Once again the innocent man gets shamed.
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
La Liga said:
He was named without being charged. I'm not sure about the public interest there from the media.
...
That seems to be the biggest issue in this sort of case....
Presumably he can sue the paper(s). I hope he does and wins big.
cookie118 said:
Seems a bit 'victim blaming' to say the girls should be educated too-they're not withdrawing consent at all, they're saying that they were never in a state to consent.
People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
So if a woman is blasted drunk and comes on to a bloke saying "I want a good hard shag, fPeople need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
k me now!" are you saying that is actually rape because she was too drunk to give "proper" consent?Is it the case that women do not have agency, and men (whether they are drunk themselves or not) are the only ones capable of responsibility? Should women not get drunk if they don't have a responsible male around them to make decisions for them?
Let's turn it round: what about if the woman is sober and the man is blasted drunk?
Adult women are free, sentient human beings who can (and should) be entrusted to make decisions for themselves; accepting responsibility for those decisions and their actions is part and parcel of that social contract, rather than expecting someone else to solve their problems for them and take responsibility in their stead. If they really are deemed incapable of making responsible decisions themselves then they need a chaperone. You (or they) can't have it both ways.
eltawater said:
mybrainhurts said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
This shouldn't be just about educating young men, it should also be about educating young women that they can't retrospectively withdraw consent blaming alcohol.
Don't let Cathy McCulloch hear you say that, or you're for the Comfy Chair...Apologies to Cathy McCathyface.
Some relevance here. From facebook (condensed);
The story of a high school student being accused of rape, then spending 6 years in jail, to have the accuser admit it was a false accusation.
The question was asked; "Should she be punished".
241 responses.
240 people said "yes" (and worse) - at least as many women as men
1 person (male) said;
"The instinct says yes, but consider that imposing a heavy and certain penalty for a later recanted rape accusation will have the effect of discouraging a false rape accuser from having a later change of heart and owning up to the lie. Thus the innocent prosecuted remains guilty and still serves the undeserved penalty.
We are outraged at the vicious heartless lie, but isn't it just compounding the miscarriage of justice to discourage her from confessing to her false accusation?"
I agree, as some have said above, the bigger issue seems to be that the press is able to name people who are arrested before they are even charged.
There are many people who will never believe that the accused is innocent, with or without a trial.
As for the "I was too drunk to give consent" argument; everyone is sober when they choose to take that first drink.
Responsibility for your own actions when drinking begins at that point.
On the other hand; unconscious is unconscious. No man should really need that explaining to him.
The story of a high school student being accused of rape, then spending 6 years in jail, to have the accuser admit it was a false accusation.
The question was asked; "Should she be punished".
241 responses.
240 people said "yes" (and worse) - at least as many women as men
1 person (male) said;
"The instinct says yes, but consider that imposing a heavy and certain penalty for a later recanted rape accusation will have the effect of discouraging a false rape accuser from having a later change of heart and owning up to the lie. Thus the innocent prosecuted remains guilty and still serves the undeserved penalty.
We are outraged at the vicious heartless lie, but isn't it just compounding the miscarriage of justice to discourage her from confessing to her false accusation?"
I agree, as some have said above, the bigger issue seems to be that the press is able to name people who are arrested before they are even charged.
There are many people who will never believe that the accused is innocent, with or without a trial.
As for the "I was too drunk to give consent" argument; everyone is sober when they choose to take that first drink.
Responsibility for your own actions when drinking begins at that point.
On the other hand; unconscious is unconscious. No man should really need that explaining to him.
Happily our ancestors managed to work out that the alternative to public arrest is secret arrest, though there does seem to be a lamentable push for a return to it.
No arrest should be secret. Both parties should be named. Rapists should be punished. False accusers should be punished. Children can work this out.
No arrest should be secret. Both parties should be named. Rapists should be punished. False accusers should be punished. Children can work this out.
janesmith1950 said:
La Liga said:
Rape requires a penis in law.
What if you're not married? Can you use your own penis?
Murph7355 said:
La Liga said:
He was named without being charged. I'm not sure about the public interest there from the media.
...
That seems to be the biggest issue in this sort of case....
Presumably he can sue the paper(s). I hope he does and wins big.
As a few other posters have said I think the problem lies in naming before conviction. This is a crime that, rightly, carries such high emotions it is almost inevitable that once named in a rape case, the man is doomed by some whether guilty or innocent.
