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?

(If I point out you have the 'wrong end of the stick', you won't assume I'm referring to masturbatory habits?)

Oh I give up, Larry, you don't want to discuss this, you want a ruck. well, I'm not playing. I can't discuss what might be inferred from another hypothetical poster's hypothetical use of language. If you found my earlier post unclear, I am sorry. The fact that I wrote that I was tired and not in the mood for sex before I.changed my mind should, I think, indicate that it had already been mentioned

""dragged him off for an early night. Was my mind changed from 'urgh, no too tired to sex' to "well hello there, you're very lovely" - yes, absolutely. Was I coerced? Not a bit. I jumped that man's bones!"

"Jumped his bones"?! Imagine if a man had used a phrase like that about a woman. Ditto "dragged him off". Some rather cavewoman like language from someone lecturing men on how to be supersensitive. If you want to start equating persuasion and cajoling to coercion, an awful lot of men are regularly coerced into sex. I think there is some dual standard here in assuming men are "up for it" all the time."

If you read the whole post, you will see that the man in question had made it very clear in non verbal ways that he wasup for it!

Oh, and "to jump someone's bones" is a well known colloquial expression for having enthusiastic sex.

Blackcurrants is most certainly not lecturing men on being supersensitive. She is just expecting them to respect women. The fact that you think that respect = supersensitive speaks volumes about you, larry.

To be honest though, Larry does have a point, the language used is throwaway, but if a man had posted that he was going to drag his woman and jump her bones, there would be a few and , a bit like when I mentioned "real rape" above, meaning of course, well, rape as opposed to false rape (persuading and cajoling before sex as the OP had described).

Can we knock off the 'real rape' and 'false rape', then?

I'm finding it offensive and I'm not remotely offended by blackcurrants' language.

larry is generally keen to insist that accusing people of rape is a terrible, life-ruining thing, so I am rather surprised to see how quickly his code of morals is dropped when he imagines an opportunity to take a pot-shot at someone.

oh my god "real rape" and "false rape" ? Let me guess: YOU are the one who gets to make the distinction here, zippey?

No thanks.

Hence why I insist on the 'enthusiastic consent' model. There's no so-called 'grey area' of rape when having someone as 'jump your bones' up for it is your minimum requirement before you get naked with them.

"Consent" is saying OK to something. Reasons why you just gave that OK are irrelevant to whether or not something is consensual - maybe you were paid, maybe you actually wanted to do it, or maybe you were pestered and thought "What the hell, let's just do it".

This is true for a financial transaction (i.e. selling property) and it is also true for sexual relations. It is just what we mean by "consent".

Hi Black - You think too much of me if you think I make the rules - Id hope common sense would prevail. If you think my terminology is offensive then I will stop saying it, I can see how some people may find it offensive.

I can also see where you are going with the "enthusiastic consent" model, but I do think that is going above and beyond, and it is unlikely to happen and unnecessary. I like the thought of advising your male children to behave that way, but Id also be afraid that it would hold them back in the world of women as women do not tend to go for overly nice guys.

Man "You sure you want to have sex?"
Woman "Yes"
Man "You sure sure?"
Woman "Yes I said, how many times do I have to say it"
Man "You triple sure"
Woman "Oh forget it"

(This is in conjuction with your scenario where you want the woman to say yes a lot)

I would think having a healthy respect for your fellow human beings and having your head screwed on correctly should be suffice.

So here is a scanario that is hard to define. Last year I was having a bit of a crazy time of it. I am quite into bdsm and for reasons of mental health, mania caused by a drug I was on, was seeking out casual encounters with a bdsm edge.
One guy I met over the Internet, persuaded me to meet him with what I thought was going to be a very specific scanario.
When I got there, it was not along the lines of what I thought it was going to be, but having agreed to no safe word first, gritted my teeth and got through it. There were parts I enjoyed but overall, I would have rather have not been there.
I don't think it was rape but under the ideas of coercion, possibly it could be.
Now I am not manic, there is no way I would have been there in the first place.

PrincessSymbian- what do you think would have happened if you had said no?

Zippey "women do not tenant go for overly nice guys"

Are there any more myths you would like to prpetuate?

'This is true for a financial transaction (i.e.[sic] selling property) and it is also true for sexual relations. It is just what we mean by "consent".'

No, it's not. They are not analogous situations. Why would you think sex is like selling property (or any other type of financial transaction, of which there are in fact many, not just that one).

This is a rape myth.

I felt like I had taken away the option of saying no by even being there.

op,your post 11..53am "If you want to have sex with a man,why would you need to be persuaded"?
Do you think the couple of perspectives that you have in your own life help you to ask this question?

I didn't say or mean that sex is the same thing as property. I talked about the meaning of the word "consent" and gave those two as examples and said that reasons why I consent are irrelevant.

I consent to DD going on a school trip (my reasons are irrelevant to whether or not there is consent)

Now waiting for your indignant "How can you compare sex to school trips?" To which I will again answer: That is the just the example. My point is that reasons for consent are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is clear consent.

zip I think you need to expand your ideas about how people verbally and non-verbally signify enthusiastic consent. I'm not saying people shouldn't take yes for an answer, so in your scenario the woman wouldn't say "oh, forget it" because - and here's a shocker for you - she actually really does want to have sex with the man asking her.

Here's a more likely scenario, here's one way you can imagine someone initiating sex from a talking about it - to -foreplay scenario....

Partner 1: Okay?
Partner 2: Yeah, yeah.
Partner 1: Yeah?
Partner 2: OH, yeah
Partner 1: like that?
Partner 2: YES!
Partner 1: uhuh?
Partner 2: YES! YES! YES!

I, for one, do not at all mind having sex to the sound of my partner rapturously saying "yes! yes! yes!" - in fact, it's rather wonderful.

It isn't analogous either, cote.

Consent in the context of selling property and consent to sex are not analogous.

People love this rape myth, but comparing people's bodies to inanimate objects is pretty offensive.

How did I know you would say that

I already answered. I'm talking about the meaning of the word consent, which is the same whether in the context of a school trip, sex, or selling property.

"I consent" means "I give my OK". Reasons why are irrelevant to the question of whether or not consent is given.

No, it isn't.

Consent is not the same in all contexts, and reasons are not irrelevant.

If the reasons as to why were irrelevant, it would be ok to get someone to say 'I give my ok' by force, or bribery. It is not.

It's not exactly funny, rape, by the way.

The constant sub text to all of this is the "given" that women actually don't want to have sex with anyone. They always need to cajoled, and men are panicking that their normal methods of persuasion will turn out to be unacceptable.

They way round this? Only have sex with women who want to have sex with you. You'll have more fun that way, anyway!

seeker - quite what I was thinking!

Big dramatic drumroll: women like sex too!

It works both ways of course. Women do like sex. And men arent always up for having sex.

PrincessSym tells an interesting story of what happened to her. You're right, it is hard to define. The law would say you gave your consent, but the picture isnt black and white, because there were many moments you did not want to be in that situation.

The whole argument is an interesting one, but the whole sex thing gets too complicated if we think about it too much. I think most people have enough common sense to know when consent is given.

As for the "women want bad men" debate, here is a scientific article (on msn.com) to prove my argument extreme.mobile.msn.com/living/Love/Article/250099235

No, the law would not say that PS gave consent. She gave consent a particular scenario and that was not what she was expected to do. Consent can be conditional- on using a condom, for example.