Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Roll yer eyes all you like. Getting hung up on the non-distinction between sexual assault and rape is a very odd thing to spend one's time doing. If it were your botty that were sore in 1984 I reckon you would not be so keen to make the distinction.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, she was wrong.

No shit?

In fact, I pointed that out to her.

Well done.

But I didn't feel the need to be a dick about it.

She did!

Why not give it a rest?

Why would I?

 

[Athos]

Why would I?

Because you're coming across as a bit of prick. Up to you, of course. No skin off my nose.

 

[8115]

this.

if the law is unable to prosecute a serious sexual violation that isnt penile penetration as rape, then the law is an ass.

I don't have a problem with the offences being different as long as the sentences are appropriate.

 

[Spymaster]

Because you're coming across as a bit of prick. Up to you, of course. No skin off my nose.

Cool.

Go fuck yourself then.

 

[Spymaster]

Getting hung up on the non-distinction between sexual assault and rape is a very odd thing to spend one's time doing.

Except you're the only tit doing that.

EG fucked up and said that Joyce McKinney had been convicted of raping a geezer.

That's absolutely wrong.

Now shut the fuck up.

 

[Athos]

Cool.

Go fuck yourself then.

 

[toggle]

I don't have a problem with the offences being different as long as the sentences are appropriate.

the problem with having different names for offences is that it tells some victims and society that some rapes aren't proper rape.

When the law won’t call it rape

thats a us article, but covers some of the issues of how victims feel about their rape not being called rape.

 

[bimble]

a dirty and abusive session on someone far down on the social rung from him

Is " a dirty and abusive session" a crime? Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok?

Fessing up, cos it's late on a Sunday, and I've had a few drinks, I'm probably what casually red would call a Sex Person - I like 'weird' sex sometimes, and some of what I want my friend to do to me sometimes is illegal, according to the strict letter of uk law. So yes, asking about the law is ok by me, the law is supposed to be there to help us, to define the contours of a moral world we want to live in, not to be some giant scary thing carved in stone that we're just subject to.

 

[DotCommunist]

Is " a dirty and abusive session" a crime? Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok? I'm not sure how you define that and am bit worried.
Fessing up, cos it's late on a Sunday, and I've had a few drinks, I'm probably what casually red would call a Sex Person - I like 'weird' sex sometimes, and some of what I want my friend to do to me sometimes is illegal, according to the strict letter of uk law. So yes, asking about the law is ok by me, its supposed to help us, not to be some giant thing carved in stone that we have to just accept.

me too. I've left partners with bruises and so on, a fan of a bit of sub/dom play. Stops at the bedroom door, safe word etc.

but abusive should be the one ringing a bell for you. And Cheds activities had none of the things you expect from consensual cruelty but rather the hallmarks of actual sexual abuse. There is a difference and I'm not sure why you keep painting those who know where the lines are as somehow prude ascetics.

 

[DotCommunist]

and expecting the law to be there to help us is why you get called liberal btw

all law is class law.

 

[bimble]

I'm not sure why you keep painting those who know where the lines are as somehow prude ascetics.

Did i do that? I don't think so. If i did maybe you can show me where i've crossed the line. I don't think this is relevant at all to the alcohol consent discussion. & again, I have no clue and no opinion at all about the specific case of this footballer.

 

[DotCommunist]

Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok?

this, this here, suggesting that because I mentioned the disparity in social standing between the two and its effect on the case I am somehow averse to inter-class shagging and whatever might go on between grown ups. What was that? Have I read you incorrectly here? But you should be able to follow the line from the alcohol discussions. Being a crap dom while drunk is totally not what ched and his mate got up to. I recon if we don't want to muddy the waters any more on this thread you should start an 'alcohol/drugs and consent' thread in the health and etc forum. Its certainly something to have a discussion about and I would be interested to see the thoughts of yourself and others but in cheds case the verdict from my five personalities says 'jail'

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Except you're the only tit doing that.

EG fucked up and said that Joyce McKinney had been convicted of raping a geezer.

That's absolutely wrong.

Now shut the fuck up.

Oh OK. So where are you on Max Clifford being a rapist? Just for them lols and tha...

 

[Spymaster]

So where are you on Max Clifford being a rapist?

Has he been convicted of rape?

