NationStates Jolt Archive

A rape victim who was told her compensation would be cut because she had been drinking before the attack has had the decision overturned.

The 25-year-old, who was raped after a night out, had been told the standard £11,000 award would be cut by 25%.

But her lawyer successfully argued it was wrong to regard alcohol consumption as a contributing factor in rape cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7555299.stm

Is this the right decision - or should compensation be cut if the victim has been drinking?

I feel that it is absolutely right to see the decision overturned. We have too much of a culture of 'if you do something to make yourself more vulnerable, the rape becomes your fault'. It's ridiculous how many people still feel that a women who wears revealing clothes somehow is 'asking for it'.

If you leave your front door unlocked, you're an idiot. But just because you have been an idiot doesn't mean that you deserve to be burgled, and the law won't investigate whoever committed the crime. It's the same with rape - no matter what you think of the person and how they behave, if they are raped then they are the victim, and nothing they did can take away the fact that a crime was committed.

On the other side, there is the argument that this is not about whether the rape is wrong, as it is a claim for compensation. It is therefore a different question than 'did she deserve it'; it is 'should she get the full amount, or should it be reduced due to some blameworthiness on her part?' If you have a car crash, for example, then even though it's not your fault you might have the compensation reduced because you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Can the same be applied to rape?

Agreed. Rape is unfortunately still one of the few crimes where the victim ends up on trial as much as the rapist and this needs to change.

There is no excuse for drink or indeed any other factor affecting the compensation of rape victims or indeed the victim of any sort of interpersonal violence.

Alcohol absolutely is a factor in many rapes, since men who have been drinking have a higher likelihood of committing rape.

Which is why it's so frustrating that such stories focus on what the VICTIM is doing. Girls and women are told that they shouldn't drink, shouldn't go to bars, shouldn't even let a drop pass their lips, because they might get themselves raped...yet where are the articles exhorting men to avoid all drinking so that they reduce their odds of RAPING SOMEBODY?

It's like being penalised for having stuff in your house likely to attract a burgalar.

I have to say that article suprised me. I know you still get the odd idiot Judge whose pickled brain is back in some different time continuum, but for fucks sake......

Nor should drink be a mitigating factor in the decision to commit rape.

Your drink. Your choice.

*is drunk*
*leaves again*

oh good lord.

i read the title and thought "yes it is, especially in date rape where a rapist might cross the line due to lowered inhibitions." not that that would excuse anyone, its just a contributing reason to why a rape happened.

but someone thinks that drinking makes it partially the VICTIM'S fault? no no its not.

Agreed. Rape is unfortunately still one of the few crimes where the victim ends up on trial as much as the rapist and this needs to change.

There is no excuse for drink or indeed any other factor affecting the compensation of rape victims or indeed the victim of any sort of interpersonal violence.

The only problem with this is that after drinking, you can get memory loss or act differently. So few rape cases come to court because it ends up just being one persons word against anothers, and that isn't sufficient to have someone sentanced. This is especially true as if the person raped had been drinking/was drunk at the time, the jury will look negatively upon them for it, as it means they will have been less able to observe or even remember the situation.

Alcohol absolutely is a factor in many rapes, since men who have been drinking have a higher likelihood of committing rape.

Which is why it's so frustrating that such stories focus on what the VICTIM is doing. Girls and women are told that they shouldn't drink, shouldn't go to bars, shouldn't even let a drop pass their lips, because they might get themselves raped...yet where are the articles exhorting men to avoid all drinking so that they reduce their odds of RAPING SOMEBODY?

This is a damn fine question. We know that drinking can lead to all sorts of idiotic and/or criminal behavior like rape, drunk driving, etc etc etc. Why then do we see commercials on TV saying "Get a designated driver!" instead of "Try not drinking so damn much, idiot."

I don't know whether it's fair to reduce compensation if the victim was drinking or not. Maybe there's a case by case basis. I mean, in our society we already sort of have this idea that on some level we're responsible for protecting ourselves to some reasonable level. If I routinely leave my car doors unlocked and it's subsequently burglarized, I'd better not let the insurance adjuster know I leave the doors unlocked or they may not pay my claim. Does that make the burglary my fault? No, but by failing to take reasonable precautions to protect myself I made the incident more likely to occur, or that it was more likely to happen to ME than to someone else this way... and that would appear to count for something.

I don't know how to apply that to a rape case but I do think the issue is worth talking about.

The problem with victims being drunk is they could have been black out drunk. Now couldn't that lead to a possible misidentification of the perpetrator? Or maybe the woman even gave the man consent, but had no recollection of it? Hell, I could even see rape being used against a person when it never actually took place, that Duke case was a perfect example.

I'm not saying this is a definite, but don't you think there's possibilities of things going awry when the victim is drunk?

Is she being compensated by her rapist or by the government?

Is she being compensated by her rapist or by the government?

Considering the rapist was never found according to the news story, and they're talking about a governmental body that compensates for things like this, I'd say the government is the one paying up.

The problem with victims being drunk is they could have been black out drunk. Now couldn't that lead to a possible misidentification of the perpetrator? Or maybe the woman even gave the man consent, but had no recollection of it? Hell, I could even see rape being used against a person when it never actually took place, that Duke case was a perfect example.

I'm not saying this is a definite, but don't you think there's possibilities of things going awry when the victim is drunk?
of course there are things that go awry when you are drunk. especially if you drink until you pass out.

that doesnt make you responsible for crimes committed against you.

Or maybe the woman even gave the man consent, but had no recollection of it?

This is still rape. If you're drunk enough for memory loss to occur, you're definitely too drunk to legally consent.

Misidentification is a legitimate concern, of course.

The problem with victims being drunk is they could have been black out drunk. Now couldn't that lead to a possible misidentification of the perpetrator?

Hooray for DNA testing!

Also, please remember that most rapes are committed by somebody the victim knew. It's not about picking a stranger from a line-up in most cases.


Or maybe the woman even gave the man consent, but had no recollection of it? Hell, I could even see rape being used against a person when it never actually took place, that Duke case was a perfect example.

Please don't go there. Seriously.


I'm not saying this is a definite, but don't you think there's possibilities of things going awry when the victim is drunk?

The best way to avoid such situations is to not rape anybody.

If somebody is too drunk to know what they're doing, don't fuck them. If somebody is so drunk they're passing out, don't fuck them.

More importantly, if YOU are too drunk to know what you're doing and to make such assessments clearly, DON'T FUCK ANYBODY AT ALL.

It's not anybody else's responsibility to babysit you and prevent you from raping. It's your own damn fault if you get too drunk to make good decisions and you end up crashing your car or starting a fight or raping somebody. So don't be fucking stupid.

The problem with victims being drunk is they could have been black out drunk. Now couldn't that lead to a possible misidentification of the perpetrator? Or maybe the woman even gave the man consent, but had no recollection of it? Hell, I could even see rape being used against a person when it never actually took place, that Duke case was a perfect example.

I'm not saying this is a definite, but don't you think there's possibilities of things going awry when the victim is drunk?


That's why if a person is indeed sexually assaulted, they should get a medical examine ASAP. It will not only prove that the person was subject to forced penetration but the examiner will be able to find the DNA that will in the end identify the assailant.

This is still rape. If you're drunk enough for memory loss to occur, you're definitely too drunk to legally consent.

Misidentification is a legitimate concern, of course.
Yes, it's an issue in getting the right person convicted, but that's what the trial is for.

And in reference to compensation for the victim of the crime, it is not relevant, because if, as in the OP case, the state is paying the compensation, then all they have to prove is that a rape occurred, not who did it, or if the rapist is paying up, he will already have been convicted of the crime and thus, we hope, proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

<snip>

It's not anybody else's responsibility to babysit you and prevent you from raping. It's your own damn fault if you get too drunk to make good decisions and you end up crashing your car or starting a fight or raping somebody. So don't be fucking stupid.
QUOTED FOR GOD DAMNED TRUTH!

That's why if a person is indeed sexually assaulted, they should get a medical examine ASAP. It will not only prove that the person was subject to forced penetration but the examiner will be able to find the DNA that will in the end identify the assailant.
This is true, but unfortunately, in the case of rape of a person who is drunk or drugged to the point of unconsciousness or memory loss, it may be a while before they realize anything is physically wrong with them to show that they were attacked. In that time, evidence can be lost.

Also, victims still face the prospect of social stigma against rape victims, which often makes the prospect of talking about it to authorities almost as terrifying as the attack itself. To get women to exercise their rights as victims, we MUST educate public authorities properly.

That's why if a person is indeed sexually assaulted, they should get a medical examine ASAP. It will not only prove that the person was subject to forced penetration but the examiner will be able to find the DNA that will in the end identify the assailant.

Easier said than done. Rape is a highly traumatic event and many victims will not necessarily be thinking clearly after the assault. Even more a liable to blame themselves and fear going to the police due to either being not believed or the trauma of having to relive it all during an investigation/trial. Many may wish to try and forget it ever happened, especially straight after the event, and so the idea of having to remain in the same sort of state the rapist left you in (on the principle tht getting cleaned up is liable to get rid of DNA evidence) is unpleasant to say the least.

There are so many many reasons it's just not that simple.

This is true, but unfortunately, in the case of rape of a person who is drunk or drugged to the point of unconsciousness or memory loss, it may be a while before they realize anything is physically wrong with them to show that they were attacked. In that time, evidence can be lost.

That is very true.

Also, victims still face the prospect of social stigma against rape victims, which often makes the prospect of talking about it to authorities almost as terrifying as the attack itself. To get women to exercise their rights as victims, we MUST educate public authorities properly.

Not just public authorities but public in general. From an early age people should know that if they're assaulted or harassed that seeking help is not only advised but encouraged.

You're right about the education bit. It needs more emphasis.

Yes, it's an issue in getting the right person convicted, but that's what the trial is for.

And in reference to compensation for the victim of the crime, it is not relevant, because if, as in the OP case, the state is paying the compensation, then all they have to prove is that a rape occurred, not who did it, or if the rapist is paying up, he will already have been convicted of the crime and thus, we hope, proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, naturally. I didn't mean to suggest that it should have any bearing on compensation. I just wanted the quoted poster to know I wasn't deliberately picking on one part of his post and ignoring the rest.

Easier said than done. Rape is a highly traumatic event and many victims will not necessarily be thinking clearly after the assault. Even more a liable to blame themselves and fear going to the police due to either being not believed or the trauma of having to relive it all during an investigation/trial. Many may wish to try and forget it ever happened, especially straight after the event, and so the idea of having to remain in the same sort of state the rapist left you in (on the principle tht getting cleaned up is liable to get rid of DNA evidence) is unpleasant to say the least.

There are so many many reasons it's just not that simple.

That's why there needs to be empowering education available to both men and women so that both know what their rights are (as either gender can fall victim to it).

Alcohol absolutely is a factor in many rapes, since men who have been drinking have a higher likelihood of committing rape.

Which is why it's so frustrating that such stories focus on what the VICTIM is doing. Girls and women are told that they shouldn't drink, shouldn't go to bars, shouldn't even let a drop pass their lips, because they might get themselves raped...yet where are the articles exhorting men to avoid all drinking so that they reduce their odds of RAPING SOMEBODY?

