Discussion with female friend re Ched

[HenriettaTurkey]

So I posted an article on fb, with a link to an article on Ched Evans and the myth of male sexuality.

With it I wrote 'it's very simple. If she's drunk and you have sex with her, it's rape. That's the law'.

Several friends responded positively, saying such things as 'if in doubt assume the answer's no', 'it would be easier to move on if he at least acknowledged his act' etc

Then a female friend came on and, through various posts said I was being ridiculous as this meant that no-one could ever have a drink and have sex again.

After banging my head against the wall I realised you lovely folk would be able to help me construct a coherent response that doesn't rely on my usual, possibly unhelpful, sarcasm.

Help!

[YonicScrewdriver]

It is rape if someone doesn't have the freedom or capacity to consent.

Of course you can have a drink then sex; that's a straw man.

[smashboxmashbox]

You are talking shite. The thing that makes it rape is the lack of consent, not the drink.

[smashboxmashbox]

And it is not the law to have sex with someone who is drunk. If you're going to pontificate on "The Law" you might want to actually know what the fuck you are talking about. Otherwise you just look stupid.

HTH

[Stealthpolarbear]

I don't understand. You did in fact say it's rape to have sex with someone who is drunk. You say exactly that in the op.

[MrsRaegan]

Your wording was ridiculous. Your friend is right.

It is the lack of consent that makes him (or anyone) a rapist.

[TsukuruTazaki]

Tbh as others said you did make a bit of a hash of stating the law.

So we can't really tell if your friend is a rape apologist or just being pedantic about your bad phrasing - hopefully the latter!

[StillFrigginRexManningDay]

Its not illegal to have a drink and have sex, it is illegal to rape someone who cannot consent because of drinking.

[Username533]

The OP comment is a little too simplistic and can be mis interpreted as from someone who is a rape apologist.

However Smash box's comment is inaccurate.

This case was about not giving consent to sex.
She may well have said yes, however the jury agreed that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent. That could be for all manner of reasons and is this case it seemed to be down to alcohol.

There can sometimes be a grey area regards what actually qualifies as consent. Of course in reality no one asks permission before having sex.

The lesson is that men should be really careful about who they have sex with. If they think there's any doubt with consent then why bother?

[Stealthpolarbear]

Good post buffy. I think the message is that a lack of non consent is not good enough. Ive had sex loads when I was drunk. My 'consent' came from the fact I was still clearly capable of making decisions, and was enthusiastic.

[YonicScrewdriver]

"This case was about not giving consent to sex.
She may well have said yes, however the jury agreed that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent. That could be for all manner of reasons and is this case it seemed to be down to alcohol."

At risk of rehashing another thread here, we don't know if this is what the jury thought or if they thought Ched was lying about her saying "yeah" (or both!). The judge drew the lack of capacity conclusion.

[HenriettaTurkey]

Firstly, apologies if I'm rehashing another thread - utterly unintentional.

Secondly, yes occasionally my phraseology leaves much to be desired.

I clearly wasn't saying you can't have a drink, and for her to assume I was seems like wilful misunderstanding, which I find slightly (very) depressing.

It's definitely something I need to get my head around.

[falafelburger]

The law that he was prosecuted under is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which applies in England and Wales.

It's here:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

The main bits that apply to consent are sections 74, 75 and 76; and in the Ched Evans case in particular I think 75(2)(d) "the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act" was the relevant bit.

(It's difficult reading such law when all the personal pronouns are 'he', but still, it's worth knowing what it says).

[falafelburger]

Also, it's not just the personal pronouns that making reading that Act difficult - just glancing down the section headings could be upsetting and/or triggering - thought I'd better say.

[smashboxmashbox]

Username - I didn't comment on the Ched Evans case. I was merely commenting on the OPs statement.

Which was inaccurate and legally incorrect.

[YonicScrewdriver]

HT, you aren't rehashing - there's a thread where the specifics of the legal summary have been gone into, that's all.

Buffy's proposed reply is a good one.

[Nojacketrequired]

With it I wrote 'it's very simple. If she's drunk and you have sex with her, it's rape. That's the law'.

Sometimes these misunderstandings can be wilful and sometimes they are simply a product of the conditioning we're all subjected to:

Nothing to be misunderstood here though, is there? That first statement is plain wrong. I think there is no reason why the OP shouldn't say to her friend, "Fair point, I didn't mean to write that. What I meant was....". How hard is it to admit a mistake? And yes, avoid the sarcasm.

[Username533]

Yogic screwdriver,

At risk of rehashing another thread here, we don't know if this is what the jury thought or if they thought Ched was lying about her saying "yeah" (or both!). The judge drew the lack of capacity conclusion.

There was no counter evidence from anyone that consent wasnt given. Even the victim doesn't know if she gave consent or not. So the jury can't make assumptions that someone must be lying when there's no counter evidence or counter statement.

This case was rightly brought on a woman's inability to give consent. This can be a grey area especially as alcohol can have different effects over a short time scale. The message is if in doubt then don't do it. As some have said though it doesn't change the facts the events leading up to this were pretty disgusting and immoral.

[YonicScrewdriver]

Like I said, I'm not rehashing it, and IMO she didn't have capacity to consent to sex with either man. We just don't know and can never know what the basis of the jury decision was.

[smashboxmashbox]

The Op posting that it's rape if your drunk completely invites the smart arse comments because she's legally incorrect.

[Nojacketrequired]

Evans is not a rapist because she was drunk. If she had banged her head and got concussion, she'd have been in a similar state without the alcohol. And it would still be rape. The alcohol is a red herring. And if people want to overcome rape myths, this is not the way to do it.

And I disagree, because what the OP said is wholly inadequate. I honestly think that statements like this, followed by an unwillingness to back down, adds fuel to the fire that all feminists are Millie Tant-type extremists. How much effort does it actually take to say you wrote something that was inaccurate? Is pride that important?