Page 3 | Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

Goosefoot · 2020-07-08T02:56:43+00:00

So, we had a brief exchange about this on another thread, and it was suggested we move it to its own discussion. I'll copy and past the relevant posts to show what the idea for the discussion is - no expectation that anyone must lay claim to them and of course people can expand or clarify if they want. I'm alternating the font appearance between different quotes. *Can people not see the correlation in the application of identity politics across different groups. This is no different from women claiming theres some kind of oppressive patriarchy. It uses group identity to form a narrative that is both destructive and destabilising to society as a whole.* Patriarchy is still in literal existence in places on this globe. It's within some women's living memories, being given the vote for the first time. Some women are imprisoned for not confirming to patriarchal religious law. Etc. Patriarchy in those pure forms is much diminished in the West, it's true. But in some ways the attitudes towards women under patriarchy have just migrated to things like porn. ^It very literally still exists in the House of Lords.^ ^However, patriarchy can just be a system where men, for whatever reason, hold most positions of power. You don’t have to believe that all men are involved in a plot against women to observe that a society is patriarchal.^ *I think patriarchy gets tosses around too liberally.* *If you want to apply it to ancient Roman law or more modern versions of the same, yes, it's functioning as a clear and technically useful word that denotes something specific and definable.* *But the ways it's used most of the time by western feminists it just means some undefined and often mysterious set of somethings that result is the disadvantaging of women in some way. It reminds me a lot of what Adolph Reed says about the term systemic racism or even just racism - it's just a name you apply to an effect, but it doesn't tell you anything useful about the cause or mechanisms surrounding it. Because it's abstract and unfalsifiable it lends itself to fuzzy thinking. And it doesn't at all lend itself to suggesting solutions or alternatives.* Can you start another thread on this please? I'm quite interested in teasing out what is patriarchy, what is prejudice against women, what is an inability to socially and economically value caring, what is woman-hatred etc.

Imnobody4 · 10/07/2020 18:32

Goosefoot
I'm finding this thread pretty pointless. You've been given many examples and definitions which I consider perfectly reasonable. You are demanding a precision and clarity which is futile for what is a complex dynamic.
Take the term fascism. Fascism is a complex ideology. There are many definitions of fascism; some people describe it as a type or set of political actions, a political philosophy or a mass movement. Most definitions agree that fascism is authoritarian and promotes nationalism at all costs, but its basic characteristics are a matter of debate.

I posted earlier in the thread an article on IT which perfectly links the early history of IT with the current situation where James Damore could write his infamous memo.
Could you please read the article and tell me what overarching term you would use to describe it or do you consider that it has nothing to do with sex and the attitude of men towards women?
www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2019/02/women-s-work-how-britain-discarded-its-female-computer-programmers

sawdustformypony · 10/07/2020 16:00

Looks like the patriarchy deniers are starting to pull into the lead.....

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 15:42

Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses.

No - this comment above is basically, he said she said.

What I have said is that the he said/she said element gives rise to a lot of other strategies being used. Arguably abused, but it's very difficult to say about any defence approach - you can't use that, if it could ever be possibly a reflection of what actually happened.

But it's not just about these strategies being abused. It's about them being excluded or discarded when it comes to the accuser. And even if it is just "abuse" this should be fixed.

Whatever, I'm out too. [Go ahead and think it's because I don't like your arguments but I know this is a thread designed to look like reasoned debate but it's really not.]

Original poster

Goosefoot · 10/07/2020 15:27

@BlingLoving

But the basis of the problem IMO is that the fundamental principles of our justice system make it very difficult to prove rape to the required level. Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses. The evidence of sex itself, unlike murder, isn't helpful, because sex isn't a crime. It's only the context that creates the crime. This is what leads to all the often attempts to make a lot out of really not very revealing things like character, tiny bits of evidence, etc - both sides are trying to use limited indirect evidence to bolster their version of what happened. And because the system is purposefully oppositional it quickly becomes nasty, too.

This is complete bullshit. On this thread alone examples have been given of where it doesn't come down to he said she said. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And when statistics are as revealing as the ones that have been shown here, the question that has to be asked is what systematic barriers are in place to make rape a crime that is not routinely prosecuted for.

