Was I raped???
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ~Tara~
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here because you're a bit all over the place.
1. Comparing it to being stabbed is like comparing the sun to the moon. Are you confused about being stabbed? were you coerced into walking into the knife? Will people judge you if you are drunk when you are stabbed?
2. The home office and keir starmer released a report within the last few years which looked at false reporting and how uncommon it was. It's worth reading.
3. The occurrence of male rape victims and the way society treats them is really irrelevant to this scenario. And I really don't see what your point is with this.
4. It's really none of your business if they report. Reporting now, reporting in 40 years time or never reporting holds no relevance to the truth of a rape and the law believes as such.
1. Comparing it to being stabbed is like comparing the sun to the moon. Are you confused about being stabbed? were you coerced into walking into the knife? Will people judge you if you are drunk when you are stabbed?
2. The home office and keir starmer released a report within the last few years which looked at false reporting and how uncommon it was. It's worth reading.
3. The occurrence of male rape victims and the way society treats them is really irrelevant to this scenario. And I really don't see what your point is with this.
4. It's really none of your business if they report. Reporting now, reporting in 40 years time or never reporting holds no relevance to the truth of a rape and the law believes as such.
1. Stabbed doesnt mean life threatening, it means stabbed. If I was drunk, and I provoked someone to stab me, its my own fault, although the person is still in the wrong for committing an illegal act.
2. Whether its 35 out of 5k or 1000000 out of 5k. it still happens, and with a populatuon like the UK, it is not just a small 35.
Im referring to this study by the CPS:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf
3. No it is not. Please explain why?
4. If OP reports it now, it would be significantly easier to obtain evidence than if would be to gather 40 years from now.... Im certain the bus has CCTV and there were more than 2 people (OP and the alledged rapist) In that bus.
edit: going sleep, will continue tomorrow,.
Original post by ripjonsnow
I understand.
OP doesnt think she's been raped though, she is questioning it.
She also drank a considerably large amount of alcohol, which diminishes a lot of OPs character and responsibility. If you cant handle your drink. Dont.
If OP wasnt drinking/drunk, she has a valid case (semi) although she was drinking alcohol, she claims she was drunk, yer remembers clear details, such as the alleged was not drunk. How could she know this for the whole experience? How did she begin communcation with the alleged?
Most importantly:
WHAT DID SHE SAY TO THE ALLEGED IN THE BUS TO LEAD HIM TO TAKE HER TO HIS HOME?
If the alleged approached OP, OP can go to the police and use that as evidence supporting her case. If it was the other way around...well.. whoes to blame then?
OP doesnt think she's been raped though, she is questioning it.
She also drank a considerably large amount of alcohol, which diminishes a lot of OPs character and responsibility. If you cant handle your drink. Dont.
If OP wasnt drinking/drunk, she has a valid case (semi) although she was drinking alcohol, she claims she was drunk, yer remembers clear details, such as the alleged was not drunk. How could she know this for the whole experience? How did she begin communcation with the alleged?
Most importantly:
WHAT DID SHE SAY TO THE ALLEGED IN THE BUS TO LEAD HIM TO TAKE HER TO HIS HOME?
If the alleged approached OP, OP can go to the police and use that as evidence supporting her case. If it was the other way around...well.. whoes to blame then?
I think it's highly ironic that you have someone like Jon snow as your AV when you're so quick to judge a person who says they've been attacked. Maybe the irony was the point.
"What did you say to make attacker take you to their house?" WTF is that? She doesn't need to have said anything at all. Is it so beyond your comprehension that a "man" could just decide that he would take a vulnerable young girl back to his house instead of being a gentleman??
For the record, the majority of people who ask if they've been raped believe they have been. They are asking to be validated not because they want strangers to twist something they know is good into something bad.
Original post by ~Tara~
1. I think it's highly ironic that you have someone like Jon snow as your AV when you're so quick to judge a person who says they've been attacked. Maybe the irony was the point.
2. "What did you say to make attacker take you to their house?" WTF is that? She doesn't need to have said anything at all. Is it so beyond your comprehension that a "man" could just decide that he would take a vulnerable young girl back to his house instead of being a gentleman??
3. For the record, the majority of people who ask if they've been raped believe they have been. They are asking to be validated not because they want strangers to twist something they know is good into something bad.
2. "What did you say to make attacker take you to their house?" WTF is that? She doesn't need to have said anything at all. Is it so beyond your comprehension that a "man" could just decide that he would take a vulnerable young girl back to his house instead of being a gentleman??
3. For the record, the majority of people who ask if they've been raped believe they have been. They are asking to be validated not because they want strangers to twist something they know is good into something bad.
