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

I think the problem people have getting their heads round this is that if the definition of rape is "!(she thinks she consents)" then it appears you can have rape without any person deciding to commit rape, because that decision isn't part of the definition.

I don't really get that. We have manslaughter and murder as separate things even though the person involved has lost their life just as much either way. Intent really matters then doesn't it? Why wouldn't it matter for rape?

I understand that a woman can have an experience that is just as much rape whether or not the person doing it believed she consented. That shouldn't be minimised. But is the perpetrator equally much a rapist? How could the two things really be treated exactly the same when it comes to criminal prosecution?

By the way I'm not saying in this case he could reasonably have thought she consented - I was speaking generally. It's hard to see how he could possibly have thought she consented here.

Like that documentary with the teens showed, most people have a hard time with what consent and rape actually are, and are v unwilling to convict on this type of scenario.

Looook - probably because whilst you can accidentally kill someone, it's rather hard to accidentally put your penis in someone?

After all, if you mean to murder someone, but you fail and just main them, you're still done with murder, because the intent was there.

If you intend to have sex with someone and they don't consent then that's rape.

The equivalent to manslaughter would be slipping over whilst naked, next to a naked person and accidentally putting your penis in them - and whilst, according to A&E visitors - it is possible to fall in such a way as to end up with objects accidentally inserted, when that object is attached to a person (penis, I mean a penis) it becomes rather less likely.

Iirc, a man was acquitted of rape for doing just that Green.

A cynic might think that juries will believe almost any cock and bull story to stop men being found guilty of rape.

So, so lucky none of us are cynical /sarcasm

" 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? "

Irrelevant to this scenario, as the man was sober (and had driven) whilst he stated that the woman was very drunk.

Separately: well, better teaching around capacity to consent is needed. Just as we expect someone pissed not to forget the law and get behind a wheel, and we are advised not to get in a car with someone who has been drinking in the driver seat, we should expect either or both pissed people to Not Have Sex if they are too pissed to judge their potential partners' consent.

Nothing bad happens if, on occasion when I sure, you don't have sex when it would've been ok to do so and just swap numbers instead.

You are running a risk that something bad can happen if you proceed. Whether that is legally rape or something that leaves one or both parties unhappy or uncomfortable. Or indeed, a contraceptive stuff up!

Are there people to whom something terrible happens, like genital explosion, if they don't have sex at every possible opportunity? No? Then, if you aren't crystal clear you have consent, stop.

I sure = unsure

gone sadly has form for that.

Hadn't realised I was famous! Yes, if your definition of hating women is upholding a jury and thinking that as a women we have a responsibility to care about everyone in society, then I do. Actually, I care deeply about women and believe that we are better than the kind of self-serving rationalising on this issue. It hasn't convinced a jury and integrity forces me to agree.

In my experience, feminists have a tendency to hate any woman who doesn't conform to what their idea of what a woman should do/think/feel.

better teaching around capacity to consent is needed. Just as we expect someone pissed not to forget the law and get behind a wheel, and we are advised not to get in a car with someone who has been drinking in the driver seat, we should expect either or both pissed people to Not Have Sex if they are too pissed to judge their potential partners' consent.

That's interesting. So you do think both parties have a responsibility to avoid a situation in which one of them might end up being raped?

As is pretty clear, gone, I think both parties have a responsibility to be sure that their partner is giving free, informed consent to any sexual touching and has capacity to do so.

Seems a pretty basic standard, no?

I don't hate you gone. I don't understand how you can think as you do and still call yourself an intelligent human, but I don't hate you. I don't know any feminists who would either, but if it makes you feel better to think that, then on you go.

I wouldn't say you were famous either, just that I remembered you from another thread and your posts here are of a part with your posts there. I don't think that being recognised by me makes anyone famous.

And no, the person with responsibility for not raping someone is the rapist, not his victim. This isn't a feminist viewpoint, it's a human one. Perhaps you could familiarise yourself with the excellent MN campaign on the subject before you show yourself up even more?

Nothing bad happens if, on occasion when I sure, you don't have sex when it would've been ok to do so and just swap numbers instead.

