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

gone my conclusion is sound, following through from the premise that less rapists mean less rape. If you agree with that premise what is concluded is perfectly valid. Unless I have committed a logical fallacy or my reasoning is flawed in which case I'd take it as a kindness if you could show me my error.

If you happen to disagree with my premise, then we are in the realms of opinion, and our conclusions are going to be wildly different.

As to the difference between us again I would like you to point me at where I have insulted you. No really do so, because I haven't and I actually find it insulting how you would attempt to poison the well to give you a let out in offering an effective rebuttal couple with trying to reduce this all down to opinion.

Your position you evidently feel is worthwhile swaying other people to it, yet when I am trying to sway yours you retreat into the subjective ground of opinion.

For the record I am not a feminist either but my views are in very close alignment with feminism when it comes to rape.

All a bit sweeping and unnecessary if the focus can be tightened. Haven't you learnt about risk? Some things with the potential for danger can be reasonably safe if precautions are taken..but if you'd rather live exactly as you want to while claiming the only other option is to sit in a box, it's your funeral. Or box, as it were...

Hi gone, good to see you back.

Do you have that information for me?

Thanks.

I'm on my phone here but l ishoul be able to oblige... Interesting how many posters think they are the only ones with any integrity or self preservation instincts when it comes to talking about research. I do need to know exactly what research you're referring to as my post covered a lot of ground. And may I in response ask for some research on the opposing views that have been put forward on the thread-not about how rape myths lead to more rape, but showing that

There is no correlation between rape and life/situational circumstances,
There is no correlation between avoidance/resistance behaviour during sexual assault and uncompleted rape.
There is no correlation between communication issues and rape.
There is no correlation between rape and behaviors seen as 'safe' when on a night out-not drinking to excess, staying in a group, not walking home alone.
There is no correlation between stranger rape and being alone in certain areas at night.
There are no 'risk factors' for either stranger rape or rape by partners
Government campaigns to promote 'sensible' behaviors for women have been useless in preventing rape.

I do not need to see data showing that educating perpetrators is more helpful, or that rape myths lead to more rape.

No, I'm really not at all, as I have clearly stated I have worked in this field and am interested in where you got the research you say backs your claims up. Simply the name of the researcher if you can't find which institution they are affiliated to would be enough.

If you don't have any, then that's fine, but it would be more honest of you to state clearly that these are merely your unfounded beliefs, rather than to infer that they are the result of research, don't you think?

Unfounded personal belief is also fine, but when you continue to belittle more knowledgeable people than you based on that, it starts to look a little bit as if you're not actually interested in honest debate, but are merely being dogmatic.

Again, dogmatism also has it's place, but that place is probably not here.

So, I ask again, with no ulterior motive other than genuine curiosity, do you have the names of the researchers you have quoted?

And interestingly, a lot of this research boils down to the very simple bits of advice that my own mother would have given me. The difference is that I feel following this advice is responsible behaviour, a price worth paying to stay safer. You feel that it is better for women to be able to live exactly as they wish in the vain hope that someone out there is going to improve. I'm all for changing their behaviour, but I can only control my own behaviour, and I would feel very sorry if I saw my DD making the choices that have been advocated here. We don't live in a perfect world and in light of that, pretending we do live in a perfect world is rather dangerous. So going by a 2009 ( as I recall) study you are safer , but never completely safe and only safer from some kinds of rape, if you avoid giving opportunity to a potential rapist. You are safer in a group. You are safer if you are not incapacitated. You are safer not being alone at a time when predators are known to be, or in a place where they are known to be. You are safer, but not completely safe, dressing in a way that will be interpreted by some rapists that you are secretly keen to have sex. You are safer out of a date that goes against your gut instincts. Safer in a public area with a stranger or acquaintance you feel unhappy about. What is very sad is that some of these instincts seem to be damaged by rape and sexual assault, leaving previous victims at greater rush of a second assault. You are safer out of a relationship that seems to be pushing commitment faster than want to give it. Safer out of a relationship that has any hint of aggression or control. I was brought up to think this way and when I see friends not behaving this way, there is general concern for them in my group, because they are obviously at more risk in ways. I realise that comes with the potential to exacerbate rape myths but frankly i think that has to be confronted on the chin and a nuanced message sent out incorporating information about consent, how the justice system responds to rape, risk factors for rape, especially to groups who are known to be at greater risk to start with, and emphasising appropriate culpability at the same time. I don't think that the dialogue around consent issues has been properly had and I think there is a failure to understand that men often have no idea what the expectation is. To say they shouldn't be having sex with someone who had disclosed in retrospect that they were too inebriated to give proper consent is not fair if it's accepted that sex CAN happen consensually even when drink is involved. You may feel everyone knows the difference between somewhat inebriated and too drunk to consent but I know men who are terrified that they will get this wrong-but who are never going to stop having one night stands. At least not for now.

So, the 2009 study...

by whom?

As I have stated clearly, at least twice, I am genuinely interested in the findings of the study and given that it is as old as that, I am quite amazed that I haven't come across it.

