Is this rape?

[FayKorgasm]

Anyone watching this on BBC? Some very worrying opinions and stories.

This must be where our definitions of 'reasonable' differ JAPAB - because, I think I'm fairly reasonable, and if I put my penis in someone's mouth in that instance, I don't think I'd believe that she had freely accepted.

I think that I would be fully aware that she was tired, and drunk, and much smaller than me, and wouldn't want to make a fuss, and in shock that someone I thought cared for me was putting his penis in my mouth.

I think I'd know that what I was doing wasn't right.

Also, sorry, but it's perfectly possible to have someone's penis in your mouth and not be able to do much about it. You certainly don't have to play along for that penis to climax and just trying to breath can take up so much of your concentration that you don't have a chance to do anything else

The text messages he sent afterwards clarified, if there were any remaining doubt, that he didn't believe he had consent, but rather that he didn't care if he did or didn't. So the reasonableness or otherwise of his belief in her consent doesn't really play here, because by his own admission he knew she didn't consent.

JAPAB seems to think it is reasonable to have sex with someone who has given no indication of wanting sex.

ChunkyPickle
He wasn't on trial for his sexual ethics, or whether what he did was "not right". The issue is only in whether he could reasonably think she was consenting to it. Or at least whether a jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have reasonably believed this.

Yes it is possible that someone can be acting out of fear or shock but if they give no indication of this and, at the bare minimum, are applying lip pressure, well, I don't actually know whether a jury would decide "beyond reasonable doubt" that it was unreasonable for him to believe it was being agreed to, but it is the sort of decision that would not surprise me if their answer was a no.

FreshwaterSelkie
...by his own admission he knew she didn't consent.

From what I remember the texts did not mention consent or an equivalent term. They said that she 'wasn't that into it', which is not the same thing as saying she wasn't agreeing to it. Sexual ethics may say it is "not right" to proceed in that case, certainly, but law requires only the lower standard of agreement, not positive joyful enthusiasm.

Once again I am not asserting that a jury would not find beyond reasonable doubt that he passed the tests for raping her, they might well do.

FloraFox, no I don't.

You are aware that in the programme, the lawyer who had designed the scenario came in at the end and said that the correct verdict in this case would have been to convict him of rape? In this scenario, his belief in consent was presented as NOT being reasonable. All you're doing here is demonstrating exactly why they portrayed it as they did, because of the astounding persistence of beliefs like yours about how women ought to "reasonably" react when they're being raped.

Beggars belief really.

FreshwaterSelkie
Yes I am aware of what the lawyer said. One lawyer. The lawyer who concluded that there was no reasonable belief of consent because she was not doing anything, her hands were at her sides, she didn't kiss him back, etc. Which in order to be completely true, we would have to assume that the girl remained slack-mouthed, slack-lipped, applied no lip-pressure, etc, during the oral sex. The lad said during the trial something along the lines of 'How could I make her? It was her mouth, she was the one doing it'. So not entirely sure that that one legal opinion completely closed down all discussion of the case.

Also I have not made any assertions about how anyone ought to react. I know perfectly well that people can freeze or go along out of fear of what might happen if they do not, etc.

It's clear you're disinclined to listen to or believe women, JAPAB. I can only assume that this attitude follows you from the internet into your daily life, which explains a lot to me. Thankfully, the majority of the young men in the programme were more enlightened, so there's hope for the future.

JAPAB yes it seems you do. The man gave no evidence of her participation or consent. You have supplied it with your assumptions. The DPP was also clear about why this conviction was correct. But who are they compared with your legal prowess, eh?

FloraFox
The man gave no evidence of her participation or consent.

Other than his word, no, but then unless you film it what evidence can anyone give to the rest of us beyond that. Although the rest of us can also think about the mechanics of the situation and realise how difficult that particular act would be without participation.

The DPP was also clear about why this conviction was correct. But who are they compared with your legal prowess, eh?

Yet her reasoning for why he would fail one of the three tests was based on an assumption that is at least questionable. You are free to take anything said by a single lawyer as unimpeachable gospel, no matter what assumptions it is based on, but the rest of us can have those questions.

You can also find single lawyers who will make legal arguments for the opposite verdict in such cases, whether or not they are the defence lawyer of that specific case. Guess what, you are free to not take them as gospel-speakers either, you are free to not have to consider the matter closed to all discussion and to be done and dusted, on that single legal opinion.

Your isn't a legal opinion, it's an MRA pub bore opinion. His evidence ie his testimony gave no factors in which she indicated consent, no testimony of enthusiastic participation. Unless you think it's okay to have sex on a woman who is not participating.

Contributions like yours make some people's sex lives sound fucking dire.

I can quite see how for Japab (Just About Penis And Balls?) enthusiastic sexual participation from a woman needs quite a stretch of the imagination.