Exactly. If you are sober, but the person you fancy having sex with is drunk, then your dick won't fall off if you wait until you're both sober enough to consent meaningfully. It certainly doesn't mean you can stick your dick into a woman you must be at least 50% sure is too drunk to know who you are, let alone consent to you doing it.

I'm a feminist who doesn't hate women who "don't conform" with her views. Two in the same place, how surprising. Perhaps your assumption was wrong there, gone?

palmer You misunderstand. I don't think you hate me. Why would you?! I was saying that I don't hate women, and don't have form for it either. What was the other thread - the abortion one? I see the Royal College of Midwives has an internal rebellion on its hands because the committee has supported legalising abortion up to term without consulting the midwives. That's exactly what I was afraid would happen. I don't think telling a woman that she is not allowed to abort her unborn baby at 30 + weeks is tantamount to hating her. But feminists seem to see things very black and white. We must hate women if we're not championing them against the rest of society in pre-determined ways that involve giving them what feminists think is good for them and withholding what feminists have decreed will be bad for them.

My position on this thread is of a piece with the other thread in that I am keen to think through the rights of other members of society, and the responsibilities of women to other members of society.

Waspishly condemning anyone who has sex when they're drunk is never going to get you anywhere. Women and men will continue to do it. I agree with you that abstinence would be a solution but it isn't a solution that will fly in reality.

There has been talk of sticking a dick in like sex is something that a man does to a woman. I'm sure rape is like that. But sex isn't usually - we should have the honesty to admit that it's not an activity in which women are physically passive.

I don't mean to be facetious, but wasn't the drunk girl too drunk to judge her 'rapist's' consent in this instance? Or was it one rule for her and another for him? And are you saying that she had any responsibilities at all in this situation? Because I don't think that saying women are entitled to get as drunk as they like while expecting the male population to protect them from themselves. You're living in a fantasy land if you think women have the right to live as if men everywhere will say 'no, even though you're saying you want sex, you're actually too drunk to know what you're talking about....'

Because I don't think that saying women are entitled to get as drunk as they like while expecting the male population to protect them from themselves is a reasonable position

If she had touched his dick when he came in and he didn't consent and called the police, she might well have been charged with sexual assault. Her defense would probably have been that she believed him to be the man who had just left who she was in consensual sexual contact with.

But you have utterly missed the point. First and foremost, if A is in a state of consent to touching from B (as he, apparently, was to her) then no assault has happened. It is only where A is not in a state of consent that the defence of reasonable belief in consent comes into play. In that instance, A can be assaulted by non-consensual touch, but B can be found not guilty of the assault.

If I crash into a pedestrian with my car, I might or might not be guilty of reckless driving, but the pedestrian remains hurt, whether or not a crime is committed.

Going back to the hotel case, the woman was clearly raped (penetrated without consent) regardless of the man's guilt of the crime of rape. Do you see?

30 years ago, it was far more common to drink drive, smoking in bars was legal and marital rape wasn't against the law.

I'm not living in a fantasy world to think people might stop and give a shit about the possibility of not having sex that might be unwanted, given that there are no consequences of skipping such uncertain sex and potentially terrible consequences of going ahead. I'm sorry you have so little faith in your fellow humans, though. It's dispiriting to engage with you, especially as you accuse feminists of hating other women.

Heigh ho. If I don't speak to you again, do have a lovely evening,

My position on this thread is of a piece with the other thread in that I am keen to think through the rights of other members of society, and the responsibilities of women to other members of society.

Women's responsibility to do what? Respect the right of random men to put their cocks in them and not make a fuss?

Sod that.

Because I don't think that saying women are entitled to get as drunk as they like while expecting the male population to protect them from themselves is a reasonable position

I don't expect the male population to protect women from themselves. I expect men and women to obey the law. Oh I know they don't but that doesn't diminish the application of the law.

If one comes across a man or a woman who is so blind drunk one could steal his or her phone or wallet with absolutely no come back I would hope most people would not do so. Those who do are just as guilty as if the victim had been stone cold sober.

