'If a woman is drunk a man should not be prosecuted for rape'

[YouBetterWerk]

Wanker barrister on This Morning saying this right now. Great woman with counterpoints at least.
I just threw my cornflakes at the TV.

Perhaps we should introduce this "barrister" to this man

tribune.com.pk/story/836550/us-lets-women-drive-because-they-dont-care-if-they-are-raped-saudi-historian/

(Says women in Saudi shouldn't drive as they might get raped. OK for western women to drive because they don't care if they get raped). Yes, that's really what it says…..

Sounds like Osborn and the Sheikh make a good pair.

Oh, and Scallops is right by the way. These women don't exist.
People need to stop making up scenarios in something they know nothing about to suit their agenda.
HTH.

BreakingDad I apologise, that wasn't clear from that one post, but I stand corrected.

It really is not difficult to understand. I cannot, as hard as I try, see what is so difficult about understanding you do not penetrate someone just because you feel like it whenever and in whatever circumstance, without proper consent. Consent from someone who understands.

Anyone still having a problem with this concept must, surely, be being deliberately provocative or just thick. This ridiculous buffoon Osborne must be thick. I think it is not worth anyone trying to debate with someone like him as he is clearly incapable of understanding normal, reasonable concepts.

It does not mTter what people wear or have drunk. In any case, it is likely some arseholes will blame the victim anyway, whatever the circumstances. Someone sexually assaulted me and I had had one glass of wine and was wearing an ankle length navy skirt and a cardigan. It is the behaviour of the person raping and assaulting that needs criticising and examining. People still arguing against this basic concept should just be cut out of the conversation by society, they are boring. Too angry to articulate this any better.

Well said breezy

If a man does not want to rape then ensuring that he has freely given enthusiastic consent will be important to him, and he will behave accordingly (so not plying a woman with drink, checking she is enjoying herself every step of the way). Anything else suggests that he does not prioritise consent above his own sexual gratification and is risking being a rapist

But Davsmum, the scenario you are talking about is not what this debate is concerned with.

If a woman is coherent enough to enthusiastically consent to sex then she is unlikely to have a memory block the following day.

If a woman wakes up with no memory of the night before then she was likely to have been too drunk to consent the night before.

Most women who wake up with a hangover and a man in their bed do not assume the man raped them. If they have difficulty remembering they are more likely to assume they consented than that they were raped. But it's really unlikely to have total memory block and at the same time have been sober enough to be engaged and present with a sexual partner the night before.

Breezy the problem with this Osbourne chap is that he isn't thick, he is deeply misogynistic though.

So on the prog was the man saying if a woman has had a drink it's fine to rape her?

Or was he giving it all this grey area bollocks? Around this idea that women are red hot keen on rushing to the police the moment they have ill advised sex after a few snifters?

Because it's sounding like the former and that is godsmacking. The latter is entirely wrong obviously and a great excuse for rapists but it's the former just what?

FWIW I don't think people like this should be given a platform either. It shifts the overton window - shows their ideas as worthy of consideration and important to include in a "debate". When their views are patently ludicrous unless you really really hate women and think men are brainless neanderthals - ie that women are crazy harpies who like to brazenly seduce men and then lie about it in order to make trouble for them (for reasons that are never adequately explained) - while men are poor innocent things who simultaneously just can't help themselves and are driven to rape when they don't really mean to poor loves.

Does he think if he has had a drink it's fine for men to rape him?

I see he doesn't.

Quelle fucking surprise.

What an absolute cunt.

Thank you for the flowers, Youbetter.

I agree, Hooty, this Osbourne pill is deeply, deeply misogynistic. And a wanker. I was/am being garbled in what I write because his comments are so infuriating. Reading them made me shake and my heart race. Thick is probably the wrong word. There is nothing wrong with being 'thick', and I think people can be ' thick' and also very nice. People cannot be misogynistic and also very nice. This barrister might have intellectual or career 'achievements' but the misogyny is such a brick wall it eclipses any other quality he might have and I do not know how it would be possible ever to get through to him or those like him.

Thanks, EhrichLovesTheBhrothers Your post explains it clearly, without being aggressive and sounding like an attack....appreciated and understood.

this Osbourne pill

I do like "pill" as an insult.

What he's saying isn't the law and won't be the law. The Ched Evans ' jury understood this.

Well we gave the rapey lawyer a #NotNorman and we also gave the Saudi man who looks like that bloke from Tintin a NotNorman as well today.