There was a time, long ago, where if a man found himself in a situation where he was with a drunken female, he would behave as a gentleman and make sure she got home ok, and not take advantage of her while she was incapacitated (physically or mentally).

Now, of course, society places zero value on men acting like gentlemen. Our behavior is bound only by the law, as the stellar example of the rich, powerful, and famous provide to us.

There was a time, long ago, where if a man found himself in a situation where he was with a drunken female, he would behave as a gentleman and make sure she got home ok, and not take advantage of her while she was incapacitated (physically or mentally).

Now, of course, society places zero value on men acting like gentlemen. Our behavior is bound only by the law, as the stellar example of the rich, powerful, and famous provide to us.
Was there really such a time? I wonder...

I wonder because I am not convinced that MORE men are likely to rape, or that ALL men are more likely to rape, now than in earlier times (like 50 years ago). That's not how my sense of human nature works. I tend to believe that there are people who would commit such an act, and other people who would never feel the urge to commit such an act, and their numbers in a population group tend to remain fairly stable.

However, I agree that society today -- at least US society -- does not value and reward civilized and/or altruistic behavior. Society today instead promotes an attitude of self-centeredness and selfishness that encourages individuals to seek and even demand satisfaction for their own desires before or to the exclusion of all else.

I may not be convinced that a woman drunk to the point of incapacity would be at less risk 50 years ago than now of being raped by one of the number of people in the world who are likely to commit rape. But I do think that, back in the day, people who were not likely to commit rape would have been more likely to intervene on behalf of the drunk woman. Being aware of the condition she was in, they would not have let her toddle off by herself into the streets, or try to drive her car, or whatever. Nowadays, despite all the "friends don't let friends drive drunk" messages, people are actively discouraged from taking control over another person like that -- by taking away their car keys or restraining them from leaving a place until a cab can be gotten for them, etc. The message instead is that we either don't have any right to intervene or any responsibility to intervene, or both.

But that doesn't really address the ambient threat of rape in society.

That's why there needs to be empowering education available to both men and women so that both know what their rights are (as either gender can fall victim to it).

Agreed. although, even with these factors, many probably won't come forward immediately simply because it is a highly traumatic event and for some people how they cope with such traumatic events is often to try and forget about it or pretend it never happens. It's only later, once they have calmed down from the immediate psychological shock that they may come forward.

As such as well as more education, changes to try and make the police more approachable and more in terms of rape crisis centres/hotlines (for both genders). There also needs to be greater understanding within the criminal justice system (from police to prosecutors to jurors) of *why* victims may not come forward immediately and that this shouldn't prejudice a prosecution over and above the fact that there will be less physical evidence.

There was a time, long ago, where if a man found himself in a situation where he was with a drunken female, he would behave as a gentleman and make sure she got home ok, and not take advantage of her while she was incapacitated (physically or mentally).

Um...no, there really wasn't.

There was, however, a time when rape victims were punished so universally and so completely that they seldom, if ever, came forward, and even when they did they were almost always ignored and condemned. This helped perpetuate the false impression that rape never happened.

There was also a time when Good Girls didn't drink or end up alone with a male in the first place, and therefore any female who found herself in such a situation was Clearly Asking For It and therefore could not have been raped. This novel twist on the No True Scotsman fallacy is only very slowly being purged from the general consciousness.


Now, of course, society places zero value on men acting like gentlemen. Our behavior is bound only by the law, as the stellar example of the rich, powerful, and famous provide to us.
Yawn.

I don't value men 'acting like gentlemen' at all, and that's got buggerall to do with this subject. I want men to act like fucking grown-ups and obey the basic kindergarten rules of morality: keep your hands to yourselves, and don't take something that isn't yours. Pretty damn simple.

"Gentlemen" raped as often as non-gentlemen, back in the day, and gentlemen were much more likely to get away with it.

Personally, I think men are capable of treating women like human beings without needing to buy into some antiquated sexist behavior code. Just treat ALL PEOPLE with dignity and quit trying to shove your dick where it isn't wanted.

Because just because a man is drunk doesn't mean he's going to rape somebody?

the noise you hear is the point racing right over your head.

the noise you hear is the point racing right over your head.
Yeah, that one earns an epic *facepalm*.

Um...no, there really wasn't.

There was, however, a time when rape victims were punished so universally and so completely that they seldom, if ever, came forward, and even when they did they were almost always ignored and condemned. This helped perpetuate the false impression that rape never happened.

There was also a time when Good Girls didn't drink or end up alone with a male in the first place, and therefore any female who found herself in such a situation was Clearly Asking For It and therefore could not have been raped. This novel twist on the No True Scotsman fallacy is only very slowly being purged from the general consciousness.

<snip>
This is also true. It was not that there were fewer rapes -- only fewer reports and even fewer trials and precious few convictions out of that. That is another reason why I don't think the actual incidence of rape is what has changed in society. Only awareness of it and willingness to talk about it has risen.

the noise you hear is the point racing right over your head.

Yeah, that one earns an epic *facepalm*.
It could cause one to despair, almost.

It could cause one to despair, almost.

I would dispair if I had come to expect anything different from that particular poster.

the noise you hear is the point racing right over your head.

*Rereads* Dang. You're right. /facepalm

Yawn.

I only have to obey the law.

Most people take that a step further - they only have to avoid being caught.

Yawn.

I only have to obey the law.

Most people take that a step further - they only have to avoid being caught.
Yeah, these kids today don't have any respect, dagnabbit.

Back in the day, we had chivalry and honor and all the puppies were named Lancelot and men pulled the chair out for a woman instead of raping her. But then we lost sight of our Traditional Values and now all the young folks are raping each other and dancing to that "jazz" music and ignoring the laws.

I, for one, blame the liberal media.

I think the court should go further and introduce tests to factor intellegence when determining compensation.

oh wait, that would be barbaric and going beyond pointless spite:p

I only have to obey the law.

surely even a 5 year old goes further with that due to the jazz about golden rule

surely even a 5 year old goes further with that due to the jazz about golden rule
Yeah, well what do 5 year olds know?:tongue:

Yeah, well what do 5 year olds know?:tongue:

how to get away with murder :wink:

Norwegian Court Convicts First Woman for Rape

Thu Apr 28, 9:15 AM ET

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian court has sentenced a woman to nine months in jail for raping a man, the first such conviction in the Scandinavian country that prides itself for its egalitarianism.

The 31-year-old man fell asleep on a sofa at a party in January last year and told the court in the western city of Bergen he woke to find the 23-year-old woman was having oral sex with him.

Under Norwegian law, all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.

The court sentenced the woman Wednesday to nine months in jail and ordered her to pay 40,000 Norwegian crowns ($6,355) in compensation.

"This is a very harsh sentence," the woman's lawyer, Per Magne Kristiansen, told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The woman argued the man had been awake and consented.

The prosecutor had sought a 10-month sentence and argued the court should not be more lenient with a woman than a man. It was Norway's first conviction of a woman for rape.

Norway has long traditions of equality -- 40 percent of the cabinet of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, for instance, are women.


I will now seek passage to Norway where they are at least enlightened enough to recognize that women should pay for the privilege of fellating us.

Yeah, these kids today don't have any respect, dagnabbit.

Back in the day, we had chivalry and honor and all the puppies were named Lancelot and men pulled the chair out for a woman instead of raping her. But then we lost sight of our Traditional Values and now all the young folks are raping each other and dancing to that "jazz" music and ignoring the laws.

I, for one, blame the liberal media.

Well, once we realized that the puppies named Lanelot and the chair-pulling wasn't getting us the kinky sex...

Alcohol absolutely is a factor in many rapes, since men who have been drinking have a higher likelihood of committing rape.

Which is why it's so frustrating that such stories focus on what the VICTIM is doing. Girls and women are told that they shouldn't drink, shouldn't go to bars, shouldn't even let a drop pass their lips, because they might get themselves raped...yet where are the articles exhorting men to avoid all drinking so that they reduce their odds of RAPING SOMEBODY?

There has been a fairly recent change to the laws in Canada to deal with alcohol as a contributing factor. The changes make it clear...it NEVER is a contributing factor. Being drunk off your nut does not give you any defence when it comes to perpetrating sexual assault, and consent is vitiated by extreme drunkness on the other person's part.

Before that, extreme drunkeness was often raised as a partial defence..."I was just too smashed to notice she was screaming no"..... or, "She was so drunk and saying yes...I mean...she SAID yes...."

That's why if a person is indeed sexually assaulted, they should get a medical examine ASAP. It will not only prove that the person was subject to forced penetration but the examiner will be able to find the DNA that will in the end identify the assailant.

You're making entirely too many assumptions here.

One, that assault is only committed if there is 'penetration'...two, that even assuming penetration it will have been rough enough to pass as 'forced' and three, that there will be any sort of fluids or samples left behind at all.

I can envision any number of scenarios where none of the above would be true, despite a very clear sexual assault having had taken place.

Physical evidence of the sort you've mentioned HELPS. But it can not be the determining factor of whether the assault took place or not.

I will now seek passage to Norway where they are at least enlightened enough to recognize that women should pay for the privilege of fellating us.

You managed to turn a great story into something stupid and puerile.

Your job here is done.

You're making entirely too many assumptions here.

One, that assault is only committed if there is 'penetration'...two, that even assuming penetration it will have been rough enough to pass as 'forced' and three, that there will be any sort of fluids or samples left behind at all.

I can envision any number of scenarios where none of the above would be true, despite a very clear sexual assault having had taken place.

Physical evidence of the sort you've mentioned HELPS. But it can not be the determining factor of whether the assault took place or not.

tell me, have you ever had rough sex, and had that "evidence" on hand?

After any such friendly and enjoyable event, you could very well change your mind and claim rape.

Physical evidence of the sort you've mentioned HELPS. But it can not be the determining factor of whether the assault took place or not.

Let's say a woman gets so drunk that she blacks out (or that she gets drugged if you're more comfortable with that) and so she never sees the rapist. And let's say that, for whatever reason there's not a lot of physical evidence (no penetration, maybe she took a thorough shower or something).

How do they usually go about fingering the perp?

tell me, have you ever had rough sex, and had that "evidence" on hand?

After any such friendly and enjoyable event, you could very well change your mind and claim rape.

Exactly, a very connected point. After I went to Vegas, and got beaten by Sumamba Buwhan's wife, I had severe bruising on my inner thigh, my hips, my ass, my pubis and so forth. I, not even thinking about it, went to get an STD test (due to some anonymous sex during the same time) and the doctor...tried very hard to sound professional, but asked me a number of times if I was alright, if something had happened I never consented to, etc. I assured him over and over again that it had all been consensual, that it was from 'play' not from something sinister.

Now....could I have claimed rape? Sure, of course. Would the physical evidence alone be compelling enough to make it stick? No. Fucking. Way.

Once it came out that I had gone to a sex club, that I gave consent in front of any number of witnesses etc...the physical evidence would once again, not be the deciding factor.

It swings both ways. Kind of like us.

