Young Carers of The Mix, we need you! Tell us about your experiences of our services and give yourself a chance to win £50 of Amazon vouchers.

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

1356711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nightbreed wrote:
    anything that makes claims easier without any proof makes me very uneasy cause its just down to one word against another

    But nothing is making things "easier without any proof".

    What it is doing is clarifying the law that Parliament intended. The caselaw has swung so that if a woman cannot remember anything she "may" have given consent, which means the man is immediately allowed out. Cases of security guards and taxi drivers taking advantage of people supposedly in their care, and having charges dropped against them because the woman's memory wasn't there, implies the law needs clarifying.

    Unless you subscribe to the theory that any girl who's drunk can't wait to fuck the first stranger who comes along, then the fact these cases were dropped simply because the victim was drunk should chill you to the bone.

    If a girl is so drunk she cannot remember what happened, then there are serious doubts about whether she gave informed consent. If she's passed out she isn't screaming "ride me big boy", which is the crux of the matter.

    I personally have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of women who think they just drank too much have actually had their drink spiked- our lass had hers spiked once, and she just acted like she'd drank too much. She just woke up thinking she'd drank too much.

    Shall I tell you what pisses me off? How yet another thread about the serious dangers women face- rape is mostly a female problem, folks- gets hijacked by a load of men whingeing that "it happens to men too!!!11one!1one1eleven2!" I'm sure it does, but that ain't the point. Mostly because a woman cannot rape a man by having sexual intercourse with him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Shall I tell you what pisses me off? How yet another thread about the serious dangers women face- rape is mostly a female problem, folks- gets hijacked by a load of men whingeing that "it happens to men too!!!11one!1one1eleven2!" I'm sure it does, but that ain't the point. Mostly because a woman cannot rape a man by having sexual intercourse with him.


    so just cause it dosnt happen as often no one should pay any attention to it

    Something came to mind today which I will put on here to show the difference between how people see rape of a women and rape of a man


    In the film 40 days and 40 nights the main guy goes without sex and his mates start making bets on when he gives in (sounds funny so far) the guy fancies the main women (on track here) his ex is a loony and jealous and wants to win the bet (no probs so far)

    now heres where it goes messed up

    last night of the bet he's arranged for the girl he likes to turn up just after midnight even going as far as to unlock the door for her
    Then ties himself to the bed so he cant give in to temptation

    (ok now this is odd but I can run with it)

    unfortunatly his ex sneeks in and while he's alseep gets him hard and climes onboard, he wakes up as shes bouncing away and goes bang (which considering the time he's been not doing anything isnt a suprise) the ex gets up and leaves having won her money leaving him where he is still tied up.



    I'll skip the rest of the film but will say SHE DOESNT GET IN TROUBLE FOR RAPING HIM

    If this was reversed and it was a women tied up and her ex taking advantage the movie wouldnt be a comedy and proberbly wouldnt have made it out in the cinema

    This in itself shows the difference in rape of a guy and rape of a women in society

    I know its only a movie and should be taken as such but theres no way you could claim a women being raped is funny so how come its ok for it to happen to a guy.


    I'm sorry for ranting here its just the whole male female equality thing has to go both ways
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I personally have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of women who think they just drank too much have actually had their drink spiked- our lass had hers spiked once, and she just acted like she'd drank too much. She just woke up thinking she'd drank too much.

    I do agree with you on that one though, last week a friend of a friend had her spiked and it just wasnt funny, where the hell are people getting this shit from its not like this is something you can knock together in your garden shed
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your entire rant there was based on a rather shite film. What's your point?

    The UN, of all people, reckons Hollywood is a key factor in why rape is on the increase. Violence, especially sexual violence against women, is increasingly glamourised. If you're going to rant about one film, I'm going to rant about loads more, such as Hollow Man, which had a long and gruesome rape scene in it for purely erotic reasons.

    What you described is not rape. What she did do is illegal, and women who do it get prosecuted. Oh noes. Women can rape, but not by having the man penetrate them. They can rape by holding someone down so someone else can rape them, and they can rape by penetrating a man or a woman with fingers, their tongue, or other implements.

