Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[bendeus]

Hag .lucky I'm gay lol Pamela lol she's ,y. New go away m

You want to be putting more tobacco in them, fella

 

[bimble]

That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect. That is, it relaxes your mental censor, it doesn't cause you to undertake behaviours that you're not already consciously or unconsciously aligned with.
"Temporarily erasing" is a bag of arse.

But at the same time, the idea that alcohol can 'temporarily erase' someone's capacity to give valid consent is not a bag of arse its part of the legal guidelines for juries to consider, isn't it.

What if you had a friend who repeatedly got wasted and ended up sleeping with people whilst drunk, and who would phone you the next day regretting it? Every time they went out? Would you recommend they still drank that much?

Yep, exactly. I had a conversation with a friend couple of weeks ago where she told me that she'd woken up in a bloke's bed (not a stranger a friend of hers) with no recollection of what had happened the night before, how far they'd gone etc. He was apparently completely horrified when she told him that she couldn't remember. Of course as her mate I'm massively concerned about her doing this sort of thing and not afraid to tell her to please try really really hard to not get in that sort of situation again, call me before hooking up with anyone etc. i don't think that makes me a rape apologist.

 

[Spymaster]

i don't think that makes me a rape apologist.

Of course it doesn't. It makes you a decent friend.

It's only Bellend who's been chucking around accusations of rape apology and he's a hysterical dunce.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm twatted lol I m lol some veg but vim bog a. Fuck ft his guy now he's cute text

I meant hesbvute

Cute

Lol

Twatten

Hag .lucky I'm gay lol Pamela lol she's ,y. New go away m

How's the head?

 

[joe_infinity]

That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect.

Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?

It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...

 

[belboid]

Yep, exactly. I had a conversation with a friend couple of weeks ago where she told me that she'd woken up in a bloke's bed (not a stranger a friend of hers) with no recollection of what had happened the night before, how far they'd gone etc. He was apparently completely horrified when she told him that she couldn't remember. Of course as her mate I'm massively concerned about her doing this sort of thing and not afraid to tell her to please try really really hard to not get in that sort of situation again, call me before hooking up with anyone etc. i don't think that makes me a rape apologist.

You haven't made any excuses for the men, you haven't pretended to know all about this case and to have insights that mean you're sure Evans will be found to be innocent. Worrying about someone getting so pissed they can't recall what happened is hardly excusing any man who might abuse that incapacity. It's very different to what was said by the scumbag spymaster (or any of the other people who have been rape apologists here)

 

[toggle]

Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?

It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...

so you don't actually want a citation, you want to make an accusation.

 

[RubyBlue]

How's the head?

After reading this thread during the day I think I was trying to see if - although drunk - could consent have been given or implied - guess I got my answer. It was an experiment

 

[ViolentPanda]

But at the same time, the idea that alcohol can 'temporarily erase' someone's capacity to give valid consent is not a bag of arse its part of the legal guidelines for juries to consider, isn't it.

Nope. The idea that it can lower someone's capacity is. If "legal guidelines" stated that it can "temporarily erase" (they state nothing of the sort) capacity, then they would be wrong on a point of fact.
If you're going to be disputatious, it's best to be sure of your arguments first.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?

Wootton, B. 'Social Science and Social Pathology'. Chapter VI. 1959.
Welner, B. (2008) "Drug-Facilitated Sex Assault". (from less than 10 years ago)
Sigmund Freud's research into "frigidity" (which is gone into in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle") was centred around finding a substance that would dis-inhibit women and make them more sexually-pliant. He eventually went with cocaine, but experimented with alcohol.

That's 3 examples from my bookshelves. A search on Google Scholar would probably net you a much wider selection.

It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...

Yes, they are, about 98.4% of the time.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?

It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...

Wrong! It's 56.963%.

 

[Kesher]

That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect. That is, it relaxes your mental censor, it doesn't cause you to undertake behaviours that you're not already consciously or unconsciously aligned with.

