Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

This makes me, yet again, want the idea that it's not rape if he reasonably believed he had consent to be changed. It means that the only one who really has any power, is the rapist. Why is his belief held in higher esteem than the woman's?

In this case, she didn't even know. I think, that without positive evidence of consent, that it's rape. If you're drunk, and you're thinking about putting your penis in someone who's drunk, you should make sure you're damn sure she consents, and err on the side of caution.

I think thats entirely realistic, because I have been very drunk, and never inserted any part of myself in someone else who wasn't happy for it to be there, both at the time, and the morning after.

I have been very drunk, and had parts of other people inserted in me, which I was very happy about, both at the time, and generally the morning after (albeit sometimes with a bit of a face-palm).

If I punch someone in the face, even if we're both drunk, it's assault, unless I can prove, and they agree that it was a mutually enthusiastic fight, and even if it started mutually enthusiastically, if it turns out that they was too drunk, or that I hurt them, I can still, quite rightly be prosecuted. The law about assaulting someone with a penis should be the same.

OlennadWimple what bit of a man being cleared of rape is difficult to understand? It is completely unacceptable for people onan internet forum to be calling him a rapist today.

GH An honest question. Do you think that sex workers can be raped?

Lorelei76, if people had suggested that you were untrustworthy then it would be relevant. In burglary cases the insurers would be doing a damn good job in making sure that the facts were correct

What do insurers have to do with it? This is the law, not what terms and conditions you've agreed with your insurance company?

Do you know what gh? On the very day I got raped I went out to some bars in the evening afterwards. It had happened prior to work in the morning. i went to work. It was my leaving do from work. I wanted to block it out and get very very drunk. I knew I couldn't report it and I didn't want to deal with it in my head. It may have looked to the casual observer that I was "partying with my mates". So you don't know shit.

Gh05, women are not all the same. They may behave differently to each other. How your ex-gf behaved after being raped will be different to how another woman behaves. It makes no difference to whether or not they were raped.

Chicchocporridge... Can't agree there. It sets up the lives of many innocent men to be ruined. Any woman who regrets sex with a guy or for whatever reason is just plain vindictive (and yes they are out there) could claim rape and what you seem to be arguing is that the benefit of the doubt should go to her especially if she's had a few drinks.

The guy can have his life ruined and her name never even made public even if he is proven as falsely accused (i question whether this is ok too).

"I'm not a rape apologist" says a rape apologist. How novel.

a dangerous game for you to be playing as you are setting yourself up to be sued for defamation

I see no defamation here, just a discussion about things which have been freely reported in the press, and expressions of surprise that despite strong suspicions about the veracity of the new witnesses certain salient information appears to have been withheld from the jury. Also dismay about the effect that the return to slut shaming women who report rape will have in the future.

CE admitted he did not seek consent from the complainant in this case.
He did break into a dark room and stick his penis into an intoxicated woman he had never spoken to.
He did allow the activities to be viewed and filmed without her knowledge and consent.
His girlfriend did contact and attempt to influence a key witness.
The new witnesses did know the 'magic words' required by the defence as they had been reported prior to their statements being given.
They were offered money to testify.
They did both change their statements several times

As I just said elsewhere, I would happily take my chances proving that my opinion is reasonably valid based on the evidence I have seen, in court.

But as far as I remember, personal opinion isn't defamatory anyway.

Chicchocporridge... Can't agree there. It sets up the lives of many innocent men to be ruined. Any woman who regrets sex with a guy or for whatever reason is just plain vindictive (and yes they are out there) could claim rape and what you seem to be arguing is that the benefit of the doubt should go to her especially if she's had a few drinks.

But that's entirely in the hands of the bloke. Don't have sex with women unless you're certain. It's easy, I've done it all my life.

At the moment, how many women's lives are blighted by men raping them? Do you think that that is more, or less than the number of vindictive women who would go through a rape trial to get back at a man for whatever reason?

Gh "Lorelei76, if people had suggested that you were untrustworthy then it would be relevant"

why? if the place is burgled, you want people looking at evidence, not how trustworthy I am or not.

