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.

not a very pleasant way to acquire it though, poor you. I wonder how many people would claim that that was not rape knowing the genders of each concerned . Yet another thread.

MarySue It seems the problems arise when you can't consider that a lot of people on this board have their reasons for asking consent/ being asked for consent every single time and when others here can't understand why you seem to be of the belief that women's lack of verbal dissent means yes (ok you have said this is not every situation but you seem to imply it)

Surely you must see that we are saying that a man must ask 'Do I have your permission to have sex with you?', simply that they must be sure a woman consents, either by asking 'are you ok?', 'are you enjoying this?', 'do you want to carry on' occasionally or by ensuring that she is gettting the same pleasure as him, even in ltrs?

We just want everyone to enjoy sex without pressure, coercion or force.

Marysue the quotes you listed do not suggest that the people who posted them, think that every single instance of sexual intercourse needs a verbal consent. Just consent will do.

But you want to let men off the hook of seeking consent, because you have your own agenda here.

Viz the crap you're coming out with about my example being "suddenly he's a bastard", there's nothign sudden about it. If you were a woman who had ever been involved in a coercive sex situation, you would understand that the whole scenario along, the man in my example has been ignoring non-participatory signals. But people like you, who want to ensure that women keep being held responsible for stopping rape rather than men, appear to believe that non-participation is somehow acceptable if it is not accompanied by a big loud unconditioned NO.

we are not saying Gods I really must learn to proof-read

amen to that queen.

not the proof reading, though yes, do proof read before making points more concisely and cleverly than me please

Parliament could enact a law requiring verbal consent every step of the way, every single time. Obviously it wouldn't be enforceable but that's no bar to making it law.

But what is the point? The majority of sexual encounters are happier than the scenarios described above, people (rightly) resent state intrusion into the most intimate areas of their lives and it wouldn't offer any greater protection than our existing law.

I realise nobody is suggesting that this finds any sort of statutory expression, not that I can think of anything better except my 95% cull of male population.

yes, HerBeX, because the scenario you described was no different to mine and I felt that to call it 'some one you'd decided you didn't want to fuck' laid the onus on you again. Hint, MS, the clue is in the name
CONSENSUAL SEX

" others here can't understand why you seem to be of the belief that women's lack of verbal dissent means yes (ok you have said this is not every situation but you seem to imply it)"

I haven't implied anything, I've clearly stated what I believe.

"Surely you must see that we are saying that a man must ask 'Do I have your permission to have sex with you?', simply that they must be sure a woman consents, either by asking 'are you ok?', 'are you enjoying this?', 'do you want to carry on' occasionally or by ensuring that she is gettting the same pleasure as him, even in ltrs?"

Have agreed many times a man must see clear consent. Why am I still being asked to agree this is reasonable when I keep agreeing? Because my position is being misrepresented still.

"We just want everyone to enjoy sex without pressure, coercion or force."

Wrong to suggest I wouldn't want that.

"Marysue the quotes you listed do not suggest that the people who posted them, think that every single instance of sexual intercourse needs a verbal consent. Just consent will do.

But you want to let men off the hook of seeking consent, because you have your own agenda here."

No HerBex, I just wanted clarification on you and others views, based on what you were saying. You have now given me that, thanks.

"Viz the crap you're coming out with about my example being "suddenly he's a bastard", there's nothign sudden about it. If you were a woman who had ever been involved in a coercive sex situation, you would understand that the whole scenario along, the man in my example has been ignoring non-participatory signals."

Please refer to my previous posts where my position is clear. Your scenario involved a man you didn't want to have sex with, you didn't say he was ignoring your clear non-verbal clues. Be more clear in future.

"But people like you, who want to ensure that women keep being held responsible for stopping rape rather than men, appear to believe that non-participation is somehow acceptable if it is not accompanied by a big loud unconditioned NO."

Please read what I post and debate that, not imaginary positions you prefer to argue with. Thanks.

"If someone is unconscious, virtually unconscious or very drunk or incapable of giving consent, it is rape, I said that twice already"

But what about if they aren't unconscious, virtually unconscious, very drunk or incapable of giving consent, but don't say no because they actually don't believe until the very moment of penetration, that this guy is really actually going to rape them? Or because they don't know how to say no, because their physical boundaries have been so fucked by their experiences, or because they are scared to say no, because the guy has made it very clear from the way he is behaving, that he is not interested in whether they want him to carry on doing what he is doing or not and they fear a worse result than just rape if they actually bring to his attention, the fact that they have noticed he is breaking the law?

