Woman sues footballers for raping her.

[CaptainSlow]

Borroxs said:

CaptainSlow said:

Borroxs said:

Out of intrest, what would you have thought if you had come around to discover a bloke riding you....? Would it have made your perception different?

If it did would that be due to someone's sexuality? Should it make a difference in law?

My question was for the individual and how he would have reacted, not a query on the law.

I think many heterosexual men waking from a stupor to find a woman having sex with them would likely shrug it off. I think if you were a woman and found 'this happening it would be a far different result.

OK, so if we're not talking about the law, my own perspective it would depend on the specific circumstances and other factors including on whether I had previous engaged in sexual activity with the woman and also if I would have like to if I hadn't already, however, I wouldn't presume others had the same view point and I don't think many men would indeed shrug it off as you suggest.

Edited by CaptainSlow on Wednesday 18th January 12:10

[superlightr]

brrapp said:

I've been told I'm not a 'team player', always wondered what it meant..until now.

practicing their dribbling no doubt....

[amusingduck]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

That's because, like most people, you think of rape as sex without consent. Whereas that's not what rape is. As stated, rape has a very specific meaning. Just because something is similar does not make it the same. It's not pedantic at all. I'm sure you'd correct someone who said they had a VW Octavia.

How does statutory rape work then? Does the meaning of the word "rape" change when you put statutory before it?

AFAIK women can be charged with statutory rape. Statutory rape is sex without consent, because the victims are deemed too young to be able to consent.

Therefore rape = sex without consent, and his point stands that the law is inherently sexist.

[TTwiggy]

My understanding is that the woman would be charged with 'sex with a minor' and that further 'statutory rape' is not a term in UK law. I could, of course, be wrong and this post comes with the caveat that I have not googled any of this.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

amusingduck said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

That's because, like most people, you think of rape as sex without consent. Whereas that's not what rape is. As stated, rape has a very specific meaning. Just because something is similar does not make it the same. It's not pedantic at all. I'm sure you'd correct someone who said they had a VW Octavia.

How does statutory rape work then? Does the meaning of the word "rape" change when you put statutory before it?

AFAIK women can be charged with statutory rape. Statutory rape is sex without consent, because the victims are deemed too young to be able to consent.

Therefore rape = sex without consent, and his point stands that the law is inherently sexist.

I don't think a woman can be charged with statutory rape, for the same reason a woman can't be charged with rape. Joint enterprise excepted.

[amusingduck]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

amusingduck said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

That's because, like most people, you think of rape as sex without consent. Whereas that's not what rape is. As stated, rape has a very specific meaning. Just because something is similar does not make it the same. It's not pedantic at all. I'm sure you'd correct someone who said they had a VW Octavia.

How does statutory rape work then? Does the meaning of the word "rape" change when you put statutory before it?

AFAIK women can be charged with statutory rape. Statutory rape is sex without consent, because the victims are deemed too young to be able to consent.

Therefore rape = sex without consent, and his point stands that the law is inherently sexist.

I don't think a woman can be charged with statutory rape, for the same reason a woman can't be charged with rape. Joint enterprise excepted.

Hmm, a quick google suggests you're right.

Ignore my waffling then

[tommunster10]

LocoCoco said:

tommunster10 said:

Motorrad said:

Borroxs said:

Sounds 'rough'.

Not one of my brighter moments but I don't consider I was 'raped' maybe that's the key issue? Suppose some might be prepared to change their minds if they thought there was a life changing pay day in it though.

Your story is vile, I don't want to think about it that much as i've been lucky to be pretty handsome so never need to shag swamp donkeys or drunk girls.

But for example your out with some friends and blokes getting drunk, you go back to this blokes flat who you sort of know via other mates, you crash at his on sofa, next thing you wake up and he's bumming you.... you'd still tick it off as 'a bad night' and get on with your life?

Or if your wife was drunk and some bloke did this you'd say "fair enough, that's life, i'd of done the same mate"

The story of these footballers is apparently a door man said she was so drunk they were calling for an ambulance when the footballers said she could share their taxi and they'd get her back 'safe'..... next thing they take her to their's and well....it's not something i'd ever condone...vile...

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 10:18

If the bolded is true, the door man should be done as an accomplice. They are paid partly to help ensure the safety of customers. What an amazing job that guy did.

It's what the doorman admitted to anyway, not sure why they would lie, more likely to lie to cover themselves i.e. 'she was fine'. Either way romance clearly isn't dead...what a lovely couple of blokes they are nice behavior to condone.... even if we say it's not illegal to shag a girl who is pretty much passed out, it's bloody crappy way to live your life morally....vile humans in my book.

Doorman, from BBC website. (leftie conspiracy!!!!111)

"However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.
Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."
In the action it was said the players offered her a lift home in a taxi, but the driver was requested to drop all three at the flat in Armadale."

[Europa1]

tommunster10 said:

Your story is vile, I don't want to think about it that much as i've been lucky to be pretty handsome so never need to shag swamp donkeys or drunk girls.

But for example your out with some friends and blokes getting drunk, you go back to this blokes flat who you sort of know via other mates, you crash at his on sofa, next thing you wake up and he's bumming you.... you'd still tick it off as 'a bad night' and get on with your life?

Or if your wife was drunk and some bloke did this you'd say "fair enough, that's life, i'd of done the same mate"

The story of these footballers is apparently a door man said she was so drunk they were calling for an ambulance when the footballers said she could share their taxi and they'd get her back 'safe'..... next thing they take her to their's and well....it's not something i'd ever condone...vile...

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 10:18

It's "would have done the same", not "would of". Happy to help.

