Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

It seems not even CCTV is enough as CE has now "found fresh evidence" to clear his name it seems (here

While the police may ask more questions you have to wonder if rapists will just use bigger lies? Especially where the victim knows the rapist. I wonder what type of idiotic claims will be used to prove anyone said yes.

I don't know enough about the central tenets of third wave feminism to have an opinion either way. I would guess that the amount I know about feminism could be written on one side of an a4 page. I still consider myself a feminist. Is that wrong? Or horribly naive perhaps?

Yeah genuinely what are the central tenets of third wave feminism.

I'll be a feminist either way, but it'd be good to know!

I certainly don't agree with third-wave feminism. I also have arguments against quite a few of the ideas of RadFems. Joining each subsequent wave is not a requirement of feminism. But we're all after the same ultimate goal, and as I see it, if all of us work our own area of the coal-face and let others deal with theirs as they best see fit, we'll get the whole area covered faster.

i'm not sure i know what the central tenets of third-wave feminism are

'beadsbeadsbeads lots of feminists don't agree with the central tenets of third wave feminism.'

Hear hear!

beadsbeadsbeads lots of feminists don't agree with the central tenets of third wave feminism.

Don't you think this is a worthwhile step and worth celebrating even though it's not the solution to everything? I don't see patriarchy being dismantled in one revolutionary swoop but rather in a series of steps forward (and unfortunately some back).

Beadsbeadsbeads - the points you raise are valid ones and I don't think that anyone on here thinks for even a minute that this one small change has ended the war against rape. It's a small victory, but a victory none the less. So why not celebrate it for what it is rather than dismissing it as not enough?

I agree that a lot more needs to be done.

But I do think it's a good step in the right direction. Our main issue around rape, IMO, is attitudes. If the authorities say, loud and clear, that if a woman is drunk that will increase suspicion that you raped her, it sends a message that it isn't in fact the responsibility of women to stay sober and walk demurely in brightly lit streets with all of their body completely covered - it says very strongly that the man does in fact have to open his eyes and look at the person he's attempting to penetrate. It is breaking down this ridiculous idea that a man can be less than an inch away from a woman, in fact, he can have a body part in her body, and still not be aware of how she's behaving. It is finally saying that a defence of "I didn't know guv" is just bullshit.

I don't want to derail the thread with a discussion of why I'm an ex-feminist but in short I no longer call myself a feminist because I don't agree with some of the central academic tenants of third wave feminism and don't wish to be associated with them.

I never claimed to be an expert on rape legislation, I don't think that invalidates my opinion. This is a forum for the general public not an experts only forum.

When I referred to pubs and clubs I was aware that it was an offence to serve a drunk person alcohol. What concerns me is that, for whatever reason, pubs and clubs are still serving drunk people alcohol and not being prosecuted for it.

In my view they may not be causing rape directly, but they are creating an atmosphere in which it is easier for predators to pray on drunken women. Go to any town or city centre on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see drunk people of both genders being served alcohol. They are putting profits before the safety of their patrons. I think this needs to be addressed because they are a part of the equation.

The jury is one of my main concerns in all of this. I think it's asking a lot or perhaps expecting a lot of a jury to decide how drunk is too drunk. I think it will be very easy for a defence team to convince a jury that a victim wasn't drunk enough in a lot of these cases.

I just don't see this as much of a victory and I still think there is a massive amount of work to be done. At a time when rape crisis centres are being closed because of lack of funding and the numbers of police officers are being slashed, this all feels like a bit of a pat on the head.

Anyway thank you for listening (reading?) I've really valued this discussion and will continue to watch the thread with interest.

I didn't even address the "false sense of security" thing as I have absolutely no idea how this guidance will do that.

Firstly I think the premise that rapists don't believe they have to obtain consent is a false one in many cases. To use an example of a poster further up this thread I think they know full well that it's not OK to have sex with a drunk women. I think they enjoy knowing what they are doing is wrong and will do it anyway. So I don't think that this group of people will be changed or deterred in this sense.

I think the Ched Evans case indicates differently - there was certainly a sense in the comments made by many men and women about the case that the fact that the victim was drunk was not only seen as not being a problem, but as a justification for what Evans did- as in, she was drunk, what did she expect? I think underlining the fact that being drunk isn't a crime but rape is is important. I do believe there are plenty of opportunistic rapists out there (my own rapist being one of them) who will rape because they know that society won't blame them for it. If it's made clear that drunkenness will cause suspicion to fall on the man not the woman then I think that will reduce opportunistic rape. If one rape is prevented, it's worth it.

Secondly I don't see how it helps people who were raped when drugs or alcohol were not involved. How on earth do you prove that you didn't say yes in that situation? It's still a he said/she said type situation.

Witnesses, or CCTV, as in the Ched Evans case.

Also where is the line in the sand regarding intoxication on alcohol? How drunk is too drunk? Who decides that, is it on a case by case basis? Does it depend on how much a person usually drinks. It's unlikely a women/man will be able to prove how drunk they were at the time of their attack unless they get a blood test straight away.

Again, witnesses can say if a woman was incoherent, or stumbling. That would make a good case for severe intoxication. The line would have to be determined by the jury.

What happens in a case where the rapist is equally as drunk as the victim? Will courts begin to argue that if a victim can be too drunk to consent a rapist can be too drunk to know what they were doing?

Being drunk, or "not knowing what you were doing" is not a defence, except in cases where there is a medical condition (such as sleepwalking) that the person can't control.

It would be interesting to know if there will be a sort of amnesty in the legislation for women who abuse drugs and illegal substances. A lot of very vulnerable women use drugs regularly and are more likely to be raped while unable to give their consent because of their drug use, but will they be able to admit that without risking prosecution for their drug use? Being high on drugs isn't a crime - possession is.

I'd feel more positive about it if there was something being done about the roll of pubs and clubs in all of this. It's them that are supplying already drunk women with enough alcohol to make them incapacitated in many cases. What happened to landlords being responsible for their patrons?

It is not the duty of publicans to prevent rape.

I think in this case it means someone who used to post in feminism and doesn't any more....

I don't think all the points are ill thought out....

This probably doesn't affect intentionally deliberate rapers that much directly, but it does shift the conversation in a way that will isolate them further from what is considered reasonable behaviour.

I too wondered what an "ex feminist" is.

Perhaps someone who used to believe in gender equality but now thinks women should be subservient to men?

No, it's not a change in the law, it's a change in the guidance of how the law should be applied. In theory, establishing consent should have been part of the process but what was really happening was that police and prosecutors focused on the way in which the woman denied consent, rather than how the man obtained consent. It shifts the focus in a really positive way.