    But in any event, how realistic was one film? Not very. Excuse me whilst I don't gnash and wail my teeth.

    Most rapists are men. It is a problem for both men and women, but rapists are nearly always men. Which is my point.

    Most rapists are men, and most victims are women. That is why the focus should be on them. This is as infuriating as when there's a thread about DV, and one twat starts lambasting everyone for not giving equal weighting to male victims of female DV, when male victims of female DV account for about 8% of all incidents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Your entire rant there was based on a rather shite film. What's your point?

    The UN, of all people, reckons Hollywood is a key factor in why rape is on the increase. Violence, especially sexual violence against women, is increasingly glamourised. If you're going to rant about one film, I'm going to rant about loads more, such as Hollow Man, which had a long and gruesome rape scene in it for purely erotic reasons.

    What you described is not rape. What she did do is illegal, and women who do it get prosecuted. Oh noes. Women can rape, but not by having the man penetrate them. They can rape by holding someone down so someone else can rape them, and they can rape by penetrating a man or a woman with fingers, their tongue, or other implements.

    But in any event, how realistic was one film? Not very. Excuse me whilst I don't gnash and wail my teeth.

    Most rapists are men. It is a problem for both men and women, but rapists are nearly always men. Which is my point.

    Most rapists are men, and most victims are women. That is why the focus should be on them. This is as infuriating as when there's a thread about DV, and one twat starts lambasting everyone for not giving equal weighting to male victims of female DV, when male victims of female DV account for about 8% of all incidents.


    I dont want to argue with you on this one cause we do both agree on whats really important and that is that something needs to be done to the people who pull this crap male/female/alien whatever, I see your point about alot of people making posts about exceptions to the general rule (myself included), but you have to admit just because something happens less often you cant ignor it.
    The point I was trying to make with the movie reference was its classed as a comedy not a horror not a drama it was ment to be seen as something funny which is the oposite of what it should have been, thats all I was saying.

    Personaly I would like to see the punishment of rapists be more serve but you have to make sure your putting the right person in jail this new law makes me very nervous not for myself I have a partner I dont sleep around and I tend not to get compleatly plastered, What scares me is that someone I know may end up in serious trouble because someone abuses the system.

    At the moment its very much he said she said, Thats a big problem as it comes down to who do you believe, and are you predudiced, and at the end of the day your own concience.

    This I say to anyone who cares to answer

    Say tomorow your called into jury service, women says she was raped
    you see all the eveidence, you hear both of them and it boils down to her word or his what do you do.
    Do you say he's guilty and run the risk of putting a innocent man behind bars
    Or say innocent cause it cant be proved he did anything wrong

    I'll be honest I dont know if I could make that choice without definate proof one way or the other.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a bloke doesn't want kids then he should use protection and wear a condom. What kind of moron doesn't use protection with a girl he doesn't trust anyway? No sympathy whatsoever.

    But it happens in relationships. A guy could be seeing a girl for a bit. They feel comfortable with each other, she stops taking the pill and tells him shes 'protected' and then he's trapped..... its happened to a few lads I know and is kind of sad. Both should consent to having a child together and not 'trick' the other into it, thats what i was trying to state
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 14,991 Part of the furniture
    Kermit wrote:
    If a girl is so drunk she cannot remember what happened, then there are serious doubts about whether she gave informed consent.

    There's a doubt obviously, but quite often you're never really going to know. It shouldn't be assumed either way. It will always be a very tough one, because you're going to have to proove beyond reasonable doubt and that simply isn't going to happen in most cases.

    I suppose men have to be aware that sex with drunken women carries a risk.
    And women have to be be aware that getting drunk carries a greater risk of rape.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nightbreed wrote:
    Say tomorow your called into jury service, women says she was raped
    you see all the eveidence, you hear both of them and it boils down to her word or his what do you do.
    Do you say he's guilty and run the risk of putting a innocent man behind bars
    Or say innocent cause it cant be proved he did anything wrong

    In such a highly contrived and unlikely situation, I would vote "not guilty" because one person's word would not be proof beyond all resonable doubt. However, such a situation is not that likely because the evidence surrounding the case will clearly feed into the verdict one way or another.

