I was going to call this "This blog could save a young man's life." but anyway...
I have always considered myself a
reasonable man but I was amazed to find myself branded a rapist and rape
apologist by feminists on Twitter after voicing my opinion on the Julian Assange and Ched Evans
cases.
In 2010, Baroness Stern, who wrote
the report on rape that brought about the change to the rape law said, “Rape needs
to be discussed a lot.” However, it may be difficult to discuss this subject when the questioning of these new
laws is greeted with such hostile abuse.
Assange is already getting abuse with his image being tarnished forever and he is only wanted for questioning.
I knew that discussing Assange and Ched Evans would result in abuse. I regret responding to it because I appreciate some of these women have been abused and probably still hurting. I can also understand women feeling angry that they don't get justice and what compounds the pain is when there is a conviction, people want to get the rapist out.
So let me make it clear. Rape is wrong and the rapist should go to prison. Women are never to blame for being raped.
Assange is already getting abuse with his image being tarnished forever and he is only wanted for questioning.
I knew that discussing Assange and Ched Evans would result in abuse. I regret responding to it because I appreciate some of these women have been abused and probably still hurting. I can also understand women feeling angry that they don't get justice and what compounds the pain is when there is a conviction, people want to get the rapist out.
So let me make it clear. Rape is wrong and the rapist should go to prison. Women are never to blame for being raped.
I had a look at what the CPS says is rape. It’s
worth a read. I was unaware of the law changes over the years and this worries
me. Not for my sake but for those
young men unaware of the new dangers.
I watch the news, I see public information notices but
this totally passed me by. If I missed
it I feel it is reasonable to assume a 24 year old footballer may have missed the law changes too. Anyway,
I’ll come back to that.
Here is the law but I doubt many young men have read this or discussed it with their parents, assuming they have functional parents.
Reasonable belief in consent
In the offences of rape,
assault by penetration, sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual
activity without consent, a person (A) is guilty of an offence if (s)he:
- · Acts intentionally;
- · (B) does not consent to the act; and
- · (A) does not reasonably believe that B consents.
The CPS goes
on to say that (A) has to make a reasonable
judgement call on (B)’s ability to consent.
The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test
with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask
two questions:
(i) Did the defendant
believe the complainant consented?
This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the
subjective element of the test).
(ii) If so, did the
defendant reasonably believe it? It
will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the
objective element).
The law has changed over the
years. What was acceptable in 2002
was not acceptable in 2003 and what was acceptable in 2009 was not acceptable
in 2010.
If Ched Evans had sex with this girl just 18 months earlier the judge would have advised the jury to come back with a NOT GUILTY verdict.
Case
of Peter Bacon cleared of rape in 2009.
“Thank God I'm free, says chef cleared of raping
woman who was too drunk to remember. But my name has been dragged through the
mud.” READ MORE
But
the move to change the law started much earlier.
When Judge Evans in 2005 said, “Drunken consent is still consent.”
Labour MP
Vera Baird, responded with "The
judge is utterly and totally wrong, he needs to be spoken to and sent on some
re-training. This is a dreadful outcome because women will
now think they cannot have a single glass of wine - I think this is going to put women off coming forward
again and again." What?
After
the case, a CPS spokesman said: "It was the prosecution case throughout
that consent was not given. Under cross-examination I think she accepted that
she could not remember refusing and it could not then be said there was no reasonable
doubt.”
In
October 2006 The Guardian wrote
“The government is drawing up laws to make it easier to convict men of rape if they
have sex with a woman who has drunk so much that she may not know what she is
doing.”
"Easier to convict men"? That's not making it easier to catch a rapist, that is redefining the crime. That is a change to the definition of rape. I expected to see something in this piece on this change in the law of consensual sex. Considering that it could result in a man going to prison for 5 years. Sorry Ched, you should have read the new CPS guidelines!
I’ve looked for public information
films that encourage men to decline the advances of a drunk woman but all I can
find are examples of the traditional view of rape. How can we expect men to understand "reasonable belief" and drunken consent if we don’t educate them
on the new law?
12 months before the Ched Evans incident and it doesn’t come close to addressing the complexities of drunken consent and the importance of reasonable belief of consent. When men have had "NO MEANS NO!" drilled into them are you surprised a guy thinks "yes!" is ok?
There is little
evidence that young men have been made aware of the change in law that when a
woman says “yes” it is HIS responsibility to judge that she understands what
is going on. Even then if he believes it was ok a court may decide otherwise. That is an impossible situation for a young man to find himself in.
A
Judge can get it terribly wrong saying “Drunk sex is still consent” but yet we
must believe that 12 months after a change in the law that a 22 year old man with
no legal expertise was aware of the rapidly changing political mood of the nation's law makers.
Remember,
rape is only rape if (A) believes he hasn’t got consent i.e. He is aware he is
committing a crime.
Ironically,
during the period where the Labour Government wanted to increase rape
convictions they have also relaxed the licencing laws on late night drinking.
This article in the UK's most popular newspaper, The Sun, suggests that Tulisa would not have consented to a sex act recorded by her then boyfriend if she had been sober.
