Rape or.......
Discussion
Big E 118 said:
TheHeretic said:
If a woman gives up responsibility of consent when they get really drunk, why is an equally drunk man, in bed with the equally drunk woman, the bearer of the responsibility? I'll give an example, as in my post above, (please note, there is no mention of short skirts, alleys, etc).
Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
Be interested to see an answer to this question.Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
cymtriks said:
"drinking four double vodkas and lemonade and a shot of Sambucca ....
....agreed she had drunk two-thirds of a bottle of wine and the other alcohol that night."
She can't remember if that was all and also states that she usually drinks more.
Why is there political pressure to prosecute such cases? What will anyone gain from doing so? Court time will just be wasted. The portion of cases in which you will never know what really happened won't change. The portion of cases in which the woman is lying won't change.
In the interests of sexual equality, can we know her name as well as those of the two blokes?
It's only a matter of time before a bloke names his accuser and claims discrimination on the basis that dual annonimity has not been granted, was part of the current governments election pledges (IIRC) and that it is granted routinely in other countries. There's going to be a massive compensation claim one day for this.
I intensely dislike the whole process of rape prosecutions. The sex lives of the victims and attackers are laid out for all to see. I am certainly not against the prosecution of rape trials but I do think we are at the point where the conduct of the trials should be held in camera until a verdict is reached. ....agreed she had drunk two-thirds of a bottle of wine and the other alcohol that night."
She can't remember if that was all and also states that she usually drinks more.
Why is there political pressure to prosecute such cases? What will anyone gain from doing so? Court time will just be wasted. The portion of cases in which you will never know what really happened won't change. The portion of cases in which the woman is lying won't change.
In the interests of sexual equality, can we know her name as well as those of the two blokes?
It's only a matter of time before a bloke names his accuser and claims discrimination on the basis that dual annonimity has not been granted, was part of the current governments election pledges (IIRC) and that it is granted routinely in other countries. There's going to be a massive compensation claim one day for this.
I agree with cymtriks that the current weighting against the accused is clearly going to result in serious claims for unfair bias and treatment and once again, we the taxpayers will be patsies for the huge awards that will be granted.
I entirely understand that the conduct of women should not be used as a defence to rape charges. Women should be able to walk round anywhere at anytime of day or night dressed as they wish and be entirely free and able to do so. There should be no question of any of the victims conduct being used as an excuse to rape charges. Before or after the rape.
However whether it if fair that only the man can be accused of a crime when drunk beyond reason whilst the woman can claim being drunk and incapable of giving consent on the face of it seems questionable. Surely in equity drunkenness in one party cannot be different to drunkenness in another party to a sexual act. That seems to me to be inherently sexist.
IMO these are trials where no information should be published until the verdict is given. This would be a far more fair and reasonable way forward.
Derek Smith said:
TheHeretic said:
And if the man is just as drunk? What then? A drunk woman has no responsibility, so is the same applied to a man?
Are you suggesting that drunkenness should be a defence to the charge of rape?There is no suggestion that a drunken women has no responsibility.
Would you suggest that burglary should not be charged if someone did not lock their doors? Or that not fitting an imobiliser is just asking to have your car stolen?
Piersman2 said:
Sorry to disagree but you're reading far more into the 'evidence' than what is included in the story. I assume based on your experiences.
However, I read the story and if I understand there is no denial from any involved that any intercourse didn't happen. So any physical evidnce in this case appears largely irrelevant.
The question appears to be did the girl consent or not? The two players both say she did, she says 'I don't remember'. So she can't even deny that she gave consent.
I can't see how this can possibly result in a conviction, there is no evidence in the story that at any time she said 'No'.
Doesn't mean it wasn't rape, but I don't see enough information to prove or disprove, so reasonable doubt must come into play.
Perhaps the prosecution have witnesses leading up to the hotel who can vouch on the girl's behalf. I hope so because I'd be disappointed in the CPS if all they had was a girl with no memory.
And who is to say that she didn't agree to it or positively encourage the 2 players? She certainly doesn't see able to deny it based on the story.
There is more to this than just the woman's say so. The evidence reported cannot be the only evidence that has be produced. If it was then CPS would not have charged.However, I read the story and if I understand there is no denial from any involved that any intercourse didn't happen. So any physical evidnce in this case appears largely irrelevant.
The question appears to be did the girl consent or not? The two players both say she did, she says 'I don't remember'. So she can't even deny that she gave consent.
I can't see how this can possibly result in a conviction, there is no evidence in the story that at any time she said 'No'.
Doesn't mean it wasn't rape, but I don't see enough information to prove or disprove, so reasonable doubt must come into play.
Perhaps the prosecution have witnesses leading up to the hotel who can vouch on the girl's behalf. I hope so because I'd be disappointed in the CPS if all they had was a girl with no memory.
And who is to say that she didn't agree to it or positively encourage the 2 players? She certainly doesn't see able to deny it based on the story.
My assumption is that there is circumstantial evidence supporting the woman's side of the story, or possibly eye witness evidence. There was a report of video evidence.
Her evidence is that she was drugged and had no intention of giving permission. Permission obtained via drunkenness or drugs is not free permission. So if you go out to get a woman drunk so that she consents then that it rape. There was a defence, back in the 70s, where a husband organised the rape of his wife by two men and they used the defence that they had been told by the husband that she liked a bit of rough. Her protestations were ignored and the men were found NG.
Since 2002 a woman must give her conset and must have the ability and capacity to make that choice. So if a woman is drunk she is, quite clearly, unable to make that choice.
If you, as the penis, realise that she is in a stupor then you cannot have sex with her unless permission was granted before the woman became unable to give her consent due to her drunkenness/drugged state. She is raped.
The cicumstances of this particular case are obscure. However, one similar case I ran an ID parade for was where a woman went to a party, was drunk, went/was put into bed and then woke up to find a bloke on her, callapsing after the event. There was evidence that the bloke tried it on earlier but she refused him. She was too out of it to give consent. She said that had she not been out of it she would not have given consent. The question put to the bloke in interview was why he thought she would consent after the earlier refusal.
I'm not suggesting that this is what happened in this case but that circumstantial evidence can support the woman's case.
BJG1 said:
Big E 118 said:
TheHeretic said:
If a woman gives up responsibility of consent when they get really drunk, why is an equally drunk man, in bed with the equally drunk woman, the bearer of the responsibility? I'll give an example, as in my post above, (please note, there is no mention of short skirts, alleys, etc).
Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
Be interested to see an answer to this question.Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
If the woman cannot give consent it is rape, just as much as if whe was walking along the street and dragged into an alleyway. Of course it is. There is no argument. It is rape. You might not like it but it is rape. It is in the definition. It is the 2002 act.
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
Derek Smith said:
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
To clarify then, in English law a man can't be raped by a woman? Would it simply be classed as sexual assault or something if a man were drunk and slept with a woman he wouldn't usually when sober if no permission were given by him?If a man is unable to give consent to sex with a woman is a crime committed?
Edited by Mr Sparkle on Friday 13th April 00:54
Mr Sparkle said:
Derek Smith said:
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
To clarify then, in English law a man can't be raped by a woman? Would it simply be classed as sexual assault or something if a man were drunk and slept with a woman he wouldn't usually when sober if no permission were given by him?If a man is unable to give consent to sex with a woman is a crime committed?
Edited by Mr Sparkle on Friday 13th April 00:54
Sexual Offences Act 2003 said:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/sectio...(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
If a lady forced herself on a man, it would be section 3 Sexual Assault, unless she used a dildo, a finger, or similar on the man's anus, in which case it would be section 2 Assault by Penetration. A section 2 offence carries a maximum sentence of Life, same as rape.
A section 3 offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, and strictly speaking would be the worst that a lady could be charged with for non-consensual intercourse unless she had poo on her fingers.
-edit-
More generally on this story, Ken Clarke was right, wasn't he?
Derek Smith said:
A woman gives up responsibility when she gets drunk?
If the woman cannot give consent it is rape, just as much as if whe was walking along the street and dragged into an alleyway. Of course it is. There is no argument. It is rape. You might not like it but it is rape. It is in the definition. It is the 2002 act.
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
Are you going to answer Heretic's question or not? You've had 8+ hours of dodging the question. Now man up and answer the question.If the woman cannot give consent it is rape, just as much as if whe was walking along the street and dragged into an alleyway. Of course it is. There is no argument. It is rape. You might not like it but it is rape. It is in the definition. It is the 2002 act.
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
JDRoest said:
Are you going to answer Heretic's question or not? You've had 8+ hours of dodging the question. Now man up and answer the question.
He already answered it. The law (as I quoted above) says that rape must involve a "person" putting a penis into an orifice without consent. No penis, no rape.Names should not be published until found guilty.
Why isnt her name published, maybe she cant remember it, if it was perhaps someone might remember she pulled this stunt before, if she did.
The media seem only too willing publishing mens names in these cases, or dont tell me her name was witheld for legal reasons, like what may I ask?
Why isnt her name published, maybe she cant remember it, if it was perhaps someone might remember she pulled this stunt before, if she did.
The media seem only too willing publishing mens names in these cases, or dont tell me her name was witheld for legal reasons, like what may I ask?
Edited by Vipers on Friday 13th April 07:21
grumbledoak said:
It seems that Derek is talking about Law, not Morality.
As far as I can tell most 'Date Rapes' are alcohol, not Rohyopnol. I've never met a woman who couldn't say "No" and mean it.