1. Finding it hard to make valid points about me, so resulting in attacking my public appearance?
2. If this is true, then there would be sufficient evidence with CCTV footage + public response to convict the "rapist"
3. She now has a large response (not just from me).
If she was raped, she should go to the police. There should be no argument against this really. If you have been raped, and the police did not help you, take the matter further. IF she does not want to go public, thats a life lesson learnt for her, dont drink too much alcohol with "friends" that would leave you with a stranger on a bus who looks 10 years older than your group of friends.
Although, if she was raped and she does not report this, she is letting a rapist walk free, when with what she said in her story, there is compelling evidence (IF TRUE) to convict the alleged rapist.
gn x
Original post by ~Tara~
2. Coercion IS rape. If you need to coerce someone to do something then you know they don't want to do it. That's just basic common sense and it still applies with sex.
2. Coercion IS rape. If you need to coerce someone to do something then you know they don't want to do it. That's just basic common sense and it still applies with sex.
What would be the implications of calling any level of 'coercion' into sex rape? There are varying levels of 'coercion', someone might sleep with a rich guy purely because they have no money (in this scenario she isn't getting paid for the sex, just for being his gf), is that rape?
Does a latter consent invalidate a previous lack of consent? I.e. at 2pm "I do not want to have sex with you at 4pm", but then at 4pm saying "I want to have sex with you" - which one prevails? Why must the guy suffer the burden here for the confusion and inconsistency of the girl?
That also raises the more interesting grey area of persistent asking, which is very common - the guy asks, the girl says no, the guy asks again, the girl says yes - does that latter yes prevail? Is that coercion that renders the subsequent sexual intercourse rape? How many times does the guy have to ask until she says yes until it becomes coercion thus rape?
Scenario: someone collecting money in the street asks you to donate once, you say no, asks again, you say no, asks again insistently, and finally you relent. There is undoubtedly an element of coercion here, does this make it theft? To say yes here, as above for rape, would undermine everyone's autonomy, and introduce even more doubt into what is already a realm of ambiguity.
Original post by ~Tara~
If you're a good lover, you pay attention to your partner and not just your own gratification. Which means you'd notice and _want_ to notice when they're not that into whatever you're doing because you're invested in giving them the best orgasm. Or whatever. It's not just about rape prevention - being this observant and considerate makes consensual sex better.
If you're a good lover, you pay attention to your partner and not just your own gratification. Which means you'd notice and _want_ to notice when they're not that into whatever you're doing because you're invested in giving them the best orgasm. Or whatever. It's not just about rape prevention - being this observant and considerate makes consensual sex better.
But then you are equating not being a good lover with rape.
Although I do agree that her crying is a pretty big indicator that there isn't consent, and then there is an onus on the man to find out why she is crying.
Original post by Ethereal World
Is this like a textbook response or an personal experience based response ?
Because trust me, on personal experience, the grey area does exist and dichotomising it is part of the problem.
Because trust me, on personal experience, the grey area does exist and dichotomising it is part of the problem.
It's based on years of personal and professional experience. When people say grey area they usually mean the area where society has trouble seeing where consent lies. But it's actually not that complicated.
One example of "grey" is the scenario of sex that starts out consensual but then someone changes their mind. To me there's nothing confusing about that. The second some own doesn't want to or their behaviour changes like freezing or complying rather than active positive engagement, to continue is abuse and rape.
There are people who would argue: well it started consensual, they normally like that position, he was nearly finished how could he stop, they didn't fight him off or yell. Whatever it is, this so something which people often argue about.
In terms of alcohol. I don't think that is that unclear. If you're sober, don't take advantage of a drunk person. If you're tipsy/drunk you are still aware of others enough to notice when someone else doesn't want sex. If someone can't talk without slurring, struggles to walk and can't remember things they've said or behaves in really inhibited way..they're too drunk to consent so don't sleep with them.
Original post by ~Tara~
One example of "grey" is the scenario of sex that starts out consensual but then someone changes their mind. To me there's nothing confusing about that.
One example of "grey" is the scenario of sex that starts out consensual but then someone changes their mind. To me there's nothing confusing about that.
Agreed. But once you start having sex I think there is a reasonable (but rebuttable) presumption that the consent continues. The rebuttable nature of the previous consent is key, imo.
The second someone doesn't want to or their behaviour changes like freezing or complying rather than active positive engagement, to continue is abuse and rape.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Scenario: sex in the missionary position, clear consent at the outset, with the woman tearing his clothes off and pulling him on top of her, etc. What constitutes "active positive engagement" here? By your logic, the woman would have to display "active positive engagement" (however you define that...) throughout, and the second she doesn't that becomes rape?
