London SlutWalk - now *11th*June, 1pm Trafalgar Square

[xenon]

I've just been having a look at the law in the UK. It doesn't seem clear to me whether it is legally rape or not, tbh. Rape is penetration without consent. Refusal to withdraw immediately upon request doesn't seem to be covered. I may have missed something there. Totally impossible to enforce as a law, though, I would have thought.

WellI wouldn't have thought there would be a legal cut off point. Totaly impracticle as that would be. But if someone refuses to withdrawer before climax, for what ever reason, after initial consent, that would sem to be classed rape. Whether it's a few seconds into the act or few from it's conclusion. You couldn't really have a line drawn in legislation. Not that I think soemone refusing to withdrawer right at the point of orgasm, after everything being concentual til that point, would or should get to court. Caviets, baring some highly specific circumstances. Before anyone says. Yeah but what if blah, blah.

 

[ymu]

I'm really surprised at people not thinking it is rape. It's a pretty standard, if not universal, view. Withdrawal of consent is in all the literature I recall, not that I read much of it.

This is a useful discussion, of why Californian law agrees, these days at least.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of California confronted an important issue about how rape should be defined under the law.

In People v. John Z., the court held that a woman who initially consents to sexual intercourse does not thereby give up her right to end the encounter at whatever point she chooses. In other words, when a woman tells her partner to stop, and he forces her to continue, he is guilty of rape.

One could imagine difficult factual variations, in which the woman's communication is ambiguous or her partner's compliance almost, but not quite, immediate. The basic ruling, however, should not be controversial. If a woman (or a man, for that matter) is clear in conveying the desire to end a sexual interaction, a decision forcibly to disregard that desire is an instance of rape.

Of greater interest than the California court's decision itself, is the fact that the court took the case in order to resolve a lower court split over the issue. According to at least one court in the state of California, then, for purposes of rape law, consent to penetration - once given - may not be withdrawn. And courts in other states have held the same Such a position rests on outdated ideas about the harm of rape and the biological imperatives of men who are engaged in sexual intercourse.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20030115.html

But you know, carry on telling me I'm hysterical/trivialising rape/making it up for no reason. It's what I'm here for. Apparently.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I might be interpreting this wrongly, but as far as I can tell, once consensual penetration has begun, UK law says that it is not rape.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

 

[CyberRose]

Legally (in this country anyway) a woman cannot rape. Rape is the penetration with the penis of vagina, anus or mouth (and the law even refers to "he" as the offender)

So whatever it was ymu did it's technically not rape (whether it would be any other kind of sexual assault I don't know) according to law, morally tho, I have no idea!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But you know, carry on telling me I'm hysterical/trivialising rape/making it up for no reason. It's what I'm here for. Apparently.

That's not on, ymu. Honest disagreement with your point of view is not laying into you.

 

[ymu]

UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?

I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.

 

[teahead]

You seem to be suggesting that rapists can legitimately weigh the odds of causing harm, and that it might be excusable. Which is pretty fucked up.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that rape is the crime.

I'm for a start differentiating between the crime and the person. There's no weighing involved - either your intention is to rape or it isn't. As long as relations are consensual, rape isn't happening. Remaining aware of whether consent is being withdrawn or not is as basic a part of human sexual activity as I can imagine.

The problems seem to lie in whether communication is possible for the victim, and whether there's a deliberate intention not to understand the communication on the part of the perp. Deliberate intention to ignore a communication is straightforward rape.

So the difficulties really seem to lie in communications made by the victim at the time of the rape. 'After the fact' is significant because in practice human relations don't stop and start. There's no personal restitution a rapist can make that will change the fact of the rape itself. So society looks to seek retribution instead, and perhaps treatment to avoid the situation recurring.

When you identify a person as 'a rapist' you immediately cut away all the contributing factors. This suggests a punitive and dominating perspective based on your own needs in respect of retribution. This is also pretty fucked up. Though I certainly agree that it would be fucked up to imagine that a person intent on rape can involve themselves in weighing up the extent of the harm they're committing or about to commit. The damage is a health issue. The intent is a legal and social one.

 

[ymu]

UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?

I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?

I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.

Two separate things - you're the one who brought up the statute book. I was just trying to clear up what the statute book actually says.

I don't work out what is right and wrong by what the law says. And I explicitly stated that there are all kinds of behaviour that are not criminal - and probably shouldn't be criminal - but are not therefore ok.

 

[TruXta]

I might be interpreting this wrongly, but as far as I can tell, once consensual penetration has begun, UK law says that it is not rape.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—.
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,.
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and.
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents..

In context, penetration reads to me as the whole process, so it could be that ymu is right. Any lawyers in the house? Shame that we don't have detective-boy on tap for questions like these.

Edit - also worth noting that the text speaks of a "he", and "a penis". So is it really the case that female on male rape is not legislated for at all in the UK? Bizarre if so.

 

[past caring]

UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?

I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.

Then why fucking say it?

He was clearly disagreeing with you about what the law defines as rape, and not suggesting that anything permitted in law is ok. Why the continued need to wilfully distort?

 

[past caring]

In context, penetration reads to me as the whole process, so it could be that ymu is right. Any lawyers in the house? Shame that we don't have detective-boy on tap for questions like these.

Edit - also worth noting that the text speaks of a "he", and "a penis". So is it really the case that female on male rape is not legislated for at all in the UK? Bizarre if so.

UK statute always refers to a person as a "he" - shouldn't read anything in to the word in this context - it's the word penis that provides only men can commit rape.

It is s.2 of the Act that provides for "assault by penetration" which can be committed by a woman (regardless of the word "he" being used) and which carries the same maximum term of imprisonment.

 

[TruXta]

UK statute always refers to a person as a "he" - shouldn't read anything in to the word in this context - it's the word penis that provides only men can commit rape.