You may feel everyone knows the difference between somewhat inebriated and too drunk to consent but I know men who are terrified that they will get this wrong-but who are never going to stop having one night stands. At least not for now.
This really explains a lot about your point of view. You are close to men who are uncertain if someone's too drunk to consent, but rather than do the decent thing and not have sex if there's any doubt, press ahead anyway, even though they are "terrified". Poor men. Their right to a shag is obviously far greater than a woman's right not to be raped.
Then of course if a woman were to make a complaint of rape she wouldn't be exercising "appropriate culpability". That's a lovely piece of victim blaming right there.

Interesting you will tie yourself in all kinds of knots to try to defend appalling behaviour by men. Its like the sister standing by Mr. Cockblocker from page 2. I feel bad for you that you have men in your life that have led you to feel the need to do this.

"I know men who are terrified that they will get this wrong-but who are never going to stop having one night stands."

But why not? If I'm not sure if I've drunk more than the legal limit, I take a cab. You like her, you aren't sure if she's too pissed to consent - take her number, get in touch another time.

But why not? If I'm not sure if I've drunk more than the legal limit, I take a cab. You like her, you aren't sure if she's too pissed to consent - take her number, get in touch another time.

But - those are men who'd rather rape a woman than not have sex when they aren't sure how drunk she is. Not exactly the nicest of guys, therefore.

Do you think any woman would call them back after she is sober again?

While for a nice and decent man, just getting the number would not be a problem, as the woman would call him back the next morning, those are apparently men whom no sober woman would ever want.
And instead of just sucking it up and looking for another hobby, they feel entitled to "sex" and raping drunk women.

The only thing they are "terrified" about is the danger that one of the women they raped could go to the police.

And really, why should men change their behaviour, when they have women who are so willing to tell women how stupid they're being for suggesting it?

Yes exactly vestal and palmer. It's so depressing how much energy some women put into justifying a status quo that actively works against them

I don't mean those men are victims and I don't mean they're taking a risk. It's not as if they are out to do so. You are assuming that they will feel doubt in situations where consent would not be certain and to have no about situations where drink might have been taken but she's clearly fine. But this is actually quite subjective, especially if it's theoretical. Perhaps terrified is the wrong word. Posters have said earlier that they look back on incidents where they had consensual sex with someone that had they not been drunk to a degree, they wouldn't have had consensual sex with. They are saying quite clearly in those comments that their decision making capabilities were affected by alcohol but not to the degree that they couldn't give consent. Bearing in men aren't mind readers I have genuine concerns about this. How come these men aren't rapists-they slept with women who would not have been participating if their judgement was not impaired by alcohol? Did the men in question know they were having sex under these circumstances or did they think it was a clear headed decision? Could they have been expected to know with 100% accuracy? Would such a thing have been possible? Because if they couldn't know this fit certain, isn't it also possible that they could make a mistake about whether these posters were fit to give consent?Would it have been reasonable for them to go ahead with sex knowing that these posters were inebriated or should they have refrained? What if knowing someone was somewhat inebriated did not trigger a doubt about consensual issues in their mind, so they simply went ahead with an act which was, on the face of it, consensual? Surely there is the possibility for misjudgement here? How is a man supposed to know if he is on the category you'd never sleep with fullstop or the one where you'll give consent after a few drinks? It's clearly not enough to ask because that seems to count for nothing. What if he thinks you do want to have sex and it doesn't occur to him to doubt your willingness or ability give consent?Clearly posters don't always expect men to say 'you've had a drink, therefore I can't have sex because i can't be 100% clear you're in a fit state to consent?' or do you? You're assuming that a doubt will be raised in a man's mind at exactly the right moment even though from the outside its impossible to know exactly how inebriated you were and how drink you'll feel you were in retrospect. The expectation would have more integrity if women were prepared to never drink and have sex. Then they would be clarifying their expectations, but the fact is that most people do expect men to sleep with them despite their having been drinking, and they expect their consent to be respected and their ability to give it to be trusted. But for men who are perhaps unaware of the dialogue around consent I can understand this not making much sense. 'So we'd both been drinking and you were fine with that, and then we had sexual touching and you were fine with that, and then I if you were up for sex and you said you were but now I'm a rapist??' I'm looking for some hard and fast rule about what you expect of men but I'm not coming up with answers that would definitely avoid this situation and i think that's what concerns some men-not enough to never have another one night stand with alcohol involved perhaps, but then women are not remotely prepared to give up one night stands either, are they?

Yes violet if that's the one you want then certainly when I'm at my laptop but in the meantime, if you're at a laptop where is your data??

How come these men aren't rapists-they slept with women who would not have been participating if their judgement was not impaired by alcohol?

Because everyone is a grown up, people do have sex when drunk and may regret it the next day although they wanted it at the time. They wouldn't report a rape though as they consented at the time and they know it (been there, done that).
Your premise that women allege rape due to regret is another rape myth. See the CPS research into false allegations.
If a woman is so drunk she is unconscious, she can't reasonably consent to sex. A man who has sex with a woman in those circumstances is a rapist.
It's quite easy for the man. If the woman is enthusiastically into sex and has indicated she wants it, he will be fine.
If the woman is so drunk she can't speak, is unconscious, is in a pitch black room that another man has just come out of, there's a good chance she doesn't want sex with him and the safest thing to do is not to have sex with her.
Surely this doesn't need spelling out?