Two problems:
1. What if the woman is passive and naturally submissive? So she clearly consented at the beginning, but because she is normally passive during missionary sex there is never "active positive engagement".
2. In this scenario, how is the man expected to be aware of her retracting her consent if she does nothing to bring it to his attention? You cannot stop your "active positive engagement" if it never really existed (but consent did exist); the only way for the man to objectively be aware of her retraction of her initial consent is for her to bring it to his attention. Anything else would be unfair on the guy in such a situation.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AJ KO
What would be the implications of calling any level of 'coercion' into sex rape? There are varying levels of 'coercion', someone might sleep with a rich guy purely because they have no money (in this scenario she isn't getting paid for the sex, just for being his gf), is that rape?
Does a latter consent invalidate a previous lack of consent? I.e. at 2pm "I do not want to have sex with you at 4pm", but then at 4pm saying "I want to have sex with you" - which one prevails? Why must the guy suffer the burden here for the confusion and inconsistency of the girl?
That also raises the more interesting grey area of persistent asking, which is very common - the guy asks, the girl says no, the guy asks again, the girl says yes - does that latter yes prevail? Is that coercion that renders the subsequent sexual intercourse rape? How many times does the guy have to ask until she says yes until it becomes coercion thus rape?
Scenario: someone collecting money in the street asks you to donate once, you say no, asks again, you say no, asks again insistently, and finally you relent. There is undoubtedly an element of coercion here, does this make it theft? To say yes here, as above for rape, would undermine everyone's autonomy, and introduce even more doubt into what is already a realm of ambiguity.
But then you are equating not being a good lover with rape.
Although I do agree that her crying is a pretty big indicator that there isn't consent, and then there is an onus on the man to find out why she is crying.
Does a latter consent invalidate a previous lack of consent? I.e. at 2pm "I do not want to have sex with you at 4pm", but then at 4pm saying "I want to have sex with you" - which one prevails? Why must the guy suffer the burden here for the confusion and inconsistency of the girl?
That also raises the more interesting grey area of persistent asking, which is very common - the guy asks, the girl says no, the guy asks again, the girl says yes - does that latter yes prevail? Is that coercion that renders the subsequent sexual intercourse rape? How many times does the guy have to ask until she says yes until it becomes coercion thus rape?
Scenario: someone collecting money in the street asks you to donate once, you say no, asks again, you say no, asks again insistently, and finally you relent. There is undoubtedly an element of coercion here, does this make it theft? To say yes here, as above for rape, would undermine everyone's autonomy, and introduce even more doubt into what is already a realm of ambiguity.
But then you are equating not being a good lover with rape.
Although I do agree that her crying is a pretty big indicator that there isn't consent, and then there is an onus on the man to find out why she is crying.
I don't believe anyone who sleeps with someone for money because they need the money is able to truly consent. Legally it may differ depending on circumstances involved but certainly on a moral level, that's an abuse of power.
I know the stereotype reiterated the onus on the man but I don't believe it's the focus. I think women probably use coercion as much to force sex. Repeatedly asking until someone relents is definitely rape because it's quite clear you are having to wear them down to get the answer you want. If someone says, I don't want sex tonight and later they say they do, it depends on the circumstances. If you've not whined about how long you've had to wait for sex, made them feel bad for refusing sex, and have no reason to believe that their change of mind is not sincere then they've just changed their mind. You could always ask what changes their mind.
Bad lover doesn't equal rapist. That's a simplistic take on what I said but I guess I didn't mark the distinction well enough. What I was trying to get across was that if we aim to be attentive to the needs of our partner, the worry about accidentally causing rape goes away. Because if you're concerned with being attentive and making sure they are okay then you won't be an abuser. At the same time, the partner needs to be honest about their feelings. They need to say when they aren't in the mood or don't like something so their partner can learn all the cues. -- this is different to the survival response of freeze or comply.
Sexual relationships require communication on both sides to build trust and to keep it safe.
Original post by AJ KO
Agreed. But once you start having sex I think there is a reasonable (but rebuttable) presumption that the consent continues. The rebuttable nature of the previous consent is key, imo.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Scenario: sex in the missionary position, clear consent at the outset, with the woman tearing his clothes off and pulling him on top of her, etc. What constitutes "active positive engagement" here? By your logic, the woman would have to display "active positive engagement" (however you define that...) throughout, and the second she doesn't that becomes rape?
Two problems:
1. What if the woman is passive and naturally submissive? So she clearly consented at the beginning, but because she is normally passive during missionary sex there is never "active positive engagement".