Exactly, a very connected point. After I went to Vegas, and got beaten by Sumamba Buwhan's wife, I had severe bruising on my inner thigh, my hips, my ass, my pubis and so forth. I, not even thinking about it, went to get an STD test (due to some anonymous sex during the same time) and the doctor...tried very hard to sound professional, but asked me a number of times if I was alright, if something had happened I never consented to, etc. I assured him over and over again that it had all been consensual, that it was from 'play' not from something sinister.

Now....could I have claimed rape? Sure, of course. Would the physical evidence alone be compelling enough to make it stick? No. Fucking. Way.

Once it came out that I had gone to a sex club, that I gave consent in front of any number of witnesses etc...the physical evidence would once again, not be the deciding factor.

It swings both ways. Kind of like us.

Now, if you had done that with one other person in the privacy of a home, that might be different.

Let's say a woman gets so drunk that she blacks out (or that she gets drugged if you're more comfortable with that) and so she never sees the rapist. And let's say that, for whatever reason there's not a lot of physical evidence (no penetration, maybe she took a thorough shower or something).

How do they usually go about fingering the perp?
I didn't realise that penetration with the fingers was part of the process of identifying the accused.:eek:

How do you solve any crime where the victim cannot identify the perpetrator? It can be very difficult, depending on the circumstances, but then again, not all crimes get solved. That there WAS a crime does not depend on there being someone to pin it on.

I'm not really sure what relevance your question has, beyond that.

I didn't realise that penetration with the fingers was part of the process of identifying the accused.:eek:

:p

How do you solve any crime where the victim cannot identify the perpetrator? It can be very difficult, depending on the circumstances, but then again, not all crimes get solved. That there WAS a crime does not depend on there being someone to pin it on.

I'm not really sure what relevance your question has, beyond that.

There's not a lot of relevance, just curiosity. From my own perspective, I'd be at a total loss as to what I'd need to do from there in an investigation, so I was just wondering how it would be done.

Now, if you had done that with one other person in the privacy of a home, that might be different.

Of course.

That's where relevent evidence about my penchant for BDSM comes in.

We had a case here a while back...the name escapes me at the moment...anyway, a female realtor was showing a house to a man and hours later, she was found running naked out of the house, her hands bound behind her. She claimed rape, he claimed consent.

So you follow the evidence. No evidence she was into that sort of sex. There was evidence however that there had been a consensual dalliance previous to the BDSM portion of the evening...but the court found that at a certain point, she was no longer consenting.

If it truly were the case that 'running out of the house nude with arms bound behind you' were enough to get a rape conviction, that case wouldn't have freaking dragged on for 20+ pages.

There's a fair amount of information out there, by the way, meant for people into BDSM, to help them understand the legal risks they run. If you're interested, I'd go look it up accourding to where you live. In some places, you cannot consent to certain activities, ever.

Of course.

That's where relevent evidence about my penchant for BDSM comes in.

We had a case here a while back...the name escapes me at the moment...anyway, a female realtor was showing a house to a man and hours later, she was found running naked out of the house, her hands bound behind her. She claimed rape, he claimed consent.

So you follow the evidence. No evidence she was into that sort of sex. There was evidence however that there had been a consensual dalliance previous to the BDSM portion of the evening...but the court found that at a certain point, she was no longer consenting.

If it truly were the case that 'running out of the house nude with arms bound behind you' were enough to get a rape conviction, that case wouldn't have freaking dragged on for 20+ pages.

There's a fair amount of information out there, by the way, meant for people into BDSM, to help them understand the legal risks they run. If you're interested, I'd go look it up accourding to where you live. In some places, you cannot consent to certain activities, ever.

With the circle we play with, we video the whole thing, and there is consent given on video at the start, including naming the safe word.

In some places, you cannot consent to certain activities, ever.

Now that's interesting. Would you mind providing some examples? (Besides the "Can one consent to being killed in a sexual context?" thing that, as a German after Rothenburg, I've heard quite enough of)

It's amazing that "them bitches can just have sex then claim rape" gets brought up so frequently.

Never "that bastard can lend me his car and claim I stole it". Never "that bastard can ask me to punch him in the stomach to see how strong his abs are, then claim I battered him". Never 'that coniving asshole could invite me over one night then call the police and say I'm trespassing."

The fact is, an inventive mind can come up with at least superficial evidence for a lot of crimes. But we never hear about it, we always get the idea trotted out that them women folk can just on a whim cry rape and send poor innocent men to jail for life.

I think it comments like this say less about our justice system, and far more about those who say them.

Now that's interesting. Would you mind providing some examples? (Besides the "Can one consent to being killed in a sexual context?" thing that, as a German after Rothenburg, I've heard quite enough of)

Well I'll give you a non-sexual example...in R v. Jobidon (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1991/1991rcs2-714/1991rcs2-714.html) the Supreme Court of Canada laid out a sort of 'spectrum of consent'. The case involved a consensual fist fight that ended up in one of the participants dying. The court said that consent does not matter in cases of fights, or other activities resulting in (potential or real) physical harm unless there is a degree of social value in that activity (sports, surgery etc). That doesn't mean a boxing match can't exceed the limits of consent by the way...

So you cannot consent to aggravated assault...but where is the line drawn? Generally in the cases here, the line is drawn at the point where it can be shown 'that is not what we agreed on', or the 'victim' lacks the capacity to properly consent.

A very famous case in the UK, Spanner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner) laid out the following principles:

(UK courts) A person does not have the legal ability to consent to receive an act which will cause serious bodily harm, such as extreme activities of a sadomasochistic nature.

(European Courts) Whilst a person has a general right of free will, a state may as a matter of public policy restrict that in certain cases, for example for the general public good and for the protection of morals. The present case was judged by the European Court to have fallen within the sovereign scope of the UK Government's right to determine its legality, and human rights legislation would not overrule this.


In that case, no one complained...videos came out that launched an investigation and charges were laid. So you have to check your local laws to find out if, for example, you are legally allowed to consent to floggings, brandings, or other sorts of sadomasochistic activities. In some areas, you simply do not have the option to consent.

-snip-

Thanks for the answer. I daresay I'm interested in what my local laws have to say about it - not that my personal sexual preferences run much of a chance of colliding with the law in that respect, but I think it's terribly intriguing to think about the general principle of where competence for consent starts and/or ends, and whether it does in fact end or not. While, for example, I can see the usefulness of a law that says one cannot legally consent to being killed and eaten during sexual play, I also really contest that nation (which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on any legality whatsoever, as I'm fully aware).

It's amazing that "them bitches can just have sex then claim rape" gets brought up so frequently.

Never "that bastard can lend me his car and claim I stole it". Never "that bastard can ask me to punch him in the stomach to see how strong his abs are, then claim I battered him". Never 'that coniving asshole could invite me over one night then call the police and say I'm trespassing."

The fact is, an inventive mind can come up with at least superficial evidence for a lot of crimes. But we never hear about it, we always get the idea trotted out that them women folk can just on a whim cry rape and send poor innocent men to jail for life.

I think it comments like this say less about our justice system, and far more about those who say them.
It makes me think they must often leave their sex partners unsatisfied and angry and not be sure how to change that. Otherwise, why would they think a woman who consented to sex would be motivated to do that to a guy?

It makes me think they must often leave their sex partners unsatisfied and angry and not be sure how to change that. Otherwise, why would they think a woman who consented to sex would be motivated to do that to a guy?

Like the idea you have that there are crazy men, there are also crazy women.

While not the majority in either case, they do definitely exist.

Of course, the best bet is never to get naked with a crazy person.

It makes me think they must often leave their sex partners unsatisfied and angry and not be sure how to change that. Otherwise, why would they think a woman who consented to sex would be motivated to do that to a guy?

because all women are whores.

Obviously.

Thanks for the answer. I daresay I'm interested in what my local laws have to say about it - not that my personal sexual preferences run much of a chance of colliding with the law in that respect, but I think it's terribly intriguing to think about the general principle of where competence for consent starts and/or ends, and whether it does in fact end or not. While, for example, I can see the usefulness of a law that says one cannot legally consent to being killed and eaten during sexual play, I also really contest that notion (which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on any legality whatsoever, as I'm fully aware).

It's an interesting discussion though...what should you be able to consent to? Without going to the extremes you mentioned in the infamous case I am also sick of talking about...

I think most of what I'm into is very clear cut consensual, and wouldn't raise many eyebrows if it did happen to find its way into court. Oh, here's a good article (http://edmontonosociety.org/doc/kinkysexlaw.htm), outlining some common-law cases. In your own situation, I have no doubt you could google 'BDSM laws in Germany' (in german :P) and find some basic outline.

because all women are whores.

Obviously.
Oh, right, I forgot for a second.

In your own situation, I have no doubt you could google 'BDSM laws in Germany' (in german :P) and find some basic outline.

Indeed. It appears that in Germany, all consensual "harm" is good unless

a) it's viable the thing you're about to do has a realistic chance to end in death

b) the physical harm resulting from the action you're about to do is going to be "grave", i.e. will take longer than 24 days to heal and/or will render you unable to continue your profession)

c) you draw up a contract of (personal) slavery.

Oh, right, I forgot for a second.

You were probably busy planning to accuse your lover with rape. Understandable how such a thing would therefore slip your mind.

More importantly, if YOU are too drunk to know what you're doing and to make such assessments clearly, DON'T FUCK ANYBODY AT ALL.



And important point for men and women both to remember. Obviously, it's not happening on both sides right now.

Like the idea you have that there are crazy men, there are also crazy women.

While not the majority in either case, they do definitely exist.

Of course, the best bet is never to get naked with a crazy person.
I didn't say there were crazy men. I said there were people who have some inclination towards acts of sexual violence or aggression (like rape), and other people who don't have that inclination. I never said that either type is crazy, nor did I say that every person who feels the inclination is going to act on it and, thus, be a rapist.

Are there also crazy people in the world? Sure. Mental illness is a widespread problem.

Does that mean that people who commit acts of sexual violence are crazy? Not necessarily. A crazy person might commit sexual violence, but one doesn't have to be crazy to do so. Does it mean that people who make false accusations of sexual violence are crazy? Not necessarily. A person might have many reasons for doing that, such as malice, an attempt at blackmail, or stupidity.

However, none of that is the point. The point is, why do some people always trot out the false rape accusation scenario in every single discussion of rape that ever comes up? Is it a common occurrence? Most law enforcement experts say it is not. If you have reason to think otherwise -- if you have reason to think that women frequently make such accusation against men they had consensual sex with -- why not lay it out for us?

I didn't say there were crazy men. I said there were people who have some inclination towards acts of sexual violence or aggression (like rape), and other people who don't have that inclination. I never said that either type is crazy, nor did I say that every person who feels the inclination is going to act on it and, thus, be a rapist.

Are there also crazy people in the world? Sure. Mental illness is a widespread problem.

Does that mean that people who commit acts of sexual violence are crazy? Not necessarily. A crazy person might commit sexual violence, but one doesn't have to be crazy to do so. Does it mean that people who make false accusations of sexual violence are crazy? Not necessarily. A person might have many reasons for doing that, such as malice, an attempt at blackmail, or stupidity.

