To think this is a very good analogy

[Babycham1979]

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/consent-its-a-piece-of-cake/17594#.Vjh4hpiUR6Y

I appreciate the aims of the campaign to promote public understanding of 'consent', but I agree with the author in that this seems to be dangerously blurring the lines and criminalising behaviour that is, at worst, antisocial (ie persuasion).

Rather like the recent events with 'safe spaces' and censorship, I suspect this will ultimately backfire on its proponents.

That post, directed at me is insane. I have given a very broad outline of a case I was involved in where, had the truth not come out, there is every chance the guy could have faced a jail sentence. Suggesting that this never happens, she was 'obviously' bullied into retracting her statement that I think men should be left alone to get on with it etc etc is INSANE. Just because someone writes what she has on an anonymous forum does not mean that she has the only valid point on the subject and everyone else is 'raising their sons to be fucking racists'!! Fuck right off!!!

Denying that false allegations happen does no one any favours. I spoke about it because it needs mentioned, it happens too And it ruins lives!! It may only be a small minority, but that small minority deserve a voice and should be allowed to speak out without 'victim blaming' also! Just because someone claims that their experience is the only experience does not invalidate others experiences, well, it obviously does on here!!

And thanks for adding to that by suggesting that the link previous has any baring on the case I was involved in, it doesn't!!! She lied, she obviously And blatantly lied but even a confession does not clear this poor innocent guy in the eyes if some!!! That is disgusting and I won't apologise for saying it!!! I could repeat what I have said all along that obviously rape is wrong but really is there any point!!! Anyone that considers standing up for any man is obviously a woman hating rapist rearing victim blamer fucking rude!!

bumbley, stating that it might be, in some cases, difficult for an jury after the fact to establish the line between drunk and too drunk isn't being a rape apologist (IMO). But the case m1nnie was talking about sat very uncomfortably with me because:

1. the assumption that the man was innocent and the woman was lying despite having not been in the room when it happened (shows underlying sexism that men are to be believed and women are not)
2. no understanding of the reasons why women retract allegations (perpetuating the myth that women habitually lie about rape)
3. stating that the events leading up to the sex/rape should be taken in to account (perpetuating the rape myth that if a woman is up for kissing then she must be up for sex)

The line between drunk and too drunk is pretty obvious to me when I see it in front of me. That's why I find it hard to understand that a man might be unclear. And, in addition to that, using "if you aren't sure then just don't have sex" as a basis works. Sure, that means I might have missed out on one or two sexual encounters from my uni days, but if it prevents more women from being raped, and makes it easier for rapists to be convicted that I think that's worth it.

When it comes "too drunk to consent" its the same to "too young to consent". It doesn't matter how enthusiastic the person is, if a person is too drunk or too young it cannot be considered genuine consent.

Often the men are sure that consent has been given, especially in cases of intoxication. That is why it needs clarification.

Clearly NOT in the cases that have been described here. Just because some people want to discuss the issue does not mean that they are contesting the facts in these cases - but surely we can discuss it. By doing so everyone is safer.

Sad that it comes down to personal attacks and vitriol. Ignorance and "all men are rapists and anyone who says otherwise is a rape apologist" will not help anyone - man or woman.

I suspect we won't get that here though.

Blue, I disagree. Even if a woman hasn't consented, the man can be acquitted on the basis that he has "reasonable belief" in her consent.

A man may be unaware of what consent actually means (as are many women) but that isn't a defence.

Nobody here has said that all men are rapists, merely that very few women lie about rape.

Well, really, BlueJug - the person who's been dishing out the most vitriol is actually m1nniedriver, not the people who are arguing against her. Most other people have been quite factual and engaging - except when discussing their own experiences of rape and I think they're allowed to be emotional about that.

And nobody has said "all men are rapists and anyone who says otherwise is a rape apologist". Some people are saying "rape apologist" and "victim blamer" because m1nniedriver is insisting on interpreting a situation she witnessed as a 'false rape claim' where the man's reputation could have been ruined. The facts that she describes could bear a different interpretation that doesn't result in the woman's behaviour being judged.

