Drunk consent is still consent is a load of rubbish. ( Ched Even acquitted)

[EveOnline2016]

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ched-evans-rape-trial-defence-12017591

I am fuming at this, how many women now will not come forward because of this ruling.

Sorry if this has been done already.

It's actually even scarier - the real message of the verdict is "if you have sex consensually once with one man, you are deemed to have given consent in perpetuity to any and all men."

The sum total of the "new" evidence was that she had sex with other men before and after the night with Evans and Clayton.

It stinks.

I feel so much sympathy for that poor women. Already seen on my FB about sending her to prison for lying.

Well I have listened to the evidence presented at both trials and I for one believe her to have told the truth. So do a lot of other people I've spoken to. I hope she realises how much support for her there is out there.

Of course drunken consent is consent. Otherwise a lot of the male population would be rapists. Unless the woman is passed out or extremely drunk to the point of not being able to speak then consent is consent. The woman in this case never claimed rape anyway. She only went back to get her handbag and the police were the ones who investigated for rape.

The tweets on this are shocking. Nobody has actually listened to the news properly, read the judgment, anything. She did not accuse him of anything. She said she did not remember. She did not lie about anything.

Why should she face a trial or going behind bars? I'm not weighing into the debate on Twitter but I am shocked.

I was also shocked that her previous history was brought into court. It should be irrelevant. If you are accused of something your previous criminal history is not known to the jury so it should be the same in this case. You may have slept with 20 men quite happily but not want to have slept with this one. It is simply not relevant.

I do agree however, that drunken consent can be consent. It totally depends on the circumstances. I was pretty drunk the first time I slept with my now-husband.

Anyway he was a prat. It is another example of being an arrogant overpaid footballer. I hope it sends a message to other footballers to treat women with respect and remember they are in the public eye.

Really Cypriot? Do you drink drive as well? Or climb ladders when drunk? Or ride a bike when drunk? Or carry your baby when drunk? Because if so I have news for you, your decision making process is deeply flawed when you are drunk.

I really hope you do not have teenage daughters, or teenage sons, to whom you give out this unsound advice.

Try googling the cup of tea / consent allegory.

Evans might have been cleared of rape but in my eyes he has been found guilty of being a despicable,manipulative and arrogant human being.

I feel sorry for that desperate woman who has stood by him, presumably for the sake of his bank balance since he has nothing else going for him, I can see nothing but a series of heartbreaks ahead for her as he continues to act like the unpleasant, deceitful and immoral person he is for the rest of his life.

My DH and I have had when I have had a few drinks. But still able to hold a conversation and still got some judgement.

However he has never had sex with me when I have been extremely drunk to the point that he has put me to bed

Of course drunken consent is consent. Otherwise a lot of the male population would be rapists.

This ^.

I've had sex whilst being drunk. It's absolutely ridiculous that that would be thought of as rape just because I wasn't sober. There is a difference between being drunk and being passed out.

There's a huge difference between tipsy drunken sex with a partner and someone you don't know taking you to a hotel for sex when you can barely stand.

I've had drunken consensual sex many times. I have never been raped.

This is why that advert by the police annoys me regarding a woman being drunk. It does not equal rape in every single case at all but that advert seems to say it does.

Drunk consent is still consent in the majority of cases. The majority of people who drink alcohol then have sex are not raped/rapists.

If a woman is very very obviously drunk then it's risky business for all involved.

If a woman is passed out drunk then she's not actually giving any consent anyway.

Yes I'm sure most of us have had consensual sex after a few drinks. However that's not even close to what happened here. He didn't speak to her before, after, or during the act. He'd never met her before. He came in the room, swapped with his mate and raped her while she was barely conscious. It's not the same as having sex with your partner after coming back from the pub.

i was drunk when i first had sex with dh it was a drunken one night stand it was consensual i wasent raped i have also had regrettable sexual encounters[in my single days] that whilst i regretted the next day it still wasent rape .

"Otherwise a lot of the male population would be rapists"

Cypriot, given that one in four women have been raped, a lot of the male population are rapists. I say this as a wife to a man and a mother to a son btw.

It's undeniable. I personally know two such men, unfortunately.

Drunk consent is and always has been consent.

Intoxicated consent or absence of consent due to intoxication is not.

I think this case falls in to the latter.
I have no idea, based on the updates in the mirror and Wales online, how they came to the opposite decision.

In a perverse way I find myself slightly hoping that there is more to it in the transcript/full report than the sound bite style updates, because if they are representative of the trial as a whole it's fucked they came back with a not guilty.

It's not drunken consent as in tipsy/merry/a bit pissed consent that isn't consent.

It's totally fucking slaughtered/comatose consent that isn't consent. So if you don't have the ability to consent because you are too hammered to know which way is up. That is what we are talking about.

In real life, ordinary decent men know the difference fine. It's obvious when someone is in this state. And if you think they might be too pissed to make decisions then steer clear. It's not like the drunk woman cam rape them.

Of course the majority of drunken sex is consensual. But sometimes it isn't.

To me, the difference is knowledge of the person you're having sex with. If you know and love them, are aware of how alcohol affects them, know their feelings about you etc then the chances are having sex while drunk is just having sex while drunk.

If it's someone you don't know or barely know - well then, it's surely safer if the first time you have sex with them you aren't drunk. Otherwise, you don't really know if the consentee actually means it or is too impaired by alcohol to say otherwise. So you risk raping someone, even if you don't mean to.

And obviously if someone is barely conscious or not making sense it's never going to be consensual.

The investigation of her sexual history and the using of it in the case is a very, very worrying turn of events.

A problem (in discussions like this rather than actual courts of law) is that people use terms interchangeably or assigning their own specific meaning to them.

In law drunk does not cover passed out or drunk to the point where you can't appreciate what's going on. Theres a legal term for that. It's intoxication, it's even a defence to certain crimes.

Drunk is just given its ordinary language. Which most people understand to be merry, pissed, maybe inhibited, maybe dancing etc.and you might in consent to things in this state that you wouldn't have in the cold light of day, but that's still consent. That's what a judge should mean when they state "drunk consent is still consent"

It does not mean predatory creeps picking women off the floor who can barely talk or who feel entitled to fuck passed out women.

The guy who have r evidence about her having sex with him previously, wasn't giving evidence because they had sex, but because of specifically what had happened after the previous sex. On each occasion she had forgotten she's had sex, had to ask what was happened, which apparently alarmed the guy because she hadn't seemed very drunk the night before.

Given its a defence if he had a reasonable belief in her consent, then I can see why this is relevant. Both for reasonable belief, if she doesn't come across as too drunk to consent, and lack of memory the next morning casting doubt on her memory of what happened the night before.

Bluesky - you're being too kind. He gave evidence because he knows, one way or another, £50,000 is coming his way.

The investigation of her sexual history and the using of it in the case is a very, very worrying turn of events.

This isn't anything new. If it's relevant to the case being investigated, the defence are entitled to be aware and use this information, if it is in the interests of a fair trial.

It's pretty rare for it to be presented to the jury though, isn't it? Or have I got that wrong?