Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge

2

Comments

  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    g_angel007 wrote: »
    This is a tough one... There have been several occasions when I (as a bloke) have had no recollection of meeting a woman, ending up going back to mine/hers etc, doing the deed, only waking up in the morning finding myself laying next to her and having to ask her name/what happened/where did we meet etc etc. Hardly something to be proud of, but if this type of situation is common, where exactly do we draw the line with women/consent etc etc?

    Obviously I gave consent, but not remembering the whole thing is a bit :yeees: I'm sure it's a rare thing, but I would surmise that the above situation may have been used as grounds for rape by women before.

    Personally there is no way I'd end up doing something with a woman if she is obviously beyond reasonably drunk (unless I was that drunk I had no idea, similar to the above scenario)...

    Exactly.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    So how does a woman rape a man though? I



    well there has been many times i have gone out with my friends after work, had way to many drinks and turned up at my girlfriends in the middle of the night because she lives near the town center and i live miles away, many of those times we have ended up having sex, does this count as rape??? i mean by what some of you are saying if i was a woman, then it would be rape, but as a man does this mean i am always ok to give consent?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would agree with setting a limit similar to driving, purely to give guidelines to men more than anything.

    You may have inadvertently created a monster with that suggestion.

    Imagine the potential to those who have an eye on your wallet/purse.

    Politicians would sell it as both public protection and job creation.

    The "rape squad" would be everywhere. Any behaviour of a sexual nature would see the production of a breathalyser. ( A health and safety measure, of course. A potential rape could be moments away ).

    Fines would be imposed for fraternising with someone who is "over the limit". This could also extend to the issuance of a "sex licence" (at a cost, of course), with the potential for penalty points on the licence for such misdemeanours.

    :heart::heart: Spring is in the air :heart::heart:

    That time of year would result in a well advertised "Pissed and Pillage Prevention" campaign with random breath tests on the doors of pubs and nightclubs throughout the land.

    If anyone connected with Westminster or the ACPO is reading this, the genie might have left the bottle already.

    YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED !
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    This is sickening. Drunk, under hte influence of drugs, whatever. There are no excuses at all for rape.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but how is a man meant to know whether she's really consenting when she agrees to have sex with him, albeit while drunk?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    This is sickening. Drunk, under hte influence of drugs, whatever. There are no excuses at all for rape.

    So if a woman isnt completely totally stone cold sober even if she consents its rape?

    There is obviously a spectrum between going out with your long term partner for a few drinks at the local and then home for a bit of fun - and forcing yourself on a woman who cant even move she's so drunk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's also always worth remembering that a person themselves has to consider something that happened to them rape. If a woman has had a few drinks and happily consents to sex with someone she has met then it isn't going to be reported as rape.

    This is a legal judgement about rape allegations, not the police questioning men and women about every sexual encounter they've had.

    Of course that also brings up issues of the barriers to rape being reported, and women who may feel they can't report a rape because they were drunk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's not really surprising that women don't want to report a rape - moreso if they were intoxicated at the time. they probably feel like they won't be believed. some people within the CJS (and of course the general public) even believe that because she was drunk, she contributed to her sexual violation - ignoring the fact that her being intoxicated was used by the defendant to take advantage of her.
    even if the victim does report the rape and goes on to court, she will be cross-examined and asked to go over the alleged assault in detail again and again. and like jim v mentioned, she will no doubt have her past sexual history examined (even though it's irrelevant) - and they will use the fact that she has agreed to having sex in the past to say that she would've been more likely to consent with the defendant, too.

    ok going off on a slight tangent now..!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Out of curiosity I googled "Legal Definition of Rape" and this is the best definition I found :
    Definition

