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?

Anyway might be a bit OT, sorry pooch

I think there is an element of that in there already "Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.".

'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.'

Having consensual sex with a drunk woman isn't a crime.

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

If only there was someone else there who could tell you if they'd consented to having a penis put in them.. hmmm..

This isn't a 'tree falls in the woods and no-one was listening' situation. As things stand, the man can freely admit he had sex with the woman, in court, and with a vaguely competent barrister he can be virtually certain he'll get of scot free, and that's in the cases that even go to court. There's just no way that most of these rapes even get to the police, let alone court. With no evidence other than my word, who's going to believe that my second boyfriend pushed his penis in, whilst my hands were on his chest pushing and saying no? What 18 year old would call the police in that circumstance?

I've slept (actually slept, not had sex with) men when drunk, I've had sex with men when drunk, I've had sex sober. I've kissed men, then we've stopped there - most men are decent, with most men, it's fine. Then there's the rapists - and I can tell the difference between when I consented and when I didn't, and who cares what he thought. He should have been certain.

I suspect that the bar for the presumption of innocence would find itself suddenly raised were it the husbands/sons of some of the more vociferous proponents of "we believe you" finding themselves in the crosshairs of a trail.

I think there is a case of in group preferences at play here. Of course most men will often empathise with an accused man, as it's a situation they can imagine themselves in being men. So too of course women can find it easy to imagine themselves in the shoes of a rape victim.

I think "we believe you" is right and proper when there is no opportunity cost, like for example discussing a case that has hit the media, or when just dealing with people day to day. However taking it to the extreme of automatically taking against a son/husband/family member would be a bit bizarre.

Most women don't have to imagine being a victim of sexual assault.

If a man can empathise with being accused of rape, he should look at how he approaches sex and his understanding of consent.

The point is most men aren't rapists, so when they are trying to insert themselves into a scenario where they are the man (the accused) the default assumption will be one of innocence. In exactly the same way that most women experience sexual assault it is probably challenging to assume any man could ever be innocent.

What is the definition of 'cajoling into sex'? Someone said this unthread.

In exactly the same way that most women experience sexual assault it is probably challenging to assume any man could ever be innocent.
Odfod - Most women have experienced sexual assault, and yet a sizeable number are still happy to believe it when a man protests his innocence (even if proven guilty). Go read comments on any news article about rape - Adam Johnson is probably a good place to start.

"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."

Yup.

What is the definition of 'cajoling into sex'? Someone said this unthread

I suppose it's tied to and mixed up "enthusiastic participation" but is "enthusiastic participation" essential?

In a long term relationship is "I'm not that fussed to be honest but you'd like to" good enough?

To put it another way I've been talked into sitting through some excruciatingly dull stuff at the theatre because other half wanted to see them and I knew I didn't - was I coerced or cajoled or just being nice to him?

We believe you is perhaps better thought of as "we don't disbelieve you".

The burglary analogy works well. Almost nobody starts from the position of "we don't believe you"- even insurance companies and it's in their interest to find you out if you are lying.

Of course there is a fair chance they will find out if you are lying but they don't start from the assumption you are trying to defraud them.

There is a difference between being cajoled into watching a play and being cajoled into having things inserted into your body.

I agree. I could be cajoled into watching a play I'm not interested in, it would be very hard for me to be cajoled into having something inserted into me, unwillingly.

I think a lot of men simply can't imagine what rape is like. There are lots of out there

Cajoled is such an innocuous term for what can actually be a very threatening and frightening experience - especially if you don't know whether the "cajoling" will escalate into physical violence if you say no.

As a young student, I had a near miss where I ended up cornered in a stranger's room (he'd "white-knighted" me and pretended to escort me past some very drunken threatening blokes in the street, then played on my naivety and the social pressure to respond to an act of kindness by agreeing to further social interaction). As I sat there, his "cajoling" went from the "I get very lonely" (to which I was thinking "yeah, right" - I was not that naive) through to eventually saying "I'd like you to share my bed." Now at this point (he was between me and the door) I thought it's now or never and got up and walked to the door, but thinking all the time I don't think he's the type to physically restrain me, but I don't know for sure, but I'm going to have to take the chance anyway. I can easily imagine another woman in the same circumstances simply freezing at the thought of the possible physical violence. (And I later found out from friends who moved in the same social circles that this guy was notorious). If that woman had frozen, would she simply have been cajoled into bed, or would it have been rape? I'd argue rape - rape is sex the woman does not want, but acquiesces to because she is too frightened of the consequences of resisting.

