Coerced sex IS rape

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

This thread comes out of a discussion I had with a friend who didnt seem to think coerced sex is rape. I think coerced sex clearly is rape. If a man has to persuade, cajole and pester you for sex, you are not consenting. Non consensual sex is rape.

What do others think?

Surely we should be looking at the man's behaviour in this. A man who thinks it is OK to "persuade" a woman who has already said no to sex through whining, bullying, pestering etc. What kind of man wants to have sex with a woman he has to whine to? As Eleanor says it is abusive, it shows a sense of entitlement that he should have access to her body, despite her wishes and it shows a lack of care for his partner. Does that not sound a little bit rapey to you? Why would a man want to have sex with a woman he has to persuade? Why can't he just accept "No" from the off?

I think bullying, pestering, whining and sulking go further than just persuasion. They are designed to wear someone down with a drip drip effect. First few times the woman may feel strong enough to say no but it will wear her down in the end. A man that does that intends to have sex with the woman in the end, her desires aren't a factor.

I think consenting to something that you don't really want to do is a whole other discussion and goes back to how women are taught to please men. and I totally understand where you are coming from whistlestop.

"larry - going out for a meal really is not the same as sex. That is why we dont have a criminal offence of - being forced to go out for dinner. It is a totally false analogy."

Well, actually we do. Coercing any adult to do anything against their will is an offence. If you are physically dragged to a restaurant and food is forced down your throat, you have been assaulted and maybe falsely imprisoned, all perfectly good offences in law. That is why it is a good analogy. It forces one to confront the big difference between cajoling or persuasion and coercion.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves
"This thread is about women. Maybe uppercut we can have one thread in feminism that isnt about men?"

Many threads in Fem' are about women. Thanks to you several of them are nonsensical, although this one is is better as it's merely ill-thought out.

I've posted about issues like this before. What I think is that, when it comes to describing what a woman should expect from a loving relationship we should move away from what is/isn't rape and focus on what is and isn't loving, genuine sex with a caring partner. When you try to dissect rape it's far too easy to get bogged down in semantics, as this thread has shown. Rape is a criminal offence and as such it needs to have a fairly narrow definition, otherwise it's difficult to prosecute.

Sex should be a fun activity that two people engage in willingly, either to gain pleasure or to make a baby, or both. Sometimes people have sex to make their partner happy - again if this is entered into willingly, to gain the pleasure of pleasing a partner, then great. If sex is entered into unwillingly for some other purpose then it might not be rape, but it's not genuine, loving sex, it's something else.

Having a black and white rape/not rape mindset does not do women any favours. Yes, it is necessary in a court of law, but as laypeople discussing what is right for women we should forget the rape/not rape dichotomy because it is destructive and belittling. It implies that if what happens to you, no matter how negative, doesn't fit under the strict definition of rape, then it's fine, you have nothing to complain about.

Do we really want to teach our daughters that? What we should be teaching them is that yes, rape exists, it's a very serious offence and this is how you recognise it. But beyond that there are many ways for a partner to disrespect you and take away your autonomy that don't fall under the strict definition of rape, and just because they're not legally defined does not make them any less wrong or damaging. Your partner won't be convicted for them, but you sure as hell shouldn't put up with it.

The bottom line is, sex is supposed to fun. If you don't want it, don't have it. If someone doesn't respect your right to enjoy sex, then get rid of them. If they go one step further and deny your right to say no to sex then they have committed a crime and you could prosecute for that.

Oh Cailin, that is fantastic, thanks.

If you didnt really want to have sex but were persuaded, threatened, whined or sulked into it, then it is rape

Sorry, but no.

in my decade with dh, we have had ,loving sex, amazing sex, fun sex, lazy sex, angry sex, bored sex "dh, it's ttc time, so get your cock out, I don't care if you are tired, sex" Oh come on it'll help me sleep, and in turn you'll sleep better sex, I know neither of us can be bothered but the kids are both asleep so if we don't do it now we'll never do it again sex, and oh come on pleeeeeeease whiny sex.

I have not been raped and it would be hideously rude and disrespectful of me to claim I had been because I was always in a position of saying no, and felt comfortable doing so. Persuasion to get what you want is part of what makes us human. To assumes we don't have to use some sort of persuasion means we'd never have sex unless we both by coincidence are wandering around in a state of arousal. the end of foreplay as we know it.

if for any reason either dh or I felt we could not say no, due to threats of physical emotional sexual financial violence. that would be rape. Your posts lead me to believe you don't know much about how relationships work and there is a significant amount of give and take in them.

