"Teaching men not to rape"

[Opshinz]

I been noticing more and more people spitting rhetoric like this. I love freedom of speech and surely they should be allowed to say this, but.. rather then describe my feelings perhaps I can give an example.

Imagine I was giving a lecture and said "We really need to teach women to stop killing children", or "We really need to teach black people not to eat so much fried chicken".

Anyone have any thoughts?

I have known young lads wander in to work after a week-end on the beer, sporting various injuries such as black eyes, bruises, grazed skin. Turns out they had been drinking in a notorious pub. 'What the f--- are you drinking in there for, soft lad?' is the usual response, as the pub is well known for its robust regulars. There really isn't much sympathy being passed around, when all they wanted was a pint of beer.

No, it doesn't negate anything, other than the claim that there is one attitude for women and another for men - that we somehow give men all the time and sympathy in the world and ignore women. This shitty attitude from some people about asking for it/what did you wear that for/why did you drink in there' is applied to everyone at times.

And there is no suggestion on my part that rape is a minor crime, nor something to be dismissed as 'she was asking for it'. As Dervel said, it should be given the same attention as every serious assault and threat to life.

And you are so busy being angry about something I haven't said that it seems pointless to continue. If you want to discuss women's issues, from you pov of being a woman, you go girl. You have lived it. Every time I say that the blame culture of 'he/she was asking for it' is wrong, you ignore it to go off on one.

You have the right to state what you have experienced from a woman's point of view. You do not have the right to talk about men's experiences, because you are not one. So if a man says 'well for me, this happened...' it does not detract from a woman's experience. All this bollocks about men 'othering' women. They don't have to - feminism is doing a grand job of that.

And for the record, for the umpteenth time, the attitude that an innocent person is every asking for anything just by being somewhere or wearing something is wrong. But don't let that stop you.

I think whenever we begin to think about talking about rape we have to be aware that people listening to the conversation may have lived it. As such as much as we can try to talk about it objectively we must be constantly aware of quite what an emotive subject it is and take extra care.

Buffy has said twice she is angry about another matter, so I wouldn't take it too personally. All I can say is I've seen her contributions on other threads and she is well worth listening to.

Buffy just wanted to say your post of 15:07 was fucking awesome x

Men don't like campaigns like that because they like to think of rape as being women walking down the street and being battered and violently raped by a serial rapist. They don't see that any man could push a little too hard and a woman give in. I bet a lot of women have done that in a relationship, sometimes it's just "oh go on then" and sometimes it's close your eyes and pretend it's not happening. All men need to know that no is definitely a no (unless that's part of something you've discussed between you and you have another safe word!) that women dress to please themselves not because they that a woman who has had too much to drink and can't consent, can't consent.

The law needs to put the onus on a man. When I was raped I spent quite a bit of the interview going over my own sexual history - as it happens I had left my XH about 2 months before, we had waited for marriage, I had been faithful in my marriage and hadn't met anyone else since, I had never done oral at that time (I was so innocent!) - but it didn't matter he said that yes we had had sex and I had consented. His sex life didn't get discussed, he had met an underage girl on the internet, told her he was her age then raped her when they met, she wasn't found for a few days afterwards, I don't know what happened to her in that time. The policewoman said to me that she was 33, had been working as a rape officer for years and had never met a 19 year old man who made her feel like she did sat opposite him in the interview room, she didn't need to interview him to know he was guilty. Who was guilty in that case? Me, the law says.

confuddled

The law needs to put the onus on a man

How would this work in RL ?

Not questioning a woman on her sex history for a start! Not starting off from a POV of six of one...

The process is skewed against women and it's the only crime like it.

Buffy

Are you suggesting that putting the onus on a man for not raping someone isn't currently how the law works and is also difficult to enforce?

No. That is currently how the law works and I am not suggesting it. But as confuddled seems to be looking for a change in the law, she could not be writing about that. It seemed to me that she was seeking a change of the law in the trial process itself, for the defendant to prove that there was consent ? - ie that the onus is put on a defendant to prove his/her innocence. Is that not it ? A more fundamental change to the criminal justice system is hard to imagine.

I bet a lot of women have done that in a relationship, sometimes it's just "oh go on then"

This makes me a rapist. I've pressured DW into DTD before, not to the point of pestering her for hours on end, but when we've been in bed cuddling and one thing led to another at my instigation. She doesn't subscribe to Feminism in the way I support it and would certainly be aghast and upset at me admitting to this, but I can't really see any other way of viewing it. Sometimes the "grey" areas need to be split into black and white, right? It's only since I've been looking into Feminism and MN that I've realised this, so maybe we're back to the ooriginal post of this thread - "Men need to be taught not to rape".