Cajole -persuade (someone) to do something by sustained coaxing or flattery.

I've been cajoled into sex many times (I come from a generation when sex before marriage wasn't completely out but "nice girls" had to be "persuaded." And yes, I know now how fucked up this is). To me, being "cajoled" is exactly like being coaxed - you are being tempted to do something you fundementally enjoy but feel you shouldn't do right now.

Coercement, on the other hand, is totally different. That's when the threat or fear is there (even if it's never explicitly spelt out). It's when you are not being asked to chose but pushed to agree.

I find it hard to believe that men can't feel the difference between these two approaches and if their excuse is that they are too drunk to do so then that is no excuse at all. Really though, I don't believe that good guys get confused, or misread the situation much beyond maybe one attempt at a kiss. I do believe that a lot of rapists enjoy coercing their victims because it is not sex they want, it's forced sex with an unwilling woman.

Knowing what I know and having seen what I've seen and experienced what I've experienced, if a woman tells me that she had been raped, sexually abused or sexually assaulted, I will believe her. Even if they do it via the media. If at all possible, I will tell her that I believe her.

I can't imagine being a big enough asshole not to.

I think the "A man is more likely to be anally raped by another man than falsely accused of rape by a woman"argument is a powerful one.

It makes it personal, it highlights the low prevalence of false accusations.

But also it strips away the deceits and lies that rapists use. They try to find shelter and support for their hideous actions by saying "I didn't do anything! If you believe my victim watch out! You might get accused too!". It's a cowardly and pernicious trick, using fear to control on men, to deliberately mystify what rape is.

Rape will decrease when it's presented as what it really is- "everyone vs the rapists" not "men vs women". The fact that a man is more likely to be anally raped than accused of rape brings that right out into the open.

Rapists are sociopathic, controlling devious liars with no respect for anyone but themselves- whether that be their male or female victims or the other members of society they bully and coerce with lies and fearmongering. They lie and create webs and fogs of deception and suspicion in order to obfuscate the issue and escape being held to account for their despicable actions.

I remember an episode of the 'laddish' sitcom Men Behaving Badly where Gary wanted to have sex with his girlfriend Dorothy. They were both in bed with him trying to persuade (wheedle) her 'go on, please, go on - I'll be quick'. She wasn't having any of it and had some funny lines. The difference here was the power remained firmly with her. He was made to look desperate but daft, she was funny and eye rolling. There were zero negative consequences for her.

No-one thought that sort of 'cajolment' was threatening. There was no threat and she didn't fear the consequences of turning him down.

As SOON as there is a consequence - grumpy partner, ignoring, etc, then it is wrong. Just wrong.

Barbarianmum You say you've been cajoled into sex many times. So do you believe you were raped then?

A poster upthread said cajoling equals rape.

Read Datun's post MissKG.

*"A man is more likely to be anally raped by another man than falsely accused of rape by a woman"argument is a powerful one.

It makes it personal, it highlights the low prevalence of false accusations*

Exactly this. Exactly this.

The actual percentage of false allegations of rape are so low, but when people take the default position of "the victim is lying" and the rare story about false allegations are so well publicised, it makes people think that it's a common occurrence. When it is not.

I've read it. So what if the cajoling partner is grumpy? I can still say no. If he pins me down and forces his way on me, then cajoling doesn't come into it anymore does it? That is plain rape. If he's grumpy and ignoring, why would I care enough to have sex with him?

If your friend is gay, but is unwilling to believe men can be sexually violent unless it's the dark alleyway/stranger rape scenario - what does that say about his own sexual encounters with men?

If he is defending date rape as not rape rape - what does that say about his experiences about what he's choosing to minimise?

As a rape victim, the people who have most vociferously denied that I was raped / that rape is a big issue in society are women who have experienced their own deeply uncomfortable sexual encounters but for whatever reason don't want to recognise it as rape. They stay with the boyfriend and label him 'a good guy' - so date rape can't be rape. Etc. Excuses for 'misunderstandings' abound.

I might be talking crap of course, just highlighting the possibility.

I find people like this very dangerous because they can't change their mind on consent etc, their whole world view is dependant on it. If this is the case for him, arguing is unlikely to get you anywhere.