However, none of that is the point. The point is, why do some people always trot out the false rape accusation scenario in every single discussion of rape that ever comes up? Is it a common occurrence? Most law enforcement experts say it is not. If you have reason to think otherwise -- if you have reason to think that women frequently make such accusation against men they had consensual sex with -- why not lay it out for us?

You'll notice that I haven't said it's common or frequent. But as someone who does BDSM, it's an acknowledged risk.

You were probably busy planning to accuse your lover with rape. Understandable how such a thing would therefore slip your mind.
I'll tell ya, it's actually surprisingly tricky to set that kind of thing up. You can't just run outdoors nekkid and crying anymore. There are a lot of details to keep in mind. ;)

You'll notice that I haven't said it's common or frequent. But as someone who does BDSM, it's an acknowledged risk.
I see. So you're just attempting to cite a minority risk of a minority activity in a general discussion as if it has broad relevance to general activities? Okay, I'll go back to ignoring it, then.

I see. So you're just attempting to cite a minority risk of a minority activity in a general discussion as if it has broad relevance to general activities? Okay, I'll go back to ignoring it, then.

You'll notice I didn't say that either. So stop trying to say I'm saying it.

I'm saying it's a risk that has to be acknowledged in certain situations - and it can be avoided.

I'll tell ya, it's actually surprisingly tricky to set that kind of thing up. You can't just run outdoors nekkid and crying anymore. There are a lot of details to keep in mind. ;)

Oh for sure, it's why I'm in law. So I can better frame my lovers for sexual assault.

You'll notice I didn't say that either. So stop trying to say I'm saying it.

I'm saying it's a risk that has to be acknowledged in certain situations - and it can be avoided.
And I'm saying the risk of it is neglible enough to be ignored. I also implied that the best way to avoid it is not to be bad in the sack, but I was being sarcastic with that one.

Yes yes, I'm sure it never happens. Women are saints, men are beasts. No woman ever on the face of the Earth has enjoyed sex with someone then lied and said it was rape.
I just love the way -- in the interest of equality, I suppose -- some people are going to focus on the false rape scenario as if it is in any way of comparable weight to the actual rape scenario.

US statistics have it that, in general, one fourth of all women will experience sexual violence in their lives.

I do not have off the top of my head numbers for men and children who will experience sexual violence, but I'll bet they are depressing.

Now I would like anyone who wants to discuss the "risk" of women falsely accusing men of rape to direct me to any information at all that will give me an idea of how many men will likely be affected by false accusations, so I can compare it to the number of women (and men and children) who actually get raped and see just how much of a risk it really is.

I can't speak for other posters, but my objection is not that women are saints and would never do anything malicious to a man. My objection is that, in comparison to actual rape, false rape accusations occur so rarely that they do not impact crime statistics at all, and that to continuously inject this non-issue into the discussion of a real issue undermines serious discussion of sexual crime and how it should be handled.

Here, will this make you happy: It is my opinion that deliberate false accusation of a serious crime should itself be a crime, and the person who knowingly makes such a false accusation should face fines and possible jail time. Satisfied now?

EDIT: I love it. He deleted due to "feminazi" traffic, eh? Too bad. I would have loved to have him point out just which posts qualified as "feminazi" in his view.

And I'm saying the risk of it is neglible enough to be ignored. I also implied that the best way to avoid it is not to be bad in the sack, but I was being sarcastic with that one.

In ordinary relationships/encounters it can be ignored. But I like to have consent covered completely in BDSM.

EDIT: I love it. He deleted due to "feminazi" traffic, eh? Too bad. I would have loved to have him point out just which posts qualified as "feminazi" in his view.

Oh, it took me a while to clue into who deleted what...

That's pathetic.

Shows you how well thought out a person's position is when they are willing to just...throw their hands up and not actually debate it. Because clearly, the 'feminazis' in this thread are unreasonable.

Coward.

Oh, it took me a while to clue into who deleted what...

That's pathetic.

Shows you how well thought out a person's position is when they are willing to just...throw their hands up and not actually debate it. Because clearly, the 'feminazis' in this thread are unreasonable.

Coward.

Seriously. Even when I know I'm wrong, I'll debate it into the ground to try and get a technicality.

That's a virtue, right? ;)

Seriously. Even when I know I'm wrong, I'll debate it into the ground to try and get a technicality.

That's a virtue, right? ;)

Ummmmmmmm.

Ummmmmmmm.

Too far in the other direction? :tongue:

I will now seek passage to Norway where they are at least enlightened enough to recognize that women should pay for the privilege of fellating us.

What are you on about? :confused:

Drinking and smoking SHOULD be banned. I think it's 25% her fault for getting drunk and making it easier for her to let him take advantage.

What are you on about? :confused:

1. You don't want to know the answer to that question...it will make things no clearer.

2. You don't have to worry however, as he never will answer your question.

Drinking and smoking SHOULD be banned. I think it's 25% her fault for getting drunk and making it easier for her to let him take advantage.

What are you basing this percentage on?

Also, I'm planning on drinking tonight...will that get me sex?

What are you basing this percentage on?

Also, I'm planning on drinking tonight...will that get me sex?

it's not NOT getting you sex ;)

It`s a proven fact that girls that are drunk says less `no` when you want to f... them

This is a damn fine question. We know that drinking can lead to all sorts of idiotic and/or criminal behavior like rape, drunk driving, etc etc etc. Why then do we see commercials on TV saying "Get a designated driver!" instead of "Try not drinking so damn much, idiot."

Why? Because people are GOING to drink too much and be idiots, that's never a question. The day everyone becomes a responsible, sober person is the day hell freezes over.

I can't speak for other posters, but my objection is not that women are saints and would never do anything malicious to a man. My objection is that, in comparison to actual rape, false rape accusations occur so rarely that they do not impact crime statistics at all, and that to continuously inject this non-issue into the discussion of a real issue undermines serious discussion of sexual crime and how it should be handled.


http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html


For those who don't read articles: "Regarding this study, 41% (45) of the total disposed rape cases (109) were officially declared false during this 9-year period, that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false."

Another link from another article on that page, but was easily cross-referenced.

"• The FBI stated that in 1990 over 8,500 of the rapes reported proved to be false. False reports of child abuse were twice that figure."

One last mention from that website, again, easily cross-referenced.

"• Linda Fairstein, who directs the prosecution of sexual assault in New York, says that there are approximately 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. Says Fairstein, “It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”"

So the person in charge of prosecuting it in New York believes about 50% of rape accusations are false. That seems an actionable amount to me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7555299.stm

Is this the right decision - or should compensation be cut if the victim has been drinking?

I feel that it is absolutely right to see the decision overturned. We have too much of a culture of 'if you do something to make yourself more vulnerable, the rape becomes your fault'. It's ridiculous how many people still feel that a women who wears revealing clothes somehow is 'asking for it'.

If you leave your front door unlocked, you're an idiot. But just because you have been an idiot doesn't mean that you deserve to be burgled, and the law won't investigate whoever committed the crime. It's the same with rape - no matter what you think of the person and how they behave, if they are raped then they are the victim, and nothing they did can take away the fact that a crime was committed.

On the other side, there is the argument that this is not about whether the rape is wrong, as it is a claim for compensation. It is therefore a different question than 'did she deserve it'; it is 'should she get the full amount, or should it be reduced due to some blameworthiness on her part?' If you have a car crash, for example, then even though it's not your fault you might have the compensation reduced because you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Can the same be applied to rape?

You know, when I read the thread title, I figured it was asking "Does drink contribute to someone deciding to rape someone else" and I figured "Of course! If it's involved, it affects it! That's a no brainer."

But now I see what was meant, and that's a flat out fucking no. She was raped. Being drunk shouldn't somehow lessen her compensation. If anything it should probably INCREASE it because it affected her ability to say no and resist. That's kinda why date rapists tend to ply their target with alcohol.

Seriously, this is a no brainer--not in the way I originally thought but a no brainer nonetheless--and I can't imagine why anyone would seriously think otherwise.

Drinking and smoking SHOULD be banned. I think it's 25% her fault for getting drunk and making it easier for her to let him take advantage.

I see. Out of curiosity, should this also apply to other forms of incapacitation? For example, if I go out in public while sleep-deprived, is it partially my fault if someone assaults me? How about if I go out with a broken arm? How about if I don't exercise enough, so I'm too out of shape to run away very fast? I've heard that rapists often prefer girls with long hair (gives 'em something easy to grab onto), so am I partially at fault if I keep my long hair anyway? If I go out in public without a brawny male escort, I probably look like an easier target than someone with such an escort, so is it, say, 17% my fault then?

For example, if I go out in public while sleep-deprived, is it partially my fault if someone assaults me?

Depends, are you more likely to say "Yes, please hit me" when you're tired?

This is still rape. If you're drunk enough for memory loss to occur, you're definitely too drunk to legally consent.


I disagree, I've been drunk enough not to be able to remember what happened the next morning, but according to accounts from friends I was still lucid (in a drunk way) could walk, etc etc. Saying someone's too drunk to consent when they're still capable of that opens the door to two parties (legally speaking) raping each other simultaneously.

I'd put it at nearer paralytic-ness (or genuine inability to consent, rather than being able to say yes but being ajudged too drunk for that yes to count).

One point to make is that this rule is currently applied across the board for compensation cases. It wasn't the judge blaming (necessarily, depending how you see the reasoning behind the blanket rule) the victim in any way for rape. The guidelines for all compensation cases say to reduce the victims' compensation if they were intoxicated on alcohol or drugs.

http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html


For those who don't read articles: "Regarding this study, 41% (45) of the total disposed rape cases (109) were officially declared false during this 9-year period, that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false."

Another link from another article on that page, but was easily cross-referenced.

"• The FBI stated that in 1990 over 8,500 of the rapes reported proved to be false. False reports of child abuse were twice that figure."

One last mention from that website, again, easily cross-referenced.

"• Linda Fairstein, who directs the prosecution of sexual assault in New York, says that there are approximately 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. Says Fairstein, “It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”"

So the person in charge of prosecuting it in New York believes about 50% of rape accusations are false. That seems an actionable amount to me.
why were you ever on that odd page and why didnt you link to the cross references instead?

why were you ever on that odd page and why didnt you link to the cross references instead?

I can't say that I've been able to find it on the web before. It was in a periodical from the early 90's. The study came from the F.B.I.'s Behavioral Science Unit. A friend I was on a forensics team with found it for me. A quick search of the F.B.I. site doesn't seem to bring it up. I'll look through my folders at home and see if I still have a copy and scan in the study.

The Linda Fairstein quote is from her book "Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape". Feel free to read about her here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DE1739F936A15751C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) to get a clue of what kind of person she is.

Depends, are you more likely to say "Yes, please hit me" when you're tired?

Yes, actually, I am.

I'm not entire sure how that's relevant to my post, though.

I think she deserves the money to be cut because of her drinking but if there is evidence that proves that she was then give her the rest and put the jerk(rapist) in prison

Yes, actually, I am.

I'm not entire sure how that's relevant to my post, though.
Kehheehehehehee.

