Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

[Felascloak]

metro.co.uk/2016/05/12/woman-realised-she-was-having-sex-with-wrong-man-so-accused-him-of-rape-5876504/

I feel really bad for this woman (although I think if I was on the jury I probably would have thought there was a chance he believed he had consent). The headline implies she was unreasonably upset when she found the person having sex with her wasn't who she thought and so "falsely accused" him. Poor woman probably feels totally violated.
Also, what kind of man shags a woman who's gone home with a different guy, when that guy has just left the room for a minute. Ugh. He says he didn't even want to

Why are women dressed the way they are in lads mags? Does it have anything to do with how men tend to react to this?

Why do women often wear one kind of clothing and not another for a sexual encounter? Does it have anything to do with the way their partner is likely to react or how it will cause her to be perceived?

Rape
Is
Not
Sex.

It
Is
A
Crime
Of
Violence.

Hope
That
Helps.

Interesting. I've just read that you're more likely to be raped if you have a pony tail and wear clothing that's easy to remove. No reference though.

Since Miss was sufficiently patronising as to refer Buffy (of all people) to the existence of google scholar, may I draw your attention to the existence of Snopes, gone?

"This bit of codswallop began its Internet life in January 2000 as an enthusiastic e-mail penned by an employee at the St. Louis office of the public relations firm Weber Shandwick."

The ponytail thing has been around a while, as a rapist could grab it.

So do you suggest we all cut our hair? Or never do outdoor sport with our hair tied back? Same advice to men with long hair, as a mugger could do the same, or someone in a bar brawl?

And if all women had short hair, would stranger rape stop? Or would rapists grab an arm or neck instead, do you think?

If women's clothes were more difficult to remove (not sure what this means, tight fitting jeans?) would rapists stop? Or allow another 30s for their attack, do you think?

A book by G Cooper and others Predators, Who they are and how to stop them quotes a rapist saying that he would not rape someone who looked like they couldn't easily be 'handled'. That's correlation not causation. Interestingly, from what I've glanced at in ten minutes, it seems that the following are more important than what you wear:

• if you're drunk
• if you seem distracted
• if you're poor at reading cues
• if your gait is uncoordinated

Not forgetting the 2009 study citing lust and opportunity.

When did rapists stop being the "baddies" here?

Actually gone the thread is about a rape case where a man has been cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else.
It is NOTHING to do with how women's behaviour increases their risk of rape, except that you keep trying to make it about that.
It has EVERYTHING to do with a culture where a man can use a defence that he reasonably perceived consent where from the outside it appears obvious no consent was given.
I will say it again - disgusting misogynistic rape apologism on your part. Men who aren't rapists can easily control their "lustfulness". "Lustfulness" isn't a problem. Rapists are.

Good question, Dervel.

I don't think we can stop rape happening, nor can we ensure that it won't happen to us. I also don't think rape necessarily happens in situations where rape is most likely, or that it never happens where it's unlikely. So there is a limit to what you can or can't do to avoid it. At the same time, it's clear that some characteristics/behaviours/similarities crop up more frequently in victims of rape than in the general population. So although you might theorise that a rapist will find a victim no matter what, it also makes sense to put yourself as low down as you are reasonably able to on the continuum of risk that the rapist's next victim will be you. How much you are willing to do to avoid being raped is a personal choice. For instance, it seems that you're more likely to be raped if you're a sex worker. For some people, that would be enough not to be a sex worker. For others, clearly not. Some rapists report they are less likely to attack a woman carrying an umbrella. That might make carrying an umbrella worthwhile for some.

Where this has all become surreal for me is that, in the fight to free victims from any accountability, blame or shame (great fight), feminists have tried to deny there are any risk factors of any significance in connection with being raped. Any risk factors are loudly dismissed as 'rape myths' despite research clearly identifying groups who are more vulnerable to being raped. Or, if these 'exploitable' characteristics are acknowledged, they are dismissed on the grounds that impossible, unfair and sexist for women to take any effective action in response.

that it is impossible, unfair and sexist for women to take any effective action in response.

I may be off base here, and forgive me if I am, but has something like this actually happened to you gone? I can quite empathize that holding onto "responsibility" feels like holding onto agency, so even though something terrible can happen by owning it we can seek to control its effects on us.

fela And how do you respond to rapists who identify their reasons for a specific rape as lust coupled with opportunity? Even if you think that their lust is neither here nor there, isn't it rather difficult to dismiss that opportunity plays a part when rapists are reporting that it does?

I really am starting to wonder whether you are trolling or stupid.
No one thinks that risk factors don't exist. We think that in the case of rape the risk factors are used in defence cases to make it acceptable that a man could have sex with a woman without her consent. That's what rape culture means. It never happens with other crimes, as has been covered extensively up thread.

gone about the same way as I would about a paedophile who uses lust for children as a valid reason for sex offending. I think it's totally disgusting and unacceptable. How about you? Why is a rapists lust for a woman more acceptable than a paedophiles list for a child?

No, Dervel, I don't have personal experience of being assaulted, I'm thankful to say.

I look back at some things I did when I was younger, though, and can see quite clearly that I was lucky. Nothing I did deserved or invited rape - and I would say that regardless of what I'd done. However, if a predator had been looking for 'opportunity', my habit of walking home from a friend's student digs at 1 or 2am could have afforded that. Sadly, another girl was raped on exactly the same walk on a night when it so happened I was safely in my dorm. It didn't perhaps make the impression on me that it should have done, beyond feeling very sorry for her at the time.

What I can see is that a rapist looking to rape someone that particular night might well have hung around that street and not found anyone if no one had been out walking on their own. Perhaps he would have gone elsewhere, perhaps not. If no one chose to walk around on their own in the middle of the night elsewhere either (and this is a price that most women think is worth paying), perhaps he would have failed to come up with a victim at all on that occasion. Which could only have been a good thing.

So I do think there are behaviours that can make it less likely you are raped.

When did rapists stop being the "baddies" here?

Dervel, it's just indicative of how much society doesn't want to see men as rapists.

On any thread about rape on any part of MN, you'll get people saying:

Being accused of rape is the worst thing that could happen to a man.

Women can do X, Y or Z in order to "prevent" men from raping them.

Women lie about being raped

"I know a bloke who was accused of raping some bird, and she lied, etc etc" Which suggests that people on MN know a huge number of the tiny proportion of men who are falsely accused.

So, the upshot of opinion on MN is that men can't be held responsible for their criminality when it comes to rape because women should do whatever and then men wouldn't do it any more. It's discouraging, but it does go some way toward explaining why so many men get away with raping women.

"opportunity plays a part when rapists are reporting that it does"

Well, there's a self justification element inherent in criminality, I'd say, but that's by the by.

Your whole premise is that risk of rape will be reduced if women don't do certain things. You are ignoring the point that, if women follow the 'rules' and are all sober, wearing trainers and tight jeans with difficult zips and cut their hair, rapists will rape a sober woman with short hair, jeans and trainers on.

If I never drive, I can't get hit by a speeding car, but someone else in the wrong place at the wrong time can be. That's why public service messages are 'don't speed' not 'don't drive'.

Hell, it also completely fails to recognise that the person you are most likely to be raped by is your partner or friend.

Maybe it would be best if men just all got shipped off to an island somewhere?

I've said that twice, Palmer, but gone has neglected to engage re non-stranger rapes, probably because she's got even fewer legs to stand on. Heigh ho!

So, the upshot of opinion on MN is that men can't be held responsible for their criminality when it comes to rape because women should do whatever

That's not true. That's not what I would say. Women taking steps to avoid being the victim (in hell's case that would be looking both ways before you cross the road and not assuming every car is coming towards you at 30 mph in a 30 zone) does not have any bearing on the responsibility of a rapist. Unfortunately, the whole point about rapists is that they don't follow the rules. They don't give a damn about rules. So unless you have come up with a plan to eradicate evil from the world, you're left finding ways to avoid being the victim of it, provided you feel that is something you want to do. Personally, although I am very sorry that a rapist will find a victim somewhere, I see nothing wrong with making that job harder. I also believe there are behaviours that can make that job harder even if the rapist is known to the potential victim, so this doesn't fail to take into account that more rape occurs in that context.

That sounded as if I though that avoiding being raped is the only course of action - I don't think that. I do of course think that every deterrent and educational pressure/societal pressure available should be utilised in relation to the predator.

The threat of rape has been used to control female populations since time immemorial, and I'm not talking "do x or I'll rape you", but more of a "you need me to protect you from all the bad men out there".

This whole approach infantilizes women, I might advocate it but clearly rape has been a huge problem throughout history, so much so that even having protectors hasn't worked. The sad truth is its been a protection racket that has robbed women of their agency, and the racketeers are often the worst perpetrators.

True enough Dervel, it's good also that the UN is specifically talking about rape as a weapon of war as it has been from time immemorial.

Just because it has been abused in the past, Dervel, doesn't mean the whole concept is useless. If you look at it in those terms it seems as if women will be vulnerable one way or the other - from a predator or a predatory 'protectionist' society - and it is up to them how they walk that line. I know how I walk it- and everyone else I know - and it involves common sense.