Flirty women are blamed for rape

This makes my blood boil!

181 to 196 of 196 messages
JFB
24/11/2005 at 14:04
Stump, I'm afaid 'informed consent' isn't a concept relating to rape, but to medical procedures. Rape is about non-consensual sex, and requires the perpetrator to be aware that it is non-consensual.
You couldn't have a law which says that drunken consent isn't consent, unless you limit it to conditions which would be obvious and out of the ordinary. Otherwise, well, what is a bloke supposed to do - breathalyse any woman who's had any alcohol and get her to repeat tongue-twisters if she asks him to bed? If you can come up with a formulation that is unambiguous and you could expect people to be able readily to identify in practice, then you'd be talking.

24/11/2005 at 14:04
FR - you're not old fashioned at all. Moral fibre isn't something to be sneered at as obsolete or stupid.
24/11/2005 at 14:10
If I'm being honest I would have to say that I have rarely had sex when I haven't been drunk and the person with me has been drunk too.

Does this mean I am up for potential prosecution because the person wakes up beside me and thinks, god he's ugly no way did I give consent to that????

The reality is that in the singles/dating world you are probably under the influence of alcohol when you get into bed with someone. That applies to on going relationships aswell as one night stands(which I think I may have had two of in 20 years).

I don't think it's quite as simple as if you've had a few beers(or more), then you should refrain from having intercourse with someone or run the risk of being charged for rape. Or that if they have had a few beers that you need to have it in writing and in triplicate to feel secure of not getting prosecuted.
oxymoron    pirate
24/11/2005 at 14:14
I agree totally Avalaf.

And by the earlier definitions of rape as given by stump I am a rapist!!








Christ that doesn’t look so good written down!

:-/
24/11/2005 at 14:15
FR - I don't think you're old-fashioned either. Like Corinthian, you wouldn't take advantage of a drunk or incapacitated woman.

There are people that would. Unfortunately.
Bouncing Barlist    pirate
24/11/2005 at 14:17
Looking forward to the social Oxy?
24/11/2005 at 14:21
There is a world of difference between drunk or incapacitated. Drunk people don't appear drunk to drunk people.
24/11/2005 at 14:24
(by drunk I mean REALLY drunk. As in unable to talk.)

I've had sex quite a few times when drunk. It's not as pleasurable as it could be - alcohol is an anaesthetic so you miss out on so much of the experience.
oxymoron    pirate
24/11/2005 at 14:25
and there is a massive difference between incapacitated and decapitated. Sorry I'm in a silly mood.

Barlist, hopefully that is a question quite seperate from the rape one!

Exactly again Avalaf. Plus some people have very poor memories after drinking and some dont. It would be quite possible for two people to be similarly drunk and both consent willingly to sex and then for one party to remember nothing about it the following day.
Bouncing Barlist    pirate
24/11/2005 at 14:29
We all know you cant perform after half a pint of shandy anyway :o) Well according to Rosey and Candy anyway.

Im hoping to be there but looking less likely.
oxymoron    pirate
24/11/2005 at 14:37
Sorry to hear that mate. Take it easy, there will be plenty more socials.
Duck Girl    pirate
24/11/2005 at 14:49
i think the law is that sex with someone who is unconscious is always defined as rape.

it's only since 1994 that rape within marriage has been illegal in the UK.

whilst the aberystwth case is blurring the edges, whatever happened it hardly reflects well on the man involved.

and i am really surprised that there was doubt about whether Mrs FR could be a reliable witness. We actually did a bit on 'impaired witnesses' for A level psychology (so hardly advanced stuff!), and the conclusion was that people with autism were more reliable rather than less, provided they understood the question.
24/11/2005 at 14:54
One of the women I was referring to in an earlier post gave a very vivid description of knowing what was going on, but being unable to prevent it... 'Rather like that feeling some people experience when waking of being conscious but unable to react to one's surroundings, temporal and spatial distortion and real physical paralysis'

(Which made me suspect that some foul play was afoot re spiked drinks).



24/11/2005 at 15:05
Yes I don't think I put that very well, DG. I think the worry was more that Mrs would be "tricked" by ambiguous questions, and although she could be protected from being deliberately misled, a clever lawyer would test just how far he/or she could go without getting pulled up about it.

As I said - in the end the CPS felt they did have a case, but we all felt that Mrs FR's welfare came first. I do still agree with that point of view.
24/11/2005 at 15:07
As does Mrs BTW.

Wouldn't want anyone to think she didn't have a say.
JFB
24/11/2005 at 15:56
DG - right on all counts (well, the House of Lords ruling in R v R declaring that you could have rape even where the complainant and defendant were or had been married was in late 1991).

I think the difficulty is in defining a state less than unconscious where the woman shouldn't be 'taken advantage of' whatever she may say or do which is going to be sufficiently clear to a man for a jury to be able to say: yup, we're sure he must have (or ought to have) realised she wasn't in a state to give meaningful consent.

Spiked drinks is a bit worrying - I couldn't believe the recent article about how often that happens.

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
181 to 196 of 196 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums