Can someone help me articulate why this is wrong?

[scentednappyhag]

This is my first time posting on this board, so forgive me if I don't phrase this well.

DH and I were having a discussion earlier about rape myths, and while he agrees with me that rape is ALWAYS the rapists fault, we disagreed on two points that have really been playing on my mind all day.

1- that lots of cases are women lying, and in court, the onus should be on the woman to prove she was raped, rather than the man to prove he did not rape.
And 2- that if a woman is in a pub/club and wearing a mini skirt and low cut too, saying 'she's well up for it' is not unacceptable as long as you don't rape her.

I couldn't quite get him to understand why I think these attitudes are wrong, I couldn't find the words to put it across. He now feels upset that i'm disappointed in his attitude as he doesn't understand what he's said wrong.

Can anyone help?

With regards to your first point, I don't think there is any evidence of there being more false accusations of rape than of any other crime so the implication that "lots of women are lying" is factually incorrect and sexist.
The onus on court is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty as it is for any crime in this country "innocent until proven guilty"
With regards to the second point, assuming that a woman wants sex because of what she is wearing is ridiculous. Using a phrase like "she is well up for it" implies that she wants sex with anyone, it doesn't matter who. And to me the big problem with that attitude is that it is then a much smaller jump to "she wanted it, she didn't say no" etc. It is a slippery slope which almost implies that as rape victims go she is not as "innocent" as some one dressed more conservatively.
Sorry, not particularly articulate but those are my thoughts.

He is clearly wrong about a) there's no evidence at all that people are more likely to lie about rape than any other crime.

B is more subtle - it is not unknown for women to go out on the pull and to have the intention of finding a suitable partner to have sex with that night. It is not unreasonable for a man in a club to guess that that's her plan and approach her accordingly. He would cross the line when you make any insinuation that therefore she can't withdraw or refuse consent, or that her word about whether she did or did not give consent cannot be trusted. He would also cross the line if he implied that "she's out on the pull" => "she's a bad person" especially if he wouldn't make such an implication about a man.

Does he find it difficult to recognise the difference between willing, consenting sex and sex that is coerced or taken as read because you didn't say no?
Is he OK with you wearing short skirts and low tops and going out without him?
Does he cross boundaries with regards to touching and familiar comments to other women?
You need to talk about his responses and attitude to women, the rape-accusation myth is probably linked to hid belief that women go out seeking to lure men for sex by the way they dress, make eye contact or converse with the men.

What SGM said.

And in addition, do you have any daughters? If so, how would he feel about his daughters being spoken about in that way?

Why does he think that a woman who is wearing a low cut blouse/ short skirt etc., is "up for it"?

I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to be upset by what he said because what he is revealing to you, is that he has a Madonna/ Whore attitude to women and he de-humanises women he doesn't know personally who fit his Whore image.

And that's disgusting. Hence why you're upset. I'd be upset if someone I loved held those sort of views and it would make me respect them less.

He doesn't have any problems or comments with whatever I choose to wear, an has never said anything along these lines before- that's why I'm so shocked.
SGM's point about comments like that making rapists think their behaviour is acceptable, and reducing the act by making it less taboo is exactly what I was trying to explain, but he can't grasp my point.

Even if a woman goes out looking for sex doesn't mean she wants sex with anyone.

Besides sometimes women dress "skimpily" cos that's the fashion. It's pretty normalised in the media after all.

Surely the wearer gets to decide the "message" her clothes are sending out?

He understood that dressing a certain way didn't mean she wanted to have sex with anyone, and that consent is still required. It's the fact he didn't understand why saying that someone clearly wants sex based on their clothing is harmful and plays into minimising rape in a rapists mind.
I just want to make it clear DH is fully aware of boundaries and what constitutes appropriate consent- I have no doubts about those issues.
It's more the casual attitude that seems to be ingrained in people as they grow up, I feel sad.

Scented, it is sad.

It is very sad that so many men think of women as being the sex class.

It's the fact that he's reduced women he doesn't know, to members of the sex class that is so upsetting.

If he didn't know you and he saw you across a pub dressed up to go out, that's what you'd be to him.

I think that's why you're sad.

YANBU to be sad. It is sad. And it's the casualness of it, the fact that in other ways he's probably a perfectly nice reasonable bloke and would be shocked by the idea that he has the attitudes to women that rapists just take one step further.

It's disappointing. You have the right to feel sad.

That's exactly it Fastidia. He thinks that I'm making him out to hold abhorrent views rather than that he does actually just hold abhorrent views. He doesn't like to think of himself like that, so he just doesn't.
That's exactly why it's so damaging.
Ah, breakthrough!

I think the reason it's harmful is because it is so often used as a stick to beat rape victims with in the aftermath and shifts focus from the rapist. It puts it down to a forgivable misunderstanding rather than a complete disregard for consent.

I also find it a bit depressing that men look at women and size up how "up for it" they are. When a woman likes a man how does she find out his availability? By having a conversation and reading social cues. It's a bit crass to put it down to amount of skin shown.

another aspect which may be relevant OP in your discussions is that if we are going to be comparing rape with the prosecution of other offences, I think it's true to say that in rape it's unique in that the victim has to 'prove' that something didn't happen i.e consent being given. That is made monumentally more difficult IF her clothing is made as a some sort of active seeking out of sex.
That 'legal' caveat embellishes the points made above about clothing.

At the end of victim witness statements there is always the sentence that says 'No-one had the right to burgle my home/damage my car/steal and use my bank details etc.' Despite knowing that any person would NOT give those permissions.
Such a statement of 'no-one had the right to attack/rape me' gets compromised by the view 'really? well look at how you were dressed'.

