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 is a very interesting thread. i think the man's actions were morally reprehensible - morally speaking, i think this was a rape. however, legally speaking, it is clear, imho, that if a woman says she can't remember whether she gave consent or not, then there is no case to answer. as soon as she made this statement under cross-examination, the prosecution threw in the towel. it seems to me (although i'm not a lawyer) that the cps would never have brought this case if they had known in advance the woman would make this statement in court. i think the woman should have been much better prepared (by the prosecution team) for the pressures of cross examination.

other points:

• imo getting so drunk is stupid, irresponsible and shows poor judgement. however, stupidity, irresponsibility and poor judgement are not crimes.
• having sex with someone who is too incapable to give consent is a crime. as someone said, if you're too drunk to say no, you're too drunk to say yes.
• i would like to see the law on what constitutes proper consent tightened up - so men would think twice about having sex with a woman who is clearly "under the influence". however, i can see that the implementation of this would be fraught with practical issues.

i hope this chap is thoroughly ashamed of himself.

I believe i have heard of it once easy.

But it was proven that she did indeed make up the allegations, witness statements etc.

But generally its as hard to prove as it is to prove that the man did do it. And a woman shouldnt be investigated purely on the basis that the defendant was found "not guilty".

I dont think that there are many malicious claims that make it as far as a police station let along a courtroom though.

also, unpalatable though this is sometimes (e.g. in a case like this), i believe the burden of proof must be on the prosecution to preserve our civil liberties.

I believe the reason men are named before they are convicted is that it often gives the push to other abused women to speak out and say "he did it to me too". So I can sort of see two sides as to why they're named... it's not a perfect system either way.

Intoxication does really confuse matters.

Is it rape if a couple, who've not previously had sex, say "let's have sex later". She then gets really drunk, and they have sex, when she's conscious, but only barely so. Rape? Not rape?

But if someone is unconscious, how can they remember giving or not giving consent, or even having sex for that matter?

This woman apparently realised she was in no fit state to get home safely and went to someone in authority to help her do so.

but mt, it is not clear (from the press reports which is all any of us have access to for information) whether she was completely unconscious the whole time. in fact, one report i have read suggests she was conscious part of the time.

this is what i mean by preparation for cross examination, actually. "i was unconscious so i couldn't have given my consent" is different legally (afaik) from "i can't remember whether i gave consent or not". remember it was the prosecution who gave up after she made this statement - i just can't believe they knew it was coming.

I think bk has summed it up perfectly - there is a big difference between what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong. unfortunately teh media reporting of cases like this "drunken consent is still consent" etc, really blur the moral guidleines that our society adheres to.

I think most people agree that this case was going to collapse legally, but find his behaviour abhorrent.

It seems she can't remember consenting but she can remember she had sex? Was it a day after 'what the hell happened there?' scenario.

Although, it begs the question what kind of guy gets a thrill having sex with someone who is blotto - rape or not it certainly sounds like he was taking advantage of her.

If this doesn't signal a crisis in womans issues I don't know what does..

There may also be some confusion as to how much she remembers of the details when she gave her statement, which was probably just after the attack, to what she remembers now, god knows how long after she gave her statement. Barristers are always asking for a distinction of what you remember now and what you wrote in your statement. ie, what you remember then and what you remember now.

I went to a 50p-a-shot gin night at Uni. I was so drunk that I don't remember going back to this party at a students flat. I vaguely remember me and a friend staggering up the stairs laughing out heads off.

Anyway.... I woke up the next morning to find a bloke having full sex with me on a the sofa!!!.... I didn't view it as rape at all.... as I had a blurred recollection of sleeping with him the night before as well!

Afterwards we just sat and chatted, he made me coffee and toast... My friend was in one of the bedrooms quite happy shall we say.... so I just left.

It wasn't until I got out the flat I realised I didn't even know what town I was in!!!

So.... I don't remember giving consent the 2nd time the guy had sex with me.... but I certainly don't view it as rape! I felt a bit careless and stupid afterwards though. Never did that again!

But Sackache are you saying that you would deny the right of someone who was upset to make a complaint?

MT - I'm just saying that it is very possible she did consent and can't remember..... and also that I don't view this as rape at all.

Really interesting thread. It is one of those really grey areas. I think both people involved show a remarkable lack of respect for themselves, not to mention stupidity. The girl for getting so drunk as to be completely out of control of her actions and the chap who escorted her home for taking advantage of a vulnerable person to have sex with them.
Like SackAche I am rather ashamed to admit that I have been as stupid & irresponsible as that girl to not be able to properly recall whether or not I consented to have sex or not. I know the same could be said of a number of girls I went to university with. It never occurred to me to think it was rape, as I'm almost certain that the signals I would have been giving would have suggested that I was "up for it".
I'm quite interested that people think that it is up to the man, not to continue trying to have sex if the woman is too drunk to fully consent. What is too drunk? She could well be giving out very clear verbal and physical signals that she is consenting. While I think it is the honourable thing for a man to step back and think "yes, she's wasted - another time", surely as a healthy individual you have to accept responsibility for your own safety.

Bugsy, absolutely right, hear hear

I agree with you Stitch and yes Sackache,I have been in such situations in my wild and sordid past.
Not big,not clever,but definitely *NOT& rape.

this happened to me twice as well...first time It was with a school friend, who was listening to me sobbing away about my dad being ill and boyfrined leaving me, only to try to jump on me moments later. I remmeber feebly trying to resist him but I was really really drunk, next think I remember |I was on a bed with him and no knickers on, and he was talking about getting the bed wet...I don't recall anything else but it was quite obvious what happened. I tried to confront him later but he would not confirm what had happened and later tried to avoiud speaking to me. I always thought about it as 'technical rape', but because I can remember absolutely nothing about the actual fact, it hasn't left any scars or anything like that. he's certainly NOT a friend of mine anymore!!!!!!!

Second time it was with a lovely guy whom I'd just met and in retrospect he honestly thoght I was 'up for it too'. this time I was still very drunk but knew what was happening but couldn't find the strength to object really. The next day I was horrible with him and he was mortified...

You are putting yourself in a very dangerous place if you get so drunk you don't know what you are doing and have complete memory failure. There are times when its probably safe to let your hair down ( in your own home or if you are with a husband or partner or someone who is still there when you need to go home) But otherwise women need to keep control of themselves to avoid such situations. I think a man who happily has sex with a woman who has passed out is sick and takeng advantage - its a crime whatever you want to call it. Even if she consented then passed out - thats when he should stop, when she had lost all self control. Perhaps there should be a name for such acrime other than rape or a different sentence?
It's hard enough convicting true rapists but i think some irresponsible women who make rape 'a grey area', difficult to define, harder for the true victims whose rapists get off scot free. I include in that women who lie and cry rape.

Monkeychops - It was just those wild days at Uni! Getting drunk.... smoking hash..... going out on the pull.... it really was the norm when I was at Uni. We were not thinking that highly about our health/safety by the amount of alcohol/cigarettes/drugs we consumed.
For most students "Letting your hair down" is most nights!

In this case only two people could know the truth and one of them was blind drunk, which makes it impossible case to adjudicate.
A drunk witness who passed out is no witness tbh.

bossykate, I don't think that prosecution can talk to the victim in advance atm. Think that's one of the big problems.

Monkeychops - Irresponsible women?? How realistic is it to expect all woman to be responsible, whatever their age or experience? We don't live in a 'responsible' age FGS! The double standards here are just incredible. Why is it only acceptable for a woman to 'let her hair down' at home or with another 'responsible' adult?? Why is it somewhow seen as women provoking men to rape? And what, may I ask, is being 'up for it'? Up for a laugh? Up for a snog? Up for some heavy petting? Or if we go that far are we all cock teasers who...da-dah..get what we deserve?

And sorry but I disagree Sackache, Moondog. If it's a grey area, in some circumstances it may very well be rape. Just because you have sex with someone once doesn't give them a priority pass!