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

Of course you all knew "judgenenal" means judgemental.

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.

You've missed the point, rather. Or have you forgotten that she grabbed him after he got into bed? That of course is not an invitation to be raped. But it could certainly create grounds for confusion in his mind about what was happening here. So, say they share a bed for the purposes of sleeping. She grabs him and he's up for it. Until he realises she thinks he's someone else and he backs off. The end.

She grabbed him because she presumably assumed it was the bloke who had been in bed with her. See Dervel's point of view as to how a man who just wanted his room back would behave.

Oh I give up. Have it your own way.

So he lay down in the bed rather than turning the light on and talking loudly because... what? He thought he'd sleep better next to a drunken stranger?

Or have you forgotten that part, conveniently, like you ignore or lie about many other points?

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.

But what about those alcohol-fuelled blanks? I don't know if you're aware of the dangers of the narrative you are selling:

1. Women have no responsibility to keep out of dangerous situations; if you say otherwise you are suggesting they're responsible for being raped.

1. There is only one explanation for what's happened to a woman who has got drunk, had sex, doesn't remember it very well/at all and would rather it hadn't happened. She has been raped. She can, with certainty, go to the police and report this as rape.

1. It can be assumed with certainty that a woman in the above scenario will not have given verbal consent if she cannot remember doing so, even if her memories of the whole event are hazy.

1. In the unlikely event that a woman in the above scenario has been asked for and given her consent to sex, it is meaningless because the level of her inebriation means she was not in a position to consent. The man involved is still a rapist.

1. There is no reasonable possibility whatsoever that there was any genuine confusion or misunderstanding about the woman's willingness to participate in sexual intercourse. There is therefore no possibility that the man involved is anything less than a rapist.

1. To suggest that her behaviour may have implied consent (and therefore have led to genuine confusion about her wishes) is exactly the same as suggesting she was 'asking' to be raped. Only a woman-hater would raise this possibility.

1. A rapist is any man who has incorrectly judged the above woman's level of inebriation, incorrectly over-estimated her ability to give consent, or who has failed to halt sexual touching to verbally ask if she was up for having sex. Even if the man was genuinely unaware of how much her decision-making capacities were affected by alcohol, he is still a rapist. Even if she asked him to have sex (not, of course the case in the OP scenario) he is still a rapist.

1. We can be certain that because some women are able to look back on sexual encounters and know that their alcohol-fuelled consent was nevertheless consent, every other woman can be trusted to (a) know the difference and (b) report that difference truthfully.

1. Building on point 8, there are situations in which it's not rape for a man to have sex with an inebriated woman, but since no decent man would do so, we must leave it to the woman involved to decide after the event if she was raped or not. We can be certain that she will do this perfectly even if she cannot remember exactly what happened, or there are blanks in her memory.

Strangely for posters who have repeatedly said that men who have sex with inebriated women are guilty of sexual assault, they themselves look back with a wry smile on consensual drunken sex with men who were not rapists. The mystery of how they are able to tell the difference in their own minds with such certainty (even when there are periods of time that are lost to their memories) is eclipsed only by the mystery of how their sexual partners were supposed to infer all this, including how they would feel in retrospect. Men don't carry breathalysers. It's clear that even if they asked for verbal consent, it could be considered worthless afterwards if the woman decides she was too drunk to agree - begging the question of what is the point of asking.

Of course, all this leaves the man involved with no defence whatsoever against the charge that he is a rapist.

I don't think we're asking too much of men, but we are asking more than we can practically expect they are going to give us. People will drink, and then they will have sex. That isn't going to change.

Of course, all this leaves the man involved with no defence whatsoever against the charge that he is a rapist.
Do you seriously believe this bollocks? Defences such as "I thought she was my girlfriend" and "I accidentally fell and penetrated her" have been used to clear men of rape. I think men do well at defending themselves even in cases that appear quite clear cut.

I don't think we're asking too much of men, but we are asking more than we can practically expect they are going to give us. What, it's too much to ask men not to penetrate women who dont want it? How fucking patronising to men.

I don't think it's patronising to men to suggest they are never going to have sex with women after consuming alcohol.

It's never going to happen.

And that's what has been suggested on this thread - since there is no way of a man judging a woman's inebriation with 100% accuracy (and if he gets it wrong he is definitely a rapist), it's unacceptable for him to drink - in the same way that he wouldn't drive a car.

I'm aware that the justice system (thankfully) doesn't follow the mumsnet feminist board's code of conduct...but I do think you should have the integrity to look at what can realistically be expected of men, and the rights you are claiming for women ('if you had sex and you now think you didn't want to, you were raped') without behaving like Joan of Arc.

