Flirty women are blamed for rape

[Deleted User]

FR - you're not old fashioned at all. Moral fibre isn't something to be sneered at as obsolete or stupid.

Avalaf

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

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!

:-/

[Deleted User]

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

Looking forward to the social Oxy?

Avalaf

There is a world of difference between drunk or incapacitated. Drunk people don't appear drunk to drunk people.

[Deleted User]

(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

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

We all know you cant perform after half a pint of shandy anyway ) Well according to Rosey and Candy anyway.

Im hoping to be there but looking less likely.

oxymoron

Sorry to hear that mate. Take it easy, there will be plenty more socials.

Duck Girl

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.

Corinthian

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).

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

As does Mrs BTW.

Wouldn't want anyone to think she didn't have a say.

JFB

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.