I can't say that I've been able to find it on the web before. It was in a periodical from the early 90's. The study came from the F.B.I.'s Behavioral Science Unit. A friend I was on a forensics team with found it for me. A quick search of the F.B.I. site doesn't seem to bring it up. I'll look through my folders at home and see if I still have a copy and scan in the study.

The Linda Fairstein quote is from her book "Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape". Feel free to read about her here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DE1739F936A15751C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) to get a clue of what kind of person she is.
thanks

so you linked to that page because it referenced the articles you remembered not because you have been wanting to defend ananda against spurious sexual misconduct charges?

I can't say that I've been able to find it on the web before. It was in a periodical from the early 90's. The study came from the F.B.I.'s Behavioral Science Unit. A friend I was on a forensics team with found it for me. A quick search of the F.B.I. site doesn't seem to bring it up. I'll look through my folders at home and see if I still have a copy and scan in the study.

The Linda Fairstein quote is from her book "Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape". Feel free to read about her here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DE1739F936A15751C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) to get a clue of what kind of person she is.
grrrrr you made me read that article and it didnt address the issue at all.

thanks

so you linked to that page because it referenced the articles you remembered not because you have been wanting to defend ananda against spurious sexual misconduct charges?

To be honest? I googled what I remembered and Ananda came up. I had never heard of the site before. To be further honest, I didn't even read the rest of the website.

I disagree, I've been drunk enough not to be able to remember what happened the next morning, but according to accounts from friends I was still lucid (in a drunk way) could walk, etc etc. Saying someone's too drunk to consent when they're still capable of that opens the door to two parties (legally speaking) raping each other simultaneously.

I'd put it at nearer paralytic-ness (or genuine inability to consent, rather than being able to say yes but being ajudged too drunk for that yes to count).

One point to make is that this rule is currently applied across the board for compensation cases. It wasn't the judge blaming (necessarily, depending how you see the reasoning behind the blanket rule) the victim in any way for rape. The guidelines for all compensation cases say to reduce the victims' compensation if they were intoxicated on alcohol or drugs.

I don't really know how this is treated in most other countries, but I've been taught that in the U.S. any intoxication is treated as making it impossible to consent legally. It doesn't even take being blacked out.

As for your own experience, it's common for people who are blacked out to seem in relatively good shape. The ability to walk and form sentences is no indication of the ability to give informed consent.

I think she deserves the money to be cut because of her drinking but if there is evidence that proves that she was then give her the rest and put the jerk(rapist) in prison

Er... the only reason she's getting money in the first place is that there's evidence proving she was raped.

grrrrr you made me read that article and it didnt address the issue at all.

I did warn you it would only tell you what kind of person she is. I can't find any more quotes from her book online. Go find a library :P

Yes, actually, I am.

I'm not entire sure how that's relevant to my post, though.

(Psst. You're supposed to say, "Sorry, bad example." ;) )

To be honest? I googled what I remembered and Ananda came up. I had never heard of the site before. To be further honest, I didn't even read the rest of the website.
did you read her book yourself? i dont trust ananda to have quoted her properly.

*snip* The best way to avoid such situations is to not rape anybody. *snip*

Bottle for president. Seriously. *fangirls*

Last Saturday night I went out to a club in a short denim skirt and a strappy top. I was wearing heels, as well.

That, apparently, is prime target for rapists.

For that very reason I didn't go home alone. I also made sure I didn't get very drunk.

I would love to be able to go out wearing whatever and not have to think about being safe on the way home. The reality is that I have to. If I go out and get wasted I'm a target. If I go out wearing not a lot I'm a target. Simple as. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is, so I take precautions.

For me that's the reality of dealing with the threat of rape. There's no proper reason why I shouldn't be able to go out in a short skirt, heels, and a strappy top without feeling perfectly safe. There's no proper reason why I shouldn't be able to wear that and get drunk.

Unfortunately, the reality is different. When I go out I always make sure I'm with my boyfriend or a guy a trust at all times. It's like having a burglar alarm. It's just common sense. It really is the only way to try and stay safe.

did you read her book yourself? i dont trust ananda to have quoted her properly.

Yep. The quote came straight out of the book (I have a copy on my shelf. It's amazing how often this topic comes up between the three political/social forums I'm a member).

Yep. The quote came straight out of the book (I have a copy on my shelf. It's amazing how often this topic comes up between the three political/social forums I'm a member).
the exact quote being what part of this:

"• Linda Fairstein, who directs the prosecution of sexual assault in New York, says that there are approximately 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. Says Fairstein, “It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7555299.stm

Is this the right decision - or should compensation be cut if the victim has been drinking?

I feel that it is absolutely right to see the decision overturned. We have too much of a culture of 'if you do something to make yourself more vulnerable, the rape becomes your fault'. It's ridiculous how many people still feel that a women who wears revealing clothes somehow is 'asking for it'.

If you leave your front door unlocked, you're an idiot. But just because you have been an idiot doesn't mean that you deserve to be burgled, and the law won't investigate whoever committed the crime. It's the same with rape - no matter what you think of the person and how they behave, if they are raped then they are the victim, and nothing they did can take away the fact that a crime was committed.

On the other side, there is the argument that this is not about whether the rape is wrong, as it is a claim for compensation. It is therefore a different question than 'did she deserve it'; it is 'should she get the full amount, or should it be reduced due to some blameworthiness on her part?' If you have a car crash, for example, then even though it's not your fault you might have the compensation reduced because you weren't wearing your seatbelt. Can the same be applied to rape?

Rape is always the fault of the rapist. Entirely. Unless of course someone was literally holding a gun to his/her head to coerce him/her to do it.

If I look back at all the parties I've gone to, I'm sure I've seen a lot of drunk-ass people who would probably very easily have been raped. However, despite being a horny perverted bastard, I not only did not rape any of the said inebriated people, the thought didn't even enter my mind. I could have stolen from them as well, or assaulted them easily as well, had I chosen to do so. But see, I, like yourself and most people, or at least I should hope most people, have a conscience and so I don't choose to abuse people just because the opportunity is there.

Going to a party and getting smashed without friends around to watch your back is stupid, yes, whether you're male or female. But I fully agree with you, just making a stupid decision does not mean one deserves to be robbed, beaten up or raped.

Drinking heavily does make one more vulnerable to being raped. But it is still the choice of the rapist to commit that crime.

Being accused of being a rapist is for weak bitches. If you're a real man, no woman will ever regret having surrendered to your seed. That is all.

Yeah, because intentionally penetrating the mouth, anus, or vagina of another when they dont consent to the penetration and you have no reasonable belief that they have consented to the penetration makes you cool. Yes, I paraphrased the UK legal definition of rape.

Rape is just for dickheads.

I disagree, I've been drunk enough not to be able to remember what happened the next morning, but according to accounts from friends I was still lucid (in a drunk way) could walk, etc etc. Saying someone's too drunk to consent when they're still capable of that opens the door to two parties (legally speaking) raping each other simultaneously.

I'd put it at nearer paralytic-ness (or genuine inability to consent, rather than being able to say yes but being ajudged too drunk for that yes to count).

Both parties being equally drunk (say two or three drinks, not wildly drunk) doesn't seem like something that should be forbidden.

It really goes by cases! Two people who know each other well should be able to judge whether the other is capable of giving consent. I'm not saying "implied consent" mind -- they need to both say yes.

I don't really do sex, but I DO get drunk a lot. The rule for me if I'm considering doing something dangerous ("hey, I reckon I can walk on my hands along that park bench") is: am I going to regret this later? Try to see what you're proposing to do from the "morning after" perspective.

And if I can't do that, and get my head out of the "fun, now!" frame ... I'm too drunk to do the thing I'm considering.


One point to make is that this rule is currently applied across the board for compensation cases. It wasn't the judge blaming (necessarily, depending how you see the reasoning behind the blanket rule) the victim in any way for rape. The guidelines for all compensation cases say to reduce the victims' compensation if they were intoxicated on alcohol or drugs.

That would make sense if the compensation was for something which didn't involve another person, like falling down a hole in the pavement. Yes, the hole shouldn't have been there, but also a drunk person is less likely to avoid it in their own interests.

Both parties being equally drunk (say two or three drinks, not wildly drunk) doesn't seem like something that should be forbidden.

I agree with this, partly because I'm not sure how to resolve a potential dispute in which two partners, having had sex after a few drinks, each believe they've been raped because they were too drunk to consent.

Your post looks good like that Nadkor! The exploding newb to either side gives it a sort of sparkly emphasis. :)

http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html


For those who don't read articles: "Regarding this study, 41% (45) of the total disposed rape cases (109) were officially declared false during this 9-year period, that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false."

Another link from another article on that page, but was easily cross-referenced.

"• The FBI stated that in 1990 over 8,500 of the rapes reported proved to be false. False reports of child abuse were twice that figure."

One last mention from that website, again, easily cross-referenced.

"• Linda Fairstein, who directs the prosecution of sexual assault in New York, says that there are approximately 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. Says Fairstein, “It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”"

So the person in charge of prosecuting it in New York believes about 50% of rape accusations are false. That seems an actionable amount to me.
A very good attempt, and I thank you for the effort. However, I am not convinced, and here's why:

1) The site you link to is biased in favor of a man who it is claimed was falsely accused. This makes it significantly less reliable than a law enforcement, government, or academic site would be.

2) The article page you linked to provides no legal citations nor statistical source references, so I cannot test whether it is being accurate or slanting towards its bias. I could not open any of the site's other pages to investigate further.

3) In your later comments to Ashmoria about this, you did not give us any other books or articles to look for. I understand that your original source is not available online, but you could at least give us a title and author for further research on our parts. All you give us is the word of a single prosecutor. Does she represent the opinion of the legal community in general?

4) I did my own cursory search with google, about.com, and ask.com. I searched using specific references to false rape accusations as my keywords. What I found was that the Department of Justice and FBI sites that came up talked about rape statistics but did not mention false rape reports at all.

5) The great majority of other sites were blogs -- i.e. NOT journalistic articles, statistical studies, academic papers, or legal articles, but rather mere opinion columns by people without clear credentials to claim any expertise in the matter. Every single one of the blogs had a strong bias, either towards promoting the idea that women make false accusations frequently or promoting the idea that they never do. I rejected both as too subjective.

6) The only article I found that talked about the matter with anything like an objective tone was this one:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html

It is also a blog, but at least it did not clearly have an axe to grind. It is very brief, but the gist of it is that no one knows how many false accusations get made each year, that there are no reliable statistics about it, and that more research is needed.

7) Several other articles I found suggested that there is some confusion at work on this question, because people talk about false accusations but then go on to show a few examples of false accusations and many more examples of mistaken identifications of an assailant. They are not the same thing. A false accusation of rape would be one in which no rape occurred, but the woman accuses a particular man of doing it anyway. This is very different from a case in which a rape did occur, and the victim identified a man as her attacker, but was later proven to be wrong. Such mistaken IDs are quite common in lots of kinds of crime because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean that the mistaken witness is acting with malice against the accused, as she would be if she accused him of a crime that was never actually committed by anyone.