EBAL don't you think there is a difference between persuaded and threatened?

Yy Cailin.

Also if a woman came on this board and said she had been raped and in a way that was not always "officially" called rape. We would all believe and accept she had ben raped because she felt she had been. WHo are you to decide for others that they have been if they feel they havent?

I was emotionally coerced into a particular act when I was younger and I remember crying during it and he still didn't stop. He said after that it showed him how much I loved him . I don't know if it was rape but it was horrible and was all part of a toxic relationship that I've still not worked out.

Headinhands, you didn't give free consent and he could not have reasonably believed you were consenting freely if you were crying and he didn't stop. So I believe you were raped, yes. I am so sorry.

It was definitely an abusive relationship, chipsahoy. Not letting you leave doesn't sound much like free consent either. I'm sorry that happened to you.

Did you feel that you could say no without things becoming "difficult"? It sounds like you couldn't so I would say that was a kind of rape. Especially not letting you go the bathroom that seems incredibly abusive.

Ex would try the nice approach first and if I didn't want sex he would get more insistent, very whiney, he'd get out of bed in a mood, start slapping his erection whilst complaining that he was 'stuck with this now' and 'what the fuck am I supposed to do now'. He would storm out of the bedroom, slam every door and go for a shower. He would make my life hell (sulking, shouting, getting more aggressive, talking about rape and playing a particular song about rape that he knew I hated) until I gave in, lay there, went off into my head and let him get on with it.
He did hit me a few times and was very emotionally abusive. I normally gave in when I thought that he would 'snap' if I didn't.
I thought that this was coersive sex.

My abusive ex went in for the sulking, whining, "You don't make me feel attractive any more", jack-russelling, assuming every kiss on the cheek was foreplay, "You don't have to do anything just lie there" "What am I meant to do with this, it won't go away on it's own" and then the nagging/pleading too - "Can we have sex tonight? How about tomorrow? When can we have it then, it's been ages" etc etc until I ended up with a sodding timetable of the days he was "allowed" to touch me and what I would do just so that I got some respite (and even then he used to text me from work asking what day it was..)

I don't think this was rape, or pretty much all of our sex after the first few weeks when it was actually fun was rape. And I really don't feel like it was. I never felt in danger, I just felt bad. I felt like I was depriving him or like there was something wrong with me - so he emotionally manipulated me into wanting to, just wanting to in order to prove something, not wanting to because I enjoyed it. There was only one occasion with him which felt rape-like and that was when we started and I changed my mind and wanted to stop but was too afraid to say anything in case he didn't stop. I found that really traumatic and we never slept together again - it was near the end anyway.

I guess you could say, well, he should have been aware from my body language that I wasn't into it and had changed my mind but I guess at that point he was so used to just having sex on an unresponsive person (because I didn't care, rather than because I was upset) that he didn't even notice.

It is abusive behaviour without a doubt.

Also I think Cailin is very right in saying that a valuable discussion would be about what should be expected from sex, because I certainly had no idea. I just thought I was weird, I thought I was asexual for ages because I had absolutely no desire for sex at all. When I look back at the sex I was having I understand exactly why! But I just didn't know - I was told all this "boys will pressure you and you're allowed to say no" stuff but that just didn't stand up to the real life consequences for me in my relationship if I said no to sex.

"boys will pressure you and you're allowed to say no" stuff but that just didn't stand up to the real life consequences for me in my relationship if I said no to sex.

That's it, it comes to a point when you have to weigh up which is worse, sex you don't want or escalating abusive behaviour.

When you have a normal relationship you just know what a normal sex life is like. I think we need to educate everyone and especially kids about healthy relationships and not just sex

I agree head. Because no woman should be in a situation where it is easier to have sex than put up with the alternative. And I am sorry to read that some of you have been in this position.

It can be all a bit more complicated than that.

I remember with horror a time when I was in a relationship with a guy who after the initial at it like rabbits phase turned out to have zero libido. He didn't want sex, he didn't want to talk about it either, but just expected me to put up with it. He thought he had the moral high ground, as I couldn't force him to have sex (and I didn't want to force him, I wanted him to want it)

In the end after wasting way too many months on him I walked out, my self esteem thoroughly destroyed by the constant rejection.

I've got lots of sympathy for this - but I wonder if it would have been the same if gender roles had been reversed

I would sympathise with you that he had zero libido. But as you said you wanted him to want you. You didnt want him just to have sex with you just so that you didnt get annoyed or didnt leave him. And that is the difference.

Cailin is spot on, brilliant.