Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Discussion with female friend re Ched

187 replies

HenriettaTurkey · 26/10/2014 10:53

So I posted an article on fb, with a link to an article on Ched Evans and the myth of male sexuality.

With it I wrote 'it's very simple. If she's drunk and you have sex with her, it's rape. That's the law'.

Several friends responded positively, saying such things as 'if in doubt assume the answer's no', 'it would be easier to move on if he at least acknowledged his act' etc

Then a female friend came on and, through various posts said I was being ridiculous as this meant that no-one could ever have a drink and have sex again.

After banging my head against the wall I realised you lovely folk would be able to help me construct a coherent response that doesn't rely on my usual, possibly unhelpful, sarcasm.

Help!

OP posts:
heartisaspade · 27/10/2014 10:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SevenZarkSeven · 27/10/2014 10:39

Beyond hasn't mentioned an assault other than the rape Confused

smashboxmashbox · 27/10/2014 10:40

Assault contrary to section I can't remember of the criminal justice act 1988

Battery is the actual beating, assault is to put in fear of "immediate infliction of unlawful force"

BeyondPreparedForHell · 27/10/2014 10:41

The case i'm trying to reference? You think this is a rare occurrence? The only rare thing is that it got to court and someone got a guilty verdict.

YonicScrewdriver · 27/10/2014 10:49

Assault can mean sexual assault, smashbox.

Btw, I don't think MN gets into any trouble if people state They might have voted differently if they were on the jury for the CM case.

YonicScrewdriver · 27/10/2014 10:58

Oh, I see what you mean now, smashbox. You weren't very clear.

Picture yourself sober but perhaps having taken hay fever medicine or anything else that makes you woozy. You are in a hotel room, not one you booked, with a guy you've met. You are naked and in the middle of sex.

Another guy lets himself in without knocking or asking. He sees you are in the middle of sex but doesn't apologise and walk out. He comes on in and asks if he can have a go. he's clearly a friend of the first guy and it turns out the first guy, the one who asked you back, texted him to say he was with "a bird". So second guy has decided to come along, uninvited, knowing exactly what was going on but not knowing anything about you other than your sex.

Both guys are strong and have known each other since childhood; they've just met you.

Do you feel safe or threatened?

SevenZarkSeven · 27/10/2014 11:00

I'm a bit confused.

I don;t think it's libellous at all to wonder whether teh courts / police / juries / society at large are more or less likely to be sympathetic to someone who is raped when drunk, or who is raped because they feel too intimidated to express non-consent verbally.

And even if Beyond does link it to the CE case, he has been found guilty of rape. To speculate over the reactions of people like jurors / if they were told that she went along with it because she was scared, rather than that she was too pissed to consent, is fine. He has been convicted of rape.

SevenZarkSeven · 27/10/2014 11:02

Sorry this reads wrong

"or who is raped because they feel too intimidated to express non-consent verbally."

She is not raped BECAUSE of her fear to say no, obviously. She is raped because she is with a rapist, and knows full well that a "No" is extremely likely to make no difference to her being raped and might well result in more violence being inflicted on her.

Sorry people I didn't proof read before posting.

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 11:39

This thread kinda proves why conviction rates are so low.

ZombiePuffinsAreREAL · 27/10/2014 12:10

I don't understand why this thread descended into a slagging off of liberlas and accusation of the OP being anti-semitic (and a kitten kicker). I also don't understand how discussing the hypotheticals around how a jury reached a verdict in a rape trial could land anyone, even MN in hot water.

And the thread only proves why conviction rates are so low if you are referring to some of the totally illogical thought processes which go on with regard to culpability and capacity in rape.

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 12:40

Who said 'only'? Confused

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 12:41

Oh, sorry - I read that wrong.

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 12:43

But I don't agree with you Puffins

scallopsrgreat · 27/10/2014 13:27

So perhaps you could explain your ambiguous remark Damsilli?

BeyondPreparedForHell · 27/10/2014 14:02

I'm a bit baffled too? But don't detract too much, or smashbox will forget about my question Wink

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 14:29

Jury got to prove consent not given. Debate on regarding capacity to give consent / coercion into consent etc etc.

A jury has to prove... Difficult to prove. S'all. Not ambiguous.

BeyondPreparedForHell · 27/10/2014 14:36

I see now Grin

It's looked at as if she were on trial and having to prove her 'innocence' rather than he (any rapist, not just ched the rapist) has to prove she did consent. So because it's looked at in that direction, more rapists are given benefit of the doubt. That kind of what u mean?

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 15:21

Not really. Maybe it was ambiguous after all.

I mean that it's (often) on person's word against another. And burden of proof is on prosecution. (Flame me, lawyers). On this thread, however, even in agreed circumstances (which would rarely happen) there are different views.

Not good enough to say, "your view isn't my view, so you're wrong".

Damsilli · 27/10/2014 15:22

Sorry, not 'wrong'. 'Totally illogical'.

heartisaspade · 27/10/2014 15:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
HenriettaTurkey · 27/10/2014 16:09

Wow...lots of assumptions there.

OP posts:
Subhuman · 27/10/2014 16:25

I agree with Damsilli.

Of course, I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who is raped, but proving rape is not straightforward and as with all crime, you have to stick with innocent until proven guilty. Proof of sex is fairly easy, but proof that consent was not given isn't. It becomes the word of the accuser vs the word of the accused and without proof, the benefit of the doubt HAS to go with the accused otherwise you risk punishing innocent people based on circumstantial evidence.

The other aspect is if two people have been drinking together and the woman claims to not have been sober enough to consent, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that neither was the man? Maybe consent was there from both but both were too drunk to remember giving it in the morning and the assumption always seems to be that the man would have been at fault and the "aggressor" in such a scenario rather than just going with the flow.

YonicScrewdriver · 27/10/2014 16:39

Witness testimony is evidence. Juries are entitled to accept witness testimony which they consider proves a case beyond reasonable doubt.

I've been a juror on a case where a crime was perpetrated by two men on one other man; he identified them as the perpetrators but there was no clear CCTV. They were found guilty on the basis of his witness testimony, plus police accounts of the suspect interviews.

Do you feel that case was unproven, Subhuman? I'd like to remind you that the victim is a witness in a rape, just as the victim was the only witness in my example.

scallopsrgreat · 27/10/2014 16:41

But she wasn't the accuser. It was the CPS who was prosecuting. Women are witnesses, not accusers.

The man is the one who can commit rape. It is up to him to not rape. If that involves drinking less then so be it. Drink is not a defence against committing a crime. A woman hasn't committed a crime by being rape (but interesting that you are equating it). But, again we are getting into the semantics of these made up scenarios.

Rapists don't care about consent. That is not going to change when they are drunk. Drink is a big factor in rapes, from the perpetrator's perspective possibly in order to go through with the rape. However, the attitude is still there when they are sober. Something like 75% of rapes involves some level of pre-meditation by the perpetrator (Ched Evans being a good example both of pre-meditation and attitudes when sober).

Subhuman · 27/10/2014 17:00

Juries are entitled to accept witness testimony which they consider proves a case beyond reasonable doubt.

I have no problems with rapists being found guilty on witness testimonies as long as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Just pointing out that an accusation in and of itself is not enough to prove in most cases.

The man is the one who can commit rape. It is up to him to not rape.

Of course, most men aren't rapists, but a woman can also commit rape. If guilt comes down to consent and a drunk man didn't consent, wouldn't that be rape on the part of the woman? (Hypothetically, at least).

Rapists don't care about consent.

That is for certain. Rapists deserve the book thrown at them and should be locked away for life as far as I'm concerned. The Ched Evans situation certainly looks pretty clear cut that he was guilty as found but based upon the punishment given at the time, he has served his time, whether we agree with the length or not.