapist based on only one side of the story only.

I am genuinely struggling to see why this makes me worthy of attack.

a)Women can't be trusted to tell the truth about rape.

b)Men need sex and it's understandable if they fuck you without consent, if it's been a while and they are frustrated.

c)If you are not having frequent sex with your male partner, you have no right to complain if he rapes you (see a & b)

d)Men's ability to analyse language and behaviour is less than that of a five year old child, you cannot expect them to listen or observe accurately.

e)Consent is implied unless you....erm, I don't know actually. Say no? Nope, that doesn't work. Move away from the person? Nope. Fall asleep or otherwise alter what you were doing before? No sorry. Let's just leave it at consent is implied. Unless you were an unspotted virgin, it was night, and you were in an alley. And even then, the question is, what were you doing there? Perhaps hoping for sex, hmm?

I know it has been posted before it is worth posting again