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

I thought they were quite amusing.

The kind of comment that makes you unpleasant but not deleted! It hadn't occurred to me that you had reported them. Not sure why I'd care TBH.

how

If you are really academics who are contributing to the body of literature of all of this and you don't engage with this issue in your work, doesn't it concern you that the courts will decide these issues for themselves and you won't have had a say in talking about what consent looks like in concrete terms? It's all very well to say 'Well I never had any bother in recollecting consent or knowing that I was able to give it' but the law is there for the cases about which there are ambiguity.

Something I have noticed is the research from the 80s and 90s focusing on issues such as I have mentioned in the thread becoming very scant as the focus moved to how rape myths and their impact - and then, at least it was my impression - a move back towards these issues, but cautiously, I imagine because it is unpopular for all the reasons my comments have been unpopular.

palmer I have no doubt you will have a different view on the paper - it was described in those terms in 'Violence against girls and women: 12 international perspectives', edited by Janet Sigal and Florence Denmark. Google will bring it up.

Oh come on lass, there are a world of alternatives between those two extremes and you must know it.

I don't have any difficulty in imagining what 2 drunk but enthusiastic people having sex would look like. Possibly because I've been there and possibly because it's a scenario which gets played out in films and TV

Bugger - there was a stray "not". I meant it is something you see in films and TV.

What does that look like? I ask because it seemed earlier than asking for consent was meaningless if the man could be in any doubt whatsoever that she was unable to consent. This seems a wide and vague definition to me - does it apply to tipsy/slightly stoned - or what?

Oh for goodness sake. There is no contradiction in what I said and asking for and getting consent potentially being meaningless.

I doubt there was a single situation in my wilder days that any one "asked if I was consenting" The fact I was very actively participating, taking my clothes off, unbottoning his, doing things to him, showed it.

If however I had been drifting towards unconsciousness, unable to undress myself (or him); unable to respond to what was happening, not doing anything to him, then his asking "do you consent" and getting a slurred "yes" could not be relied on.

Felas, do you have access to academic journals? If not, I'll have to email you the link to the PDF, sorry.

No, I am not unpleasant gone, as evidenced by your posts being deleted rather than mine, and no, I didn't report them, I thought they were quite amusing.

I shall comment though, because it was an interesting study, it just doesn't back up what you were saying.

There really isn't any need to be quite so rude and defensive with me, I am perfectly capable of taking in new information and apologising if I have my facts wrong.

What studies have I claimed to be quoting from?

"I don't have any difficulty in imagining what 2 drunk but enthusiastic people having sex would look like. Possibly because I've been there and possibly because it's not a scenario which gets played out in films and TV.

Equally I have little difficulty in imagining from court reports what the rape of a woman too drunk to consent would look like."

Well said.

Hand on heart, what is the difference to the onlooker? I'd like to know

I don't have any difficulty in imagining what 2 drunk but enthusiastic people having sex would look like. Possibly because I've been there and possibly because it's not a scenario which gets played out in films and TV.

Equally I have little difficulty in imagining from court reports what the rape of a woman too drunk to consent would look like.

it is a defence if the man reasonably believed she consented

What does that look like? I ask because it seemed earlier than asking for consent was meaningless if the man could be in any doubt whatsoever that she was unable to consent. This seems a wide and vague definition to me - does it apply to tipsy/slightly stoned - or what?

Gosh you're unpleasant palmer. It was the only one you chose to ask for - and only you asked for it, hence the PM. In addition, it was one more than you offered so don't bother coming back to comment - you're clearly not interested in a reciprocal dialogue and I have nothing to prove to someone so hell bent on making and breaking enemies. You are so catty that I struggle to see how you can be much of benefit to women's welfare if this is how you treat women who disagree with you. Personally, I'm not queuing up for more.

I'm afraid that I can imagine unlikely situations where the other party in retrospect genuinely defines the act as non-consensual but the other person was at the time, genuinely unaware

You are overlooking the fact it is a defence if the man reasonably believed she consented. It would be impossible for a woman who had enthusiastically and actively participated the night before to wake up and without the benefit of the rosy tinted spectacles of wine , take a look at her partner , think "bloody hell , what was I thinking" and say she had been raped.

Aww, Palmer, I'm now going to have to fix my irony meter, which broke on the "evading" comment from gone...

Thanks for PMing me that one study gone. Not sure why the secrecy, but I shall read and come back later to comment. Have to say though that from my skim through, it doesn't seem to say what you're saying it does.

Because everyone is a grown up

Be sarcastic all you want, but you're evading engagement with the issue. A lot of teenagers are not terribly grown up, especially after a few drinks. In fact, a lot of people are possibly not as emotionally mature and self-aware as you.

They wouldn't report a rape though as they consented at the time and they know it

You mean you knew it. But what was it you knew, exactly?
That he asked the question and you answered it? That you were able to answer the question clearly?
That you physically participated rather than not participating or resisting? How specifically did you consent and how would the man be able to tell that this was 'able' consent despite your having had a few drinks?

Hand on heart, what is the difference to the onlooker? I'd like to know.

