Is this rape?

[FayKorgasm]

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

We can go back to the mugger if you like as an extra example. Someone doesn't have to come up to you and say 'give me your wallet or I'll stab you' - they might just come up a little too close, smile in a disturbing way and ask for money. You'd be very clear what was happening, despite the lack of overt threats, and you still wouldn't be reasonably thought to have consented to giving that person money. You would be believed when you said 'I felt threatened, so I gave them the money'

Women are just asking for the same belief that you'd give someone who was mugged, regarding their body autonomy. You don't assume that because someone doesn't say no that you can reach in to their wallet and take money. You certainly don't assume that because someone doesn't say know that it's OK to put part of your body inside part of theirs.

BirdintheWings
I don't. It was just an example to illustrate that consent does not require enthusiasm or anyother positive mental attitude to whatever is being agreed to.

ChunkyPickle, I know threats can be implied. There is an unstated "..or else" even if the mugger just says "give me your wallet". I can still be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the mugger could not have reasonably believed the person to be agreeing to hand over the wallet free from any fear of what will happen if they do not.

It is also possible to perceive a threat even if there is nothing that explicitly or implicitly suggests danger. I could see you opening a packet of cigarettes and ask if I can have one, and you could entirely on your own decide that you are under threat and something bad will happen if you do not give me one. Whether its my size, or my expression, the fact that someone who looked like me once hit you when you refused to give a cigarette, or whatever. And I could have totally not intended this and be shocked if I thought that you felt you were in actual danger from me.

Still, if the test in law for whether a crime has occurred is whether there is reasonable doubt as to whether I could reasonably believe you to be agreeing free from threat, well in the mugging and torturing case we get beyond it. In the last example we do not (IMO).

It's just occurred to me that the men who would like to rape but don't because they're afraid of the consequences do very well from the men who do rape. I recounted my story upthread, my rapist did get rough with me.

There are other times when I was young and naive where I hadn't realised that men were engineering situations to get me alone (I used to describe this as me getting myself into situations but that's not what happened). With some of these men I was happy to give the brush off and nothing bad ever happened as a result. Others I had sex with because I wasn't sure how things would go for me if I didn't. I don't know how many of them, if any, would have raped me and none of them said or did anything explicitly to intimidate me but they got sex because some men do rape and I was worried that they were one of those men.

Still, if the test in law for whether a crime has occurred is whether there is reasonable doubt as to whether I could reasonably believe you to be agreeing free from threat, well in the mugging and torturing case we get beyond it. In the last example we do not (IMO).

you do not get it.

Ever other women on this thread gets it - because most of us have been in the situation of having a man do a bit more than we'd like because we're worried about the reaction if we don't.

Interesting huh? That the man, who wants the sex feels they get to decide whether they reasonably believe that they have consent, not the woman who has the experience of threatening situations?

No-one even asks the mugger if they reasonably believed they could have the wallet, because, well, it's not their wallet, they're not entitled to it.

Everyone believes the man who says he reasonably believed he could put his penis inside someone, because, well, it's a woman, it's what they're for, why wouldn't they agree?

We don't have this approach with anything else. With anything else things matter less than people - you can't shoot a burglar because they're just stealing things, and their life matters more than things, the burglar obviously isn't entitled to the things, but they are still more important. Yet, in rape, where it's two people involved, it's the rapist who's believed over the person being raped.

Anyone would think that woman's body integrity was less valued than a wallet given the way society acts and which side is believed in a crime wouldn't you?

JAPAB, as another man, I'm nonplussed as to why you'd spend so much time and effort on a feminist message board, defending the interests of borderline rapists.

I was wondering if you could explain what's motivating you to do this? This is a genuine question, and I will think more of you if you try to engage with it.

ChunkyPickle I do get it. You think the priority in law should be the woman's perspective and the man's either considered irrelevant or at least be of lower priority. This may not be where things are at, but it is where you think they ought to be.

You still don't get it though - you're saying that the person who gets to decide whether there is threat involved is the man doing the raping. ie. the mugger, not the woman being raped, ie the person having their wallet stolen.

The presumption seems to start at the man being reasonably entitled to have sex with a woman, rather than, why would the woman want to have sex with this man.

There are lots, and lots of men in this world, the vast majority of whom I would never want to have sex with. Surely, logically, that's where we should start with rape? That just like my wallet, a man isn't entitled to have sex with me? That just as a mugger has no reasonable expectation that they can have my wallet, a man has no reasonable expectation that he can have sex with me unless I actively participate without fear of repercussions?

Does that really sound unreasonable?

Oh, and I think that the law is exactly there - it's the people who's deciding what's reasonable that aren't.

