To not automatically support my male friend (potentially triggering!)

[User14356]

Agh this is keeping me up tonight, sorry if it’s a bit rambly

My very close, male friend (totally platonic) picked up a woman last weekend at a club. I had left earlier in the night, from what I was told, they were drunk, she had a screaming argument with her friend and then he took her home. Things were done but they didn’t have full sex.

Cut to today and I get a worried message from my male friend saying he has been contacted by this girl saying he took advantage, he is a sex offender and that she’s going to go to the police. This text message was sent at 4am and badly spelled so the assumption is that she was drunk.

I want to believe my friend, but I’m now massively morally split, between not wanting to call this girl a liar, but then not being there for him if the accusations are blown out or false. For now, I’ve been supportive. Is there any way to manage this situation without taking sides- AIBU to have doubts about my friend?

Exactly, so why does the OP need to get involved. This woman will either go to the Police or not.

ut they do happen and we seem to be hearing more of them and they do seem to be conclusively proven to be false, not thrown out due to lack of evidence and suspicion remaining.

I dont agree with this at all

We arent privy to the full information about most of those cases

Why should be the OP be the sounding board for his dubious choices.

I mean obviously we are hearing more about them, which is obviously down to reporting

I think you offer support and listen to him as you are his friend, but you don't slag off this women as a liar and you accept you don't really know what happened and that's all you can do.

I have a family member who is a sexual offender, like he has actually been convicted, there was forensic evidence (semen, it was a child, so no way it could have been consensual), and has been to prison. I wasn't there and don't know what happened (but personally I don't support him because I believe he truly did do it and the evidence is completely obvious). But still I wasn't there and I trust that the state did the right thing and has proven his guilt and if the state says it happened, then I believe that's probably the case. That said, we have several family member who would literally chop off their right arm rather than accept he is guilty, regardless of the semen evidence, regardless of the conviction and prison time, etc. They are convinced to the point of being entirely delusional that it's all a conspiracy because they are sure they 'know' the truth. But they don't. You can support someone, but if you never know, that's the most you can do, and you can't go around slagging off the accuser or other versions of the story if you just don't know. If she reports it and it goes to trial, then the courts will handle it and you have to trust in that process and that's the most you can do without knowing more.

I would be supportive in a non committal way, i.e. not slagging off the woman but just saying "Im there for you" until there s an outcome.

You can't possible know what happened so don't try to make that judgment.

Well indeed, she's under no obligation to offer herself as his sounding board. But I'm reading a post here by someone who is concerned enough about what she thinks, and is understood to think, about this incident that she's started a thread about it. So I'm responding to her, about how she might gain peace of mind on the subject.

Either or both of them may have made an 'unwise decision' that night that they now regret. One or both of them may have had sufficient capacity to make that decision.

I would keep am open mind but try not to get too involved.
Sign post him to other places for support and legal advice.

I found out that someone I had known (was quite close too many years ago), was a paedophile by seeing him on crimewatch 10 years later (was convicted of several serious assaults).
Another 10 years later it still haunts me that I 'knew' him so Well, yet didn't know him at all.

I guess what I am saying is how you are feeling right now is awful and probably really uncomfortable.
And that's ok.
Hang in there and look after yourself.

There are some terrifying responses on here. Part of me hopes that the reactionary 'he must be guilty' MNers find themselves accused of a crime of which they're innocent, and are faced with the burden of having to prove their innocence in the absence of any solid evidence. Or maybe, that their sons or husbands find themselves accused of the very same thing.

How very easy it is for the puritanical armchair sex-warriors to throw around accusations of guilt based on nothing but prejudice and anger. The term 'lynch mob' isn't even an exaggeration in these circumstances.

The term lynch mob is definitely an exaggeration

I think you need a fair few people for a mob and no one is being hanged

Actually a mob is a group of people ...no number

Who knew!!!

(The dictionary)

Still no lynching

Going by your friend's version of events, surely neither of them is necessarily lying? It's perfectly possible that he genuinely believed at the time that she agreed to whatever happened, in which case he's done nothing wrong, and at the same time she genuinely felt that he took advantage of her (whether or not that feeling was a product of her being drunk when she sent the text). Of course she might be deliberately revising history because she feels guilty about her choices, or he might have dragged her home and assaulted her while she was too drunk to protest, but why start from those assumptions when they might both be telling the truth? So I would agree with everyone else who's saying to be supportive but without accusing her of lying (which you're not anyway).

Part of me hopes that the reactionary 'he must be guilty' MNers find themselves accused of a crime of which they're innocent, and are faced with the burden of having to prove their innocence in the absence of any solid evidence. Or maybe, that their sons or husbands find themselves accused of the very same thing.

Ah Babycham. All of me hopes you’re never a victim of sexual assault where the evidence against your attacker is based on people believing you and not him, and I mean that genuinely.

Secondly, if your friend randomly met her that night, taking home a drunk, emotionally upset female stranger does actually sound like he took advantage of her state and she may not have been in any fit state to consent to anything they did together. They were both drunk, maybe she took advantage of him?

One of my friends was accused and convicted of rape. It was very very difficult to reconcile this kind man who had been a good friend to me with a rapist. I felt that I couldn't continue the friendship despite the fact I was very fond of him. This is a definite act though to which he pleaded guilty. I think an accusation should be just that at the moment .