 

[bimble]

this, this here, suggesting that because I mentioned the disparity in social standing between the two and its effect on the case I am somehow averse to inter-class shagging and whatever might go on between grown ups. What was that? Have I read you incorrectly here? But you should be able to follow the line from the alcohol discussions. Being a crap dom while drunk is totally not what ched and his mate got up to. I recon if we don't want to muddy the waters any more on this thread you should start an 'alcohol/drugs and consent' thread in the health and etc forum. Its certainly something to have a discussion about and I would be interested to see the thoughts of yourself and others but in cheds case the verdict from my five personalities says 'jail'

You have 5 personalities with all different regional accents and one safeword? But yes you're right, these my questions belong elsewhere because its nothing to do with the footballer. Would have to be totally sober and fully in command of my intentions to competently start a new thread on it though.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Has he been convicted of rape?

No.

Does that make him a non-rapist?

 

[Spymaster]

Does that make him a non-rapist?

Of course not.

Do you think he's a rapist then?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Of course not...

yes

 

[DotCommunist]

You have 5 personalities with all different regional accents and one safeword? But yes you're right, these my questions belong elsewhere because its nothing to do with the footballer. Would have to be totally sober and fully in command of my intentions to competently start a new thread on it though.

man of many talents. Do start it tomorrow, I'd hope it will make for a good informative thread, I'll chip in but largely listen. Read. You know what I mean.

 

[bimble]

man of many talents. Do start it tomorrow, I'd hope it will make for a good informative thread, I'll chip in but largely listen. Read. You know what I mean.

What if you started the thread about interesting conversations about consent & freedom & the law . But no, of course that wouldn't work, because you're a boy so any discussion of pushing the boundaries of consent is my job.

 

[DotCommunist]

What if you started the thread about interesting conversations about consent. But no, of course that wouldn't work, because you're a boy so any discussion of pushing the boundaries of consent is my job.

s'not a job its a thread. Better coming from you anyway, its what you want to discuss rather than a case you admit to not knowing much about. Besides I am a boorish oaf and will no doubt forget what I was talking about by tomorrow so fill yer boots. but it would be an interesting discussion

 

[bimble]

if any of you have got 4 minutes, maybe read this, because its brilliant and brave and talks to the gap which I think a lot of us not just me struggle with.
Me and the author are sort of internet friends -she's wonderful, she teaches consent classes for teenagers in the us and canada and she plays the drums.

" I refuse to, for the sake of defending what’s right (e.g., unequivocal consent), paint everything else catastrophically. That is just not accurate. And those are not exclusive categories: I have more than two options beyond A (consensual sex) and B (rape of the spirit) and I want it acknowledged."..

The Pressure to Never Have Unwanted Sex

 

[Spymaster]

I think I'd be really fascinated, or possibly, enthralled, by belboid's input.

 

[emanymton]

I think I'd be really fascinated, or possibly, enthralled, by belboid's input.

He hasn't actually posted anything for about 3 pages. At least we know you really have put him on ignore.

 

[Orang Utan]

Surely women can rape as you don't need to use a penis to rape someone.

 

[Spymaster]

Surely women can rape as you don't need to use a penis to rape someone.

You do under UK law:

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1

 

[crossthebreeze]

I was remembering the bit (from article about the Bree case) where it says "it further recognises that the capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious." So it was evaporate not erase, your honour.

Interesting to see that article is cited in the piece crossthebreeze linked to up there.
As crossthebreeze's link summarises "her idea is that the law should be changed so that it is unreasonable to believe that an intoxicated person has consented".

That's where I have a problem.
I reckon my confusion with this whole subject is this: I (probably mistakenly) see this debate as a dichotomy between personal autonomy and victimhood.
That's a totally shit choice, nobody should have to make that choice.

In my head, personal autonomy is a hard won really valuable thing when it comes to women and sex. The downside is it comes with a massive weight of watching my back, checking my choices, bailing out quickly of any situation that I think may leave me in harms way;
It means for instance saying no when a man I don't know offers to buy me a drink in a bar, because that might just possibly lead to all sorts of hassle- Policing my own behaviour all the time calculating risk etc. Its no fun at all, it's crap, i'm not proud of it and wouldn't wish it on anyone else.