Here's the actual cps guidance to help you understand.
"Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or
Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse"

"n R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape"

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

Is it really such a hideously high bar to attempt to engage in a sex life where few to no people regret anything?

Apparently yes, Dervel .

It's the lunacy of trying to defend the right of men to have intercourse when they want it regardless of the feelings of the women involved because to deny them that right would somehow be unconscionable for... reasons which completely escape me.

Because everyone is a grown up

Be sarcastic all you want, but you're evading engagement with the issue. A lot of teenagers are not terribly grown up, especially after a few drinks. In fact, a lot of people are possibly not as emotionally mature and self-aware as you.

They wouldn't report a rape though as they consented at the time and they know it

You mean you knew it. But what was it you knew, exactly?
That he asked the question and you answered it? That you were able to answer the question clearly?
That you physically participated rather than not participating or resisting? How specifically did you consent and how would the man be able to tell that this was 'able' consent despite your having had a few drinks?

Hand on heart, what is the difference to the onlooker? I'd like to know.

I'm delighted that rape is more widely reported and would like to see much longer prison sentences for rapists. At the same time and to a lesser degree, I'm concerned that so much rests on the assumption that a woman can look back, even when there may be portions of the encounter that she cannot remember at all (when she could, arguably have been initiating sex herself) and just 'know it'.

We don't seem to have an agreed system of communication about how men are supposed to tell between a woman 'knowing it' (giving consent) and participating in something she's too inebriated to give consent to. Nor how a woman is supposed to look back and be 100% clear about whether the sex was non-consensual. What is she meant to be looking for? There seems to be a great deal resting on some kind of gut feeling. Can we really be 100% sure that every woman is going to be able to look back on an inebriated encounter and recall if the sex was non-consensual because she refused it, non-consensual because she either wasn't in a position to give consent at all or gave consent without being fit to give it, or simply unwanted - she didn't actually want to have sex but gave her consent for other reasons? I'm afraid that I can imagine unlikely situations where the other party in retrospect genuinely defines the act as non-consensual but the other person was at the time, genuinely unaware.

I find it fascinating that you are so hostile. There is obviously ambiguity about this because court cases are rarely open and closed. Quoting from cps guidance doesn't bring clarity because the phrase 'able to give consent' doesn't cover what has been discussed on this thread - the fact that a question and an answer is not considered to be always necessary for sex to be consensual, and that even when a clear answer is given to the question, if the victim feels subsequently that she was not in a fit condition to give her consent at all, the fact that the question has been asked means nothing.

If you feel that this all hangs on men changing (and I do agree) it seems reasonable to lay out exactly what this change looks like. Saying 'if you have any doubt, don't' isn't clear enough because it assumes that men know exactly when to have a doubt in their minds. I feel it's asking men to play a rather protective role because it could potentially be going against a woman's wishes Lurcio - I personally wouldn't want a man playing that role towards me and I would prefer not to drink than put someone in the position.

I have no interest in men being able to have sex when they want it. None whatsoever.

I'm not sure if your question was to me Dervel. I don't think it's a high bar - not if things are done in a clear-headed, considered way. Also, you asked me earlier if I could see the point you were making at the time - I can and no, I don't have a problem with your logic.

This is where my problem with your argument is:
victim feels subsequently that she was not in a fit condition to give her consent at all, the fact that the question has been asked means nothing.
You are arguing that women have consensual sex then change their mind.
Whereas the reality is that when drunkenness is used to argue lack of capacity, she was unconscious or can't remember giving consent.
The rule is there to protect women who come up against the argument "well she didn't say no". That's why it also specifies that a woman who is asleep can't consent.

Fwiw when I say I knew, I mean regardless of any regret I felt the next day, I knew i wanted sex the night before, it was in no way cooerced or forced and so I wouldn't even dream of accusing my sex partner of rape when in the cold light of day it turned out not to be a good idea. That's a normal human response. The same way as a man thinking "better not" is a normal response to finding an extremely drunk women he doesn't know in his bed.

Anyway we've moved so far off the topic of the thread and into a vast straw man, created by you and propped up by your belief in several rape myths. When we construct a reasoned argument you insult us and ramble. So I am done now.

Thanks for PMing me that one study gone. Not sure why the secrecy, but I shall read and come back later to comment. Have to say though that from my skim through, it doesn't seem to say what you're saying it does.

Aww, Palmer, I'm now going to have to fix my irony meter, which broke on the "evading" comment from gone...

I'm afraid that I can imagine unlikely situations where the other party in retrospect genuinely defines the act as non-consensual but the other person was at the time, genuinely unaware

You are overlooking the fact it is a defence if the man reasonably believed she consented. It would be impossible for a woman who had enthusiastically and actively participated the night before to wake up and without the benefit of the rosy tinted spectacles of wine , take a look at her partner , think "bloody hell , what was I thinking" and say she had been raped.