8) Now when it comes to whether a rape actually occurred or not, that is an entirely different question, and it is one that is rife with personal and social biases and assumptions, which is why I rejected your single example of a prosecutor who claims half of all rapes in NY never really happened (see item 3 above).

9) My conclusion from all this is that nobody knows how many people make false accusations of rape every year. Because of this lack of data, claims that it is a significant problem lack foundation and are not reliable.

I agree with this, partly because I'm not sure how to resolve a potential dispute in which two partners, having had sex after a few drinks, each believe they've been raped because they were too drunk to consent.

Yeah, it's weird isn't it. Even very sensible people have a drink or two to "get in the mood."

I might get in trouble for this, but different people have difference capacities to consent even without factors like drunkenness, tiredness or distress. They are simply expected to know their own limits, and take that into account when further impairing their judgement.

Certainly no-one would dispute that consent varies between people in how informed it is.

Your post looks good like that Nadkor! The exploding newb to either side gives it a sort of sparkly emphasis. :)

What can I say, the law always looks better with exploding newbs next to it :)

If anything it should probably INCREASE it because it affected her ability to say no and resist. That's kinda why date rapists tend to ply their target with alcohol.

So it's the state's and taxpayer's problem that she had a few too many? They need to compensate her for something that she MIGHT (I'm saying might, don't flame) have had a hand in?

Also, if someone knows their limits, I would think they'd kindly say "No thank you, I've had enough to drink already" instead of steadily accepting drinks.

This is still rape. If you're drunk enough for memory loss to occur, you're definitely too drunk to legally consent.

If he's that drunk too, then who raped who?

As to some "medical" standard of how drunk is too drunk to consent, I'm very dubious about putting the line at "memory loss."

Once more with the example of last night. I woke up this morning (er, 1 pm isn't 'morning' but anyway) with a foul hangover and a dose of self-hate for posting drunk last night. I could remember it being light when I went to bed, I could remember which posts I'd clicked "reply" on and which not, and every word I'd written. I remembered the hundreds of posts I'd wred in the Russia/Georgia thread, and the way NH's avatar had a "file not uploaded" error but uploaded anyway. In short, I could remember every detail of last night ... and there aren't any broken bottles or half-written posts in tabs, other than what I remember writing.

Now, after about ten last night I was unfit for the company of live humans. I wouldn't have trusted myself around them ... if a friend had knocked on the door, I'd have begged off as "too tired" and in fact gone to bed. I wouldn't have trusted myself not to hurt their feelings or play some stupid self-pity game ... far less have sex.

I was absolutely not fit to consent to sex. Yet my memory is fine. I say that's not a general standard of how drunk is TOO drunk to consent.

So it's the state's and taxpayer's problem that she had a few too many? They need to compensate her for something that she MIGHT (I'm saying might, don't flame) have had a hand in?

It's something to consider.

Also, if someone knows their limits, I would think they'd kindly say "No thank you, I've had enough to drink already" instead of steadily accepting drinks.

Irrelevant, especially given we're talking mostly about cases where either someone DOESN'T know their limits or isn't given a chance to turn down drinks. Plus, peer pressure--especially when one has been subjected to alcohol--is extremely strong in cases like this.

So it's the state's and taxpayer's problem that she had a few too many? They need to compensate her for something that she MIGHT (I'm saying might, don't flame) have had a hand in?

Also, if someone knows their limits, I would think they'd kindly say "No thank you, I've had enough to drink already" instead of steadily accepting drinks.

It's a good thing I'm not a girl I guess. But I've had strangers buy me drinks -- and sometimes I've got suspicious of their motives and left. Probably their plan was to get me drunk and beat me up (drunks fight badly and also can't make a good account of themselves if the police get involved. Cops tend to put a bigger share of the blame on the drunker guy.) Fuck knows why, some guys just like winning a fight, no matter how unfair or what there is to fight about.

If someone is putting their money on the bar to get you drunker than them, something is wrong.

The problem with victims being drunk is they could have been black out drunk. Now couldn't that lead to a possible misidentification of the perpetrator? Or maybe the woman even gave the man consent, but had no recollection of it? Hell, I could even see rape being used against a person when it never actually took place, that Duke case was a perfect example.

I'm not saying this is a definite, but don't you think there's possibilities of things going awry when the victim is drunk?

A lot of places don't consider it valid consent if given while intoxicated. Consent is not a defense when the victim was not in a state where they could give rational and informed consent. Thus, consent while intoxicated is no more valid than consent from a minor.

Irrelevant, especially given we're talking mostly about cases where either someone DOESN'T know their limits or isn't given a chance to turn down drinks.

wtf? Call a cab!

A lot of places don't consider it valid consent if given while intoxicated. Consent is not a defense when the victim was not in a state where they could give rational and informed consent. Thus, consent while intoxicated is no more valid than consent from a minor.

I argue that "intoxicated" is a very arbitrary line. Only the person themselves can know their limits, and as Kyronea said, often they don't.

If he's that drunk too, then who raped who?

If you'd read through to the end of the thread, you'd already have seen that I don't know. :tongue:

NO, when you get drunk you act truthfully. Well, in many cases anyways. As for whether drinking is a contributing factor, well, so is being alive. Or in some cases the rapist being alive (you might not have to be).

As my nationstate motto says though, "nothing but pure unforced consent".

If you do not consent or cannot consent, then it is rape and no matter where you are or what condition you are in the perpetrator should be prosecuted and the damages he/she (women do this as well) commit against you must be paid in full. This can also be extended to cases where you consent under threat (example: "either you consent to me having sex with you or I'll rape you").

Sadly, when it comes to the drink, unless you do go black out drunk (and most likely lose consciousness) there is most likely some degree of consent that might be there. To keep yourself out of that sort of trouble, find someone you can trust (and on this you must be careful about, perhaps the most) and have them be your buddy when you go out drinking.

On a side note, date rape drug consent is also not consent.

NO, when you get drunk you act truthfully.

Lowered inhibitions -- the great attraction of drink IMHO. Quite a positive thing in moderation. Yes, people are more likely to share secrets and so on, less concerned that the other will think badly of them for it. Unfortunately, beyond being moderately drunk other inhibitions go as well ... possibly including inhibitions against lying or attacking other people verbally or physically.

If you're drinking with friends, only to the level where it makes you more genial and trusting -- good for you.


As for whether drinking is a contributing factor, well, so is being alive. Or in some cases the rapist being alive (you might not have to be).

Wha? That made no sense.

If you do not consent or cannot consent, then it is rape and no matter where you are or what condition you are in the perpetrator should be prosecuted and the damages he/she (women do this as well) commit against you must be paid in full.

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that.

Sadly, when it comes to the drink, unless you do go black out drunk (and most likely lose consciousness) there is most likely some degree of consent that might be there. To keep yourself out of that sort of trouble, find someone you can trust (and on this you must be careful about, perhaps the most) and have them be your buddy when you go out drinking.

*nod*

But you haven't really commented on how alcohol affects the ability to consent. Clearly it impairs it, but your first paragraph seems to say otherwise, and I disagree with it.

wtf? Call a cab!

We're not just talking about bars here. We're talking about parties and possibly dates in their apartment or other situations. Generally speaking, the rapist who uses alcohol is a date rapist, which means they've arleady gotten their target into a situation where they're very unlikely to escape from succcesfully and the alcohol is just to make things easier.

It makes me think they must often leave their sex partners unsatisfied and angry and not be sure how to change that. Otherwise, why would they think a woman who consented to sex would be motivated to do that to a guy?

Check out what has been said about this at http://mensnewsdaily.com.

Granted the men at this site might end up a bit bitter from things, but most of them will tell you what rape is or why a woman might claim rape.

On another side note to what I said earlier, obviously a child cannot give the kind of consent an adult would need for it not to be rape.

Quote:
As for whether drinking is a contributing factor, well, so is being alive. Or in some cases the rapist being alive (you might not have to be).
Wha? That made no sense.

More of a side note. The dead cannot consent, therefore I would consider it rape if someone was to even have sex with a dead person. Also most people who have been raped and all people who have raped have been alive, so you might as well make it a condition involved. Just saying. :)

But you haven't really commented on how alcohol affects the ability to consent. Clearly it impairs it, but your first paragraph seems to say otherwise, and I disagree with it.

I reason this more because I've heard of cases (sadly I have realized I cannot refer to one at the present moment) where the person the woman woke up to was not one she would otherwise have done so sober and then claims rape.

As for claiming rape afterwards when it was consensual at the time, think Kobe Bryant (hope I spelled his name right).
As for claiming rape to get out of trouble: Duke Lacrosse Team. Only three words I'm saying on the matter.

We're not just talking about bars here. We're talking about parties and possibly dates in their apartment or other situations. Generally speaking, the rapist who uses alcohol is a date rapist, which means they've arleady gotten their target into a situation where they're very unlikely to escape from succcesfully and the alcohol is just to make things easier.

The point at which the victim says "I'm going home now" and the rapist says "No. You said it was a date" is pretty much where consent ends and rape begins.

And if the rapist has some kind of bargaining hold over the victim, and can make them stay at the party or in their apartment ("come on a date with me or I'll tell the boss about the laptop you stole") then it was an abusive (ie rape) relationship from the start.

I may have this wrong, but before "date rape" was attached to drugging the victim without their consent, it meant the expectation that by going on a date, one consents to sex. "Implied consent."

It's a woolier concept, rather like the "peer pressure" you mentioned earlier. But it should be opposed anyway: consent can be withdrawn ANY TIME, it is not given irrevocably by choosing to go on a date.

I don't know whether it's fair to reduce compensation if the victim was drinking or not.

If you don't KNOW the answer to that (hint: the correct answer is NO!) then you have some serious problems that I'm not sure we can fix here.

More of a side note. The dead cannot consent, therefore I would consider it rape if someone was to even have sex with a dead person. Also most people who have been raped and all people who have raped have been alive, so you might as well make it a condition involved. Just saying. :)

As you say, it's a side note. But I disagree: a dead body is not a person, and while messing with it is a terrible thing to do, I consider it more a property crime than an assault. Anyway.

The bit that really didn't make sense was "As for whether drinking is a contributing factor, well, so is being alive."

Do you mean "as long as you're alive there is some risk of being raped"?

Like I said before: whaa?

I reason this more because I've heard of cases (sadly I have realized I cannot refer to one at the present moment) where the person the woman woke up to was not one she would otherwise have done so sober and then claims rape.

If we're thinking about the same case (some party in the states, there was a thread) prosecution failed because her memory of the event wasn't good enough to make persuasive evidence that she had NOT given consent.

It should have been a conviction: DNA showed that sex had occurred, the guy took steps to conceal evidence of sex (showing awareness of guilt,) and the woman was clearly not in a state to give consent.

As for claiming rape afterwards when it was consensual at the time, think Kobe Bryant (hope I spelled his name right).
As for claiming rape to get out of trouble: Duke Lacrosse Team. Only three words I'm saying on the matter.

OK. Feel free to comment on the thread subject some time.

Something about statistics on false rape accusations, I wonder how many are due to the claimant dropping the case due it simply being too much to expect a conviction.

