Discouraging women from getting into a vulnerable state hardly implies they “deserve” to be raped, which is what is being suiggested here. But people are responsible for not putting themselves in danger, and getting very drunk makes people vulnerable.

It’s not a anti-feminist outrage to remind people they’re vulnerable when they’re drunk.

And if you’re so pissed that that you can’t remember whether you gave consent or not, you’ll find it hard to demonstrate you were raped.

Jebus, I find myself defending the ACPO. It isn’t saying rape is the victim’s fault. This campaign is about reducing risk. If you want to reduce risk don’t get out of your mind on booze (or drugs, or whatever). We should be free to do what we want without the risk of being attacked – but we aren’t.

Does the man you state raped you know that you have done so in the public domain without the benefit of a trial where the evidence was presented and found conclusive? Guilty until proven innocent is the normal rule of thumb, so until your version of events has been proven in a court of law I suggest you stop the libel.

There are just too many issues around alcohol and rape for it to be reduced to black and white.

I don’t want to put you on trial by internet but if you were that drunk how do you know you didn’t consent and now can’t remember?

EG I have a friend who claims to have been raped, but what she actually means (and has stated) is that she said yes but wouldn’t have done so if she hadn’t been so drunk and feels (Retrospectively of course) that she was taken advantage of – not quite the same is it really?

Your statement that it is never a woman’s fault that she is raped will only be true when people stop changing and expanding what that definition of rape is.

I don’t think a billboard that says “Men. Rape is Wrong! Don’t do it!” would have the desired effect in reducing offense.

Similarly, I don’t think that a child who gets knocked down by a car in the dark can be said to be “asking for it,” because they were wearing black clothes, but it’s still a good idea to remind them (and their parents) to make sure they’re wearing something shiny.

“let your hair down, not your guard down”

is good advice, almost universally applicable. I too intensely dislike the unaccountable ACPO, but I think that this message, sadly, is necessary and worthwhile. It’s not,/b> saying women who get legless are to blame, or that rape is somehow the responsibility of the woman, simply that due to some bastards out there, it’s a good idea to be careful. It’s precautionary, much as toting a rape alarm (with which I don’t suppose Laurie would have a beef) is precautionary: it’s sad that such steps are needed, but until things are fixed, just be careful out there.
It’s good advice in a wider context: in my job (mental health) one group I run is for the LGBT community with MH issues, and to some particularly vulnerable folk in that group, I do advise ‘em not to get so pissed up they can be taken advantage of because there are one or two folk specifically in that group who’ve several times got bladdered, been ripped off and/or been sexually taken advantage of.

I’ve studied a few martial arts with a view to being able to defend myself, and any self defence or martial arts class will tell you, whether you’re male or female, if you get paralytic drunk, you’re way more likely to be attacked, and your ability to fight off an attacker drops off dramatically. The only time I’ve been successfully mugged was when I was half-cut, wandering about in Mulhouse, France, having been separated from my friends. I’m a 6′ tall, well built guy. I’m sorry but the poster isn’t saying you’re to blame, but we are all responsible for our own security. You lock your doors & windows at night, I assume? This is just the same: basic common sense.

Must remember to open and close html tags properly…what happened to the edit function?

The responsibility for rape lies, always and only, with the minority of men who rape.

I completely agree.

As does the responsibility for terrorism, robbery, theft, and so on lie, always and only, with the terrorists, robbers and thieves.

A large proportion of reported rape cases feature alcohol as a factor.

I’ll bet they do – so how come I’ve never seen a campaign warning men to stay sober if they don’t end up as rapists?

It is never a woman’s fault if she is raped.

I don’t think anyone is disputing this, are they? I think the coppers are saying that rapists will often target women who are very, very drunk. Thus, they’re advising women to reduce their risk of being raped by not getting very, very drunk.

I mean, the police also advise you to fit sturdy locks on your doors if you live in an area that’s seen a lot of burglaries. They’re not passing judgement on you or suggesting that you deserve to be burgled if you don’t heed their advice.

In a perfect world, the coppers wouldn’t need to issue advice like this but then, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need coppers.

A new campaign, launched on Monday, aims to deter “potential victims” from drinking too much – implying once again that women are to blame for rape.

Implying how? It’s certainly not a logical implication. Nobody thinks that crime prevention officers advising fitting window locks are implying homeowners are to blame for burglary. Do you think they intended that implication? I don’t. So where is the implication – it’s something you have inferred Laurie, but it ain’t necessarily there.

Christ, I hate getting into arguments like this. Nevertheless:

Offering someone practical advice on how to stay safe does not by itself contain an implication that women who do get drunk and are the victim of such a terrible attack are in any way morally responsible for that attack. The moral responsibility always lies entirely with the attacker.

It is the case that some deeply unpleasant, or deeply confused, people (including a lot of women) use the fact that a woman has entered into a vulnerable situation to imply that they were somehow morally responsible for an attack. These people fill up the relevant comment threads on the Daily Mail and similar sites with their poison. No doubt some police officers harbour such thoughts.

If someone says on a blog “My house was burgled once” you never get commenters accusing them of libelling the unnamed burglar. Funny, that.

Great piece, Laurie.

@Dunc,

The Met are running a campaign exactly like that in London right now: the “small word, long sentence” campaign.

But I suggest an advertising campaign suggesting that all men are only four pints of Stella away from going on a massive rapey bender are unlikely to be productive, since most men don’t consider themselves potential rapists (even if they are), whereas most women consider themselves potential rape victims.

@13:

Normally the house isn’t so drunk it doesn’t have a clear recollection of what happened.

OT: why am I receiving a notification of each comment to my email address?

Does the man you state raped you know that you have done so in the public domain without the benefit of a trial where the evidence was presented and found conclusive? Guilty until proven innocent is the normal rule of thumb, so until your version of events has been proven in a court of law I suggest you stop the libel.

Perhaps there’s a difference between actual guilt and legal recognition of actual guilt?

If what you say were true, no one could ever be convicted: anyone testifying against them would be asserting that the suspect was guilty, but that the suspect was guilty can’t be asserted until they’re actually found guilty, per your claim; since no evidence can be presented, and no one is guilty until it has been, no suspect is ever guilty.

The Met are running a campaign exactly like that in London right now: the “small word, long sentence” campaign.

No, it’s not “exactly like that” – it simply seeks to remind men that rape is a serious crime, as far as I can see. It does not advise men to stay sober, or to avoid being around women without a chaperone, or to wear clothing that makes it more difficult to get their dicks out.

OT: why am I receiving a notification of each comment to my email address?

When you submit a comment there is a little check box at the bottom which enables you to receive updates to the e-mail address you use (“Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail”).

You must have clicked it by accident before submitting your comment.

I don’t think there is any way to stop it. You might just have to wait until this thread goes quiet.

@5,6,10,12: the problem is that “don’t get drunk in order to not get raped” has historically been the only advice given out by the police. Most rapists are not sweaty mac-wearing strangers, they are partners, fathers, friends and co-workers. Of course yelling “DON’T RAPE PEOPLE FOOL” is not going to particularly help as the stereotypical stranger-rape is already understood to be awful, which is partly why it is so rare. The message that needs to be put across IMO is the one aimed at men that says “no means no”, specifically avoiding the word ‘rape’.

Thanks frolix22 @19, I think you are right, it was my fault. Click manage subscriptions to unsubscribe.

Let’s take a number of examples.

1) The girl has drunk so much she is unconscious.

2) The girl has drunk a lot and says no.

3) The girl has drunk so much that she cannot make rational decisions. She does not say no but does not specifically consent.

4) The girl has drunk just enough to get her in the mood.

Clearly in examples 1 and 2 rape has occurred, however, in court, it is likely to be impossible to prove (take your own rape, for example). It would be better if it did not happen and the ACPO advice is therefore sound.

In examples 3 and 4 rape has not occurred but morally, most men would not wish to take advantage of the girl in example 3.

One problem, however, is that there is no clear dividing line between 3 and 4, it is a judgement call. And there are a lot of ugly men who would get no sex at all if women never drank at all.

So again the advice is sound.

Incidentally, Laurie.

We learn to choose clothes which will not ‘provoke’ men, to be sexually timid

You need to go out in Liverpool city centre on a Saturday night. I’ll buy you a few bacardis but you will need to tell me in advance how many …..

ACPO – that completely unbiassed private firm – yeah, they know what they’re talking about i’m sure. Sir Hugh Orde should be sacked immediately – disgusting & useless – takes some doing really.

What worries me is that the general tone of Laurie’s piece (see recent Flibanserin commentary) sets up a rather unhealthy gender dynamic – I do not know if this is intentional or even recognised?
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/26/a-gram-is-better-than-a-damn/

The exasperated tone of some posters bears this out.
I also anticipate a fault line (based on a gender division) which pits men against women, at least this has been my experience during other similar debates.

Can we not just agree that some men are bastards – and some are raping bastards?

Moderating drug/alcohol consumption reduces the risk of women being exposed to both – a good thing, surely?

@17 Presumed innocent until proven guilty is a tenet that underpins the British justice system.

I’m not sure what you are saying but it reads like rubbish and you appear to have conflated the act of giving evidence in a trial with the act of asserting that someone
is guilty.

Pagar,

3) The girl has drunk so much that she cannot make rational decisions. She does not say no but does not specifically consent. … In examples 3 and 4 rape has not occurred

Hang on, if she doesn’t consent that is rape, isn’t it?

@22

“3) The girl has drunk so much that she cannot make rational decisions. She does not say no but does not specifically consent.”

If someone can’t make a rational decision, then it is rape. possibly for both parties if both are unable to consent properly. That’s what statutory rape of minors is, sex with someone who is unable to consent.

It would make it much easier for everyone involved if the upcoming sex education instilled into people that to have sex, you must gain explicit consent beforehand.

@5,6,10,12: the problem is that “don’t get drunk in order to not get raped” has historically been the only advice given out by the police.

That may or may not be the case. However, it does not bear on the specific point I made in response to the specific point in the original article. I am certainly open to considering informed debate on the wider issues.

Guys, you are not getting it. The problem isn’t whether this piece of advice is sensible. (It may or may not be, depending on your the behaviour of rapists. If, hypotheitcally, a rapist rapes the drunkest woman he can find every Saturday, my staying sober will protect me but won’t reduce the rape rate overall.)

The problem is that this advice is ALL we ever hear.

Rape can destroy victims’ lives and yet we are constantly discussing what the victim did wrong and where she went and what she was wearing and did she flirt with him and was she flirting with someone else that might have made him jealous and blah blah blah…
…and almost never how to prevent the perpetrators from committing it, how to create an society that doesn’t tacitly condone it if the woman is out of line in some way, or how to apprehend and punish rapists.

Men who get raped don’t get this shit. Men who get beaten up or robbed don’t get this shit, even if it happens while they’re walking home blootered from the pub. I’ve seen one paragraph, once, in the middle of an all-purpose crime prevention leaflet, telling men that they are more at risk of being the victim of violent crime when drunk. There are no poster campaigns there. No finger-wagging senior police officers on the national news. Never the slightest implication that a drunk bloke is to blame for a violent crime committed against him.

Incidentally, rapists are more likely to be drunk than rape victims (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r215.pdf). If we want to dissuade people from boozing to prevent rape, we should be telling men not to drink.

“But telling men that if they rape, they can expect to be jailed is of little use if, in the same breath, you also tell women that if they drink, they can expect to be raped.”

It is also of little use when you consider that only 6% of rapists actually spend any time in prison. And looking at the comments above, which frankly are the same as I’ve seen on the Daily Mail in the past, it’s not hard to see why the conviction rate is so low – the rape apologism here is quite frankly disappointing, but I guess liberal men still like their status quo of being able to tell themselves that they’re not rapists!

The law states that, basically, if someone is incapacitated (including by alcohol, seeing as how many rapists use it as a ‘date rape’ drug) then they are not in fit state to give consent so it is rape. So, Pagar, in your 3rd example? Rape took place both legally and morally. Rape is not only when someone says ‘no’, it’s also when that person does not enthusiastically say ‘yes’.

Rape is not only when someone says ‘no’, it’s also when that person does not enthusiastically say ‘yes’.

Ha! I’m married with two kids – I haven’t heard an enthusiastic ‘yes’ for about five years*

Incidentally, rapists are more likely to be drunk than rape victims (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r215.pdf). If we want to dissuade people from boozing to prevent rape, we should be telling men not to drink.

My point exactly. We rightly spend more time telling drivers not to drink than we do pedestrians, despite the fact that drunk pedestrians are indeed more likely to be hit by cars. Yet when it comes to rape, it’s the other way around…

“Rape is not only when someone says ‘no’, it’s also when that person does not enthusiastically say ‘yes’.”

By that definition, I think a large proportion of the world’s sexual encounters would be rape.

Vulpus rex @3 – Does the man you state raped you know that you have done so in the public domain without the benefit of a trial where the evidence was presented and found conclusive? Guilty until proven innocent is the normal rule of thumb, so until your version of events has been proven in a court of law I suggest you stop the libel.

Actually yes, he does know. I didn’t and won’t take it to court, and that’s my choice, but he accepts what he did wrong, he knows I was planning to write about it, and he saw this article before anyone else did to ensure that his identity was protected properly. I did not need his permission to write this, but I did check it out, as a courtesy.

So I’ll thank you to quit it with your fucking assumptions, you absolute bastard.

@ 29, lock, stop, chain, check; lock up or lose it; keep your vehicle safe; stay safe if you’re elderly…

My point exactly. We rightly spend more time telling drivers not to drink than we do pedestrians, despite the fact that drunk pedestrians are indeed more likely to be hit by cars. Yet when it comes to rape, it’s the other way around

See, this depends whether you subscribe to the view that most rapes are errors of judgement by otherwise morally upright men.

I don’t think they are; I think that, with a few exceptions, most ACTUAL rapes rather than “the cheque bounced”, are committed by hard nosed, manipulative, evil sober men who are coolly in charge of what’s going on, and whose behaviour is unlikely to be mitigated by a poster campaign.

You get warnings in car parks saying “don’t leave your goods on display,” and “thieves operate in this area,” but I hear a lot less outrage about that.

@30:

Nobody here is being an apologist for rape, and it’s abhorrent to suggest it is. However, rape is a difficult crime to prove at the best of times, and if the victim and/or the accused were both extremely drunk at the time, establishing what occurred beyond reasonable doubt is nigh on impossible.

What should a jury think if the person making the accusation can’t even clearly recall if they gave consent or not? What if the man claims the woman’s memory is clouded by drink, and it comes down to the his word against hers, and whose drunken recollections are the most reliable. In such situations, reasonable doubt must prevail, and the accused must be acquitted.

The *only* way to change that would be to abandon one of the most fundamental aspects of British jurisprudence, something that’s clearly and completely unacceptable.

So, that’s why it’s perfectly sensible to remind women that they are vulnerable when they’re drunk.

@vulpus_rex

@17 Presumed innocent until proven guilty is a tenet that underpins the British justice system.

No it isn’t. At its strongest, the rule is no presumption of legal guilt before it legal guilt is proven in court. But legal and factual guilt are well distinct, and you’ll need to suggest a reason why Laurie has to show legal guilt before she can say stuff.

I’m not sure what you are saying but it reads like rubbish and you appear to have conflated the act of giving evidence in a trial with the act of asserting that someone is guilty.

If the evidence given by a hostile witnesses is true, then the suspect is guilty: if I assert that I saw him do it, and I’m right, then he’s guilty. In giving evidence, hostile witnesses put themselves on oath, and say stuff, the import of which is that the guy is guilty. It’s safe to assert that they assert the guy’s guilt, whatever else they also say.

@33

“By that definition, I think a large proportion of the world’s sexual encounters would be rape.”

Yes, yes it is.

Sex without explicit consent means that it’s rape.

@Miss Prism: Guys, you are not getting it. The problem isn’t whether this piece of advice is sensible.

Well, the author of the post explicitly said that the problem was that the police were saying “women who don’t want to be raped have a responsibility not get drunk,” although brief perusal of what the police actually said show’s this isn’t true at all – nobody is suggesting it’s a woman’s responsibility to avoid behaviours that might put her at greater risk.

It’s possible that Laurie was also talking about the basic injustice of society’s attitudes to rape, treatment of victims and our terrible conviction rate and the raft of related but unmentioned issues you raise here, but that’s not evident in her post so I don’t think it’s surprising that people are failing to pick up on that.

38. daniel waweru – thank you for the points you make. See my reply at 34 to vulpus rex’s ugly assumptions!

Vulpus – please do let me know what you think of my response at 34, I’m DYING to know.

“So I’ll thank you to quit it with your fucking assumptions, you absolute bastard.”

They weren’t assumptions they were a question, and under the circumstances a fair question.

If you put that information out there to make a point you can hardly expect it to go unchallenged and the ease with which you resile from that confident assertion and resort to a hissy fit when asked hardly inspires confidence.

And bastard or not I am genuinely very curious to know how if rape is the horror you describe, how you contiue to have such an understanding accomodation with your accused – not all rapists belong in jail perhaps, only those who YOU think deserve it.

I don’t think they are; I think that, with a few exceptions, most ACTUAL rapes rather than “the cheque bounced”, are committed by hard nosed, manipulative, evil sober men who are coolly in charge of what’s going on, and whose behaviour is unlikely to be mitigated by a poster campaign.

As far as I am aware, that is not what the available evidence shows – for example, the Home Office publication cited upthread. It’s a comforting idea, to believe that men who commit rape are fundamentally different from the rest of us, but I’m afraid it’s simply not true.

“I suugest you stop the libel” is not a question, Vulpus.

Maybe there ought to be a poster reminding everyone, men as well as women, that when drunk, people are more likely to:
Start fights
Lose fights
Crash cars
Wander into traffic & get run over
Both commit & become the victims of crimes of opportunity including theft and rape.
Take drugs
And last but not least eat some really minging kebab that’ll end up on the pavement half an hour later.

@26/27

“The girl has drunk so much that she cannot make rational decisions. She does not say no but does not specifically consent.”

If someone can’t make a rational decision, then it is rape.

Yes of course it is.

But my point is that it is almost impossible, in a real situation, to know the extent of the alcoholic influence and whether a rational decision is being made by the woman.

Is the man supposed to use a breathalyser or get her to walk the line? Should he wait until she implores him convincingly enough or get her to sign a consent form?

Even then can we be sure whether four bacardis has put her in the mood or affected her rational judgement?

Or is that the same thing?

And people wonder why there are so few rape convictions…….

It’s a comforting idea, to believe that men who commit rape are fundamentally different from the rest of us, but I’m afraid it’s simply not true.

Middle class computer savvy office workers who frequent a site dedicated to liberal values? I think most of us (except the wasp nest pokers) are FAR less likely than the average man to commit such crimes.

Although we’re probably more likely to be hebephiles.

42 – vulpus, how dare you ask me if rape is ‘the horror I describe’. How dare you.

Short answer: yes, it was really very bad indeed, the aftermath was worse; it will be with me for the rest of my life, and it has deeply affected both my politics and the way I relate to men. Especially when, if I DO talk about it, the reaction of lots of blokes, like you, is ‘you’re libelling the guy’ ‘it can’t have been that bad, can it?’

Shame on you. Really, shame on you.

I read this earlier on Laurie’s blog, and it made me fume then.

As one of the few women here, I have to say that I’m finding this non-stop portrayal of women as victims by leftwing commentators increasingly annoying, detrimental to our gender, and completely without a constructive aspect.

Why do leftwing feminist writers even bother to reference stories like this in the mainstream press – and the shit end of the mainstream press, to boot? Why write about this topic, or the metro newspaper, as though it had substance, or any relation to the lives that real women lead? Who gives a fuck what stories appear in that newspaper? Why keep ferreting around in the mainstream press looking for examples of stories that might somehow insult women and then dragging those stories into the light, the better to take them as an insult? Why not get out and talk to some real women about their real lives?
Let me say it again – women are NOT ALL the victims of the patriarchy that leftwing writers seem so utterly to want to portray them as. Life as a female today is NOT just one insult and/or attack after another, and we are NOT just sitting around out here, powerless and on the receiving end whatever emotional and/or physical insults men want to throw at us.

Feminism is not about thumbing through crap publications looking for perceived insults and then trying to present them as relevant social commentary. It’s about something bigger than that – it’s about access.

Feminism is about being able to get an education, and having access to decent employment, and being able to care for your kids, and not having to rely on making a good marriage to pay your bills. Feminism is about supporting other men and women who aren’t lucky enough to have the same opportunities. Feminism is about making sure legislation is in place that allows women to control their fertility. Feminism is about learning kung fu so you can knobble any fucker who decides to feel yr tits when you get in his taxi after a few wines. Feminism is NOT about sitting around at home thumbing through giveaway newspapers that write tripe that supports some weird world view you have of women as wee crawling victims. We’re not victims. We’re educated. We’re smart as men. We’re tough. A lot of us enjoy the partriarchy and are fully engaged in it. We don’t see that as a sell out. We’re feminists. We like capitalism, we want power, and we have it. We don’t trouble ourselves with the likes of the Metro. We take it home for our dog to piss on.

Your written ability is excellent, Laurie, but you are really starting to get on my tits with these endless stories about poor, suffering, insulted women. I’m a capitalist. And a socialist. And a feminist. And a woman. Get pissed at Christmas if you want to. I sure as hell plan to. Beat that.

Pagar, the real problem there is “She does not say no but does not specifically consent.”

Christ, sometimes I wonder whether some guys have ever had sex with someone who was actually into it. It’s really not that hard to tell when they’re genuinely up for it. If there’s any doubt, assume “no”.

I will bet that Laurie has given identical advivce to some young woman friend before now. Isn’t it true Laurie? Have you not warned some younger acquaintance about how heavy drinking can make her vulnerable to assault and that she should therefore be cautious of strange men and even familiar men if she is planning to go drinking?

… and yes, for the record, I have been mistreated by men in my life. Who hasn’t? That doesn’t define me – any more than the Metro does. Defining oneself as a victim of rape doesn’t give one the right to perceive feminism as the science of victimhood.

@44 ““I suugest you stop the libel” is not a question, Vulpus.”

No but the preceding sentence on which that statement is predicated is.

@38 “and you’ll need to suggest a reason why Laurie has to show legal guilt before she can say stuff”

Because stating guilt of a serious crime as a matter of fact, when disputed by the concerned party would be libellous, illegal itself, and grossly unfair if untrue.

Irrelevant now though as apparently the man involved was consulted and consented to the infromation being included in this article.

“Christ, sometimes I wonder whether some guys have ever had sex with someone who was actually into it. It’s really not that hard to tell when they’re genuinely up for it. If there’s any doubt, assume “no”.”

Dunc, you are perhaps blessed with extreme pulchritude, but just willing to go along with it is the best that some of us can hope for if we are not to remain virgins.

@46

“But my point is that it is almost impossible, in a real situation, to know the extent of the alcoholic influence and whether a rational decision is being made by the woman.”

If you can’t judge if someone is rational enough to give their consent then you don’t have sex with them. It’s pretty straightforward.

Okay, having read that Home Office document, it doesn’t say that alcohol turns normal, morally upright men into raving Mr Hyde monsters – it says that people are more likely to attack others when they’ve been drinking – Dutch Courage, I suppose.

I still feel happy that there is no force on this earth – alcohol or otherwise – that would make me either mistake the shrieks of indignation and revulsion for complicity, or reduce another to the vent for my own perceived inadequacies, abnegating their own right of agency through force of strength or intimidation.

Unfortunately, I can’t be so commital that a little bit of unexpected vomit might not come out.

‘I will bet that Laurie has given identical advivce to some young woman friend before now. Isn’t it true Laurie? Have you not warned some younger acquaintance about how heavy drinking can make her vulnerable to assault and that she should therefore be cautious of strange men and even familiar men if she is planning to go drinking?’

-no. I never, ever have. Because it would be insulting to do so. Plus, I think If I were to tell my little sisters not to drink, they’d go out and get paralytic the very next day.

Dunc, you are perhaps blessed with extreme pulchritude, but just willing to go along with it is the best that some of us can hope for if we are not to remain virgins.

No, I’m not – but I’m not an arsehole either. If I can’t find a woman who’s enthusiastic about having sex with me, I’ll stay celibate. It’s not actually the end of the world. (For the record, it’s been fifteen years, and I’m not dead yet.) I’d rather go to the grave never having had sex again than push the boundaries of consent. I’ve done some things in the past that I’m not proud of, and I don’t intend to add to that list any further.

No-one has a right to get laid. If you can’t, I’m afraid that’s just tough. Maybe you have some personality issues you need to work on – I know I do. After all, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of, shall we say “not conventionally attractive”, guys out there who don’t seem to have any problem.

@48 I dare because you a specifically asked for a response.

It is an act of dishonest disigenuity to boldly proclaim your victim status and then when challanged about an aspect of it that appears unfair, flee behind a curtain of “don’t question me, I’m the victim here”.

“no. I never, ever have. Because it would be insulting to do so. Plus, I think If I were to tell my little sisters not to drink, they’d go out and get paralytic the very next day.”

But Laurie, that is a very different thig. We are talking about warning your sisters about the men who might prey on them if they get very drunk, as they did on you. It has nothing to do with ‘not drinking’ (although it is very English to confuse the two).

Kate,

I really don’t believe that feminism is ‘the science of victimhood’, and I find it insulting that you suggest that’s what I’m doing. I don’t see myself as a victim – I’m a survivor, thank you very much.

Part of the aim of this article, and the many others I’ve written, is to point out that female victimhood is NOT inevitable. Actually, it’s the Metro/ACPO campaign that portrays all women as ‘potential victims’. But to say that men need to take responsibility for not fucking raping and assaulting us isn’t ‘the science of victimhood’. It’s fighting back.

“No, I’m not – but I’m not an arsehole either. If I can’t find a woman who’s enthusiastic about having sex with me, I’ll stay celibate. It’s not actually the end of the world. (For the record, it’s been fifteen years, and I’m not dead yet.) ”

Well if you don’t want it to be another 15, you shgould lower your standards. There are probably many women who will want to have sex with you for a bit of comfort or pleasure without being especially enthusiastic about it. Nobody need get hurt. The fact is, most women would always prefer it were Jonny Depp. Don’t wait too long.

59 vulpus rex – I have never, ever said I’m a victim. I’m a survivor, and I’ll thank you not to call me a victim. I’m one of the lucky survivors of rape who has been able to fully move on with her life – some people, however, don’t make it that far.

I’m not trying to ‘hide behind my victim status’. But I find your attacks on me massively insulting, and I’m convinced that you wouldn’t be making them if I were a man talking about, eg, how I’d been mugged. Would you ask a man who had been mugged and beaten by a friend – ‘surely it can’t have been that bad? Aren’t you libelling the guy?’

No, of course you wouldn’t. You sexist ass.

“I don’t see myself as a victim – I’m a survivor, thank you very much.”

Laurie, you are both. And you are going way too easy on your attacker, in my opinion.

“Actually, it’s the Metro/ACPO campaign that portrays all women as ‘potential victims’. ”

All women are potential victims. All men too, of course, by the liklihood is smaller. The ACPO are just trying to prevent more potential victims becoming actual victims.

Dunc @58 *luff*

You’re great. If only more blokes were like you. Although it baffles me that someone with as much respect for women as you seem to have has stayed celibate so long.

But to say that men need to take responsibility for not fucking raping and assaulting us isn’t ‘the science of victimhood’. It’s fighting back.

See, that’s a hackle up, right there. With a few notable exceptions and apologists, we’re on your side here.

You’re starting to sound like those right wingers who have a go at moderate muslims for not rounding up the extremists and shooting them personally.

Most of us here are about as likely to commit rape as you are to abuse a baby in a nursery.

“I don’t want to put you on trial by internet”

Well Vulpus that’s what you did, you attempted to put someone who was a victim on trial on the internet. How very considerate of you.

Laurie, I think your piece is problematic not because I generally disagree- if this was a newspaper article that advised women not to wear revealing clothes and to avoid alcohol than I would be fuming- but because alcohol is a drug and the Police spend a lot of time dealing with the effect of its legality. Practically speaking if our society was consistent taking alcohol would be illegal alongside cannabis, ecstasy and other recreational substances. On no account does alcohol excuse rape and the law really needs to adapt to the fact that alcohol is legal and rape happens and work around those facts but faulting the ACPO for advising women to drink less around Christmas time (when there’s a spike in most types of assault) is perhaps ignoring the practical aspects and placing the idea too far into a cultural context. Clearly it can’t be divorced from that context and it’s always questionable especially as the police aren’t very good at investigating female rape cases but in this case I think it might be a sensible guideline particularly because the law is an utter crock of s*** when it comes to rape and alcohol.

Oh and Laurie, sorry to use the word victim when you’ve explicitly said you weren’t one, I meant it in the straight definition sense (as in a crime was committed and you were not the criminal) rather than the emotive sense.

I dont think this has an underlying message that women are to blame if they are raped when drunk. Seems like good advice, if a lot or rapists target drunk women then by drinking less you’ll be less of a target.

Women have as much right to get shit faced as anyone else, but in the real world you must also protect yourself.

Which is why when I go out I dont wear my expensive watch, even though I’d like to.

“Although it baffles me that someone with as much respect for women as you seem to have has stayed celibate so long.”

Laurie, you have a lot to learn about the birds and the bees. It is quite sweet, actually.

Well if you don’t want it to be another 15, you shgould lower your standards. There are probably many women who will want to have sex with you for a bit of comfort or pleasure without being especially enthusiastic about it. Nobody need get hurt. The fact is, most women would always prefer it were Jonny Depp. Don’t wait too long.

That IS a bit creepy. Mine was more along the lines of “Go on, then, as long as we’re back downstairs for the X Factor results.”

‘Most of us here are about as likely to commit rape as you are to abuse a baby in a nursery.’

In that case, taking responsibility for not committing rape should be as easy for you as taking responsibility for not abusing the children in my care was for me, when I was a teacher.

***But they still made me go on the training course….***

68 – don’t worry Nina, I know . There are some people who see it as useful to define themselves as ‘victims’ in a political context, and I respect that entirely, but I’m not one of them.

@63 I didn’t really attack you though did I?

Variously I:

1) asked had you libelled someone, not unfair see @53
2) pointed out the difference between an assumption and a question
3) said I find it bizarre that you seem to have a continuing relationship with your rapist
4) say that you are being disinegenuous about your attitude to using your experience in debate.

And seeing as you again make a point of asking:

If a male friend of mine were mugged I of course would extend my deepest sympathy.

If on the other hand, whilst under the influence someone asked my friend for his watch (no menace involved), and my friend gave it willingly but then regretted this once sobered up, I would very certainly challenge his attempts to have his experience re-defined as a mugging.

I hope you see the difference and that sexism doesn’t enter into it.

taking responsibility for not committing rape should be as easy for you as taking responsibility for not abusing the children in my care was for me, when I was a teacher.

How, practically, is one supposed to take responsibility for not committing rape? Promise not to? I don’t think that anyone here has expressed an intention of raping anybody, nor even recklessness as to their attitude towards raping anybody.

What a lot of people are saying is that, given that rapists exist, everybody bears a degree of responsibility for their own safety. I really don’t see that as controversial.

Laurie,

Regardless of your intention, feminism is starting to come off very much like the science of victimhood here on the leftwing online world. Let’s think about what we’ve had recently around blogland. We’ve had women as rape victims. We’ve had women – trans and otherwise – needing to reclaim the night (a celebration-of-victim-mentality event which seems to overlook entirely that most of us reclaim most nights as a matter of course). We’ve got women as domestic violence victims. We’ve got women as anorexics and on the receiving end of the beauty industry. We’ve got women as losers who get shat on from all heights. Can’t you see how a woman might find this portrayal of her gender difficult?

I really fail to see how referencing tosh like Metro advances the feminist cause. I don’t particularly want to get stuck into you on a personal note, because I happen to respect your ability and brain enormously. What I am saying is that this constant referencing of female agonies (and I don’t just mean you – other writers too) makes it seem as though agony and self is all that there is.

Neither your personal life, nor mine, nor anyone’s, is symptomatic of the general female condition, so I don’t see how chewing one’s tiny personal experiences over again and again takes anything forward as you claim it does. Neither do I see how seeing the (few) negative aspects of the female experience in such black and white takes the cause forward.

There is one excellent remedy for all of us lovely middle class women who write – and that is to stop writing about ourselves and get out and interview others – people who don’t necessarily get to spend all day looking in the mirror, remembering who did and didn’t poke us with or without permission at a party (it’s happened to me too, but so bloody what – the world kept turning, and it didn’t put me in a position to threaten other people into having my views on rape), and then going online. Otherwise, it looks like all any of us can do is sit at home, worrying about our hair, skin and fannies, and bitching. We look like victims.

I have every right to define feminism, and will continue to do so. I am a feminist. I have been all my life.

***But they still made me go on the training course….***

Well, obviously these two weren’t on the same course as you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8378011.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8382988.stm

If you want me to make a commitment, I’ll do that – heck, I think I’ve just done it. Tell you what, I’ll get a T-shirt printed that says “I PROMISE NOT TO RAPE YOU,” just so people know I’m safe.

If I leave my front door open at night it wouldn’t be my fault if I got burgled, it would be the thieves. However Im aware such people exist so I take steps to mimimise the harm. No difference.

If I leave my front door open at night it wouldn’t be my fault if I got burgled, it would be the thieves. However Im aware such people exist so I take steps to mimimise the harm. No difference.

It’s kind of different, in the sense that most attackers are known to their victims. It’d be like one of your friends coming into your house, eating all your food, stealing your tv, and leaving a note to say that they’ve done it, because well, you’re a bit fat so you don’t need all that food, and your TV was rubbish anyway.

‘people who don’t necessarily get to spend all day looking in the mirror, remembering who did and didn’t poke us with or without permission at a party (it’s happened to me too, but so bloody what – the world kept turning, and it didn’t put me in a position to threaten other people into having my views on rape), and then going online.’

Kate, I find this deeply offensive and upsetting. You know very well that that’s not me.

How, practically, is one supposed to take responsibility for not committing rape?

Well, actually taking the idea of positive consent seriously, rather than whinging that you’d never get laid or raising bullshit objections about how you can’t really tell if they’re consenting or not, might be a good start. Not that I’m accusing you of either of these behaviours, but they’re the standard objections that appear in every single blog comment thread on the subject ever, this one included. Also, not pretending that rape is only committed by a tiny minority of inherently evil men might help.

I don’t think that anyone here has expressed an intention of raping anybody, nor even recklessness as to their attitude towards raping anybody.

That’s where we disagree then. When you’ve got people equivocating as to whether the mere lack of explicit rejection counts as consent, that’s “recklessness as to their attitude towards raping anybody”, because it allows you to convince yourself that it’s not really rape as long as she’s not screaming and trying to fight you off.

@27: If someone can’t make a rational decision [e.g. because they are drunk], then it is rape. possibly for both parties if both are unable to consent properly.

By that standard, anyone who has ever had sex when their partner is drunk is a rapist. That’s probably a majority of the UK population. We’d have to build a lot of prisons, wouldn’t we?

81 – I read those comments more as saying that (in long term relationships) if you only accept gleeful an enthusiastic ‘yes! yes! yes!’ as valid consent, then you’re going drastically to reduce the amount of ‘consensual’ sex.

But then, like you, I’m out of touch. It’s been a decade and a half for you; I have a seven month old baby, which feels longer…

“But to say that men need to take responsibility for not fucking raping and assaulting us isn’t ‘the science of victimhood’. It’s fighting back.”

I’m not sure what you mean by that. The problem isn’t with the majority of men who are not rapists, is it? I don’t doubt that there is a greater toleration of rape than is morally acceptable (to risk understatement, of course), and I don’t doubt that there is a disgusting tendency to make excuses for rape – these are both serious problems and they manifest themselves in woefully low conviction rates. But I don’t see how men as a whole can take responsibility for not being rapists when most are not rapists (and so are, ahem, “objectively” doing as you say, already). Apologies if I’ve misread something.

Also, not pretending that rape is only committed by a tiny minority of inherently evil men might help.

But it is. The same as spousal abuse, murder, mugging, piracy at sea or other crimes of violence or extortion against an individual. All committed by inherently evil (or possibly from troubled childhoods) people who have no respect for the humanity of others and think only of their selfish needs.

I don’t know – or particularly want to know – the circumstances of Laurie’s own trial, but the fact is that the man was a selfish violent tosser. He may be a repentant tosser now, but that doesn’t change the fact of his past self.

Drink lowers your inhibitions, but it doesn’t force you to do anything that you didn’t want to do in the first place.

This whole argument is as insulting to me as a man as the poster campaign appears to be. It removes the right of agency and moral hazard from a man and reduces him to being a slave to his lusts and alcohol.

Sorry, but this is not what ACPO have said, a complete over-exaggeration for cheap point scoring. Back to normal, eh?

That message did not come from my parents, nor even from the man involved, who was appalled and apologetic when he realised what he’d drunkenly done.

Sorry to pry further, Laurie, but you raised it and, as the debate has gone on, I have been feeling less comfortable about the original post.

Did your rapist remember continuing the act although you were resistant (or saying no), or did he realise he had raped you when you told him the following morning that you hadn’t wanted sex last night or were incapable, due to alcohol, of having consented?

And, in the circumstances, would that be important?

And if it’s not important, what should I do about all the ugly women who’ve taken advantage of me when I’ve been drunk?

“No, I’m not – but I’m not an arsehole either. If I can’t find a woman who’s enthusiastic about having sex with me, I’ll stay celibate. It’s not actually the end of the world. (For the record, it’s been fifteen years, and I’m not dead yet.) I’d rather go to the grave never having had sex again than push the boundaries of consent. I’ve done some things in the past that I’m not proud of, and I don’t intend to add to that list any further.

No-one has a right to get laid. If you can’t, I’m afraid that’s just tough. Maybe you have some personality issues you need to work on – I know I do. After all, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of, shall we say “not conventionally attractive”, guys out there who don’t seem to have any problem.”

Just wanted to affirm this. And add to others that if the only sex you’ve had is where the other person has not enthusiastically consented, then you haven’t had sex, you have just raped. Rape is not a subset of sex, it is a violent act (morally, whether it can be proved to be so criminally or not). So if you’ve never had sex where the other person has enthusiastically consented, you are still a virgin.

“And if it’s not important, what should I do about all the ugly women who’ve taken advantage of me when I’ve been drunk?”

Well, if you didn’t want to have sex with them, and they took advantage of you whilst drunk, why not tell them – as Laurie clearly did – that what they did was unacceptable, that you didn’t want them to do it and get them to accept it was wrong.

Well, if you didn’t want to have sex with them, and they took advantage of you whilst drunk, why not tell them

But I wouldn’t have wanted to hurt their feelings. Would you?

I would hope so. It would be important to me to challenge attitudes that make rape more likely, even if the impact on me was as trivial as you seem to be suggesting it was on you.

@87 Why is it that whenever women are talking about rape like this that the physical appearance of the rapist is unimportant, but whenever men talk about it, the only time they have been raped has been by fat or ugly women?

Are men really so bound up with lust that if they are taken advantage of by a beautiful woman then it doesn’t count…?

#92

I don’t think it’s primarily about lust. I think it’s primarily about peer pressure and status. For me who see sex as something they “get” or are “given permission to do” rather than being a shared experience, the more attractive the woman the better they feel about themselves. If sex is purely about making yourself feel better, and the status that goes with having sex with a conventionally beautiful woman automatically makes you feel better, then it’s impossible to be raped by a beautiful woman.

My wife & I have never initiated sex by asking “Hey, wanna have sex?” & getting an enthusiastic “yes” back: we’ve always just relied on body language & nonverbal cues- so, by your definition of rape, she & I have been raping each other for years. What *shall* I tell our kids? D:

Is the only safe way forward to introduce the concept of ‘written consent’, which should preferably be witnessed and counter-signed by a third party before being lodged with a ‘sex-solicitor’ prior to the act itself taking place?

Judging by comments here, it seems that one or two are slightly unsure about what does or doesn’t constitute VALID consent [82], especially when each party has ingested a near fatal blood alcohol level, augmented perhaps, by a few joints and maybe even a line of coke?

Boy, am I happy that those turbulent times are behind me.

But it is. The same as spousal abuse, murder, mugging, piracy at sea or other crimes of violence or extortion against an individual. All committed by inherently evil (or possibly from troubled childhoods) people who have no respect for the humanity of others and think only of their selfish needs.

If that’s the case, then how come exactly the same men commit rape at vastly increased rates when you put them in a different situation, such as wartime?

Dehumanisation is situational. Put any of us in the wrong circumstances, and we’re all capable of just about anything. Some are more prone than others, but we’re all capable of appalling things. Believe me, I know how uncomfortable it is to accept, but I’m afraid there’s no getting away from it – the line between “normal, morally upright men” and “raving Mr Hyde monsters” is a good deal thinner and more blurry than most people would like to believe. Ever heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

And add to others that if the only sex you’ve had is where the other person has not enthusiastically consented, then you haven’t had sex, you have just raped.

Couple collapse into bed after a long and tiring day
Him “Fancy a shag?”
Her “Meh, not really.”
Him “Oh. Fair enough…”
Her “Come here then idiot…”

Enthusiastic consent? Not really. Rape? Obviously not. Life is (and relationships definitely are) actually a touch more complicated than people are suggesting here.

‘Although we’re probably more likely to be hebephiles.’

I knew someone would have to bring the Jews into this.

(I’ll get me coat)

“That’s where we disagree then. When you’ve got people equivocating as to whether the mere lack of explicit rejection counts as consent, that’s “recklessness as to their attitude towards raping anybody”, because it allows you to convince yourself that it’s not really rape as long as she’s not screaming and trying to fight you off.”

Don’t be daft. I know you have spent 15 years celibate, Dunc, but even you must realise that most sex acts do not involve explicit consent, but implicit consent, which means ‘lack of explicit rejection. You are generalising too much from your own neuroses about sex.

#97

Obviously in a long-term relationship you converse and get to know the other person much better than if it’s a one-time thing. So enthusiastic consent could be portrayed in a number of different, agreed, ways (although rape happens within marriage and it could be that one partner is doing it because they are scared of being left, etc etc in which case it could still be rape).

Nonetheless I still think your example may show a lack of respect for the other person (if the other person doesn’t really want sex it is still something one person is doing to the other, rather than being shared), and as such it has some of the characteristics of rape even if we wouldn’t normally describe it as such.

“Dehumanisation is situational. Put any of us in the wrong circumstances, and we’re all capable of just about anything. ”

Again, Dunc, you are asssuming that your own prediclictions are general truths. I don’t think this is true of all or most people (history seems to support this). I know it isn’t true of me, for example. The Stanford prison experiment does not proie what you want it to. It simply shows that some people will join in sex games if they are invited to, especially students.

““Although it baffles me that someone with as much respect for women as you seem to have has stayed celibate so long.”

Laurie, you have a lot to learn about the birds and the bees. It is quite sweet, actually.”

I`d like to second this and also suggest that Laurie does the honours.

If that’s the case, then how come exactly the same men commit rape at vastly increased rates when you put them in a different situation, such as wartime?

Because they’re trained to dehumanise the enemy? Because they’ve had a hard day’s killing and need to vent? Because they’re caught up in a nihilism predicated on their own imminent destruction in which all morality and sense outside of one’s own id is meaningless? Because a proportion of those individuals joined up simply to kill and exploit those less well armed than they? Because that’s stranger rape of a screaming girl at gunpoint which is fuck all to do with this discussion which is largely talking about the nuances between individuals known to each other?

That’s a little more life and behaviour changing than one two many bottles of Becks at the local JD Wetherspoon. There’s probably a murder switch as well, but you don’t see a campaign to stop people drinking in case their murdering inhibitions are lowered.

But hey, if you want to call yourself a potential rapist, that’s your own bag.

“So enthusiastic consent could be portrayed in a number of different, agreed, ways (although rape happens within marriage and it could be that one partner is doing it because they are scared of being left, etc etc in which case it could still be rape).”

Tim, if someone has sex because he or she wants to please the other person for wahetevr reason short of physiocal or psychological coercion, that is not rape. If a wopman says ‘have sex with me or I am leaving’, that does not mean she has raped you if you consent. Surely we have all had sex with someone without much wanting to. But I don’t FEEL as if I have been raped.

“Nonetheless I still think your example may show a lack of respect for the other person (if the other person doesn’t really want sex it is still something one person is doing to the other, rather than being shared), and as such it has some of the characteristics of rape even if we wouldn’t normally describe it as such.”

Don’t be daft. In long term relationships we often do things out of love that we don’t really want to do. That is what love is about. I gave my wife a foot massage last night even though it was the last thing I wanted to do (and I missed House!), but I don’t feel dirty or used.

men need to take responsibility for not fucking raping and assaulting us

I think all people need to take responsibility for their actions and if we construe action broadly to take in refraining from doing something then they should also take responsibility for refraining from doing something. That said, I think this thread is an instructive example of how the gradual loosening of people’s language, often due to anger in the face of intransigence and often understandable, can lead to people alienating even their natural allies or those who broadly agree with them. I am starting to feel uncomfortable just being male in this thread.

A couple of points:

* There are quite a few people on here presenting specious arguments about consent. I am married, and my wife and I don’t feel the need to ask for explicit consent any time one of us initiates sex. However, that was not the case the first time we had sex: we asked each other if this was what we wanted, and when we got a yes we carried on. (By the way, we were both pretty drunk that night too, and we still managed to find a way to mutually consent.) Comparing what happens between a married/cohabiting couple, who have had time to develop their own sexual ‘etiquette’ (for want of a better word), and what happens between two strangers is pretty disingenuous.

* I agree on the whole with much of the original article, but I think the issue is not with ACPO giving out this advice in and of itself: the problem is that this is all we ever hear about rape. Seems to me that a campaign that announces to men that no always means no, that women who are too drunk to say yes should be presumed to have said no, and that there are no circumstances in which these rules are negotiable would announce to all that rapists are wholly responsible for every rape. Unfortunately, that sort of campaign would seem rather toothless when the conviction rates for rape are so low.

Laurie, for Christ’s sake and for one more time, I’m not talking about YOU SPECIFICALLY.

Online publishing is full of women who describe their personal experiences – anorexia, rape, transitioning, miscarriages at board meetings, concerns about their looks, periods, menopause, cooking, work, useless boyfriends, fucken whatever – and then blog about it. That sentence you quote as a personal insult in your comment at about #80 is a catchall, not some sort of summary of your output. It amuses me to think that you think it was. The irony… Love ya dearly, sis – but, y’know, GET OVER YOURSELF.

My point is that the personal from a journalist is not interesting, nor particularly likely to have a lasting effect on the way of the world. Pulling a shit and inaccurate (as Lee rightly observes) story out of a crap paper and then writing yourself into it is even less interesting. It is only by recording the views of others that we make the right (ie accurate) impact. Anything else merely sounds like – and is – self indulgence. It is precisely this self indulgence – not from you specifically all the time, although certainly today, with this post – that leaves the world with the impression that no matter how you educate them, women simply can’t get out of themselves and can’t get beyond the cunt. I find THAT deeply upsetting and insulting.

It also does seem that when we mention things that have happened to us, we are saying that others don’t have the right to not find those things interesting or relevant, or should see us on some sort of high ground. The facts are that what happened to you and/or me and/or any other well-heeled bird at a party doesn’t matter a damn to most people. What matters is that people who don’t have the same options to tell their stories, or the same sort of access to education, jobs and funky parties, get those opportunities.

There’s work to be done, sis, but not on the issues that make up the personal experiences of the likes of you or me.

“However, that was not the case the first time we had sex: we asked each other if this was what we wanted, and when we got a yes we carried on. ”

But it needn’t have been like that. If the two of you had simply stared silently (but hungrily etc) into each others’ eyes while peeling off your clothes, it still wouldn’t have been rape. You must agree to that surely?

@99: I think we’re using the words “explicit” and “implicit” in different senses John. I’m not talking about signing consent forms. There’s a big difference between actively participating and just lying there waiting for it to end. Active participation counts as explicit consent in my book. However, when I referred to “the mere lack of explicit rejection”, I was referring to “she does not say no” in the excerpt I quoted earlier, which was itself referring to a situation in which the prospective consentee was too drunk to express either consent or non-consent, in which case the assumption should clearly be non-consent.

I apologise if my use of language is not up to legal standards of precision. And I’d prefer not to be diagnosed by amateurs (or even professionals) over the internet on the basis of a single blog comment, thanks.

First of all, I don’t think anything else I’ve said is contingent on the final paragraph of my last comment, but I’m still happy to defend that. A foot massage is clearly something that one person is doing to another. Sex isn’t. It requires consent as an absolute prerequisite, but involves more than just passive consent. It is a sharing; a union, and if one person isn’t a position to be able to commit to that in that moment, the act has some of the characteristics of rape.

As for the first bit of your comment, I think it depends on where the desire to please the other person has come from. If it has come from fear, or low self-esteem, that could be different from if it has come from self-confidence rooted in a loving mutually-supportive relationship.

#110 was a response to #104, if it wasn’t obvious. Please, please, Sunny, bring back the edit feature!

“There’s a big difference between actively participating and just lying there waiting for it to end.”

But even that is not necessarily true Dunc. Sex is amorphous and desire simply cannot be neatly categorised. There really are people who enjoy sex in the manner you describe. And what if they don’t enjoy it, but want to gift pleasure to someone else, from love? Does that become rape? I have had sex with people I don’t desire in order to satisfy them. Have I been raped by those women?

My advivce is that you should avoid telling other people what sex acts are permissable and which ones are beyond the pale. You will always make an ass of yourself like that and ythey won’t thank you for it.

[100] ‘Nonetheless I still think your example may show a lack of respect for the other person (if the other person doesn’t really want sex it is still something one person is doing to the other, rather than being shared), and as such it has some of the characteristics of rape even if we wouldn’t normally describe it as such’.

Only on LC, eh?
An old foggy lying in the sack (apologies Tim J) somehow transmogrified into a later day sex offender?

As we hear time and time again – sex without EXPLICIT consent is no different (in some people’s minds) to acts of horrible violence perpetrated by a stranger on an unsuspecting woman.

Or, ARE they different – I must admit I’m more frightened and confused than ever?

“A foot massage is clearly something that one person is doing to another.”

I assure you that it can be much more than that. It is a matter of technique.

“Sex isn’t. It requires consent as an absolute prerequisite, but involves more than just passive consent. It is a sharing; a union,”

Well, people like to mystify sex, and I am not against it, but you really shouldn’t generalise. There is all sorts of sex. Some of it can be very pleasant without any great ‘union’ taking place.

“

[109] ‘I apologise if my use of language is not up to legal standards of precision’.

Then you leave yourself open to all sorts of accusations (in the current climate)

John, do you have some sort of problem with context, or are you just one of those “rules lawyers” who will twist anything in order to win an argument? My reference to explicit consent / rejection was in a specific context – i.e. one where neither could be given due to intoxication.

@John Meredith

I’m not suggesting that it was a lawerly sort of exchange (“Do you consent to having intercourse…”). But we each asked (in a manner that was, I can assure you, terribly sensual) whether the other wanted to have sex (exact wording may have varied). That seems perfectly reasonable.

In the situation you describe: no, I don’t think that would constitute rape. But that relies on knowing that someone is “hungry” for sex. How am I supposed to assess whether someone is staring into my eyes hungrily? Is it possible that they could be nervous/frightened/scared? Is it possible that my (normally razor sharp) ability to read other people might be blunted by being drunk? And in that case, shouldn’t I err on the side of being sure that I am about to share a sexual encounter, rather than subject someone to something that they do not want?

“How am I supposed to assess whether someone is staring into my eyes hungrily?”

That strikes me as a very strange question, it is something you feel. If you cannot feel it, you will not be a very satisfactory lover. You feel it and you act and if thisgs progress smoothly, you know the feeling was right.

“Is it possible that they could be nervous/frightened/scared?”

Um, no. These are not similar things. Surely you have never mistaken fear for desire?

“Is it possible that my (normally razor sharp) ability to read other people might be blunted by being drunk?”

I am in two minds about that. I am very fond of drink but have never experienced this, but I know a lot of people claim it is true (often from the dock, of course). But even if it were true, the actions of the other person would soon put you right.

“And in that case, shouldn’t I err on the side of being sure that I am about to share a sexual encounter, rather than subject someone to something that they do not want?”

If you cannot distinguish between fear and sexual desire, you should certainly err on the side of caution. To the extent of seeking professional help, in my opinion.

I had my car broken into once. I was so furious when I read the police advice on the subject:
* DON’T tempt thieves by leaving items on display
* DO lock your vehicle at all times
* DO park in a secure well lit area – use secure car parks

Right – because it’s my responsibility not to “tempt” thieves with my short skirt unlocked car, and wallet on the dashboard. I have to park somewhere light, because otherwise it’s just fine and dandy for someone to smash my window.

Bloody police – implying that car-owners are to blame for car-theft.

And don’t get me started about the guy who hacked my into my email. Someone had the affrontery to suggest that it was my fault – mine, not the poor innocent hacker’s – for having an ancient, unsecured operating system, no anti-spyware software, and a password of ’1234′.

And so on. The point is that advising people on sensible measures they can take to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of crime is something the police and other agencies do all the time. Quite rightly too. Only in the case of rape do people start jumping up and down and accusing them – nastily and inaccurately – of “blaming the victim”.

“Bloody police – implying that car-owners are to blame for car-theft.”

You think that is bad! At my local GP there is a large NHS branded poster claiming that AIDS sufferers bring it on themselves! Of course it doesn’t come right out and say it like that, it says you should wear a condom to reduce the risk of contracting AIDS, but we know what that really means.

@John Meredith

Kudos for showing yourself to be such a wit, we are all impressed.

It isn’t a strange question at all: of course you can gauge how someone is looking at you, but you cannot assess it with 100% certainty, which frankly should be the requirement for consent in sex. 99% is not enough, and unless consent is exchanged THROUGH WORDS then you don’t have 100%.

Since not everyone has your unnatural ability to read minds, I think that asking whether the person you are with wants to have sex is a totally reasonable expectation.

…most sex acts do not involve explicit consent, but implicit consent, which means ‘lack of explicit rejection’.

Amusing, in a David Brent sort of way. Still, false though: no one’s explicitly asked you not to come to the Christmas party, but that certainly doesn’t mean you’re welcome.

[121] ’99% is not enough, and unless consent is exchanged THROUGH WORDS then you don’t have 100%’.

What if you can’t speak?

Or lets say you have an Italian male and Russian female – just imagine neither can speak each other’s language (or very little, anyway) yet there SEEMs to a powerful sexual chemistry.

What then?

And so on. The point is that advising people on sensible measures they can take to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of crime is something the police and other agencies do all the time. Quite rightly too. Only in the case of rape do people start jumping up and down and accusing them – nastily and inaccurately – of “blaming the victim”.

The problem is that there are very few situations whereby an individual can have done exactly the same thing, and the legality depends on another individual’s perception.

The only one I can think of is boxing. If you put on shorts and gloves, and start hopping around a ring, even if you’re not looking for a spar, and even if you don’t explicitly say “I am a boxer, looking for a boxing match,” if there’s someone in the ring with you they might still misread your signals.

In a bare knuckle fight, of course, it’s even harder to distinguish.

What prevents a fight being a legitimate match and vice versa? Consent, and a series of pre-determined safety rules. Not sure how the latter translates, but you get the gist.

123. Point taken, there are plenty of specific circumstances in which getting spoken consent would be more difficult (or even impossible). But people are generally resourceful: I am sure that your mute, Italian and Russian could all find effective means of getting 100% consent from their partner. Surely you aren’t disagreeing with my assertion that people need to be certain about their partner’s consent before having sex?

“It isn’t a strange question at all: of course you can gauge how someone is looking at you, but you cannot assess it with 100% certainty, which frankly should be the requirement for consent in sex.”

But we are not taking the look as a sort of free pass. If you act on it and meet resistance, then consent has not been given, but if you act on it, even silently,. and meet none, then it is fair to say that consent is given. And, I assure you that you will have better sex.

You seem to think that there is a verbal consent that would guarantee consent, but that is not achievable either, is it? Just imagine that you have rmonatically withdrawn from your first tender kiss to ask ‘do you consent to having sex with me?’ to receive the breathless reply of ‘yes, my darling’ (oh the romance!). Has she 100% consented?

Hmmmm… we can`t really be sure that someone who says yes isn`t lying because they`re intimidated or that such a person is in a position to give consent anyway. I suggest some kind of polygraph/competency test which can be folded into a wallet.

But then again, how can we be sure that i`m not completely insane and the polygraph result isn`t just a fabrication of my diseased, sex crazed mind.

For that matter when my mind supposes that I`m sitting at home enjoying a whisky, who knows what skullduggery i`m really getting up to.

“Still, false though: no one’s explicitly asked you not to come to the Christmas party, but that certainly doesn’t mean you’re welcome.”

You have made the pecuiliar mistake of thinking that having sex and being invoted to a party are the same kind of thing, but they are not. I hope and trust that that clarification will improie your romantic prospects.

Having said that, can I claim that a party gatecrasher has broken in if you haven’t turned him away?

@frolix22

That said, I think this thread is an instructive example of how the gradual loosening of people’s language, often due to anger in the face of intransigence and often understandable, can lead to people alienating even their natural allies or those who broadly agree with them. I am starting to feel uncomfortable just being male in this thread.

It really isn’t the place of the natural allies make their help contingent on feminists expressing their demands politely, mostly because nothing would ever get done if they did. People who realise the prevalence of sexual slavery for the first time are generally stunned — faced with such an urgent, monstrous problem, nothing would ever get done if feminists had to wait till everyone else became comfortable with the frank discussion required.

[125] ‘Surely you aren’t disagreeing with my assertion that people need to be certain about their partner’s consent before having sex’?

There is only one answer to that unless you want to be labeled a rapist (and I’m sure there are one or two fingers are twitching over the keypad for an opportunity to do so).

Certainly in medical terms a number of factors influence capacity (think of a drunk after a head injury insisting on leaving A&E before medical assessment).
Is the patient’s combatative behaviour due to the booze – or effects of intra-craniel bleeding?

If two people are pissed can they ever be sure of anything – or put another way how do we determine the drugs or alcohol threshold before capacity is significantly affected?

@ John Meredith

“But we are not taking the look as a sort of free pass. If you act on it and meet resistance, then consent has not been given, but if you act on it, even silently,. and meet none, then it is fair to say that consent is given. And, I assure you that you will have better sex.”

This gets to the heart of the matter: you are putting the onus on someone to “resist” a sexual “act”. My assertion is that you should get consent before you act. That seems perfectly fair to me. Does this mean that not all sexual encounters will play out as smoothly as a Shannon Tweed scene? Sure. But putting on a condom is often an interruption, and no sensible person would suggest that is a good reason to stop using protection.

“This gets to the heart of the matter: you are putting the onus on someone to “resist” a sexual “act”. My assertion is that you should get consent before you act. ”

And that is very strange. and will often be unwelcome. If the woman from accounts leans over at the Christmas party and kisses me on the lips, it is up to me to pull away if I prefer she doesn’t. If I stay there and return the kiss I can hardly claim to have been assualted.

“Sure. But putting on a condom is often an interruption, and no sensible person would suggest that is a good reason to stop using protection.”

But there are many good reasons to stop using protection, aren’t there? And, as I have said, if you cannot trust your instincts, you are right to be cautious, but don’t over-generalise from your own experience.

@JohnMeredith

You have made the pecuiliar mistake of thinking that having sex and being invoted to a party are the same kind of thing, but they are not. I hope and trust that that clarification will improie your romantic prospects.

