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?

You've honed in on the word enthusiasm, which I think is a red herring.

...quite often by the look of things

I do think scenario 1 is balanced finely on the edge of problematic. The situation where the partner is "meh" but goes along with it is only acceptable where the "meh" partner genuinely feels they have the choice and the right to say no at any point. Women are socialised to believe that even by wearing a skirt they have already gone past the point of being able to say no, so it's highly debatable as to whether most women genuinely feel able to stop a man when he's fully "on the go" so to speak. I know with my own DH, who for all his faults is very very respectful in the bedroom and has never put me under pressure, I feel unable to stop him once he's revved up, not because he wouldn't stop (because he absolutely would) but because of years and years of having the idea drummed into me that men need sex, that you shouldn't be a "tease," that you started it so you can't back out etc etc.

Given what you've said so far here cadno, I'd be interested to know, if you were in the middle of sex with a woman, fairly revved up and not about to orgasm but not far off, would you stop if she asked you to? Or would you say "I'm nearly there, just wait" and expect her to let you carry on?

Given what you've said so far here cadno, I'd be interested to know, if you were in the middle of sex with a woman, fairly revved up and not about to orgasm but not far off, would you stop if she asked you to? Or would you say "I'm nearly there, just wait" and expect her to let you carry on?

Somewhat unhelpfully, these days, that wouldn't bother me too much, as I prefer to dismount before orgasm. In fact, if anything my present partner has a preference for me to orgasm inside her - so often she's the (ever so slightly) disappointed party.

< clicks on thread >

< gets to end and clicks the fuck off it sharpish >

Hi Buffy,

Obviously 3 is rape. We all benefit from 2 not being rape. The behaviour of the man isn't pleasant but he sounds pushy but not forceful. It sounds like the woman in that scenario could say no and insist no and the worst she would get is as you described, but she would not be harmed or forced into sex against her will. She should get out the relationship - but in those critical few moments where the line into criminality was crossed it sounds to me like she was under no duress and nothing that could be describe as coercion.

It is pretty bonkers to suggest this could or should be rape. I think your suggestion that is should be infantilises the woman involved! I can't grasp this idea that women believe other women should not be expected to communicate their boundaries until after the event. Are we still children? What is wrong with - 'get off me, I have work in the morning' ?

your lack of understanding about why some women are not in a position to say "get off me, I have work in the morning" is the problem here

I notice how you completely sidestepped the question cadno. In the past have you continued having sex with a woman who asked you to stop?

Brighton, in the past you could also have said a man who held a woman down and forced himself into her committed no crime as long as that woman was his wife. Discussing the finer points of legality adds nothing to this debate IMO. Yes, there's virtually no chance the man in scenario 2 would ever be convicted of rape. He I still a rapist. Saying a woman could simply tell her partner to leave her alone shows you have no understanding whatsoever of emotional abuse.

cailin my interpretation of cadno's response is that he would stop because it suits him better to do so anyway

Saying I don't understand abuse is a cheap & very easy way of avoiding my point.

if you do understand abuse and you stand by your comments then you are a misogynist

Brighton by saying you don't understand abuse I'm being as generous as I can. If you do understand abuse then basically you think the woman in that scenario is responsible for being raped because she doesn't know how to say "leave me alone" in such a way that her abuser will listen to.

brighton, why do you say this?:

We all benefit from 2 not being rape.

As I see it, it only benefits men who are comfortable bullying women for sex.

Well, this is absurd to read. Brighton, the point has been made eloquently by others. I will add my voice by saying that it is not always possible to up and leave. The consequences of your no may come in other situations, to others seemingly unconnected to your no to sex.
It is good if your ignorance comes from different sports of experience. Itcan be hhard to fathom, luckily, when you have never been in the situation. But here many examples have been given, some made up and some from real life. Å firm no might have to be repeated for days, and repercussions vary.

I went to a party a few years ago with a new aquaintance. I stayed over at his place and would have been happy to have sex. That was, right up to the point where he began demanding sex in such a way as it ceased to be an enjoyable experience and this happy, fun, man turned into something far more monstrous. I then became entirely disinterested and was very much focused on my personal safety. For this very reason I participated in sex so that in the morning I could leave in safety. I was driven to my car by him and we said polite goodbyes but I felt wretched.

Brighton, this is why your misunderstanding of assault and abuisveness is so misguided. I am able to tell my DP when I'm not in the mood, and I am also able to put my foot down when he is whiney about it. However, in the above scenario my overall safety presided over my sexual safety.

This is why enthusiastic (perhaps 'unwavering' as a legal term would have been in my situation at that time) consent is essential.

The law clearly says that the man must reasonably believe the woman is consenting.

In my view, if he has bullied her, harassed her, or if she fears the consequences of a 'no', and therefore, grudgingly agrees to sex (or doesn't fight him off) - that is not reasonable belief in consent. That is bullying a woman into sex she doesn't want.

The 'enthusiastic' consent thing is just referring to 'ongoing participation' - and would include situations up to and including Buffy's scenario 1. The term 'enthusiastic' here doesn't mean she has to be whooping around the bedroom in ecstasy at the thought of sex - it just means she is having sex willingly, and is an equal participant.

Men know the difference.

Perhaps 'reasonable belief' is the issue as many men (and some women) have no idea what that looks like.

Some, like Judy Finnegan, might 'reasonably assume' that wearing revealing clothing is something of an invitiation to sex, so it isn't a great leap of utterly shite judgment to then reasonably assume consent is present.

What is reasonable in society is biased towards the male view of right and wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, so I think it is un an unhelpful way of looking at things. That bias influences men and women.

We need a clear way of looking at things that cannot be open to male biased interpretation.