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

You are indeed right...about the bed if nothing else

How did she know it was his bed? She obviously got into the bed with the original viagra man, maybe she didnt do her due dilligence and just assumed she was in his bed

It wouldnt occur to me that i was in the wrong bed

You said:

"In the scenario of the OP, we actually have a woman who has, without invitation, got into the accused's bed. I'm all for not blaming the victim but I am struggling to see how her behaviour is anything but totally irresponsible and potentially confusing. Presumably she was aware that at some point he would be hoping to go to bed?"

Surely his mate, who knew full well it was his bedroom, unlike the stranger to the flat, was the one giving potentially confusing signals? If she'd been the one to get up and nip to the loo, would he have been justified in sticking his dick in his mate?

Oh, and she was in that bed by invitation of a bloke she liked and wanted to be in sexual contact with. So yes, you are a lying liar who lies.

I would have thought him admitting that he knew she was drunk would have made it clear he hadn't obtained proper consent. Obviously not.

You're being incredibly disingenuous, gone. Why should she have known whose bed it was? She was with the other guy. He invited her into it.

There are no mixed messages, there is either consent or not.

The mixed messages lie is one that men tell each other when they aren't sure if they might be a rapist.

"In the scenario of the OP, we actually have a woman who has, without invitation, got into the accused's bed. I'm all for not blaming the victim but I am struggling to see how her behaviour is anything but totally irresponsible and potentially confusing. Presumably she was aware that at some point he would be hoping to go to bed?"

What nonsense. The man she was with invited her into the bedroom. If the owner of the flat didn't want them to use his bedroom he could have said so - to both of them.

As AHell points out the confusing signals were being given by viagra man. Indeed by the 2 men; by viagra man behaving as if he had permission to use the bedroom and by the flat owner by saying nothing to contradict viagra man.

In every other walk of life, being a bit unclear -"hmm, I'm not sure if bob wanted the chicken or beef pie" - is readily solved by a quick question.

When it comes to sex, however, it's suddenly utterly unreasonable to expect something similar, " oh, she seems to like me, but she's very drunk and was just in here with my mate, bit of a 'mixed message' - clearly I should solve this dilemma by inserting my dick, not opening my mouth for a simple question."

I still think I'd know perfectly well if a different bloke had got back into my bed.

Good for you.

Back when I was in my late teens/early 20s, I had more than one occasion where I had a total blackout. (One of several reasons I tend not to drink these days.) Apparently I was mostly coherent, following conversations and so on, but the next day, I had absolutely no memory at all of what was going on. In that state, I probably wouldn't have known if a different man had got into bed, though a man with me might well have thought I was capable of consenting, particularly if he didn't know me particularly well.

Even if I weren't as drunk as losing my memory, my senses of taste and smell tend to get quite impaired. I very much doubt I am at all unique, so I can quite believe other women would also not know when drunk. If you don't get like that when drunk, then you're lucky.

"I still think I'd know perfectly well if a different bloke had got back into my bed"

Maybe, maybe not. You are very drunk, in bed with a man you've just met, it's dark, you have fallen asleep or half asleep, the man gets up, a man comes back and lies down. Your brain is surely going to jump to, "oh, hello again" not "who are you?"

And she did know it, according to the article, when she touched the hair. Unfortunately, at this point, the accused had already put his dick into her. It's unclear how long between lying down and penetration, but that doesn't sound like a huge amount of time passed for her to have a chance for such realisation beforehand.

It is weird isn't it?

"Hmm, I wonder if Freda wants tea or coffee?"

So you ask her.

"Hmm, I wonder if Freda wants to have sex with me?"

It's unreasonable of the world to expect me to ask her, so I'll stick my dick in her and we'll go from there.

So, asking someone is they want something is ok, but making sure that something you want to do with someone isn't going to make you a violent criminal is completely unreasonable, and expecting men to to that is living in a utopian dreamland.

You really don't think much of men's mental capacity do you, gone?

Yy Palmer.

I can't think of another sphere of friendly human interaction where checking the other party is happy is seen by many to be a ridiculously overbearing requirement!

That's interesting bear. Are you saying that a man who slept with you in that condition could have been genuinely mistaken about whether you were consenting?

Because I think that's the rub here. I suspect you wouldn't have known yourself if you were genuinely consenting until afterwards. And rather than acknowledge that poor choices on your part was a contributing factor, you would be likely to decide you must have been raped. Not fair.

Totally fair - again - unless you are totally sure that the person really wants to be having sex with you, DON'T DO IT.

If you're at a party, and you've just met someone, and they seem a bit off, don't risk being a rapist.

To use your own words gone:
For their own safety, they need to develop instincts and try to work it out. This is not about blaming anyone. It's about safety.

Men need to 'develop instincts' about when they might be raping someone, it's about people's safety not to be raped.

If the woman can make a mistake about whether or not she is consenting, the other party certainly can make a mistake about it!

Rape can ruin lives and is of course abhorrent, but a false accusation of rape is also a devastating thing.

'They seem a bit off'

WTF is that supposed to mean?! Is that the best you can do to clarify the difference between a rapist and non rapist? It's so subjective!

Well, rape isn't subjective if someone sticks their penis in me, and I didn't want it, I have been raped.

From the other side, if I have any cause to doubt that someone might not be in a fit state of mind to consent, then I shouldn't have sex with them. If I go ahead and have sex with someone when they are drunk, then I am placing myself at risk that they didn't actually want to have sex with me, and in that case, I would be a rapist.

It really is very, very easy.

Just like, as a driver, if I'm slightly concerned I've drunk more than I should, I don't drive (actually, I probably wouldn't drive after drinking any, because I would be driving my kids who are so valuable to me I couldn't risk it) - perhaps that's a better rule. If you have been drinking, and you're worried that your decision making may be impaired, then don't put your penis in anyone.