"Temporarily erasing" is a bag of arse.

My argument misrepresented or misunderstood: perhaps a bit of both.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Nope. The idea that it can lower someone's capacity is. If "legal guidelines" stated that it can "temporarily erase" (they state nothing of the sort) capacity, then they would be wrong on a point of fact.
If you're going to be disputatious, it's best to be sure of your arguments first.

We are not talking about disinhibition though; alcohol is a disinhibitor, as evidenced by the drunken antics in any town centre at closing time; we are talking about an anaesthetic, which alcohol is when ingested in large quantity. There is no difference between a scumbag that dopes somebody with Rohypnol, and a scumbag that shags someone who is unconscious due to excess alcohol.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Which is part of the reason that a tiny porportion of rapes result in conviction. Which, in turn, is why I have limited sympathy for those who imply that the law is too difficult for men to understand and/or abide by.

Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My argument misrepresented or misunderstood: perhaps a bit of both.

Of course, there's a third option...

 

[ViolentPanda]

We are not talking about disinhibition though; alcohol is a disinhibitor, as evidence by the drunken antics in any town centre at closing time; we are talking about an anaesthetic, which alcohol is when ingested in large quantity. There is no difference between a scumbag that dopes somebody with Rohypnol, and a scumbag that shags someone who is unconscious due to excess alcohol.

There's a very obvious difference. The former shows intent to commit an act of aggravated rape, the latter does not necessarily do so, unless the rapist has been engaged in "feeding" the alcohol to the victim.

 

[equationgirl]

Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?

 

[equationgirl]

Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.

You might want to read some of the threads on urban about convictions for rape- it's not about the height of the bar.

 

[crossthebreeze]

This is well worth a read - Not Worth Reporting: women's experiences of alcohol and sexual violence - its based on a survey of survivors of rape or sexual assault where either the victim and/or the perpetrator were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the assault, and it also contains a discussion on the law on capacity to consent and various feminst approaches to the issue.

A couple of things stand out - the first is around survivor's views on their capacity to consent: Most survivors rejected the notion that it was only at the point of losing consciousness that a person loses their ability to consent to sex. Many survivors were also clear that there would be capacity to consent at some levels of intoxication. When survivors were asked about their symptoms of intoxication and whether they thought they had capacity to consent at the time of the assault

"there was a clear relationship between some effects of substances and survivors’ perceptions of whether they had the ability to communicate consent. ...being unconscious, blacking out, having no memory of what happened, not being able to move or speak, feeling confused, vomiting and falling asleep were associated with a belief that they were probably or definitely unable to communicate consent at the time of the assault. Conversely, experiencing none of the effects listed, feeling physically sensitive to touch, feeling anxious or panicky and having no sense of time were associated with believing that they were probably or definitely able to communicate their consent at the time they were attacked."​

Therefore many survivors seem to understand the point where someone begins to lose capacity to consent as when a certain level of intoxication is reached, which can indicated by a range of symptoms.

The second point is

"that victims and survivors who consumed substances before the assault frequently face even greater barriers to achieving justice than survivors who had not been drinking or taken drugs. They also experience additional stigma and disbelief about the harm they have experienced if substances were consumed prior to them being sexually assaulted or raped."​

 

[ViolentPanda]

You might want to read some of the threads on urban about convictions for rape- it's not about the height of the bar.

If the height of the bar were the only major issue, many more convictions would be secured, wouldn't they?

As it is, complaints have to get past the dead weight of institutional sexism throughout the criminal justice establishment; past the - thoroughly understandable - fear of hostile cross-examination (which can do as much psychological damage as the actual rape); past the everyday prejudices of the jury, and past the survivor's ability to see all that through while dealing with physical and emotional trauma.

 

[toggle]

Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.

changing the height of the bar will amnke the situation worse. the issue is society's attitude towards women and rape myths

 

[Sasaferrato]

There's a very obvious difference. The former shows intent to commit an act of aggravated rape, the latter does not necessarily do so, unless the rapist has been engaged in "feeding" the alcohol to the victim.

