Men have done such a number on us that even women don't even know what rape is

[cailindana]

Now I know Judy Finnegan is not a paragon of intellectual prowess.

But still, I would never have thought such stupidity could fall from her lips: www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29598732

She said the rape was "not violent." So what was it then? Friendly? Enjoyable? Just a little game?

How how how how how do we live in a world where a woman can't recognise the extreme violence of having your body used by another person?

In scenario 2, brighton, the man has continued to have sex with the woman despite her protests:

but as soon as his hands wander, she pushes them off. He continues and continues despite her protests that she's not really interested,

When a woman pushes a man away, and verbally says she's not interested - do you think she's consenting?

Scenario 2 is certainly pestering. Whether it is coercion would be decided in a court together with other evidence from the relationship. That is according to the law today as I
understand it. The law reflects the attitude of a society, it changes as the attitudes change. I would welcome a change towards enthusiastic consent for Both women and men.
I wanted to quickly adress the "we are all adults!" This does not apply when one person feels entitled to sexfrom another person. The adult cannot reason with the entitled person because the entitlement blanks out any ability to be reasoned with. And then it becomes a matter of safety. It puts the blame on the victim, implying that they did not stand firm enough, or were perhaps not adult enough to handle the situation. But it isnot the victim who is misbehaving.

DP tries it on all the time when I'm not really in the mood, would you also class that as him trying to rape me?! Sorry but as someone who has experience of rape I find that quite insulting. Some of these scenarios are ridiculous. Some of you seem to think all men are predators after one thing...

The only difference between scenarios 2 & 3 is that in 3, he uses physical force to pin the woman down. In scenario 2, he uses emotional bullying.

At no point in either scenario does she actually consent. - she just stops fighting back - because she judges the consequences of fighting back will be worse for her. In scenario 2, previous experience tells her this: He continues and continues despite her protests that she's not really interested, and she knows from past experience that if she doesn't comply he will insist on waking her up fully, putting the light on and berating her for rejecting him.

Why is the physical force scenario viewed unquestionably as rape, yet the emotional bullying scenario not? In neither case has the woman actually consented - the man has just ignored her 'no' and carried on.

What do women do when her initial 'no' is ignored? Well, research and anecdotal evidence shows that many will give up and not fight back - because they fear the consequences of doing so. It doesn't make it not rape.

The thing is in the context of a longterm relationship it's not just about individual sex acts. It's a shared sexual history which informs how each will behave. that is where coercion and threats come into it - a woman is working on what she knows of past behaviour and that will influence the degree of enthusiasm with which she consents

On the contrary blueberry it is my experience with men who would absolutely not persevere with trying to have sex when a woman is not interested in hving sex at that time, which leads me to know that men are perfectly capable of controlling themselves and treating women as human beings. I will not accept excuses from those who say they can't

Blueberrywafer - I would guess (hope) your dp's behaviour would fall into scenario 1 - ie. not rape.

Unless he ignores your protests and just carries on regardless? In which case, you would need to seriously re-think your relationship.

Blueberry when it is made clear you're not in the mood, does your DP persevere?

"At no point in either scenario does she actually consent. - she just stops fighting back"

This.

Empire - I think it is consent. It isn't nice, but I just don't think that is rape. If someone badgers me for money and I relent and give them consent for them to have my money I can't report them for theft on the basis that I think they would have stolen from me or tried to make me feel guilty if I had not relented. If coercion or blackmail were used then the situation changes.

I don't buy the argument that a woman can make a decision she subsequently regrets and then act as if she actually decided the other way. I think you set the bar far too low for women, it is essentially a license to withdraw consent after the event!

Hi Buffy, thank you for your interest in my opinions but I know that my judgement is not clouded I have just looked at the world and drawn different conclusions to you (on a couple of things at least!)

Petula yes, just as I would if I was in the mood. So if I touch his penis after he's said "I'm a bit tired tonight" you're saying I've sexually assaulted him..

Is the man in scenario 2 100% sure that the woman in scenario 2 wants his penis inside her? Or is he actually fairly sure she doesn't?

tbh blueberry that's your h's call, and vice versa, as to whether there is a feeling of violation. i do think it could be problematic though

Exactly. If you are sure consent exists / existed you have not committed a rape.

Ridiculous. There are plenty around who don't understand consent at all. To make their opinion the ultimate arbiter is spectacularly stupid. Also, it's interesting that the man's opinion becomes the decisive point.

Apocalypse - if the man is the one being put on trial for his actions, who's opinion do you suggest should be used in judging if he believed he had consent or not?

Yonic - consenting is not the same as wanting though. We all consent to things we don't want all the time. Taxes, operations, this does mean a crime has been committed against us!

My Empire - you'll notice that in my example I used myself as the one being badgered, not a vulnerable elderly person (which I hope I am not yet!)

Caillin was clearly so right. Men have done such a number on us that even women don't know what rape is. Some of the responses on this thread prove it.

if the man is the one being put on trial for his actions, who's opinion do you suggest should be used in judging if he believed he had consent or not?

I don't think his unfounded opinion should be the crux of the matter at all. Let him think - or pretend to think - what he likes. To my mind, the real question is why did he think consent had been given, and what would constitute a lack of consent that he wouldn't override.

In these cases, my general opinion is that the man should have to prove she consented, and why he knew that she consented, rather than the woman having to prove she did not. This trope that women are there for sexing up unless they are prepared to die rather than submit has to end.

Alternately, not everyone agrees on what rape is.

Apocalypse - of course anyone would be asked why they thought they had consent, although anyone on trial for any crime has the right to silence. In my opinion your suggestion would lead to people having to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove their guilt.