"And when we're in a situation where to our incredulity and consternation, we realise that this guy we don't want to fuck us, is going to fuck us"

That kind of implies that the guy has been ignoring our non-verbal signals of not wanting this to happen, which you would know, if you were a woman or if you were remotely empathetic and interested in what women have to say on this subject.

How did he make it clear he was a rapist? Why would you assume he won't take no for an answer?

So if he's not good at reading signals he's a rapist?

It is not clear to women that men are rapists, because we are all in denial about the fact that if a man disrespects one boundary, he will likely disrespect another.

If he ignores the fact that you are not kissing him back, that you have gone still and quiet and that you are not responding enthusiastically to hsi touch, then although you may be incredulous and in denial about the fact that he is going to keep on disrespecting your boundaries, deep down you know that you're trapped and that he is not going to respect your right not to be penetrated by him.

That's really, really tough for you to understand, isn't it MS? The fact that men shouldn't disrespect the first boundary, because then they wouldn't have to get as far as that rape boundary.

If he's not good at reading signals and he chooses to penetrate a woman without checking that she wants him to, then yes, of course he is a rapist.

If I'm not sure if someone wants me to do something to them, I ask.

It's really simple.

If you're not a rapist or if you're not a rape apologist. It's really, really simple.

As I have pointed out before, I have trouble reading peoples signals. If I were a man I would make damn sure of consent everytime because otherwise I could be a rapist. As a woman I always make sure I know when a man is going/ thinks we're going in social interactions for the same reason.

Btw, people keep posting because what you post suggests that you still disagree with others on here. If you agree, great.

You would assume that he woudlnt' take no for an answer, because he has made it clear that he doesn't care what you think or feel.

Is it really that difficult to grasp?

Really? What's wrong with you? Why can't you grasp that? Is it because you don't want to?

MarySue, I think you're labouring the point unnecessarily.

This is not the thread to give graphic descriptions of sex, but I'm in a long-term relationship in which we have a lot of sex and yes, verbal consent is established every time. Of course we don't sit there, dry as dust, establishing that 'yes darling, I agree to this, this, and this', but neither does my partner simply fling my legs akimbo and penetrate me. Similarly, I don't have sex with him when he's asleep. Neither of us assume that because we did 'A' last week, that 'A' is therefore fine today. Sex is a process of many stages, and at all stages consent can be established or withdrawn. 'Verbal' can mean many things. If either of us lay there, totally silent, totally immobile - the 'freezing' that other posters have pointed out - the other would stop and check that everything is ok. In fact, I have done that innumerate times because my current partner is naturally quite quiet in bed. It's really not that hard to understand, is it?

'Establishing consent' does not mean that you thrash out a sustained verbal contract before either of you remove so much as a sock. I can't remember who said it, and it was a while back, but I remember another poster saying something along the lines of 'I can't be the only one to find it scorchingly hot when my partner asks me if I like [insert sexual act here] and makes me tell him I want it'.

In fact, I have friends in BDSM relationships in which the flinging akimbo of legs is really quite common - however, they DO establish a very clear contract about what will and will not happen, and all of them have clearly established safewords.

Also I still want you to answer the question about whether if a woman doesn't say no, she can't possibly have been raped, without the caveat about unconsciousness, drunkness etc.

No you just made it clearer. If you are not kissing him back and are still and quiet, I've said if he proceeds he has not got consent so it is rape. But while I am not saying someone couldn't be frozen with fear in that situation, you don't know for sure that a 'no, please stop' won't work, surely its better that you do say 'no', if possible? You do seem to be assuming a man is a rapist who won't take no for an answer when he might just be stupid, or rubbish at detecting (obvious) non-verbal information.

^ @HerBeX

Then the onus is on that man to get better at it, or ask outright. It is ridiculous that you are prepared to excuse rape on the basis that a man might be socially inadequate or not very sexually confident, or to assume that women should be the only ones to have a voice in such a situation.

Consent comes from both sides. Speaking personally, if the person I'm in bed with isn't sending out PLENTY of verbal and physical signals that they are having fun and want to continue, I stop. It is inexcusable for anyone to act in any other way.

Like queen said, if a man can't read signals, then he should bloody well be asking consent. Not assuming, and possibly traumatising his partner. That is rape. How clear do we need to fucking well make this, MarySue.