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

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.

Completely depressing Lurcio. The number of people who seem to be of the opinion that women are just holes to be fucked and don't really get an opinion on who does the fucking (and certainly aren't to be believed about whether they wanted to be fucked)

Makes me want to take my young children and raise them apart from the world that thinks like this.

Here, just in case this helps, is the logic diagram:

He Thinks she consents She thinks she consents It is rape (me) It is rape (Gone)
0 0 1 1
0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 0

As you can see, according to me, rape is !(she thinks she consents), and to you rape is !(he thinks he consents)

Personally, I think that the person being raped should get to decide if they are being raped, not the rapist.

Interesting how you feel the need to defend the man's right to promiscuity but a woman isn't allowed that same leeway.

I feel no need to defend anyone [hmmm] I don't see why anyone should be hung, drawn and quartered when a jury has already found them innocent, though. I realise this will disappoint, but I have no interest in thinking this was anyone's 'fault'. Or to put it differently, I think they were all being equally stupid.

It shouldn't be left to the woman's view in retrospect entirely because she only knows the consent she gave from one perspective. To the person hearing her and seeing her, her consent (or lack of it), may not be perceived in the same way. To know this chap raped her, we'd have to know he was deliberately deceiving her into having sex with him while thinking he was someone else. We don't know that this was going on in his mind, any more than we know she was under the impression that he was his housemate. All we have is her word against his. And FWIW, I think a bloke is as able to report, 'I heard her say yes/no/she did X' as accurately as she is. It's not justice for a woman to have 100% of the voice on that and the male to have none. And how is her recall so perfect if she was so drunk - surely that undermines the accuracy of the very serious allegation she's making - not that it means she deserves it or makes it any less serious, but it does mean that her recollection may well be impaired.

Anyway, I think we now know how the jury reached their conclusion. Whether because the minority view on this thread is (sadly) the majority view in the population at large, or whether the vagaries of random sampling led to the situation, it appears that the jury was made up of people who think what constitutes "normal" sex matches gone's views, rather than most of the rest of the posters on this thread. Depressing.

It was an encounter between two people and what they both thought and how they both acted is relevant

It wasn't rape if he thought she was consenting to have sex with him

I think you'll find that you're the one being irrational here - those two statements both can't be true.

"It all rests on whether or not he thought she knew who he was or not." So in fact you are saying it all rests on what he thinks. Not on whether she did actually consent.

Are you seriously saying that the only person who's thoughts/feelings matter in this are his?

Hmmm. Let's read what I wrote shall we.

It was an encounter between two people and what they both thought and how they both acted is relevant.

No, it's not clear that she was deceived. Not by a long stretch. The jury doesn't think so and neither do I.

It wasn't rape if he thought she was consenting to have sex with him. It all rests on whether or not he thought she knew who he was or not. If he did think she knew who he was, then he didn't rape her. Unfortunately she had sex with him thinking he was someone else. Or so she says, I see absolutely no reason to accept what she's saying as gospel truth.

Well that's a pretty good synopsis of gonetoseeamanaboutadog's view on this. She's put it more flowery language of course.

"If a man got out of bed and a different man got in, I'd know. He'd smell different. Feel different. Taste different." Really? Even if you were drunk and didn't know the two men concerned? Interesting how you feel the need to defend the man's right to promiscuity but a woman isn't allowed that same leeway.

"Therefore expecting him to ask 'are you aware that I'm X and not Y' seems bizarre." Really? You don't think the fact that he inserted himself into her bed without asking if that was OK as being perfectly acceptable behavior and indicative of someone who wanted a mutually beneficial encounter?

"It's all very well to talk about freedom and capacity to consent but that is extremely difficult to evaluate - and shouldn't be left entirely to the woman's view in retrospect." Really? Whose view should be considered when looking at whether you have consented to something someone else has done with your body? Surely the fact that once she realized it wasn't Zack, he backed off (not before bloody time) would suggest that she hadn't consented. The fact was though, he didn't even bother to check. That is why it is retrospective in this case. He'd already stuck his dick into her.

gone, your last comment makes absolutely no sense.

Did you mean to suggest that because he thought he could have sex on this woman, then it wasn't rape? Regardless whether or not she consented to sex with him rather than his friend?

Because if that is what you mean, I'm not sure it's Green who is the one being irrational.

Sorry - what? It's irrational for me to think that she has a say in whether she thought she'd given consent to have sex?

Really?

Really?

Are you seriously saying that the only person who's thoughts/feelings matter in this are his? That he has the overriding decision on whether it's rape or not?

Goodness. What an unusual position.

So if you're drunk, and I approach you with my aforementioned cucumber or fingers, and you don't explicitly say 'no' then I'm free to think what I like?

You've had a number done on you - because that simply isn't the case. No-one has the right to stick anything in me without my explicit consent, no matter what they hell is going through their minds.

"It was an encounter between two people and what they both thought and how they both acted is relevant. " If only he had had the same consideration.

What ? What is that comment supposed to mean ? He clearly did deceive her about his identity.

Green You're being irrational because the sex act did not exist in the woman's mind. It happened in reality. It was not a construct of her own mind, therefore she is not in a position to have the last word on what it meant. It was an encounter between two people and what they both thought and how they both acted is relevant. Now, if she had resisted having sex this would be more straight-forward. But whether it was 'rape' is about whether he tricked her. And whether he tricked her is about what he thought and what she thought. If he was 100% under the impression that she was freely consented to have sex with him, then he didn't rape her, however unfortunate it is that it happened.

He stopped having sex with her when she realised he was not Zack

Thank goodness for that.

She consented to sex with Zack. She clearly did not consent to sex with him. He stopped having sex with her when she realised he was not Zack. I cannot see any reasonable grounds for his thinking she consented to having sex with him.

What aspect of what I'm saying is irrational?

Lets try an example from my own life:

I've got about a bit, not as much as some, not as little as others, and I am a woman.

I have had a boyfriend, who liked a finger (or two) up his bum. So, sometimes, I would oblige. At all stages of this process, I would only continue if he wanted it. I knew that he was giving full consent to this process, both when we were having sex sober, or drunk.

Other boyfriends have not enjoyed this, so I didn't stick a finger up their bum. At no point did I get confused or mis-understand and accidentally stick a finger up their respective bums.

I did not find this tricky to navigate as a concept, when sober or fall down drunk. It seems reasonable to me, that I would only stick things in someone else's orifices when they definitely wanted me to.

Now. I would say that that is reasonable behaviour. Don't stick bits of you in bits of other people unless you are sure they want you to. If you do, and they didn't want it, then that is rape (or sexual assault) - and they get to decide that, since it's their orifice - not you, not the person who is doing the sticking.

Sounds rational and reasonable to me.

If a man got out of bed and a different man got in, I'd know. He'd smell different. Feel different. Taste different. Hard to believe she didn't know and not something I think a man would be likely to assume. Therefore expecting him to ask 'are you aware that I'm X and not Y' seems bizarre. I think it is at least equally likely that he was chancing his arm, rather than trying to deceive her. And I do know people, men and women, who would have sex with one person followed by another on the same night.

I think rape is rape when someone is forced to go along with a sex act, or if they go along with it and it subsequently turns out that they have been deliberately misled in relation to some key aspect of the situation. In this situation, I think the jury were correct in thinking she hadn't been raped - or, if she had, that it wasn't something that the evidence indisputably added up to.

These people weren't swingers as such - so the protocol there is irrelevant. It's all very well to talk about freedom and capacity to consent but that is extremely difficult to evaluate - and shouldn't be left entirely to the woman's view in retrospect.

Lurcio gone is a woman, I thought the name was familiar so I looked her up.

Pretty much Fela, yes. Along with some fun stuff about women who have ONS kind of deserve it if someone does this because they're merely a choice in a pick'n'mix rather than a human being or something.