2. In this scenario, how is the man expected to be aware of her retracting her consent if she does nothing to bring it to his attention? You cannot stop your "active positive engagement" if it never really existed (but consent did exist); the only way for the man to objectively be aware of her retraction of her initial consent is for her to bring it to his attention. Anything else would be unfair on the guy in such a situation.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Scenario: sex in the missionary position, clear consent at the outset, with the woman tearing his clothes off and pulling him on top of her, etc. What constitutes "active positive engagement" here? By your logic, the woman would have to display "active positive engagement" (however you define that...) throughout, and the second she doesn't that becomes rape?
Two problems:
1. What if the woman is passive and naturally submissive? So she clearly consented at the beginning, but because she is normally passive during missionary sex there is never "active positive engagement".
2. In this scenario, how is the man expected to be aware of her retracting her consent if she does nothing to bring it to his attention? You cannot stop your "active positive engagement" if it never really existed (but consent did exist); the only way for the man to objectively be aware of her retraction of her initial consent is for her to bring it to his attention. Anything else would be unfair on the guy in such a situation.
I think you're possibly being a bit too pedantic because active, positive consent doesn't mean you can't be a passive partner. Active means showing multiple signs of consent - facial expressions, sounds of enjoyment, kissing and however many other ways exist for people to show their partners they enjoy the sex they're having without them being dominant or doing the porn star act.
If someone withdraws from the situation and you know what that is because you will have witnessed it in other situations where people check out mentally. All it requires is for you to ask if they are okay. If you know they are withdrawn (physically/emotionally etc) and you continue regardless that is abusive.
Original post by ~Tara~
I think you're possibly being a bit too pedantic because active, positive consent doesn't mean you can't be a passive partner. Active means showing multiple signs of consent - facial expressions, sounds of enjoyment, kissing and however many other ways exist for people to show their partners they enjoy the sex they're having without them being dominant or doing the porn star act.
But my scenario still applies. Your definition of "active positive consent" lacks clarity and introduces ambiguity.
If during missionary sex the woman is naturally passive and they don't normally kiss, the guy doesn't pay attention to her facial expressions, she doesn't make much noise, by all accounts they have unemotional and unfulfilling sex. That's nothing new. The law doesn't exist to impose standards of sexual pleasure. What is not in doubt is her initial consent. In this case, what would constitute 1. her "active positive consent" during the sex, a retraction of her "active positive consent"?
If someone withdraws from the situation and you know what that is because you will have witnessed it in other situations where people check out mentally. All it requires is for you to ask if they are okay. If you know they are withdrawn (physically/emotionally etc) and you continue regardless that is abusive.
I disagree. I think this imposes too much of a burden on the man. Most hook-ups are with strangers and people we have no particularly strong attachment to, passionate, caring sex is a fiction in most such circumstances. You will not be accustomed to her particular body language signs etc, so in this case if a woman wishes to withdraw her consent the onus has to be on her to do so in a way that a reasonable man would understand.
Original post by ~Tara~
Is it an abuse of power when:
1. The man doesn't know that she is poor, and thus doesn't know that that is why she is with him
2. Is it automatically abuse of power if, but for the financial, or otherwise, incentive, she wouldn't have had sex with him? Scenario: man promises gf a £100 handbag, she wants a £500 handbag, he says he'll buy it for her if she 'rewards' him. She wouldn't have had sex with him but for him buying her the bag, is this an abuse of power?
Is an 'abuse of power' automatically rape?
Repeatedly asking until someone relents is definitely rape because it's quite clear you are having to wear them down to get the answer you want. If someone says, I don't want sex tonight and later they say they do, it depends on the circumstances. If you've not whined about how long you've had to wait for sex, made them feel bad for refusing sex, and have no reason to believe that their change of mind is not sincere then they've just changed their mind. You could always ask what changes their mind.
Can you not see how evident this grey area is?
To deal with the former situation first: how many times constitutes "repeatedly"? Does this make the man collecting money for charity in the scenario I previously described a criminal that commits theft every time he convinces people to donate when they would not have done so if not for his persistence? Why can a woman not change her mind without you presuming that she didn't do so of her own volition? The consequences of your position are that if a man asks a woman repeatedly and she says no, if she then says okay and really means it, that is still classed as rape. Can you not see how you are undermining her autonomy by saying she cannot just change her mind?
For the latter situation: why can the man not just take the latter consent as prevailing? Why is the onus on the man to look into whether he thinks her consent is 'sincere'? Why must he ask why they've changed their mind? Are you implying that women are so weak that men cannot take their consent as valid without querying whether they are really sure? Your suggestions are completely out of place in the real world.
What I was trying to get across was that if we aim to be attentive to the needs of our partner, the worry about accidentally causing rape goes away. Because if you're concerned with being attentive and making sure they are okay then you won't be an abuser. At the same time, the partner needs to be honest about their feelings. They need to say when they aren't in the mood or don't like something so their partner can learn all the cues. -- this is different to the survival response of freeze or comply.