Indeed, and quite how do you prove that?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?

Don't recall it as an absolute. Can you quote a case? Extremely rare one would have thought.

male on male rape, on the other hand, is much less rare.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed, and quite how do you prove that?

In the usual way - by questioning any witnesses, by checking past behaviour, and a host of other investigative techniques.

 

[equationgirl]

Don't recall it as an absolute. Can you quote a case? Extremely rare one would have thought.

male on male rape, on the other hand, is much less rare.

I already have, in response to your original bold absolute statement. it's the Joyce McKinney case from 1978. I suggest you Google it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

You might want to read some of the threads on urban about convictions for rape- it's not about the height of the bar.

Well, it is really.

I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.

The big problem with rape is its isolation, there generally aren't any witnesses. many times, the physical evidence has not been gathered, and you have a 'circumstantial evidence' case, and a 'He did it' 'I didn't' scenario. The person with the best barrister, and the more convincing demeanour usually wins. Sadly, often that is not the woman who has been raped. I felt that in a couple of sexual abuse cases, the judge was remiss in not pointing out to the jury that the accused were actors, effectively, people who lie for a living.

Then law is changing, albeit very slowly. The introduction of the offence of rape within marriage was long overdue, why on earth should any human being be forced to have sex, and have no redress in law. The cessation of allowing the complainant to be badgered and harassed over their past sexual history, is also good. (Yes, I do know that judges have an immense amount of discretion.) There was dreadful case in Scotland, where a rape victim had to display the underwear she was wearing that night, to the court. The girl committed suicide a while after the case.

What are your views on, the suggestion that those accused of rape should be anonymous, unless convicted? It is a heinous crime, and mud sticks. There is an argument that naming the person sometimes brings out other accusers, but they could come forward after the trial, if the man is convicted, very probably with a stronger case.

 

[equationgirl]

I also suggest you actually read what people post in response to your throwaway statements - what you assert to be the case is usually refuted by others who have done their research.

 

[equationgirl]

Well, it is really.

I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.

The big problem with rape is its isolation, there generally aren't any witnesses. many times, the physical evidence has not been gathered, and you have a 'circumstantial evidence' case, and a 'He did it' 'I didn't' scenario. The person with the best barrister, and the more convincing demeanour usually wins. Sadly, often that is not the woman who has been raped. I felt that in a couple of sexual abuse cases, the judge was remiss in not pointing out to the jury that the accused were actors, effectively, people who lie for a living.

Then law is changing, albeit very slowly. The introduction of the offence of rape within marriage was long overdue, why on earth should any human being be forced to have sex, and have no redress in law. The cessation of allowing the complainant to be badgered and harassed over their past sexual history, is also good. (Yes, I do know that judges have an immense amount of discretion.) There was dreadful case in Scotland, where a rape victim had to display the underwear she was wearing that night, to the court. The girl committed suicide a while after the case.

What are your views on, the suggestion that those accused of rape should be anonymous, unless convicted? It is a heinous crime, and mud sticks. There is an argument that naming the person sometimes brings out other accusers, but they could come forward after the trial, if the man is convicted, very probably with a stronger case.

Dear God I suggest you actually read what I've posted on urban with regards to rape and sexually violent crime reporting instead of patronising me some some fucking noob.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?

I said: '
I do see what you are getting at, and I don't disagree. I cannot however, recall a case where a woman has been prosecuted for having sex with a passed out man.'

That is exactly what I said. Your absolute must be different from mine, that ain't an absolute.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Dear God I suggest you actually read what I've posted on urban with regards to rape and sexually violent crime reporting instead of patronising me some some fucking noob.

Have you been drinking or something? Why the drastic response? If you don't like what I post, don't read it. My beliefs are honestly held. I am appalled by the present situation, where conviction rates are dismal.