Twisty's consent scheme would remove all doubts for people like Japab:

blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/consent-or-the-legalization-of-womens-humanity/

In short: "women would abide in a persistent legal condition of not having given consent to sex"

As is the actual reality. Some people men just don't want to face the fact that most women do not want to have sex with them.

Why is JAPAB blathering in about the "test in law"? Pub bores trying to sound like lawyers are so ridiculous.

JAPAB as you are ignoring me, I will conclude that your motivation is that you are just a sad misogynist arsehole. Thanks for clarifying.

Vestal virgin I love that!

I am lucky enough to have several lovely men in my life who I have discussed consent, abuse and rape with (grew up with most of them can discuss anything).

They all take the view that unless consent is given freely and obviously (undressing them, explicitly saying you want sex right now eg) they do not WANT to proceed with sex.

They would never even consider a sexual act with someone who is drunk, high, asleep! 2 (and this includes my frankly in all other regards arse of an ex) don't even have a problem with sex stopping mid thrust! (2 wives with gynae issues causing pain during sex) - IMAGINE THAT!

Decent men don't think 'would this be illegal if I did x y z' but 'will this be enjoyable for both of us'.

One of these guys even turned down my advances when I was very drunk and upset as a result of a recent break up. Because he knew I'd regret it and I wasn't thinking straight. That's what DECENT men do.

Yes, Vestal, I like Twisty's suggestion that consent for sex should not exist. Consenting to sex is a ridiculous concept anyway. Is it 'Yes' or 'No'? And who is going to be believed? In fact I more than like it, I think it's an excellent idea.

Consider the contract to having a new mobile phone provider. There are reams of conditions in the small print, there is even a 'cooling off period', in which you can change your mind. This is consent in a legal way.

I'm positive that the legal concept of consent should not be applied to any sexual activity.

JAPAB I think it is morally necessary, at this point in history, for female perceptions with regards to threat/non-threat to override objective justice.

ChunkyPickle
You still don't get it though - you're saying that the person who gets to decide whether there is threat involved is the man doing the raping.

I am not saying that the man decides. The court decides. Although presumably it will not decide ahead of time there was a rape and a raping.

Notice how in the programme, in the discussion between the girls following the bedroom scenes, not one of them interpreted or even mentioned the possibility that she was scared or feeling threatened and going along with it for those reasons. Some of them even said things like 'I think this was one of those times where you go along with it because you can't be arsed' and from another 'yes, we've all been in situations where you can't be bothered but think "whatever"'. I rewatched that bit because of your suggestion that this is a male/female thing.

So if even some women perceived no threat, if I was juror am I meant to believe beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have reasonably believed her to be agreeing (even if only in perfunctory 'whatever' sort of sense), free from threat?

And yes I know you think that this is the wrong question to be asking, and it is more important what the woman's perspective was or wasn't.

I can't be the only woman on this thread thinking "god I would hate to be left alone with JAPAB"? Scary, scary attitudes. And as pp have pointed out, underlying it all is a belief that women's vaginas are merely objects, of less value than wallets, existing in a permanent state of availability. Bleurgh.

Those girls needed bloody educating!! And Blondie's view was so weird I genuinely think she is possibly a victim of long term CSA.

I wouldn't want any woman or girl near japab frankly!

Baconyum
Those girls needed bloody educating!!

Their boundaries were not particularly tight, and the lads they were with could also do with some. Going along with it because you can't be bothered or arsed to object or otherwise not to, might not mean a legal rape has occurred, but it is not a position someone should have to be in or accept.

Their boundaries were almost non existent! My almost 15 yr old has more sense! Lads mostly just as bad with very few exceptions!

I would also not like to be alone with JAPAB. I'm sure that at the very least he'd be a man that I instinctively wouldn't feel safe saying no to, but rapist who doesn't think he's a rapist or rapist that only rapes when he's sure he'll get away with it also seem fairly likely to me.

I think most rapists don't think of themselves as rapists when you consider most rapes are by people the victim knows, even someone the victim has previously slept with! That's the problem!

We need to re-educate people as to what rape is. It's so rarely a stranger dragging a woman down an alley.

I don't blame the young women who had those views, I blame society which patriarchal

All young people need educating regarding sexual relationships and boundaries. This should start early, in primary school, especially boundaries. I took part as a parent in restructuring the sex and relationships policy of the primary school my children went to (one with sen, so I looked at it from an SEN viewpoint). We decided to rename it relationships and sex. Also, we decided to emphasise, from an early age, that social and physical boundaries exist and must be respected. These last two points were agreed by all.