Mirren

[ewx]

Does anyone agree with Helen Mirren? Or Anne Widdecombe (do the Conservatives reject the label “the party of law and order” now then?)

What's she asking for? A cup of tea?

...well, why not? Hasn't she heard the REM song?

Comments

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Human sexuality is an absolute minefield, so let's start tiptoeing and try not to get blown up.

Ideally, if either person says no, even at the last moment, then that should be it: stop. (This might have the additional effect that teenage pregnancy rates drop substantially and, backdated far enough, might obviate the damage to the planet caused by human evolution...). The problem is that that 'ideally' assumes that the signals are unambiguous, and if there's one time that signals are all too often ambiguous, it's during the circumstances Mirren mentions.

Rape is often held to be a crime motivated by an attempt to assert power over someone else rather than about sex. I think that's a pretty fair view, but while it may be valid for stranger rape, or marital rape, I don't think it really fits the date rape model.

(As for the 'when is the last second' question, that's even harder. Is it just before penetration, or can it be somewhat later?)

[keirf.livejournal.com]

I guess there is a point when "No" changes to "Stop". But then again, "Stop means stop".

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

A good point.

On the other hand, there's a potential gradient of grey in there: if one has been having good sex for twenty minutes, one partner has been getting sore, says "Stop now, please", and the other continues for another 30 seconds, is that still rape? Now, what about 3 seconds?

And what if that extra 30 seconds is because it takes time for a communication to become obvious? (OK, so 30 seconds to get the message may be somewhat on the obtuse side.) Should we all follow the example of BDSM afficionados and always agree safe words? ('No' and 'stop' are not usually candidates for safe words.)

[dave holland (from livejournal.com)]

That might tend towards sexually-aggravated assault rather than rape.

IANAL

[stephdairy.livejournal.com]

I'd settle for a cup of coffee, but tea is what I really need?

(S)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

That must be the one, yes.

[aldabra]

There's a confusion here between "what is rape" and "what do you have a chance of proving", I think. Just because you can't do anything about date rape doesn't mean it's OK.

Back in my day it was Boy George wanting cups of tea. Allegedly.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Is Mirren perhaps just being misrepresented to sell newspapers? The actual quotes - it's rape, but she doesn't think the woman could see the man in court - could equally be a comment on evidential standards; that the legal system cannot distinguish a false accusation after consensual sex from last-minute non-consent where there was no violence.

[lnr]

I wondered if it were misrepresentation too, but surely it's the sort of thing you could clear up quite easily? Perhaps I'm naive in thinking the papers would give her the chance to clarify.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Always possible, of course.

A fuller version of the quote seems to be: "I don't think she can have that man into court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them." (e.g. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mirren-talks-of-her-daterapes-then-provokes-furore-with-views-on-sex-attackers-914596.html) and elsewhere online word-for-word; presumably copied verbatim from the GQ interview or PR.)

'can' in the first sentence could indeed suggest she think that it's a practical problem as you suggest; but people do say "you can't do that" meaning "you shouldn't do that" so I don't think that's definitive.

The second sentence seems to me to imply that it's something people ought to sort out between themselves rather than get the law involved though - I don't think one would say things like "subtle part of a relationship" if talking about a crime you happened to be unable to prove.

Perhaps if she disagrees with the popular interpretation she will clarify. (I know "I was misunderstood" is often unconvincing...)

[lnr]

If Mirren means it would be difficult to get a court to make a conviction in this sort of case, and hence perhaps more stress on top of an already horrible situation, then perhaps I think some women who are in that situation might agree with her and decide not to try and prosecute. Sadly it sounds like she doesn't think you should even try if it were worth doing though.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Would anybody dare say so if they did agree with her?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

A number of people I know do seem to be quite willing to publicly espouse controversial viewpoints when they genuinely agree with them (or for that matter just feel they've not been adequately convinced to disagree with them).

[j4.livejournal.com]

There's controversial viewpoints, and then there's anything related to the r-word.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

True. We shall see or, er, not.

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

If there was anybody who honestly thought that a woman going into a man's room is automatically consenting to sex I kind of hope they would say so, and I think the reaction they got would be deserved. I really hope there isn't much controversy there and it's just Anne Widdecombe being Anne Widdecombe.

[(Anonymous)]

Just in case silence would be taken as assent: no, of course I don't think going into someone's room is automatically consenting to sex with them.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Gnnghhh, that was me, LJ FAIL.

[sonicdrift.livejournal.com]

Ah, but obviously if you don't respond to this post you like stomping on kittens :-)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

pls post more "meow meow SPLAT" MP3s. kthxbai.

[lnr]

Considering it there are probably quite a few different scenarios where you could be getting naked and interested together, one of you says "no", and then sex takes place anyway. I'm not sure I would necessarily consider all of them to be rape if they happened to me, and I think in many of them I too wouldn't get the police or the courts involved even if I did feel violated, and not just because it would be a case of one person's word against another's.

So despite my immediate gut reaction that she's wrong I think I actually agree with her more than I first realised.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Is that just how you would/may feel in that circumstance though, or how you would expect/hope/similar other people would/should/may feel in similar circumstance?

[I suspect that interviews of someone saying the former could easily be twisted to appear to be saying the latter, which could be unfortunate. I have been wondering if that is what has happened here.]

[lnr]

Oh I absolutely recognise that there are situations which I might not feel violated in but which someone else would, and would support their claim to have been raped. And if they wanted to press charges I'd support them even if I'd not do the same for myself, yes.

I think there are probably some *very* hard (and rare) edge cases where someone feels raped even though the perpetrator couldn't have been expected to realise it would have that affect. In which case I'd feel pretty sorry for both parties.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that people be forced to prosecute - Helen Mirren's remarks are being interpreted (fairly or otherwise!) as suggesting that in some instances they shouldn't be able to invoke the law.

Anne Widdecombe appears (in the second link) to be agreeing with the remarks as interpreted this way. Though of course caution is sensible here too, it's critical to know what exactly she though she was responding to.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

That was what I was thinking.

[arnhem.livejournal.com]

Having been on the receiving end of strongly coerced and unwanted sex, I don't see what I experienced as something meriting a court case. Doesn't stop me regarding the other person involved with contempt, though.

These days, I'd hope to not get myself into that situation.

[gerald_duck]

It's tricky. Nowadays, the law defines rape fairly exactly, though I don't think the legal definition exactly coincides with popular understanding. For starters, it's only possible to commit rape in a legal sense using a penis (strictly, one's own) — everything else is dealt with a few sections later under "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent".

Rape (and indeed causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent in a peculiarly-chosen subset of circumstances) carries a mandatory life sentence, but in practice means serving something approaching a decade behind bars.

What Helen Mirren describes clearly (to me) falls within the legal definition of rape, and indeed within popular understanding. I think she's very wrong when she says Mike Tyson didn't commit rape, for example.

Do such crimes merit a life sentence with a ten-year tariff? Actually… being locked in the room inclines me to say so. But there probably are rapes which merit more lenient sentences. I note that Tyson only got six years and served three (though in the USA, obviously).

Some people seem to say there's no such thing as less serious rape; some want the definition of rape extended; some want harsher penalties for rape. It may be taboo to say so, but I think giving in to all three groups would lead to injustice.

Helen Mirren's surely right that nothing much would have happened if she'd gone to the police about such an incident in the 1960s, though?

[gerald_duck]

As a side note, there's the issue that the person not consenting isn't the same thing as the person objecting, though they're equal in the eyes of the law.

Strictly speaking, I've been raped. What happened wasn't clever, but it's not harmed me and I'd do everything I legally could to prevent my theoretical rapist getting imprisoned for life over it.