Similarly, whether a rape victim has sex before or after, when, or how traumatised they are does not change the legal definition of rape or the issue of whether or not consent was given, or if the accused has reason to believe consent was given.

Your observations seem rooted in value judgements. Matters brought before a court of law should be assessed according to evidence.

Wee pet. Life was ruined! Hung up to dry, literally!

He was a crap footballer, and by all accounts crap at sex.

Gh, I note you also say the judge was okay with the money that changed hands.

The law evolves partly when judges make crazy decisions. I think this will go down in history as one of them tbh.

Like Elondon, I also wonder if you believe sex workers can be raped.

Speaknowords, i think it suggest in general that your state of mind is possibly better than someone who is so traumatised that they dont want anyone touching them as was the case of my ex gf. I admit that this may not always be the case as the other poster claims...perhaps you can be so distraught that you just become reckless or simply want to go on as normal. But i do think it has to be a consideration in the case because lets not forget (and i know a lot of you don't like doing this), but a mans life is at stake too and that man who must be presumef innocent u til guilty is worth just as much as that woman. I get the impression on this forum from what I have read that certain posters harbour q lot of hate towards men and do not even consider those who are falsely accused.

As a single man it is pretty frightening to think that a woman after a few drinks and sex could accuse me of rape, ruin my life and this is what the reaction of people towards me would be.

This is a long way back in the thread, but just to say that I don't regard objectivity to be masculine. It is anti-female bias in the justice system that I don't like, not objectivity, and it is a bloody dangerous road to say that objectivity is masculine, WTF?

Objectively, the idea of paying non-expert witnesses for their memory of events would seem to taint the evidence. TBH paying expert witnesses is a fairly murky area.

As a single man it is pretty frightening to think that a woman after a few drinks and sex could accuse me of rape, ruin my life and this is what the reaction of people towards me would be.

As a single woman, it's pretty frightening to think that a man after a few drinks and raping me could say that it wasn't rape, ruin my live and this is what the reaction of people towards me would be

Now, look at the differences - who has the control? You do. Be the change. If you're worried about being accused of rape, then only have sex with women when you're both sober. Wait 4 or 5 hours, it'll be better, and you won't have the risk of a rape accusation because you won't be risking raping someone.

Have you actually got any idea of the number of false accusations of rape? Or the chance of being convicted following a false accusation? Clearly it's practically fucking impossible to be convicted even if you admit to it!!!

If it's not always the case as I "claimed", why on earth should it be a consideration? You're just perpetuating rape myths.

ChocChocPorridge There was a really interesting thread on here about exactly what you say - rapists define consent. Unfortunately, my search skills have escaped me. This case is a classic example. The men in the room and the jury decided on her consent. Her opinion? Worthless. In fact, her voice wasn't really heard in this case. Of course it wasn't - she couldn't remember. So the male dominant voice held sway.

It scares me that the jury took so little time to consider the verdict - how low is the bar that deserves more contemplation?

Don't be scared. Control yourself and don't have sex with a woman if you're worried about that possibility. Problem solved.

Your comments about how you expect rape victims to behave are naive and offensive.

BTW - both my DP (male) and I have had lots of drunken sex with lots of people, and also not had drunken sex with lots of people, and had lots of sex with non-drunken people and somehow both managed to make it to nearly 40 with not a single rape accusation between us, because, and this is an important point, we are not rapists.

If we have any concern that the person may not be 100% wanting to have sex, then we don't. It's not complicated, there are no grey areas, just, if you're not sure, then don't have sex.

Chocchocporridge, there is literally zero logic in this quote:

"But that's entirely in the hands of the bloke. Don't have sex with women unless you're certain. It's easy, I've done it all my life."

By the way this quote has to be taken in the context of what it is responding to. It is clearly not 'entirely in the hands of the bloke' if a woman later decides she regrets sex and accuses a man of rape OR is just a bit of a vindictive nutter and falsely accuses a man of rape. For it to be 'completely in the hands of the bloke' he would need to be a fortune teller.

Really poor logic.

anna, yes, the objectivity thing confused me too.