    I can see what this law is intended to do, and I can also see why it could be a cause of a bit of worry amongst folk that it makes it "easier" for a man to become a victim of someone crying rape. However if you think that line of reasoning through you can see how ridiculous it is. I hardly expect that many women are going to start flocking to the courts with false rape cases because of this law, that just doesn't play.

    People moaning about this law need to remember that the issue of consent isn't the be all and end all of a case, and this law is just there to redress a rather odd balance.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 14,991 Part of the furniture
    Mist wrote:
    I can also see why it could be a cause of a bit of worry amongst folk that it makes it "easier" for a man to become a victim of someone crying rape.

    It's easy enough already which scares me, but unfortuntely it's just as easy for a bloke to get a girl completey wasted and then say she consented.

    It's certainly a tough one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote:
    In such a highly contrived and unlikely situation, I would vote "not guilty" because one person's word would not be proof beyond all resonable doubt. However, such a situation is not that likely because the evidence surrounding the case will clearly feed into the verdict one way or another.

    I can see what this law is intended to do, and I can also see why it could be a cause of a bit of worry amongst folk that it makes it "easier" for a man to become a victim of someone crying rape. However if you think that line of reasoning through you can see how ridiculous it is. I hardly expect that many women are going to start flocking to the courts with false rape cases because of this law, that just doesn't play.

    People moaning about this law need to remember that the issue of consent isn't the be all and end all of a case, and this law is just there to redress a rather odd balance.


    if its that unlikely why isnt there more convictions if it isnt down to one persons word against another then theres something really wrong with the way the police and prosecution put their case together


    I'm not saying women will be flocking to the courts but if even one man gets sent to jail when he shouldnt be then thats cause for concern.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nightbreed wrote:
    if its that unlikely why isnt there more convictions .

    Because, as has already been pointed out, the assumption is that consent was given, so there is no offence to answer to - thereby making the entire "one word against another" thing irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, so we've pretty much established that this is a legal minefield right now. The Home Office says men must have consent. This is fine, it would be stupid to say otherwise, but how does a man prove that he has got her consent? Is he supposed to carry a tape recorder as she says "yes" to sex? Are they supposed to sign a legally binding contract? How on earth does a man prove, in a court of law, that a woman consented?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    OK, so we've pretty much established that this is a legal minefield right now. The Home Office says men must have consent. This is fine, it would be stupid to say otherwise, but how does a man prove that he has got her consent? Is he supposed to carry a tape recorder as she says "yes" to sex? Are they supposed to sign a legally binding contract? How on earth does a man prove, in a court of law, that a woman consented?

    I don't believe that that is the intention of the law. It is not a question of proving consent, it's a question of eliminating the supposition that consent is implied by a lack of memory. It would still be for the prosecution to prove rape.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't admitting no consent rely on our rapists honesty if she is too pissed to remember?

    Did she consent? - "Yes your honour"

    Did you consent Ms. x? "I can't remember your honour"

    It's highly likely that in such a situation if they have any sensethey are both going to lie. The woman to get the rapist sent down and the bloke to get off. Looks to me like only the innocent get injured with this law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    It's easy enough already which scares me

    I don't really think it is.

    If girl was seen all over boy at party, and they go and have sex afterwards, the balance of probabilities is that she consented. That man probably wouldn't even get taken to trial, let alone convicted.
    unfortuntely it's just as easy for a bloke to get a girl completey wasted and then say she consented.

    It's far too easy to do this.

    As the law stands, if a girl says she can't remember anything, then the man goes free. Never mind that the man is a complete stranger- in recent cases, we've had a taxi driver and a security guard, both of whom are supposed to be in a position of care- the assumption is that because the girl was drunk, and she can't specifically remember saying no, then she must have been a dirty little slapper who couldn't wait to get her knickers down for any old bloke.