I agree, but that is the context of a relationship - not a ONS or a casual hook-up, where there is no such expected obligation to be "attentive to the needs" of the girl you took home from the club. What happens in this scenario? You are basically saying that "well, if you are a good lover you won't have to worry about rape" - but that imposes an obligation to be a good lover, which is ridiculous.
In a one-off scenario the things you have mentioned simply do not (always) apply, so you haven't adequately responded to my previous scenarios.
(edited 8 years ago)
I don't know why it imposes it on the man. The woman should be paying attention to the man even in missionary. The man may want to stop.
You don't have to be looking constantly at your sexual partner but you need to be looking often enough to notice any changes. I mean I have mentioned in at least one previous post that healthy sex and consent is about good communication between both partners. People so often want to separate the the verbal and the non verbal but they come as a package. In the ideal world, everyone would be able to say when they aren't comfortable. In the absence of that, there are multiple other cues available.
I think it's important to remember that survival responses kick in because of traumatic experiences. I also think a part of maybe both our frustration is that beyond what we are trying to pin down here to create almost a definitive guide, is actually there is an element of instinct involved.
For example, because of my personal experiences with abuse, in one of the first times I had sex with my partner I misread a facial expression he had. I thought he was in pain and wanted to stop, actually his expression was from arousal build up (that point where it feels slightly overwhelming). Anyway the point was that I stopped and asked.
Really that's all we can reaps ably expect.
As I'm writing I'm thinking about the every day man or woman who has no intent to harm or put themselves before others. I may still have an element of naivety maybe but I like to believe that if we don't want to hurt someone that way (and were not an abuser convincing themselves people want us really), then we naturally wouldn't behave in an abusive way.
You don't have to be looking constantly at your sexual partner but you need to be looking often enough to notice any changes. I mean I have mentioned in at least one previous post that healthy sex and consent is about good communication between both partners. People so often want to separate the the verbal and the non verbal but they come as a package. In the ideal world, everyone would be able to say when they aren't comfortable. In the absence of that, there are multiple other cues available.
I think it's important to remember that survival responses kick in because of traumatic experiences. I also think a part of maybe both our frustration is that beyond what we are trying to pin down here to create almost a definitive guide, is actually there is an element of instinct involved.
For example, because of my personal experiences with abuse, in one of the first times I had sex with my partner I misread a facial expression he had. I thought he was in pain and wanted to stop, actually his expression was from arousal build up (that point where it feels slightly overwhelming). Anyway the point was that I stopped and asked.
Really that's all we can reaps ably expect.
As I'm writing I'm thinking about the every day man or woman who has no intent to harm or put themselves before others. I may still have an element of naivety maybe but I like to believe that if we don't want to hurt someone that way (and were not an abuser convincing themselves people want us really), then we naturally wouldn't behave in an abusive way.
Original post by Anonymous
So I drank A LOT (at least a litre) and my "friend's" friends put me on a bus and I vaguely remember like talking to everyone on the bus and I met this guy (he was completely sober) and I told him where I lived and he still took me to his apartment. I remember telling him to put on a condom cause I was not about to get pregnant or an STI just because I was drunk. He would stop every so often to "cuddle" and I just remember waking feeling like complete **** and seeing like 3 full condoms on the floor. He wanted to do it "again" in the morning but I kept refusing but he still tried and again I told him to put the condom on;. He wasn't like violent though but he was a complete stranger and was like a decade older than me (he knew my age). He didn't ask me for permission, he'd just stop for a bit if I started crying or stopped saying anything. I feel like I couldn't push him away though because I was smoking his cigarettes .
Smoking is Bad!
Spoiler
Original post by ~Tara~
You don't have to be looking constantly at your sexual partner but you need to be looking often enough to notice any changes. I mean I have mentioned in at least one previous post that healthy sex and consent is about good communication between both partners. People so often want to separate the the verbal and the non verbal but they come as a package. In the ideal world, everyone would be able to say when they aren't comfortable. In the absence of that, there are multiple other cues available.
You haven't answered my questions. A man and a woman lacking good communication during sex is not, and nor should it be, a crime. Yet, from your concept of a "active positive consent", there are plausible scenarios (see my previous posts) where this could result in a man being liable for rape when it would be evidently unfair.
What other cues? I have already dealt with the cues you previously mentioned in my scenario (kissing, noises, etc), yet you failed to respond to this.
Anyway the point was that I stopped and asked.
Really that's all we can reaps ably expect.
Really that's all we can reaps ably expect.
