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
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
Exactly...I've woke up with mingers beside me and totally regrettred taking them back but hey that was my decision. Gotta live with that.
I concur, and I'd gone into detail in my earlier posts about the responsibility of the female and then the topic changed tone and we were discussing the responsibility of the male (and what he could do to prevent these supposedly common false accusations of rape)
Good point, and very well made I have to say.
I wouldn't hesitate to admit that my [idiotic] views on this subject are greatly coloured by my personal feeling. I do (try to) understand the due legal process in these situations - it's obviously not the place for personal feeling or to feel more lenient toward your own sex - but it's hard not to let those things cloud your (my) judgement. This is why I'll never be a high-lying legal person, well one of many reasons.
I do find it hard to reconcile with the law, as it is my experience that the law works against women who report rape. Like I said before, I can't suggest an alternative process (so I should probably just shut up) but the problem with the accused being innocent until proven guilty is that the complainant is then essentially assumed to be guilty of lying (or making a false claim) until proven innocent. Anyway, I can't really say much else about it, so now I will shut up.
Oh, except to address the anonymity issue, as we (as a country) have been there before. In the 70s, any person who reported a rape was granted anonymity. The accused was also given the same rights.
But it backfired in that far fewer victims came forward with evidence and the conviction rate fell without the actual rate of crime falling. So it was reversed. There's much to be said for anonymity and personally I think it would probably be a positive step, but there are definitely a few important things to be said against it.
The given consent is no contract. If the girl gives you kinda consent she can just change her mind later and tell the authorities she did not. :crazyeyes
Rape is beside of murder the worst and most abhorrent crime out there - in my opinion, so the same I think is a woman clayming to be raped even if she was not.
A friend of mine was in a rape trial once and he was innocent and released, but his reputation was six feet under.
In a perfect world with no pre-judgements/prejudices I would agree that what a person wears shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference of how you treat them or expect to be treated by them. But and this is a big but this is a Pavarotti sized butt, this world is far far far away from being perfect. Almost everyone has pre-judgments/prejudices about something.
When it comes to clothing I have a theory please understand I do sometimes have trouble explaining myself so if this doesn’t track so well I apologise in advance
The way I see it is this, if you see consistent behaviour from a person or persons wearing one type of clothing or style of clothing you will assume that the next person you see dressed like that will behave in a similar way to the others you have seen.
Now before anyone goes off on one and just disagrees I have a few examples I would like you to think about
Hoodies
Common word you see in newspapers today being used as a description for teenagers normally in groups and almost always described as being anti-social and trouble.
Football Shirts
Some pubs have banned these cause it has been seen that people wearing them cause more trouble or the differences in teams can cause trouble
Goths/Skaters/Fairies
We have all seen them or know people who are like that hell some of us would probably fit in one of the so-called tribes and yet they are held in similar vein as the Hoodies are
Skinheads
Some would say they are loonies, racist, white supremacists that’s kind of stuff.
Now the question I ask is this
If a tomorrow you hear on the news that there was a fight near you between a large group of people all wearing a orange badge on their jacket.
The next week the same thing
And then again a couple of days later
How long do you think it would take before you would be nervous if you saw a group of people all wearing orange badges on the tops.
I know it’s a odd thing but its just old fashioned gang colours crap.
Same thing with women being in sexy outfits being seen as something they may not be, Everyone here women and girls included will be able to say they know or have seen women dressed up like they are about to pole dance act like sluts god knows I’ve seen it I know women like that I’ve seen it happen in nearly every bar, pub and club I’ve been in and I have to ask.
How many women wearing short skirts acting like a slut (in a almost unofficial uniform) would it take until most people rightly or wrongly would assume anyone dressed like that is cut from the same cloth if they don’t know them.
Now please do not get me know as far as I’m concerned just cause a women’s dressed a certain way doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to grab their goodies. But you can’t expect people not to get the wrong idea if they don’t know you.
At the end of the day NO means NO, but some girls seen to get upset that they are even asked the question
This is no way a exceptance of rape in any form I'm rather extream when it comes to this torture isnt enough in my opinion, its just this militant feminist view that men should ignor how a women dresses and at the same time give them all the attention they want
when was a short skirt an unofficial uniform for slut-dom? Oh, as soon as a female's gone through puberty... I see. NO I don't see at all. Females wear short skirts when not 'acting sluttish' than when they are, the short skirt=slut arguement is only brought out when someone wants to defend their own stoopid view of a short skirt. A short skirt is... a short skirt.
Further, a slut does not 'deserve' unconsentual penetration, slut or innocent makes no difference.
If the clothes you wear aren't designed to give out a specific signal, why choose specific outfits?
It's a problem that people have, especially women, that a signal designed to appeal to that "special person" will also work on lots of other people who you don't care for.
I..e Dressing up in a short skirt/attractive dress/goth outfit to appeal to that one guy you have your eye on, or just because you like the look, will also attract lots of other people you don't give two shits about.
Any person, man or woman who expects this not to apply to them is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I never said a slut deserves nonconsensual penetration. Did you misread everything I said or are you just being difficult.
And the point I was trying to make is people by nature are prejudiced and a small group and give a larger majority a bad name by their behaviour or do you disagree that the actions of the few can tar the rest with the same brush?
And when you quote someone you should use the whole section not just the bit you want to use taking things out of context is as bad as making shit up
Thank you someone who isnt stoned or stupid
Erm, ok, I agree.
Maybe it's a joint responsibility.
If Woman Y accuses Man X of raping her would the presence of DNA from Man X inside Woman Y be proof of his guilt?
And thats where things go screwy even with proving intercourse that dosnt prove what happened.
Erm that doesn't make sense...surely she's going to say she was raped by Mr X and therefore that makes him guilty until proven innocent going by your statement
That's only in cases where a stranger has raped her. What about familiar people, what's your opinion there?
The clothing issue also seems to be a bit misleading and a distraction from the main issue, consent, as far as I know, (I'm at home and haven't got my statute book with me) implied consent (unless objectively reasonable) is no consent, which is effectively what people are saying when they say "She was asking for it".
It was however held recently that drunken consent is still real consent, despite the case of Morgan being overruled by the new Sexual Offences Act whereby an honest but unreasonable belief in consent could exculpate (two guys were told be her husband that she liked kinky sex and any screaming was just her enjoying it, she protested that she was raped and the courts disagreed, holding the belief in consent only had to be an honest, not a reasonable belief.). If the the guy was relatively sober then I fail to see how he could hold an honest and above all reasonable belief that the woman was consenting if she was absolutely wrecked which is now required for him to be not-guilty.
I know this is all terribly legalistic but then I'm just trying to impart some detail of what the law in this area is and how it's SUPPOSED to work, obviously it doesn't always.
A more disturbing trend is that a great deal of rape prosecutions tend to lead to cracked trials when the defendant decides, usually on the day the trial is due to commence, that he'll plead guilty to a lesser charge on the indictment, such as sexual assault, in exchange for the CPS dropping the rape charge, nine times out of ten the CPS will accept such a deal and so the defendant avoids the possibility of being labelled as a rapist and the possibility of a maximum life sentence. (In reality the average sentence for a rape is fifteen years, meaning the accused may be freed on license for good behaviour after seven and a half years.)
P.S: The reversal of the burden of proof already occurs in rape cases where there is proof of inter alia drugs or violence being administered, because it is then up to the defendant to raise the issue of consent and therefore to prove himself not-guilty. Again, I forget whether this is to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt or to the civil standard, which is often used in cases of a reversed burden, which is on the balance of probabilities.
The problem is not about proving innocence or proving guilt. The problem is that at the moment there are a lot of rape cases getting thrown out of court because the woman cannot expressly remember everything that happened. The context of what happened is ignored, the case is thrown out because the woman cannot expressly remember saying no. That is quite clearly unacceptable.
I refer to the recent acquittals of the security guard and the taxi driver. The woman says she was raped, she said she didn't want sex, she said she passed out. But because of the fact she passed out and couldn't remember what happened then the court threw the case out. Nobody can say that is acceptable.
It is becomign increasingly hard to prove rape because of several things:
1. Rapists have gotten wise. Get a woman drunk or otherwise intoxicated, be seen to kiss her, and you can do what you want to her and get away with it. So rapists do this instead of hanging around alleyways with knives.
2. People still cling to the misguided notion that it's only a rape if it was a nasty man with a knife.
3. The court system positively discriminates against the complainant. Instead of the woman being at the heart of the prosecution, she is but a witness. On the other hand, the defendant has the full attention of his legal team at all stages of the trial, and his story is gone over in great detail. He can work out where his story is weak, and sort it out.