    It shouldn't be up to the bloke to prove he got consent, but at the same time we shouldn't be throwing cases out because the girl couldn't remember screaming no at the top of her voice.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 14,991 Part of the furniture
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't really think it is.

    If girl was seen all over boy at party, and they go and have sex afterwards, the balance of probabilities is that she consented. That man probably wouldn't even get taken to trial, let alone convicted.

    And if she wasn't seen all over the boy???

    I got arrested in my local the other day for a sexual assualt theat never took place. All the girl had to do is tell an off duty police officer that was with her, that I'd grabbed her arse and that was it. All because I'd got into an argument with her in the bar.

    I'm now left to expalin to everybody that was there that night that it was bullshit.

    The point is that to be a victim of somebody crying rape you don't need to be convicted, or even go to trial. Shit sticks.

    It's far too easy to do this.
    Kermit wrote:
    As the law stands, if a girl says she can't remember anything, then the man goes free.

    And if there's no other evidence so he should.
    Kermit wrote:
    It shouldn't be up to the bloke to prove he got consent, but at the same time we shouldn't be throwing cases out because the girl couldn't remember screaming no at the top of her voice.

    If she can't remember anything and there is no other evidence to indictae a rape, it has to be assumed that she gave consent. Taking advantage of somebody who is severely pissed doesn't automatically mean it is rape, however cuntish it may be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Kermit is right as per usual...he is a God round these parts...he talks sense. :rolleyes:

    Kermit...what do you take men for? I'm not sure what you are tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also SG...why are your threads always so formal? It's like some Government minister has written it. :shocking:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    by not getting so drunk they haven't the faintest idea what they're doing.

    Bullshit...only paraletics don't know what they're doing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    Really? I hope not, as that's a scary thought.
    .

    They don't...I personally don't know what he's talking about...I know really really bad chavs who have no intention of taking a legless girl home for a shag.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    People dont think properly when they are really drunk. I wouldnt sleep with a girl who was so drunk she'd go a long with anything personally.

    I've slept with mingers when I was really drunk. I regretted it in the morning. Was she a rapist?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i am pretty intrigued as to how a woman could rape a man actually.

    Men get erections by the stimulation of their penis'. If they're drunk enough they won't care.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not saying i condone rape because its sick and vile but drunken sex just happens and the lad could just as easily turn round and shout rape in the morning

    According to the current Sexual Offences Act 2003, it's only men that can commit rape per se, women can however commit the new offence of "Assault by penetration".

    Rape as currently defined is concerned only with nonconsensual penetration by a man of another man or woman's mouth, anus or vagina (obviously not applicable for men before some smart-ass comments). A lot of people assume vaginal or anal rape are the only types, a forced blow-job is still rape, and this is totally possible if the person is under duress or off their face on drugs and or drink.

    The new act also attempted to tighten up the "His word against hers" problem which was evident in the previous law by laying down three new tests. The first, if proven, show that no consent was offered, eg, where a man has impersonated someone's husband. In the second instance, a presumption against consent will be adopted and it is up to the prosecution to admit eveidence to raise the possibility of consent, this was to attempt to get convictions for date rapists, so if there is duress or drugs etc, this will apply. The third is the general consent requirement which allows the court to take into account all of the circumstances in the case, including drunkenness.

    Also, remember that the conviction rate for stranger rapists is something near 90%, i forget the exact figure, it is those rapes which occur in relationships that need the most attention, rape within marriage was not illegal until 1992.

    (P.s, I'm a law student, not just some obsessive lol :razz: )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that women should be educated against the risks of going out and getting wasted beyond all recognition, whilst wearing hardly any clothes. It seems stupid to me that they do, especially if they have to walk home alone, etc.

