Is this rape?

[FayKorgasm]

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

plays I think you are forgetting that JAPAB possesses the testicles of objectivity and the powers of mansplaining that bestows upon him.

or... he hasn't got a clue.

An unkindness ?

BuffytheScaryFeministBOO, I wasn't going down that route, nor am I trying to stop you starting whatever new strands of discussion you like. Just saying that this one has not been about what you suggested that it should gave occured to me that it was already about.

PlaysWellWithOthers, fair enough if I was incorrect in thinking that a particular poster had not been legally trained. I stand corrected on that. Although I like the fact that you say

you showed yourself up to be completely unable to read a post and then respond to what was actually said about or to you

then go onto say

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....

You have tried to dismiss my opinions as I am not legally trained, and what I non-seriously suggested was that perhaps I could use the fact that I am not legally trained to get out of jury duty. Then that this wouldn't actually work in practise and offered reasons why.

Also where does that second paragraph come from? What opinions have I offered on cat-calling or someone being able to say no to sexual activity? In the first case I repeatedly said it should not be done, and don't actually remember commenting on how a woman ought or ought not feel when it happens. In the second case, well, no idea what opinions I have offered about ability to say no, either. Though I will say now that she should have every ability, and it should be listened to.

ChunkyPickle
Correct me if I am wrong, because if I am then the following may be the key point. To my mind, to consent to something means simply to agree to it (free from threats or being paralytic etc). I do not want to clean up cat-sick, I am not enthusiastic about cleaning up cat-sick, I would not enjoy cleaning up cat-sick. None of this means that I can not consent, ie agree, to clean up cat-sick. Or to get back to sex, a sex worker might think all the former about a particular client, or maybe all clients, but is still legally consenting to have sex with them.

If someone not only does not say no or make any attempt to move away or stop things, they also participate, I can envisage how a person can reasonably think that they are consenting, ie agreeing, to do it.

At the same time I agree with you that a person in the lad's position could not reasonably think that she was positively enthusiastically into it.

It may be sexually unethical, it may in some sense be abusive to continue on in such circumstances, but in an illegal sense?

Japab... I do apologise.

I often suggest that others should stop feeding the troll, and yet, there was I serving you a banquet. You'll be on short rations from now on!

Vestal... great corrections! I shall be using you as my post editor from now on!

Flora..... Option B

'If someone not only does not say no or make any attempt to move away or stop things, they also participate, I can envisage how a person can reasonably think that they are consenting, ie agreeing, to do it.'

Not saying no does not mean that a person is willingly participating in an act.

If a mugger comes and takes my wallet, and I freeze, and let him do it - or possibly even hand it over, I am not participating, I am not consenting to giving him my wallet and he is stealing it - no-one would contest this, no-one would disbelieve the wallet-giver or think that the mugger could reasonably assume that the person wanted them to have it

The person with the penis is a person. A reasonable person would not put it where it is not wanted, and would not assume just because someone hasn't said no (when they are tired, drunk, and probably scared) that they have consent.

Not wanting a penis put inside you is not even slightly equivalent to not wanting to clean up cat sick BTW - the cat sick for example has no ability to stop being cat sick, it's not a person - unlike the person attached to the penis who can stop putting that penis anywhere, any time they like, and the person that penis is being put in who may be in very little position to stop.

I feel that this is going no-where - we have a complete disconnect on what is reasonable. I think it's reasonable to have active consent, you think that just by being there, consent has been given. I hope society starts seeing women as people and coming round to my definition of reasonable.

I can't help but wonder how many women JAPAB has raped.

QueenStromba, yeah, if someone considers a level of enthusiasm alike to that one would display when cleaning up cat sick as equaling consent, that's not very reassuring, is it?

If a man looks at a drunk woman and thinks "Is it legal to put my penis into her vagina right now" ... that's the mindset of a rapist.

I can't help but wonder how many women JAPAB has raped.

That implies that he even thinks about it....

VestalVirgin
If a man looks at a drunk woman and thinks "Is it legal to put my penis into her vagina right now" ... that's the mindset of a rapist.

Sounds more to me like the mindset of a person who wants to avoid being a rapist. Although it also sounds like the mindset of a sexually unethical person, since as I've already said before, sexual ethics requires a higher standard than simply doing the bare minimum to not cross the line into illegality.

JAPAB: Sounds to me like the mindset of one who wants to BE a rapist but avoid being convicted of one.

A man who wants to avoid being a rapist never has to think that - because the woman or man he's with is too busy helping him get undressed and actively participating in what they're doing.