But the other side of this is the idea that a drunk woman's actions are not the actions and judgements of a fully responsible adult person whilst a man's actions (however pissed they may be) are - that means that a woman is less adult less responsible, less free - less of a whole person in the eyes of the law than a man.

I'd really like to live in a world where I'd feel free to dance through the streets of London in my underwear pissed off my head singing and not fear that I'd be sexually attacked. That's the sort of thing a man could arguably do, on a stag night or after a match and he might lose his wallet or whatever but wouldn't have being raped as a major concern in his head. But we don't live in that world, at least not yet.
What I can't quite yet get behind is the idea that women should act as if we already live in that ideal world, that the law should put soft corners on things so as to allow us to behave as though the world is not full of fucked up predatory men when it so obviously still is.

In that report I linked to, it was clear that where women saw that they did not have capacity to consent had nothing to do with the disinhibitory effects of alcohol or drugs - and everything to do with extreme effects on motor skills (which would stop someone from verbally or physically expressing or refusing consent) and effects on consciousness less than being unconscious - such as confusion (which would stop someone from understanding what was happening). The report says that where current legislation and case law stands, someone would have to be almost unconscious for them to have a lack of capacity to consent. Thre were also a number of women in the survey who thought that they did have capacity to consent at the time of the assault, despite being under the influence of drugs and alcohol (but reporting less of the extreme symptoms on motor skills or level of conciousness), but whose lack of consent was ignored by their attacker through force. I think that most women - and men- do know the difference between being off their heads but having capacity to consent, and where they start to lose capacity because they can't express their consent or know what they are consenting to, and I think that most women - and men - know where their consent has been violated.

Note if someone has a range of drink or drug-related symptoms which means that they are verbally or physically unable to express or refuse consent or understand what is happening, or unconcious, they are almost certainly not taking an active role in the sexual activity - so you are talking apples and oranges - someone (male or female) to perpertrating rape or sexual assault is very unlikely to lack capacity at the time, even if they have taken drugs or alcohol. And the reason we are mostly talking about men as perpetrators here, is that in many women's and men's experience, its largely men who are acting in a predatory way towards drunk/high women and men. Of course women do perpetrate sexual assault or rape against women and men, but I've never (despite going to lots of lesbian clubs) seen women, for example, working together to pick out isolated, very drunk women or man in a nightclub, or seen a woman try to separate a very wasted woman or man from their friends, in the way I've seen men do this (and intervened), and I don't think many women are adjusting their behaviour in the ways you say you are doing because they are scared of predatory women (and I don't think many men are adjusting their behaviour in these ways at all).

Women from both groups (and the professionals surveyed) expressed problems with accessing justice, and additional stigma, to do with the fact they had drunk or taken drugs when the attack happened. The problem is that women are blamed for their own rapes and sexual assaults, rather than that they are seen as having less responsibility.

You say that there are many measures you unfortunately have to take to keep safe. Speak to most women, and they'll say the same thing. But for loads of different reasons, not every woman will be able to take the same precautions as you - there may be some precautions that I take which you can't take. And failing to take precautions does not make us responsible - morally or legally - if we are raped. Its always the perpetrator who is responsible for rape or sexual assault (and perpetrators are not always men). And here's the thing - we can take all the precautions that anyone could think of, and there's no guarantees that a predatory or aggressive man will not rape or assault us (and thats before we even think about predatory and violent women)! This piece expresses what i'm trying to say.

 

[crossthebreeze]

You do under UK law:



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1

But there's also offences of sexual assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing sexual activity without consent - which women can be accused of - and all will have similar issues around consent and capacity to consent. And women have been convicted of rape when they have perpetrated alongside a man. And both women and men can be the victims of all of these crimes including rape. I'm not defending the law, just clarifying.

 

[Spymaster]

But there's also offences of sexual assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing sexual activity without consent - which women can be accused of - and all will have similar issues around consent and capacity to consent. And women have been convicted of rape when they have perpetrated alongside a man. And both women and men can be the victims of all of these crimes including rape. I'm not defending the law, just clarifying.

Yes, we've discussed rape as an accessory or under JE. As you say the non-consent crimes that women can be charged with are assault by penetration etc., but in the UK a woman cannot be individually charged with or convicted of rape. It's a legally defined term.