drunken consent

[stitch]

this is the sort of thing that really annoys me.
some silly woman gets drunk, has sex with bloke, then ruins his life by saying he raped her. i totally agree with the judge. drunken consent is still consent.
if you totally didnt want sex, then you shouldnt have got yourself so drunk that you cant remember whether you consented or not. rape is obvious as it happens. not after the fact. ask the real victims of rape.
i just feel that this sort of attitude belittles how horrific a crime it really is.
oops, should have done the link first.
here

This bloke wasn't drunk, at least not by the accounts.

It does sound as if the only person who really knows whether she was unconscious at the start of intercourse is him, and I certainly wouldn't trust his word.

From what I know, women lying about rape are vanishingly rare - same sort of number (of either gender) as lie about any other crime. Most failed rape convictions are cases like this, where there's quite a bit of uncertainty, it's one person's word against another, etc, etc.

true jggg but making a bad judgement and making a bad judgement that breaks the law is what it is. Getting into a car to drive home after having had too much to drink is a very bad judgement too. It is also against the law.

I agree with you that there are cases of women crying rape for revenge etc that makes it all the more difficult for genuine cases to ever be convicted on and therefore less women come forward as a result.

you can't have contributory negligence over a cimrinal matter. also, did you guys see the report by amnesty international?? that something like 1/3 of people in this country think that if a woman is drunk / or wearing revealing clothing / or, have numerous partners... shes; "asking to be raped!!!"

somewhat terifying that there are such pig ignorant views around really.

also, in reference to 'she made moaning sound... and THEN regained consciousness' - so then she was not conscious!

its not this particular case that worries me, its the ones in the future that may be influenced by such comments

i just think that article is very biased. if she was unconscious he is obviously guilty, but i dont think its fair for someones lfe to be ruined because you made the wrong decision because you had too much to drink. i have been ridiculously drunk and people have thought i was sober, other times its been the other way round. i dont see how a man (not necessarily this one) can be expected to decide whether or not a girl is too drunk to make a sensible decision. if im going to get bladdered i either do it at home or make sure i have friends around incase i need them.

That is what easy is saying though - was she conscious? If so, how come she remembers making any noises?

In the UK we have a justice system that says you ar innocent until proved guilty. The court could not find this mind guilty. The CPS acting for the women offered no evidence.

So what do we do? Put this guy, a 20yo student, in prison and throw away the key - because he might have committed a crime?

Goblin, I agree. Should a guy carry a breathalyser, so when a girl agrees to (or suggest) a sh*g, he says "just blow in this, so I can check whether you are competent to make this decision" ?

Hula, you and I are on the same side in this.

I just can't see how anyone here can make a 100% guaranteed judgement on this based on the lack of evidence given. I suspect the court felt the same.

Yeah, I agree there isn't enough evidence ... in the article, anyway.

I'm just uncomfortable with the lesson from this being "drunken consent is consent". I'd be happier if the lesson was "we don't have enough evidence to call this one".

I believe thats what she did isnt it, get drunk amongst friends?

If the guy has been found not guilty then thats that. THe law has spoken.

I cant help thinking though that if people were to change their attitudes towards rape and what actually constitutes rape, and that women never "ask for it" then these kind of cases would come up less often because people would be clearer on what was acceptable behaviour and what wasnt.

People thinking that because a woman is drunk she is responsible for her own actions and therefore a guy can take advantage dont discourage this kind of thing and make it almost "acceptable/understandable". It really isnt.

I agree with you on that point NQC

I still say, she is responsible for her actions. She got drunk, she wasn't able to look after herself, she is partly responsible for what happened. If she wasn't drunk she would have known what was happening to her, which she says she didn't know.

Hers yes, not his.

I agree that in this case there wasn't a realistic prospect of conviction. Especially given that men have been acquitted of rape when their screaming victims have fled, bruised and bleeding, into the street stark naked to get away from them - and that's true btw.
However, I am pleased that he has been named and shamed and hope this might encourage him to behave less appallingly in future.

Yes aloha, either way, i believe he has behaved appallingly.

Just a side issue here.

Is it right that the man in a rape case should be named BEFORE he is found guilty, whereas the woman can retain her anonymity?

Innocent men's lives have been wrecked because of this.

I am also trying to look at it from the other side too. What happens if this version of events is not quite right and it isn't quite what happened. Then this man's life may well have been ruined, and his reputation dragged down, for nothing. Those of you with sons - how would you feel if it was your son.

We don't know what happened. The evidence is not there.

I think in situations like this, there is no reason to name and shmae either party. As far as this case is concerned this man is not guilty onf any offence, yet his name and reputation will be forever tarnished. If he didn't do anything wrong (we still don't know what happened remember) does he still deserve this?

I agree if her version of the story is correct and she was unconscious and he did infact rape her, then fair enough - do your worst to him. But what if it isn't what happened? It does happen.

I have thought for a long time that it is wrong to name a man in such a case until he is convicted.

No more than any other defendant for any other crime should.

If a woman has made proveable false malicious charges she should be brought up on that too though.

absolutely.

Would a woman be charged with wasting police time?

I agree that we need to have some level of personal responsibility, but just what are the messages being sent out to young people these days about drinking? It's not a responsible one. How are young women supposed to look at the glamorisation of alcohol and say, oh no, that's not for me! Men aren't expected to. If a woman can loose her inhibitions when drunk so can men, if a woman can be confused about sexual signals when drunk so can men, but are drunken men deemed far more likely to rape as a consequence?

The best possible interpretation of his actions was that he was working as a security guard that night, when a member of staff was so concerned about the shockingly drunk and clearly vulnerable state of a girl that he asked this man (in his capacity as security guard) to escort her safely home. Instead of which he decides that she wants to have sex with him (on his account) so instead of making sure she gets home OK, he has sex with her while she is semi-conscious and lying on the floor of the corridor outside her room.

It is exploitative at best, I'd say.

And what happens to women who are confused after the fact? Should they go to the police and be accused of 'crying rape'? Like everything else in life, rape isn't a black and while issue.

Apologies for the highjack, but I'm trying to "speak" to QueenVictoria. Can someone head her over to the thread with her name. TIA

FFS Aloha, we shoudl start a revolution! Grrr!