I appreciate that naming may bring forward other victims but I fear that that is done to the detriment of those innocent men that are named.
I appreciate that naming may bring forward other victims but I fear that that is done to the detriment of those innocent men that are named.
PurpleMoonlight said:
This shouldn't be just about educating young men, it should also be about educating young women that they can't retrospectively withdraw consent blaming alcohol.
If they're drunk they can't give consent in the first place, so there's nothing to withdraw, plus it's about acknowledging the alcohol, not 'blaming' it. The debate is how drunk does the girl have to be before her words can be taken to be meaningless?I've long thought of this the other way round though. Should a woman have sex with a drunk man? After all, he's not allowed to drive, he's not allowed to operate machinery, he wouldn't be allowed on the work place, so why should he be expected to understand the 'signals' or be able to think straight about the situation he's in prior to having sex?
It is something the law has to work out, but yes, if a woman decides to have sex with a drunken man she should acknowledge that she is electing to take a risk - like choosing to get in a car when you know the driver is drunk.
I do agree that there should be anonymity for both parties though until someone has been found guilty.
xRIEx said:
cookie118 said:
Seems a bit 'victim blaming' to say the girls should be educated too-they're not withdrawing consent at all, they're saying that they were never in a state to consent.
People need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
So if a woman is blasted drunk and comes on to a bloke saying "I want a good hard shag, fPeople need to be sure they have consent from someone who is in a fit state to give it.
If they have doubts whether that person can give consent, or whether they are able to judge it then they should back off.
It's not that hard to understand. I always think that people who say that they are withdrawing consent etc are placing the ability of men to have drunk sex above the rights of women not to be raped.
k me now!" are you saying that is actually rape because she was too drunk to give "proper" consent?Is it the case that women do not have agency, and men (whether they are drunk themselves or not) are the only ones capable of responsibility? Should women not get drunk if they don't have a responsible male around them to make decisions for them?
Let's turn it round: what about if the woman is sober and the man is blasted drunk?
Adult women are free, sentient human beings who can (and should) be entrusted to make decisions for themselves; accepting responsibility for those decisions and their actions is part and parcel of that social contract, rather than expecting someone else to solve their problems for them and take responsibility in their stead. If they really are deemed incapable of making responsible decisions themselves then they need a chaperone. You (or they) can't have it both ways.
La Liga said:
don't know much about libel, but would it amount to that if it's the truth?
I didn't read the actual article...I guess it might.Either way, gaming the law (if that's what the press have done) is still wrong and does nothing for their desires to remain "free" IMO. Their wings need clipping.
The title and OP is a bit misleading isn't it? My understanding from the article is that the jury couldn't reach a verdict and the CPS decided not to pursue a retrial... that is not the same as being found not guilty or innocent. So I can't help but feel you are being a bit clickbaity...
Having said that I agree with the general views expressed here. Before long people will need to sign a contract before having sex. Where is the line between being too drunk to consent in the first place and just being overly drunk and waking up regretting your actions and retrospectively withdrawing consent?
It does also seem like if both parties are drunk it is the man who is held responsible and this seems to tie in with other double standards in the justice system... for example why men get tougher sentences for similar crimes - why if a male teacher has sex with a student it is usually jail time but if a female teacher does the same it can be barely a slap on the wrist.
edit:
And it does get on my tits when these experts are always calling for young men to be educated in these matters... no means no campaigns and so on... it is incredibly patronising... I mean as if young men don't know the difference between right and wrong in the first place. Where is the education for young women in all of this?
Having said that I agree with the general views expressed here. Before long people will need to sign a contract before having sex. Where is the line between being too drunk to consent in the first place and just being overly drunk and waking up regretting your actions and retrospectively withdrawing consent?
It does also seem like if both parties are drunk it is the man who is held responsible and this seems to tie in with other double standards in the justice system... for example why men get tougher sentences for similar crimes - why if a male teacher has sex with a student it is usually jail time but if a female teacher does the same it can be barely a slap on the wrist.
edit:
And it does get on my tits when these experts are always calling for young men to be educated in these matters... no means no campaigns and so on... it is incredibly patronising... I mean as if young men don't know the difference between right and wrong in the first place. Where is the education for young women in all of this?
Edited by VolvoT5 on Monday 16th January 08:05
The image that is portrayed in these stories is that the man essentially climbs on top of and humps a passive, semi-conscious woman (i.e. the man is the active participant).
Is that accurate an portrayal in many cases though?