Try hanging around some of the street urchins seen puking up in a town centre of a weekend. I'm not sure they respect themselves, or thier own body's to any large degree. Talk to any social worker and it's patently obvious many girls either put themselves or find themselves in a sexually compromised situation quite often. The whole yes/ no thing is hazy if you have no concept of morality, if I had a daughter that was going home with lads from nite clubs then i wouldn't sleep at nite!. How drunk is drunk by the way, what's the milligrams in a girls blood before she is unable to give consent, 'drunk' is quite a vague description. As far as I can tell most 'Date Rapes' are alcohol, not Rohyopnol. I've never met a woman who couldn't say "No" and mean it.
A friend of mine was accused of rape, but the woman's case turned out to be a pack of lies which even her friends decided not to go along with in the end so he was found not guilty. In a small town being accused of that sort of crime is basically the end of you having a normal life, it caused huge distress to him and his family and he eventually moved abroad to try and start his life again.
I really feel that both parties should be given the option of anonymity until the man is found guilty.
I really feel that both parties should be given the option of anonymity until the man is found guilty.
I'm reading this thread and thinking:
"Thank God the women in the "Dealing with the Mental" are usually dumb as door knob!"
I can see some potential for some serious issues here.
She "drinks", gets some sex, it was rape.
Textbook screw up someone's live.
Back on topic, this is very very confusing. She doesn't remember a thing? Now what?
"Thank God the women in the "Dealing with the Mental" are usually dumb as door knob!"
I can see some potential for some serious issues here.
She "drinks", gets some sex, it was rape.
Textbook screw up someone's live.
Back on topic, this is very very confusing. She doesn't remember a thing? Now what?
Darkk said:
I'm reading this thread and thinking:
"Thank God the women in the "Dealing with the Mental" are usually dumb as door knob!"
I can see some potential for some serious issues here.
She "drinks", gets some sex, it was rape.
Textbook screw up someone's live.
Back on topic, this is very very confusing. She doesn't remember a thing? Now what?
Well with two saying it was consensual, and the other party cant remember anything, one would think its a no brainer wouldnt one?"Thank God the women in the "Dealing with the Mental" are usually dumb as door knob!"
I can see some potential for some serious issues here.
She "drinks", gets some sex, it was rape.
Textbook screw up someone's live.
Back on topic, this is very very confusing. She doesn't remember a thing? Now what?
This really isn't easy.
We are dealing with subjective questions. Did she give her consent? Even if she did give her consent, was she in a fit state to understand what she was agreeing to?
On the one hand, we have the possibility of a woman who was made to have sex against her will - which I think (hope) everyone will agree is rape. You can't have sex with a sleeping woman on the grounds that "she didn't say no". And I think it's the same with someone who is insensible through drink. What we used to call "taking advantage" of a woman.
But on the other hand we have the possibility that the two men genuinely did not realise that she was saying "no" or might say have said no if she wasn't rat-arsed. She might have been a fully willing partner.
That's the problem. She might have been raped or she might not. It's hard for us to know on the basis of the little information in the news reports.
The two extremes seem perfectly clear. The really tricky bit is the grey bit in the middle. Just how drunk do you need to have to be to be incapable of making a decision for yourself? How are men supposed to know the difference between a slightly drunk woman saying yes and a very drunk woman saying yes (but who really might mean no)???
I really truthfully don't know how to call this one. I can't see a right or wrong answer and I suspect there isn't one. No-one knows what happened in this case and all of the witnesses are unreliable. It is possible that a crime has been committed, but it is also possible that the men are innocent.
I did jury service many moons ago and served as a juror in three minor cases, none of them rapes. In two of the three cases, the jury was pretty sure of the verdict - one innocent and one guilty. But in the third case we just could not decide. It was one person's word against another, both seemed as credible as each other (or equally lacking in credibility), there was no other evidence. We simply could not reach a decision within the burden of proof required - "sure beyond reasonable doubt". We just didn't know.
It seems to me that this case is like that one. We just don't know. And in general when lots of alcohol is mixed in with having sex with a stranger, I think there will be a lot of "just don't knows" there too.
We are dealing with subjective questions. Did she give her consent? Even if she did give her consent, was she in a fit state to understand what she was agreeing to?
On the one hand, we have the possibility of a woman who was made to have sex against her will - which I think (hope) everyone will agree is rape. You can't have sex with a sleeping woman on the grounds that "she didn't say no". And I think it's the same with someone who is insensible through drink. What we used to call "taking advantage" of a woman.
But on the other hand we have the possibility that the two men genuinely did not realise that she was saying "no" or might say have said no if she wasn't rat-arsed. She might have been a fully willing partner.
That's the problem. She might have been raped or she might not. It's hard for us to know on the basis of the little information in the news reports.
The two extremes seem perfectly clear. The really tricky bit is the grey bit in the middle. Just how drunk do you need to have to be to be incapable of making a decision for yourself? How are men supposed to know the difference between a slightly drunk woman saying yes and a very drunk woman saying yes (but who really might mean no)???
I really truthfully don't know how to call this one. I can't see a right or wrong answer and I suspect there isn't one. No-one knows what happened in this case and all of the witnesses are unreliable. It is possible that a crime has been committed, but it is also possible that the men are innocent.
I did jury service many moons ago and served as a juror in three minor cases, none of them rapes. In two of the three cases, the jury was pretty sure of the verdict - one innocent and one guilty. But in the third case we just could not decide. It was one person's word against another, both seemed as credible as each other (or equally lacking in credibility), there was no other evidence. We simply could not reach a decision within the burden of proof required - "sure beyond reasonable doubt". We just didn't know.
It seems to me that this case is like that one. We just don't know. And in general when lots of alcohol is mixed in with having sex with a stranger, I think there will be a lot of "just don't knows" there too.
JDRoest said:
Derek Smith said:
A woman gives up responsibility when she gets drunk?
If the woman cannot give consent it is rape, just as much as if whe was walking along the street and dragged into an alleyway. Of course it is. There is no argument. It is rape. You might not like it but it is rape. It is in the definition. It is the 2002 act.
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
Are you going to answer Heretic's question or not? You've had 8+ hours of dodging the question. Now man up and answer the question.If the woman cannot give consent it is rape, just as much as if whe was walking along the street and dragged into an alleyway. Of course it is. There is no argument. It is rape. You might not like it but it is rape. It is in the definition. It is the 2002 act.
A woman cannot be the principal in the rape of a man.
TheHeretic said:
If a woman is too drunk to take responsibility for consent, does a drunken man equally have that same surrender of responsibility? Remember that if they are both drunk, the drunk woman could well accuse the drunk man of rape, hence my question. If a drunk woman surrenders their responsibility for consent, does the same apply to a drunk man, or is a drunk man to retain all responsibility?
This is not to excuse a drunk man raping someone, but if at a party, a very drunk woman, and a very drunk man, end up in bed, the responsibility is on the shoulders of just one party.
By just getting drunk a woman does not give up responsbility. If she did not give consent to penetration before getting drunk then she cannot give it when incapable of making that decision. It is not something that she does. The act of penetration is something that the man does to her.This is not to excuse a drunk man raping someone, but if at a party, a very drunk woman, and a very drunk man, end up in bed, the responsibility is on the shoulders of just one party.
So she surrenders nothing, certainly not responsbility, as the onus is on the man not to do some act where informed consent was not given. Her drunkenness is material merely to the lack of consent.
You lose no rights nor obligations by being drunk.
So, yes, the responsbility is on the shoulders of the one person, the man penetrating.
Look at it by way of another penetrative act. You were too drunk to lock the front door when you came in. A burglar enters you house. Does your drunkenness somehow make the offence less culpable? Further, if the burglar is drunk does that make his (or her in this case) actions less culpable?
Sorry for not making my point clear enough for your earlier. I thought I had. There was no intent to avoid the question. Just the opposite.
At the risk of stirring the pot (I am genuinely curious not trying to troll), the question of consent has always fascinated me. Also to put this into context I'm a woman, in case that makes any difference.
Rape in some scenarios/settings is easy to judge - obviously someone has forced themselves on someone else. But what consitutes consent? Is it clearly someone asking "do you want to have sex" and the other person saying "yes"? At what point is someone too drunk to give consent? If you wake up the next morning and think - omg what did I do, I can't believe I slept with him, I must've had my beer goggles on he's awful.... then were you too drunk to give consent? Or do we explicitly mean unconscious, or close to it?
Hpoefully in the case here there is additional evidence, because I can believe that in some situations (no idea about this one) just because a woman canot remember, does not mean she was non-consensual at the time.
I also understand what some of the guys are saying in that - what if the guy is so mega drunk that he hardly has any idea what he's doing? Of course it doesn't make rape acceptable in any way shape or form, but then this isn't an easy topic.
Rape in some scenarios/settings is easy to judge - obviously someone has forced themselves on someone else. But what consitutes consent? Is it clearly someone asking "do you want to have sex" and the other person saying "yes"? At what point is someone too drunk to give consent? If you wake up the next morning and think - omg what did I do, I can't believe I slept with him, I must've had my beer goggles on he's awful.... then were you too drunk to give consent? Or do we explicitly mean unconscious, or close to it?
Hpoefully in the case here there is additional evidence, because I can believe that in some situations (no idea about this one) just because a woman canot remember, does not mean she was non-consensual at the time.
I also understand what some of the guys are saying in that - what if the guy is so mega drunk that he hardly has any idea what he's doing? Of course it doesn't make rape acceptable in any way shape or form, but then this isn't an easy topic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff