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

Sorry - what? It's irrational for me to think that she has a say in whether she thought she'd given consent to have sex?

Really?

Really?

Are you seriously saying that the only person who's thoughts/feelings matter in this are his? That he has the overriding decision on whether it's rape or not?

Goodness. What an unusual position.

So if you're drunk, and I approach you with my aforementioned cucumber or fingers, and you don't explicitly say 'no' then I'm free to think what I like?

You've had a number done on you - because that simply isn't the case. No-one has the right to stick anything in me without my explicit consent, no matter what they hell is going through their minds.

gone, your last comment makes absolutely no sense.

Did you mean to suggest that because he thought he could have sex on this woman, then it wasn't rape? Regardless whether or not she consented to sex with him rather than his friend?

Because if that is what you mean, I'm not sure it's Green who is the one being irrational.

"If a man got out of bed and a different man got in, I'd know. He'd smell different. Feel different. Taste different." Really? Even if you were drunk and didn't know the two men concerned? Interesting how you feel the need to defend the man's right to promiscuity but a woman isn't allowed that same leeway.

"Therefore expecting him to ask 'are you aware that I'm X and not Y' seems bizarre." Really? You don't think the fact that he inserted himself into her bed without asking if that was OK as being perfectly acceptable behavior and indicative of someone who wanted a mutually beneficial encounter?

"It's all very well to talk about freedom and capacity to consent but that is extremely difficult to evaluate - and shouldn't be left entirely to the woman's view in retrospect." Really? Whose view should be considered when looking at whether you have consented to something someone else has done with your body? Surely the fact that once she realized it wasn't Zack, he backed off (not before bloody time) would suggest that she hadn't consented. The fact was though, he didn't even bother to check. That is why it is retrospective in this case. He'd already stuck his dick into her.

Well that's a pretty good synopsis of gonetoseeamanaboutadog's view on this. She's put it more flowery language of course.

Are you seriously saying that the only person who's thoughts/feelings matter in this are his?

Hmmm. Let's read what I wrote shall we.

It was an encounter between two people and what they both thought and how they both acted is relevant.

No, it's not clear that she was deceived. Not by a long stretch. The jury doesn't think so and neither do I.

It wasn't rape if he thought she was consenting to have sex with him. It all rests on whether or not he thought she knew who he was or not. If he did think she knew who he was, then he didn't rape her. Unfortunately she had sex with him thinking he was someone else. Or so she says, I see absolutely no reason to accept what she's saying as gospel truth.

"It all rests on whether or not he thought she knew who he was or not." So in fact you are saying it all rests on what he thinks. Not on whether she did actually consent.

I should have realised how this was going to go.
Great illustration of how fucked up some people's view of women's sexuality is. And how much some people's hatred of women can be exposed in just a few words.

It was an encounter between two people and what they both thought and how they both acted is relevant

It wasn't rape if he thought she was consenting to have sex with him

I think you'll find that you're the one being irrational here - those two statements both can't be true.

Anyway, I think we now know how the jury reached their conclusion. Whether because the minority view on this thread is (sadly) the majority view in the population at large, or whether the vagaries of random sampling led to the situation, it appears that the jury was made up of people who think what constitutes "normal" sex matches gone's views, rather than most of the rest of the posters on this thread. Depressing.

Interesting how you feel the need to defend the man's right to promiscuity but a woman isn't allowed that same leeway.

I feel no need to defend anyone [hmmm] I don't see why anyone should be hung, drawn and quartered when a jury has already found them innocent, though. I realise this will disappoint, but I have no interest in thinking this was anyone's 'fault'. Or to put it differently, I think they were all being equally stupid.

It shouldn't be left to the woman's view in retrospect entirely because she only knows the consent she gave from one perspective. To the person hearing her and seeing her, her consent (or lack of it), may not be perceived in the same way. To know this chap raped her, we'd have to know he was deliberately deceiving her into having sex with him while thinking he was someone else. We don't know that this was going on in his mind, any more than we know she was under the impression that he was his housemate. All we have is her word against his. And FWIW, I think a bloke is as able to report, 'I heard her say yes/no/she did X' as accurately as she is. It's not justice for a woman to have 100% of the voice on that and the male to have none. And how is her recall so perfect if she was so drunk - surely that undermines the accuracy of the very serious allegation she's making - not that it means she deserves it or makes it any less serious, but it does mean that her recollection may well be impaired.

Here, just in case this helps, is the logic diagram:

He Thinks she consents She thinks she consents It is rape (me) It is rape (Gone)
0 0 1 1
0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 0

As you can see, according to me, rape is !(she thinks she consents), and to you rape is !(he thinks he consents)

Personally, I think that the person being raped should get to decide if they are being raped, not the rapist.

Completely depressing Lurcio. The number of people who seem to be of the opinion that women are just holes to be fucked and don't really get an opinion on who does the fucking (and certainly aren't to be believed about whether they wanted to be fucked)

Makes me want to take my young children and raise them apart from the world that thinks like this.

So gone what do you think happened?
It sounds like you think they had sex and she regretted it? Or they didn't have sex and she made it up?
I think they are both consistent on events, which is they had sex but she thought he was Z, he stopped when he realised this.
I think from her perspective shes been violated, she's definitely had sex with someone she didn't consent to.
You seem very unsympathetic to her. Almost as if you think that's a reasonable thing to happen if a woman sleeps in a house with more than one man in it.

For the sake of argument, even if one goes along the lines of Gone's theory, that it isn't rape if he had a reasonable belief she consented (I don't think this is the case here, I don't think he cared one way or another), no reasonable person would believe they had her consent in this situation.

I feel sorry for them both actually. I don't think either of them deserved such a public nightmare as this has been. I think it was avoidable. I think the criteria for consent is vague in practice. How does someone decide if someone they've just met who has had a few drinks is competent to mean the 'yes' they are saying, especially if they've had a few drinks too? It's very easy for one party to look back and say their judgement was clouded and that should have been obvious, by what does it look like to have clear judgement in those circumstances? I think there's room to make a mistake there.

His behaviour when the case of mistaken identity came to light does not even slightly fit the description of a rapist.

What do I think happened... I don't know what happened, I wasn't there. I don't think she was necessarily raped. Being confused about who she was having sex with isn't tantamount to being raped unless he set out to confuse her. It could have just happened and no one is to blame but mutual stupidity. Not every bad thing that happens is a result of someone else's evil intentions. I don't think someone else should be punished if there was reason to suppose she WAS giving consent.

He can't be responsible for who she might think he is unless he's taken steps to make her think he's someone else.

I think he may have set outi deceive her but the evidence is very ambiguous. It's possible he was being forward; saw an opportunity to come on to her and took it. Thought he'd been successful and ended up hideously embarrassed. Wouldn't be the most stupid or unlikely thing you have happened.

To have happened, predictive text fail, sorry!

"His behaviour when the case of mistaken identity came to light does not even slightly fit the description of a rapist." Mistaken identity is an interesting phrase. It suggests that it was mutually mistaken. when that wasn't the case at all. He knew exactly what was happening. She didn't. That's not mistaken identity.

You don't know that.

"He can't be responsible for who she might think he is unless he's taken steps to make her think he's someone else." Inserting yourself into someone else's bed without them knowing who you are kind of lends itself to making it your responsibility to ensure they do know who you are. Even more so when you know they are expecting someone else. What the hell was he thinking? Why wouldn't you tell someone who you are?

"I feel no need to defend anyone..." Your first comment on this thread was Promiscuity isn't rape - which puts you in the position of defending the man's behavior. If you are being as neutral as you claim to be where is your empathy with this woman. Not once have you shown that. You say you feel sorry for them both and then spend the next 4 paragraphs feeling sorry for the man.

"You don't know that." We do know that. We know she protested when she found out who he was and he stopped. She didn't know who he was up until that point. He knew that she was expecting his mate. It wasn't mistaken identity.

And how much some people's hatred of women can be exposed in just a few words.

gone sadly has form for that.

I think it was avoidable

Yep - totally avoidable - just as I have avoided sexually assaulting anyone in my 38 years, by not sticking any part of my anatomy in anyone without being totally certain that they wanted it!

How does someone decide if someone they've just met who has had a few drinks is competent to mean the 'yes' they are saying

The same way I avoid beating them up or taking their stuff - by, unless I'm totally sure they don't want to have a boxing bout, or give me their TV, not bloody doing it!

It's not vague or tricky or difficult to grasp, it's totally, completely and utterly obvious to everyone but a rape apologist.

For the sake of argument, even if one goes along the lines of Gone's theory, that it isn't rape if he had a reasonable belief she consented (I don't think this is the case here, I don't think he cared one way or another), no reasonable person would believe they had her consent in this situation

That is not Gone's theory by the way. It is a defence that the accused had a reasonable belief the woman consented.

Here however I agree. I fail to see how he could possibly have had that belief reasonably.

I don't really understand how these rape apologists can think that consent is such a difficult concept.

In this instance, introducing himself would have been a starting place, surely?

There's really only one explanation for him not doing that, and that is that he knew that she wasn't going to consent to having sex with him. I would have thought that this would be especially important to find out if you'd nipped into bed with the woman your mate had brought home when he nipped out of the room.

The fact that he was acquitted says more about the misogyny of your average jury than about whether or not consent is some strange arcane thing that is just too difficult to be bothered with.