It is s.2 of the Act that provides for "assault by penetration" which can be committed by a woman (regardless of the word "he" being used) and which carries the same maximum term of imprisonment.

Cheers for clearing that up, pc.

 

[ymu]

Two separate things - you're the one who brought up the statute book. I was just trying to clear up what the statute book actually says.

I don't work out what is right and wrong by what the law says. And I explicitly stated that there are all kinds of behaviour that are not criminal - and probably shouldn't be criminal - but are not therefore ok.

You're right. I should have referred to the other person's feelings on the matter, not the statute book.

Where would you draw the line on what it is reasonable to do to someone else's body without their consent?

At what point does consent to sex become binding, and for how long?

 

[teahead]

As ever, people banging on about the law, and retribution. The CJS and the law do nothing to limit or mitigate harm.
Shit, looking for 'justice' around rape is ridiculous anyway.

Personal intent to damage someone else is what's significant in terms of considering how to go about improving quality of life, no?

 

[TruXta]

You're right. I should have referred to the other person's feelings on the matter, not the statute book.

Where would you draw the line on what it is reasonable to do to someone else's body without their consent?

At what point does consent to sex become binding, and for how long?

There's no formula that can answer those questions, is there?

 

[teahead]

At what point does consent to sex become binding, and for how long?

Consent is never binding in a sexual context. Blimey. I'm sure we've all got our personal styles in these things but I sort of get the impression that with you, it'd be like getting it on with a truck!

 

[ymu]

That's not on, ymu. Honest disagreement with your point of view is not laying into you.

It's not the disagreeing with me I take issue with. It's the constant implications that I'm making it up, exaggerating, devaluing rape … when it is a totally fucking standard viewpoint which you would be hard pressed not to find covered in any serious discussion of rape. Fuck's sake.

But you know, refuse to acknowledge the literature and call me a nutter. It's easy cos I am.

And no, not just you. But this is fucking bizarre. Urban arguing that it's not necessary to withdraw when told to. Wut?

 

[ymu]

There's no formula that can answer those questions, is there?

Yes, there is. If you're told to stop, you stop. Easy peasy.

Not so easy if you want to start nit-picking about being able to violate someone a little bit if you're close to cumming and don't want to stop. But otherwise, pretty fucking easy, no?

I posted an article which discusses this. Would save lots of time if people read it ibstead of demanding I spoonfeed it to them. It's very basic stuff.

 

[TruXta]

Yes, there is. If you're told to stop, you stop. Easy peasy.

Not so easy if you want to start nit-picking about being able to violate someone a little bit if you're close to cumming and don't want to stop. But otherwise, pretty fucking easy, no?

I posted an article which discusses this. Would save lots of time if people read it ibstead of demanding I spoonfeed it to them. It's very basic stuff.

Sure, but that really only addresses your second question, and like it or not I don't know that everyone has a clear a picture of what consent is or means or how it's expressed as you do. Not everyone says it out loud IYSWIM. Your first q I find a bit strange.. are you speaking in a sexual context or more widely?

Where would you draw the line on what it is reasonable to do to someone else's body without their consent?

 

[ymu]

My only point is that if someone tells you to get out/off of them, they have decided and you do not get to second guess whether or not they really mean it.

Like I said, I posted an article on this. It does cover this in detail. You could just read it before expecting me to type it all out for you.

 

[claphamboy]

Fuck me over 1000 posts since I last checked this thread, WTF happened and is it worth reading?

 

[TruXta]

My only point is that if someone tells you to get out/off of them, they have decided and you do not get to second guess whether or not they really mean it.

Like I said, I posted an article on this. It does cover this in detail. You could just read it before expecting me to type it all out for you.

Hm. I see what you're saying and I would agree had I not known that many people do not see consent in sexual relations as clearly or binary as you do. Playing with/manipulating what is on and what isn't is, for a good deal of people, what makes sex exciting. And that isn't always something that is easily expressed in clear words and tones.

 

[TruXta]

Fuck me over 1000 posts since I last checked this thread, WTF happened and is it worth reading?

If you like your bunfights, sure.

 

[teahead]

Not so easy if you want to start nit-picking about being able to violate someone a little bit if you're close to cumming and don't want to stop.

But isn't that about a lack of capacity to stop. Sure that's leaving lots of ethical issues aside in some contexts, and depends on a shared acceptance that all human beings to some extent loose their faculties for control when the're nearing that kind of peak, but all the same lack of capacity represents a very different situation - to do with judgement - than one in which you deliberately ignore the other person's situation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not the disagreeing with me I take issue with. It's the constant implications that I'm making it up, exaggerating, devaluing rape … when it is a totally fucking standard viewpoint which you would be hard pressed not to find covered in any serious discussion of rape. Fuck's sake.

But you know, refuse to acknowledge the literature and call me a nutter. It's easy cos I am.

And no, not just you. But this is fucking bizarre. Urban arguing that it's not necessary to withdraw when told to. Wut?

Right. I'll leave you there. You might want to consider that you are being extremely patronising in your attitude here. You are talking to adults, not children.

 

[ymu]

So, no one's bothered to read the article then.

Well done guys. Truly impressive.

 

[Edie]

Was it an active decision not to stop then ymu, did you think what you were doing was wrong in that moment? Did you get off on the power you had? Was what you done intentional or an accident? Did you really think he'd want you to carry on cos he was about to cum? Were you scared he'd be angry in the moment if you didn't carry on (even though it's what you'd agreed before?).

I think what happened was just really naive. Pulling out just before you cum is hard, I'd never in a million years believe a man who said he'd do that before he fucked me. Blatently he's not going to!

 

[Edie]

I'll read it!

 

[TruXta]

I'll read it to if anyone can repost the link.