Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[bimble]

At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman initiates sex? etc, etc

If this wasn't the anonymous internet i wouldn't dare but- exactly this. My feminist credentials crumble a bit in this particular area, or maybe I just don't quite follow why all responsibility and agency is supposed to lie with the person who has a penis in such situations.

 

[Sasaferrato]

In what way is it a very, very fine line? If anything, the subjective element of the test already gives would-be rapists far too much leeway.

I don't formulate the law, I suggest you address your concerns to the Attorney General.

 

[Sasaferrato]

...you don't know what you're on about

You have posted nothing here, to indicate that you have more idea as to what you are on about...

 

[Sasaferrato]

i'm not getting the sense you're confident in your answer.

If you are too dim to differentiate between the legality and the morality of the situation...

 

[Pickman's model]

If you are too dim to differentiate between the legality and the morality of the situation...

..then i would be you

 

[Pickman's model]

You have posted nothing here, to indicate that you have more idea as to what you are on about...

that's because i was asking you about your ideas, not presenting my own.

 

[butchersapron]

If you are too dim to differentiate between the legality and the morality of the situation...

Where have you done this?

 

[Sasaferrato]

yeah and as said on other page theres ften wilful misunderstanding- I struggle to believe someone doesn't know when someone is is too drunk to have sex with

Indeed. This is exactly what the new jury are going to have to decide. Even within marriage, there is no such thing as implied consent. If I were to have sex with a passed out Mrs Sas, it is rape.

 

[Wilf]

What is in it for Evans? Other than having the stain that he is a rapist, just about removed from his character?

Do you remember Mrs Merton asking Debbie McGhee why she married the millionaire Paul Daniels? This is another case where the answer is in the question.

 

[Spymaster]

If this wasn't the anonymous internet i wouldn't dare but- exactly this. My feminist credentials crumble a bit in this particular area, or maybe I just don't quite follow why all responsibility and agency is supposed to lie with the person who has a penis in such situations.

Well yes, the extension of it is that drunken women are unable to give consent, which is clearly ludicrous and probably a notion that many women would find offensive.

 

[Sasaferrato]

that's because i was asking you about your ideas, not presenting my own.

Just as well really, you seem to have little to present.

 

[Athos]

I don't formulate the law, I suggest you address your concerns to the Attorney General.

No, but you were ill-informedly commenting on it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Do you remember Mrs Merton asking Debbie McGhee why she married the millionaire Paul Daniels? This is another case where the answer is in the question.

Do you honestly think that any club will sign him, even if he is found not guilty? I certainly don't, he is badly damaged goods, and would attract a lot of unwanted attention to any club that took him on.

 

[Athos]

Well yes, the extension of it is that drunken women are unable to give consent, which is clearly ludicrous and probably a notion that many women would find offensive.

But that's specifically and explicitly not what the case law says. It very clearly days that drunk women can consent. This is a complete strawman.

 

[Sasaferrato]

No, but you were ill-informedly commenting on it.

Really? Please point out where.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just as well really, you seem to have little to present.

you don't get this 'being asked about things' idea and how it differs from 'here's what i think'.

 

[Pickman's model]

Really? Please point out where.

passim

 

[Athos]

Of course, but it's not always going to be clear in the case of drugs and booze, is it? You can be sure that if a woman says no, is asleep, or so drunk she clearly doesn't know what's going on, she's not consenting. But what if she's very drunk and says yes, or actively encourages it?

And, if it she doesn't consent but he reasonably believes she has, he's not guilty. He won't be convicted unless the jury is sure he had no reasonable belief of consent.

 

[Wilf]

Do you honestly think that any club will sign him, even if he is found not guilty? I certainly don't, he is badly damaged goods, and would attract a lot of unwanted attention to any club that took him on.

At this point in the story I don't really give a shit as to whether he gets signed up. I was commenting on your daft idea that he had no obvious motivation for appealing if he was guilty.

 

[Spymaster]

But that's specifically and explicitly not what the case law says. It very clearly days that drunk women can consent. This is a complete strawman.

Well that's what I mean. It's not a strawman at all. At what point is someone too drunk to consent? Is there a test and if so what is it?

 

[bimble]

Well yes, the extension of it is that drunken women are unable to give consent, which is clearly ludicrous and probably a notion that many women would find offensive.

But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
I've had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.

 

[Spymaster]

And, if it she doesn't consent but he reasonably believes she has, he's not guilty. He won't be convicted unless the jury is sure he had no reasonable belief of consent.

And there we have it again. What constitutes a reasonable belief that someone's consenting in a case where they say they weren't?

 

[Sasaferrato]

But that's specifically and explicitly not what the case law says. It very clearly days that drunk women can consent. This is a complete strawman.

There is a difference between drunk and drunk and incapable. If someone is so drunk that they wet themselves, I think that any reasonable person would feel that informed consent cannot be given, on the grounds of incapacity. It is that line between drunk and incapable that is the crux of this case.

However, as I said earlier, I don't formulate the law. It is up to the judge to advise the jury.

 

[Pickman's model]

But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
I have had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk young people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.

do you mean 'sort of very feminist boyfriend' or 'he might be my boyfriend but then again he might not'?

 

[Pickman's model]

There is a difference between drunk and drunk and incapable. If someone is so drunk that they wet themselves, I think that any reasonable person would feel that informed consent cannot be given, on the grounds of incapacity. It is that line between drunk and incapable that is the crux of this case.

However, as I said earlier, I don't formulate the law. It is up to the judge to advise the jury.

the judge doesn't formulate the law either, that's done by parliament.

 

[bimble]

do you mean 'sort of very feminist boyfriend' or 'he might be my boyfriend but then again he might not'?

the latter

 

[Athos]

Well that's what I mean. It's not a strawman at all. At what point is someone too drunk to consent? Is there a test and if so what is it?

It doesn't really matter, since the point at which someone can be convicted is that at which a jury are sure he knew she hadn't consented. It's a very, very high bar for the prosecution.

 

[belboid]

God, the scum really are back out in force today. Fucking rape apologists, that is what they are pure and simple. Deliberately trying to muddy waters, let an abuser of the hook and blaming the victim.

At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman initiates sex? etc, etc

Really is a case in point. You (and Sasaferrato ) pretend to have followed the case 'closely' and yet you still come out with shite like this? If you had actually followed the case, you would remember how and why Clayton McDonald got off. It's pretty fucking clear.

Without knowing what the new evidence is, there is absolutely no reason to think Evans has a 'good' chance, or a 'vague' chance or a remote chance of getting off, it's all bullshit. And those of you pretending otherwise are talking reactionary shite. And doing so while/because you are ignoring the massive, fucking humungous, barriers facing women attempting to get a bit of justice after being raped. Only 5.7% of reported rapes end in a conviction, and only 15% are even reported. But let's have most sympathy for the tiny number of blokes (especially famous ones!) who abuse women, but possibly not quite badly enough for it to count as rape.

Fuck them, and fuck their apologists.

 

[Sasaferrato]

But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
I've had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.

I take your point. However, as it is the man who owns the invading organ, it is up to the man to ensure that before he pokes it in, he has consent to do so.

 

[Athos]

And there we have it again. What constitutes a reasonable belief that someone's consenting in a case where they say they weren't?

That's a question for the jury, on all the evidence.