Home Politics & Debate
Need support urgently? Head to this thread.

Make sure you've got consent, lads...

1235711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    I have every sympathy for rape victims but none for drunks who regret their consensual actions the next day - everyone knows the effects of alcohol and if you can't handle it, don't do it.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    The counter-argument is obviously that women should take responsibility for how drunk they get and who they consent to fuck. Why is responsibility entirely with males, as you suggest? :confused:

    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)
    Yeah, you might consider it genuine on a personal level, but legally it has to be treated differently. If legally the woman was always believed de facto then only an accusation is effectively required for most cases to result in a jail term. That's blatantly fucked up, because although at the moment false accusations may be a tiny minority (i'll take people's word for it, although i don't quite see how that can exactly be known as people making false accusations are hardly likely to admit so), such a change would undoubtedly cause a massive increase in deceitful claims.

    The crux of the matter is that there's no protection of the innocent. Let's face it, whether you're talking about men or women the collective moral conscience is dubious at best. A society where one person can have another jailed for an unsubstantiated accusation is absolutely insane imo, whether it's over rape, assault, theft...whatever.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just read the first page, so sorry if I am repeating, but this 'consent' thing is bullshit.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I have been reading this thread I have noticed something I wish to put thoughts forward about it’s the question of a woman’s outfit

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nightbreed wrote:
    How many women wearing short skirts acting like a slut (in a almost unofficial uniform)

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    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.


    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    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.


    Thank you someone who isnt stoned or stupid
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe SHE should take care not to get so drunk that they are unable to judge wheather their potential partner is too inebriated to have their rational faculties about them when consenting.

    Erm, ok, I agree.

    Maybe it's a joint responsibility.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's fairly easy to establish whether intercourse (not the best term to use) took place with a particular person using DNA testing.

    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?
    Incidentally, I can see how believing the woman while keeping the principle of innocent until proven guilty for the bloke - simply accept that the woman was raped by A Rapist. Proving whether A Rapist is actually the accused is a separate matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it would merely be proof that they had intercourse.


    And thats where things go screwy even with proving intercourse that dosnt prove what happened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    simply accept that the woman was raped by A Rapist. Proving whether A Rapist is actually the accused is a separate matter.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesn't stop her being raped, whether it was by the bloke the police have arrested from information given to them or whether by someone unknown.

    That's only in cases where a stranger has raped her. What about familiar people, what's your opinion there?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The idea of DNA testing, as stated above, is a non-issue in the context of rape (apart from where the accused is not known) because it is usually very easy to prove the two parties had sex, it is quite a different issue to prove the lack of consent that is required beyond a reasonable doubt to ensure a conviction before twelve strangers on a jury.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The first reform I would bring in is allowing defendants in sex cases to remain anonymous until they are convicted. In one fell swoop we get rid of the miniscule problem of people claiming rape to attack a man, as the man will not be named at any stage should he be found innocent.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^^^^^

    I think thats an extrememly fair assessment and I would also support the anonymity suggestion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How do you prove you were drunk? How drunk is drunk?

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Randomgirl wrote:
    How do you prove you were drunk? How drunk is drunk?

    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?
    maybe someone would have to have seen her drunk? like bar staff or friends.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lipsy wrote:
    maybe someone would have to have seen her drunk? like bar staff or friends.
    It's quite vague though isn't it? Sometimes I seem drunk when I'm not or sober when I'm drunk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    i thought stargalaxy had come up with a rather decent thread, turns out he put it in the wrong place, oh well
    I don't think he did put it in the wrong place. The original post was aimed at challenging our sexual behaviour and making us think about our own actions on this one rather than the politics behind it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Randomgirl wrote:
    I don't think he did put it in the wrong place. The original post was aimed at challenging our sexual behaviour and making us think about our own actions on this one rather than the politics behind it.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the best thing for the goverment to do is increase awerness for people to take friends and never leave their side

    The problem with that is that the person most likely to rape a woman is her friend, or her brother or father.
    Best weapon is prevention, it scares me to death to think I will have a drunken one night stand and be accused of rape.

    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.
    Someone said about how she dresses and she does it for herself..... sorry but I firmly believe it's bullshit, women and men alike wear "good" looking clothes to attract the other gender even in a relationship, otherwise we'd all be walking round in whatever is msot comfortable.

    You say "i do it for myself" but the bit inbetween your legs that talks to your brain subconciously makes different (goes for both genders)

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that a woman's choice of outfit has even been brought up speaks volumes about attitudes to rape; if anyone is interested Amnesty International recently commissioned a poll to try and better understand attitudes to rape.

    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.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,126 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    That is quite clearly wrong.

    It may be wrong but it doesn't mean he's a rapist.
    Kermit wrote:
    What has happened is that because the woman can't remember saying no it means she wasn't raped.

    No, it simply means that they can't proove simply based upon something she can't remember. Which is how it should be.
    Kermit wrote:
    The way assumptions are being made it is allowing rapist after rapist to get away with it.

    It's tough but there's little else to be done as far as I can see - unless we assume guilt before innocence.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,126 Skive's The Limit
    briggi wrote:
    The fact that a woman's choice of outfit has even been brought up speaks volumes about attitudes to rape

    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.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
Sign In or Register to comment.