The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

[DontCallMePeanut]

From The Telegraph

Sorry, my head's not in the right place to provide any critique of this at the moment, but thought this would interest the members of the feminist section. Will attempt to comment when I have a clearer head.

Rape is rape. Sexual assault is something different. They are clearly defined in law. Rape has to involve penetration of a woman. That's why women do not get charged with rape (unless it is aiding and abetting), although they can be charged with sexual assault.

If a man withdraws his consent a woman cannot penetrate him. If a woman withdraws her consent, a man can penetrate her.

That's why the liability is different.

I repeat again, how often does genuinely consensual sex - even when drunk - become something that either party regrets the following day and claims was rape? Hardly any.

The chances are that if a woman decides she was raped the next day it was because she probably was - her drunken state was taken advantage of.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect men to be both mindreaders and carry around alcohol (or drug) testing kits. In some cases it may be that the man is sober and the woman very obviously drunk. Fine, call that a man taking advantage of her, rape. But drunk people don't always act like like a bad actor being 'drunk' all slurring their words. Many times they are just a bit more playful, or yes, uninhibited. If they have both been drinking, he may have noticed how much she has had, but does he know her limit? Maybe one shandy and she's 'not responsible.' If they have just met, how does he know how much she has already drunk, or what her 'sober' character is like? And if she then gives him the signals, or invites him back to her place and is the one initiating sex all the way, she was raped? If the man has no idea she is 'drunk'? It seems then that men should only sleep with women that have had absolutely no alcohol, and that they have seen that to be the case. If we accept there is rape in marriage, then a married couple cannot get drunk together and then do it, because the woman is incapable of consent? Everytime that has happened, the man was a rapist? I don't think many men or women will go along with that.

As for being a mindreader, if a woman - or man - is with someone who is escalating to sex, he must wait to be told, in actual words, 'Yes I do want to have sex with you'? Most women do not want to have sex that way. We will say 'no' if we don't want to. How hard is that? As for HerBex's supposed situation where a woman is a so frozen with fear she cannot speak, aside from the 'attacked in a dark alley' scenario, or if the man says 'haha, I'm going to rape you now,' why the fear? Why would the woman NOT think the man would stop if she said no? Even realistically she should be encouraged to say it because a jury is not going to convict him if all he did was proceed when she didn't say yes or no.

I thnk it's a myth that men who rape drunk women are unable to tell they are drunk or that the women give off positive signals to these men.

This blog quotes research where men were interviewed and asked if they had ever forced sex. The researchers didn't use the word rape, but found that a significant minority of men were willing to admit to partaking in scenarios they described that amounted to rape. Of the 120 men who admitted rape, 30% used physical force or threats. The majority, 70%, targetted intoxicated victims.

These men can't have misunderstood the signals, or not realised that their victim was too drunk, because they themselves admitted to forcing sex onto a woman who was too drunk (or affected by drugs) to resist.

I agree - it's not hard to tell when someone is bolloxed. I don't mean after one or two and are a bit flirty. I mean the point when it is obvious that they are not in a reasonable stait to give consent.

Also, MarySue, the old consent arguement is surely a pile of shit. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot attain consent, and I fail to see why anyone reasonable person would have an issue with it. Yes, if you put it in a stupid way like, "May we proceed to intercourse now?" then it will sounds stupid.

However, I have asked before now, "are you OK with this?" or there was the first time I slept with DP, "are you sure this is what you want?"

It's like the arguement that putting on a condom ruins the whole thing, so you shouldn't do it. Should people stop to put on a condom?

You're probably right about alcohol. What if the woman hadn't been drinking and instead had taken some ecstacy? It's known to make people "loved-up" and have sex with anyone (Or so I'm told. Never taken it myself.)?

Would, "Come to the bedroom with me?" or something along those line be good enough?

One of the main issues that affect this debate is what is the default state of consent.

IMO it should be that unless a woman clearly, and in unequivocal terms, says she wants to have sex, it should be assumed that she doesn't.

Unless you have consent on those terms, it should be considered automatic not to proceed. If you think she might change her mind in the morning, don't do it - because her consent is not unequivocal.

Like I said earlier, if a woman is unequivocal in her desire to have sex, then she is not going to 'cry rape' the following day, is she. Why would she?

Has any one seen Whoopi Goldberg's "rape-rape" This is infuriating to watch, on so many levels...

Sunshine, I swear that the reason they make such a fuss is that if they ask her, there's a chance she might say no. Oh god, can't have that happen. Better she regret it tomorrow than he doesn't get his sex now.

[Reminded of toddler tantrumming to get cake]

Ahem...

Back to order, please...

"There is absolutely no reason why you cannot attain consent, and I fail to see why anyone reasonable person would have an issue with it."

But verbal consent is what is being put forward as necessary here, correct?

Most women do not want sex to involve them having to say anything like 'I consent' or even 'yes.' We don't need every man to ask if he may proceed. Our consent is implicit in our actions. I am not as bothered about men's reasons for not agreeing with this system, most women don't want to always have to be asked. Every time?! We will say no if we don't want to. How hard is that?

MarySue, what do you think about the men in the research I linked to above who said they had sex with women who were too drunk to resist? They knew that their victims would'nt/couldn't say "no" because they were too drunk? These men admitted this themselves. It wasn't a case of the women not wanting to say "yes" because it would "spoil the moment" but more a case of them being unable to say "no".