    Rape is a term covering a very narrow or wide range of acts depending on whether assaults on all parts of the body that can be penetrated are included or whether some are excluded and defined as sexual assault, and whether penetration by a penis only or other body parts/objects are included. Rape - if defined as penetration by a penis - is a violation that can only be perpetrated by men and the vast majority of victims are women and girls. Rape occurs in every context in which women and girls are found: in their own home, in the community, in institutions including schools, in employment, in social upheaval and conflict. There are tensions in relation to how rape is defined in both legislation and policy. Amongst these are: whether the crime of rape is defined in terms of force or consent, whether rape in marriage is a crime and whether situations such as the victim being unconscious, asleep, drunk or drugged are included. Sexual assault covers other forms of physical sexual intrusion that is unwanted and unwelcome - including touching, rubbing and masturbating on or over someone.
    The legal definition in England and Wales was revised by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in May 2004. The Act represents a major overhaul in the sexual offences framework and was the outcome of extensive consultation and debate over a two year period - for further information see 'Setting the Boundaries' at the Home Office website. Under the new legislation rape is classified as penetration by the penis of somebody's vagina, anus or mouth, without their consent. It can be committed against men or women but since it involves penile penetration it can only be committed by men. The Act also provides for the first time a clear definition of consent. "A person consents if s/he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice." SOA, section 74. The new legislation also covers sexual assaults against adults, children, trafficking and abuse of adults with major learning and other disabilities. View the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at the HMSO website.
    I got this from the "Child & Woman Abuse Studies Unit". So basically rape can only be commited by a man.... so much for equal opportunities. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there can be times when women rape men, it doesn't happen very often but it can. i only know this as i'm doing an essay on rape conviction rates and came across it the other day. :)

    There isn't a offence of a woman raping a man. The offence of rape is gender biased. Only a man can rape a woman. It actually states in the law that a person can only commit an offence of rape if "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis".

    And yes, I realise how stupid this must sound but its the law. If a woman raped a man, it would be regarded as sexual assault. Personally, I don't agree with this and have strong views that a offence of rape committed by women should be introduced.

    Where alcohol is involved, many women don't report rape purely because of the fact that the police are reluctant to take cases any further and juries are reluctant to convict because as previously stated, the jury cannot convict unless they are sure 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the rape actually took place. This is difficult especially where a woman has been drinking. Should it be like this though? Why should women feel as though they can't report a crime purely because they had a few to drink?

    I think judges adopting such an approach is absolutely ridiculous. It is only going to stop more women reporting a crime.

    Alot of us girls have done it, had one too many. Its quite easy to have one too many and crash out as soon as you hit the pillow. If a woman is unconcious, then she clearly cannot give consent. A woman has to be awake to consent to sex.

    On the other hand, there is the fact that alcohol loosens your inhibitions and alot of girls out there, do regret the night before. That can't be classed as rape if at the time of the event, you were able to give consent.

    A thing that I feel quite strongly about is HOW the woman came to be intoxicated in the first place. There are many men out there that encourage women to become more drunk, for example, they might buy them some drinks. This could seen to be encouraging the victim to become drunk in the hope that sex would follow. Also, if a man is aware that if the woman is sober she wouldn't agree to intercourse but yet encourages her to drink more/waits for her to become drunk , does that make it rape? Surely a man who is aware of this fact is taking advantage of her intoxication?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're misunderstanding the sexual offenses act a bit - the next offence of sexual assualt carries exactly the same penalty and can be applied to men or women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Right or wrong that it's that way - the fact remains the same penalties for abusive sexual behaviour can be applied to both sexes

    One of the first jobs I had here was having to read and report on the whole sexual offences act - not a nice week.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    You're misunderstanding the sexual offenses act a bit - the next offence of sexual assualt carries exactly the same penalty and can be applied to men or women.

    I'm talking about rape, not sexual assault.

    Explain, I might possibly have mistyped something :p

    The point I was trying to make was that rape cannot be committed by a woman. A woman cannot be labelled a 'rapist'.

    And I'm aware of the penalties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well i read in a book on rape the other day that women can rape men, but it doesn't happen very often. well, it isn't 'deemed' to happen very often. might sound silly but what about rape with an object other than a penis?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although women can rape men, there isn't an offence of women raping men. As I said before, as stated in law, a person can only commit an offence of rape if he "intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis".

