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 jurys decision in this case was actually nothing to do with her.
A man can be found not guilty of rape if there's a chance he reasonably believed she consented. So in this case he said she grabbed him and he thought that meant she wanted sex, the jury thought that was reasonable. (Or there was a doubt as to whether that hadn't happened, iyswim). Both parties agree that she thought he was Z, the case hinges on whether he reasonably should have known she thought he was Z.

But Felas they (the jury) are saying it was reasonable to think she had switched over from wanting sex with one man to wanting it with his pal, within moments. So it is about her - they think it perfectly reasonable to assume that this woman/women would commonly do that. Which I think is bollocks.
I see what you are saying Quimby. I think I mean more that he, even if he really believed she had suddenly switched her desire over to him and wanted instant sex should still have thought, "she's drunk so I'd better not, can't be sure she really wants this".

Where I am confused is that there are two contradicting statements. The woman refers to realising the identity of the man when she ran her fingers through his hair, however he says he became aware when she called him by the wrong name, and then he stopped and then fled the room. These two positions seem to contradict.

The alcohol is not a red herring as it had been used by the defense to establish her testimony was unreliable. The whole defense turns on is his belief that she knew who he was reasonable, beyond all reasonable doubt?

In short I have no idea, the only thing I am sure of is the poor woman's experience was of being raped. I hope she's ok.

Sorry something else has been bothering me which I've just put into focus. I've been trying to work out how I could find myself in the defendant's position, and keep coming up short. Let me explain if my mate came out of my bedroom naked after having been in there with a woman, my assumption would be she is likely naked too. I'd knock on the door and announce who I was, and perhaps open it a crack and talk through it. Even going into the room would be creepy in my view...

Well yes Dervel, but that's because you're not a rapist. If you were a rapist, then you would act like this bloke did.

iggi I agree, I wasn't very clear. I meant that both sides agree she didn't want sex with him, so morally and from her perspective she was raped. The case is about whether he could reasonably have thought she wanted sex. The verdict to me says more about societies view of women's behaviour than about this specific woman.
That's why I was annoyed the headline is she "falsely accused" him. No she didn't. He was found not guilty. Different thing.

I know lots of stories of people sharing beds in various states of undress and ending up having sexual relations with people they previously had no connection with. I'm not saying this is the way things should be, but the culture is that knowing there is a girl in your bed didn't mean you don't get into it. Getting into bed with someone of the opposite sex doesn't at all mean anything will happen, but having had something going on with someone else earlier is no guarantee that it won't.

Reading the way that some people here expect men to act is quite funny. I agree that it would be wonderful if they did, and I will instill this in my own children, but there is a lack of understanding about what is considered acceptable by many young people, men and women. Consequently actions are being interpreted as definitely indicative of a rapist, when in fact there is a different code of conduct in place that still outlaws rape but means that the accused may indeed have simply been trying to go to bed.

But he wasn't simply trying to get into bed, he got into bed and had sex with her!

I say this as someone who has shared a bed with many men hoping for (and ending up having) sex, and also shared a bed with quite a few men on the understanding that it was platonic, and we were just going to share a bed for convenience. It really isn't hard to tell the difference - you just ask.

Indeed Gone. Far too much focus on how men should act but not enough on how women should act. Preventing rape isn't just one sided

lack of understanding about what is considered acceptable by many young people, men and women

Clearly it wasn't acceptable to her, and it's not acceptable to many of us here.

She was lying, sleeping or half asleep, in a bed she'd been invited into by a man who she was sexually interested in.

Which part of her behaviour caused him to come into the room after he saw his naked mate exit and lie down next to her, miss?

Preventing rape isn't just one sided

Yes it is. Men can choose not to have sex with people whenever they like.

Women can try not to be around rapists, they can refrain from drinking, or going out (what a fun life that would be) but they cannot prevent rape unless they are never in the company of men.

It's attitudes like this that mean men don't get prosecuted for rape, because in he said/she said, they decide that raping a woman isn't so bad when the alternative is not having sex for a few hours.

I live in the real world, I don't think there's any harm in being angry that people think this guy's behaviour is excusable.

Another thing I don't understand is this "but many people think it's acceptable..." That's not what the law is about. The law is about what we as an entire population, consider to be acceptable, not what certain subcultures think is okay. Why should the law be reduced to what the lowest common denominator think is acceptable behaviour?

There are subcultures where settling disputes with a fight is considered normal behaviour. This doesn't mean we should get rid of laws against GBH. It doesn't mean that if I am walking down the highstreet at 10.00pm and a couple of drunks having a fight manage to punch me by accident they shouldn't be prosecuted because in their subculture it's considered okay.

(Incidentally I think Felas' hypothesis as to why the jury acquitted is probably on the right lines - the standard for a criminal conviction, that of being beyond reasonable doubt, is an extremely high one).

