Whats-Consent-Full-A41

3. Findings > 3.4. Scenario 3. Jim & Claire3.4.4. Labeling the eventThere was considerable prevarication and ambiguity in the labeling offered of the incident. Thus, it was seen as‘unethical’ behaviour on the part of Claire (M1, F2) and as an ‘unfortunate’ event (M1). The most commonly usedterms were ‘goading’ (F1, F2), based on Claire taunting or coercing Jim rather than directly forcing him to havesex (M3, F4). Participants in F4 felt that a female would run away at any opportunity in a similar situation, butJim remained in the room. Participants in M2 said that as he did engage in sex then there was implicit consent,although those in F2 said he did not give consent. Participants in M3 found it hard to describe what happenedas a sexual assault, as there was no forcing or violence, despite it being a violating act on the part of Claire, onein which Jim lacked control (M2).Two F4 participants did label the incident as a case of rape, while four others said it was not rape because hecould have walked away. Participants in the same group offered the view that he might have enjoyed the sexwhile he was engaged in it, and there was some debate as to whether it would be possible to perform the act ifthe male is in a state of fear. The idea of ‘if he can get it up then he can do it’ was also discussed in F2, with theview taken that the physiological reaction is distinct from the meaning he takes from the experience. Participantsin F2 also felt that, as rape is a ‘foggy term’, Jim’s clear statement that he did not want to have sex made this aclearer instance of rape than the incident described in Scenario 1 (Fred and Jane). However they also qualified thisdescription by using the term ‘emotional rape’.The scenario did not appear to fulfill the stereotype for a rape, as the two individuals were not strangers (M1). Theyhad earlier physical contact, placing the incident in the typical script for progression toward sex (‘why kiss her if youdo not want sex’, M1). However at another point in the same group the view was offered that kissing might notindicate interest in sex, but can occur from time to time among members of a mixed-gender friendship group (M1).Comparisons were made in several of the groups with an alternate depiction in which the genders were reversed.Thus, participants in M2 said it would have been a clearer case of rape if the genders were reversed, as the femaleis presumed to be responsible for withholding or granting consent while the male is presumed to always wantsex. In the case of Jim and Claire, they felt that pressure, abuse, and lack of consent were better descriptions thatthat of ‘rape’ (M2). Participants in F2 agreed that it would have been more clear-cut if the genders were switched.There was general agreement that the incident would have been worse if the genders were reversed (M1, M2,M3). With a male aggressor there is the added issue of physical threat (M3), and a male being raped is differentbecause there is not penetration (F4). That Jim penetrated Claire was significant, as it was taken to mean that hegave consent at some level through becoming aroused, thereby placing him in the role of the active agent in thescenario (F1, F2). At the time, he may have chosen to have sex to ‘show her’ he could do it or simply to give inand acquiesce to her demands (F1).3.4.5. Claire’s strategyClaire did not use physical force to make Jim have sex with her. Her main strategy was described as ‘psychologicalpressure’ (M3). She was thought to have used the male stereotype of always being ready for sex, deployingthis expectation to call into question whether Jim was ‘man enough’ to match that standard (M1, M3, F3, F4).The participants in M3 described how psychological pressure could be equally or more distressing as physicalforce. Claire was perceived as being skilled in manipulative tactics (F3), but this comprised a form of emotionalblackmail, sexual harassment, and victimization (F3, F4).3.4.6. The role of alcoholTwo of the male groups offered explanations of Claire’s behaviour that involved the use of alcohol. These arefamiliar from the discussion of previous scenarios, in that alternative narratives were offered depending on therelative influence of Claire’s character or the alcohol (i.e., alcohol as an explanation or an excuse). Thus, if shewas drunk then she may not have known any better (M1) (positioning alcohol as an excuse) or that is herreaction when she has alcohol taken (M2). However if she had not been very drunk then her behaviour wasbelieved to arisen from her disposition (it was bullying, M1, it was her character, M2).Research Report : January 28th 201437