Pumperthepumper, you know nothing about me, nor of my history, so please don't presume.

Just look at those pictures of black men hanging from trees in the deep south for an idea of what happens when we go with unthinking mob rule.

I didn’t presume anything Babycham. Just thought it was strange to wish misfortune on people who would automatically believe someone who says they were assaulted - and I wanted you to know that I don’t wish the same for you.

They were both drunk. Not just her from the OP. Not sure why this would be classed as sexual assault just because she regretted it afterwards.

Those of you claiming that false allegations are very rare need to do some research. And before anyone jumps on me from a great height the opposite of very rare is not very common. And the reason that there are few prosecutions of false accusers is a political choice. Research that too. Being on the receiving end of a sexual assaukt or rape is dreadful- been there done that. But so is being on the receiving end if a false allegation. And for those who say that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean innicence - true, bit a guilty verdict doesn't mean guilty either. Juries get it wrong in both directions. He said/she said trials are as bad for the falsely accused as they are for the genuine victims of assault/rape. Some if you talk as if only women can be victimised.

meg

If you have the evidence to hand it would be much easier for you to just pop it on the thread

It would be very kind as it would stop many hours of trawling

What is taking advantage of a woman?

Is this taking advantage: Taking her home (when she is not your girlfriend) to 'help' her because she has just had an argument and is clearly out of control and drunk and so presumably needs help to get home safely - then doing something sexual with her because she asked for it?

I think it was. I do not think this was helping her. I think this was helping himself. Maybe he was drunk too and not thinking clearly.

However, in law it always seems to be the case that it cannot be proved that she did not ask for it. It would be seen that she was not so drunk that she did not know what she was doing, and the alcohol had just lowered her inhibitions. Therefore he would be found innocent.

Going out to get drunk and have a one night stand is common enough and the law seems to be on the side of sex with a drunk woman being consensual (unless someone witnessed her saying no, or she had passed out while the sex was happening and there was proof of this).

Your friend probably thinks it is not taking advantage to so chivalrously help get a woman home then have sex with her because she seemed to want it. A lot of other men would feel the same. I am sure he genuinely feels he did nothing wrong. The law would probably back him up.

So it is up to you.

I don't envy your position at all. When both parties involved, regardless of gender, have been drinking, it becomes difficult to determine if there has been an assault or not.
How can anybody possibly know, especially if they have been drinking themselves, when another person (especially a stranger) is at or beyond the limit of consumption to be consciously capable of consenting?
The extremes are obvious, one mild drink they're pretty likely to be able to consent, if they cant stand upright clearly they can't, but there's just such a massive grey area in the middle.
People do things when intoxicated they wouldn't do sober, but regretting a decision you made when drunk, doesn't mean you didn't/couldn't consent. Likewise some people can be heavily intoxicated and not regret their decisions, it is just so subjective to each individual person.

It is entirely possible, and probable, both parties see the same event very differently.
She could genuinely feel like she was too drunk to be 100% capable of consenting, and that she has been coerced or taken advantage of. Likewise he could genuinely feel she wasnt that intoxicated that she wasnt able to make a decision, and she seemed in control and capable of consenting.

Hell, im easily coerced into doing things fully sober i regret and wish i hadn't done and didn't really want to do from the outset, but i technically had the ability to say no and didn't, and i can feel used/violated/taken advantage of. Add alcohol in to the mix, how could anyone ever judge one way or the other.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 Theres no one link that I can point you to with numbers. Many of the falsely accused protect their anonymity fiercely because of the stigma and then when aquitted or the case is dropped, put their energy into recovering from the devastation to their lives. Many lose home work and children while waiting for a decision to charge or not charge. The system is brutal and slow. Not good for either side. Google FACT which is a support site for false accusations. Google PAAFA likewise. The fact that legal aid was withdrawn for divorce unless there was an allegation of DV has rocked the world of many a divorcing father who finds himself facing false allegations including rape. There are support groups on Facebook and a useful site called Daftmoo. You need to look at them all to get a reasonable picture. No-one is doing research on the numbers because the CPS and police view every case as Not Enough Evidence if it doesn't end up in court. Even when Liam Allen was aquitted that was their stance rather than Evidence Proved His Innocence. Even when accusers admit lying they are rarely prosecuted. The authorities claim those low numbers as proof of few false accusations, but it's a political decision not to prosecute in case it puts off genuine victims. I'm sorry I can't point you to a link, I really am, but no-one in authority, including most of the legal profession, want to address the issue and theres lots of misinformation and assumptions around - like the 'he's a man he must be guilty' comment.

lottie It is precisely what happened in the case of Liam Allen. The case came to trial and only then did the defence barrister track down text messages from the accuser that the Police had sat on for TWO YEARS.

There were a series of texts to Mr Allen from the alleged victim asking him for more sexual encounters after he had supposedly raped her and a text from the alleged victim to another of her friends in which she admitted the sex "wasn't against her will". Direct quote.

That poor guy had his life turned upside down and put on hold for two years when clearly the case should never have come to court at all based on those texts, which the Police knew about and should have handed to the CPS and his defence team long, long before.

Thanks megs