I discussed being unconscious (or even obviously very drunk when he is not) is rape. And I asked why a woman would freeze when a man is escalating to sex as they will do in a sexual situation. Nobody has answered that yet (and its not just a rhetorical question, I'm curious as to whether I've forgotten a certain type of situation). A 'frozen' woman might even say 'yes' if she was so scared for some reason and asked, is that not possible, if she is incapable of saying no? Just say 'sorry, I don't want to do this' or 'not so soon, lets wait' I don't see how that is hard or unreasonable based on anything anyone here has said.

And obviously its not difficult to obtain verbal consent. But IMO most women don't want that to be the rule. I don't. We are mostly happy with the 'if I don't want to, I say no' system. I don't see how it needs changing. Yes, under some circumstances, if there is any doubt, a man should check for consent. But it is not necessary that verbal consent is required every single time, or the man is acting like a rapist, and could be charged with rape if the woman later thinks' hmmm, I never said yes, was I raped?' Unless she said no (or gave other clear signs of no, like struggling or shaking her head and looking scared), and he still carried on, then she wasn't. Because he is not a mind-reader and most people don't want or need a 'verbal consent every time' system.

That was a cross post to Leningrad, but it answers karmakameleon too.

"And I asked why a woman would freeze when a man is escalating to sex as they will do in a sexual situation. Nobody has answered that yet (and its not just a rhetorical question, I'm curious as to whether I've forgotten a certain type of situation). A 'frozen' woman might even say 'yes' if she was so scared for some reason and asked, is that not possible, if she is incapable of saying no? Just say 'sorry, I don't want to do this' or 'not so soon, lets wait' I don't see how that is hard or unreasonable based on anything anyone here has said."

I've yet to meet any woman who has frozen in consensual sex... It's a fear response, therefore as a result of intimidation, coercion, or whatever. You really think a rapist would listen to a "no", "not yet" or "sorry, I don't want to do this." OF COURSE SHE DOESN'T WANT TO FUCKING DO IT! IT'S RAPE! Clear? Yes?

The problem is, MarySue, that once you go down the route of implied consent, where is the line drawn? And although some people could get along fine without a clearly defined line, others would push it as far as they could.

What actions would imply this? If a man and a woman are alone in a house, is that implying? Uh, no. Imagine how awkward that would make the gas man's job. If she's drunk? If she leaves with a man and goes to his house, many would say.

Oh, wait. Past story coming up again ... the first time I met my DP. We worked together in a night club. There were a few of us, and I happened to have offered her a share in the taxi home. Unfortunately we ended up forgetting her stop. So she ended up in my house, together with my brother and next mate who also worked with us and lived a few doors away. Was she implying that she intended to have sex with one of us? Actually, no, she wasn't. She explained to me later on that she felt quite afraid to be stuck with 3 men she didn't know very well.

I have a load more situations like it that were not implying consent. Therefore, just like the black and white line that is drawn at 16 years old, you should draw a line under consent and say it has to be had. If you really want to help to stop the instances of rape, or even alleged "crying rape" (which in man cases, I believe, are down to her being to afraid to say no as she is afraid they will take anyway), then you would agree to a slight break in the flow of things to help get a place where there is an agreed consent.

Agree with TAB

MarySue - I can see that you feel that a woman having to explicitly say "yes" or "I consent" will ruin the moment or whatever. I think that's a price that has to be paid TBH.

If you don't have this, then you make consent the default position, i.e. that a woman is always up for sex unless she makes it unequivocally clear that she isn't. Can you see the potential for abuse this has?

I don't agree it is a price worth paying. Without it there is no implication that a woman is always up for sex, (I could find many analogies where lack of verbal consent wouldn't imply someone was always up for something I'm sure). Non-verbal consent is clear enough for most people and they do not want to always have to get verbal consent. Someone please address my point that most women do not want to always require verbal consent, and are not going to change their mind because some women think it should be. Never gonna happen.

"Can you see the potential for abuse this has?"

I suppose not. Tell me some situations where a woman can't say 'no, I don't want to' and shut it down right there.

*"Can you see the potential for abuse this has?"

I suppose not.*

You can't?

"She's a woman, of course she was up for it..."
"well, she didn't say no... OK, she pushed me away, but she didn't say no..."
"Naaah, it's just as fun if she lies there, stiff as a board, mate... try it..."

"I've yet to meet any woman who has frozen in consensual sex... It's a fear response, therefore as a result of intimidation, coercion, or whatever. You really think a rapist would listen to a "no", "not yet" or "sorry, I don't want to do this." OF COURSE SHE DOESN'T WANT TO FUCKING DO IT! IT'S RAPE! Clear? Yes?"

But some people here are saying a woman might freeze in a situation where she has no reason to think the man is a rapist who won't take no for an answer. I said if it's an obvious rape she might freeze. But why would a woman assume a man who is not intimidating or coercing her is going to rape her?

The point is, without that fear due to threats or coercion/obvious rape situation, there is no reason why a woman would be incapable of saying 'no' due to freezing up. Clear?

"Non-verbal consent is clear enough for most people and they do not want to always have to get verbal consent." (My bold.)

So remind me, is this about women not wanting to give consent, or men not wanting to get it as far as you're concerned MarySue?

Tbh, very few of my partners have asked for specific verbal consent in the way you are suggesting. But they have said things like "Are you ok?" or "I'm not hurting you am I?" which I would say amounts to seeking consent. I don't understand what is wrong with that?