4. There are no specialist rape prosecutors. Because of that, we get the situation such as in Wales where the prosecutor got a rape case thrown out simply because the girl had passed out and couldn't remember anything. Prosecutors are not trained in dealing with the complainant, and as such they do not do the job to the best of their ability. When they introduced specialist rape prosecutors in New York, the conviction rate went up because novice errors were no longer made.
I don not think there is any problem in assuming that there is no consent, unless it can be shown that there was consent. The woman can then say she passed out, and can't remember anything, and the defendant is given the opportunity to say that she didn't pass out, she was screaming ride me big boy. That is how the law should work, and that is how the law works in every other instance of violent crime.
I think thats an extrememly fair assessment and I would also support the anonymity suggestion.
If a girl knows she'll win a rape case if she was drunk then surely she would claim she was drunk even if she had only had half a glass of wine?
but it was on about a change in the law, and because of that, by the second page it had turned into a P&D thread, its like that every day in there, people should visit more
The problem with that is that the person most likely to rape a woman is her friend, or her brother or father.
But what can you do about that?
Cases aren't brought if there isn't a chance of prosecution. So if you're with a girl all night it's unlikely you'd be prosecuted- if you were a security guard claiming that she consented 22 seconds after meeting you you might.
Your attitude really scares me sometimes, you know. Go and look up "misogynist" in the dictionary sometime.
People get dressed up because they enjoy getting suited and booted. Of course they want to look good- but that doesn't mean they want attention from the opposite sex.
The person you're talking about is my dear wife, she dresses up because she enjoys it. I dress up because I enjoy it. I'm not after pulling anyone.
As usual, you come out with the gem that any girl who makes an effort about her appearance is gagging for it. That's why so many rapists get away with it.
I don't think any law based on drunkeness would stand up, it would be too ambiguous. But that isn't what this clarificiation is doing- this isn't a change in the law, this is a campaign to get the law to be understood, both by lay people and also by law profession.
In recent times we have had the case of a security guard and a taxi driver have sex with a woman about ten minutes after meeting her. They claimed she consented. She couldn't remember saying no because she was drunk- in one case, the girl said she had passed out and woke up with the man inside her- but because she couldn't remember saying no the case was thrown out in both cases. In one case she supposedly consented to sex on a corridor with a complete stranger, half in and half out of her room. Of course she did.
That is quite clearly wrong. What has happened is that because the woman can't remember saying no it means she wasn't raped. She can't remember being an active partner, or even saying yes, but never mind that. She "might" have said yes and forgotten it, therefore the case was tossed out.
The way assumptions are being made it is allowing rapist after rapist to get away with it. The Home Office state that false reporting of rape is about 2% of all reports, which is in line with other crimes of a similar magnitude. In comparison, only 6% of all complaints are attracting a conviction. It's fair to say many rapists are getting away with it by preying on drunk women, and then having cases dropped against them because she wasn't screaming no.
Good news. There have been previous educational campaigns (with variable levels of success) to promote personal safety for, and educate, women. As I said before there needs to be joint responsibility, this is at least a step in the right direction.
In terms of the Security Guard "rape" case, reading about that actually staggered me. If I remember rightly, the jury was told "drunken consent is still consent” to which the judge agreed. He then instructed the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict, even if they did not agree. Obviously I was incorrect in my thinking that a jury was there make a decision based on the full details of the case, the testimony of witnesses and their own judgement.
eta: The thing that makes this even worse is that the female in question had apparently not even given drunken consent, so lapse in memory equals consent, at least that's the way it seems. Kermit is right, once this admission is made then the cases are being thrown out, no evidence, testimony or anything. That's not right, and what's especially wrong is a judge instructing a jury to return a verdict, a woman condemned to the immediate disbelief of her peers because she was drunk.
It may be wrong but it doesn't mean he's a rapist.
No, it simply means that they can't proove simply based upon something she can't remember. Which is how it should be.
It's tough but there's little else to be done as far as I can see - unless we assume guilt before innocence.
A girl is more likely to be raped depending on what she wears and how much she drinks. That may not be right but that's how it is. Drink breaks down your defenses, and what you wear can make you more attractive - that aint about to change any time soon.
In a perfect world I'd be able to leave my car unlocked, without the risk of it being stolen. Unfortunately we all have a responsibillity for our own saftey and to take precautions.