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 don't want to derail the thread with a discussion of why I'm an ex-feminist but in short I no longer call myself a feminist because I don't agree with some of the central academic tenants of third wave feminism and don't wish to be associated with them.

I never claimed to be an expert on rape legislation, I don't think that invalidates my opinion. This is a forum for the general public not an experts only forum.

When I referred to pubs and clubs I was aware that it was an offence to serve a drunk person alcohol. What concerns me is that, for whatever reason, pubs and clubs are still serving drunk people alcohol and not being prosecuted for it.

In my view they may not be causing rape directly, but they are creating an atmosphere in which it is easier for predators to pray on drunken women. Go to any town or city centre on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see drunk people of both genders being served alcohol. They are putting profits before the safety of their patrons. I think this needs to be addressed because they are a part of the equation.

The jury is one of my main concerns in all of this. I think it's asking a lot or perhaps expecting a lot of a jury to decide how drunk is too drunk. I think it will be very easy for a defence team to convince a jury that a victim wasn't drunk enough in a lot of these cases.

I just don't see this as much of a victory and I still think there is a massive amount of work to be done. At a time when rape crisis centres are being closed because of lack of funding and the numbers of police officers are being slashed, this all feels like a bit of a pat on the head.

Anyway thank you for listening (reading?) I've really valued this discussion and will continue to watch the thread with interest.

I agree that a lot more needs to be done.

But I do think it's a good step in the right direction. Our main issue around rape, IMO, is attitudes. If the authorities say, loud and clear, that if a woman is drunk that will increase suspicion that you raped her, it sends a message that it isn't in fact the responsibility of women to stay sober and walk demurely in brightly lit streets with all of their body completely covered - it says very strongly that the man does in fact have to open his eyes and look at the person he's attempting to penetrate. It is breaking down this ridiculous idea that a man can be less than an inch away from a woman, in fact, he can have a body part in her body, and still not be aware of how she's behaving. It is finally saying that a defence of "I didn't know guv" is just bullshit.

Beadsbeadsbeads - the points you raise are valid ones and I don't think that anyone on here thinks for even a minute that this one small change has ended the war against rape. It's a small victory, but a victory none the less. So why not celebrate it for what it is rather than dismissing it as not enough?

beadsbeadsbeads lots of feminists don't agree with the central tenets of third wave feminism.

Don't you think this is a worthwhile step and worth celebrating even though it's not the solution to everything? I don't see patriarchy being dismantled in one revolutionary swoop but rather in a series of steps forward (and unfortunately some back).

'beadsbeadsbeads lots of feminists don't agree with the central tenets of third wave feminism.'

Hear hear!

i'm not sure i know what the central tenets of third-wave feminism are

I certainly don't agree with third-wave feminism. I also have arguments against quite a few of the ideas of RadFems. Joining each subsequent wave is not a requirement of feminism. But we're all after the same ultimate goal, and as I see it, if all of us work our own area of the coal-face and let others deal with theirs as they best see fit, we'll get the whole area covered faster.

Yeah genuinely what are the central tenets of third wave feminism.

I'll be a feminist either way, but it'd be good to know!

I don't know enough about the central tenets of third wave feminism to have an opinion either way. I would guess that the amount I know about feminism could be written on one side of an a4 page. I still consider myself a feminist. Is that wrong? Or horribly naive perhaps?

It seems not even CCTV is enough as CE has now "found fresh evidence" to clear his name it seems (here

While the police may ask more questions you have to wonder if rapists will just use bigger lies? Especially where the victim knows the rapist. I wonder what type of idiotic claims will be used to prove anyone said yes.

Slice, of course that's not naive. IMO in order to call yourself a feminist you need to identify with the inequalities suffered by women as a result of gender. That's it. What those inequalities are, how they should be changed etc are all up for debate and not all feminists agree on them.

Increasingly there are females in the UK who do not have access to justice for sexual rape/violence simply because the live in deprived, impoverished areas where sexual violence to girls some as young as 11 goes,, undetected, unreported and ignored. ' Sexual violence in areas of the UK as bad as in war zones.' www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/26/gangs-sexual-violence-warzones

No progress will be made until we have a culture change towards rape and sexual violence for females of all ages.

Ah, google, my friend. Thanks Buffy.

So it's a no thanks to choice feminism, a partial yes to post-structuralist except for I think I prefer my concerns to stay at least somewhat earthbound, Intersectionality, well yes. I thought this was a fairly central and common idea. But then, maybe that's how all the best ideas look, as though they've been around for ages. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

And third wave in general - basically just 'oh right. Well it's a basic yes until we get to the darker corners of tumblr, at which point it becomes a polite no thank you.'

The whole trans thing is a bigger deal than I realised, isn't it.

Sorry for the derail.

Great discussion, kept wishing there was a 'like' button!

For me what is important about these changes is that ( hopefully), both the police and CPS will have to look at these cases differently and that less cases will be dropped through 'lack of evidence'. I don't know if it will also mean that the jury will also get instructions on how to regard proving consent but if they do then that should also lead to more convictions.

But what would be even better would be if it made men think twice before committing the crime in the first place! At the moment there isn't really much of a deterrent.

Clearly outright liars who rape and then say, "but she clearly said yes" probably aren't going to get caught by these changes. But that's true of anyone who says clearly that x happened when actually y happened.

What I hope this change will do is reflect a societal change. Make men, and boys, think a bit more about how the authorities view a woman and her decision making regarding sex. It's clear that a lot of the problem with rape is that the perpetrators genuinely don't think they've done anything wrong, or they think they've only done "a little bit" wrong. If we can start to shift that thinking somewhat, we're starting to make progress.

The problem is that too often rapists are viewed as scary bogey men in the dark who jump out and attack random women. That's not true. Most rapists are "ordinary" men who know their victims. But who have somehow absorbed this idea that sex is their right and that short of a women screaming, scratching and drawing blood, it's not their obligation to be absolutely certain she wants it.

As someone upthread said, it's also about changing this perception that sex is something men want but that women just go along with. It should be clearly understood that sex is equally desirable for both and that means that both should be 100% engaged when it happens.

but we're talking specifically about rape here

What we're actually talking about is what happens when there is a dispute about whether or not consent has been given. The discussion we're having doesn't relate to rapes where it's obvious that the victim did not consent.

If it means people realise "taking advantage of someone" may well be rape, good.

Sausage - Ched has put that on his website, AFAIK his lawyer and the CCRC haven't commented. Might be someone else who saw the victim earlier in the evening, or who once saw her complete a dot to dot after four vodkas. Just because he's claiming fresh evidence, doesn't mean it's of high quality...

I wish there was a 'like' button as well! So many good posts here.