Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I just read this and I was really pleased. It's about time rape was investigated and prosecuted differently considering the appalling rape conviction rate we have in this country. Imagine there will be an outcry from all the MRAs, but, I think it's very good news...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

I'm with Buffy. Why the fuck are we, as always, sat here arguing about the possibility of something maybe being wrong in certain rare specific circumstances, when it's clear that this is better on the whole.

Why? Why why why. Oh yeah, I know why. It's because of who the 'certain rare specifics' pertain to. And who the 'on the whole' are.

"A police officer wrote a blog post about nice middle class people being just the easiest people to convict because they think being reasonable and explaining what happened will make the police drop a case. It doesn't. It all just gets written down and used in evidence."

Right. But so if you didn't do the crime what could you possibly say that the police will use against you? Honestly, I know it has happened, but I don't believe for one hot second that there are thousands of middle class folks being convicted for crimes they didn't commit because they overexplained it at the police station. I'm sure they are easier to convict when they did do something though. Arrogance goes a long way, and the idea of being able to explain problems away is a very middle class thing. Also a very male thing, in my experience.

That wasn't a case of "regretted sex" was it muminhants, it was a girl trying to make up a story to explain failing university. She made up a stupid story, didn't accuse anyone in particular, she was found out and no one was prosecuted.

How does that relate to this guidance?

What I mean by my last post is, how would this guidance relate in any way to a case like the one you mentioned, muminhants?

Does anyone deny that a tiny tiny number of rape allegations are false? Why whenever we have this discussion, does it boils down to "Well, women lie about rape, I seen it in the paper"? Why do we not have long threads about how people lie about being burgled? How come that doesn't make the papers, when the incidence of people lying about being burgled is iirc higher than the incidence of false allegations of rape?

Do we think there might be some kind of weird, unexplainable vested interest in constantly reminding men that women lie about rape?

Well, yes Puffins, by expecting men not to rape us we're being really annoying aren't we? I mean, sometimes they'll get in bed with us and oops! their penis inside us, it just happens doesn't it? Don't moan about it, it's just one of those things. You can't actually expect men to look at the woman their penis is inside or talk to them or anything, that is just too much. Poor men, they can't be expected to check before putting their penis in things, they just go around sticking their penis in doughnuts and loo rolls and oops yes, sometimes women that happen to be there and get in the way, and so what? How dare women expect men to be held accountable for that?

Well, of course men can't be expected to know when their sexual partners are into it as well, Cailin! FFS! Next you'll be saying that women might actually enjoy sex, be the instigators of it, actively seek out sexual partners and the like, when we all know that it's up to women to police sex at all times, not enjoy it and deny we've ever done it even to our children because ick!

The idea of 'accidental' rape just makes me want to chew my keyboard.

MoreBeta, I'm still interested to know whether, as a young man, you would have gone ahead and had sex on with a woman who wasn't participating or enjoying it?

Hmmm, last post looks a bit odd...

when I said that we have to deny we've ever done it even to our children it was a quote from a film, as in... "I am a bloody virgin, and don't let my children tell you any different" said by the female character..... not any other construction that could be put on it

And now, do you think I can remember the film/TV show? Not for all the gold in Christendom.... bugger

I think what is saddest, in a way, is that a lot of people maybe really do believe that false rape accusations are quite common, and quite often successful. And if I believed that, I guess I might also worry about making it 'easier' to make a successful false rape accusation. Which this doesn't even do, but I might worry that it might.

So maybe I'm being too harsh. It's not unlike the fact that people think stranger abductions of children are more common than they are, due to the amount of attention they receive when they do happen.

But I do think it's important to realise, the way we do with child abductions, that this is a bias. This is something that is uncommon. We still let our children do things where they could, in theory, be abducted, because we recognise the bigger picture - that the benefit to them is greater than the small risk of a stranger grabbing them. And it's the same with this. Except of course it involves the small possibility of a few men having a worse time. And so it's BAD.

What is also fucking irritating is that it makes men sound like absolute idiots. Like cailindana is saying. I don't know men like that, and yet this sort of thing is what it makes them sound like. It's messed up. And it's boring. It's BORING arguing about this, the most obvious thing in the world. There ARE things to discuss that are interesting, about consent. About male/female sexual relations. But no, we're here arguing about the rarest incidents, because... because I don't even know why.

i think it's twofold

there is the myth that women regularly make false rape allegations

and there are myths about what rape actually is, based on misogynist attitudes about women's sexuality and experience

so there are men reacting badly because they suddenly realise that what they thought were consenting sexual encounters in fact weren't, and added to this an idea that women who are genuinely consenting are waiting for any opportunity to accuse a man falsely of rape

*"A police officer wrote a blog post about nice middle class people being just the easiest people to convict because they think being reasonable and explaining what happened will make the police drop a case. It doesn't. It all just gets written down and used in evidence."

