Discussion with female friend re Ched

Hi DS

Could you comment on this question? Thanks.

I really hope you aren't saying "it's only rape if someone other than the victim and the accused can testify" because that's really a license to rape, don't you think?

Okey doke Puffins.

Just out of interest, do you think there is room differences of opinion here? Or is there just one right answer. There are many people on FWR that are far better versed than me, but I think I'm asking if you believe in moral absolutism. It seems to me that most feminists must do.

I think I struggle because I suspect I'm more into moral relativism.

Hoping someone more educated than I might pick this up!

No. Not your post. Other people's ideas.

No, Puffins. We've got mixed up somewhere. I just thought your dismissal of my first post was wrong.

"It's only something if something totally illogical".

I often wonder how these people feel about male victims of sexual violence. Whether like that author chap they see females being abused as not too much of an issue "it's not like it's 12 year old boys" or whatever he said.

Clearly the system is set up against victims of sexual violence and most don't report what happened to them. Clearly this is a problem.

Clearly while we have people saying "oh well if she was too drunk he must've been too" and "oh well his word against hers what can you do?" none of this is going to change.

And, just to round off the point: that kind of sexual assault can carry the same sentence as rape.

Ched Evans was found GUILTY of RAPE in a court of law, something that most victims of rape will never ever see.

And STILL we have people saying yeah but no but if she's too drunk he must be too drunk too (huh?), that a female's testimony shouldn't really count for too much if she's a victim of a sex crime etc etc blah.

Well happily, much of society, the police forces and other people in authority agree hence Rotherham, Jimmy Saville, the various childens homes scandals, various politicians, and all the rest of it. The commonality here is that large numbers of people (mainly female) were raped and no-one gave a toss because it was "his word against hers" and anyway they seem pretty unreliable to me.

Hopefully that attitude is changing slowly what with everything that's come out. Well I hope so anyway

Yonic, and god forbid you have more than one rapist, so one female witness, versus multiple male witnesses

Always comes round to this doesnt it.

Yes, if a man woke up one morning in a strange room, having pissed themselves as they were so drunk, with physical evidence that they had had sexual intercourse with a woman, of course they could prosecute for sexual assault (not rape in uk, no penis. Different laws in different countries with that).

Weird how few men are claiming this has happened to them though, even if they brazened it out as a "positive"

Perhaps there are just fewer female sexual offenders? Though i guess you'd say i'm being sexist to suggest that?

A woman can sexually assault a man who is too drunk to have capacity to consent to sexual contact, if that was your question.

I really hope you aren't saying "it's only rape if someone other than the victim and the accused can testify" because that's really a license to rape, don't you think?

No, a woman cannot commit rape. Unless a person has a penis, they cannot rape. They can sexually assault, but not rape.

Ched Evans has served half of his time in prison, and will continue to serve the rest of his time in the community. Unless he messes up and is recalled to prison,

Damsilli, I am at a loss to understand where you thought I was saying that the jury were wrong. What I was commenting on was some of the totally illogical thoughts about capability and culpability which have come up on this thread, and have been again brought up since my comment and will be brought up on every thread about rape ever.

However, thanks for your comments. I'll take them under advisement.

Juries are entitled to accept witness testimony which they consider proves a case beyond reasonable doubt.

I have no problems with rapists being found guilty on witness testimonies as long as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Just pointing out that an accusation in and of itself is not enough to prove in most cases.

The man is the one who can commit rape. It is up to him to not rape.

Of course, most men aren't rapists, but a woman can also commit rape. If guilt comes down to consent and a drunk man didn't consent, wouldn't that be rape on the part of the woman? (Hypothetically, at least).

Rapists don't care about consent.

That is for certain. Rapists deserve the book thrown at them and should be locked away for life as far as I'm concerned. The Ched Evans situation certainly looks pretty clear cut that he was guilty as found but based upon the punishment given at the time, he has served his time, whether we agree with the length or not.

But she wasn't the accuser. It was the CPS who was prosecuting. Women are witnesses, not accusers.

The man is the one who can commit rape. It is up to him to not rape. If that involves drinking less then so be it. Drink is not a defence against committing a crime. A woman hasn't committed a crime by being rape (but interesting that you are equating it). But, again we are getting into the semantics of these made up scenarios.

Rapists don't care about consent. That is not going to change when they are drunk. Drink is a big factor in rapes, from the perpetrator's perspective possibly in order to go through with the rape. However, the attitude is still there when they are sober. Something like 75% of rapes involves some level of pre-meditation by the perpetrator (Ched Evans being a good example both of pre-meditation and attitudes when sober).

Witness testimony is evidence. Juries are entitled to accept witness testimony which they consider proves a case beyond reasonable doubt.

I've been a juror on a case where a crime was perpetrated by two men on one other man; he identified them as the perpetrators but there was no clear CCTV. They were found guilty on the basis of his witness testimony, plus police accounts of the suspect interviews.

Do you feel that case was unproven, Subhuman? I'd like to remind you that the victim is a witness in a rape, just as the victim was the only witness in my example.

I agree with Damsilli.

Of course, I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who is raped, but proving rape is not straightforward and as with all crime, you have to stick with innocent until proven guilty. Proof of sex is fairly easy, but proof that consent was not given isn't. It becomes the word of the accuser vs the word of the accused and without proof, the benefit of the doubt HAS to go with the accused otherwise you risk punishing innocent people based on circumstantial evidence.

The other aspect is if two people have been drinking together and the woman claims to not have been sober enough to consent, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that neither was the man? Maybe consent was there from both but both were too drunk to remember giving it in the morning and the assumption always seems to be that the man would have been at fault and the "aggressor" in such a scenario rather than just going with the flow.

Sorry, not 'wrong'. 'Totally illogical'.

Not really. Maybe it was ambiguous after all.

I mean that it's (often) on person's word against another. And burden of proof is on prosecution. (Flame me, lawyers). On this thread, however, even in agreed circumstances (which would rarely happen) there are different views.

Not good enough to say, "your view isn't my view, so you're wrong".

I see now

It's looked at as if she were on trial and having to prove her 'innocence' rather than he (any rapist, not just ched the rapist) has to prove she did consent. So because it's looked at in that direction, more rapists are given benefit of the doubt. That kind of what u mean?

Jury got to prove consent not given. Debate on regarding capacity to give consent / coercion into consent etc etc.

A jury has to prove... Difficult to prove. S'all. Not ambiguous.

I'm a bit baffled too? But don't detract too much, or smashbox will forget about my question

So perhaps you could explain your ambiguous remark Damsilli?

But I don't agree with you Puffins