Yeah, you haven't really understood what I've said if you think I'm saying it's a she said/he said problem.

I excluded a lot of odd jury decisions from my comment for one thing, although in some ways they may come from the same pattern - but they have a lot of idiosyncrasies at the best of times. But then, jury trials are a principle of the system, and for good reason.

What I have said is that the he said/she said element gives rise to a lot of other strategies being used. Arguably abused, but it's very difficult to say about any defence approach - you can't use that, if it could ever be possibly a reflection of what actually happened. While it seemed like adding more criminal evidence science and tech would have improved this, it's actually made it worse, and I think that is a effect effect and no one really knows how to deal with it yet, and maybe no one really grasps quite why it's happened.

I'm not sure why you think the examples given show something different. They certainly don't show that the answer is "patriarchy".

As for assuming systems are immutable, I don't. I would suggest that you are assuming that modern capitalism in a technologically advanced society is the immutable context. I do think there are immutabilities - I think women having babies is immutable, and that there is a strong tendency that it difficult to change at a macro level for women to care for infants. The same may be true for childcare roles in general (goodness knows many people here don't want men working in these roles.) I also think that while the form of the family has some level of flexibility that has limits

I do think that it is fundamentally true that capitalism involves the exploitation of labour, and the idea that giving women the same situation as labouring men and talking about that being equality or freedom is paradoxical. And that part of the problem feminists have with this is looking at it only in terms of women's position vs men, and that to understand the problems with women and work you have to look at the whole labour system, including that of men, from the outside. Because the particular problems of work for women in that system are in large part a result of the problems for work for men. If you reform the system, some of those problems dissolve.

OP posts:

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 15:03

But the basis of the problem IMO is that the fundamental principles of our justice system make it very difficult to prove rape to the required level. Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses. The evidence of sex itself, unlike murder, isn't helpful, because sex isn't a crime. It's only the context that creates the crime. This is what leads to all the often attempts to make a lot out of really not very revealing things like character, tiny bits of evidence, etc - both sides are trying to use limited indirect evidence to bolster their version of what happened. And because the system is purposefully oppositional it quickly becomes nasty, too.

This is complete bullshit. On this thread alone examples have been given of where it doesn't come down to he said she said. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And when statistics are as revealing as the ones that have been shown here, the question that has to be asked is what systematic barriers are in place to make rape a crime that is not routinely prosecuted for.

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 15:01

@Goosefoot No, I was responding to the idea that the patriarchy can't possibly be invented by, or for benefit of, men because they also suffer under it. A non patriarchal society, developed from the start would look different. We can all have ideas on how that would be different but it's impossible to say definitively.

What we can do, is consider what changes we can make to existing patriachicial systems. For a start, we need to stop assuming standards that have been put in place, often without thought, for thousands of years are immutable. As @fascinated says above, the way in which men benefit from unpaid labour by women is undeniable and we need to find ways to stop it. Again, read Invisible Women, it details this in wonderful, fact-based detail.

In the workplace, environments which are not conducive to women working or returning to work following children need to change. In part, by making child care a role that is more equally shared and in part by implementing policies that women (and, for that matter, men who ARE doing their fair share, or want to) can take advantage of so that they're not penalised for caring responsibilities.

We also need to actively seek out and destroy biases, particularly unconscious ones. Blind reviews/interviews/testing etc is one way that has been proven to have some effect. ie names/ identifying characteristics removed at the point of CV review. We've all seen the story about orchestras who have increased their number of women by doing blind auditions. This needs to be far more extensive and routine.

Work allocation is another one. In many firms (and I speak from experience in professional and financial services, but I'm sure it's true across the board), women often aren't given the same kind of work that allows them to demonstrate excellence. Programmes to sort this out are massively impactful. eg I've heard of consulting/law/ accounting firms who no longer allow senior partners to allocate work but have it done via some kind of third party process, often supported by technology whereby skills are directly matched to work requirements.

Similarly, performance review processes are, in some firms, being overhauled to try to manage the way in which women are routinely receiving lower ratings. It's difficult to believe this is because women are routinely poorer performers, so what unconscious bias is being applied? This needs to be done much more widely and systematically than it is currently. [incidentally, similarly, improved processes are designed to support BAME employees who suffer from similar biases.].