VestelVirgin I would think that a man who says that is quite unethical but is actually trying to avoid being a rapist. He's thinking about the legality, the wording suggests that he wouldn't be willing to put it in her if it wasn't legal, exactly the opposite of what a rapist would do. A man who wanted to be a rapist but avoid being convicted of one would instead be thinking "Can I put my penis into her vagino right now and get away with it"

And yeah freezing doesn't mean they are also participating, the mugging example was good as an example of where you might freeze during something even though you aren't consenting to it.

"I would think that a man who says that is quite unethical but is actually trying to avoid being a rapist. He's thinking about the legality, the wording suggests that he wouldn't be willing to put it in her if it wasn't legal, exactly the opposite of what a rapist would do."

And it suggests that he would be willing to put it in her if he could be convinced that legally he would be acquitted of rape, even if his victim knew that she had not consented and it was unequivocally rape.

He is thinking about the legality. About what is the probability of being convicted of rape. If he was thinking "this drunken woman cannot feasibly consent, she may wake up tomorrow and realise she has been raped, but I doubt a jury would convict me, and I bet I could present a legal argument against it being rape"
Then he would probably rape her, and be a rapist. Just not a convicted one. He is thinking like a rapist.

A crime is committed whether a conviction happens or not.
Just because a perpetrator is not convicted does not mean the rape didn't happen.

Carrot he isn't thinking "is it illegal but i can be acquitted through lack of evidence", he's thinking whether it's legal or not. You say a crime is committed regardless of conviction but that is blatantly wrong, because the implication of his wording is very clearly that he'll only go ahead with it if it's legal, meaning no crime is committed and it isn't rape. Say what you like about the ethics of it, and you can write a book about his lack of respect for others if he said things like that, it would be clear to me that he wasn't thinking like a rapist.

Hmm. Is Japab posting from the Ecuadorean Embassy? Just wondering....

The embassy quote may be amusing, but there were serious doubts raised about the credibility of the people Assange is alleged to have raped. He also hasn't been tried or convicted of anything (computer offences notwithstanding)

Well, unfortunately it's fairly standard to attempt to raise doubts about the credibility of people who allege they have been raped, isn't it?
I am also aware that he has not been tried or convicted of these offences and that they may indeed be a pretext for the US authorities to get their hands on him but i seem to recall he said a few arsey things about the alleged rape(s) that sounded somewhat familiar, and fairly typical of rape apologists.

Surely if there are doubts about their credibility it is right to raise them though? The entire thing stunk of a US operation to get their paws on him using Sweden as a proxy. What things did he say that you think sounded familiar of rape apologists?

It's the mindset of a rapist to look at a drunk woman and think "is it legal for me to have sex with this woman", because no decent man has such a pitifully low standard as his fucking benchmark! "put it in her"?!?! Jesus wept.

Decent men get to have sex with enthusiastic women who take off their clothes for them and jump them. A decent man looks at a drunk woman and thinks "no. This isn't a good idea for either of us. I'll have a cup of tea and get some kip and maybe when she sobers up I'll see if she's interested in sex". A decent man looks at a sleeping woman and thinks "No. She's asleep. I'll have a cup of tea and get some kip and maybe when she wakes up I'll see if she's interested in sex".

A decent man looks at woman and sees a person. If you look at a woman and see a legal situation, then you're doing it wrong. She's not an object. This stuff is really, really easy, but all you have to do is take the starting point that she is a human being. It all flows from that.

JAPAB - If someone not only does not say no or make any attempt to move away or stop things, they also participate, I can envisage how a person can reasonably think that they are consenting, ie agreeing, to do it.

If someone is being interrogated and tortured and they make no attempt to move away or stop things or speak are they participating in the interrogation/torture?

Those doing the interrogating/torture have the mindset of a rapist.

Elendon, that one paragraph followed another in which I said

To my mind, to consent to something means simply to agree to it (free from threats or being paralytic etc).

If a person explicitly threatens someone with torture to do something then I can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they could not in their own mind have reasonably believed the other person to be agreeing, free of threats.

Ahhh - JAPAB - I see your issue. You don't realise that many, many women are all too aware that the man with them is bigger and stronger than them, they've probably been in other situations where not doing what a man wants has lead to aggression and possibly violence.

This man is already signalling that they are not a good person by putting their penis in a woman. That woman runs through all the scenarios in her mind, that this is already a dangerous situation, and she looks for the safest way out. I think quite often, when faced with someone like this, a woman feels that the safest thing is going to be to lie there and wait for it to be over.

There is no need for an explicit threat - they are already threatened because unwanted, a man has put his penis in them without them in anyway asking him to!

I think the fact that Japab puts sex for a woman on a par with clearing up cat sick speaks volumes...