Having said that, can I claim that a party gatecrasher has broken in if you haven’t turned him away?

Even if I were asserting that having sex and being invited to a party are the same kind of thing — and they certainly don’t seem that different in the relevant respect (is there something you’re doing wrong, perhaps?) — it still wouldn’t follow that lack of explicit rejection is the very same thing as implicit consent. You and David Brent seem to have the same difficulty spotting that politeness, diffidence etc. sometimes mean that rejection isn’t explicitly expressed. Doesn’t mean it isn;t rejection though.

I thank you for your concern re my romantic prospects.

“Even if I were asserting that having sex and being invited to a party are the same kind of thing — and they certainly don’t seem that different in the relevant respect ”

Really, they are very, very different. But if you want to sharpen your analogy it would go better like this:

Somone has invited you to his house with a look, or you think he has. You have followed him towards the sound of a party. He has looked back at you from time to time and smiled, but he hasn’t verbally encouraged you. He reaches the door and opens it with a key. The sounds of the party burst out from the crowded room. He enters and stands inside holding the door ajar and looking you in the eye. No words pass between you. You enter and he closes the door behind you. He then calls the police and accuses you of house trespass. Fair enough?

Analogies are such fun.

@John Meredith

Kissing at the Xmas party does not equal sexual intercourse.

As for the point about condoms, I should have been more specific in my language: I should have said that “no sensible person would suggest that we should stop using condoms with new partners” (or similar).

Somone has invited you to his house with a look, or you think he has. You have followed him towards the sound of a party. He has looked back at you from time to time and smiled, but he hasn’t verbally encouraged you. He reaches the door and opens it with a key. The sounds of the party burst out from the crowded room. He enters and stands inside holding the door ajar and looking you in the eye. No words pass between you. You enter and he closes the door behind you. He then calls the police and accuses you of house trespass. Fair enough?

Analogies are such fun.

What a vivid imagination you have. Still, I dunno why you’re faffing about with analogies, when you were only too happy to venture what looked remarkably like a definition:

… but implicit consent, which means ‘lack of explicit rejection.

Unluckily, that definition is false, since it rules out implicit rejection, of which there’s a fair bit going round.

As for the house case, you’re welcome to argue the toss about the look — did it constitute implicit consent? Who knows? Why you think that saves your definition is unclear, since no one denies that there is implicit consent: the dispute is whether there’s implicit rejection as well.

“Kissing at the Xmas party does not equal sexual intercourse.”

But it is very similar and if done without consent it constitutes assault. So, have I been assualted if someone kisses me in the manbner described?

“Why you think that saves your definition is unclear, since no one denies that there is implicit consent: the dispute is whether there’s implicit rejection as well.”

But that is not the subject of the debate. We are arguing whether it is possible to claim that a sex act can be deemed to be non-consensual by dint of an inadequate level of enthusiasm or because one or other participant, on reflection, would prefer not to have had sex. If someone does not return your amorous look, that is, of course, implicit rejection. And there are many, many other kinds. I have seen most of them.

“What a vivid imagination you have. ”

Not really. The situation I described has happened to me. Twice. But without popolic involvement, and once without the party.

Laurie, thank you for posting about this. I would be interested to know what you think about the latest TfL Cabwise adverts.

Thanks for speaking out about what was done to you, and having the bravery to wade into the comments, despite the horrors.

For all the folks in the consent discussion, check out scarleteen, or ‘consent is sexy’ or ‘is consent complicated?’ at the ‘yes means yes’ blog. And yes, current UK law puts the onus on the man to establish consent, which if there is any doubt in his mind at all, should be verbal. Simply asking really isn’t that hard.

@37:

“Nobody here is being an apologist for rape”

Clearly, Martin, you & I are reading completely different comment threads. Some of the comments here are downright disgusting. Including yours.

You gotta love how predictable these threads are, though. Everybody making retrograde claims on this thread probably thinks that they’re an original and daring thinker, but frankly any half-way experienced feminist will be able to list the full catalogue of victim blaming rhetoric in her sleep. We’ve got them all here – the “your tone is alienating people” one, the “I’m a woman and I don’t think this is a problem therefore you suck” one, the “I will split this into finer and finer legalistic-sounding strands until you give up” gig, the good old favourite “watch your tone” gambit… And many more. Priceless. We could write Derailing For Dummies all over again just based on the evidence of this discussion.

Y’all can relax: what with claims not being investigated because someone spilled a cup of tea over them, police distributing posters that warn about rape without ever mentioning that it occasionally involves a perpetrator, victims who’d been drinking getting turned away, rapists being let off with a caution, and juries flatly refusing to convict rapists unless they come in to court wearing a flashing neon sign that says “it was me wot done it”, rape is effectively legal.

Vulpus Rex –

You really are coming across as a completely self-absorbed twat of the highest order. As I see it, there’s two likely options:

1. You are a completely self-absorbed twat of the highest order. In which case, don’t bother reading on, cos you won’t get it and will just post some miss-the-point bullshit in reply.

2. By being insensitive and self-righteous with your overly assumptive first comment, you managed to back yourself into a tiny corner and then couldn’t find the humility to apologize when Laurie Penny set you straight on your inflammatory suggestions. (She quite reasonably responded with some indignancy when you (perhaps unintentionally) implied she was a rape fabricator on a post about rape myths. (Unfortunate choice of sexist and belittling language with ‘hissy fit’.). Since then, the thought of admitting your wrongdoing has been difficult to handle, so instead, you have been bending over backwards to try and prove that you were quite reasonable and not at all inflammatory in trying to suggest that Laurie was libelling someone with an unproven rape allegation (‘crying rape’ as it’s known in the Daily Mail).

Listen, I really want to believe you’re a decent person who is finding it difficult to admit wrongdoing and apologize. But please just do.

Remember: If David Cameron can, we all can.

I don’t really know where we’d begin in editing this thread so that it complies with our comments policy, but as a modest start, Praguetory has been put in the spam filter after his latest effort.

It wasn’t the very worst, but you have to start somewhere.

144. I neither want nor need the absolution of someone clearly too thick to follow the plot of the teddy bear’s picnic, never mind a discussion about rape.

As I am feeling generous though I will give you a small piece of advice – when accusing someone of resorting to sexist language, try and avoid using perjorative sexist terms such as “Twat”, it makes you look like a self-contradictory, incoherent, hypocritical, erm, twat!

I am more than content if all of the above puts me in category 1 of your oh so measured, well expressed comment.

How about a typically libertarian compromise. We re-legalise gun ownership and encourage women, especially, to carry concealed firearms. If a man ends up getting shot in suspicious circumstances with no witnesses, it is up to a prosecution to demonstrate that it wasn’t in self-defence. That would offer sufficient deterrence to the vast majority of men to make sure everyone is in agreement that sex is actually on the cards in advance. And a few rapists will die in circumstances where it would have been difficult to prosecute them.

Very occasionally, someone will murder someone else in suspicious circumstances and claim (successfully) that it was in self-defence. But that can happen already, with or without gun ownership. The key thing is there would then be a greater measure of equality in private interactions between acquintances.

@ daniel.waweru #129

It really isn’t the place of the natural allies make their help contingent on feminists expressing their demands politely, mostly because nothing would ever get done if they did. People who realise the prevalence of sexual slavery for the first time are generally stunned — faced with such an urgent, monstrous problem, nothing would ever get done if feminists had to wait till everyone else became comfortable with the frank discussion required.

My point had nothing to do with “politeness”. And the point I was trying to make about being uncomfortable had little to do with anyone being merely “frank”.

A new campaign, launched on Monday, aims to deter “potential victims” from drinking too much – implying once again that women are to blame for rape.

I love that “imply”. I’ve come across Laurie Penny’s very own way of interpreting what she’s read before, but I don’t see how anyone could read what she linked to as implying that women are to blame for rape.

If I give fellow cyclists the advice that you should wear bright reflective clothing and light your bike up like a Christmas tree it doesn’t mean that I excuse careless, negligent and aggressive drivers. It’s simple prudence to be careful if you are vulnerable. In the ideal world you wouldn’t be vulnerable to either lousy car drivers or lousy men, but as they exist you take reasonable precautions.

As for explicit consent for sex mentioned on these threads – er how many people have they shagged? Did their encounters always begin with expressed verbal consent?

TheLady,

and juries flatly refusing to convict rapists unless they come in to court wearing a flashing neon sign that says “it was me wot done it”

The problem lies mainly in what happens before the case gets to court – juries convict roughly half of those charged.

Beg pardon, I got that wrong. Roughly half of cases that get to court end up with convictions: roughly half of those are guilty pleas, and the rest are jury verdicts.

But the point remains that what happens before it gets to court is the biggest factor in the low conviction rate (if we are talking about convictions : allegations).

But that is not the subject of the debate. We are arguing whether it is possible to claim that a sex act can be deemed to be non-consensual by dint of an inadequate level of enthusiasm or because one or other participant, on reflection, would prefer not to have had sex. If someone does not return your amorous look, that is, of course, implicit rejection. And there are many, many other kinds. I have seen most of them.

Actually, it is. Your story is that implicit consent is the very same thing as absence of explicit rejection:

… implicit consent, which means ‘lack of explicit rejection’.

(If anything your statement is stronger since you say that they mean the same thing – why you’re asserting something so strong is unclear)

Implicit rejection isn’t explicit rejection; it isn’t implicit consent; there’s a lot of it about, so absence of explicit rejection isn’t presence of implicit consent. The dispute is about implicit rejections because you need to make them go away, else your definition is obviously false.

Sorry, Laurie, but have you not yet learned about how advertising, media relations or even political campaigns actually operate? They propose an extreme scenario, which may be unrealistic in normal life, in order to change the perceptions of readers and viewers in a moderate direction. 25 years ago the liberal left campaigned about changes to UK bus services; most of the doomsday scenarios never occurred, partly because they were too improbable for reality, partly because perceptions were changed such that law makers and bus operators did something better.

You should look at the ACPO (spit) advice in the same way. I can’t mind read what the authors intended, but I expect that it was written with the understanding that women will dress up a bit and enjoy a few drinks in the festive season. The warning was that bad things can happen to women; not an inevitability, and that women should stay alert.

The advice is a bit scare mongery. My bet is that it was designed for two reasons:
1. Don’t get too drunk. A hangover may be the least of your problems, whatever sex you are.
2. Rape happens. The latter part of the Metro article focused on prosecution.

It’s about changing the edges a little bit, so that women are discouraged from getting too drunk (particularly outside of “safe” company) and keep an eye on things around them. Most of all, ACPO want men and women to stay politely drunk so that they don’t provoke a fight.

@ 148 This is part of the problem, a lot of the debate around rape seems to be divorced from most peoples sexual experience. Most shags are not precluded by coherent negociations leading to the explicit verbal agreement of both parties that things should go further. There are no boxes ticked that give an audit trail of who agreed to what and when.
Most “pre-mating” communication is non-verbal, this is why juries are faced with the difficulty of having to apply a black and white consent/no consent judgement to subjective, ambiguous and conflicting accounts of events from both sides. Having said that I don’t beleive that any sane man, no matter how drunk/druged/whatever is honestly incapable of knowing when the brakes are being put on by a woman, but nor do I beleive that a woman who has sex which she later regrets (for whatever reason) has been raped.
“On reflection” has no basis in law, if it did I could say that the £10 I lent my mate last week was “on reflection” a mugging (as I was drunk when I lent it to him and I’m unlikely to get it back).

All the quibbling about consent, and the “enthusiastic participation” model, is predicated on two assumptions:

1. Women don’t like sex
2. Women are liars

Because if you believe that women do have sex for fun, and are not given to hysterical allegation-inventing, then there is no reason to allow that in any case where a woman accuses a man of rape, the onus is on the man to prove consent. It’s not unconstitutional, either – it’s more or less how the libel laws work.

At which point it stops being the victim’s problem to prove that she didn’t want to have sex (an impossibility – proving a negative) and becomes the alleed rapist’s responsibility to prove that he had a reasonable basis to assume that she didn’t. All this bullshit “if she was too drunk to say no then it’s not rape-rape” will be onsolete within weeks.

“that he had a reasonable basis to assume that she did“. Ahem.

TheLady @154, “prove” in this context means “convince a jury [the finder of fact]“.

How would your system lead to different results?

Again you appear to completely miss the fact that the largest factor in the low convictions : allegations rate is what happens before it gets to court i.e. before a jury hears the evidence.

The point is simple, you’re more likely to be raped by a man if you’re incapable. Not becoming incapable is sensible advice.

It’s happened to me in the past, and part of the guilt, shame etc came from knowing I’d made the event more likely (which doesn’t mean it made it my fault).

I have now read ACPO’s press release. I don’t know whether Laurie suffers from poor reading comprehension or whether she’s cynically using that “I’m fucking angry!!!!!!” style to get her ‘message’, whatever it is, across.

The ACPO campaign is clearly about mitigating risk. ACPO (and I repeat, I’m not its biggest fan) clearly does not:

1. claim “women who don’t want to be raped have a responsibility not to get drunk”;

2. “imply once again that women are to blame for rape”;

3. claim “women have a responsibility to protect themselves from rape by staying sober”;

4. It is not a “Victim-blaming message”;

5. It does not “tell women that if they drink, they can expect to be raped”.

Seriously, the OP does a disservice to this issue with such bizarre assertions.

As for people banging on about what happens in the courtroom, suggesting we reverse the burden of proof and ignoring everything else in the criminal justice system, do yourselves (and the rest of us) a favour and at least read A Gap or a Chasm: Attrition in Rape Cases and Without Consent: A report on the joint review of the investigation and prosecution of rape offences.

As for people banging on about what happens in the courtroom, suggesting we reverse the burden of proof…

They could also catch up on the discussion a week ago, the last time this idea was suggested.

Ah yes.

re: whether ACPO is ‘implying’ that women have the responsibility not to get drunk etc

ACPO’s message must be taken in its context: an extremely victim-blaming society. An important part of this is messages about how women who do not take sufficient precautions are ‘asking for it.’ It is difficult to untangle these from messages which advise precautions but do not explicitly hold women completely responsible for their safety. They are part of the same continuum, however, because from the survivor’s perspective, they both reinforce self-blame.

The parallels with burglary/trespass etc are not valid for precisely this reason. If it were an extremely common emotional response to burglary for the person to be racked with self-blame, feelings of guilt, and a crushing sense of shame, it would be a valid comparison. Survivors of sexual violence often feel this way, whatever the circumstances of their attack.

The more that we – as friends, family, or as Chief Police Officers – can help survivors to see that these feelings do not reflect reality, the better. But a good start would be not reinforcing them in the first place, even by giving pragmatic advice.

“The more that we – as friends, family, or as Chief Police Officers – can help survivors to see that these feelings do not reflect reality, the better. But a good start would be not reinforcing them in the first place, even by giving pragmatic advice.”

Beautiful. So in order to challenge an over-arching dispersed blame culture that impacts on rape victims, we shouldn’t take any simple steps at all that might actually reduce the number of rapes that take place?