I also think we have to start thinking about how we reward people for work. I can accept that there's an argument that a specific skill set after years of study is valued more highly in a capitalist society. But them massive inequalities seem a bit odd. A highly specialised nurse in the ICU, for example, is paid a tiny fraction of a doctor working on same ward. I can accept that disparity is understandable, but am not sure the level of disparity makes sense.

Talking of doctors, more women ultimately become GPs. Again, studies show it's because the process of training to become a consultant is not sustainable for a woman who may also be having children at the same time. So again, the comments above about better processes and policies to make caring responsibilities less of a barrier to progress are essential if we want to increase the number of women consultants.

All of this would mean some deterioration for men. There would be fewer opportunities for them and/or they would have to work harder to get the opportunities. But a system that has routinely been rigged to benefit at best, half the population (again, excluding race issues here), inevitably means the half who have benefited will find things harder. I can't be too bothered by that.

Original poster

Goosefoot · 10/07/2020 14:52

@Imnobody4

sawdustformypony It is obvious that there is a serious crisis in the prosecution of rape throughout the entire justice system. To function properly a Justice system must deliver justice for the victim as well as safe guarding the defendent from wrongful conviction. I can think of no other crime that has such damaging and far-reaching effects for the victim with such an abysmal conviction rate. Certainly not one where men are the majority victims or where women are the majority of defendants. I'm not going to waste my time trawling through all the cases. The system does not deliver justice.

I don't know anyone who really disagrees with this.

The question though is why, and I think quite a lot of people don't think the reason is that the justice system doesn't care about rape.

Juries can absolutely return some very crazy decisions about rape and there seems to be a lot to unpick around that.

But the basis of the problem IMO is that the fundamental principles of our justice system make it very difficult to prove rape to the required level. Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses. The evidence of sex itself, unlike murder, isn't helpful, because sex isn't a crime. It's only the context that creates the crime. This is what leads to all the often attempts to make a lot out of really not very revealing things like character, tiny bits of evidence, etc - both sides are trying to use limited indirect evidence to bolster their version of what happened. And because the system is purposefully oppositional it quickly becomes nasty, too.

The changes that would be required to make it easier would involve undermining those basic principles of the justice system.

I've heard people claim those basic principles are themselves patriarchal, but I've never seen alternates proposed that wouldn't result in a system that was significantly biased toward the prosecution or the state, for every kind of crime.

OP posts:

fascinated · 10/07/2020 14:44

I was thinking of starting a thread on this but I’ll test it out here:

I have identified what I think is a major barrier to the advancement of women’s situations. Men currently benefit from a very significant amount of unpaid labour from their female partners. Mothers (and indeed fathers, but thinking of the notion of women’s solidarity) of sons who raised their sons to perform their fair share would be acting against the interests of their own offspring / family — asking them to forego all of that free labour. It wouldn’t be rational behaviour.

Original poster

Goosefoot · 10/07/2020 14:30

@BlingLoving

But the question is, how would they work?

If we have a society and we know that, say, 80% are going to have something like a 10 year hiatus or partial hiatus in their career due to child related work, how could we set up a society so they were not disadvantaged? And what do we mean by that word? Maybe we expect that households with children will usually have something more like one or 1.5 paid "careers" rather than two, and try and make that stable for families, and also find ways to make it stable in care of marriage breakdown or a death.

The point is that we don't know because these societies haven't developed. You're still assuming these societies have marriage, two-person relationships (usually one male, one female) etc. But the point is that this society would be completely different.

For the record, I think it's pretty clear that the patriarchy doesn't always benefit men either. Suicide being a good example - this idea that men must be tough, not show emotion, seek help etc. These are things that have become part of the fabric of our understanding of me (albeit, it's changing) and that has significant opportunity for harm.

The thing is that the patriarchy wasn't developed on a set day and time, "In 2000 BC the patriarchy was created..." But ultimately, it does centre men and "traditional" requirements for them. And that isn't always a good thing for men either.

But if you go back to the question of work places etc - you can bleat about men performing less well at school and dropping out of university all you like, but while we still only have fewer than 10% of top jobs held by women across pretty much all industries, I'm afraid I'm struggling to feel too much sorrow. I can feel for individual boys who are likely slipping through the cracks, but I'm not going to change my view that the world is ultimately set up to make sure men maintain power and control and, often, autonomy.

