[Vicky.]

Women speaking out are still in the wrong though. Either they are blamed, accused of lying, or they were in the wrong for waiting so long to speak up. Or its minimized, made out to be over the top (see. the many people who start with the 'you cannot even say hello without being accused of sexual harassment' type people) or just them being humourless and not getting 'banter'..even if said 'banter' was actually clear sexual harrassment and/or assault. They are doing it for compensation/attention/to be spiteful and ruin an innocent blokes life. Etc

OR all of the above.

People assume the accusation is simply because they had sex and regretted it so it made sense to instead of just forget it, drag it out for months or years, reliving it over and over and telling numerous people a lot of very personal details. Going on about it in detail for a long time to many people is definitely what one would usually do if they simply regretted a bad decision they made. Because thats totally logical.

Then in court they are cross examined for days, treat as if its them who has committed a crime, their entire sexual history is brought up to try and discredit them becuse everyone knows that unless a woman is a virgin she cannot be raped and if she ever consented to sex with one man, this means she consents to all sex with all men. The fact that she was wearing a skirt, or had drank alcohol is used against her. There are more...but I could literally go on for hours and hours so I will end on the final most shocking one..finally, excuses such as 'I acidentally fell over onto a sleeping woman, naked, with an erecton and landed penis first in her vagina' are actually used and accepted in court as a defense.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Women speaking out are still in the wrong though. Either they are blamed, accused of lying, or they were in the wrong for waiting so long to speak up. Or its minimized, made out to be over the top (see. the many people who start with the 'you cannot even say hello without being accused of sexual harassment' type people) or just them being humourless and not getting 'banter'..even if said 'banter' was actually clear sexual harrassment and/or assault. They are doing it for compensation/attention/to be spiteful and ruin an innocent blokes life. Etc

OR all of the above. Then in court they are cross examined for days, treat as if its them who has committed a crime, their entire sexual history is brought up to try and discredit them becuse everyone knows that unless a woman is a virgin she cannot be raped and if she ever consented to sex with one man, this means she consents to all sex with all men. The fact that she was wearing a skirt, or had drank alcohol is used against her. There are more...but I could literally go on for hours and hours so I will end on the final most shocking one..finally, excuses such as 'I acidentally fell over onto a sleeping woman, naked, with an erecton and landed penis first in her vagina' are actually used and accepted in court as a defense.

But they aren't, all organisations have HR, there are sessions on equality and diversity s well as safeguarding.
I work as a security guard 90% of my colleagues are men, 90% of the truck drivers who come through the gatehouse are men... And I have had an issue that warranted intervention once in 2yrs, and it was dealt with swiftly, I was kept informed throughout and felt very supported.

There are still people who say those things like 'you can't say anything' or blame 'banter' but luckily this really does seem to be changing... slowly.

Conversely I agree with you about the courts, where there does seem to be a very regressive vibe, which is really worrying.
The use of sexual history in rape cases and the very different way that high profile offenders are treated are prime examples.

I would go as far as to say the differentials are classist.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

But they aren't, all organisations have HR, there are sessions on equality and diversity s well as safeguarding.
I work as a security guard 90% of my colleagues are men, 90% of the truck drivers who come through the gatehouse are men... And I have had an issue that warranted intervention once in 2yrs, and it was dealt with swiftly, I was kept informed throughout and felt very supported.

There are still people who say those things like 'you can't say anything' or blame 'banter' but luckily this really does seem to be changing... slowly.

Conversely I agree with you about the courts, where there does seem to be a very regressive vibe, which is really worrying.
The use of sexual history in rape cases and the very different way that high profile offenders are treated are prime examples.

I would go as far as to say the differentials are classist.

I would say you were 'lucky'. Obviously not that the situation needed intervention, but that you were taken seriously.

And I didn't necessarily mean at work (though have had my fair share of sexual assaults being minimized at work..had one boss trying to persuade me not to make a complaint as the guy could lose his job and that was 'too much' when all he did was grope me for a few seconds. No, I did not work for Brock Turners dad) but just..in general. No matter what a woman does (when the victim of sexual assault or rape), she is in the wrong. Especially, if there are enough complaints about the same person for it to make the press, or the story is 'interesting' enough for it to make the press. The victim blaming, the 'shes just being vindictive' the 'she is overreacting', 'she asked him out and he said no so this is revenge' and such come in force then.

Meanwhile, when a guy is raped and it hits the press, you see none of that. There is no speculation about if he was showing too much skin, no insinuations that he is to blame in some way, no disbelief by default. There shouldn't be either, incase someone reads this wrong. I am definitely not wanting male victims to be assumed to be lying. I am just pointing out the difference in treatment between the sexes in cases like this.

If he is sexually asaulted by a woman though..and especially if she was young and attractive, you do get some idiots (almost exclusively guys) saying he is actually lucky. That they would love to be assaulted by her, and such

Obviously maybe not every single case ever in the history of press has been like that^ Before someone goes and finds one comment of how a guy brought on his own rape, or something. But this is overwhelmingly the general tone, including in the 'justice system' rather than just the press/public opinion

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would say you were 'lucky'. Obviously not that the situation needed intervention, but that you were taken seriously.

And I didn't necessarily mean at work (though have had my fair share of sexual assaults being minimized at work..had one boss trying to persuade me not to make a complaint as the guy could lose his job and that was 'too much' when all he did was grope me for a few seconds. No, I did not work for Brock Turners dad) but just..in general. No matter what a woman does (when the victim of sexual assault or rape), she is in the wrong. Especially, if there are enough complaints about the same person for it to make the press, or the story is 'interesting' enough for it to make the press. The victim blaming, the 'shes just being vindictive' the 'she is overreacting', 'she asked him out and he said no so this is revenge' and such come in force then.

Meanwhile, when a guy is raped and it hits the press, you see none of that. There is no speculation about if he was showing too much skin, no insinuations that he is to blame in some way, no disbelief by default. There shouldn't be either, incase someone reads this wrong. I am definitely not wanting male victims to be assumed to be lying. I am just pointing out the difference in treatment between the sexes in cases like this.

If he is sexually asaulted by a woman though..and especially if she was young and attractive, you do get some idiots (almost exclusively guys) saying he is actually lucky. That they would love to be assaulted by her, and such

Obviously maybe not every single case ever in the history of press has been like that^ Before someone goes and finds one comment of how a guy brought on his own rape, or something. But this is overwhelmingly the general tone, including in the 'justice system' rather than just the press/public opinion

Maybe but in the workplace now there isn't the scope for sweeping things away that there was, unless the firm is small and there is no specific HR or company guidelines. Then it very much is that you are at the mercy of your boss and his personal ethics

But yeah girls in schools even have infomercials to show them that it is ok to say no, this may be the effects of watching porn?.. That's one theory :/

I would be interested to see if history is brought up in cases of male rape, and if it is a contributory factor in assessing the possibility of the complainants consent during the act.