[tommunster10]

amusingduck said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

amusingduck said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

That's because, like most people, you think of rape as sex without consent. Whereas that's not what rape is. As stated, rape has a very specific meaning. Just because something is similar does not make it the same. It's not pedantic at all. I'm sure you'd correct someone who said they had a VW Octavia.

How does statutory rape work then? Does the meaning of the word "rape" change when you put statutory before it?

AFAIK women can be charged with statutory rape. Statutory rape is sex without consent, because the victims are deemed too young to be able to consent.

Therefore rape = sex without consent, and his point stands that the law is inherently sexist.

I don't think a woman can be charged with statutory rape, for the same reason a woman can't be charged with rape. Joint enterprise excepted.

Hmm, a quick google suggests you're right.

Ignore my waffling then

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"
I shudder and hope this is blokes with anonymity just acting hard on a forum and not reflective of how you actually live your life.

[amusingduck]

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"
I shudder and hope this is blokes with anonymity just acting hard on a forum and not reflective of how you actually live your life.

Eh?

[Justayellowbadge]

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"

Are you under clinical supervision? Nobody has said anything remotely close to that.

[tommunster10]

amusingduck said:

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"
I shudder and hope this is blokes with anonymity just acting hard on a forum and not reflective of how you actually live your life.

Eh?

You've not read all this thread have you. People are debating the legal views of rape etc and rape involving a woman on a male etc.. read it if you want to join in.
Me? I follow my morals not just the law on things like shagging women so drunk they can't stand up properly.

However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.
Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."

[TwigtheWonderkid]

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"
I shudder and hope this is blokes with anonymity just acting hard on a forum and not reflective of how you actually live your life.

Wow. I'm not sure how you've arrived at that interpretation from anything that's been posted so far.

[tommunster10]

Justayellowbadge said:

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"

Are you under clinical supervision? Nobody has said anything remotely close to that.

I can't remember saying anybody did say it? Point out to me where i did please.

Point i'm making is so what about the legal angle can't we just say its grim morally to prey on drunk women who are pretty much passed out.
The fact some blokes in life (not all about this place you know) want to argue the toss on whether if they did it they could just blame the nasty woman for getting in that situation is not something I'm happy about.

[otolith]

I think the legal treatment of rape is in some ways rooted in historical inequalities as well as current inequalities and biological realities. The woman is the one at risk of pregnancy. In the past, she'd have been the one left holding the baby, financially, and effectively ruined. And still today in some societies, being raped severely affects a woman's social status. We do have a more equal society today. Men are more accountable for their offspring, whatever the circumstances of the conception. The state will support women alone with a child. Abortion is widely available. People don't value virginity in the same way and sex outside marriage is not stigmatised. Sex is seen more as something people do together rather than something men do to women (who of course being naturally pure and virtuous merely put up with men's beastly desires). Sexually transmitted diseases go both ways.

So the consequences of unwanted sex are less severe for women than they once were, and more severe for men. Still, it seems to me that being penetrated against your will is likely to be more psychologically damaging than the converse. And the biological reality remains that it's physically more dangerous for a woman - even the morning after pill is not without risks, though it is arguable that since we consider it possible for men and women to be raped in ways which don't carry a risk of pregnancy that's not in itself sufficient reason to discriminate. I think there should be some specific offence comparable to rape covering those (relatively rare, I think, compared to the rape of women) circumstances in which a woman has sex with a male who is not competent to consent because of age, mental state or impairment.

[tommunster10]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

tommunster10 said:

Why are peoples morals so warped that they would rape a woman because "if women did it they'd not be called rapists!"
I shudder and hope this is blokes with anonymity just acting hard on a forum and not reflective of how you actually live your life.

Wow. I'm not sure how you've arrived at that interpretation from anything that's been posted so far.

Let me see: (It's not fair!!!! Thats sexist!! )

popeyewhite said:
In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

I don't care if the law IS sexist, I don't want and won't ever rape a woman. So who cares!!??

A rapist saying "well if she did it to me it would not be rape"...come on, its wrong, so few are willing to condone 2 men shagging a girl who a witness said needed an ambulance and eyes were rolling back into her head and couldn't stand up...jesus.

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 13:44

[Munter]

tommunster10 said:

Let me see: (It's not fair!!!! Thats sexist!! )

popeyewhite said:
In the eyes of the law you are absolutely correct. However for some of us less pedantic PH non lawyers it's an oddity that when a man has intercourse with a woman against her will it's rape, but when a woman has intercourse with a man against his will it's not rape. Hence my comment the law is inherently sexist.

I don't care if the law IS sexist, I don't want and won't ever rape a woman. So who cares!!??

A rapist saying "well if she did it to me it would not be rape"...come on, its wrong, so few are willing to condone 2 men shagging a girl who a witness said needed an ambulance and eyes were rolling back into her head and couldn't stand up...jesus.

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 13:44

Slow down. Read. Comprehend. Then try again. Because that just appears to be the ramblings of a mad man who's heard 1/2 a conversation and decided aliens are landing.

What you might be getting at. Is the same as the post you (through stupidity?) failed to quote properly.

[Justayellowbadge]

tommunster10 said:

so few are willing to condone 2 men shagging a girl

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 13:44

That word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

[CaptainSlow]

Justayellowbadge said:

tommunster10 said:

so few are willing to condone 2 men shagging a girl

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 13:44

That word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

Condone/Condemn similar enough surely?

[otolith]

CaptainSlow said:

Justayellowbadge said:

tommunster10 said:

so few are willing to condone 2 men shagging a girl

Edited by tommunster10 on Wednesday 18th January 13:44

That word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

Condone/Condemn similar enough surely?

I suspect that it should read "so a few are...".