Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I just read this and I was really pleased. It's about time rape was investigated and prosecuted differently considering the appalling rape conviction rate we have in this country. Imagine there will be an outcry from all the MRAs, but, I think it's very good news...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Because her husband is less likely to leave her if she can 'prove' it wasn't her fault?

Shelby, in that case it would be up to the jury to examine the evidence as to how drunk she was and whether her consent was meaningful. I imagine that if she participated 'enthusiastically' the defendant would most likely be acquitted.

I can see why you're worried though-I mean wouldn't it be terrible if we gave all men the message that they should avoid getting so drunk that they inadvertently caused a rape.

After all, women would never be given a message like that.

Oh, wait....

presumably a woman can still give consent even if she is drunk
It depends how drunk. You can't sign legal documents when drunk, or consent to medical procedures, so why is the idea of 'too drunk to consent to sex' so difficult to understand?

she would never have done it if she was sober
This is not the same thing as too drunk to consent. In fact, it is irrelevant and unhelpful.

Example: I have sex with DP when sober. One time I was too drunk to consent, so we didn't have sex (ie he didn't rape me). The fact that I might have chosen to have sex with him if I were sober is totally irrelevant. In that particular instance, consent could not be given.

How would having to submit to a medical exam, face hours of questioning from the police, face a court case where all sorts of questions will be asked about her life and conduct will be asked get her out of anything? Why would a woman choose that over just keeping quiet?

I can't see why any person who has had 'regrettable' consensual sex would choose to disrupt their whole life with a court case rather than just saying nothing more about it.

Shelby - I don't think the new guidelines make that scenario into rape. If the woman was actively taking part in sex and consenting at the time, even if she was drunk, then it isn't rape - whether or not she regrets it later.

The new guidelines just mean that the judge could ask the man how he knew she was consenting. But if she was consenting at the time, then he'd have a perfectly good answer to that question (eg she unzipped my flies, kissed me, asked if I had a condom, etc - all things you could do perfectly well whilst drunk in the normal non-paralytic sense) presumably?

Well it's pretty easy to understand why that doesn't really happen, when you don't start from a position of thinking women are just moaning sluts who want to trick their husbands into believing they were raped.

Such good fun that man-hating tarts do it willy nilly in fact. Obv.

Or maybe Selby was confused by the headline that incorrectly states that "men must prove a woman said yes", which actually this change in guidelines don't mean at all.

House that's a shit thing to say & not true at all. I am happy that the guidelines are being implemented. I don't think asking questions about how they are likely to work in different scenarios makes me a rape apologist.

Selby it's worth remembering that rape is massively underreported and it's common for women not to even realise they've been raped until someone identifies it as such. It is not the case that police will be stepping into a standard one night stand, both having great drunken sex, in order to arrest the man. It is still up to women to report and to then face the ordeal that goes with that. It is very unlikely that many women will do that just for kicks and I would imagine if they do the fact that they're lying will become clear.

I swear to god, if I had drunken sex with a co-worker, I would so much rather just tell DH (or not tell him, I suppose) than put myself, him and the co-worker through a rape trial.

Preetttttyyyy sure most women would do the same.

Because I wanted to know how drunken consent would be affected by the guidelines. With the new guidelines it's clear that if a woman is eg unconscious drunk then she can't give consent. As is right and proper, so no point for further discussion, I assumed that would be taken as read by the vast majority.

And it was less about whether she alleges it, than is it technically rape if she wouldn't have agreed when sober. Which would be pretty stupid really.

Shelby, I guess the questions would be around the steps taken to ascertain capacity to consent as well as to get consent?

Honest question Selby: What does 'technically rape' mean?

Maybe I'm being thick today. I thought the guidelines were moving the burden of proof onto the man having been given clear & valid consent. I guess I'm questioning the definition of valid consent. I can't consent to a medical procedure while drunk, I can commit a crime, can I consent to sex?