That is crystalised insanity. It is actually quite Nixonian: “In order to prevent rapes from happening, we need to allow more rapes to happen”.

Personally, I think the best way to reinforce the fact that rapes are the responsibility of the rapists would be to imprison them (once properly convicted) for 10 years in the cases of coercion, and for life in the cases of violence. No probation.

Ok, point taken – I was focussing only on our contribution to the recovery of survivors, and missing the bigger picture.

Instead, I’d recommend that any pragmatic advice given to try to lower the incidence of rape, which is aimed at women rather than potential rapists, contains very, very clear caveats that survivors of rape are not to blame for the crime committed against them.

Wow this is interesting if a little blown out of proportion. True I see Lauries point but I also see the points of others. Actually the most “vunerable” social group is 18-25 year old males! They are the ones most likely to end up in A&E on a Saturday night.Drunk, they pick fights, walk into traffic, or chat up girls with large boyfriends. Sober they pick fights or have a fight picked with them or attempt to intervene in arguments. In addition it has now become quite the thing to spike a mans drink to make him more vunerable to a mugging. For goodness sake people its about commen sense, not repressing ones right to get bladdered and walk down the road naked ( which would be cold and unpleaseant and probably not a good idea)or finger wagging, so stop the puffed up self importance and accept the fact that its a dodgy old world and stay as safe as possible.
Ultimately be safe stay with your group, alchohol affects judgement male and female. Its a fact, if you don’t like it change it. Change your attitudes to your own personal well being and of those you care about and perhaps rates of crime sexual and violent will drop and we can avoid potentially patronizing self evident advice!.

As an additional I have drummed into my eldest son that no matter how “up for it” a girl may seem if she is drunk don’t touch! Get her home safe and sound and thats it, a gentleman never goes any where near a pissed girl as he cannot gauge her true desires and neither can she. If in doubt stay out.So to speak. Yes I am a mother to 2 sons and one daughter and have also been very very pissed on a number of occassions in my youth.

I realise there’s something to be said for a reasonably open moderation policy, but being host to comment threads like this really does this site no credit at all.

Does anybody really want to read this stream of ill thought out misogynist drivel and rape apologetics anyway (apart from the three or four people posting it I mean)? Unexamined privilege doesn’t even begin to describe it. But TheLady #142 is bang on: this stuff isn’t just unpleasant and it isn’t just stupid, it’s also old, really old. Guys, (and if you feel remotely defensive reading this then I’m talking to you) this rubbish was debunked long before you even thought of it. Just to start you off, why not try

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

or

http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/oh-one-more-thing/

or

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2273175671_850356df12_o.jpg

You know, small steps and all, but don’t despair, you may yet reach that distant goal of not being an A-1 total arsehole.

165 and the Lady: I went to the site yes means yes, brilliant piece. People above read it. However, I took from Lauries piece that she objected to the advice don’t drink too much rather than a long long discussion discussing to rape or not to rape/all men are rapists or not it depends on the situation. Look at it like this. Big high wire and you want to walk across it, you are advised to wear a harness just in case of a fall, it might hurt or you could be badly injured. Do you then leap up and down yelling how dare you advise me to wear a harness its my right to choose weather or not to wear one. Yes ok but as advice it would be the safer option. So off one goes without a harness and gets to the other side. See you patronizing pig I didn’t need to wear a harness I’m safe!! Ha!
But then one day you cross the high wire without the harness because after all it is your right to choose and you fall. Crash to the ground and break a leg. Now what? All high wires are dangerous or assumed so just because they are a high wire? All who don’t wear a harness will fall? I’m the victim here how dare you? everyone who doesn’t wear a harness deserves to fall? All high wires should be punished?

Before you all jump down my throat- the advice is don’t get too pissed. Of course no means no. bottom line. But don’t be stupid boys and girls the article was intended to point out that if you are pissed you are vunerable male or female.

Being a feminist or whatever, (actually a human being), is about taking responsibility for yourself and being aware of potential consequences. No I’m not saying rape is deserved as I am sure some one will try to twist it into that, its about not putting your self in the path of being a victim, whether you may be subjected to an act or accused of perpetrating one.

@ Alex

I realise there’s something to be said for a reasonably open moderation policy, but being host to comment threads like this really does this site no credit at all.

It is obvious to any sensible reader that the OP was one of the most contrived, illogical and partisan pieces of sub-feminist propaganda ever written (and that from someone who has made something of a speciality in the genre).

It was constructed to provoke a reaction from anyone with a modicum of common sense and that’s what it got. In fact the reaction was surprisingly restrained and if there is a rape-apologist comment anywhere in the thread, I have missed it.

If you meant that this was not a suitable topic to be discussed on this site, you may have a point.

But come on, you must know it was nonsense.

Nick @ #162:

Before accusing anyone else of inasanity, please feel free to go ahead and provide actual evidence that sober potential victims translate into lower rates of rape. Go on, I’ll wait.

The Nixonian levels of obtuse malevolence here is all on your side: banging on about how important it is to continue advocating a measure that a) doesn’t prevent criems from happening and b) makes the victims of the crime feel even worse about having been victimised is the functional equivalent of not giving a shit what happens to women as long as you don’t have to adjust your precious opinions to observed reality.

I’d be a great deal more sympathetic to the argument that this advice doesn’t constitute victim-blaming if the tactic of questioning a rape victim’s sobriety / attire / sexual history wasn’t a widespread and effective defence strategy…

Before you all jump down my throat- the advice is don’t get too pissed. Of course no means no. bottom line. But don’t be stupid boys and girls the article was intended to point out that if you are pissed you are vunerable male or female.

Seriously, you can not be this stupid.

If you are pissed you are (maybe, but probably not, but never mind crazy shit like evidence for a minute) more vulnerable to potential attackers.

i. Note more vulnerable. You are already vulnerable, by dint of possessing a vagina.

ii. Your vulnerability is to potential attackers. Not to the possibility of magically growing a penis inside said vagina, but to the possibility of another person sticking one in there against your will.

You can make yourself less and less and less and less and less vulnerable, by the lights of the completely evidence-free suppositions of the tabloid Female Freedom Management Movement (not drink, wear loose clothing, not leave home after dark, not go out at night without a man, not talk to strangers, not show interest in men, not go to work in case you get harrassed, not go to church in case you get molested, etcetera ad infinitum) and your chances to get raped will be only marginally reduced, because most women get raped in situations where their defences are already down, by men they already trust.

So you can be all belittling and “feminism or wha’eva” about it, and if you think that throwing rape survivers under the bus will make you safer, then bully for you and well done (and I can’t blame you really, because rape is fucking scary shit).

But you could try, just for shits and giggles, to turn your self righteous “being human is about taking responsibility” rhetoric onto the people who actually commit rape for five fucking seconds. You’d be amazed how logical blaming the criminals for crime seems once you get used to the idea.

This post seems to suggest that a very large proportion of rapes are carried out by a relatively small (figures in the range of 4-6%) proportion of men, and that these same men also tend to be violent in other ways – towards children, other men and so forth. This doesn’t account for all rapes, of course, so it does leave open the possibility that there are plenty of rapes carried out by men who aren’t otherwise violent and who are either ‘borderline’ cases who, when very drunk, might cross the line, or who are a different kind of rapist who has a particular problem relating to women but not [obviously] men.

Now, the problem we have is that very few of these men will be commenting on this blog. So the difficulty most of us men seem to have in comprehending rape is, if anything, a good sign – we can’t easily imagine how a woman would submit to sex without genuine consent (for example, out of fear) because we’ve never seen it happen. It also suggests that maybe we’re the wrong audience for this message.

However, the post I linked to suggests that ‘men like us’ have a role to play in ostracising those men who do rape. There are two problems with this. Firstly, this relies on us knowing that it’s happening, which relies on women speaking up. Women speaking up is a good thing, very important, to be encouraged, but what do we do when a women does say that she has been raped by someone we know? (Not necessarily a friend; perhaps a mere acquaintance, a face at the party or in the pub). We might suggest going to the police. But conviction rates are low, and that is an ordeal for the victim too. If the victim doesn’t want to prosecute, what can we do next? Going around telling people that so-and-so is a rapist is libelous, which makes it hard to socially ostracise an individual. Perhaps we need a new vocabulary or way of making it clear that this person is ‘one of them’ without making unfounded (from a legal perspective) allegations?

Secondly, I can’t think of many men I know that would fit into this category. Now, I’m an atypical person; my social circle is vanishingly small and also very selective. I don’t get on with most people and violent men are about as far from my ideal friend/acquaintance as possible. I can certainly remember plenty of people I’ve met who gave off signs of being violent, holding negative attitudes towards women and so forth. Almost always, a person who holds misogynistic attitudes holds a bunch of other nasty views too and is precisely the sort of person I’d avoid. In fact, I think I’ve avoided such people very successfully. Unfortunately, this means that I have absolutely no influence over their behaviour.

This is a possible explanation for why these threads degenerate into ‘angels dancing on the head of a pin’ arguments. Most sensible men know that there are other men who are best avoided, and duly avoid them. They’re not exposed to their behaviour on a regular basis and gradually begin to forget that these people exist, and also assume (surely rightly?) that it’s no longer any of their [personal] business. And so we have threads on here in which ‘men’ are held to be at fault, but the only men reading this are men who probably aren’t at fault and have been building a social circle that excludes the kind of men who are.

To me, this suggests that perhaps we need a different social analysis. The problem isn’t that all men are potential rapists, but that some men are potential rapists and these men are still finding it possible to attack women. Perhaps we might argue that men like me have the good fortune to choose our friends and can thus choose not to associate with such men, and the problem is that some people don’t have a choice. Quite what we’re meant to do about any of this is a question that better brains than mine will have to address, if we want an answer.

I’d be a great deal more sympathetic to the argument that this advice doesn’t constitute victim-blaming if the tactic of questioning a rape victim’s sobriety / attire / sexual history wasn’t a widespread and effective defence strategy…

It’s not victim-blaming. Nobody is saying that the putative victim deserved to be raped because they were drunk. What the courts sometimes say is that a very drunk person cannot be a reliable witness or may not have an adequate recollection of the facts. In any other kind of court case this would not be a controversial thing to say.

The simple fact is that rape is bloody difficult to prove. There are intractable reasons for this and it’s unlikely to change without substantial alterations to the law (which may cause more harm than good) or without substantially improved technology. My personal hunch is that in 20 years we’ll all be carrying around recording devices which record every experience we have and will make cases of rape extremely straightforward to prove, with a resultingly huge improvement in the conviction rate. Until then, I’m not sure that we’ll have a good answer.

@171.

YES! Thank you, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get across. There’s no amount of alcohol which can turn a man from a liberal humanitarian into one of those vile creatures.

What the courts sometimes say is that a very drunk person cannot be a reliable witness or may not have an adequate recollection of the facts. In any other kind of court case this would not be a controversial thing to say.

In any other ind of court case the victim doesn’t have to prove the fact that they didn’t want to be victimised. If a drunk person gets mugged, the judge won’t discount their evidence because they maybe wanted to give their wallet away.

This special pleading for cases of rape is predicated on the belief that women are not the best judges of whether or not they wanted to have sex or not, and need to prove it to the court’s satisfaction. Which relates to my above post about how the current approach to investigating and prosecuting rape assumes that women are either stupid or liars.

In the context of which, any attempt to curb rape attacks that doesn’t speak directly to the rapists – for whatever self serving set of excuses – is victim-blaming, because rape is already a unique example of a crime in which it’s up to the victim to prove the damage done (as opposed to up to the state to prove that the person accused of doing damage – say, stealing – is the person who actually did it; there is never any question about whether or not the act itself was criminal).

Dunc,

I’d be a great deal more sympathetic to the argument that this advice doesn’t constitute victim-blaming if the tactic of questioning a rape victim’s sobriety / attire / sexual history wasn’t a widespread and effective defence strategy…

Sure, but there is a difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’ and ACPO aren’t lawyers for the defence (I look forward to TheLady or others saying, “but you would think so from the amount of rapists they let free”).

If I were to claim that “women can mitigate the risk of being raped by not getting extremely drunk” would you:

1. believe I implied that women are to blame for rape and/or must stay sober; or,

2. infer that women are to blame for rape and/or must stay sober; or,

3. believe I merely claimed women can mitigate the risk of being raped by not getting extremely drunk.

(regardless of whether or not my claim is accurate.)

rape is already a unique example of a crime in which it’s up to the victim to prove the damage done (as opposed to up to the state to prove that the person accused of doing damage – say, stealing – is the person who actually did it; there is never any question about whether or not the act itself was criminal).

This is a bit muddled. There are plenty of examples of acts that are only criminal if the victim did not consent. If I sprinted 20 yards at you and hurled myself at your ribcage, breaking two of your ribs, and then a friend of mine trod on your face, then you could report us both to the police for GBH. And we could claim that because we were all playing a game of rugby at the time that you had consented to the act, which was therefore not criminal. Volenti non fit injuria.

Proving that the act committed was itself criminal is the first stage in a whole range of criminal trials.

In any other ind of court case the victim doesn’t have to prove the fact that they didn’t want to be victimised. If a drunk person gets mugged, the judge won’t discount their evidence because they maybe wanted to give their wallet away.

But if that mugging victim wakes up with bruising and injuries and can’t remember what happened last night then a conviction for mugging based on the victim’s account of what happened is going to be extremely hard to get.

[174] I was going to stay out of here. I really was. But if The Lady thinks that in order to be a rape victim it is first necessary to be female why should anyone pay the slightest attention to her opinions?

[174] I was going to stay out of here. I really was. But if The Lady thinks that in order to be a rape victim it is first necessary to be female why should anyone pay the slightest attention to her opinions?

Because they read the original article and can follow the thread of a conversation without faux pearl-clutching outrage?

Then again, maybe not.

@175: The problem I have here is not necessarily with what you intended the advice to mean, but with how that advice interacts with the pre-existing attitudes towards rape (and female sexuality in general) which seem to be unfortunately prevalent in current society. This is not merely some pleasant intellectual exercise we can engage in in a vacuum, it’s going on in a social context where many people apparently believe that necking a couple of Bacardi Breezers can lead to a woman having consensual sex with someone she wouldn’t normally chose and subsequently deciding to press rape charges, presumably on the grounds that the best way to get over a regrettable sexual experience is to undergo a pelvic exam and then be aggressively cross-examined about the matter in court.

TheLady @ 174:

In the context of which, any attempt to curb rape attacks that doesn’t speak directly to the rapists – for whatever self serving set of excuses – is victim-blaming, because rape is already a unique example of a crime in which it’s up to the victim to prove the damage done (as opposed to up to the state to prove that the person accused of doing damage – say, stealing – is the person who actually did it; there is never any question about whether or not the act itself was criminal).

Hmm. I think this depends on the definition of ‘blame’ and there’s a huge risk of this debate becoming absurd if we end up disagreeing over that.

