Discussion with female friend re Ched

However - there is no "technical" measure of capacity, no level of alcohol in the blood that's ok and one that's not, unlike drink driving. And that's because a lack of capacity may be caused by many things - drink, drugs, drowsiness, SEN etc

Capacity when it comes to rape is not a red herring.

She hasn't heard of Ched Evans?

Buffy and Nojacket - I agree.

And I think the OPs type of "this is the law and it's rape if" really isn't helpful.

And if I saw it on FB I'd have to say something to her. Because it's wrong. And I don't think it's helpful to post shite that is incorrect on fb.

The issue is consent. Not alcohol. Alcohol may lead to a consent issue, but the issue is consent, always the consent.

I'm not sure its helpful to speculate over whether or not the statement was 'misunderstood', and in fact, I believe to do so in this case is to obfuscate somewhat.

To say "...If she's drunk and you have sex with her, it's rape. That's the law..." is simply incorrect, and to begin the statement with "...its very simple..." (when it was clearly incorrect) won't have helped. What use is it speculating about the motivation of the friend who responded negatively when we can see just how wrong the statement itself is?

Some of the friends read the statement, and seemed to think it was indeed a 'simple' and correct statement of the law, or that it was logical, when it was clearly neither.

I occasionally play for a men's pub football team, and we talked about Evans etc. There were guys who were convinced that it was indeed now rape to have sex with a 'drunk' woman. Misinformation is damaging and actually detracts from the issue of 'consent' that lies at the heart of the matter.

The op can extricate herself from her position (in a manner of speaking) by just admitting that her 'simple' statement was incorrect/misleading. In my experience, most people react well to someone putting their hands up and admitting to a mistake.

I do know it's you're btw - my phone has other ideas

"Almost like it's somehow worse to make a mistake with words that implies men are in the wrong when it comes to sex when in fact they aren't than it is for men to have sex with a woman too drunk to consent."

Yup.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Which was inaccurate and legally incorrect.

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.

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).