Conversely she's pressured me to DTD before, mostly when we were TTC, a bit of emotional blackmail here and there and we end up in a similar situation.

Both of these are pretty fucked up things to admit, but both need to be talked about more in society, and at a more personal level between partners.

Sorry if that's an inflammatory post by the way.

confuddled

Not questioning a woman on her sex history for a start!

My understanding of the law is that at trial the presumption is that the defence can not examine the woman on her sexual history without first obtaining the leave of the court for doing so. That requires the defence to give good reasons as to why it wishes the evidence down that route.

Not starting off from a POV of six of one... half a dozen of the other - I presume you mean give more weight to the evidence of the complainant ?

keepithidden

Sometimes the "grey" areas need to be split into black and white, right?

Yes indeed, you could say that is precisely the job of the jury - it examines the greyness of the case but it can only come back with guilty or not guilty - the black or the white.

Where did I call for a change in the law? Yes, technically the onus is on the man but it doesn't work like that, what happens in practice is they decide which one of you is guilty. I was guilty, he said so, I consented to sex, case closed. My sex history was important, his wasn't. My word didn't matter, his did. That's not law, that's just how it works.

Keepithidden - you cut that sentence down. I'm not saying that "oh go on then" is rape but a woman who is closing her eyes and waiting for it to end is being raped even if her husband thinks that she consented after a bit of pressure. I've been in both of those and there's been times that I agreed even though I wasn't in the mood because I knew he was; and there's been times I've told him that I don't want to and leave me alone. I do think men need to realise how easy it can be to step over that line and I think that's why they struggle with the idea of any man is a rapist.

Yeah only a very small number of cases end up in front of a jury because if the woman is guilty it doesn't go to court.

that should have been "yeah but"

Confuddled - RE: The "oh go on then" bit. I think it probably can be described as rape. It's simply different ends of the same spectrum surely? That spectrum itself starts and finishes with "No" so anywhere along it is rape.

It is easy to step over the line, because the line probably should be drawn prior to even getting to a situation that requires a point on the above spectrum. Men don't seem to realise that avoiding the situation in the first place is a precautionary approach to prevent this happening.

Or is it that a bit Rad Fem? Had too much coffee and too little sleep today.

Coerced consent is not consent.

I definitely think there should be education surrounding the definition of coercion in a sexual situation.

Because whenever this situation comes up there are always people who complain that that means you can't persuade or seduce your partner anymore. You can, of course you can, but there is a line where is crosses into coercion and maybe some firm guidelines surrounding that would be helpful...I mean it's perfectly fucking clear to me what's crossed a boundary and whats normal erm, 'intimate negotiation' (i.e. having sex after being persuaded or just to please your partner but that you could safely and easily say no to without repercussion) but a lot of people do seem to struggle with it.

I don't think 'teaching men not to rape' works regarding stranger rapes, but it might help in relationships.

Keepithidden

"oh go on then" bit. I think it probably can be described as rape.

Its back to the greyness again. Its seems you would convict on that facts. I would not. You're right that there is a spectrum - the 'oh go on then' would be a good example of the 'reluctant acquiescence' phrase for that end of the spectrum, as once mentioned in a court of appeal case (I'll see if I can find it)

Hidden, you must be able to see that one thing leading to another under one partner's instigation is different from coercion or pestering or her doing it because she can't be arsed to deal with a sulky, moany grump if she doesn't do it. Yes, the line is thin but most people with a conscience can see the difference here. I have been in a situation where at first I wasn't in the mood but after some kissing, touching or even just talking I can be persuaded into the mood, and by the time we were DTD I was totally enthusiastically consenting. I agree TTC must be a little different because it takes the romance out of it a bit.

I'm interested by this earlier in the thread. "[men rape because] they have the opportunity to take something they feel they are not otherwise entitled to."

What does it mean? Does it mean that rapists feel that other people are entitled to sex but they aren't so they have to steal it? I'm interested in looking at this as an idea but I'm not totally understanding what it's trying to say, I don't think.

Sander

there is a line where is crosses into coercion and maybe some firm guidelines surrounding that would be helpful...

Yes. coercion is not consent. Such guidelines are given to the jury when the judges sums up the case to them and he or she then invites them to retire to consider their verdict. Black or White. On the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, is the defendant guilty or not ?