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.

I'm going to teach DS, when he's older, that he should expect enthusiastic participation from any sexual partners, and if they are not participating enthusastically, then he should stop whatever he's doing.

Why is that a concept that so many people seem to have so much trouble with?

Who disagrees with that SpringchickenGHoldBrass? Anyone in this thread?

well, when I described my less than enthusiastic participation, you said that was 'just some bloke I'd decided I didn't want to fuck' . So, possibly you?

I was planning on teaching mine that sex isn't something that is taken or given, but something that is willingly shared and enjoyed.

And, of course, to cover himself by asking if she's happy. "Are you OK?" is acceptable. Especially the first time.

Well it's a very emotive topic. Are you genuinely surprised to find strong feelings expressed here?

There was very very strong opposition to the reforms, the test before was wholly subjective I think so it really was his word against hers. Reasonable belief at least brings some measure of objectivity but if you take that much further you risk unfairness to vulnerable defendants of course.

Personally I don't see how any reasonable person could object to a wider expectation that verbal consent be sought - but then I have assumed most people would understand how difficult it can be to say no, or at least have the capacity to imagine how paralysing shock and fear can be.

I'm about 800 posts adrift I think, is this thread moving quickly?

"Some people argue anything less than clear verbal consent means it is rape. They reject the idea that it is up to the woman to say no and say that a man must get verbal consent. While this seems reasonable in some situations where there is some doubt, clearly it is not going to be needed in a ltr... right? But you can still be raped by your partner in a ltr. Catinahaita says that even then the only true consent is clear verbal consent."

1. Why do you keep saying that it is up to the woman? I said no, it didn't work, what did I do wrong?

1. You are contradicting yourself. In a ltr verbal consent is not always needed, however you should pay attention to your partners tone and actions. Of course rape still happen in ltr, but what you say seems to say that once you are in an ltr the onus is on the woman to say 'No' all the time.

1. Personally, I agree with the Catinahata point you keep dragging out but only because it applies to my mental state when people don't know what I'm thinking from my tone/ expression/ actions and only by clarification can I let people know.

"well, when I described my less than enthusiastic participation, you said that was 'just some bloke I'd decided I didn't want to fuck' . So, possibly you?"

No I didn't, I was responding to HerBex.

"Well it's a very emotive topic. Are you genuinely surprised to find strong feelings expressed here?"

I don't think strong feelings are an excuse not to read what someone is actually saying and respond to it. Especially when they keep having to make it clear what they are saying and it is continuously misrepresented. It almost seems like rather than debate the point, some people make the person defend silly misrepresentations until they get so tired they leave the thread or they can say 'this is pointless, it's going round in circles.'

ah, I see. So you do agree that in a situation like mine verbal consent is appropriate?

1. Why do you keep saying that it is up to the woman? I said no, it didn't work, what did I do wrong?

Its up to them both to establish consent, he must see it, she should show it, or stop. But its not rape if he doesn't get VERBAL consent, as some suggested. For the 80 illionth time now. If she says no and he doesn't stop, its rape. She has done nothing wrong. Who would say she did do something wrong? Oh, nobody.

2. You are contradicting yourself. In a ltr verbal consent is not always needed, however you should pay attention to your partners tone and actions. Of course rape still happen in ltr, but what you say seems to say that once you are in an ltr the onus is on the woman to say 'No' all the time.

No thats not what I've said at all, please read my posts again.

3. Personally, I agree with the Catinahata point you keep dragging out but only because it applies to my mental state when people don't know what I'm thinking from my tone/ expression/ actions and only by clarification can I let people know.

I don't keep dragging it out. I referred to it when I was accused of arguing with a position nobody agreed with. See? I'd rather have not had to search for the quote tbh. But if you agree with that way of thinking, fine.

"ah, I see. So you do agree that in a situation like mine verbal consent is appropriate?"

Yes, I have said so already.

well FINALLY. I disagree that non-verbal consent is enough. Lots of us do. Repeat until true is not working, Mary Sue.

now I am confused. You do, or do not think verbal consent is always needed? Because I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I do.

Its up to them both to establish consent, he must see it, she should show it, or stop. But its not rape if he doesn't get VERBAL consent, as some suggested. For the 80 illionth time now. If she says no and he doesn't stop, its rape. She has done nothing wrong. Who would say she did do something wrong? Oh, nobody.

Um, that would be you, by saying women should say no when they don't want sex as men shouldn't have to ask all the time. That's the impression you are giving, that's what most people are picking up on, if it's not what you intend: Stop saying it.

I miss Dittany, she's much better at these arguements than me. I tend to get personally involved, get angry and make less sense.

Sorry I misunderstood. I think in that situation it is obvious consent is required and has not been established.

thanks queen. That's what I'm getting confused about. Are you just issuing waivers for a man having to get verbal consent on a case by case basis MS?

"Um, that would be you, by saying women should say no when they don't want sex as men shouldn't have to ask all the time. That's the impression you are giving, that's what most people are picking up on, if it's not what you intend: Stop saying it."

How on earth am I saying someone who got raped was doing something wrong by saying no and being ignored?

are you, though, saying that anyone who does not say 'no' explicitly cannot be a rape victim?

"Are you just issuing waivers for a man having to get verbal consent on a case by case basis MS?"

What are you talking about?

MarySue, I still don't understand why you are so against men seeking verbal consent. What harm can it do?

If non verbal signals are clearly positive, there is no harm in a second check and giving a woman the opportunity to back out.

If non verbal signals are unclear, then it is absolutely best to double check both for your safety and for hers.

If you are picking up clear non verbal signals that say she doesn't want sex with you, you should stop or you are a rapist.

It's actually all very simple, I don't see why you would argue that double checking that you have interpreted non verbal signals correctly could ever be a "bad thing".

I don't think she's saying that, unclefest. She's saying that consent can be non-verbal. I get what you're saying, MS, and I would agree in LTR or marriage, but not for one night stands or first time with a new partner. Personally.

"What are you talking about?"
well, it may be me, but it seems from your posts that overall you feel seeking verbal consent is OK in some situations but not others. That does mean in effect that you are condoning situations where men would have done well to seek and obtain verbal consent and did not, as being consensual sex when they are not examples of consensual sex.

"are you, though, saying that anyone who does not say 'no' explicitly cannot be a rape victim?"

What do you think? Of course not. This would be another silly or malicious misrepresentaion or daft extrapolation, and the answer you want is in my previous posts. If someone is unconscious, virtually unconscious or very drunk or incapable of giving consent, it is rape, I said that twice already.

ah sorry TAB. I see. Sorry MS. In practice I am sure non-verbal consent works well for couples who know each other well, but I am shocked that you cannot see that even for some couples, verbal consent is needed and that definitely for new partners, it's a very very good idea.

but now you are back to what constitutes 'incapable of giving consent', a definition which seems wider in my eyes than in yours, MS.