Talk

Flip

Feminism: chat

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Homegrown pair of alleged rapers of a drunk/passed out girl/took a video - they said they had consent of course

16 replies

KindDogsTail · 30/06/2016 23:45

This is a rant on my part.
A pair of alleged Nottingham University rowers - allegedly raped a passed out girl and took a video.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/university-rowers-accused-of-filming-rape-of-drunk-student/

The Dailymail includes remarks from the defending barristers.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3664026/Friends-filmed-raping-woman-passed-drunk-sofa-shared-trophy-pictures-Whatsapp.html

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of the CPS guideline saying this?:

women have the same right to consume alcohol as men
being vulnerable does not imply consent
if a woman is unable to give consent because she is drunk drugged or unconscious it is rape and only the rapist is responsible for the rape

In every case I have read of this year so far, in the UK, the alleged rapists have been acquitted when the girl was drunk. Brock Turner was more or less acquitted and only got his few months because of the passers by.

And they were lucky their case was even prosecuted.
www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/02/28/revealed-why-the-police-are-failing-most-rape-victims/

Alcohol consumption prior to the attack reduced the chances of referral to prosecutors by 45%, as did a history of consensual sex with the suspect

If taken to court, in practice, the alleged rapists simply say they had consent and the defending barristers say things such as this quoted in The Dailymail:

V M defending B, said: 'I suggest when you left [the nightclub] you knew exactly what you were doing.
You were going back to have some fun, some sex, with these two men who you had been dancing very provocatively with on the dance floor.

M S, defending N, said the woman would not have consented to the footage but that she did consent to sexual activity with these men.
When you were in [the nightclub] you were in drink but you were not so drunk you didn't know what you were doing,' he said
You were drunk enough to lose your inhibitions, which is why you found yourself back in a flat with two men having consensual sex. But in the clear light of day you regretted that

The CPS says:
In investigating the suspect, it must be established what steps, if any, the suspect took to obtain the complainant’s consent and the prosecution must prove that the suspect did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting

In my opinion,that proving that they did not have reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting is never going to be possible in most cases. I looked up one of the defending barristers. She is a top barrister, a mature woman and ex nurse who will be particularly convincing to the jury, probably being paid hundreds of thousands, perhaps the other one is too. They will probably convince a jury that the defendants probably did have a reasonable belief in consent and that this trumps the prosecutor's case that she was too drunk to consent.

What I cannot understand is how any reasonable man could reasonably have sex with a drunk girl he has just met and think it is really OK, that he has true consent. This was a pair of them, respected no doubt for their rowing and their degrees, who will be in the top jobs in the future.

Sadly it seems to be in our culture that it is OK, or if not OK, the girl is blamed..
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11409210/Drunk-or-flirty-rape-victims-often-to-blame-says-survey.html
12th February 2015
Teenagers and the 55 to 59 age group were less likely to be sympathetic to sex attack victims who had been drinking or flirting than people in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the poll showed
Among 16- to 19-year-olds 34 per cent said a victim’s drunkenness made them “completely”, “mostly” or “a little” responsible, along with nearly 46 per cent who said the same about a victim who had been flirting with their attacker

This article also from February 2015 is about a barrister who openly thinks that men should automatically be cleared of rape if the victim was drunk.
I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair. If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was ‘raped’, this provides the accused with a complete defence. End of story and a victory for fairness, moderation and common sense!

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barrister-sparks-outcry-by-claiming-men-should-be-cleared-of-rape-if-the-victim-was-drunk-10030529.html

Anyway, for me they are loathsome beyond belief to have had sex with her given she was drunk to any degree, and loathsome to have videoed it and to have prided themselves on their acts.

It is part of our culture for people to get drunk and have consensual sex but the same culture seems to be being used opportunistically as a pathway for rape to be very easy, and par for the course, for some men.

Stepanie McWhorter’s carried out research in 2009 in the USA. Her findings on modus operandi also confirm the basic finding of Lisak & Miller’s earlier study: 61% of the reported attacks were intoxication-based

OP posts:

Report

ChocChocPorridge · 01/07/2016 07:29

What really, really makes me angry about this, is you don't get barristers saying to people who have had their purse stolen that they'd given the barman money earlier, isn't it true that you meant to tip him that other 50 he took from your purse - the victim is believed, unless something comes to light that suggests they're lying, and that's just about money, about property, something that the UK doesn't even care enough about that you would likely be in trouble if you hurt that same thief by hitting them whilst they stole it.

Yet when it comes to a woman's body, wether she wanted a penis put in it, suddenly the woman isn't to be believed, suddenly it's her word against his.

How can it be right that we'd trust a woman's word over 50 quid, but not over her own bloody vagina?!?!