Gone your point about driving when drunk is nonsensical. The person who is drunk and drives commits a crime. I have a moral and legal obligation to avoid putting myself in a situation where I will be driving a car when drunk. I have a moral and legal obligations not to pester or harass or touch or grope men (and women for that matter) who don't want to have sexual contact with me.

I have no moral or legal obligation to avoid situations where I might be raped.

How the hell do I even do that ? I've spent 39 years living in cities and walking home alone at night. I've never experienced any problems. There was a report last week of a 90 year old woman being raped by someone who broke in to her house. Did she fail to avoid putting herself in a situation where she would be raped?

I don't mean to be facetious

And yet here you are being it again.

Spreading rape myths like a pro.

Because I don't think that saying women are entitled to get as drunk as they like while expecting the male population to protect them from themselves is a reasonable position

Well, isn't it lucky that no one is asking them to, what humanity is asking men to do is to protect women from rapists, women don't "protecting from themselves" they need protecting from men who think so little of them that they stick their dicks in them when they are too drunk to consent to it, like criminals.

You're living in a fantasy land if you think women have the right to live as if men everywhere will say 'no, even though you're saying you want sex, you're actually too drunk to know what you're talking about....

I am aware that we live in a world where some men won't think twice about sticking their dicks in women they know are too drunk to give meaningful consent. The difference is that I think we should be doing something about it, not preserving the status quo where men who knowingly stick their dicks into women who have given no consent aren't acquitted by juries steeped in rape mythology.

Waspishly condemning anyone who has sex when they're drunk is never going to get you anywhere.

So stop doing it then.

Actually when saying some people hate women I meant the now deleted fuck wit. Just to clarify.
Gone "Because I don't think that saying women are entitled to get as drunk as they like while expecting the male population to protect them from themselves is a reasonable position"
Women dont rape themselves. There is a man involved. He should be able to refrain from penetrative without checking it's wanted first.

I understood, hell. The car analogy is a good illustration of the point I was trying to make; the pedestrian may be hurt but it may not be the fault of anything but rubbish communication.

But aren't you saying that A can be in a state of apparent consent but it is not consent unless B has correctly judged A to be capable of giving it? That sounds very ambiguous.

I expect men and women to obey the law.
Except that you're not willing to accept the law, are you? It's found this chap innocent. I didn't make the point about driving, BTW. That was a quotation from hell But I did think her comments pointed towards giving women responsibility for not putting themselves in positions where they might be raped. However, she disagrees. Interesting though, how her comments are damned if they appear to be coming from a poster you disagree with. I expect you would have expected such a 'woman hating' sentiment from me and not from her, wouldn't you.

And in reality, the asking for consent is surely more implied, with tentative sexual touching on one side and consent to this continuing being given or withheld by the other party either reciprocating or drawing back. I think would be disingenuous and unfair to men to claim no knowledge of this and insist it all happens on a verbal contract. The reality is that it doesn't and there is often no expectation that it will. I'm not aware of any consensus in society that it's wrong for sex to occur without that kind of verbal consent. And that's important if we're going to define a rapist as someone who hasn't followed that pre-determined path, and a victim as anyone who had sex without having the question put to them. I also think it's disingenuous to hand the responsibility of asking that question to men because they're the ones being 'active' in the physical act of sex.

The difference is that I think we should be doing something about it,
And what are you doing, exactly? Not even the law agrees with you. The code of conduct you're outlining is never going to happen. You're striving for a utopian society where women can live free from any potential male threat in the full knowledge that it won't happen and there is very little you can do about it. In refusing to consider that we're living in a very different world where women are in danger and within that framework do have a responsibility to protect themselves whether they should or not, you' are the one perpetrating a dangerous myth.

Perhaps you could publish a pamphlet or a booklet or something entitled 'Men: 3 questions to ask before sticking your dick in a woman.' It could come with a breathalyser perhaps

You feminists are so patronising towards women.

Oh, another irony meter bites the dust - I've namechanged but Lass and I regularly disagree from pillar to post, and I'm not sure she'll thank you for describing her as a feminist...