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?

Interestingly the point that needs to be made here.

Is that with the given law, or even if it were changed to "enthusiastic consent" or the other suggestions on here, someone has to make a complaint.

And because women aren't, you know, malicious evil witches who enjoy bringing good men down on a whim, they don't tend to report people for acting illegally if they haven't.

So, women don't report men for rape unless they feel that they have been raped. Sometimes cases are brought where women haven't complained of anything at all, because the police / CPS are clear a crime has been committed even if the victim says it hasn't or doesn't know. In many cases - and what this thread is about - women don't report rape because they have bought the idea that unless it's in a dark alley and a stranger then it's not "real" rape. Or of course they just know there's not point in reporting it anyway.

The people who might argue against "enthusiastic consent" for example do so on the basis that:

1. Men can't be expected to only have sex with people who really want to have sex with them!

and

1. Women are crazed harpies who if given a law like that will use it willy nilly to send loads of men straight to jail (because presumably the court/evidence process will be removed as well) just because they can!

So as people with this perspective seem to have shockingly low opinions of both men and women, I'm not sure their opinions need to be given too much credence.

i think many men would be "scared" to have PIV sex in that situation buffy. which is not necessarily a negative consequence.

whoops xposts

indeed brighton. but i think it's right to call it out.

Coercive sexual abuse

www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/coercive_sexual_abuse.html

We live in a coercive culture - we don't even see it as a problem sometimes, even when we are victims (as OP titled).

So even though you might not see it as rape, would you yourself be OK with being on the receiving end of this type of behaviour ?

Hi MrsBuffy

The negative consequences are that we would be sending people to jail for having sex for which they had gained consent.

Brighton, I think I get what you're trying to say, but having been in a situation where I was coerced into sex with a man I barely knew, I wholeheartedly believe that nobody should have sex without happy, freely-given consent.

In my case there was definite duress (when someone is leant over you for ages, it's difficult to feel like you have a choice). But I think in any case, if you're not taking a first no (or lack of response, or flinching away, or whatever) as an answer, your behaviour needs taking in hand and yes, I would say that you are a rapist.

Hi Ladyblahblah,

I'm not sure why you're asking, do you think some people do want to be on the end of that behaviour?

I don't think it should be defined as criminal though.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/

And as the CPS are stating, coercion is part of the aggravating circumstances of a sexual assault / rape.

Actually, in law, Brighton is likely correct (only had a quick scan www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/75)

It would never be recorded as a crime if it were one (let alone be prosecuted). I wish it were, in all honesty, because this manipulative and entitled use of womens' bodies is both horrific for the women involved and absolutely symptomatic of the view of women that is depressingly commonplace. Why on earth anyone would want to penetrate someone who wasn't actively willing is beyond me. Seems pretty rapey behaviour to me, if 0 = enthusiastic consent at all times and 10=the stereotypical dark alley rapist and anything above 0 is rapey. Which it is, right?

I'm not really sure why people like you, Brighton, argue about this stuff, though. There is no campaign for expanding the definition of rape. There's enough on everyone's plate just getting seemingly clear cut cases to court at all.

Still, good for the lurkers.

Anyway,

Thinking about another thread recently.

And about increased hospital treatment amongst young women due to sex.

The situation in that report drew on young people's experiences and a massive precis is as follows:

• Both the male and the female in the couples interviewed felt that it was normal and expected for the male to strongly persuade (coerce) the female into performing a sex act which she did not want and which they both expected to be painful

• In increasing numbers this is resulting in the female needing medical treatment for injuries

Now, I guess there are a few questions here:

• Is this OK? Expected teen behaviour?
• Is it OK up until the point where there are injuries?
• Is it OK if there are no physical injuries serious enough for hospital?
• Is any of this illegal - should any of this be illegal?

She has consented. Injury can be put down to misadventure I guess (is that a thing?).

A lot of this is extremely problematical and seems to be getting worse. How do we tackle this? Would changing laws help? If not, what on earth do we do? Because nothing is working at the moment, things are getting worse in terms of the attitude of males (NAMALT) towards females.

Avocado - I am sorry for your terrible experience.

You mention not taking a first no, or a flinch as an answer - in my opinion that safely falls under the definition of a rape. No sane person could argue consent existed there!

Accept the sentencing guidelines - you've got to get to court and get a conviction first, though.

Painful for her obviously!

And not in a good way (for those who enjoy a bit of pain with their sex in consensual mutually enjoyable situations).

Hi Crotch - I just like to discuss these kind of things :)

In Scotland it is an offence in itself - sexual coercion - sentence of up to 10 years.

www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/contents

it's not just the first time though

it's the second, fifth, tenth, 100th, 1000th time, when the woman has no reaction available to her other than to acquiesce

have you come here specifically to discuss this brighton?

Hi again Buffy,

It depends if you mean coercion or persuasion I guess. I guess from my point of view is that someone making you feel bad, or emotionally blackmailing you doesn't make them responsible for your decisions.

The difficulty is that any given situation is going be so subjective that a one size fits all but I am comfortable with that as a guiding principle. If you are left with the reasonable ability to make a choice then you are responsible for the choice you make.

Ok, see what you mean Brighton - I was imagining a hypothetical conversation with my mother and projecting it onto you I think.

More or less related musing: when my mother, and her whole generation (and possibly Judy Finnegan?) married, they all gave up their rights over their own bodies, didn't they, as rape was not recognized within marriage until the ?80s was it? I wonder if there has been a generational shift in how rape is viewed... I mean, if going along with sex because your dh wanted it.and the law said that that was his rights was the norm (i don't know if it was) then it's feasible that that would skew your whole perspective on consent.