I don't believe in We Believe You

[PoochSmooch]

No, settle down, I totally do!

But I got into a terrific argument with an old friend over this the other day. He thinks it's a terrible campaign, an injustice to men, and an invitation to miscarriages of justice.

I tried to put the viewpoint that actually, there's no legal weight to it at all, that it makes no difference to the legal process if people not involved in it decide that they believe the person who says they've been raped or assaulted. But it's a kind, human thing to do in a world that tends to blame women for being raped, and to disbelieve them without compelling evidence outwith their own ability to know whether they consented or not.

I tried to explain that women in general don't lie about rape, that there's very little motivation to do so, and conversely there is much more motivation to lie about having raped someone. I wheeled out some of the stats on the under-reporting of rape, the reasons why that happens, and what I see as the need to address that by talking about how we treat rape.

He was adamant - rape can only ever be treated as a 50/50 he said/she said situation, with equal weight being given to the possibility that either person may be lying. It is harmful towards men to believe anything else. People should never take sides by believing women, because that is unfair to men. It then came out that he thought the word "rape" was far too "harsh" a word to use for any encounter other than a stranger in a dark alley - so basically there is "real" rape and "just date rape". He really squirmed when I directly asked "do you think it is common for women to lie about rape", but I got the sense that this is what he believes.

I was so lost in the debate to be honest. I find it a struggle to think that someone could object so vociferously to the simple act of telling someone that you believe that what she says happened to her, happened to her.

We parted friends, but I was like, fuck, I wonder how many other people think like this? What would you have done in my shoes? What arguments would you have used? Is "We Believe You" unjustly harmful, when set against the harm caused by rape being so woefully under-reported, under-prosecuted and rarely resulting in any kind of punishment?

'Because so many men know that they've coerced women into having sex by getting them that little bit drunker than they intended to be, or by cajoling and boundary pushing until a woman gives in. They know that that was rape, and they're praying that the woman doesn't, and relying on the fact that there's no way that a woman could ever get a conviction on that basis.

They're worried that one day, they will actually have to start behaving like decent human beings, actually have to face up to the terrible things they've done rather than seeing these women as fair game and deserving all they got.'

WITH MASSIVE GREAT BELLS ON.

One of the guys who raped me was most put out when I complained as I was making what he did 'sound a bit rapey.' Em yes damn fucking right it sounds rapey because it was fucking rape!! He did not like at all that he couldn't just go ahead and have sex with my sleeping body without me getting all upset about it. How awful for him.

Ugh sparrow What a complete trombone

Yup. What gets to me is this idea that it's absolutely awful that men might be accused of rape and therefore we should be careful not to accuse them. How about men be careful about not raping women eh? Wouldn't that be revolutionary?

What gets to me is if you say that you are called a man hater

I'm sorry all of these things happened, but if you really believe that a "great many men" are rapists and want to rape women, then you might as well give up. Who's going to arrest and lock them all up for a start ?

I dunno - i honestly fail to see how in most cases a man could be confused or not aware he is committing rape. Things get more difficult when people say unless you are 100% sure etc - i've seen it said that someone could want sex but if they are drunk then a man should refuse the request....his responsibility not hers. it almost seems like an incitement to commit a crime. I assume the reasonable belief in consent is not satisfactory either ?

PlectrumElectrum

That article was indeed interesting. But the comments below are a massive eye-opener. Despite all evidence to the contrary, men still think there are loads of horribly vengeful, spiteful woman out there. Determined to put themselves through months of humiliation, just to be vindictive.

'I'm sorry all of these things happened, but if you really believe that a "great many men" are rapists and want to rape women, then you might as well give up. Who's going to arrest and lock them all up for a start ?'

Who said a great many men are rapists and want to rape women?

'I dunno - i honestly fail to see how in most cases a man could be confused or not aware he is committing rape. Things get more difficult when people say unless you are 100% sure etc - i've seen it said that someone could want sex but if they are drunk then a man should refuse the request....his responsibility not hers. it almost seems like an incitement to commit a crime. I assume the reasonable belief in consent is not satisfactory either ?'

Under the law reasonable belief in consent is a defence against a rape accusation.
You know what's reasonable? For men and women to have sex freely in a situation where both of them genuinely want it and both of them are sure the other person genuinely wants it. I don't think that's too much to ask.

grow. If you're not sure, don't have sex. Why is it such a massive imperative to have sex in what might be unclear circumstances?

Well stats suggest 1 in 20 men are rapists. So not necessarily "a great many" but enough that a woman will know plenty of them and be at risk.
I agree with the report plectrum linked. Reasonable belief is fine as a concept, but in practice turns out to be anything but. Such as the man who fell and "accidentally penetrated" a girl in his flat, the man who "accidentally" had sex with a stranger in a hotel room that wasn't his because he mistook her for his wife. The man who "reasonably believed" a woman his mate had bought home with him consented to sex when he got into bed with her in the pitch dark while his friend was out of the room. Tbe man who believed a woman consented to sex when he had seen her drink earlier and entered a hotel room where she was having sex without even saying a word to her.
I find it really odd the bar for "reasonable belief" is so low. But God forbid any confused man accidentally gets accused of rape

Incitement to commit a crime?

I've read it all now.

grow. If you're not sure, don't have sex. Why is it such a massive imperative to have sex in what might be unclear circumstances?

The point is that in some situations it seems to be that the man is required to know the woman better than herself if you see what i mean. Anyway - i'm not sure what your own opinions on the female who has had a drink inciting a man to commit crime by asking him for sex scenario. I don't want to derail.

I don't think all men are rapists. But I do think there are large amount of men who see an opportunity to have ze sex! and automatically think 'something' has to be overcome to get it. Like reluctance or boundaries. Or the word no.

If a woman has a drink and asks a man for sex, she is not inciting him to commit a crime. My DH would forever be in the slammer, if that was the case.

Just reading the beginning and wanted to remind that the campaign came about due to a lot of stories where women (sapphire cases and especially that cab driver) and children (jimmy saville et al) had reported rapes and sexual assaults to the police and other authority figures and even their families etc and been turned away as they were not believed, leaving the offenders free for years to continue assaulting.

In that context there absolutely was a need for "we believe you" - it was about a situation in society where victims were and had been routinely not believed.

Maybe things have changed now so that most people in society / police etc do not react with scepticism to women and children and men who say they have been the victims of sex assaults. In which case - that's good isn't it - the campaign combined with all the other things around that time has resulted in a shift. Maybe it's not needed so much any more.

The problem with reasonable belief is that I can't see any other test. And whatever the test was the accused man would claim it were met. See the CE case where it seems to be like in order for him to believe him guilty you had to believe the women did not enthusiastically engage in sex with him, contrary to what he claimed. But whatever the test a court would be presented with two conflicting accounts.

No in order to believe him guilty you have to believe she didn't consent, either through choice or because she was unable to consent due to lack of capacity. Her "enthusiasm" was a red herring.
I don't think that a man can claim he had consent from a woman he never even spoke to. Especially not one who was so drunk that the receptionist was asked to "keep an eye on her - she's sick" by the guy she actually went to the hotel with

I think that most women do a bit of a traige on their own rapes and decide whether to report on that basis. That's why reporting rates are so low - women know there's no point a lot of the time.

Remember the woman in the CE case never reported him for rape.

As for the rest - agree with others that for men to see "stranger in an alley" as rape is much better because then they can carry on as they are. I don't think that most men who ignore a few "noes" and a woman who freezes, or have sex with someone who is too drunk to move, really see themselves as rapists. They see it as maybe stepping over a bit of a line. A bit. But, you know, no harm done.

I don't think that a man can claim he had consent from a woman he never even spoke to.

Evans claimed she did speak to him, instructing him to perform certain sex acts on her. I think most people would consider this to be a indication that she was definitely consenting to him having sex with her. I don't believe she did say these things to him, but the point is that whatever the test - even if it were enthusiastic (which it couldn't be) - the defendant would claim that is what happened and would make the story sound as if she was enthusiastic.

Why are we talking about CE?

This was about the We Believe Her campaign from a few years back on MN.

There was no need to believe CE victim - she never accused him of rape. It was the police who decided a crime had been committed.

Do I believe that she told the police and the court the truth? Yes, I do.

Yes, I really don't want to talk about CE again. As you say, queen, it's a bit irrelevant in this case because she didn't accuse him of rape.

I'd love to believe that we don't need it any more, but sadly I don't think this is true.

The reasonable belief shouldn't be "X claims he had reasonable belief of consent, do we believe he's telling the truth?" because obviously if X is a complete scrote their standard of reasonable belief is on the floor. I don't really know what you could replace it with though as it seems that people will stretch the boundaries of imagination in order to find someone not guilty when it's blatantly rape.

It's true that the court will be presented with conflicting accounts growapear which is why the vast majority of women never report their rapes.

Yeah one it should be "x says he had consent because of x, y, z, would the reasonable person beliEve that constituted consent?" Kind of shifting the reasonableness test from the rapist to the jury

I often wonder what would happen if cases were tried in a civil court, where it is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt".

However, rape is a serious crime so civil court is inappropriate. I don't know if anyone has ever done this. Failed at criminal level and taken them to civil court and won.