Rape is a fairly unique crime in that it involves no external witnesses beyond the victim and the perpetrator. Unlike, say, murder or GBH, there is not necessarily any lasting evidence of physical harm, and the act of rape bears a superficial physical similarity to the act of consensual sex. Indeed, it’s possible for consensual sex to become rape if consent is withdrawn part-way through. The observable difference between rape and consensual sex, from the position of a third-party, is actually quite small. What makes rape rape is the contents of the minds of the people involved. Was consent given? Was it implied? These questions just don’t arise in most other crimes.

The problem is that these questions are hard to answer to the standard required by law. You point out that women are neither stupid nor reticent about wanting sex, which is true. But if a woman is raped, the man may claim that consent was given anyway. Who’s to say otherwise? That is why the sobriety of the witness matters, because there’s nobody else.

I’m not arguing that this is fair. It’s a pretty awful situation. But nobody has managed to propose a better alternative. Until they do, it will remain the case that heavily drunk victims will have a hard time making a case in court and that will make them more attractive as potential victims. I honestly wish there was a better answer, but I don’t think that there is.

I don’t see this as ‘blaming the victim’ though. At most, we can blame them for being poor witnesses in court, but we can’t blame them for being victims. The moral fault lies with the perpetrator of the crime.

Dunc @ 179, so we’re a bit stuffed then if we want to advise people on how to mitigate risk. I think Nick @ 162 sums my response to that.

“Coming up on Judge Judy; he says she owes him $2,000 for a car loan – she says it was a gift.”

The tricky thing is that a judge has to make a criminal judgment based on a burden of proof which is at a civil level.

What’s the answer? Increase conviction rates by taking individuals on in civil courts? Possibly; as currently IIRC you can’t take someone to civil court if they’ve been cleared by a criminal court for the same thing, so you can’t do both (I might be wrong) Of course, then you don’t get custodial sentences or criminal records, so those who are convicted get less censure – but more will. Of course, no-one would take such an action in this climate, as it would be seen to almost legitimise the act.

ukliberty @181: Do we really need to advise people how to mitigate this particular risk any further? Is there any evidence whatsoever that such advice makes the least bit of practical difference, other than re-enforcing those regrettable attitudes that result in juries returning “not guilty” verdicts in cases where the victim had been drinking / was wearing a short skirt / had more than x previous sexual partners? Just how stupid do we think women are?

And, to return to one of my previous points, why is there no similar attempt to warn men that getting plastered increases their chances of getting carried away, misinterpreting or ignoring social cues and ending up raping someone? If the argument against such an approach is that it wouldn’t actually make any difference as most men don’t think of themselves as potential rapists, why doesn’t that argument apply the other way?

I suspect that most women are already perfectly well aware of the risks they face from simply existing whilst in possession of a vagina. If we really wanted to advise them on how best to avoid being raped, that advice would be: “Don’t get involved with men. Don’t have a male sexual partner, don’t have male friends, and stay away from male relatives.” But no, that would be absurd, so we just tell them “Don’t go out at night, don’t drink, don’t dress ‘provocatively’, don’t open the door. In short, be very afraid,” which is apparently perfectly fine, despite not having any relationship whatsoever to the actual circumstances of most rapes.

Without Consent found that:

A large proportion of rape cases involved alcohol and/or drug consumption by the victim. This does not mean the victim is to blame for being raped.

In the vast majority of cases alcohol was the primary intoxicant. This does not mean the victim is to blame for being raped.

In by far the vast majority of cases the intoxicant was self-administered. This does not mean the victim is to blame for being raped.

In a large proportion of those cases victims’ blood alcohol levels were estimated to be two to three times the drink driving limit. This does not mean the victim is to blame for being raped.

In a large proportion of cases the victim was so intoxicated it impacted recall of the details – this is pretty vital when it comes to building a case. This does not mean the victim is to blame for being raped.

I look forward to someone telling me this means I think women should stay indoors and board up their windows.

I suspect that most women are already perfectly well aware of the risks they face from simply existing whilst in possession of a vagina. If we really wanted to advise them on how best to avoid being raped, that advice would be: “Don’t get involved with men. Don’t have a male sexual partner, don’t have male friends, and stay away from male relatives.” But no, that would be absurd, so we just tell them “Don’t go out at night, don’t drink, don’t dress ‘provocatively’, don’t open the door. In short, be very afraid,” which is apparently perfectly fine, despite not having any relationship whatsoever to the actual circumstances of most rapes.

Spot on. I don’t think that this point can be made strongly enough.

Just some stats for anyone unsure as to whether we have a victim-blaming culture:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618

In particular: “more than a quarter of people (30%) said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk”

[178] Clutch your own pearls. When I were a lad, Marina, feminists knew better than to take pride in their anger unless they wanted to end up in clink.

Do tell, are you trying to calm down or heat up?

Dunc, I posted @184 before I saw your post @ 183:

ukliberty @181: Do we really need to advise people how to mitigate this particular risk any further?

Yes, I think we do, because some women get extremely drunk and some men take advantage of them.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that such advice makes the least bit of practical difference,

I don’t know. I don’t know how to design an ‘experiment’ that could show it. What I do know is that people who have looked into it have said that alcohol intoxication makes women more vulnerable – which makes sense, doesn’t it?

other than re-enforcing those regrettable attitudes that result in juries returning “not guilty” verdicts in cases where the victim had been drinking / was wearing a short skirt / had more than x previous sexual partners? Just how stupid do we think women are?

I don’t think women are stupid. I do not think women are to blame for being raped. I think men who take advantage of women are evil and pathetic. I would like rapists to be severely punished.

Thank you evie, that’s exactly the sort of social context I was referring to.

@188: Men also frequently get extremely drunk and get taken advantage of in various ways. Why are there fewer similar campaigns aimed at us? Why do so many people start howling about the so-called “nanny state” whenever it’s suggested that not drinking too much might be a good idea, unless it’s in the context of rape?

Dunc, there’s an ongoing theme in the media about Booze Britain (i.e. we drink too much). It seems to me that complaints about the nanny state here are in relation to state clampdowns or prohibitions as opposed to voluntary or persuaded reductions in alcohol consumption. Drinking is nevertheless culturally acceptable to a large degree. Regardless, does that obviate anything I’ve posted here?

Aww, Mike, are you trying to breach the digital fourth wall and intimidate me into shutting up by calling me by my real name and comparing me to Valerie Solanas?

That’s so cute!! -_- -_-

Tell you what, why don’t you really make my day by escalating the unpleasantness even further? Who d’you fancy comparing me to next? Myra Hindley? Rose West? Hmm?

I mean, I can totes see how saying that it’s, like, not OK to fuck women against their will is just ZOMG evil feminazi!, but srsly – chillax and stop being such an asshole. You may find that people actually listen to you then.

@191: No, but it does speak to the wider context, which is the essence of the problem. Sure, in some hypothetical perfect world where the victim-blaming culture highlighted in evie’s post (#186) did not exist, your suggestions would be perfectly unobjectionable. However, [i]in the world we actually live in[/i], they principally end up re-enforcing those well-established victim blaming narratives, [i]whether you want them to or not[/i].

I’m terribly sorry that the prevailing circumstances mean that your doubtless well-intentioned efforts to protect women from their own poor choices are largely counter-productive, but unfortunately that’s just the way it is.

Ah, crap – I’m involved in too many simultaneous on-line arguments, and I’ve got my tag styles crossed. Oh well, you get the idea…

[190] ‘Why do so many people start howling about the so-called “nanny state” whenever it’s suggested that not drinking too much might be a good idea, unless it’s in the context of rape?’

What about drink driving campaigns?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMxpqa_n-mU

@195.

Or even:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6716849/Drink-driving-law-change-would-ban-motorists-from-having-single-glass-of-wine.html

See, that’s another one. I’ve been driving for 15 years now, drinking for a little more, and not once have I thought “You know what; sod everyone else – I’m going for a little drive.” The difference being, of course, that to injure or kill someone behind the wheel of a car requires misco-ordination or carelessness, not premeditated malfeasance or selective deafness.

Dunc, this is from the Amnesty PR:

“more than a quarter of people (30%) said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk, and more than a third (37%) held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say “no” to the man.”

Clearly those people are wrong but it is worth pointing out that this means 70% do not think the former and 63% do not think the latter.

Furthermore I don’t believe the idiot attitudes of victim-blamers is sufficient reason to avoid advising women to “have fun but don’t get too drunk as that increases your vulnerability.”

I have seen men target, home in on, women who intoxicated. I know it happens. You are saying, we shouldn’t advise those women not to get that drunk. You saying, don’t give any advice of that sort because it feeds into that 30% who blame the victim. Sorry but I think that’s bizarre.

I think we need to do that, we also need to do (and are doing) other things such as telling men to ensure they get proper consent, not to take advantage, improving the training of police and prosecutors, investigating and deploying the recommendations such as in the Gap or Chasm report on attrition I referred to earlier. If we do all those things we stand a good chance of improving on the rate of convictions out of allegations.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Rape is a fairly unique crime in that it involves no external witnesses beyond the victim and the perpetrator. Unlike, say, murder or GBH, there is not necessarily any lasting evidence of physical harm, and the act of rape bears a superficial physical similarity to the act of consensual sex.

I think you’re conflating a number of different things here. There is the fact that there is often a dearth of circumstancial evidence against the alleged attacker; however that can also be the case in murder investigations, or more modern types of crime such as computer based fraud etc. But there is physical evidence in rape cases, and the rape kit is but one way of collecting it.

The point about the superficial similarity of consensual and non-consensual sex is moot. There is a range of crimes that mirror real ilfe consensual exchanges: extortion (how do you prove the shop owner didn’t give the nice gentlemen money in order to buy dearly wished for protection?), purjury (how do you prove somebody knew they were lying?) etc. The difference wit rape is that there is a social presumption that the victim is likely to be crying wolf, and that is not adequately allowed for by the law and therefore you get a major distortion of justice.

But if a woman is raped, the man may claim that consent was given anyway. Who’s to say otherwise?

If you shift the balance of proof onto him, the he’s the one who should say otherwise. Nothing can prevent a man lying to the police and getting away with it; but I think that an automatic requirement that every alleged rapist is interviewed by the police with an expectation that he can explain how and why consent was given will go some way towards redressing the above mentioned imbalance.

I’m not arguing that this is fair. It’s a pretty awful situation. But nobody has managed to propose a better alternative.

Yes, they have. The “enthusiastic consent” model is not my own invention. There is a whole school of thought (the Yes Means Yes blog is a good clearing house) that says we’ve got this whole business completely backwards, and that the onus should be on men to protect themselves from allegation of rape rather than on women to protect themselves from rape. It’s just that that is such a mind bending admission of women’s humanity, sexuality, agency and human rights that it gets swatted away with hysterical predictions of an epidemic of innocent men wrongly accused and convicted, etc. You can see a number of examples of the sort of thing at work right here in this (liberal!) thread.

the onus should be on men to protect themselves from allegation of rape rather than on women to protect themselves from rape.

The law is set up for extreme cases, so you’ll hopefully forgive me.

How, in this instance, would a man be able to defend himself legally in the instance that a person made malicious allegations and was even prepared to sleep with the individual in order to obtain his DNA. A little tabloid, a little pulp film, but criminal law is set to the lowest common denominator of crazy and assumes that people lie.

It’s all very well to say “If a woman looks crazy, don’t sleep with her,” but that’s proscriptive and does nothing to deal with after the fact.

If you start moving the burden of proof for this, then what’s to stop other laws following? Torture, spying, child abuse?

It’s all very well to say “If a woman looks crazy, don’t sleep with her,” but that’s proscriptive and does nothing to deal with after the fact.

Are you serious? And it’s not all very well to say “if a man looks crazy, don’t go home with him” (or “don’t drink because then you won’t be able to tell the crazy ones from the sane ones and it’ll be all your fault”), cause that’s not proscriptive, and does help to deal with after the fact?

There is no equivalence between the horror and damage of rape and the effects of a false accusation, nor between the (sizeable) risk of rape and the (teeny-tiny) risk of being falsely accused of rape.

This is exactly the kind of “swatting away” that I was referring to. The spectre of potential inconvenience to a tiny minority of men is enough to derail a conversation about puttign in place some serious measures to protect the safety and human rights of the majority of women.

TheLady @198,

I think that an automatic requirement that every alleged rapist is interviewed by the police with an expectation that he can explain how and why consent was given will go some way towards redressing the above mentioned imbalance.

This is already required AFAIK (I don’t know if it is already done). From the CPS guidance:

A person (A) is only guilty of rape if (s)he:

acts intentionally;
(B) does not consent to the act; and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
Deciding 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 (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant’s attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.

This is a major change in the law and the Act abolishes the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. It means that the defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions.

Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).

http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/jan07/False%20rape%20claims%20common.pdf

“According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (“Archives of Sexual Behavior,” Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities
and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.
Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge.
Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.
Kanin’s findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.
The most common reasons the women gave for falsely accusing rape were “spite or revenge,” and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame (“Forensic Science Digest,” vol. 11. no. 4, December 1985).
A “Washington Post” investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.”

I’m not an apologist; I’m not even one of these creepy guys who seems to treat lovemaking like Swiper the fox from Dora (If she doesn’t say “Swiper no swiping three times, it’s fine). But we live in a country dictated by the rule of law, not emotion, predicated on the fact that it’s better to let a hundred guilty people go free than to convict one innocent, and that cannot change for a single offence.

@202 DHP:

“Claims about McDowell’s research into False Rape Allegations are Not Credible (NoH)”.

“Rather than showing a verified rate of false reports at 41%, Kanin’s study shows a verified rate of false reports at 0%.”

No refutation for the Post investigation since it’s a newspaper, not a study.

Now we are getting to it. Do we want rape law A, which catches as many rapists as possible, or rape law B, which jails as few innocent men as possible? (In reality we are arguing about whether to push the law we have towards A or towards B.)

We would all like to believe that we could construct a law C, which abolishes the dichotomy inherent in A and B. Perhaps we can, perhaps we can’t.

It can now be seen that there cannot be a “feminist” position on the law of rape, only feminist positions. Since feminists hold that the political is also personal, it seems reasonable to suppose that the kind of law any particular (woman) feminist will campaign for will depend not only on her own sexual experience but also on her relations with the other men in her family. We can therefore predict that there is no possible rape law which will satisfy the aspirations of all feminists.

This being so, we need a decision procedure to determine which feminists we are going to, ahem, satisfy and which not. Perhaps I’m just tired but I can’t see any philosophical principle which is of assistance here.

Polygraph tests!? Sure, now tell me what your local shaman has to say on the matter… Also, Kanin’s main 1994 study is based entirely on unverified reports directly from the police force in a single small unidentified town in the US. Surely you can see the problems with that methodology?

There are numerous more recent and far better studies which find very different results, see False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault for an overview of the subject. All of these studies converge in the 2-8% range.

For someone who’s not an apologist, you’ve done a great job of zeroing in on the apologists favourite citation and ignoring all the others.

The real-world estimate of false allegations is 3-4%. Women do retract allegations, but quite often that is because they are discouraged from proceeding by police and/or are put off the implications of an investigation and trial by the attitudes they encounter in the system and the famously low conviction rate for reported rapes.