And if you really want to improve women's lot, you should be pointing out that if you drink loads and go back to a stranger's house you are in danger. That's all. You're not responsible for choices anyone else makes in this house, but you're in danger.

Oh ok. Strangely after your rant I do don't pick up the point that it was too much to expect men not to have sex with inebriated women. I thought you were talking about unspecified "dangerous situations".
As this woman didn't give drunken consent that she later retracted, but rather mistook the identity of the man who penetrated her, I'm not sure your post is relevant.

if you had sex and you now think you didn't want to, you were raped'
No one said that. What an offensive thing to say. Please refer to the mod post earlier.

I think you mentioned you had a son, gone.

I hope for his sake and humanity's, you are teaching him better than you are writing her.

As this woman didn't give drunken consent that she later retracted, but rather mistook the identity of the man who penetrated her, I'm not sure your post is relevant

Yes that struck me too.

"She grabbed him because she presumably assumed it was the bloke who had been in bed with her..."

Yes, and that isn't the other (accused) bloke's fault, which is why he was cleared of rape. The accused isn't judged by whether he should have known what was in HER mind.

No one is suggesting it was the accused's fault she thought ihe was the other bloke.

What I am saying I find the accused's actions in entering a dark room, assuming that she had meant to instigate sex and ignoring the fact she was calling him the other bloke's name utterly bizarre and implausible.

"The accused isn't judged by whether he should have known what was in HER mind."

He did not have her consent to penetrate her.

His defence was that he had reasonable belief in that consent.

The jury found that they couldn't say beyond reasonable doubt that his belief in consent was unreasonable, so they found him not guilty.

There is no doubt that she was penetrated by the accused without consent as her consent was to her original partner.

Most of us on this thread consider that his defence is unsound ie that any belief he had in her consent was unreasonable, given the circumstances the accused himself has described.

I hope that clears things up for you, big.

Lass I am indeed a man, like I said I don't know what went on but the more I think about it the more I think there is something distinctly fishy about both men's behaviour.

I can empathise with the woman here far more. I can't fathom the men at all. If he needed the sleep why invite a load of people back to your flat at spet o'clock in the morning? Let em get a hotel. Why isn't the sight of your friend exiting your room naked cause to enquire where his trousers are? Bizarre....

"...I find the accused's actions in entering a dark room, assuming that she had meant to instigate sex and ignoring the fact she was calling him the other bloke's name utterly bizarre and implausible..."

But Lass, on the reported account, that simply isn't what happened. The account reported in the Metro says:

"...Then she grabbed me saying, “come on Zack” and I realised “she’s thinking I’m Zack” so I jumped off the bed and jumped out of the room..."

When realised she was in fact consenting to Zack, it became obvious that there was no consent for him, and he "jumped off the bed and jumped out of the room"!!

You can choose not to believe him Lass, but you can't jusg make up your own account of things.

"Most of us on this thread consider that his defence is unsound ie that any belief he had in her consent was unreasonable.."

Yes, and the jury who heard ALL the evidence disagreed with "most of you on this thread" whom I suspect have not heard all the evidence.... in 27 minutes.

Allow me a bit of identity politics on this, but the jury acquitted a black man of rape in less than 30 mins. How crap must the evidence have been?

Gone must have expectations of really shit sex.

Oh, bigolenerdy, he realised after he penetrated her. So, reckless as to her consent (for him to penetrate her), imho. Her knew after the event that she thought it was the other guy. That's why I think the jury was wrong. And yet another case where the defendant incriminates himself yet still has defenders.

What should the punishment be for cases like this?

This case is bloody sickening. I really worry for my dds when they get older.

Morally what that guy did makes him a cunt.

Even if it did go the way he says it did he is still a massive cunt. But in reality we will never know what happened. He could have gone in there and seen she was out of it and took his chance and when she started screaming legged it. Or it could be the way he said and let off on basically a technicality.

Terrible. I hope she is ok

Obviously were I on the jury I'd be conversant with the case, I'm just saying something is fishy from what little info has been published.

I had wondered as by definition the police and cps felt there was a case to answer at trial. Maybe the racial element plays into that and were the defendant white we wouldn't even be aware of it now.

Systemic racism is of course awful but we shouldn't throw women under the bus to virtue signal how unracist we all are.

I don't know what the jury were thinking. But I've read a few reports on this (the Telegraph one was particularly shocking) and I still can't see how the jury found as they did - perhaps there was more in court.

Or perhaps the law is fucked up. Because consent to that activity I. E consent to being penetrated by that man was not given. Nor sought - and I thought that had to be established as a defence. But is that what the law says? If not, women should be a lot more worried than they are.