life turned upside down

[dawntildusk]

I am really freaked out and need help putting this in perspective.
Here goes.
2 weeks ago a good friend of 25 years told me straight out that my dh (then boyfriend) raped her. It happened 14 years ago. She told me she has no recollection whatsoever of the night leading up to or immediately after the event. She woke up with him in the bed and he was inside her. She shouted at him and he left. Obviously I was shattered, devastated, nauseous, reeling from the shock. I sympathised with her, held her and hugged her and apologised over and over. When I confronted dh he was all the above multiplied by a million. His recollection of the event is this. We were all out drinking for the afternoon at a rugby match followed by the pub and then a club. 16 hours later we went to her house and he was helped to bed(by my brother and me). During the night he got out of our bed, he reckons to go to the bathroom, and climbed back in her bed. He remembers kissing and fondling, he does not deny he may have penetrated her but only "came too" after some kissing and they both realised what was happening at the same time. He left immediately, still really drunk and went back to bed.
I don't know what I am looking for by posting this but the word "rape" for me conjures up much different images than the one described to me. We have been married 12 years and have 4 beautiful children. My dh has been a kind, thoughtful, caring and supportive partner to me and I love him dearly. My friend is single, turning 40 this year and is blaming her recent breakdown on this event. I am so confused and need to know what you think. Is this rape?

Is this rape?

"As I've said - legally, it doesn't matter whether it matters to the victim what the intent was."

I thought the law stood as per sugarmousepink's post, to clear up cases where people were unconscious or unable to give consent for other reasons.

Dittany - why does it not make any difference to you that once he was aware of what was happening, he stopped immediately?

"I feel for the OP as she is in the middle of a shitstorm that's not her fault. That's not to say that I don't sympathise with her friend either. Rape is rape - it can be in varying degrees of violence, intent and the effects and how it appears to the victim can differ, but it's still wrong and unacceptable. "

Yes.

This business about his reputation being ruined. Well it's not going to pan out like that. As this thread demostrates, the vast majority of people will not think that he did anything wrong, and in fact will think that the woman is at fault.

For example I know 2 women who have been raped in RL, who have told people, and simply not been believed. People have been quite open about not believing it, gossiping about it behind their backs. Simply saying "she's making it up" with no evidence for saying that.

So I suspect that your DHs rep will not suffer too much over this.

For some reason I can't access the link to the rape defintion posted by SMP but this seems to be a victim support site so perhaps tending to lean towards supporting the woman (I don't mean that negatively). I don't agree with the way you paraphrased it however ISNT since unless I'm misunderstanding what you say this would cause a huge amount of risk to anyone having sex with a woman who had had a few drinks and some morning after regret. We've not gone quite that far (maybe there is an argument that we should) It's difficult - its one of the hardest of grey areas in terms of criminal intent and it is a matter for the jury to decide upon. I don't think most people on here have taken the side of the man and blamed the woman. Many of us have sympathy for the woman but don't think this sympathy necessarily leads to castigating the man. Some have questioned the womans timing and attitude (many woman in this position would be fearful of their friend believing them, not making assumptions that she would immediately leave her husband) and the questions are valid. Finally, I really am astonished that you would suggest that Dawn's DH's reputation would not be affected by this.

Jooly - God, don't put any extra weight on what I say from a legal perspective. I deal with civil law (contract) mainly (and relatively selected aspects of that) so what criminal law knowledge I have is peripheral but the basics of criminal law are ingrained and are essentially that most crimes (and certainly the more serious ones) requires a criminal act and a criminal state of mind (think "intent" in murder, "dishonesty" in theft, and the much greyer areas regarding belief of consent in rape).

Dittany why see the worst in posts which don't immediately write off men and require that they be tossed in jail> I don't understand how you could read SMP's post about seeking advice as to the DH's potential criminal liability and interpret this as an intent to attack and victimise the woman.

One poster does this all the time. Has to see the worst in people.

They were kissing! You dont kiss a rapist!

they spoke about it the next day and she said 'Let's forget it!' End of. He apologised.

"I thought the law stood as per sugarmousepink's post, to clear up cases where people were unconscious or unable to give consent for other reasons."

This is not true? I thought the law had been changed to clarify this point, that if someone is unable to give consent, then someone proceeding to have sex with them is guilty of assault? I really thought that was the case, I will have to go away and have a read.

This intent thing is really bothering me. I can think of loads of things where people have not fully realised the consequences of what they were doing - ie they did not intend the eventual consequences. These people are prosecuted for their crimes.

Just off the top of my head, a person who chucks heavy things off a motorway overpass will get done if they cause a car to crash and people to die. Even if their intention was not for people to die.

Or there was that bloke who got thrown out of a pub, he went back in and threw a glass, one of the glass shards hit someone and fatally wounded them. His intention was not to kill, but he did kill, and was prosecuted accordingly.

I have never heard of this intent thing TBH, and I read in the newspapers all the time of people being prosecuted for doing things where they did not forsee the consequences, and sometimes could not have forseen them. There were some arson attacks the other week, the people were prosecuted for murder, they said they did not intend to kill but just to burn the house. So why are they being done for murder?

If intent always has to be there, then that negates a lot of things doesn't it.

"Because I don't believe that he just happened to wake up at the exact same time this poor woman came to and discovered him penetrating her. It beggars belief to think that they both came to consciousness at exactly the same. How in tune would their brains have had to be for that to happen? "

Spot on. His story is so odd it just doesn't make sense - I am sorry but it sounds like he didn't think she WOULD wake up. It is sickening that people think putting your penis in an inanimate, sleeping person is an honest mistake and this poor Woman should just shrug her shoulders and put it down to experience. I am not surprised she has had a difficult life, how would you feel if you woke up and found a guy on top of you with his dick inside you?

OP your DH is not telling you the full story. I guarantee.

Just googling and found:

"Because of the Morgan ruling in the mid 1970s, to convict a man of rape first of all, the prosecution had to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was not consenting. Whether he was guilty or not depended on whether or not he thought she was consenting - what was going on in his head - not what was happening to her body. This was the "Morgan" rule which says that a man is not guilty of rape if he believed she was consenting NO MATTER HOW UNREASONABLE THAT BELIEF.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced the concept of 'reasonable steps'. Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is done by considering any steps he has taken to ascertain whether she consented (subsection (2) of sections 1-4).

This is a major change in the law and the Act abolishes the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to consent. "

from which ties in with the changes in the law I thought had come in, making it rape by defintion if the person is unable to give consent for some reason.

Did I miss the bit where OP said she was seeing a solicitor to threaten? I assumed it was just to get legal advice, very sensible IMO.

There's an assumptoipn amongst some that people who are in thr this - is - not - rape camp are automatically of the school of thought that the woman must be wrong: not so! I am a rape survivor myself, but the story seems to have got confused somewhere here between she was asleep (in which case rape) or she qas apriticipating then changed her mind (in which case not rape- he stopped).

Which happened is the key.

Although the actions of the woman do seem off wrt to friendship / bridesmaid etc. You can wonder about the actions of one woman without ahitng all of them!

Sorry ISNT - DH is awake - He's a not lazy, he works nights so will read in a bit if I can get the links to work! I agree we have moved away from the situation in the 70's just not as far as some are suggesting. Will just say quickly - don't confuse intent in terms of criminal intent with intention (in the terms you were using) and the natural flow of consequences from your actions.

I honestly think that if I woke up and found a male friend/acquaintance sticking his cock in me, I would give him a clip round the ear and tell him to stop. If he then stopped, and if he apologised the next day, then I wouldn;t see it as something that was going to ruin anyone's life, and not something that would necessitate detonating a friend's marriage 14 years down the line. I appreciate that other women are not me, and I am not them, and our perceptions vary, but I'm not entirely happy, in general terms, with the idea that anyone who accuses anyone has to be believed instantly and by everyone. because some people are malicious, some deluded and some oversensitive. This is why we have a legal system and demands for evidence and proof etc.
I have had similar-ish things (drunken touching etc, half-asleep men trying to initiate sex) happen and haven;t found them unduly upsetting (waking up to find a one-night stand in the act of tying me to the bed was terrifying for about 30 seconds but, when I yanked my hand free and bellowed at him his reaction was dopey bemusement rather than an increase in aggression so I settled for bollocking him thoroughly and left it at that).
SOmething the OP might find useful to think about, though, is other people's perceptions and reactions to both her H and her friend in general. If the H is an opportunist or a predator, he won;t have only ever done it the once, and there will be a few female friends and acquaintances who will either have distanced themselves abruptly from the couple with no particular obvious explanation, or who will be distant with the H and try to see the OP in female-only settings. ANd there will be a rumour or two that;s been going round for a long time.
If the friend has quite a few former friends/partners/ people who react to the mention of her name with either hurt bemusement or lingering anger, then maybe she's got a few issues with shitstirring.
But this is stuff for the OP to consider, she knows the people concenred, us internet sprites don't.

SGB I agree with you re the groping and fumbling, and telling someone to piss off usually puts paid to that. All well and good.

I think it's the idea that he had actually got as far as penetrating her while she was apparently still out of it which makes me blench. IME a drunken fumble while one or more parties are rather out of it, is normally a precursor to the people involved making an active decision ie piss off or carry on.

The idea that he actually got as far as penetrating her before she had given a yay or nay, is just really unpleasant.

However the story seems to be unclear as to what happened, when, to whom and who said what etc etc. I was reading the woman's story and thinking "well that sounds awful" which it does. To me, I can understand easily her POV ie she was raped. He had sex with her when she hadn't consented. That's kind of cut and dried for me.

I do feel sorry for the OP though being in the middle of all this, it must be really awful for her.

It's been ages since I read criminal law, but wasn't there a case about mistaken identity? Vaguely recall a man climbing through a window and raping a woman alleging that it was his girlfriend, or some bizarre story?

just a query regarding the fact that some people here think that the reason the "it wasn't rape brigade" say it wasnt rape is becuase they think she is automatically responsible for being drunk...

and i'd only like the opinions of the "it wasnt rape brigade" please

i was at a house party when i was raped. i was getting on with one guy and went upstairs with him, at which point i became pretty much unconcious having been given drinks that may well have been spiked. four men took advantage of me. i couldnt say no or do anything as i couldnt move.

if anyone thinks she is to blame for being drunk which is why it wasnt rape, then surely they would also think that this wasnt rape?

aussienq thanks for that - it may be that my understanding of intent/intention is different from the criminal definition - wouldn't be surprised I don't know much about legal speak.

so dittany, a woman has NEVER cried rape when it didnt happen?

ever?

because women are incapable of lying and all men are lying bastards??