Shagged my ex and he’s attempting to blackmail me

[Suchanidiotpart2]

Know I’ll get flamed for this but I need some advice. I stupidly met up with my ex to discuss our DC. He turned on the charm and kept ordering the drinks and we ended up in bed. My lovely, kind and caring dp is moving in this week. I wasn’t going to tell him because it was w stupid mistake and I made sure it was safe sex.

Ex wants me back. I’ve told him no chance and he’s threatening to tell my dp.

I feel so much shame and am disgusted with myself. My poor boyfriend. I need to tell him before my bastard of an ex does don’t I?

No judgment here. So sorry you're in this awful position. Sending strength.

You did the right thing, OP.

I hope you can put it behind you and move on with your DP.

I wouldn't say anything to anyone but if ex pushed it I would say if he did that then I would do XYZ back.You must have loads on him if he is that unpleasant and no one is perfect. I would also say it face to face not on text or email.

think the law changed so that it is rape with an object- and it doesn’t have to be a vagina now either - there is oral and anal rape. And the perpetrator can be of either sex.

In U.K. law rape is with a penis. Vagina or anus. With an object it’s ‘sexual assault by penetration’.

The law has not changed in the UK @Dadaist are you referring to a different country? If not I really suggest you need to be checking sources before posting as you routinely post inaccurate and false information.

Been lurking on this thread OP and just chipping in now to say hats off to you... what you've done is very brave and I'm sure must feel like a huge weight has been lifted.

It's positive you and your DP put on a united front to quash any hopes of you being blackmailed any further, and I truly hope that after doing the right thing it all works out for you and you get your happily ever after

I really suggest you need to be checking sources before posting as you routinely post inaccurate and false information.

Yep.

@Dadaist The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

“ (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

OP well done for telling your dp. I sincerely hope he forgives you and moves on, but I still think you need to explore the freedom programme.

Bless you.

Well done for telling him OP, you've done the right thing. Hope you can get through it x

OMG - OK round two - @TatianaLarina I said ‘I think...’ as in from memory- I wasn’t presenting you with fact I was reflecting that out of interest I thought there had been a change in the law that had widened the definition of rape. There had - but not as wide as I speculated.

So there was a recent case of a woman who had impersonated a man and used a plastic penis on her girlfriend - and it was reported as ‘rape’. I knew there had been a change to rape to include mouth and anus - but obviously I was wrong about objects - as was the reporting. So yes - grateful to you to know that if they are ‘raped’ with an object they have not actually been raped but sexually assaulted. It’s what I had always known been taught but I thought I might be out of date. It doesn’t make me ‘routinely inaccurate’ But Thank you!

Anyway @Katy78 - the law doesn’t actually define consent - other than using alternate words for the same thing. That is to say it doesn’t give examples of what words or actions constitute consent. It states that sex without consent is assault or rape.
So what actually constitutes signalling consent is rather nuanced (for obvious reasons really) and for a jury to decide in any case.

It really isn’t inaccurate to point out that drunken consent is still consent. The question is whether someone is so drunk as to be incapable of consent - not whether their consent was sober. If you think that is inaccurate then why not reference the contrary ruling.

What I referenced is an article about a high court judge legal ruling that set precedent that drunken consent is still consent. I think the judge went rather too far in favour of the accused. But you asked for legal example of drunken consent still being consent. I gave one. There are others.

But Legislation doesn’t define everything- it’s all decided by case law - ie the decisions of judge and jury and it changes and evolves over time.

I studied it for a masters degree ...a long time ago!. ‘Reasonable belief in consent’ was introduced in the 1980s - meaning that even if a woman hasn’t consented - if the accused had a reasonable belief that she had consented, then he is acquitted. Some appalling miscarriages as a consequence along the way, in challenging the definition of ‘reasonable belief’.

I’m not making it up - but law is mostly opinion - that’s what lawyers are paid for.

You’ve done the right thing and proven you do have morals which you should be proud of regardless of whether the relationship ends or not. Unlike many of the posters on here.

I am glad your DP made that call with you to your ex. I hope you can forgive yourself. You did the right thing.

For all the deny, deny, deny sayers, it’s not so great being on the receiving end of deceit. The Op loved and respected herself, her bf and the integrity of their future by being honest.

If you think that is inaccurate then why not reference the contrary ruling.

Because, as you have already been told, that ruling was considered so problematic that it led changes - specifically to the new rules around capacity to consent. Thus that case has long been superseded.

If you read that whole case, the complainant was very drunk indeed but not too drunk to recall being sexually assaulted - she was too incapacitated to stop it. However she did not know that penetrative sex occurred until the police told her.

For someone who claims to have studied law - you are woefully inaccurate and underinformed.

When the belief in consent defence was introduced in the 1975 it was not ‘reasonable’ but ‘honest belief..however unreasonable’. It was changed to ‘reasonable belief’ in 2002.

OK @TatianaLarina - I’m not going to resort to insults. And no - I’m not an expert. Quoting a (controversial) high court ruling is not an inaccuracy. I’ve given an example that clearly doesn’t support what you say, which also raised exactly the questions about alcohol and capacity for consent, and the various opinions following the ruling were interesting I thought. They drew out the various conflicting issues at stake. It’s not misinformation!

But I’m aware of no example of where the law says that drunken consent is not consent. So... If you know of case law that does then share it. If not - don’t just say I’m wrong - that sounds far more like misinformation than anything I’ve offered.

Hope you are looking after yourself OP.

Why would you resort to insults?

Quoting a high court ruling that you are unaware has since been superseded by a tightening of law is inaccurate, yes. The concept of capacity to consent wrt drugs and alcohol was introduced.

Hi Op

Hoping you are well - I agree that you are brave and have done the right thing by telling your DP. The way I read your posts, if you hadn't and he'd moved in and your ex hadn't carried out his threat, it would have festered away in you until it made you really ill (and then destroyed your relationship).

I don't know whether your DP will ever forgive you, but I'm sure it gave him immense pleasure to join that call to your ex and he has done you a favour there. Personally, I'd have loved to have heard what was said (and that's not me asking for details, just relishing the thought).

Whether your DP forgives you or not, whether the relationship works or not, you should take the lessons you need to from what's happened and forgive yourself or your ex will have won.

Are you positive you weren't drugged OP?
I was at a house party once with my boyfriend, and just before we left he drank a drink that had been given to the hostess because she didnt want it. In the 30 minute taxi ride to our hotel he went from "fine" to "passing out paraletic drunk" to the point I called an ambulance - I'm positive the drink he drank was drugged but would totally have believed he was just very very drunk if I hadn't know for sure he wasn't.

@TatianaLarina ok - I have never once suggested that the effects of alcohol is not a factor - only that being very drunk is not sufficient by itself to remove capacity for consent.

Anyway here is a better reference- or less woeful at any rate? (It says it this 2018 article that it still applies.)

“a person may be heavily intoxicated, having voluntarily consumed a large quantity of alcohol, and still be capable of deciding to have intercourse.”

The defendant won on appeal because the (short extract below) direction had NOT been given to the jury - and should have been. B viewed that “the Court had implied heavy intoxication sufficed to remove one’s capacity to consent, regardless of other factors. This would be contrary to the law on consent in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
“The Court of Appeal was critical of the earlier Court for failing to establish that alcohol may alter someone’s behavior, and heavy intoxication does not automatically mean a person cannot consent.”

reference...
R v Bree
www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-bree.php

OP none of the above is intended to make any kind of speculation about what happened to you - I’m sorry I’ve gone down this legal rabbit hole over points of law.
I think you’ve been very brave and from what you’ve said I think your DP might come round - just give him time - if that’s what you want? Good luck!

I don’t why this has descended into some kind of to and fro about consent and alcohol since the OP has never suggested this. Imagine if some bloke came on here, said he’d met up with an ex partner and cheated on his current one, but then said it wasn’t his fault and he was pissed. Doubt anyone would offer sympathy and say the ex partner sexually assaulted him

OP was obviously coherent enough at the time to remember that her kids were out of the house before going back there with her ex.

OP you've done the right thing if for no one's sake but your own, I think the guilt would have eaten you up. I hope you can find a way forward.

As no-one has disputed that you can be very drunk and still give informed consent I’m not sure what your point is?

Just how drunk is too drunk to consent is a very difficult question to answer. In cases of severe intoxication (and blackout) the court may be asked to asked to assess how drunk the complainant was.

Typically it may be considered whether the complainant:

• was wobbling, staggering on their feet
• was slurring their words
• was coherent in speech and capable of a conversation
• appeared to understood what was said to them
• had had episodes of unconsciousness
• had vomitted

They may consider eye witness reports, CCTV etc.