I can certainly imagine 50% of rape claims are dropped, whether that's because the police have proved that it's false or because the claimant cannot prove it's true differ in implication.

EDIT: Having read the link now, it's a % if disposed cases, not all cases, my bad [insert embarrassed smilie]

I can't get my head around this idea that rape can be the victim's fault, whether s/he has been drinking or not. Rape doesn't happen by accident - the rapist chooses to carry out a dispicable and illegal action. I cannot understand how or why the victim could be accountable for the rapists choices and actions. One could also argue that the rapist is more culpable when the victim is drunk, not less, since s/he has preyed on an even more vulnerable person.

I can't get my head around this idea that rape can be the victim's fault, whether s/he has been drinking or not. Rape doesn't happen by accident - the rapist chooses to carry out a dispicable and illegal action. I cannot understand how or why the victim could be accountable for the rapists choices and actions. One could also argue that the rapist is more culpable when the victim is drunk, not less, since s/he has preyed on an even more vulnerable person.

Well see, if you see a snake in the grass, you shouldn't go and pick it up. Now, when people are drunk, they're more likely to pick up the snake and hence get bitten, they should therefore receive lower compensation for the snake bite.

Now, exchange 'snake' with 'rapist', 'grass' with 'entire world' and 'pick it up' with 'show some skin and get drunk', remember that every rapist wears a t-shirt with a big sign saying 'I am a rapist' and you can see why it's pretty much the victims fault if they carry on regardless.

This is why we need to keep women in the home.

Well see, if you see a snake in the grass, you shouldn't go and pick it up. Now, when people are drunk, they're more likely to pick up the snake and hence get bitten, they should therefore receive lower compensation for the snake bite.

Now, exchange 'snake' with 'rapist', 'grass' with 'entire world' and 'pick it up' with 'show some skin and get drunk', remember that every rapist wears a t-shirt with a big sign saying 'I am a rapist' and you can see why it's pretty much the victims fault if they carry on regardless.

This is why we need to keep women in the home.

hmmm, so a snake will bite the person who picks it up out of fear and instinct... so rapists are actually afraid of their victims and unable to resist sticking their fangs in as an attempt to gain power or control. There may be more truth in that than you thought!

If you don't KNOW the answer to that (hint: the correct answer is NO!) then you have some serious problems that I'm not sure we can fix here.

If one were so inclined, this could be debated.

If this were treated like an insurance claim, at least. Obviously, she wasn't asking for it, but the question is whether she took adequate steps to prevent the situation, much like one may take steps to minimizing the risk of car theft.

Of course, that line of inquiry isn't entirely applicable and falls apart shortly near the conclusion, but it's about as close as one could get.

Wha? That made no sense.

Necrophilia, with a possible case of homicide.

Necrophilia, with a possible case of homicide.

Necrophilia is barely a crime at all. To compare it with bestiality (abuse of a living creature) is ridiculous. Let alone that it be compared to rape.

The body of a dead person cannot consent. Nor can a blow-up doll. Should we treat "sex" with a blow-up doll as "rape" because the object cannot consent?

Necrophilia is barely a crime at all. To compare it with bestiality (abuse of a living creature) is ridiculous. Let alone that it be compared to rape.

The body of a dead person cannot consent. Nor can a blow-up doll. Should we treat "sex" with a blow-up doll as "rape" because the object cannot consent?

As far as I'm aware, German law treats sex with a (human) corpse as a crime called "disturbance of the peace of the dead", the same category as e.g. vandalizing a grave (by the by, a "crime" category I consider to be rather ridiculous, but so be it). It's nowhere near such crimes as rape or bestiality.

As far as I'm aware, German law treats sex with a (human) corpse as a crime called "disturbance of the peace of the dead", the same category as e.g. vandalizing a grave (by the by, a "crime" category I consider to be rather ridiculous, but so be it). It's nowhere near such crimes as rape or bestiality.

*nod*
The harm caused to actual people is indirect. It hurts their feelings, essentially.

It's not even a question of the level of penalty. They are entirely different classes of crime, and to compare necrosexuality with rape introduces an entirely unhelpful element of protecting someone else's property.

The body of a living person is FAR MORE than their "property." It is part of their being.

*nod*
The harm caused to actual people is indirect. It hurts their feelings, essentially.


Well yeah, but you know, if we de-legalized everything that hurts (most) people's feelings, then that woman who just strutted past me who is painfully overweight and apparently blessed with the firm conviction that a pink spaghetti top at least four sizes too small is a perfect outfit for her would be an immediate jail candidate.

Or, you know, that guy who said "Lol the retard can't even read; it *says* "Push" on the sticker on the door in huge letters!", commenting on a person who tried to open a glass door coming from the opposite side by pulling (the door was locked).

Or people who insist that there's something within a corpse that makes the former inhabitant of the body care in that time of being dead what is happening to it, they hurt my feelings, too.

Both parties being equally drunk (say two or three drinks, not wildly drunk) doesn't seem like something that should be forbidden.

It really goes by cases! Two people who know each other well should be able to judge whether the other is capable of giving consent. I'm not saying "implied consent" mind -- they need to both say yes.

I don't really do sex, but I DO get drunk a lot. The rule for me if I'm considering doing something dangerous ("hey, I reckon I can walk on my hands along that park bench") is: am I going to regret this later? Try to see what you're proposing to do from the "morning after" perspective.

And if I can't do that, and get my head out of the "fun, now!" frame ... I'm too drunk to do the thing I'm considering.



That would make sense if the compensation was for something which didn't involve another person, like falling down a hole in the pavement. Yes, the hole shouldn't have been there, but also a drunk person is less likely to avoid it in their own interests.

I don't really know how this is treated in most other countries, but I've been taught that in the U.S. any intoxication is treated as making it impossible to consent legally. It doesn't even take being blacked out.

As for your own experience, it's common for people who are blacked out to seem in relatively good shape. The ability to walk and form sentences is no indication of the ability to give informed consent.

As for the UK, I believe the precedent is "Drunken consent is still consent". Informed is by the by, if you're able to say 'yes' to sex then you're able to consent.


Blacked out to me means unconscious rather than unable to remember the next day.

You're setting up a situation where a woman could walk up to a man say 'I want to have sex with you' and that legally being rape if she can't remember it the next morning. That being legally possible sounds ridiculous to me. Coupled with the possibility of two parties being theoretically able to rape each other simultaneously I think the standard of not able to remember is too low.

Plus it's a retrospective judgement, different people lose their memory at different stages of intoxication, making it near impossible for anyone to judge whether the person is legally capable of consent beforehand (or prove it in any way, you can have evidence about amount of alcohol consumed, physical state etc from witnesses, memory loss is unidentifiable to anyone but the person themselves).

As for the UK, I believe the precedent is "Drunken consent is still consent". Informed is by the by, if you're able to say 'yes' to sex then you're able to consent.


I think the law was changed recently, so that it is rape unless the perpetrator could reasonably* believe that they have been given consent.

Underthese circumstances I think you can make a case that if the woman was paralytically drunk but still, just about conscious, that most "reasonable" people would not consider her to be in a state to give proper consent then it is still rape. But the term "reasonable" as used in UK law is so horrifically vague and is difficult to prove, generally taken to mean the "average person on the street".

Of course that's English/Welsh law, I believe the criteria are different in Scotland. Although it's always dangerous to go by legal definitions of rape because in a lot of places what most of us would consider rape actually comes under sexual assault, with lesser sentences

I think the law was changed recently, so that it is rape unless the perpetrator could reasonably* believe that they have been given consent.

Underthese circumstances I think you can make a case that if the woman was paralytically drunk but still, just about conscious, that most "reasonable" people would not consider her to be in a state to give proper consent then it is still rape.

s1, s74, s75, and s76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are what you want to look at here.

s1 sets out the legal definition of rape:


(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.


We should note here that, under the current definition, it is impossible for a woman to rape a man.

So, what does that say? A man is guilty of rape if he penetrates the mouth, anus, or vagina or another individual (male or female), without the other consenting, and without a reasonable belief that they have consented. That's fairly straightforward; if the man genuinely believed consent was given then it's not rape, even if consent wasn't actually given and the other individual believes they were raped. If the man doesn't have a belief that consent was given then it's rape.

Now, s74, s75 and s76.

s74 sets out the basics of consent:
For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256 it was ruled that the claimant being drunk meant that she was incapable of giving consent. This, however, was overturned by the Court of Appeal:
If, through drink - or for any other reason - the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if the intercourse takes place, this would be rape. However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.
(Igor J)

Essentially, being drunk doesn't automatically prevent an individual from being capable of giving consent, but if the person has drunk themselves to the point where they couldn't possibly make a choice or come to a decision to give consent then they can't possibly have given consent, and it is rape.

s75 and s76 deal with the matter of consent; evidential and conclusive presumptions. Essentially they deal with other ways how, within the definition given in s74 consent can be impossible to give. These range from the other individual being unconscious (s75.2.d), to having had their drink spiked (s75.2.f). They also, for example, include having sex with someone after having being tricked into thinking they were another individual who you actually wanted to have sex with (s76.2.b).

So, there you go, that's how consent can be said to be impossibly to give; if the person is drunk to the point of being incapable of choosing to consent or indicating consent, or if the situation falls into anything set out in s75 or s76.

But the term "reasonable" as used in UK law is so horrifically vague and is difficult to prove, generally taken to mean the "average person on the street".

"Reasonableness" , or the "reasonable man", is a concept that has been fairly well defined over many years of rulings, starting with Vaughan v Menlove [1837], building to a healthy amount of case law that could be referred to in order to determine what has previously been held to be reasonable in a certain situation.

I like the "man on the Clapham omnibus" definition, even if it originated in tort; a man who is averagely intelligent, normally educated, and has a balanced mind.

As for the UK, I believe the precedent is "Drunken consent is still consent". Informed is by the by, if you're able to say 'yes' to sex then you're able to consent.

Ah, alright. That's similar to how I remember it in Denmark. But it appears Nadkor has provided the relevant U.K. law, so that's good.

Blacked out to me means unconscious rather than unable to remember the next day.

This is probably a dialect difference. (I'm correct in assuming you're in the UK, yes?) In the U.S., "blacked out" is used to describe alcohol-related memory loss, and "passed out" to describe loss of consciousness. There are plenty of people here who misuse the terms, but these are the accepted definitions.

You're setting up a situation where a woman could walk up to a man say 'I want to have sex with you' and that legally being rape if she can't remember it the next morning. That being legally possible sounds ridiculous to me.

That's only if we believe that memory loss will be the only symptom of her drunkenness. People who are blacked out may often seem just ordinarily drunk, but they will certainly not seem sober. I'd argue that a reasonable person should almost always recognize a person who has had enough alcohol to black out as too drunk to consent -- if not immediately, then shortly afterward as the alcohol continues to take effect.

Coupled with the possibility of two parties being theoretically able to rape each other simultaneously I think the standard of not able to remember is too low.

I think it would make the most sense to treat such a situation as we treat another situation involving two partners equally unable to consent -- that of two minors having sex -- and ignore it. (Obviously I'm only talking here about drunken sex which occurs absent any coercion from either side.)