So, to me you aren't really saying anything here, and that's a problem.

You feel that society isn't really properly accommodating the needs of women, or many men, and that's because of "patriarchy" and if it wasn't for patriarchy it would be different, but we don't know how that would look.

There isn't any sort of clear definition of what patriarchy is even possible here. It's a vague and undefined and malleable as gender identity, whiteness, the invisible hand. It's a kind of placeholder at best, or a concept that can be invoked any time there is a lack of explanation of a social and political mechanism if you are wanting to point to a disadvantaged outcome for women (or sometimes even men.)

There is a ton of discussion around the nature of disadvantage in this thread, but I don't think even one serious justification for the vague version of patriarchy.

OP posts:

sawdustformypony · 10/07/2020 14:30

Imnobody4

I entirely agree with you. The problem is in finding a remedy.

Imnobody4 · 10/07/2020 14:19

sawdustformypony
It is obvious that there is a serious crisis in the prosecution of rape throughout the entire justice system. To function properly a Justice system must deliver justice for the victim as well as safe guarding the defendent from wrongful conviction.
I can think of no other crime that has such damaging and far-reaching effects for the victim with such an abysmal conviction rate. Certainly not one where men are the majority victims or where women are the majority of defendants.
I'm not going to waste my time trawling through all the cases. The system does not deliver justice.

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 13:20

@fascinated

Indeed. Perhaps my female socialisation made me add the disclaimer that I did. Lest I be accused of being too cynical, depressing/upsetting everyone etc etc (the intellectual equivalent of „cheer up, love!“)

So true. We have to always be so careful not to offend, "Not all men" etc. Sigh.

fascinated · 10/07/2020 13:14

Indeed. Perhaps my female socialisation made me add the disclaimer that I did. Lest I be accused of being too cynical, depressing/upsetting everyone etc etc (the intellectual equivalent of „cheer up, love!“)

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 13:06

Even the legal protections we have could be rolled back overnight and there would be no redress available to us, since males would ultimately be able to overpower women as a class (I appreciate this is a very extreme scenario and hopefully one that we in the developed world will never experience).

In the US, not only are abortion rights being rolled back, but the recent case in Alabama where a woman was prosecuted because her unborn baby was killed in a shooting suggests that in the developed world, this is already happening....

sawdustformypony · 10/07/2020 13:05

Anyway, this thread is not in good faith so I'm out now

Bye then, but hopefully others will be interested in a response.

You can't get away with saying you didn't mean to if you accidentally kill someone, or injure them in a car accident. Only in rape. Its patriarchy.

Again, your assertions are not correct. If in a collision a death was caused by an accident which was not the driver's fault, then they "get away with it" - (no fault no punishment - see how this is going). If however, the driver was driving dangerously or carelessly and this was a cause of a death then the driver is guilty of the respective offences - causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving - and the two convictions have differing sentencing guidelines reflecting the differing decrees of culpability.

If we assume those defences are reasonable:
if a mans friend says he can "have a go" on a drunk woman, that's reasonable
if a man is drunk and confused, it's reasonable to have sex with a sleeping stranger if he mistakes the room hes in
its reasonable to assume its physically possible for a man to fall and penetrate an unconsenting woman with his penis

You know we are discussing the defense where the defendant claims he had a reasonable belief in consent, yes ? - I realise you say you are 'out', but I wonder if any of those relied on such a defense.

Sound very much like you are pulling the 'straw man' fallacy type argument on us.

fascinated · 10/07/2020 12:34

@Theterrible42s

As well as looking at definitions, I find it useful to go behind them and ask "but why patriarchy"? And to my mind it's very simple - female biology. We have hidden fertility, and our bodies are required to produce offspring - man need to control that. And they are able to because we have smaller weaker bodies (on the whole). Nothing new there but I find it helpful to remember that it all springs from that. (I went back through that and removed some of the qualifications I always feel the need to add whenever I'm asserting anything. Damn female socialisation! I'm 41 and I've got 3 degrees for fuck's sake!)