But the point is that your 'positive active consent' principle is fundamentally flawed because it is possible for someone to miss such cues, especially in the context of ONSs, and following your logic this could lead to a man being found guilty of rape if the woman retracted her consent during sex but did nothing, outside of those cues which he cannot always be expected to read (crying - yes, obviously, but not making any noise? not so clear), to bring her retracting her consent to his attention. This is a grey area, and you attempt to impose a high standard for what cues the man should be able to read, and you do this by invoking 'good relationships' or 'healthy sex', but the reality is that this is an unattainable standard in most contexts today. This is, therefore, unconscionable.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AJ KO
Is it an abuse of power when:
1. The man doesn't know that she is poor, and thus doesn't know that that is why she is with him
2. Is it automatically abuse of power if, but for the financial, or otherwise, incentive, she wouldn't have had sex with him? Scenario: man promises gf a £100 handbag, she wants a £500 handbag, he says he'll buy it for her if she 'rewards' him. She wouldn't have had sex with him but for him buying her the bag, is this an abuse of power?
Is an 'abuse of power' automatically rape?
Can you not see how evident this grey area is?
To deal with the former situation first: how many times constitutes "repeatedly"? Does this make the man collecting money for charity in the scenario I previously described a criminal that commits theft every time he convinces people to donate when they would not have done so if not for his persistence? Why can a woman not change her mind without you presuming that she didn't do so of her own volition? The consequences of your position are that if a man asks a woman repeatedly and she says no, if she then says okay and really means it, that is still classed as rape. Can you not see how you are undermining her autonomy by saying she cannot just change her mind?
For the latter situation: why can the man not just take the latter consent as prevailing? Why is the onus on the man to look into whether he thinks her consent is 'sincere'? Why must he ask why they've changed their mind? Are you implying that women are so weak that men cannot take their consent as valid without querying whether they are really sure? Your suggestions are completely out of place in the real world.
I agree, but that is the context of a relationship - not a ONS or a casual hook-up, where there is no such expected obligation to be "attentive to the needs" of the girl you took home from the club. What happens in this scenario? You are basically saying that "well, if you are a good lover you won't have to worry about rape" - but that imposes an obligation to be a good lover, which is ridiculous.
In a one-off scenario the things you have mentioned simply do not (always) apply, so you haven't adequately responded to my previous scenarios.
1. The man doesn't know that she is poor, and thus doesn't know that that is why she is with him
2. Is it automatically abuse of power if, but for the financial, or otherwise, incentive, she wouldn't have had sex with him? Scenario: man promises gf a £100 handbag, she wants a £500 handbag, he says he'll buy it for her if she 'rewards' him. She wouldn't have had sex with him but for him buying her the bag, is this an abuse of power?
Is an 'abuse of power' automatically rape?
Can you not see how evident this grey area is?
To deal with the former situation first: how many times constitutes "repeatedly"? Does this make the man collecting money for charity in the scenario I previously described a criminal that commits theft every time he convinces people to donate when they would not have done so if not for his persistence? Why can a woman not change her mind without you presuming that she didn't do so of her own volition? The consequences of your position are that if a man asks a woman repeatedly and she says no, if she then says okay and really means it, that is still classed as rape. Can you not see how you are undermining her autonomy by saying she cannot just change her mind?
For the latter situation: why can the man not just take the latter consent as prevailing? Why is the onus on the man to look into whether he thinks her consent is 'sincere'? Why must he ask why they've changed their mind? Are you implying that women are so weak that men cannot take their consent as valid without querying whether they are really sure? Your suggestions are completely out of place in the real world.
I agree, but that is the context of a relationship - not a ONS or a casual hook-up, where there is no such expected obligation to be "attentive to the needs" of the girl you took home from the club. What happens in this scenario? You are basically saying that "well, if you are a good lover you won't have to worry about rape" - but that imposes an obligation to be a good lover, which is ridiculous.
In a one-off scenario the things you have mentioned simply do not (always) apply, so you haven't adequately responded to my previous scenarios.
For an abuse of power to exist both parties need to be aware of the power differential. In your example her economic status is largely irrelevant because he is buying a good, therefore he has inherent power over her.
In your second example that's not an abuse of power because the power over the woman is negligible. If the handbag was rent, food, opportunity to see family or friends then it would be an abuse of power - and in this scenario domestic violence.
An abuse of power is automatically rape. You can see the legal definition of sexual offences for that.
I don't think it's grey just because there are different scenarios. I think we may be think of possibly different uses for the terminology. Maybe from your POV and broadly speaking, it's grey because there are multiple possibilities that separate rape from not rape. Where I was thinking came from my experience of speaking to survivors of rape and the term grey is applied to anything where they feel consent (lack of it) wasn't 100% clear. Hence my belief that, in that sense, grey doesn't exist.
In terms of attentiveness. How attentive you are probably related more to how good you are as a lover but even some random you pull in off the street deserves a basic level of attentiveness simply out of respect. That level of attentiveness as the basic should be enough to ensure safety. It doesn't have to be high enough to become a great lover anticipating every caress expertly. Just enough to notice when they aren't into what you're doing.
One night stands aren't a completely different breed of human interaction. What if a man says yes and he means no? There are multiple cues that we should listen to and if any one of them feels off we should check in with the person we are having sex with. We don't need to be having sex with them multiple times before we can do that. Our ability to empathise as humans means that we actually have the ability to read body language of people we don't know.
We can't mind read. That's evident and I've never once said that the onus is on the man to check. Both parties should check.
But regardless, what's wrong with the man actually checking? I don't hear this argument from respectful men. I appreciate this may be you trying to find the golden egg response. If such a thing existed we wouldn't need this discussion.
We can't mind read. That's evident and I've never once said that the onus is on the man to check. Both parties should check.
But regardless, what's wrong with the man actually checking? I don't hear this argument from respectful men. I appreciate this may be you trying to find the golden egg response. If such a thing existed we wouldn't need this discussion.
Original post by Anonymous
okay so me asking to put the condom means that I technically consented?
Yes because you knew sex was going to happen.
This is date rape, technically. You knew sex was going to happen, you went along with it, but supposedly weren't fully sober. No offense but that's on you.
Original post by Anonymous
So I drank A LOT (at least a litre) and my "friend's" friends put me on a bus and I vaguely remember like talking to everyone on the bus and I met this guy (he was completely sober) and I told him where I lived and he still took me to his apartment. I remember telling him to put on a condom cause I was not about to get pregnant or an STI just because I was drunk. He would stop every so often to "cuddle" and I just remember waking feeling like complete **** and seeing like 3 full condoms on the floor. He wanted to do it "again" in the morning but I kept refusing but he still tried and again I told him to put the condom on;. He wasn't like violent though but he was a complete stranger and was like a decade older than me (he knew my age). He didn't ask me for permission, he'd just stop for a bit if I started crying or stopped saying anything. I feel like I couldn't push him away though because I was smoking his cigarettes and staying at his house so it was essentially my fault for getting that drunk in the first place. And I dont even know if I was up for it or not but most likely not since I didnt even want to do it with my boyfriend when I was sober. He didnt really "force force" me so honestly I'm so confused right now, I literally just got home. I don't THINK I was raped because I dont remember much and it wasn't exactly traumatising like the first time it happened (I was younger). I just feel so dirty and I feel like it was my fault cause I didnt really stop stop him and I didnt go home when I should have and continued to go to his apartment so I did have some sort of control in which direction it could have gone in. I feel sick but I think that is just cause I'm hungover.
Should I just pretend it didnt happen and move on? One of those drunken mistakes things.
Should I just pretend it didnt happen and move on? One of those drunken mistakes things.
Assuming you're including every relevant detail:
On the night before, no, it would appear not. If you are aware enough to understand what is going on, you can give consent, and it seems pretty clear from the fact that you went back with him and told him to put a condom on that you consented.
In the morning: this is a bit more ambiguous, but still, no, I don't think so. 'Put a condom on' generally means 'yes, have sex with me with a condom on'. Being reluctant does not nullify your consent.
This is just one of those drunken mistakes, OP.
edit: the 'crying' part does give me pause. I think ultimately you can interpret the cues better than anyone who wasn't actually there.
(edited 8 years ago)
I couldnt sleep, so i came back here:
This is assuming no misleading signals were given? What if the alleged rapist had been drinking but not fully drunk, thus slightly distorting his perception.
Bit of a sexist remark no? Although all this thread is men defending equal rights, and women pushing for a feminist point of view.
Men are less likely to come forward about rape allegations on themselves due to the risk of being laughed at or ridiculed by society.Believe it or not, it is MUCH MORE HARDER for a male to come out about being raped than a female.
If OP got raped, she should go to the police.
Im getting tired of people who cant handle their drink, then do regretful things and claim they had no control.
Simple solution dont drink like an idiot. Problem solved.
Although, im about to get attacked with "Thats not the point; she should be able to do what she wants; he creepily treated her inappropriately":
All because OP thought it would be clever to down a liter of alcohol.
Preventable or not, this would not have happened if OP did not down alcohol which she could not properly handle + being in the care of people who are not even close to her ("friends" friend). So....OP somewhat put herself in that situation.
If she was raped, she can go to the police and seek justice.