FloraFox
His evidence ie his testimony gave no factors in which she indicated consent, no testimony of enthusiastic participation.

Not enthusiastic participation, no, but participation, yes.

Unless you think it's okay to have sex on a woman who is not participating.

Do we know she was not participating? His testimony says otherwise ('how could I make her? it was her mouth, she was the one doing it'), and the mechanics of the situation also make this very likely.

As I have already said, you can argue that sexual ethics requires something beyond simple agreement, requiring a more positive joyful enthusiasm, enjoyment, and maybe other things perhaps, but the law's bar is set a bit lower, simply requiring consent, agreement.

And I know my opinion is not a legal opinion. Neither is yours when you raise a query with what the defence lawyer is saying or arguing. Or otherwise considering the facts and making a judgment in your own mind as to whether you think there is beyond reasonable doubt of X Y or Z. Which I am assuming you have done rather than just base your beliefs entirely on the statement that the lawyer at the end made, that this case should get a guilty verdict.

Oh god.... please women.... don't feed the troll? There are women who have had similar experiences to the ones in the TV programme reading this thread. Giving a platform to a man who is an obvious rape apologist isn't going to be helping them and merely serves to stroke his ego.

Oh, and just for the record.... Japab isn't legally trained, whereas women on this thread are and are therefore better placed to give a legal opinion than he.

He hasn't got a clue.

PlaysWellWithOthers, the teenagers on the program, most posters who have concluded that it was rape, are not legally trained. Odd how that is not an issue when they arrive at the "right" answer.

Most, if not all, jurors in a jury are not "legally trained". What does that matter if the questions they are deliberating on are more factual ones, such as, say, "do you believe beyond reasonable doubt that penetration of a mouth, vagina, or anus occurred" or "do you believe beyond reasonable doubt that he could not reasonably have believed her to be consenting to it", which are more about assessing facts and evidence than applying legal knowledge as such.

But maybe that would be one way to get out of jury service if I am ever asked. I'll just point out that I am not legally trained. Except that that doesn't actually matter if the matters I'm to be forming opinions on are more factual ones, such as the above.

Has it occurred to you at all JAPAB that these discussions are about preventing rape from occurring in the first place?

This one hasn't been. This one has been about the program "Is This Rape?" about a specific (fictional) case of which this question was asked.

People really need to get the idea out of their heads that rape is something that happens to women when strangers drag them into dark alleyways. This is exactly what most rape looks like and most rapists probably don't even realise they are rapists.

I was raped after a night out with a woman I'd met on a previous night out. She got chatting to two guys and was insisting on going back with them for more drinks. I had a bad feeling about them so went with her for safety in numbers. All was fine until I got up to go to the loo. When I came out one of the men was outside. He pushed me back in and up against the sink and started trying to put his hands up my skirt. I tried to push him away but he was a lot stronger than me. At this point I knew he was putting his penis is me no matter what I did so 'consented' in the hope that I could at least get him to put a condom on and not beat me up.

For a long time after that I pretended to myself that I hadn't been raped but after about four years it started to really get to me. In the end I reported it to the police almost five years after the fact. I was expecting to be fobbed off since I had 'consented' but they took it very seriously. I said as much after I gave my video interview and they told me that most rapes are like my rape - even as a specialist rape unit they rarely see the stranger in a dark alley sort of rape. They haven't found the bastard yet but I would be surprised if he even realises that he is a rapist.

ChunkyPickle
He wasn't on trial for his sexual ethics, or whether what he did was "not right". The issue is only in whether he could reasonably think she was consenting to it. Or at least whether a jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have reasonably believed this.

Yes, and I'm saying that as (I would hope to think) a reasonable person, I fail to see how he could ever think he had consent.

If I did that, I know that I would know she didn't want to be doing it, I know that I would know that she therefore hadn't consented. That is what I mean by 'not right' - I would know that what I was doing was abusing that girl.

Japab, I realise that you have a great deal of trouble with difficult concepts like women's bodily autonomy, but really, you showed yourself up to be completely unable to read a post and then respond to what was actually said about or to you.

You stated that Flora's opinion wasn't a legal one.... I know that her opinion is based on her training as a LAWYER, other women may also be lawyers and therefore actually qualified to give a legal opinion. Quite where you got your little mind wander about the posters on this thread being on some sort of jury, or that you could effectively lie and suggest that, in order to get out of jury service in some fictitious trail, you could pretend you're a lawyer I have no clue.

Maybe from the same pit you drag your opinions about women's ability to decide if they feel intimidated by cat calling or their ability to say no to any kind of sex a man wishes to involve her with....

PlaysWellWithOthers, I totally agree, but would word this differently:

"Maybe from the same pit you drag your opinions about women's ability to decide if they feel intimidated by cat calling or their ability to say no to any kind of sex rape a man wishes to involve her with subject her to...."