Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

"She grabbed him because she presumably assumed it was the bloke who had been in bed with her..."

Yes, and that isn't the other (accused) bloke's fault, which is why he was cleared of rape. The accused isn't judged by whether he should have known what was in HER mind.

As this woman didn't give drunken consent that she later retracted, but rather mistook the identity of the man who penetrated her, I'm not sure your post is relevant

Yes that struck me too.

I think you mentioned you had a son, gone.

I hope for his sake and humanity's, you are teaching him better than you are writing her.

And that's what has been suggested on this thread - since there is no way of a man judging a woman's inebriation with 100% accuracy (and if he gets it wrong he is definitely a rapist), it's unacceptable for him to drink - in the same way that he wouldn't drive a car.

I'm aware that the justice system (thankfully) doesn't follow the mumsnet feminist board's code of conduct...but I do think you should have the integrity to look at what can realistically be expected of men, and the rights you are claiming for women ('if you had sex and you now think you didn't want to, you were raped') without behaving like Joan of Arc.

And if you really want to improve women's lot, you should be pointing out that if you drink loads and go back to a stranger's house you are in danger. That's all. You're not responsible for choices anyone else makes in this house, but you're in danger.

I don't think it's patronising to men to suggest they are never going to have sex with women after consuming alcohol.

It's never going to happen.

I've also been sexually assaulted, and I am perfectly capable of telling the difference between assault, and a partner I probably wouldn't have slept with if I was sober.

But what about those alcohol-fuelled blanks? I don't know if you're aware of the dangers of the narrative you are selling:

1. Women have no responsibility to keep out of dangerous situations; if you say otherwise you are suggesting they're responsible for being raped.

1. There is only one explanation for what's happened to a woman who has got drunk, had sex, doesn't remember it very well/at all and would rather it hadn't happened. She has been raped. She can, with certainty, go to the police and report this as rape.

1. It can be assumed with certainty that a woman in the above scenario will not have given verbal consent if she cannot remember doing so, even if her memories of the whole event are hazy.

1. In the unlikely event that a woman in the above scenario has been asked for and given her consent to sex, it is meaningless because the level of her inebriation means she was not in a position to consent. The man involved is still a rapist.

1. There is no reasonable possibility whatsoever that there was any genuine confusion or misunderstanding about the woman's willingness to participate in sexual intercourse. There is therefore no possibility that the man involved is anything less than a rapist.

1. To suggest that her behaviour may have implied consent (and therefore have led to genuine confusion about her wishes) is exactly the same as suggesting she was 'asking' to be raped. Only a woman-hater would raise this possibility.

1. A rapist is any man who has incorrectly judged the above woman's level of inebriation, incorrectly over-estimated her ability to give consent, or who has failed to halt sexual touching to verbally ask if she was up for having sex. Even if the man was genuinely unaware of how much her decision-making capacities were affected by alcohol, he is still a rapist. Even if she asked him to have sex (not, of course the case in the OP scenario) he is still a rapist.

1. We can be certain that because some women are able to look back on sexual encounters and know that their alcohol-fuelled consent was nevertheless consent, every other woman can be trusted to (a) know the difference and (b) report that difference truthfully.

1. Building on point 8, there are situations in which it's not rape for a man to have sex with an inebriated woman, but since no decent man would do so, we must leave it to the woman involved to decide after the event if she was raped or not. We can be certain that she will do this perfectly even if she cannot remember exactly what happened, or there are blanks in her memory.

Strangely for posters who have repeatedly said that men who have sex with inebriated women are guilty of sexual assault, they themselves look back with a wry smile on consensual drunken sex with men who were not rapists. The mystery of how they are able to tell the difference in their own minds with such certainty (even when there are periods of time that are lost to their memories) is eclipsed only by the mystery of how their sexual partners were supposed to infer all this, including how they would feel in retrospect. Men don't carry breathalysers. It's clear that even if they asked for verbal consent, it could be considered worthless afterwards if the woman decides she was too drunk to agree - begging the question of what is the point of asking.

Of course, all this leaves the man involved with no defence whatsoever against the charge that he is a rapist.

I don't think we're asking too much of men, but we are asking more than we can practically expect they are going to give us. People will drink, and then they will have sex. That isn't going to change.

So he lay down in the bed rather than turning the light on and talking loudly because... what? He thought he'd sleep better next to a drunken stranger?

Or have you forgotten that part, conveniently, like you ignore or lie about many other points?

She grabbed him because she presumably assumed it was the bloke who had been in bed with her. See Dervel's point of view as to how a man who just wanted his room back would behave.

Oh I give up. Have it your own way.

But he wasn't simply trying to get into bed, he got into bed and had sex with her!

I say this as someone who has shared a bed with many men hoping for (and ending up having) sex, and also shared a bed with quite a few men on the understanding that it was platonic, and we were just going to share a bed for convenience. It really isn't hard to tell the difference - you just ask.

You've missed the point, rather. Or have you forgotten that she grabbed him after he got into bed? That of course is not an invitation to be raped. But it could certainly create grounds for confusion in his mind about what was happening here. So, say they share a bed for the purposes of sleeping. She grabs him and he's up for it. Until he realises she thinks he's someone else and he backs off. The end.

Of course you all knew "judgenenal" means judgemental.

Preventing rape isn't just one sided

Er, it is. The only sure fire way of preventing a crime is to not do it. You can think about it, can't police thoughts, but then you think "no, I don't want to be a criminal"

Dervel you are a man ? Your reaction is what I'd expect.

There's no criticism of the accused in thinking "sod this I want my room back" which is what he claimed he was doing.

But if that is what he wanted he would have done what Dervel said, knocked loudly, asked to come in, put the light on and asked her to leave.

As shame and shaming and being no better than you should be keeps getting a mention I'd like to say as a mother of a son I would not be particularly judgenenal one way or another if he were having casual sex with a willing and enthusiastic partner, no matter how short the acquaintance (just bloody don't make me a granny)

I would however be deeply ashamed if he behaved in the way the accused did.

I think MissSmith might be advocating political lesbian separatism as the solution for rape?

Dammit I was trying not to go for the cheap shots

fuck it, rape apologists don't get my A game either

Yes, it does also come to that EBear - that it's more believable that a woman would lie about being raped than a rapist would.

I, too, have had my share of ill thought liasons, and I too, generally think back on them with a wry smile and a shake of my head at what I was thinking.

I've also been sexually assaulted, and I am perfectly capable of telling the difference between assault, and a partner I probably wouldn't have slept with if I was sober.

Misssmith please fuck off with your victim blaming crap. Shame on you.

Walking down the street puts me in a position where I could be hit by a joyrider. Shall I stay home? Or shall we put the blame for such an event on the perpetrator?

And we've already established that you think very little of men gone. You're labouring your tenuous point now.

She could have prevented this though. By getting drunk and going back to a strangers house put her in that situation

House!

So, Miss, back when I was a student and regularly went back to my boyfriends' shared houses, I was asking for rape was I? If I pulled a bloke in a club and went back to his house, both of us a bit drunk, his housemates could let themselves into the room and join in? Because to go back to a house with a man I intended to have consensual sex with was a tacit invitation to any other bloke who happened to be in the house to come along and have a go too?

Your views seem dangerously close to "if a woman isn't a virgin or respectably married, then she's open to all comers." I'm having a hard time coming up with an interpretation of your posts which doesn't lead me to that conclusion.