Im talking about this situation, so incase you get overexcited and you are about to post generic rape information, I understand there are situations where the violated have no control over what they can do, due to manipulation + potentially worse.
Original post by ~Tara~
One night stands aren't a completely different breed of human interaction. What if a man says yes and he means no? There are multiple cues that we should listen to and if any one of them feels off we should check in with the person we are having sex with. We don't need to be having sex with them multiple times before we can do that. Our ability to empathise as humans means that we actually have the ability to read body language of people we don't know.
We can't mind read. That's evident and I've never once said that the onus is on the man to check. Both parties should check.
One night stands aren't a completely different breed of human interaction. What if a man says yes and he means no? There are multiple cues that we should listen to and if any one of them feels off we should check in with the person we are having sex with. We don't need to be having sex with them multiple times before we can do that. Our ability to empathise as humans means that we actually have the ability to read body language of people we don't know.
We can't mind read. That's evident and I've never once said that the onus is on the man to check. Both parties should check.
This is assuming no misleading signals were given? What if the alleged rapist had been drinking but not fully drunk, thus slightly distorting his perception.
Original post by ~Tara~
But regardless, what's wrong with the man actually checking? I don't hear this argument from respectful men. I appreciate this may be you trying to find the golden egg response. If such a thing existed we wouldn't need this discussion.
But regardless, what's wrong with the man actually checking? I don't hear this argument from respectful men. I appreciate this may be you trying to find the golden egg response. If such a thing existed we wouldn't need this discussion.
Bit of a sexist remark no? Although all this thread is men defending equal rights, and women pushing for a feminist point of view.
Men are less likely to come forward about rape allegations on themselves due to the risk of being laughed at or ridiculed by society.Believe it or not, it is MUCH MORE HARDER for a male to come out about being raped than a female.
If OP got raped, she should go to the police.
Im getting tired of people who cant handle their drink, then do regretful things and claim they had no control.
Simple solution dont drink like an idiot. Problem solved.
Although, im about to get attacked with "Thats not the point; she should be able to do what she wants; he creepily treated her inappropriately":
All because OP thought it would be clever to down a liter of alcohol.
Preventable or not, this would not have happened if OP did not down alcohol which she could not properly handle + being in the care of people who are not even close to her ("friends" friend). So....OP somewhat put herself in that situation.
If she was raped, she can go to the police and seek justice.
Im talking about this situation, so incase you get overexcited and you are about to post generic rape information, I understand there are situations where the violated have no control over what they can do, due to manipulation + potentially worse.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Wilfred Little
"I remember telling him to put on a condom cause I was not about to get pregnant or an STI just because I was drunk" No.
Original post by IFoundWonderland
That's rape. You were drunk. You didn't consent. You don't remember it. You cried, he carried on. I had a *similar* experience, except I did say no. If you want, you can PM me. I remember even straight after it happened I didn't feel traumatised - didn't even really realise what had happened. You're probably still a bit drunk and hungover. It catches up on you.
I don't see how it's sexist to respond to repeated remarks about how a man shouldn't need to ask with the question what's wrong with him asking? Sexism has nothing to do with it..certainly not in my post.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up male victims in this context. I'm well aware of the barriers they face, the ridiculous remarks they hear from people in support roles because those people can't be bothered to educate themselves on male victims of rape and sexual abuse. Since I actually work with them and am working to build a safe disclosure environment for them, you're preaching to the wrong choir. I'm very active in defending the rights of male victims. And I certainly don't tolerate "feminists" who abuse the word feminist to demean male victims in order to push their own agenda.
Much in the same way I'm tiring of your argument about "personal responsibility" of a rape victim. You're going to believe whatever you want to but soberity doesn't prevent rape.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up male victims in this context. I'm well aware of the barriers they face, the ridiculous remarks they hear from people in support roles because those people can't be bothered to educate themselves on male victims of rape and sexual abuse. Since I actually work with them and am working to build a safe disclosure environment for them, you're preaching to the wrong choir. I'm very active in defending the rights of male victims. And I certainly don't tolerate "feminists" who abuse the word feminist to demean male victims in order to push their own agenda.
Much in the same way I'm tiring of your argument about "personal responsibility" of a rape victim. You're going to believe whatever you want to but soberity doesn't prevent rape.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Participants needed!!
- Participants needed
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Examples of unjust laws in the UK
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- an inspector calls seven deadly sins
- Master's Dissertation Participants
- Compelling personal reasona
- Prime - law work experience!!!
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Atonement question about concealment
- could i talk about sexualisation in my gcse english speech?
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- Is it funny for the home secretrary to make such jokes?
- Gf got spiked on holiday
- Please help me, I’m reluctant to have intimacy
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 3 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 3 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