    In regards to using objects, this would amount to an 'Assault by penetration' offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, a woman can be sent down for assaulting a man but cannot be labelled a rapist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay from the Home Office Website it's self :
    P[SIZE=-1]ART [/SIZE]1 SEXUAL OFFENCES
    Rape
    1 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.

    Assault
    2 Assault by penetration
    (1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
    • (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
    • (b) the penetration is sexual,
    • (c) B does not consent to the penetration, and
    • (d) 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.
    3 Sexual assault
    (1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
    • (a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
    • (b) the touching is sexual,
    • (c) B does not consent to the touching, and
    • (d) 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-
    • (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
    • (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

    Causing sexual activity without consent
    4 Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
    (1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
    • (a) he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
    • (b) the activity is sexual,
    • (c) B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
    • (d) 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, if the activity caused involved-
    • (a) penetration of B's anus or vagina,
    • (b) penetration of B's mouth with a person's penis,
    • (c) penetration of a person's anus or vagina with a part of B's body or by B with anything else, or
    • (d) penetration of a person's mouth with B's penis,
    is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
    (5) Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
    • (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
    • (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
    Sections 75 & 76 :
    75 Evidential presumptions about consent
    (1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved-
    • (a) that the defendant did the relevant act,
    • (b) that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and
    • (c) that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
    the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
    (2) The circumstances are that-
    • (a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
    • (b) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;
    • (c) the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;
    • (d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
    • (e) because of the complainant's physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
    • (f) any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant's consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
    (3) In subsection (2)(a) and (b), the reference to the time immediately before the relevant act began is, in the case of an act which is one of a continuous series of sexual activities, a reference to the time immediately before the first sexual activity began.
    76 Conclusive presumptions about consent
    (1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed-
    • (a) that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
    • (b) that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
    (2) The circumstances are that-
    • (a) the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
    • (b) the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well i read in a book on rape the other day that women can rape men, but it doesn't happen very often. well, it isn't 'deemed' to happen very often. might sound silly but what about rape with an object other than a penis?

    Yea, I think that's the loophole. It might seem odd for someone to do it, but rape is about having power over another person isn't it? Like male male rape and sexual assault for example, will often involve forcing the victim to ejaculate, which further makes the victim feel like they're somehow compliant.

    What I would be interested to know, is how many rapes occur when the victim was drunk? Becuase again, I think making more people aware of the power of alcohol will have more impact on the actual rapes (rather than convictions) than changing the criteria for what constitutes rape to make it easier to convict.

    What if a man honestly didn't realise he was raping the woman, if he was so intoxicated himself (i.e., they're both half passed out). Like I said earlier, there are infinite amount of degrees, and the law only sees black and white pretty much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although women can rape men, there isn't an offence of women raping men. As I said before, as stated in law, a person can only commit an offence of rape if he "intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis".

    In regards to using objects, this would amount to an 'Assault by penetration' offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, a woman can be sent down for assaulting a man but cannot be labelled a rapist.

    Yeah, what I'm saying is it is inappropriate that the act makes that distinction, but at least under this act the assualt by penetration carries the same possible sentence - which it wasn't even close to before this act.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Yeah, what I'm saying is it is inappropriate that the act makes that distinction, but at least under this act the assualt by penetration carries the same possible sentence - which it wasn't even close to before this act.
    Ah, I get you now. I thought you meant that I wrote something wrong but I didn't so thats ok :)

    I do agree with you though. Personally, I believe that an offence of a woman raping a man should be introduced.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stacey, it's really semantics that you're arguing over - the label is different but the intention and the sentence is the same.

    Aye, I know all that. The issue I have with it is that there is probably alot of people out there that believe that rape is a more serious offence than that of a sexual assault/assault by penetration. I don't think it helps that the sexual assault offence is so wide. I mean, a sexual assault can be anything from a touch, to penetration (although of course, this isn't the case for assault by penetration).

