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

palmer You misunderstand. I don't think you hate me. Why would you?! I was saying that I don't hate women, and don't have form for it either. What was the other thread - the abortion one? I see the Royal College of Midwives has an internal rebellion on its hands because the committee has supported legalising abortion up to term without consulting the midwives. That's exactly what I was afraid would happen. I don't think telling a woman that she is not allowed to abort her unborn baby at 30 + weeks is tantamount to hating her. But feminists seem to see things very black and white. We must hate women if we're not championing them against the rest of society in pre-determined ways that involve giving them what feminists think is good for them and withholding what feminists have decreed will be bad for them.

My position on this thread is of a piece with the other thread in that I am keen to think through the rights of other members of society, and the responsibilities of women to other members of society.

Waspishly condemning anyone who has sex when they're drunk is never going to get you anywhere. Women and men will continue to do it. I agree with you that abstinence would be a solution but it isn't a solution that will fly in reality.

There has been talk of sticking a dick in like sex is something that a man does to a woman. I'm sure rape is like that. But sex isn't usually - we should have the honesty to admit that it's not an activity in which women are physically passive.

I don't mean to be facetious, but wasn't the drunk girl too drunk to judge her 'rapist's' consent in this instance? Or was it one rule for her and another for him? And are you saying that she had any responsibilities at all in this situation? Because I don't think that saying women are entitled to get as drunk as they like while expecting the male population to protect them from themselves. You're living in a fantasy land if you think women have the right to live as if men everywhere will say 'no, even though you're saying you want sex, you're actually too drunk to know what you're talking about....'

I'm a feminist who doesn't hate women who "don't conform" with her views. Two in the same place, how surprising. Perhaps your assumption was wrong there, gone?

Nothing bad happens if, on occasion when I sure, you don't have sex when it would've been ok to do so and just swap numbers instead.

Exactly. If you are sober, but the person you fancy having sex with is drunk, then your dick won't fall off if you wait until you're both sober enough to consent meaningfully. It certainly doesn't mean you can stick your dick into a woman you must be at least 50% sure is too drunk to know who you are, let alone consent to you doing it.

I don't hate you gone. I don't understand how you can think as you do and still call yourself an intelligent human, but I don't hate you. I don't know any feminists who would either, but if it makes you feel better to think that, then on you go.

I wouldn't say you were famous either, just that I remembered you from another thread and your posts here are of a part with your posts there. I don't think that being recognised by me makes anyone famous.

And no, the person with responsibility for not raping someone is the rapist, not his victim. This isn't a feminist viewpoint, it's a human one. Perhaps you could familiarise yourself with the excellent MN campaign on the subject before you show yourself up even more?

As is pretty clear, gone, I think both parties have a responsibility to be sure that their partner is giving free, informed consent to any sexual touching and has capacity to do so.

Seems a pretty basic standard, no?

better teaching around capacity to consent is needed. Just as we expect someone pissed not to forget the law and get behind a wheel, and we are advised not to get in a car with someone who has been drinking in the driver seat, we should expect either or both pissed people to Not Have Sex if they are too pissed to judge their potential partners' consent.

That's interesting. So you do think both parties have a responsibility to avoid a situation in which one of them might end up being raped?

gone sadly has form for that.

Hadn't realised I was famous! Yes, if your definition of hating women is upholding a jury and thinking that as a women we have a responsibility to care about everyone in society, then I do. Actually, I care deeply about women and believe that we are better than the kind of self-serving rationalising on this issue. It hasn't convinced a jury and integrity forces me to agree.

In my experience, feminists have a tendency to hate any woman who doesn't conform to what their idea of what a woman should do/think/feel.

I sure = unsure

" How does someone decide if someone they've just met who has had a few drinks is competent to mean the 'yes' they are saying, especially if they've had a few drinks too? "

Irrelevant to this scenario, as the man was sober (and had driven) whilst he stated that the woman was very drunk.

Separately: well, better teaching around capacity to consent is needed. Just as we expect someone pissed not to forget the law and get behind a wheel, and we are advised not to get in a car with someone who has been drinking in the driver seat, we should expect either or both pissed people to Not Have Sex if they are too pissed to judge their potential partners' consent.

Nothing bad happens if, on occasion when I sure, you don't have sex when it would've been ok to do so and just swap numbers instead.

You are running a risk that something bad can happen if you proceed. Whether that is legally rape or something that leaves one or both parties unhappy or uncomfortable. Or indeed, a contraceptive stuff up!

Are there people to whom something terrible happens, like genital explosion, if they don't have sex at every possible opportunity? No? Then, if you aren't crystal clear you have consent, stop.

Iirc, a man was acquitted of rape for doing just that Green.

A cynic might think that juries will believe almost any cock and bull story to stop men being found guilty of rape.

So, so lucky none of us are cynical /sarcasm

After all, if you mean to murder someone, but you fail and just main them, you're still done with murder, because the intent was there.

If you intend to have sex with someone and they don't consent then that's rape.

The equivalent to manslaughter would be slipping over whilst naked, next to a naked person and accidentally putting your penis in them - and whilst, according to A&E visitors - it is possible to fall in such a way as to end up with objects accidentally inserted, when that object is attached to a person (penis, I mean a penis) it becomes rather less likely.

Looook - probably because whilst you can accidentally kill someone, it's rather hard to accidentally put your penis in someone?

Like that documentary with the teens showed, most people have a hard time with what consent and rape actually are, and are v unwilling to convict on this type of scenario.

By the way I'm not saying in this case he could reasonably have thought she consented - I was speaking generally. It's hard to see how he could possibly have thought she consented here.

I think the problem people have getting their heads round this is that if the definition of rape is "!(she thinks she consents)" then it appears you can have rape without any person deciding to commit rape, because that decision isn't part of the definition.

I don't really get that. We have manslaughter and murder as separate things even though the person involved has lost their life just as much either way. Intent really matters then doesn't it? Why wouldn't it matter for rape?

I understand that a woman can have an experience that is just as much rape whether or not the person doing it believed she consented. That shouldn't be minimised. But is the perpetrator equally much a rapist? How could the two things really be treated exactly the same when it comes to criminal prosecution?

I don't really understand how these rape apologists can think that consent is such a difficult concept.

In this instance, introducing himself would have been a starting place, surely?

There's really only one explanation for him not doing that, and that is that he knew that she wasn't going to consent to having sex with him. I would have thought that this would be especially important to find out if you'd nipped into bed with the woman your mate had brought home when he nipped out of the room.

The fact that he was acquitted says more about the misogyny of your average jury than about whether or not consent is some strange arcane thing that is just too difficult to be bothered with.

For the sake of argument, even if one goes along the lines of Gone's theory, that it isn't rape if he had a reasonable belief she consented (I don't think this is the case here, I don't think he cared one way or another), no reasonable person would believe they had her consent in this situation

That is not Gone's theory by the way. It is a defence that the accused had a reasonable belief the woman consented.

Here however I agree. I fail to see how he could possibly have had that belief reasonably.

I think it was avoidable

Yep - totally avoidable - just as I have avoided sexually assaulting anyone in my 38 years, by not sticking any part of my anatomy in anyone without being totally certain that they wanted it!

How does someone decide if someone they've just met who has had a few drinks is competent to mean the 'yes' they are saying

The same way I avoid beating them up or taking their stuff - by, unless I'm totally sure they don't want to have a boxing bout, or give me their TV, not bloody doing it!

It's not vague or tricky or difficult to grasp, it's totally, completely and utterly obvious to everyone but a rape apologist.

And how much some people's hatred of women can be exposed in just a few words.

gone sadly has form for that.

"You don't know that." We do know that. We know she protested when she found out who he was and he stopped. She didn't know who he was up until that point. He knew that she was expecting his mate. It wasn't mistaken identity.

"He can't be responsible for who she might think he is unless he's taken steps to make her think he's someone else." Inserting yourself into someone else's bed without them knowing who you are kind of lends itself to making it your responsibility to ensure they do know who you are. Even more so when you know they are expecting someone else. What the hell was he thinking? Why wouldn't you tell someone who you are?

"I feel no need to defend anyone..." Your first comment on this thread was Promiscuity isn't rape - which puts you in the position of defending the man's behavior. If you are being as neutral as you claim to be where is your empathy with this woman. Not once have you shown that. You say you feel sorry for them both and then spend the next 4 paragraphs feeling sorry for the man.

You don't know that.

"His behaviour when the case of mistaken identity came to light does not even slightly fit the description of a rapist." Mistaken identity is an interesting phrase. It suggests that it was mutually mistaken. when that wasn't the case at all. He knew exactly what was happening. She didn't. That's not mistaken identity.

To have happened, predictive text fail, sorry!

I feel sorry for them both actually. I don't think either of them deserved such a public nightmare as this has been. I think it was avoidable. I think the criteria for consent is vague in practice. How does someone decide if someone they've just met who has had a few drinks is competent to mean the 'yes' they are saying, especially if they've had a few drinks too? It's very easy for one party to look back and say their judgement was clouded and that should have been obvious, by what does it look like to have clear judgement in those circumstances? I think there's room to make a mistake there.

His behaviour when the case of mistaken identity came to light does not even slightly fit the description of a rapist.

What do I think happened... I don't know what happened, I wasn't there. I don't think she was necessarily raped. Being confused about who she was having sex with isn't tantamount to being raped unless he set out to confuse her. It could have just happened and no one is to blame but mutual stupidity. Not every bad thing that happens is a result of someone else's evil intentions. I don't think someone else should be punished if there was reason to suppose she WAS giving consent.

He can't be responsible for who she might think he is unless he's taken steps to make her think he's someone else.

I think he may have set outi deceive her but the evidence is very ambiguous. It's possible he was being forward; saw an opportunity to come on to her and took it. Thought he'd been successful and ended up hideously embarrassed. Wouldn't be the most stupid or unlikely thing you have happened.