And from the other side, if I have concerns over how much a potential lift home has drunk, I don't get in the car with them, even if I'm quite drunk myself.

See, easy. If you are worried you are unable to make sensible decisions, don't get in the drivers seat of a car, and don't put your penis in anyone. If you are worried that the person you are with is impaired, don't get in a car with them driving, and don't put your penis in them.

Oh, I don't know, I think I'd quite like to live in gone's version of the world where women can go to the police with whatever flimsy fabricated claim about being raped that they fancy, offer no evidence at all, be believed, and have their rapists prosecuted and sent to jail. I mean, it must be an simple pain-free process, right, if women just get up one day and decide to ruin men's lives for no reason whatsoever? We all know how easy women who accuse men of rape have it, but dear me, those poor poor men.

Must happen all the time.

/sarcasm.

Well, yes, Selkie, where is this Utopia where women are believed anyway (it's clearly not gone's world)

Rape can ruin lives and is of course abhorrent, but a false accusation of rape is also a devastating thing.

Except that didn't happen here did it - no matter what the bloke and the jury believed, the woman had a penis inside her that she didn't want.

Or is she wrong? There she is thinking she didn't give consent but she's got her self all confused and really she did consent to some other bloke penetrating her? Are you suggesting that she made a false accusation?

If someone puts their penis in me, before I can report it to the police do I have to ask them if they thought I'd consented otherwise I'm falsely accusing them of rape? Sounds a bit open to abuse to me - after all, who's really more likely to lie? Any woman, or rapists?

The jury clearly didn't think rape happened here. You're talking like everyone agrees with you, but they don't.

Re: the phrase a bit off, you're being facetious. But if you can't be bothered to engage with the ambiguity and the sky high expectations that everyone will differentiate 'normal' from 'a bit off', it's no odds to me. But do have a look at one of the many threads talking about one night stands. Alcohol often features! One person's a bit off could well be seen in a different light by someone else! After the event, it's not just the woman who gets to decide exactly how 'off' or normal she was. The man should also have a voice to say 'hang on, you may regret it now and wish your judgement had been different but there was no reasonable way I could have known you would feel that way in the cold light of day.'

OK, so something only happens if a jury agrees? What about all the cases that never go to court? The guy wasn't found guilty of the official crime of rape, but he stuck his penis in someone who didn't want it - so what shall we call that?

Again, I'm moving the window - yes, drunken sex happens, but both parties having sex need to realise that that opens them for risk of being a rapist/sexually assaulting someone.

Just like if I have unprotected sex I risk getting pregnant, and if I get behind the wheel drunk I risk having an accident.

I won't always have an accident, I won't always get pregnant, it won't always be rape. The difference with rape is that we actually have some extra information. I can't predict if I will crash on any given drunken journey, but I can ask my partner if they want to have sex. I can't predict if I'm going to get pregnant from unprotected sex, but I can wait and have sex when I'm not ovulating.

In order to mitigate the risk of becoming a rapist (drunk driver/pregnant) I can wait until we're all sober (sober/not ovulating)

See? Sex isn't inevitable - it's a choice, you can choose to have less-risky sex.

gone

Have you served on a jury

I have only done it twice so i am no way an expert

But it did surprise me how little leeway there was in our decision making

So one judge issued us with a sort of flow chart which couldnt really be deviated from and the other case centered on a particular time so we had to decide based on that time...not earlier or later

In both cases the majority of the jury thought One way but we couldnt act on it

"I would have thought him admitting that he knew she was drunk would have made it clear he hadn't obtained proper consent. Obviously not."

But her capacity to consent due to intoxication wasn't in question, was it?
I thought her evidence was that she was in a position to consent to man A.
I'm not saying that this makes man B innocent as the issue of stepping in to mans shoes where the woman is unaware still brings the consent in to question.
But the issue of being drunk and her capacity to consent doesn't seem to arise. She was drunk, but she was also in a fit state to consent to sex.
The question is whether she did in fact consent to sex with person B, which her evidence states that she did not.

But with regards to the issue of alcohol and consent that appears to be a bit of a red herring

Where is the line drawn? I don't think anyone who is properly drunk can consent to sex, at the very least it is unwise of a man to have sex with drunk woman as he cannot know that she knew what she was doing.
Remember those films where the heroine gets ratarsed and wakes up in the morning to find the hero has put her to bed and left her to sleep, and not seized the opportunity to stick his dick in her? Even a man who did not believe in equality would know that was the gentlemanly thing to do!

Well here id be going with her evidence
"‘I was saying Zack’s name because I thought it was him I was having sex with. "

Her own testimony is that she thought it was zack and she was engaging in sex based on the belief that it was him. There's no suggestion that she was intoxicated to the point that she could not form consent.

As to whether someone who is properly drunk can consent id disagree. However it's often on this point I find that these discussions become circular because people tend to use similar terms in quantifying drunkeness but with wholly different definitions of the term blackout drunk/hammered/ intoxicated etc and it can lead to arguing at cross purposes.

From my point of view it is still completely possible for valid consent to be given when drunk. However when that drunkeness reaches the point of intoxication whereby a person either is unconscious or passed out or is so intoxicated that they can not comprehend what is happening or the actions that they're consenting to then that is obviously not valid consent.

I'm not saying that the issue of drunkeness and its potential to vitiate consent is not a very real issue, I'm simply saying that it doesn't appear to be an issue in this case.

In this case it seems to be the legal development of consent and knowledge as to facts material to the act.
The case law is fairly well established on both those points.
Had the jury accepted her testimony and that the accused had obtained consent through deception by trying to impersonate the original man then that's rape. For whatever reason they did not.