Wanting sex is not the same as wanting rape.

If DH's mate went out on the pull, got flirty with a woman and this woman then violently assaulted him, how much of the blame would he attach to his mate? This is a direct equivalent.

We have to accept that both women and men will go out looking to establish a sexual relationship. (Or have the human race come to a swift end!!) It is reasonable and normal for them to signal availability.

I don't see how you can then say they are asking to be assaulted. It's unrelated ... except in the mind of a rapist.

Looking at the same thing from a different angle:

If a girl in a sexy outfit gets run over by a drunk driver, whose fault is it?
If a drunk girl gets burnt in a pub fire, who should be blamed?
If a man in a sexy outfit is beaten up, is it the fault of his clothes?
If a drunk man gets hit by a drunk driver, who broke the law?

What about racially motivated murder? When a brown-skinned person is murdered by bigots, is it her fault for having brown skin in a street full of white racists? Should she have stayed indoors, painted herself white, or should she be free to walk about safely?

Think about a rich person being mugged for his wallet and watch. Is it his fault for wearing an expensive watch? Did he place unbearable temptation in the way of the mugger? Or should the mugger respect other people's right to wear their own watches and not be assaulted?

So how can what a person is, or wears, if it upsets an anti-social individual, be an excuse for that individual to attack them?

You should tell him that he is wrong and only a tiny minority of women lie and that people who do usually have mental health issues. Why does he think so many women lie? Just because a man isnt convicted doesn't mean the rape didn't happen, it does not mean he is innocent.
With no other crime is the victim asked to prove the crime happened so why is this any different? Ofc the accused has to prove they are innocent, that is how the justice system works and should obviously do for rape too.
Even if he himself does not rape the women who he says is 'well up for it' it leads to people judging women as sluts who always want sex, it contributes to the culture that means huge amounts of men rape and then no one is convicted for it because we see sex as a man's 'right'.

I've found this scenario works:

if a Bob goes out in his best outfit, laughs with some mates about how he's on the pull, gets pretty drunk and then goes back to the home of a woman and gets quite into snogging on the sofa with her, lets her unbutton his shirt and feel him up a bit, giving all the signals that he's up for sex - then she calls in her husband from the other room and that husband proceeds to sodomize Bob without his consent ... was Bob raped?

The answer is yes, obviously. Bob was penetrated without his consent. Bob was raped.

But! Say the husband's defence lawyer, friends, and press: 'Bob was dressed sexily! He'd said to many people that he was looking for sex! He got drunk! He went into this couple's house! He let them undress him partially! Actually his sexual history indicates that he's had bisexual encounters in the past - so frankly, people KNOW he's often up for all sorts. Everything about his behaviour and his appearance was screaming "I want to have sex." He was up for it!'

That doesn't mean he consented to being raped.

I've noticed that male friends really pay attention to this analogy, perhaps because the idea of being penetrated without consent is more shocking to them when it happens to a (hypthetical) man than to a (hypothetical) woman.

Ask him if he has ever raped a girl/woman because she was dressed a certain way?

If he hasn't, then ask why it's OK for other men?

I think point 2 perpetuates the notion that women's default state is consent. It makes her become "unreasonable" to say no as well.

Sashh- he's not saying it's ok for other men to rape women, that's not the point here.
Thank you to everyone go has replied and put into words what I was trying unsuccessfully to say, I feel much better equipped for a discussion of this nature in future.

'I've noticed that male friends really pay attention to this analogy, perhaps because the idea of being penetrated without consent is more shocking to them when it happens to a (hypthetical) man than to a (hypothetical) woman.'

I've noticed that too, sadly. The rape scene in Pulp Fiction, or Scum affects a lot of men far more than the endless scenes of males raping females that occur on a weekly basis on TV. Perhaps because it brings out the point that rape is about power and hate, not sex.

That's a good one blackcurrants

that lots of cases are women lying, and in court, the onus should be on the woman to prove she was raped, rather than the man to prove he did not rape

No evidence that there is any more false accusation than any other type of crime. In British (and most OECD countries) justice systems, the onus is in the prosecution to prove there is guilt, as the assumption is innocent until proven guilty.

if a woman is in a pub/club and wearing a mini skirt and low cut too, saying 'she's well up for it' is not unacceptable as long as you don't rape her

Its been shown in studies that ovulating women go to clubs more, wear less (and brighter clothes) and flirt more, and I suspect men can pick up these signals. But so long as he doesn't think they are "asking for it" - to be molested or raped - (which he seems not to), I don't think there is really an issue here.

I don't believe OP's DH was trying to excuse rape, she said herself "saying 'she's well up for it' is not unacceptable as long as you don't rape her."

I was in a bar once, a group of girls wearing bikinis came in. I jealously said to male-friend, ah, I wish I had a body to wear that. He replied, yeah, but if you did, would you really go out looking like that. I realised that I wouldn't.

Just because it's fashion to wear short skirts/low tops doesn't mean you just wear it. I wouldn't now, if I did, my DH would be quite a bit shocked and probably worried that I was off to pull. Same for me if he did it too.

Sex in humans involves signalling. Boobs and bums are the classic indicators of sexual readiness. They found women ovulating reveal more flesh. This is our nature. To state a woman is 'well up for it' may be a true statement. It doesn't justify rape of course, no matter how naked/drunk etc. Athough we are a product of our evolutionary history, we are not bound to it in a civilised society.