    I am aware that the intention and sentence is the same though. I just have an issue with the labels. If a woman rapes a man, she should be labelled a rapist just like men are if they rape a woman.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stacey has a point. If a man goes for a job and has 'convicted rapist' on his CV, I expect it will damage his chances more than a woman who has 'convicted sexual assault-er'. However, at the end of the day, the literal meaning of rape is putting your penis into someone else without their permission.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hmm, why would you assume that women-rapists get away with it scot free? i would tend to think that a woman raping a man made a more sensational story therefore they're less likely to get away scot free. why would you would assume it would damage his life chances more?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    also i've found it quite alarming that all of the books i've read so far in relation to rape have failed to take into account that men are raped, too. sure, some of them may mention it but only briefly - and when they talk about a rape victim, they always refer to 'she' or 'her'. though perhaps i'm just being picky. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Another source I read said that in the USA, more rapes occur on men in prisons each day than on women in the whole of the US. I'd take that with a pinch of salt though, as the place I remember it from was saying it was from somewhere else, so it could be third hand.

    Well the reason I said woman rapists would have less serious life chance implications, is that say a person, male or female, has the choice of either having the conviction of 'rape' by their name or 'sexual assualt', naturally sexual assault is the one they'd prefer. Although both are inexcusable, sexual assault doesn't make your stomach drop and that sick, angry feeling you get when someone says the word 'rape'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hmm, why would you assume that women-rapists get away with it scot free? i would tend to think that a woman raping a man made a more sensational story therefore they're less likely to get away scot free. why would you would assume it would damage his life chances more?

    In the same way that (I would guess) that female perpetrators of domestic abuse are more likely to get away with it. There's an attitude that men should be able to defend themselves, which makes them less likely (and perhaps more embarrassed) to report it, and less likely to believed/taken seriously by the authorities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's not really surprising that women don't want to report a rape - moreso if they were intoxicated at the time. they probably feel like they won't be believed. some people within the CJS (and of course the general public) even believe that because she was drunk, she contributed to her sexual violation - ignoring the fact that her being intoxicated was used by the defendant to take advantage of her.
    even if the victim does report the rape and goes on to court, she will be cross-examined and asked to go over the alleged assault in detail again and again. and like jim v mentioned, she will no doubt have her past sexual history examined (even though it's irrelevant) - and they will use the fact that she has agreed to having sex in the past to say that she would've been more likely to consent with the defendant, too.

    Yeah, and God forbid if she was wearing a short skirt at the time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think it is. It's not an absolute, or the only piece of evidence that is required, but it you can prove a man knew that she had x number of drinks, and slept with her anyway, then I think it's a pretty strong indicator that he made little effort to ensure consent. .

    That's a load of rubbish.

    Man and woman meet at bar have twelve vodka each and have sex, man is well aware she is very drunk and has had twelve drinks......rapist ? (woman is also aware man has had 12 drinks and is very drunk) - bollocks - because he didn't ensure consent ? In this situation do you really think that man and woman would have sensibly discussed consent - no but both quite possibly wanted to have intercourse.

    Its a very tricky situation, because you have to be carfeul women aren't frightened to report rapes because they were drunk / on drugs etc.... but you cant introduce a drinking like law - you are over the limit for consensual sex to night go home...nah.

    But at the same time, if in the moring after if both people cant remember agreeing to sex, who is the rapist - the man because technically the woman cant have raped.

    The whole situation is pretty fucked up but introducing an alcohol limit for sex is so fucking stupid its untrue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, and God forbid if she was wearing a short skirt at the time.

    :yes: alcohol is seen as being the new 'short skirt'.

    eta: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2043570,00.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deceelpool wrote: »
    The whole situation is pretty fucked up but introducing an alcohol limit for sex is so fucking stupid its untrue.

    Jesus Christ, try reading it again. I've said three times now that I never suggested an alcohol limit for sex.
Sign In or Register to comment.