Plus it's a retrospective judgement, different people lose their memory at different stages of intoxication, making it near impossible for anyone to judge whether the person is legally capable of consent beforehand (or prove it in any way, you can have evidence about amount of alcohol consumed, physical state etc from witnesses, memory loss is unidentifiable to anyone but the person themselves).

I'm not for making memory loss specifically the standard. As you say, it's difficult (but not impossible) for another person to spot. But again, severe intoxication has other symptoms, many of which will occur before memory loss.

So, what does that say? A man is guilty of rape if he penetrates the mouth, anus, or vagina or another individual (male or female), without the other consenting, and without a reasonable belief that they have consented. That's fairly straightforward; if the man genuinely believed consent was given then it's not rape, even if consent wasn't actually given and the other individual believes they were raped. If the man doesn't have a belief that consent was given then it's rape.

<all very interesting but snip to aviod getting unwieldy>

Firstly thank you. I had previously only seen these aspects of the law in passing and from a point of view of a psychologist (presentations on rape myths/attitudes) rather than a strictly legal interpretation, so it was very interesting to see what the actual interpretation/case law is.

With regard to the genuine belief, doesn't the issue of "reasonable man" come in here quite a bit, given that it should be that a reasonable man would genuinly consider consent rather than specifically what the rapist considered consent. Certain rapists may justify that the victim consented despite saying no because they didn't struggle enough or really "her eyes were saying yes" (and verious other justifications I have heard reported). This may be a genuine belief on his part but would still be rape because it is not reasonable consent?

With regard to the genuine belief, doesn't the issue of "reasonable man" come in here quite a bit, given that it should be that a reasonable man would genuinly consider consent rather than specifically what the rapist considered consent. Certain rapists may justify that the victim consented despite saying no because they didn't struggle enough or really "her eyes were saying yes" (and verious other justifications I have heard reported). This may be a genuine belief on his part but would still be rape because it is not reasonable consent?

Pretty much. The rapist may have a "good faith belief" (that is, he genuinely believes) that the victim's "eyes were saying yes," but the fact that he genuinely believes it doesn't make the belief reasonable.

Firstly thank you. I had previously only seen these aspects of the law in passing and from a point of view of a psychologist (presentations on rape myths/attitudes) rather than a strictly legal interpretation, so it was very interesting to see what the actual interpretation/case law is.

Yeah, it's always interesting to see how different areas of academia approach the same subject.

With regard to the genuine belief, doesn't the issue of "reasonable man" come in here quite a bit, given that it should be that a reasonable man would genuinly consider consent rather than specifically what the rapist considered consent. Certain rapists may justify that the victim consented despite saying no because they didn't struggle enough or really "her eyes were saying yes" (and verious other justifications I have heard reported). This may be a genuine belief on his part but would still be rape because it is not reasonable consent?

To paraphrase...all reasonable beliefs may be genuine, but not all genuine beliefs are reasonable.

edit: Ah, I see I've been beaten to it...

Pretty much. The rapist may have a "good faith belief" (that is, he genuinely believes) that the victim's "eyes were saying yes," but the fact that he genuinely believes it doesn't make the belief reasonable.

Thought so, just wanted to check because I've been caught by case law making completly absurd interpretations of things before.

The psychological work done with sex offenders (of which there is a lot, though it does tend to focus on child sex offenders which are qualitatively different), many of them do hold genuine, but wrong, beliefs about the level of consent their victims are giving (termed malapative schema or cognitions).

What are you on about? :confused:

DK firmly believes that no man can ever be raped by a woman.

1. You don't want to know the answer to that question...it will make things no clearer.

2. You don't have to worry however, as he never will answer your question.

Oh I know this, but I don't let that stop me from asking questions ;)

DK firmly believes that no man can ever be raped by a woman.

Under UK law nobody, male or female, can be raped by a woman.
However they can be a victim of sexual assault by penetration, which carries the same maximum sentence (life).

Or people who insist that there's something within a corpse that makes the former inhabitant of the body care in that time of being dead what is happening to it, they hurt my feelings, too.

...Are you suggesting we legalize necrophilia?

I'd argue that a reasonable person should almost always recognize a person who has had enough alcohol to black out as too drunk to consent -- if not immediately, then shortly afterward as the alcohol continues to take effect.

I'm not for making memory loss specifically the standard. As you say, it's difficult (but not impossible) for another person to spot. But again, severe intoxication has other symptoms, many of which will occur before memory loss.

So are you saying that a man should be legally obligated to recognize these symptoms? Because I've lived a pretty damn sheltered life, and I can only once remember being in the same house as a drunk person - which I didn't recognize as being drunk until I was informed of it. I highly doubt that I would be able to recognize different stages of drunkenness, especially if I were drunk myself.

Is it unreasonable to be inexperienced in drunken encounters?

So are you saying that a man should be legally obligated to recognize these symptoms? Because I've lived a pretty damn sheltered life, and I can only once remember being in the same house as a drunk person - which I didn't recognize as being drunk until I was informed of it. I highly doubt that I would be able to recognize different stages of drunkenness, especially if I were drunk myself.

Is it unreasonable to be inexperienced in drunken encounters?

Well, I'll say up front that it's hard for me to put myself in your position, as I've had plenty of drinks and have been around plenty of people who've had plenty of drinks. But trying to do so, it's also hard for me to imagine a situation in which you'd have to determine from behavior alone whether a person offering to have sex with you is drunk. Usually there's a context that will help you figure that out.

I personally don't get a lot of drunken propositions. (I know this will surprise many, given the obvious charm on display in my posts.) However, in both my understanding and my limited experience these things tend to happen in places and at events where you'd already expect people to be drinking or drunk -- bars, parties, and the like. So there's usually context.

So are you saying that a man should be legally obligated to recognize these symptoms? Because I've lived a pretty damn sheltered life, and I can only once remember being in the same house as a drunk person - which I didn't recognize as being drunk until I was informed of it. I highly doubt that I would be able to recognize different stages of drunkenness, especially if I were drunk myself.


everyone should be responsible for their own drug intake. I dont think being under the influence of anything should be an excuse or mittigating factor to a crime (unless the drug is otherwise than labelled).

Alcohol effects your mind. You become more likely to do stupid and/or dangerous things with every single drop. If you can not recognize what state you are in or limit your alcohol intake to a point where you can still control yourself you shouldnt be drinking in the first place.

There are always groups of people who blame their actions on drugs but who decided to take the drugs in the first place?

So are you saying that a man should be legally obligated to recognize these symptoms? Because I've lived a pretty damn sheltered life, and I can only once remember being in the same house as a drunk person - which I didn't recognize as being drunk until I was informed of it. I highly doubt that I would be able to recognize different stages of drunkenness, especially if I were drunk myself.

Is it unreasonable to be inexperienced in drunken encounters?

If the girl you are with has blacked out (as was clearly mentioned in the post you quoted) then, frankly, it's irrelevent whether or not you have experience with drunk people. If someone has blacked out you should know that they are in no fit state to be doing anything let alone consenting to having sex with you.

If the girl you are with has blacked out (as was clearly mentioned in the post you quoted) then, frankly, it's irrelevent whether or not you have experience with drunk people. If someone has blacked out you should know that they are in no fit state to be doing anything let alone consenting to having sex with you.

How? Given that Copiosa Scotia is defining blacked out as having memory loss the next day rather than being unconscious.


everyone should be responsible for their own drug intake. I dont think being under the influence of anything should be an excuse or mittigating factor to a crime (unless the drug is otherwise than labelled).

Alcohol effects your mind. You become more likely to do stupid and/or dangerous things with every single drop. If you can not recognize what state you are in or limit your alcohol intake to a point where you can still control yourself you shouldnt be drinking in the first place.

There are always groups of people who blame their actions on drugs but who decided to take the drugs in the first place?
That's pretty irrelevant. The post was primarily about someone recognising symptoms of drunkenness in someone else.


I personally don't get a lot of drunken propositions. (I know this will surprise many, given the obvious charm on display in my posts.) However, in both my understanding and my limited experience these things tend to happen in places and at events where you'd already expect people to be drinking or drunk -- bars, parties, and the like. So there's usually context.
Context that they're drinking certainly, but judging how drunk they are would still be tricky to say the least.

Apart from anything else, a person themselves might not be able to tell if (how's partial memory loss defined?) they'll remember something the next morning. A situation where two people can't be sure whether them having consensual sex would be legally classed as rape (of one or both of them) sounds problematic at the least.

If you leave your front door unlocked, you're an idiot. But just because you have been an idiot doesn't mean that you deserve to be burgled, and the law won't investigate whoever committed the crime.

Still your insurance will refuse to cover the damage you suffered.

Anyway, in the rape case, this isn't about an insurance company repaying a customer, it's about a criminal being fined and that money going to the victim. So hell no, there should be no reductions of fines at all. People have all the right to dress "provocatively" and to drink alcohol, and this doesn't make them "legal" or "less illegal" targets for criminals.

Still your insurance will refuse to cover the damage you suffered.

Anyway, in the rape case, this isn't about an insurance company repaying a customer, it's about a criminal being fined and that money going to the victim. So hell no, there should be no reductions of fines at all. People have all the right to dress "provocatively" and to drink alcohol, and this doesn't make them "legal" or "less illegal" targets for criminals.

It isn't. The case in the OP was about the amount of compensation the victim should get from the government. The criminal (who I don't think was caught) is not involved at all.

...Are you suggesting we legalize necrophilia?

It was my hobby-horse before SoWiBi jumped on and rode it. (Kushin Los raised it, but as a spurious case of "non-consent = rape.")

"Legalize" in the sense of "all dead bodies are fair game" -- no.
But it should definitely be dissociated from ideas about "consent" of the corpse.
As my example of a blow-up doll shows, there must be some limit to the expectation of an "object of a sexual act" to be able to give consent. A dead body cannot consent, nor does any living person suffer what is done to that body.

A living person gets to state their preference for the disposition of their body after death. That's a "will." It is subject to the execution of the will, by the executor and the law.

At this point in time, willing one's corpse to be a sexual object is forbidden by law. THAT should change.

Still your insurance will refuse to cover the damage you suffered.

Anyway, in the rape case, this isn't about an insurance company repaying a customer, it's about a criminal being fined and that money going to the victim. So hell no, there should be no reductions of fines at all. People have all the right to dress "provocatively" and to drink alcohol, and this doesn't make them "legal" or "less illegal" targets for criminals.

Yeah, you got that wrong. This is "compensation" in the welfare sense. "Something bad happened to you, and because we the government are compassionate we're going to help you out."

I agree with that, btw. It's an extension of the principle of disability (and even age!) pensions: government making up for natural injustice.

There's another way of looking at it though: government compensates the victim for government's failure to enforce the law. Government pays the compensation which rightfully the perpetrator of the crime should pay.

In both cases, the rationale is to compensate the victim. To ameliorate some harm. The second interpretation (where blame is ascribed to government for not punishing the rapist) is more positive, since it provides a money incentive to government to prevent the rape in the first place.