The likelihood of the enthusiastic consent model to lead to any false convictions is pretty low in any case. The majority of the work needs to be put in to the investigation stage, to which end plenty of good ideas are mentioned below. Changing the law will send the message that the attitude change is compulsory and not wishy-washy “polotical correctness run mad”.

I’ll repeat yet again, you are talking as if you are convinced that women will just rush out and falsely accuse men of rape, because being cross examined about your sex life is just so much fun. Seriously, even if we were vindictive, malicious bitches on that scale (and I’d hate to live inside your head if that’s how you really view half of the human race), it’s easier to just cut up his vinyl collection or tell his nan he moonlights as a rent boy.

Refutation accepted – I’m not an academic and I just googled the first report I could find that showed that there were verified instances.

So throwing Kamin to the wolves, and taking your figures we still have a range of 2-8%; worst case scenario that affects one in every twelve cases. Would that be sufficient to put the burden of proof onto accused terrorists or accused child abusers, including teachers?

TheLady @198:

The difference wit rape is that there is a social presumption that the victim is likely to be crying wolf, and that is not adequately allowed for by the law and therefore you get a major distortion of justice.

We have the presumption of innocence in all crimes. A prosecution relies on evidence. Should the police believe a rape claim? Yes. Should the courts? Only if there’s evidence to back it up. Likewise I could not claim that you have assaulted me without evidence to prove that A) I was assaulted and B) you were the person who did it. For most crimes, proving one or both is fairly straightforward. Not so for rape.

If you shift the balance of proof onto him, the he’s the one who should say otherwise. Nothing can prevent a man lying to the police and getting away with it; but I think that an automatic requirement that every alleged rapist is interviewed by the police with an expectation that he can explain how and why consent was given will go some way towards redressing the above mentioned imbalance.

But it’s impossible to prove! Suppose that the man argues that the woman consented. He has absolutely no evidence that she did so, only his own claim. In the first case where the police are attempting to prove that rape occurred, then they might look for evidence of violence, or they might examine the circumstances. How could one prove that sex was consensual if that is being denied by the other party? You might notice that this is, to an extent, an inversion of the current situation, which it (somewhat) is. This is what I mean when I say that there’s no good answer.

As far as I’m aware, all or most criminal cases operate on the assumption of innocence. We all benefit from that as it applies to most cases. I can see why you would want a different burden of proof in rape cases, but I imagine that it would be difficult to implement in practice and would undermine an otherwise valuable legal principle. What rape, as an example, proves is that prosecuting cases where there are no external witnesses and inconclusive circumstantial/forensic evidence is difficult and almost impossible. We can change the law so that the bias is towards conviction and we will have to accept in doing so that we will imprison innocent people because they could not produce evidence of their innocence.

Personally, I think that the ‘first, do no harm’ principle should apply to the law (and state power generally). The risk of imprisoning innocent people is an avoidable harm which we avoid largely by insisting that the burden of proof is on the accuser. I’d like to find a solution that doesn’t involve giving that protection up.

*yawn*

Scare quotes for “feminist” and double ententres designed to draw attention to the fact that we’re all just one decent rogering away from seeing the light? Original!

This isn’t a cudgel I wanted to pick up, but there seems to be a total bullishness that no-one ever makes accusations of a sexual nature for reasons of spite, regret, shame or to spurn a former lover.

I could cite anecdotal evidence, which doesn’t detract from the balance of the argument, and who knows, maybe most of these are laughing up their sleeves at cheating the system and exploiting some poor woman.

http://www.daftmoo.org.uk/mooforum/forumdisplay.php?f=18
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201224/Mother-cried-rape-jailed-years.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2008/07/03/exclusive-teenager-slams-justice-system-after-rape-lies-hell-86908-20629201/
http://gothamist.com/2009/09/19/man_falsely_accused_of_rape_thank_g.php
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Falsely-accused-given-right-compensation/article-1013358-detail/article.html

The law, however, isn’t about percentages; it’s not about trading the rights of one against the liberties of another – it’s about the burden of proof, and that HAS to remain inviolate.

At one time (I don’t know if’s still true) Canada abolished rape as a specific crime. The government did this on the back of representations from women’s groups.

Depending on the particular circumstances of each case, the man was charged either with actual bodily harm or with grievous bodily harm (both of which I think are called something else in Canada).

This seems a promising answer I know to the conundrums I raised in [204]. However, I have no idea whatsoever whether the rate of reporting, conviction or false imprisonment is higher or lower in Canada than here.

Of course, if the presumption of guilt is implemented – no single drunk woman can ever expect to get a taxi home again.

A prosecution relies on evidence. Should the police believe a rape claim? Yes. Should the courts? Only if there’s evidence to back it up.

Testimony is evidence. The way the law stands at the moment, there can be no testimony brought by, e.g., the accuser’s friends, to say that she had told them about the incident. It does allow the court to decide that evidence of the accuser’s sexual history is pertinent to the claim, but a history of allegations against the accused is inadmissible. All these things are evidence in law, and I think you can see that there’s a pattern of evidence in rape law being cherry-picked to favour the accused and not the accuser.

The risk of imprisoning innocent people is an avoidable harm which we avoid largely by insisting that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Actually the burden of proof in criminal cases is always on the state. The way you framed this statement is very telling of the prevailing attitude within society about rape legislation.

The principle of shifting some of the burden of defense onto the accused is not so innovative; it exists in our libel laws, for example, and although I myself am no jurist, I’m sure there can be a reframing of the law in such a way as to ensure a minimum of miscarriages of justice. To reiterate, the rate of false allegations is so low, and they come to trial so incredibly rarely (if at all – it’ll be homeopathy-like rates of dilution by that stage).

[211] The “presumption of guilt” is a radfem “transitional demand” which has been doing the rounds for over 30 years to my knowledge. If you implement it for rape you’ll have to for murder as well, and who’s trust the State with that? Probably not even the police themselves!

TheLady,

The way the law stands at the moment, there can be no testimony brought by, e.g., the accuser’s friends, to say that she had told them about the incident.

Why should there be / what difference would it make?

All these things are evidence in law, and I think you can see that there’s a pattern of evidence in rape law being cherry-picked to favour the accused and not the accuser.

I think you see what you want to see.

The principle of shifting some of the burden of defense onto the accused is not so innovative; it exists in our libel laws,

Which no Conspirator likes, AFAIK…

Please read the CPS guidance, I think you are a bit out of date.

TheLady @213:

Testimony is evidence. The way the law stands at the moment, there can be no testimony brought by, e.g., the accuser’s friends, to say that she had told them about the incident.

I’m not sure what difference that would make unless there was a dispute about the length of time that had passed before the report was made. For example, if the victim immediately confided in a friend or requested help or support, I’d have thought that that could be considered, in order to demonstrate that the victim clearly believed themself to be a victim at the time.

Beyond that, what could a victim’s friends add? They could only repeat what they have been told by the victim, and the victim is already testifying.

Testimony is evidence, but the testimony of a single witness is not, in and of itself, always enough to secure a conviction. We might believe the testimony, but we have to believe it beyond reasonable doubt.

It does allow the court to decide that evidence of the accuser’s sexual history is pertinent to the claim, but a history of allegations against the accused is inadmissible.

I must admit I don’t really understand why the accuser’s sexual history is important. Can anyone explain this? As for the history of accusations, I’m unsure. I suppose we have a general prejudice against admitting hearsay or unproven allegations in court, and this is a general principle that is not specific to rape cases.

All these things are evidence in law, and I think you can see that there’s a pattern of evidence in rape law being cherry-picked to favour the accused and not the accuser.

“Cherry-picked” is a bit strong. But I think it’s fair enough to say that the law generally tries to ensure that only verifiable facts are presented to the court and that guilty verdicts are only handed down where the evidence of guilt is clear.

Actually the burden of proof in criminal cases is always on the state. The way you framed this statement is very telling of the prevailing attitude within society about rape legislation.

Well, yes, this is true (and the fact that the state brings prosecutions explains why the burden of proof is on them and not on defendants who are presumed innocent). In the kind of case we’ve been discussing, however, the prosecution relies heavily on the testimony of one witness. So, when I say that “the burden of proof is on the accuser”, I only mean that their evidence has to be unimpeachable.

I cannot believe what a lot of callous rubbish has been posted in these comments. What Laurie Penney is trying to say here and she does it very well is that police officers should be working on catching rapists and preventing rapes, rather than telling women that they have to change their behaviour. We all get drunk occasionally, but let’s be clear, women who are victims of rape are not paralytic alcoholics lying in their own vomit by the side of the road – they are doctors, lawyers, shop workers – it could in fact be anyone.

Some people might do well to read this text from a “Men Can Stop Rape” poster that was made a few years ago:

“Much has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t wear short skirts. Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. Women shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all.

Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her. If a woman is walking alone at night, don’t rape her. If a women is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape her. If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don’t rape her. If a woman is jogging in a park at 5AM, don’t rape her. If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you’re still hung up on, don’t rape her. If a woman is asleep in her bed, don’t rape her. If a woman is asleep in your bed, don’t rape her. If a woman is doing her laundry, don’t rape her. If a woman is in a coma, don’t rape her. If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don’t rape her. If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don’t rape her. If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her. If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her. If your step-daughter is watching TV, don’t rape her.

If you break into a house and find a woman there, don’t rape her. If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not, and that he’s not your friend. If your “friend” tells you he raped someone, report him to the police. If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there’s an unconscious woman upstairs and it’s your turn, don’t rape her, call the police and report him as a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, and sons of friends that it’s not okay to rape someone.

Don’t just tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape. Don’t imply that she could have avoided it if she’d only done/not done x, y, or z. Don’t imply that it’s in any way her fault. Don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he “got some” with the drunk girl. Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can too help yourself. Rape is not about sex, it’s about control and power, and what kind of power comes from taking advantage of others? No power anyone should ever desire.

If you agree, repost this. It’s important.”

Annoyed,

What Laurie Penney is trying to say here and she does it very well is that police officers should be working on catching rapists and preventing rapes, rather than telling women that they have to change their behaviour.

ACPO didn’t ‘tell’ “women that they have to change their behaviour” – it advises women to not get intoxicated. It also tells men to get proper consent. Police officers are working on catching rapists.

Vulpus Rex –

If it helps balance things out for you, I think you are both a twat and a dick. And an arsehole incidentally.

I hope none of your friends, if you have any, choose to confide in you if they are unfortunately sexually assaulted or raped, as you’ll probably demand a court verdict or tell them to stop slandering, insensitive cock that you are.

[218] Don’t argue with her, UKL.

We’ve all gotta be a lot more careful about posting comments on this or any other thread. If any of us saw someone who was raging angry in real life, we wouldn’t seek to engage them in debate, we’d find a reason to go into the next room or the other end of the coffee bar or whatever. We’ve gotta learn to do that on the ‘net as well.

[219] Right, is anyone moderating this thread?

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, and sons of friends that it’s not okay to rape someone.

Funnily enough, that’s exactly how I say goodbye to all of my friends and relatives.

“Don’t rape anyone tonight,”

“I’ll do my best,”

I mean, FFS.

Just to remind you all, Arson is also illegal – so don’t start any fires – I’m looking at you, Killingworth.

And as for swan twaddling. . .

Well, thank God you didn’t call me a swan twaddler, DHP.

By the way, I do hope some folk posting on this thread do realise
a) this is a nationwide poster campaign
b) It’s advice not compulsion or scapegoating of women
c) Half of the campaign is aimed at men, with the very message that some critics have asked for (i.e. don’t rape, or you will go to jail for a long time:“Rape: short word, long sentence.”), which might make those critics think again about it being quite such a bad thing.

221. Mike Killingworth – hang on, you think THAT comment deserves moderating, and none of the others (like the ones that accused me of lying about the fact that I was raped)?

Jesus wept.

Actually, there is someone moderating this thread. It’s me. I didn’t delete the comments that personally slandered me, and so no, I will NOT delete the best feminist response we’ve had on this thread yet, not even if it makes you really, really uncomfortable.

[221] Right, so now you feel that I have behaved abusively towards you again.

When are you going to have the honesty to turn round to Sunny and the rest of the team and tell them that, and that I should therefore be banned from LC? Because nothing less than that will ever satisfy you.

If I thought you were behaving abusively, I would do as you suggest.

Actually, I just think you’re being stupid, sexist and offensive, and not just to me. And the proper response to that is arguing with you rather than asking that you be banned.

This is a very divisive subject – however, Laurie should be respected for speaking out about her situation. She is not asking for you to judge her case or rip apart her opinions, she is presenting her own argument, based on her own personal experiences. How anyone can think this is fair game to try and pull down and make a mockery of is beyond me. For Christ’s sake – this is free speech – she is entitled to say what she wants on the issue and is likely to have a lot more experience than many others commenting here. Sure, disagree, but do it with some decorum and hey, how about this? A little sensitivity to the topic in hand.

[227] I thought with you sexist and offensive were the same as abusive. What you mean is, I suspect, that you have taken offence where none was intended. Funnily enough I had exactly the same experience with a bloke in Real Life a couple of weeks back…

You need to consider what impression you make on others when you defend getting drunk as a “right” when any health-care professional will tell you it is a form of self-harm.

re 170
Thank you for your charming attack I admit I should have said MORE vunerable. I am not saying “all men are bastard rapists” or “all pissed girls are targets” I’m saying the article originally referenced was advice, maybe it was patronising it sure as hell as created a debate. But before you call me stupid, (which was some thing I never said about you) I admit I may not be as well read but I am certainly not stupid. In fact you were being rather dense in reading way to much into my comments. The sad fact is women are vulnerable just by being female, therefore we need to take care of ourselves and those we are with and take precautions. You sensibly stated wear loose clothing don’t go out after dark etc. It’s very very sad that we have to do that but it is a fact of life.
I also agree that more efforts should be made in cathing rapists rather than in judging the victims and no women deserves anything like that. Neither does anybody deseve to be belittled or humiliated. At the risk of sounding like a self righteous aresehole I still feel that if we spent more time talking, careing and educating each other rather than screaming abuse or claiming that person’s A opinion is more valid than persons B we all might be better off. At the end of the day opinions are like arseholes we all have one.
1) No one deserves to have their liberties violated
2) We are all entitled to live as we wish
3) No means no
4) Rapists should be convicted
5) Victims should never be judged or blamed

Actually “Lady” I re-read your tirade at 170 (amongs others) again and you know what how about this for making your self less vulnerable. Super glue up your vagina brand all men with an R on their foreheads and blame every other fucker so you don’t have to take responsibilty for your own health and safety.
Because quite frankly your screaming “milly-tant” attitude, while proving yourself to be well read etc, suggests you have way to much time on your hands so fight with everyone and scream abuse if it doesn’t go your way. So I’m taking a leaf out of your book and wha’eva, go get laid you uptight overly agressive boring twat- phew I feel better. Next!

Re: Siobhan at 230 & 231 – Well said, it covers my thoughts on the subject to a T, only I haven’t got the intellectual ability or indeed patience on the matter. (Re: TheLady’s Dworkin-lite views on Men. But I guess that makes me a potential rapist now!)