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?

I think it could have been possible, yes. I only had other people's word for my coherency - it was in the days before mobile phones and everything being recorded.

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.

Ah, but I also know what I was like stone cold sober, and decisions I made then, too. So, while it could technically have been rape, in that I wasn't in a fit state to be able to consent, I think I would have probably said yes anyway, had I been sober, and also that anyone with me would probably have been able to have reasonable belief I was consenting, so it wouldn't have been rape. I never regretted any of them. But I completely recognise then and now that I was lucky - I was always with men I knew and fancied, and most times, they said no anyway. But I also realised that one day, I might not be so lucky, and also, I didn't like having a total blank in my memory, and I didn't want alcohol poisoning. So I stopped drinking so much. I actually made some far worse decisions about going to bed with certain men when totally sober. I don't consider that any of those occasions were rape. Remembering back mostly makes me smile, and in some cases, we're still in touch a quarter century or so later.

But - that is me. Not everyone reacts the same way to alcohol that I do. Other situations with other people could have very different outcomes.

In any case, it's not relevant, because drunk or sober, there is no reasonable way to believe that the woman in this case consented to sex with the mate of the bloke she had actually gone to bed with - she had consented to sex with the one she went to bed with only.

What is relevant is that I've met a lot of men who would make sure you get home safely and won't go to bed with a woman who is clearly drunk. Not all men are like this, which is why being anywhere with a man can be a risk - but if some men can behave this way, then all men are capable of it, and those who don't are choosing not to behave that way. Men are capable of better, regardless of how others around them behave.

So, Miss, back when I was a student and regularly went back to my boyfriends' shared houses, I was asking for rape was I? If I pulled a bloke in a club and went back to his house, both of us a bit drunk, his housemates could let themselves into the room and join in? Because to go back to a house with a man I intended to have consensual sex with was a tacit invitation to any other bloke who happened to be in the house to come along and have a go too?

Your views seem dangerously close to "if a woman isn't a virgin or respectably married, then she's open to all comers." I'm having a hard time coming up with an interpretation of your posts which doesn't lead me to that conclusion.

She could have prevented this though. By getting drunk and going back to a strangers house put her in that situation

House!

And we've already established that you think very little of men gone. You're labouring your tenuous point now.

Walking down the street puts me in a position where I could be hit by a joyrider. Shall I stay home? Or shall we put the blame for such an event on the perpetrator?

Misssmith please fuck off with your victim blaming crap. Shame on you.

Yes, it does also come to that EBear - that it's more believable that a woman would lie about being raped than a rapist would.

I, too, have had my share of ill thought liasons, and I too, generally think back on them with a wry smile and a shake of my head at what I was thinking.

I've also been sexually assaulted, and I am perfectly capable of telling the difference between assault, and a partner I probably wouldn't have slept with if I was sober.

I think MissSmith might be advocating political lesbian separatism as the solution for rape?

Dammit I was trying not to go for the cheap shots

fuck it, rape apologists don't get my A game either

Hi all,

Threads about rape and assault (whether physical or verbal) can be extremely emotionally distressing for people who have experienced those things, and we'd be really grateful if all posters could remember that and try to comment appropriately.

It would be really helpful if posters could bear in mind that when they post that giving the impression to assault survivors that there was something the survivor could or should have done to prevent her assault in the first place. We hope you'll all understand why assault survivors would find that insulting and upsetting.

Please find the time to have a look at our We Believe You page on rape myths, especially Myth 2:

MYTH: Women provoke rape by their appearance or their behaviour

REALITY: Dressing attractively, or flirting, is never an invitation to rape. Rape is not a 'crime of passion' - it is an expression of power and control.
No woman 'asks to be raped' or 'deserves what she gets' - only the rapist is responsible for the rape. Rape happens to all types of women, from the very young to the very old - physical appearance is irrelevant.

www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-mumsnet-rape-awareness-campaign

Thanks.

Preventing rape isn't just one sided

Er, it is. The only sure fire way of preventing a crime is to not do it. You can think about it, can't police thoughts, but then you think "no, I don't want to be a criminal"

Dervel you are a man ? Your reaction is what I'd expect.

There's no criticism of the accused in thinking "sod this I want my room back" which is what he claimed he was doing.

But if that is what he wanted he would have done what Dervel said, knocked loudly, asked to come in, put the light on and asked her to leave.

As shame and shaming and being no better than you should be keeps getting a mention I'd like to say as a mother of a son I would not be particularly judgenenal one way or another if he were having casual sex with a willing and enthusiastic partner, no matter how short the acquaintance (just bloody don't make me a granny)

I would however be deeply ashamed if he behaved in the way the accused did.