I'm delighted that rape is more widely reported and would like to see much longer prison sentences for rapists. At the same time and to a lesser degree, I'm concerned that so much rests on the assumption that a woman can look back, even when there may be portions of the encounter that she cannot remember at all (when she could, arguably have been initiating sex herself) and just 'know it'.

We don't seem to have an agreed system of communication about how men are supposed to tell between a woman 'knowing it' (giving consent) and participating in something she's too inebriated to give consent to. Nor how a woman is supposed to look back and be 100% clear about whether the sex was non-consensual. What is she meant to be looking for? There seems to be a great deal resting on some kind of gut feeling. Can we really be 100% sure that every woman is going to be able to look back on an inebriated encounter and recall if the sex was non-consensual because she refused it, non-consensual because she either wasn't in a position to give consent at all or gave consent without being fit to give it, or simply unwanted - she didn't actually want to have sex but gave her consent for other reasons? I'm afraid that I can imagine unlikely situations where the other party in retrospect genuinely defines the act as non-consensual but the other person was at the time, genuinely unaware.

I find it fascinating that you are so hostile. There is obviously ambiguity about this because court cases are rarely open and closed. Quoting from cps guidance doesn't bring clarity because the phrase 'able to give consent' doesn't cover what has been discussed on this thread - the fact that a question and an answer is not considered to be always necessary for sex to be consensual, and that even when a clear answer is given to the question, if the victim feels subsequently that she was not in a fit condition to give her consent at all, the fact that the question has been asked means nothing.

If you feel that this all hangs on men changing (and I do agree) it seems reasonable to lay out exactly what this change looks like. Saying 'if you have any doubt, don't' isn't clear enough because it assumes that men know exactly when to have a doubt in their minds. I feel it's asking men to play a rather protective role because it could potentially be going against a woman's wishes Lurcio - I personally wouldn't want a man playing that role towards me and I would prefer not to drink than put someone in the position.

I have no interest in men being able to have sex when they want it. None whatsoever.

I'm not sure if your question was to me Dervel. I don't think it's a high bar - not if things are done in a clear-headed, considered way. Also, you asked me earlier if I could see the point you were making at the time - I can and no, I don't have a problem with your logic.

Apparently yes, Dervel .

It's the lunacy of trying to defend the right of men to have intercourse when they want it regardless of the feelings of the women involved because to deny them that right would somehow be unconscionable for... reasons which completely escape me.

Is it really such a hideously high bar to attempt to engage in a sex life where few to no people regret anything?

I don't mean those men are victims and I don't mean they're taking a risk. It's not as if they are out to do so. You are assuming that they will feel doubt in situations where consent would not be certain and to have no about situations where drink might have been taken but she's clearly fine. But this is actually quite subjective, especially if it's theoretical. Perhaps terrified is the wrong word. Posters have said earlier that they look back on incidents where they had consensual sex with someone that had they not been drunk to a degree, they wouldn't have had consensual sex with. They are saying quite clearly in those comments that their decision making capabilities were affected by alcohol but not to the degree that they couldn't give consent. Bearing in men aren't mind readers I have genuine concerns about this. How come these men aren't rapists-they slept with women who would not have been participating if their judgement was not impaired by alcohol? Did the men in question know they were having sex under these circumstances or did they think it was a clear headed decision? Could they have been expected to know with 100% accuracy? Would such a thing have been possible? Because if they couldn't know this fit certain, isn't it also possible that they could make a mistake about whether these posters were fit to give consent?Would it have been reasonable for them to go ahead with sex knowing that these posters were inebriated or should they have refrained? What if knowing someone was somewhat inebriated did not trigger a doubt about consensual issues in their mind, so they simply went ahead with an act which was, on the face of it, consensual? Surely there is the possibility for misjudgement here? How is a man supposed to know if he is on the category you'd never sleep with fullstop or the one where you'll give consent after a few drinks? It's clearly not enough to ask because that seems to count for nothing. What if he thinks you do want to have sex and it doesn't occur to him to doubt your willingness or ability give consent?Clearly posters don't always expect men to say 'you've had a drink, therefore I can't have sex because i can't be 100% clear you're in a fit state to consent?' or do you? You're assuming that a doubt will be raised in a man's mind at exactly the right moment even though from the outside its impossible to know exactly how inebriated you were and how drink you'll feel you were in retrospect. The expectation would have more integrity if women were prepared to never drink and have sex. Then they would be clarifying their expectations, but the fact is that most people do expect men to sleep with them despite their having been drinking, and they expect their consent to be respected and their ability to give it to be trusted. But for men who are perhaps unaware of the dialogue around consent I can understand this not making much sense. 'So we'd both been drinking and you were fine with that, and then we had sexual touching and you were fine with that, and then I if you were up for sex and you said you were but now I'm a rapist??' I'm looking for some hard and fast rule about what you expect of men but I'm not coming up with answers that would definitely avoid this situation and i think that's what concerns some men-not enough to never have another one night stand with alcohol involved perhaps, but then women are not remotely prepared to give up one night stands either, are they?

Yes violet if that's the one you want then certainly when I'm at my laptop but in the meantime, if you're at a laptop where is your data??