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?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more problematic I find the expression 'expectation of sex'. I really hope that you just couldn't think of a better word to describe what you were trying to convey Cadno.

Buffy I wonder if now would be the right time to start looking at how we in the UK could incorporate the enthusiastic consent idea into rape legislation. In order to change the onus of proof from the victim to the defendant? At the moment the law is woolly, as it states that the perpetrator must have what a 'reasonable person' would consider to be consent. Given how people are reacting to the Evans case, so called 'reasonable people' believe that being too drunk to consent actually signifies consent....

the other thing about "enthusiastic consent" as an idea is it relates also to the idea of ongoing consent. because with something like sex you can't sign a contract that you're then bound to. consent isn't given and then you're good to see it through to the end. it has to be ongoing and able to be withdrawn at any moment

As it stands, if you say Yes under pressure (or persuasion, coersion, duress etc) and change it to no (voiced) it isclassed as rape by the law.
However, it hinges on attitude. The enthusiastic consent bit is really good at underlining the right sort of attitude to having sex with another person. Expectation and entitlement falls off by the wayside.
The expectation to have sex nearly made me laugh. Yes, usually one does fancy one another, but to expect it? The other person is not owned by you.
Sex is not always tidy, desires can be used as bargaining tools, not Nice or healthy for sure. But as others have posted, it is different to withhold (dont like that word) sex rather than force yourself on someone. Scenarios like those mentioned upthread where someone feels their partner withholds sex make me very uneasy.

Because for whatever reason, noone should have sex they do not want.

Wow! This thread raises so many questions in my mind:

Why would you not want enthusiastic consent?

Why would you even discuss the legalities of whether your daughter would have been raped when manipulated and coerced into having penetrative intercourse by a man?

What is the motivation behind those people arguing against whether coercion is/should be illegal? Whether it is legal or not is a pretty low bar for acceptable human interaction.

"Scenarios like those mentioned upthread where someone feels their partner withholds sex make me very uneasy." Yes me too. I'd be looking at why the woman feels the need to do that? Why are normal methods of communication in the relationship not working? Where is the power in that relationship because it doesn't sound like it is with the woman? Unless of course you think men are ruled by their dicks.

Yes you can look at this unemotionally and be 'the voice of reason' or the 'devil's advocate' if you want. But sex and rape are not unemotional. That is the point. And these are women's lived experiences that you are theorising about. The women on here who have discussed being coerced have had good reason to call their experience rape. Doesn't that say something?

"devil's advocate" usually just means "i don't believe/trust women when they describe their lived experiences"

I had to have words with my husband at some point because he used to sulk if I said no to sex. I'd be cold shouldered and made to feel like crap for saying no. I got cross and told him he had a choice continue to treat me like that which would lead to less sex and turn me off completely or I said yes to stop him sulking in which case he would be having sex with me not really wanting to. He realised what he was doing wasn't on and he said he never wanted me to have sex if I didn't want to. I told him the sulks needed to stop then. They have stopped and if I say no then he accepts it and that's that.
I don't think he realised what his actions were actually doing but as soon as he realised what it implied then he stopped. Any man who uses sulks, a temper tantrum, stonewalling or whatever to get his end away is treading very close to the wrong side of the line. Once my husband understood this he stopped, because he isn't a rapist.
I think enthusiastic consent is a good way forward. I don't think I have ever been raped. But I have definitely ( in my younger days) said yes when I haven't really wanted to as I thought getting myself in certain situations I had to follow through as it were.(I have also said no when I was really uncomfortable and had that respected) We need to educate young women and men that they always have the right to say no and have that respected. Whatever the situation.
Sorry I know I'm not quite as articulate as some of you but hoping I make a bit of sense.

Or as someone else said enthusiastically said yes is better than didn't say no.

But can anyone answer why an un-enthusiastic yes (not coerced!) should for some reason mean a rape has been committed? It is still a yes after all.

To me it seems very important that in the scenarios required the supposed rapist has recognised the right of a woman to say no to sex - and nothing has happen before a yes was obtained (with out coercion)

If, as some people as saying, we should criminalise couples who tug on each other's emotions to get what they want aren't we going to have to send everyone who has been in a relationship to jail? Aren't we all a users by that rationale? I have sulked, so has my partner.

Yes, quietninja. What you describe with your husband is yet another good reason for the enthusiastic consent. Because it clarifies for the sulker what it is they are causing by their, at best, immature behaviour.
I would then expect (!) Sulkers and beggars to stop at once.

It is not about being thought police.
It is about letting men and women know there is a difference between abusive Scenarios and everyday, messy life. Often the same words can be Applied but the meaning is different. The mechanics of sex and rape are the same. It is the context that makes one thing enjoyable and the other horrific. Both times there is a penis in one of your orifices.

The other point is that it raises the moral bar for consensual sex in society. It isn't about thought police, or even about criminalising people in otherwise respectful relationships who have at times been a bit badgery for sex, what might do is teach people that scenario 2 in Buffy's examples, while not technically rape, certainly displays elements of not caring about consent on the part of the male partner.

At the moment, it is legally correct that a man cannot penetrate a woman with his penis without her consent, or at least what a reasonable person would deem to be consent. Scenario 2, could be deemed to be consent. However, if it became legally correct that a man had to have enthusiastic consent, then Scenario 2 looks more like rape.

I doubt it would result in more convictions, I doubt it would even result in more reports, but it might result in a shift in consciousness in men who would never regard themselves as rapists but who do engage in the kinds of behaviours Buffy described.

Why does someone coerce another person into having sex Brighton?

Why don't they accept no or first rejection as an answer?

Why are we discussing whether this should be illegal?

I think Puffins summed it up nicely: "...it might result in a shift in consciousness in men who would never regard themselves as rapists but who do engage in the kinds of behaviours Buffy described." Shifting the Overton window.

The fact that we may have to resort to law to make this shift is frankly outrageous. But as demonstrated by some people on this thread, investment in minimising and accepting pretty appalling male behaviour is rife.

At the moment, it is legally correct that a man cannot penetrate a woman with his penis without her consent, or at least what a reasonable person would deem to be consent. Scenario 2, could be deemed to be consent. However, if it became legally correct that a man had to have enthusiastic consent, then Scenario 2 looks more like rape.

If you required enthusiastic consent, Scenario 1 also looks like rape.

No, it doesn't. Can you honestly not tell the difference?

No, it doesn't. Can you honestly not tell the difference?

No, I can't - if you qualify the consent so that it must be 'enthusiastic', then there must be some enthusiasm to escape criminality. In scenario 1 there is none.

Words in law have meanings. The Judges that will sum up case to the jury will need to provide a legal explanation of enthusiasm. A quick look at an online dictionary provides that it is 'intense and eager enjoyment, interest, or approval'. where is it in that scenario ?

A better word would be 'expressed'

No, it wouldn't. For reasons expressed before. I do worry about your attitude to rape to be honest. It seems quite off

I think here we again hit the difference between what a man should do to ensure he's not raping someone, and what a woman should be able to expect from a partner.

In order for a man to be as sure as he can be that he's not raping someone, he should set the bar at enthusiastic participation. Anything less, and he's skirting the lines of coercing consent. In case 1, he can be reasonably sure that his partner is fine about it in a long term relationship where everyone trusts one another. In a one-night stand he would be foolish to continue.

For a woman, she doesn't have to be bouncing up and down with joy at the thought, just feel happy about the idea rather than coerced.