Right. But so if you didn't do the crime what could you possibly say that the police will use against you? Honestly, I know it has happened, but I don't believe for one hot second that there are thousands of middle class folks being convicted for crimes they didn't commit because they overexplained it at the police station. I'm sure they are easier to convict when they did do something though. Arrogance goes a long way, and the idea of being able to explain problems away is a very middle class thing. Also a very male thing, in my experience.*

Remember the Sally Clark case. I'm still incredibly angry about what happened to her. And yes, she started off being helpful to the police and look where it got her. Jail sentence. Anguish. And ultimately a sad death. She never recovered from her children dying and from the ordeal she'd been through. I'd still like to know why the lawyers who withheld evidence in that case were not prosecuted themselves.

Anyway, an article in the Guardian says "tell you sons not to look for consent, but more than that: enthusiasm". Not a bad piece of advice. If you're comatose because you're drunk you won't be very enthusiastic.

re Sally Clark I absolutely know it does happen (though, of course, interesting that she was a woman who wasn't believed...), but I did really mean I don't think it happens on a large scale. Because that's what it would take for this to be a problem. False rape complaints are rare. Someone innocent trying to be helpful and the police using that against them is also rare. So adding two rare things together... along with this guideline being a very minor thing so adding another degree of rarity, in that this guideline being instrumental in the whole thing would also be rare... I just meant to show that the idea of a big (or even any) number of naice middle class boys being charged with rape and imprisoned falsely, because of this guideline, is just not going to happen. It's just not.

Re enthusiasm - very much yes. I mean, insane, because isn't that kind of rule 101 of sex. Enthusiasm for it? And it saddens me that we might have to remind people it's supposed to be there. But yes.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me in a way that would stand up to cross examination what evidence a man could present that proved he had a 'yes' where he had not specifically asked and received a verbalised 'yes' from a woman.

From what I can see on this thread, a woman inviting me into her home, taking her clothes off, getting into bed with me, perhaps taking some all of my clothes off, kissing and cuddling with me but NOT saying out loud a 'yes' or indeed 'no' at any point could still be defined as rape.

This guidance seems incredibly ill defined. I can see how it works where a woman is mentally ill, incapacitated or so drunk she cant be making informed consent. It does not work in other circumstances where the woman could be expected to have the capacity to give consent either verbal or non-verbal.

Enthusiasm is incredibly ill defined. Its impossible to define in fact.

jump to it women! a man has declared that we aren't using the specific language he requires to understand what rape is!

Perhaps men shouldn't go anywhere near women until they can prove they can tell what enthusiastic consent is.

MoreBeta in your previous post you talked about a woman taking her clothes off and getting into bed, something women all over the country do in their millions every night without intending to have sex with anyone and without ever getting raped. What you didn't mention was kissing and cuddling - that of course is evidence of consent - can't you see that? No one ever once said a man always has to get a verbal yes.

Equally, if a woman starts out kissing and cuddling, but then later on freezes, stops participating, starts crying, seems uncomfortable then the normal human thing for her partner to do is to stop, ask her if she's ok, see that she's ok to carry on and then get a verbal yes.

Surely that's obvious MoreBeta.

How is enthusiasm 'ill-defined' - surely when you're literally right next to someone, with a body part inside their body, you can tell whether they're enthusiastic or not? If you honestly can't then I think you should probably stay away from women.

I would also say that if you do want to have sex, but can't read body signals at all then the best thing to do would be to get a verbal yes, then you won't rape anyone, everyone will be happy.

On balance, expecting men to get a verbal yes (in cases where they have no idea what enthusiasm looks like) isn't too much to ask is it? Isn't it better that men have to ask one simple question so that women don't get raped?
Or is it so important that men get sex that it doesn't matter if some women get raped in the process?

Oh dear, Beta. Do you realise you're sounding more and more rapey with each subsequent post? "But but but how can we poor men be expected to know when a women is consenting and when she's not?!"

Here's a gentle tip. If you're remotely unsure, don't penetrate her. If she objects to not being penetrated, she will be sure you let you know, clearly and enthusiastically.