It really ticks me off when people come onto interesting, thought-provoking threads like this to cast a completely inaccurate summary of what we've all been saying and imply that we're all man-haters. RTFT.

If the man is sure that consent has been given then the subjective test is met. The jury will then decide if that certainty as to consent was reasonable.

So the question perhaps they need to ask themselves is would other people looking at the situation from the outside think she was capable of consenting at the relevant time and that it was reasonable for him to think that consent had been given.

You can't draw a line in the sand like the drink driving limit and say anyone under the limit is deemed capable of consent and anyone over it isn't. It will depend on the individual situation.

So 'didn't consent' changes to 'I might have consented I can't remember' changes to I did consent but I was too drunk to make that choice so I was taken advantage of'. Eh no, you were both as drunk as each other, fairly intoxicated but in a fit state to continue drinking and partying for hours after the event, you continued to party and have a 'grest night' by your own admission on a video later that night. But 2 days later when your BF found out you cheated you decide to claim you were raped? Or assaulted because although you consented you shouldn't have ?

Outcome, her reputation ruined, seed of doubt down regarding his character, looses job, people shun him like posters on here 'no dmoke without fire'. He has become a depressed shadow of the guy he was Znd will probably never recover. I may have given too much info there but I'm past caring reslly now. So go on .... He should have been jailed for having drunk sex? She was taken advantage of because she is a poor wee woman? She was 'bullied' into retracting her statement? Or possibly she made the whole fucking thing up imagine, could it really be a possibility??! Eh, yes, yes it could because it is!! No, doesn't sit comfortably with me either!

Can you point out where Ive said women habitudly lie? Are you suggesting that this is the only case, ever, in the history of law where a mans life has been ruined? Why are we not even allowed to mention it without getting attacked as I have here? Is an innocent guys life less important because he is male? Why is me recounting the events that happened so wrong? Why does it mean I am siding with rapists? I gave an outline of this story early on in this thread and have been, because of it, made out to be an advocate of rapists incredible!! But my opinion or experience is invalid because they are such a small minority and minority should count? Let's brush them aside and not acknowledge them?!!

I didn't witness it, I was involved in it. His life wasn't potentislly ruined, it was ruined. I haven't dished out any vitriol other than to bathwho suggested not only that I welcomed rapists and thought they should be allowed to 'crack on' but that I was raising my sons to be rapist?!!! Really? I'm sorry but yeah, that deserves a response, I thought I held back quite well considering the vileness of the message! Obviously I'm sorry that happened to her, but it was unacceptable in my view what she said.

I didn't witness it

This says it all. You didn't witness it so you don't know the truth. Yes she may be lying, but he could be too. You don't know for sure because you weren't there when whatever happened happened. You know what believe but that's all it is because you didn't witness it.

You (rightly) didn't give any details of the event that you say took place at the party that you were at in your earlier post, so none of us can really comment on the rights and wrongs of that particular circumstance. None of the new details you're providing (which could be identifying, btw) actually disprove what other people have said.

A lot of people - see Chaz just above your post - have pointed out that in a court of law, each case would be taken on its merits. So trying to draw out general principles from a single event is pointless. You have your opinion of the event you 'witnessed' (presumably you weren't actually in the room) but the rights and wrongs of that PARTICULAR case don't disprove any of the things that other people are saying about the broader issues.

M1nnie, read my post carefully. I did not state that you said women habitually lie about rape. I said that the way you presented the case initially perpetuated the myth that women habitually lie about rape. There is a difference, and an important one.

As for "jailed for having drunken sex" then it depends. If the woman had been drunk to the point where she was too drunk to consent, then yes, by having sex with her he would be a rapist and most certainly should go to prison.

You absolutely are allowed to mention false rape claims anywhere you like. However, getting irate when people say "hang on, that's a tiny proportion and I'm far more concerned about the sheer number of women being raped and their rapists getting away with it" won't help.