Entirely agree with this and unfortunately, this is why we will never be able to „smash“ the patriarchy. Any protection, power or freedom women enjoy is ultimately permitted to them by males and could be revoked at any time. Even the legal protections we have could be rolled back overnight and there would be no redress available to us, since males would ultimately be able to overpower women as a class (I appreciate this is a very extreme scenario and hopefully one that we in the developed world will never experience).

The veneer of „civilisation“ protecting us here in the developed world is very thin.

This is any gains made for women will always be vulnerable.

QuentinWinters · 10/07/2020 12:20

Not sure why a link to the guidance is evidence there is no patriarchy, when it says "The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions: Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test). If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).*

The whole point is something is going very wrong, as evidenced by low conviction rates and the fact alleged rapists use all kinds of weird "reasonable" defences.

If we assume those defences are reasonable:

if a mans friend says he can "have a go" on a drunk woman, that's reasonable
if a man is drunk and confused, it's reasonable to have sex with a sleeping stranger if he mistakes the room hes in
its reasonable to assume its physically possible for a man to fall and penetrate an unconsenting woman with his penis

In two of those cases there is no debate that the woman didn't consent. So from her perspective she was raped. But the mans "reasonable" action is more important.

You can't get away with saying you didn't mean to if you accidentally kill someone, or injure them in a car accident. Only in rape. Its patriarchy.

Anyway, this thread is not in good faith so I'm out now

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 12:05

Judges, Barristers, Solicitors and members of Juries are people that walk among us - they are people just like everyone else. They have the same sense of justice and sense as to what is proper as everyone else. Your account of what happens in trials in the Crown Courts is just not credible.

Have you ever read any of these actual accounts?! This is funny. I'm terrible at remembering names so might struggle to find these via google but:

There was the man who beat up his wife. He got no or a reduced sentence because it would apparently derail his future career as a cricketer Also, apparently his wife was educated enough not to be a likely victim:

[[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/05/cricketer-mustafa-bashir-spared-jail-after-beating-wife-with-bat-faces-sentence-review here].

Then there's the Tolson case - where a woman's accusation of rape against her partner were categorically dismissed because "she didn't fight back." In court, Judge Tolson refused to let the woman testify behind a screen, suggested the woman was of "neurotic disposition" and discounted sexually threatening texts as "sexting" ("if you don't shut up I will shove my cock up your ass").

Unfortunately, although there's anecdotal evidence that this sort of thing happens in family court all the time, it's very difficult to assess unless the person involved takes it to appeal because family court is sealed.

Then of course, there are the rape cases that have been derailed because a woman's phone and her txt messages are used against her. If she, for example, sends a text to a friend the night before a date to say how excited she is and how hot the man who subsequently raped her is, this can be used to prove he thought he had consent.

These are just examples I can pull off the top of my head. It actually amazes me how naive people are. You do know it's not like in the movies right?

sawdustformypony · 10/07/2020 11:59

@QuentinWinters

I'm happy to talk facts and statistics to back up my opinions. Many of you on "the other side" of the debate don't want to provide those. Similar to what you say, I'm sure to many lurkers the fact I can back up what I say, and you are resorting to personal attacks, will speak volumes.

I am just as happy to talk facts and statistics with you. You were the one that suggested I was being insulting (your post at 10.21 a.m.)

Anyway, if that little exchange is indeed over - and I hope it is, then I copy in this link from the CPS guidance to its staff as to 'reasonable belief in consent' in sexual assaults.

legal guidance on reasonable belief in consent

See about half way down the page to this subject and then the second of the numbered points - the jury is to ask itself whether the defendant's belief in consent was a reasonable one.

QuentinWinters · 10/07/2020 11:35

I'm happy to talk facts and statistics to back up my opinions. Many of you on "the other side" of the debate don't want to provide those. Similar to what you say, I'm sure to many lurkers the fact I can back up what I say, and you are resorting to personal attacks, will speak volumes.

QuentinWinters · 10/07/2020 11:33

Hahaha
Attack the ball, not the player.
It is not in any way reasonable that only 6% of reported rapes result in conviction. Only 15% of rapes are even reported in the first place.

rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/

The Victims Commissioner (Dame Vera Baird QC) has said "Women’s groups have rightly warned rape is being decriminalised and thousands of victims present and future will pay the price."
www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/12/prosecutions-in-england-and-wales-at-lowest-level-in-a-decade

Who benefits from this? Rapists. As rape in the UK is defined as unwanted penetration with a penis, those rapists are all men.

This is patriarchy.

sawdustformypony · 10/07/2020 11:14

Please don't insult us by saying the defendant has to persuade the jury. The persuasion is literally "I thought she wanted it because I wanted it" and the jury go with that.

Yeah right.

I honestly don't expect you to believe it - you have been on FWR for many years and I have often read your posts. You are way too far down some rabbit hole to know the truth even if it ran up to you in bright coloured clothes and bit you on the arse. I am directing my words to those a lot less gullible than you.

Judges, Barristers, Solicitors and members of Juries are people that walk among us - they are people just like everyone else. They have the same sense of justice and sense as to what is proper as everyone else. Your account of what happens in trials in the Crown Courts is just not credible.

BlingLoving · 10/07/2020 10:35

When a man can say he did literally nothing to establish consent with the woman he was having sex with and still be found not guilty there is something seriously flawed in the system. And guess what? Men benefit. Patriarchy.

When we then have to discuss how "false accusations ruin men's lives" while simultaneously seeing higher profile cases where the man goes back to work as if nothing has happened-

Or my personal favourite, when he's found guilty but is given a very light sentence because, "he's otherwise an upstanding member of the community and his career/reputation will be negatively affected by this."

But, I only see men as contributing rather than trying to do things that only benefit them. Most of them have families you know who they also want to see benefit.

You seem to think that we think that the patriarchy is some evil conspiracy theory that all men are actively engaged in. Of course it's not. Many many men, good men, nonetheless benefit even though they want to be fair, equal etc. They don't realise what's happening or, like you, they think that certain things are just immutable and undeniable ("of course a woman must be penalised for taking time off to have a baby. It's no one's fault, it just is.").

And like the privilege thing briefly referenced, a common mistake is to think that if yo are in the group who has privilege, that means you can't have a shit life. Of course you can. It just means your life isn't shit because you are in that group.

QuentinWinters · 10/07/2020 10:21

The defendant needs to explain and persuade the jury why he thought he had the victim's consent to put his penis where he did.
She was asleep and he thought she was his girlfriend?
He fell and penetration was accidental?
He got into bed with his friends partner in a pitch dark room while his friend was out of the room getting viagra and thought her kissing him must have been consent not mistaken identity?
He didn't speak to her but his friend said he could "have a go"?
They left her injured, bleeding and crying after a group session but she must have consented to that because they were celebrities?

Please don't insult us by saying the defendant has to persuade the jury. The persuasion is literally "I thought she wanted it because I wanted it" and the jury go with that.

When a man can say he did literally nothing to establish consent with the woman he was having sex with and still be found not guilty there is something seriously flawed in the system. And guess what? Men benefit. Patriarchy.

When we then have to discuss how "false accusations ruin men's lives" while simultaneously seeing higher profile cases where the man goes back to work as if nothing has happened- women being blamed for something that's demonstrably false and this dissuaded women from reporting and allows men to use frankly unbelievable defences. Because women lie. Men get away with at best being irresponsible and at worst being rapists. Benefit to men. Patriarchy.

sawdustformypony · 10/07/2020 09:57

@QuentinWinters

Surely the onus would be on me to prove why I thought you gifted it to me though, rather than on you to prove you didn't!

At the moment alleged rapists can say they never even spoke to the victim and still successfully use the "reasonable belief" defence.

Wrong again QuentinWinters.

For that particular defense - the onus of proof is reversed on to the defendant.

The defendant needs to explain and persuade the jury why he thought he had the victim's consent to put his penis where he did. The members of the jury then have to ask themselves the question - was his explanation, given all the evidence they have heard from the defense and from the prosecution, a reasonable mistake to have made in the circumstances.

The important word on which to focus on is 'reasonable' - if the defendant can not show that his belief was reasonable, then he is guilty.

In the example you gave, I can just about imagine a set circumstances that might had to come together on the night that led to such a mistake being made. Its unlikely but not impossible - but the jury heard the case and (if you are right about the case) they reached a decision and acquitted.

A helpful guide to legal matters on FWR - if it sounds incredible it probably is not credible.