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?

Brighton, do you think that the woman in scenario 2 consented to sex?

Do you think that if a woman stops fighting back, she is consenting?

Sabrina,

1. Yes

2. No

How did she consent in scenario 2? All she did was stop pushing him away, stop fighting back.

In my opinion your suggestion would lead to people having to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove their guilt.

And wouldn't that be interesting, to see men having to think carefully about who they have sex with and whether they have consent. It would certainly change some toxic behaviours and attitudes.

Apocalypse - not really, it would just invert the universal right to be presumed innocent which we all enjoy.

Sabrina - the reaction in scenario 2 sounds more like a 'meh, go on then if you must' to me as opposed to coercion or use of force.

it would invert the perceived universal right of men to women's bodies which many feel they should enjoy

I'm not sure about that - and even if it did it is not worth if the answer is living in a society where you are expected to prove your innocence of crime rather than vice versa.

it would invert the perceived universal right of men to women's bodies which many feel they should enjoy

Yes, and it would force men to bear some of the burden their violence and entitlement imposes on women's safety.

No, it's not though. Buffy (I suspect very deliberately) used the exact same language for scenario 3 - she just let him get it over with. Yet you easily concede that 3 was rape.

2) A woman is asleep but her new partner fancies sex. She is awoken and kind of goes along with his early advances (cuddling) but as soon as his hands wander, she pushes them off. 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. Maybe the discussion will go on for hours and she has to give a presentation tomorrow. So, she just lets him get it over with, feeling awful about the whole thing.

3) A woman is asleep but her new partner fancies sex. She is awoken and kind of goes along with his early advances (cuddling) but as soon as his hands wander, she pushes them off. He continues, and won't take no for an answer, using his weight to hold her down and penetrate her. So, she just lets him get it over with, feeling awful about the whole thing.

Why is it ok in your eyes to emotionally bully a woman into sex, awaken her, sleep deprive her, berate her? Until she just "let's him get it over with." That is not consent.

it's already been established that innocent until proven guilty would be maintained as it should be

That last exchange is good, Brighton and Sabrina, because it seems at least two different issues are conflated in Brighton's posts. One is what we as a society should expect as standard sexual behaviour in people (here comes my enthusiastic consent torch) and the other is what is currently viewed as criminal and would stand up in a court of law.
I still think the theft analogy is crap, in our part of the world. It is different having money taking from you to having someone wanking innside you. Both are violations, but one is upon your person.
Otherwise people are free to disagree, I prefer that things are not mixed up though, so it is clear what is agreed and what is disagreed on.

Brighton said:

"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. "

Well it's fine that you don't "buy that idea" given that no-one has suggested it! Instead you have, unprompted, raised one of the most dangerous rape myths of all - that women are liable to accuse men of rape because they regret consensual sex - as if anyone has said that!

I have to point out here that:

• You are the one who, when everyone else is talking around consent issues in society, keep insisting that we are talking about what goes on in a court of law

• You are the one who, for no apparent reason, keeps saying that posters want to change the law to guilty until proven innocent for rape

• You are the one who has just claimed that posters here want laws to be amended so that women who have consensual sex they regret can report men to the police for rape and have that seen as a crime

Listen to yourself! If you haven't got an agenda, and one is looking pretty clear here to me, then maybe you need to think about why your views are being met with such disgust, why no-one is agreeing with you, why you insist on talking about what you think the law says rather than what it actually says despite having been provided with relevant links, and why you have such a terribly low opinion of women.

Throwing out hypothetical "grey area" scenarios and then insisting that posters justify why the men in said hypothetical scenarios should be prosecuted, when the posters have been trying to explain in a nuanced manner why the men's behaviour is extremely problematical is a tried and tested method that rape apologists have of winding up women who are concerned about the prevalnce of rape in society are are wondering what can be done. The apologists do it in an attempt to make the women who are concerned about the prevalence of rape look unreasonable. This is how you are coming across. If you did not come to this thread with this specific aim, it might again be worth thinking about why your ideas and approach are so aligned with people who want to prevent women from talking about the problem of rape in society.

turbo i totally agree re analogies wrt rape (theft and taxes have been mentioned on this thread)

what seven said. all of that

Hi S7S - maybe you need to examine why you think you are in a position to police this thread?

she is not policing the thread

why won't you address her points?

Petula - because they are ad hom points. I am ok with the idea that not everyone agrees with me and if you think I have an agenda that doesn't bother me. It is unfortunate but it is what it is.

Seven does not police the thread. You are mixing up issues, Brighton.
A court of law reflects society and its values . It changes as society changes. Laws are worded carefully yet often open to interpretation. I have no worry that women will suddenly flock to the courts because they regret some hanky-panky. I have no such low opinions of Neitherwomen or men.
Intelligent people can accept that when it comes to activities that involves others and can involve damage we err on the side of cautiousness. I would very much like to promote that when it comes to consent we aim to err on the side of cautiousness.

misuse of ad hom fallacy if that is your intention

Want to add the innocent until prøven guilty is not in danger of being violated from my point of view.

You've given yourself away with "ad hom" brighton. Seven's points weren't ad hom - she was commenting on your views.

Turbonerd - Just for clarity, I don't think for a second that thousands of women would flock to court either! I don't have that low an opinion of either sex. Most people, most if the time rub along just fine.

However, writing a law that puts even 1 or 5 or 10 people in a position where they are expected to prove their innocence rather than vice versa is still repugnant to me! That is not what we are about as a society. My erring on the side of caution is just in a different direction.

quite sabrina

it was valid logical conclusions based on posts on this thread