I saw a program tonight on ITV - Tonight: Consenting Adults?
They had two 'juries' - one of men, one of women and showed them two 'rape case scenarios'.
A man and woman at a work Christmas party. She is new so he talks to her to stop her feeling left out. They spend most of the party together and she flirts with him and starts coming on to him. He pours the drinks for both of them. Later when the free booze runs out they go back to her hotel room to drink even more. On the way he kisses her. She says she thought he was married. He explains he has been separated for some time. They carry on to her room. The next shot is of them kissing in the room. She puts her arms around the back of his neck. He slides his hands down... Then both of them falling onto a bed, with him on top of her. With a voice over of her saying - 'he was touching me', 'he was so forceful' at a later date. Clearly at odds with the images.
Nobody on either 'jury' thought this was rape. The fembot presenter seemed surprised and shocked - "None of you thought that was rape!!".
It clearly was not rape. She was not in any way forced to have sex, she was not forced to drink so much, she willingly went up to her hotel room with him, she willingly kissed him outside the room, she willingly and enthusiastically kissed him in the room, and let him fondle her without any sign that she objected to it. In short she encouraged him every step of the way. I would call that non-verbal consent.
At least here the 'juries' gave what was clearly the correct response. Not guilty - no rape at all.
One woman also raised some a good point - what is a man supposed to do? Video the events on his mobile phone?
Some students at a party. All of them drinking. One woman making eyes at one of the men, then she goes over and asks him to dance. Snogging - friends go without them. He walks her home, and supports her because she is unsteady on her feet. One women in the hall says something too her that she ignores - possibly because she was so drunk she did not notice (clearly the conclusion they want you to draw). They are shown lying on her bed kissing. In this last shot they were fully clothed.
Next a carefully crafted shot of her looking slightly distressed a few days later. She said she could not remember what happened on the night, but the next day she could tell something had happened, so she must have been raped. Following on with comments about how she had thought he was going to protect her - but instead he attacked her!
An alternative explanation of the events is that she consented to sex, then regretted it the next day. So she made up the story of being raped. She might even believe it. People are very good at rationalizing events after the event to make themselves look better than they were. I am tempted to say that women are even more likely to rationalize than men - but I won't.
I say carefully crafted because she was shown for the first time with no make-up and with her hair tied back, to make her look pale and frail and more 'innocent' than she had looked before. No doubt the lighting was also chosen to exaggerate the effect as well. All to generate sympathy, and promote the impression that this 'innocent girl' would never make up a false accusation, and would never have agreed to have sex with anyone.
Here six of the women said it was rape, and three of the men. The presenter then deliberately asked one of the women why she did not think it was rape, and why the men did not think it was rape. Tellingly - she did not ask why anyone thought it was rape.
One of women did try to claim the 'victim' was unconscious, although she clearly was not. One of the men pointed that out, but it was not followed up at all.
IMO the men did not explain their point of view very well. Neither did the women - but they did not get the same grilling as the men.
Of those people who thought it was rape, three said they would convict the man if they were in a real court. According to the presenter - 'only three!!!'. Shock! Horror!
That figure is actually far too high. In a real court case none of them would know anything about what actually happened in the woman's room, and she clearly admitted she could not remember what happened. She did not even know if she was raped, she just assumed it was rape after the event. A total lack of evidence that there was any rape at all - not even a credible witness. That should not be enough to convict anyone of rape, even if the hidden reality was a rape. For a conviction you need EVIDENCE, not assumptions by a self proclaimed victim.