Saleh Al-Saadoon's NotNorman

The interesting thing about Saleh Al Saadoon is that all the Western liberals are pissing themselves laughing about how idiotic his argument is - women can't drive in case they break down and need to stop at the roadside, they'll get raped. But his argument is essentially the same as Osborne's - women shouldn't get drunk in case they get raped.

It's just a random thing a woman does - get drunk, have her car break down, wear mini skirts, go out without a man - it doesn't really matter what the actual thing is, it can be as far fetched or sensible as you like, the whole point of it is to say that if only women didn't do it, they wouldn't get raped. IE by doing it they are provoking rape. Which means that by definition any woman who gets raped except in really exceptional circumstances, is responsible for it - because it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done x or y or z.

And men are nowhere to be seen. Rape just happens. Without men's input it seems. It's only women who can stop it.

"....I was trying to establish if it would still be considered rape if BOTH were drunk and the man believed the woman WAS giving consent due to her responses and his clouded judgment of the situation due to him being drunk...."

If the man believed she was consenting and his belief was reasonable (that's the key bit), then no, it isn't rape. How do we decide on the reasonableness of his belief? By whatever evidence we have of the circumstances.

This why I think the recently trumpeted change in CPS policy is quite frankly a bit of a red herring. Any accused man whose defence is "..she consented, or at least I thought she was consenting..." would always have to say in his evidence WHY he believed this, otherwise, his defence would look a bit iffy shall we say. It isn't a change in the 'law' - he isn't being asked to prove his innocence to the Jury - and the investigators would only be doing something that ought to be blindingly obvious anyway.

Great post anonynonny

Absolutely anonynonny

"if only women didn't do it, they wouldn't get raped"

The "it" of course is actually just "being a woman"

Exactly.

Dear God.

So men, if you fancy getting your kicks and you don't want to ask permission and risk being turned down, do it with a drunk girl. She was clearly asking for it by enjoying a night out with her friends. We won't do a thing about it.

That makes me so fucking angry.

I do think even enthusiastic consent can when drunk can be misread.

An example I recently dealt with at work. A woman stumbling down the street, clearly incredibly drunk, too drunk to consent to anything. A man as approaches her and she throws her arms around him, and they walk off together.

I (as a Police Officer) go and speak to them. She is off her face, he's sober and they don't know each other. However, she is all over him, saying she loves him and he's taking her home, he's taking "care of her".

We insisted on taking her home instead and the man sheepishly just walked away.

I guarantee she wouldn't remember a thing in the morning. She was a mess. Yet she was very into this man, at one point she was nearly dragging him into an alleyway. Enthusiastic - Yes. Too Drunk to consent - Yes.

Mengog I know what you're saying. But I think that that's where we get into quite shady ground. I know that I personally don't really like the idea of someone telling me when I'm too drunk to make a decision about my own body, that harms nobody if all parties are consenting. And while it might class, sober, as a 'bad' decision for whatever reason (I didn't actually fancy him, I have a boyfriend, I was sick during it), I think that that is where ideas about taking responsibility for yourself come into it - if I'm going to make decisions about my body when I'm drunk that I actively dislike, that I regret, I think that needs to be on me, not on a man, to police my drunken-ness. I might not have done it sober, but I'm not sure I would want to classify it as rape. For me, rape is about consent and I'm not sure we can have a rule about drunk sex. I mean, would we be breathalysing people getting in cabs together?

Also, worth saying that it takes two to tango. If a man doesn't fancy having sex with a wasted girl he's totally within his rights to just take her home and put her to bed on the couch with a blanket, no matter how enthusiastic she might be.

I saw the David Osborne article from the other thread. Makes very depressing reading but unfortunately, it seems that many people agree with him and it's not just men. :( Being drunk doesn't mean available to rape!

I am currently following this story about a teenager being raped by two men on a night out. The man in the picture has been caught lying already about having sexual contact with the victim after arrogantly claiming that the police will find nothing on him. I really hope that the victim gets justice.

She wasn't 'very into that man'. She'd never even met him . He knew that. He also knew she was raging drunk. Why wouldn't he just have packed her into a taxi or whatever? Why would he have thought it was OK to have stuck his penis into her?

Again rape isn't about what the woman does. It is about the attitudes and behaviour if the man.

I hope that victim gets justice too boogiewoogie .

Agree with Scallops.