I wonder how many of these cases involved the drunk woman actively performing felatio or jumping on top of and riding the guy - but then cannot remember doing so the next morning. How can the guy possibly be held responsible for the girls actions if the court decide she was actually 'too drunk to give consent'.
Being too drunk isn't an excuse if you assault somebody, kill somebody whilst driving etc - yet when it comes to sex - as a woman you are totally absolved of any responsibility. All responsibility falls to the man regardless of how drunk he is - even if he was a relatively passive participant and the woman actually initiates most/all of the sex acts.
Is that accurate an portrayal in many cases though?
I wonder how many of these cases involved the drunk woman actively performing felatio or jumping on top of and riding the guy - but then cannot remember doing so the next morning. How can the guy possibly be held responsible for the girls actions if the court decide she was actually 'too drunk to give consent'.
Being too drunk isn't an excuse if you assault somebody, kill somebody whilst driving etc - yet when it comes to sex - as a woman you are totally absolved of any responsibility. All responsibility falls to the man regardless of how drunk he is - even if he was a relatively passive participant and the woman actually initiates most/all of the sex acts.
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 16th January 09:51
VolvoT5 said:
The title and OP is a bit misleading isn't it? My understanding from the article is that the jury couldn't reach a verdict and the CPS decided not to pursue a retrial... that is not the same as being found not guilty or innocent. So I can't help but feel you are being a bit clickbaity...
Presumably people are still innocent until proven guilty? Murph7355 said:
VolvoT5 said:
The title and OP is a bit misleading isn't it? My understanding from the article is that the jury couldn't reach a verdict and the CPS decided not to pursue a retrial... that is not the same as being found not guilty or innocent. So I can't help but feel you are being a bit clickbaity...
Presumably people are still innocent until proven guilty? Moonhawk said:
The image that is portrayed in these stories is that the man essentially climbs on top of and humps a passive, semi-conscious woman (i.e. the man is the active participant).
Is that accurate an accurate portrayal though?
I wonder how many of these cases involved the drunk woman actively performing felatio or jumping on top of and riding the guy - but then cannot remember doing so the next morning. How can the guy possibly be held responsible for the girls actions even if the court decide she was actually 'too drunk to give consent'.
Being too drunk isn't an excuse if you assault somebody, kill somebody whilst driving etc - yet when it comes to sex - as a woman you are totally absolved of any responsibility. All responsibility falls to the man regardless of how drunk he is - even if he was a relatively passive participant and the woman actually initiates most/all of the sex acts.
This.Is that accurate an accurate portrayal though?
I wonder how many of these cases involved the drunk woman actively performing felatio or jumping on top of and riding the guy - but then cannot remember doing so the next morning. How can the guy possibly be held responsible for the girls actions even if the court decide she was actually 'too drunk to give consent'.
Being too drunk isn't an excuse if you assault somebody, kill somebody whilst driving etc - yet when it comes to sex - as a woman you are totally absolved of any responsibility. All responsibility falls to the man regardless of how drunk he is - even if he was a relatively passive participant and the woman actually initiates most/all of the sex acts.
I guess it's down to the success of third wave feminism ideology which has woven its way into so much thinking from legislators and the media in western society. As a result women = good, can't do any wrong and even if they do it's not their fault (e.g. The guidance given to our law courts on sentencing) and men = bad, no matter what they do.
Perhaps an over generalisation but that the hub of the problem here and in other areas too.
Even that BBC documentary on DV against men by women always found an excuse for them, as somebody else on here said women are either responsible citizens able to look after themselves and take responsibility for their own decisions and actions, or they are not. At the moment feminists cherry pick when each of these circumstances apply.
Murph7355 said:
VolvoT5 said:
The title and OP is a bit misleading isn't it? My understanding from the article is that the jury couldn't reach a verdict and the CPS decided not to pursue a retrial... that is not the same as being found not guilty or innocent. So I can't help but feel you are being a bit clickbaity...
Presumably people are still innocent until proven guilty? Even when somebody is found not guilty - some people still think "ahh - but did he do it and there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.....". For that reason, an allegation like that can and does stick because of the 'no smoke without fire' brigade.
Murph7355 said:
VolvoT5 said:
The title and OP is a bit misleading isn't it? My understanding from the article is that the jury couldn't reach a verdict and the CPS decided not to pursue a retrial... that is not the same as being found not guilty or innocent. So I can't help but feel you are being a bit clickbaity...
Presumably people are still innocent until proven guilty? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff