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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
To be honest one night I went back to a girls for a joint and in no way found her attractive or wanted to sleep with her. I was pissed out of my face anyway, passed out and woke up to find her doing stuff ... I told her no and she carried on so i staggered into the lounge and slept on the sofa (with my trousers still round my ankles ... quite a shock for her flatmate in the morning). Was that wrong of her? If so how wrong and if this story had our roles reversed how many of you would be suggesting I should have my balls cut off?
I think some of you blur the distinction between rape and taking advantage, I'm in no way saying that to take advantage of a drrunk person is a ok because its not its a terrible thing to do but its no way near to being as bad as rape!
The point is if someone is unable to stand any consent they give is properly consent. If you've ever been, really, really drunk you would realise people say and do things which you don't understand. Which is fine if they're drunk as well, but not so fine if its a man who's been assigned to protect you, claiming you've consented to sex. I would also say that consensual sex stops the moment the women passes out.
Yes, but those of us who aren't complete cunts also think it is a man's responsibility to make sure the woman has consented and she's not just flirting, or saying yes, because she thought we asked whether she'd like a good night kiss.
Actually you can. It used to be sex without consent outside marriage. In 1990 it was changed so that it became sex without consent. It doesn't seem to hard to make changes to say that where a man is sober and women is so pissed she can hardly stand it becomes rape, unless there are circumstances which would mean that if they were both sober the woman would have given informed consent.
Been referring to NQA's post.
If she passed out and he started shagging her, he's a rapist fuck. But whether that happened or not is somewhat dubious don't you think?
I never said otherwise.
Or unless she participated willingly?
Is that rape or just one of the problem of abusing alcohol?
If she's fucking well passed out she's not a willing participant is she...
I think that was what I find dubious.
if you're both drunk its a different case between someone being absolutely pissed and the other person being sober.
Why?
How does drinking excuse your behaviour?
what about if both are bladdered?
We're talking about your proposition here, not the actual case itself...i already said if she didnt consent and was passed out then he's a rapist.
Look, if you regret getting steaming and shagging someone then that's your problem - nobody else's.
You also have to apply the same logic to people being high. I've shagged girls i wouldn't normally because of the magic white powder, I presume you think I should be able to charge them with sexual assault?
Would a male be within his rights to accuse a woman of rape if he had sex when he was very drunk?
I assume so, would that girl be as much of a cunt in your eyes Kermit?
I'm not sure that is what he said...
Isn't it more a case of how can you prove rape if the woman involved cannot remember if she consented...
In this case there was no evidence that her drink had been spiked. If there was I suspect that would be evidence to suggest that she could not have consented?
I agree that he's sick and twisted, it's hard to justify that his actions were moral in any way.
Doesn't mean that he raped her though.
Having said that, isn't that what a jury should decide and not one judge. Isn't that the point of "jury of peers"?
No, they didn't say that if she couldn't remember then it means she said yes, it means that there is no evidence whatever that she was raped. Thats how the law works. If you are going to start convicting people on what can be imagined to have happened then the entire population of this country would be in prison.
What are you suggesting, that because she was too drunk to remember then the man involved should be convicted of rape - even though there is no evidence that he did?
Her evidence was that she was unconscious, didn't know what was going on, and couldn't remember giving consent.
Because she couldn't remember if she'd said yes or not, the incompetent prosecution counsel abandoned the case.
Regardless of which way you look at it, this creature was sober, and took advantage of a girl so drunk that she needed to be carried back to her flat. He had a duty to look after her, and betrayed that duty.
Remember he wasn't another pissed up student she'd picked up at the party, he was a security guard paid to look after her. And he had sober sex with a girl so drunk she couldn't stand up.
It's all about a reasonableness test, IMHO. If he was sober and in a position of trust he should know that she wasn't giving informed consent. That makes him a rapist cunt.
The disturbing thing is that she can't remember explicitly saying no, so that means she wasn't raped. She equally cannot remember saying yes, and could not even remember the event taking place. That sounds far more like grounds for rape.
Toadborg is making yet another stupid post. It's getting quite tedious now.
All this case shows is the need for specialist rape prosecutors. A man has got away with betraying trust in the most evil way possible, and nobody seems to care.
Well she obviously wasn't unconscious throughout.
If he was pissed it would have been any less of a 'rape'?
Would being drunk excused his behavior because that's what it sounds like.
How many times have you not been able to remember what happened the night beofer through drinking?
I didn't consent but then I didn't scream no either. I was nearly past-out, I didn't know how to stop what was happening to me. I never reported it. I knew it would be my word against his and that I had a reputation as being a drunk little slapper. I just hope he has not done it again to someone else. I am teetotal now.
I'm sorry to hear that. Whatever your reputation though he was the one to blame. He had the duty to make sure you consented, you shouldn't have to scream no.
Her testimony that she was, except for a brief few seconds when she was aware of something happening.
Whether she was unconscious or not is irrelevant. She was hardly riding him backwards if you believe what she says.
If you don't then that's different.
No, and no.
But him being sober makes it that he should have known she was in no fit state to give consent, and that he was in a position of trust with a vulnerable young woman.
Once.
But the point still stands that the assumption here is that because she was very drunk she must have consented, because she couldn't say otherwise.
The assumption- from the prosecution counsel no less- is that because she can't remember saying no it meant she was a dirty drunk little slag who wanted it.
That so many people can't appreciate how odious and disturbing this assumption is scares me but doesn't surprise me.
She was drunk, she must have been a right slapper, eh Skive?
Ah, but you should.
If you don't scream loud enough, or were too drunk to scream no loudly, then you obviously wanted it, you dirty drunk bitch.
People's attitudes to rape on this board sicken me. It's also rather interesting to note that of all the people condoning that sick fucker, they're all men. How weird.
about the guy who touched me up and stuck his hand down my trousers (while my own brother was in the room and without my consent) and i was so terrified i froze and couldnt stop him, and obviously i couldn't say anything out loud because my brother was there!
does that mean its my fault for not being able to stop him?
Yeah, like anyone's condoned him :rolleyes: .
We're (generally) not animals - what he did was despicable and while it isn't illegal it should be.
Unless there's a part of the story I missed or misread.
Might as well have.
The poor little lamb didn't know what he was doing. She was pissed, she must have wanted it. That's what you've said.
Nothing about his odious behaviour. Nothing about the disturbing precedent it throws up. Nothing about any of that.
To be expected. The Amnesty survey shows that.
Zalbor, even if a person doesn't expressly say no, it doesn't mean they consented. If they were not in a position to say no- such as if they were paralytic with drink, for example- then there should be an assumption that it is rape unless there was implied consent.
If she grabbed his penis and put it in her then that would be implied consent. If she was comatose on the floor through drink then a sober person in a position of responsibility should have not assumed consent.
But this isn't even about these individual facts. A woman who said she can't remember saying no has had her rape case dropped for the simple fact she was drunk. The assumption and precendent is that because she was drunk she must have said yes.
The reporting rate for rape is about 15%. It is for this very reason. If a woman was drunk and got raped then it highly unlikely she will be believed by a jury filled with Skives and Spliffies. She will be humiliated in court by the defence, who usually seek to fling as much shit as possible at the complainants. See GWST's post about the girl whose underwear was proudly displayed in court for all to see.
Rape proceedings do nothing but humiliate the woman. Unless the woman was sober and violently attacked the twats of this world will assume she said yes. The defence will attack her character and seek to humililate her in the very worst sense of it. It's no wonder that 80% of all rape victims keep their mouth shut and say nothing.
Some people seem to think that's acceptable. I don't. I'm obviously in a minority, and that sickens me.