I also find it amazing that there is never this hand-wringing about the poor people who are falsely accused of murder. Its shocking and serious, but it can't detract from the fact that murders happen and something should be done about them. We don't twist ourselves into strange positions where we set the bar of proof so high that only a tiny proportion of murderers are even prosecuted, let alone convicted.

Your response to Bathtime's message describing her own rape was to call her 'insane'. I think her previous message was a bit heated, but her experience excuses it. The wrong is more with you, I think.

If I was involved in a situation where someone was falsly accused of murder and there was a thread on here about it, I'm pretty sure I'd be hand wringing about that too.

Of course I'm as concerned about rapists getting off and would love a system that encouraged and enabled women to come forward after rape. There should be more safeguards for them and they shouldn't be judged? How does me recounting the experience I had make me unable to have those views too? It doesn't.

And like I said I'm sorry for whatever bath went through but duggedtong, as she did that I have son rapists it crossing a line, I don't apologise for my response.

I know those details are potentially outing ones but I figured ive nothing to hide so what the hell, it's a big forum.

But they could potentially out somebody else m1nnie - outing yourself is fine - your choice - but you've given details that could identify two other people - and implicated them both in an accusation of rape.

The accusation has already been made, and investigated some time ago? There's a programme on the bbc I player ATM which is very interesting relating to a lot of the points raised in this thread. Well worth a watch.

Amelia, re your (1) point above - the person she was talking about was her friend. Why shouldn't she believe her friend is innocent if he says he is? Just because he's male?

Treats Sorry, I admit I was a bit overblown and your comment is mostly fair. Apologies - it wasn't helpful. You are right people did not say that all men are rapists any more than they said that all women lie. I did read the thread and felt that several people, including m1nniedriver and others addressing the issue of consent have made some good points.

I can also see that if this has affected someone directly it is very personal.

I feel that every time we try to discuss the issue anyone who tries to put another side is shouted down - and told that they are "raising rapists", (that was truly awful and if anyone said anything like that about my son I would be extremely angry).

I am raising a boy - and it is a bloody minefield. He is 14 and all over the place and struggles with reading social signals. It is therefore crucial that I teach him how to handle these tricky situations.

Why is it impossible to believe a story that is told by someone who was there? Why is that poster then badgered? She responded to some pretty nasty stuff about her own children and her comment referred to the exchange and had nothing to do with what had previously happened in RL.

I have a v close friend who is a solicitor and takes on murders and rapes every day. Things are not always what they seem.

"The odds aren't in his favour. "

Is this really how you would decide whether or not to believe/support a friend? Population statistics?

It's worth mentioning when I was 1st told about the accusation against, let's call him X, my immediate reaction, without knowing anything other than Y is accusing X of rape, was something must have happened since the party! I know this guy pretty well, he is a lovely kind soul and even though I know him well my immediate reaction was that. It wasn't, she is a liar, it's a set up, it's false etc etc It was wondering how and when it happened. That something must have happened before she is saying this. As it turns out it hadn't but certainly for a fleeting second until i heard the actual story even I doubted my good friend.

Not sure if that makes sense I don't really know how else to explain that.

I think one of the big problems is that SOME men seem to think that it's acceptable to get a woman very drunk in order to persuade them to sleep with you. These men have a strongly vested interest in spreading horror stories about "we were both drunk but then she changed her mind and now she's crying rape".

I worked in a bar in a university town and saw some very worrying behaviour from a small number of men who would purposefully get women blind drunk, either by buying them drinks faster than they were drinking to encourage them to drink more or, even more concerningly, ordering trebles and pretending they were singles. I personally stepped in multiple times to either inform women their drink was effectively spiked with extra alcohol, or to prevent a man from physically carrying a catatonic woman out the door.

This behaviour is rare - I've probably not seen more than 15 men act in this calculated way over 4 years - but if those men are repeating those behaviours once a week (not unlikely in a university town) then that's a possible 52 x 15 victims a year. No wonder they don't want the status quo to change.