    Rape is a horrible thing for anyone to go through, but I'd be more sympathetic to someone attacked by a stranger while minding her own business, rather than the woman who goes out wearing practically underwear and getting wasted, and putting herself in situations where she could be attacked. Its just stupid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that women should be educated against the risks of going out and getting wasted beyond all recognition, whilst wearing hardly any clothes. It seems stupid to me that they do, especially if they have to walk home alone, etc.

    Rape is a horrible thing for anyone to go through, but I'd be more sympathetic to someone attacked by a stranger while minding her own business, rather than the woman who goes out wearing practically underwear and getting wasted, and putting herself in situations where she could be attacked. Its just stupid.

    but just because shes wearing a short skirt, and likes to show she has a nice body, does not mean shes hanging a sign around her neck saying rape me

    though i understand where your sentiments are coming from :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rape is a horrible thing for anyone to go through, but I'd be more sympathetic to someone attacked by a stranger while minding her own business, rather than the woman who goes out wearing practically underwear and getting wasted, and putting herself in situations where she could be attacked. Its just stupid.
    Whilst I agree that women should be educated to the risks, it doesn't stop the fact that women should be entitled to wear whatever they want without the fear that they might be raped.But I don't know whether dressing more skimpily actually increased the likelyhood of rape anyway (has any research ever been done into it?). I think advice such as don't accept drinks off strangers, and stick with your friends all night is far more useful. But I don't like the suggestion that sometimes goes along with this that women being educated to the risks = it's their own fault if they're raped. It's just like saying don't walk through a rough neighbourhood with your iPod showing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know this is off the original topic, but there should be NO differing levels of sympathy where rape is concerned. I'm practically foaming at the mouth at that assertion.

    I cannot believe there are people still subscribing to the belief that if a woman is a "slut", wearing "tarty" clothes, is sexually active (maybe even promiscuous), is mortally drunk and falling off her chair - then it’s not rape or that she was asking for it.

    On topic - far, far too many people still believe that women casually make rape allegations as some kind of ‘woman scorned’ attack of spite or during a remorseful hangover. It is disgusting that people still think it's such a common occurence, it happens but it doesn't change the fact that any woman who has been raped must be believed until it is proven that she is lying.

    I exercise my right as a woman to wear a short skirt, high heels, red lipstick, sit with my legs uncrossed, wear a push up bra, go out on the town in a negligee or any other garment I see fit. It is not a signal that I'm up for anything and it does not mean that I'm any more deserving of being raped than someone ambling home from work in an ASDA uniform. Good God.

    Oh sorry, maybe my "militant feminist agenda" is showing again, whoops.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    . But I don't like the suggestion that sometimes goes along with this that women being educated to the risks = it's their own fault if they're raped.
    Yeah definitely, thats taking the blame off the man which isnt fair either. But if more women were educated thered be less cases to solve in court, and less drunken regrets etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    any woman who has been raped must be believed until it is proven that she is lying.
    I agree that she must be treated that way by the authorities and be treated with every sympathy, but surely in court you can't do that and keep the innocent-until-proven-guilty for the accused at the same time?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that she must be treated that way by the authorities and be treated with every sympathy, but surely in court you can't do that and keep the innocent-until-proven-guilty for the accused at the same time?

    You're right, you can't, and I find this very difficult to reconcile and as it stands I suppose neither the victim or the accused feel their treatment by the courts is going to be fair.

    What worries me is that so many victims have such little faith already in the courts that it even prevents many of them from reporting a rape; and men feel like even if they aren't convicted their name is besmirched (whether guilty or not). So no one wins.

    That's why it's so hard to get a rape conviction if the physical evidence doesn't stand up in court, and I do believe that many men do "get away with it" because of that - though of course some of them are innocent, wrongly accused. If there isn't that tangible physical evidence then it is a case of one person's word against another's, and we're all aware of how hard it is to convict or dismiss on that basis.

    From what I say, it probably sounds like I care more about the rights of women as the (usual) victims, it just makes me so angry when a woman is assaulted and the finger of blame somehow turns back around on her. I care about the rights of everyone, until they show me why I shouldn't care. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.