Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Man cleared of rape because he was too drunk to realise which bed he was in.

315 replies

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 26/02/2011 12:29

Sorry DM but here.

This guy's girlfriend refused sex, he stumbled into another room "by accident" and started having sex with the woman in the bed there.

He was cleared of rape.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. I imagine he's been cleared because he didn't intend (apparently) to commit a crime. But the fact is that neither woman had consented to sex with him, so whoever he decided to penetrate it would have been rape. He seems to have been cleared on the grounds that if he had walked back into his (non-consenting) girlfriend's room and penetrated her without further ado, that would not have been rape. It obviously would have been.

:( scared and Angry all at once.

OP posts:
charitygirl · 26/02/2011 16:11

Too drunk to know whose bed he was in but not too drunk to fuck?

Kill me now.

WishingChairAgain · 26/02/2011 16:04

How would he have got into the woman's room though? Hotel rooms can't be opened from the outside even if she'd forgotten to lock it from the inside.

(Not that I'm defending the dogshit but wondering if there's more to it for there to be such an unbelievable decision)

Prolesworth · 26/02/2011 16:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/02/2011 15:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Prolesworth · 26/02/2011 15:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PeterAndreForPM · 26/02/2011 15:53

sorry, my fault for assuming all the comments re. the article would be shitty

I did say I hadn't read them

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/02/2011 15:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

inde · 26/02/2011 15:45

I read the story and put the man's name into google news to see if there was more to this than the Daily Mail is reporting. I could only find a link to the Daily Mail story though which adds to my suspicion that there is more to this than meets the eye. Before anyone rips into me I agree that it is hard to see how he could have any defence but on the other hand it's hard to see how any jury would be daft enough to fall for a "I was to drunk to realise I was shagging the wrong woman" defence. I wouldn't believe anything if it was only the Daily Mail reporting it.

BertieBotts · 26/02/2011 15:44

Most of the comments are OK - I was annoying myself by clicking on "Worst rated".

Saltatrix · 26/02/2011 15:28

What's wrong with the DM comments? they think something is wrong with the guy getting off.

Also I thought the DM was putting the false rape claimant being jailed as a sense of irony.

TheCrackFox · 26/02/2011 15:19

Considering it was a DM story the "comments" are actually quite encouraging. The vast majority think it was rape too.

eden263 · 26/02/2011 15:07

Appalling. Unless the two women were almost identical in appearance, weight, body shape, smell etc he would have known right away it was the wrong person, apart from the fact that, being such a fine upstanding man, he'd have asker her consent and have made some nice loving smalltalk with her anyway before just getting on with it, so would her voice not have given it away...Hmm

Absolutely and utterly beyond belief. Angry

And yes, Crackfox, my immediate thought was how could he get it up if the was that pissed?

I can't believe that he was cleared by a whole jury, not just one clueless judge. Wtf were they thinking?

dittany · 26/02/2011 15:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PeterAndreForPM · 26/02/2011 15:03

fucking DM

I am not even going to read the article and the inevitable shity comments

it will spoil my Saturday

Prolesworth · 26/02/2011 15:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PeterAndreForPM · 26/02/2011 14:58

disgusting

kerrymumbles · 26/02/2011 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 26/02/2011 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MotherofHobbit · 26/02/2011 14:38

Shock Angry Sad

dittany · 26/02/2011 14:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alexpolismum · 26/02/2011 14:27

I agree with TheCrackFox

alexpolismum · 26/02/2011 14:26

Yes, Engelbert. That's exactly it. That is how much consideration the courts have for the rights of women.

EngelbertFustianMcSlinkydog · 26/02/2011 14:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheCrackFox · 26/02/2011 14:23

I find it difficult to believe that a man who was so drunk that he didn't know what he was doing could get an erection.

FWIW I don't think people who are really drunk don't know what they are doing, it just allows them to liberate their real personality.

Of course it was rape.

alexpolismum · 26/02/2011 14:23

Can we appeal to the Home Secretary to have the case re-examined?

The lack of consideration for the victim is just staggering. It's like she is being told "You were raped by this man, but he didn't mean it really, he's a good guy, he had just drunk a bit too much, so he doesn't deserve to face the consequences. Too bad if you suffered, it's not his problem."

And the girlfriend is being told "If you had been raped by this man while he was drunk, it would have been your problem. Too bad if you didn't consent."

Who do we appeal to? Home Sec? Chief Justice? Minister for Equality? All of the above?

Swipe left for the next trending thread