Tulisa from X Factor claims she was too drunk to remember making a sex tape.
“I believe I must have been intoxicated at the
time the video footage was taken.
“Now that I can see the video, I can see it is
me in it.”
This
article written in 2012 is about being drunk and not being capable of
consenting and it doesn’t even make any reference to a possible rape case. If a role model like Tulisa gives drunken blow jobs what message does that send out? What is a man's reasonable belief of drunken sex? Drunk women give blow jobs? Well not anymore mate. That's FIVE years for you! You think I'm joking? Ask Ched Evans how funny that is.
A man could possibly have endless encounters with drunk girls who don’t claim rape but then comes across one that takes offence to a sex tape on the net. The only thing a man can reasonably do is avoid drunken encounters. Are they? Of course not. Young, drunk and stupid men will be persuaded by the pull of pissed sirens. Many will escape but the odd one will pay the price of his lust. "But she said 'yes'! he cries to his mum as they cart him away. Clunk!
Now
the thing is, I’ve seen the tape and she didn’t appear drunk and that opens up
the question, what if Tulisa was lying because she was just too
embarrassed?
She goes on to say “I must have been very drunk to let my then boyfriend Justin Edwards, who I also know features in the video, take the footage.”
Justin Edwards claims in a letter to his
solicitors that ‘I took many pictures and
videos of us having sex’ and I still have those videos. That is completely
untrue.”
Is Tulisa lying about being too drunk to remember? That opens a whole new tin of worms that must never be opened.
Men have a perception of sex and women that needs to be dispelled but locking up young men who are products of the drink/sex culture without educating them is totally dismissing the "reasonable belief" part of the definition of rape.
Brendan O'Neill sums it up perfectly.
Until this "drunken consent" topic is addressed properly so that men are properly educated, they need to change there approach to drunk women who are potentially hazardous.
Gary Lee-Walters wrote this great article taken from The Barrister Magazine that looked at the whole problem in detail.
Thanks for reading.
Is Tulisa lying about being too drunk to remember? That opens a whole new tin of worms that must never be opened.
Men have a perception of sex and women that needs to be dispelled but locking up young men who are products of the drink/sex culture without educating them is totally dismissing the "reasonable belief" part of the definition of rape.
Brendan O'Neill sums it up perfectly.
“Feminists always focus on the state of mind of the woman or women involved in an alleged rape and disregard the state of mind of the man.
This is a terrible error, because in order for rape to have occurred, it is not enough to prove that the woman did not consent; we must also surely prove that the man knows she did not consent, or was utterly reckless as to the question of her consent, and carried on regardless.
Feminists who are subtly rewriting the meaning of rape are taking us away from this civilised approach and towards something more backward, even feudalistic: the criminal punishment of people who do not have criminal minds."
For me, the thought that men (any man over 16) are now totally responsible for the welfare of drunk women who offer up sex is concerning.
Until this "drunken consent" topic is addressed properly so that men are properly educated, they need to change there approach to drunk women who are potentially hazardous.
Gary Lee-Walters wrote this great article taken from The Barrister Magazine that looked at the whole problem in detail.
“The public and parliament need to move with the times, tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis. No doubt improved sociological education of what might happen if men have sex with women that are intoxicated, especially those that do not overtly consent. A simple caveat to any man considering in engaging in intercourse with an intoxicated woman is simply not to do so. The law has and will continue to have difficulties dealing with such issues but unless a contract is drawn up for the two parties before a night out, these problems will re-present themselves.
In trying to make more sense of the law on voluntarily intoxicated consent, Alan Reed encapsulates the feeling well: “Arguably the true meaning remains as opaque as ever.” need for reform, the author asserts, is stronger now post-Bree and the SOA 2003, than ever before.”
Thanks for reading.
P.S. I haven't even started on our drink culture, but this video is good place to get you thinking...
Excuse mistakes - I make loads. will probably make some amendments.
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/
freephone helpline
0808 802 9999
9 comments:
There is a big difference between a drunk girl who willingly and consensually has sex with a guy, and a drunk girl who is so far gone that she doesn't even know what is happening to her. One is rape, one is not. It is about whether the girl wants it, and when you are in a sexual situation it is pretty obvious whether the other person wants it (ie. they will be responding and involved in the action rather than just lying there unconscious).
I wrote about this on my blog: http://theworldofraven.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/consent-a-simple-guide/ it is pretty clear cut really whether a girl is consenting or not. Just make sure she seems interested and you are having sex with her rather than it being something you are doing to her.
Dear Steve, how about when I went home with a guy and consented to sex with him, we fall asleep and I then wake up to find a guy I have never seen having sex with me. Turned out it was his brother. How is that defined then? Where should the line be drawn according to you? Because I consented to sex with one guy it means obviously I was fair game to anyone in his family right, or maybe it should be extended to friends also.
Who knows maybe this guy was uneducated, didn't know the definitions of the law but who the hell thinks it is normal to stick it into someone who is asleep, unless you have some sort of prior understanding in a relationship that this is ok.
I really want to know where you would draw the line on rape if you were to make the law??
Thanks
Oh FGS Steve. It's SO SIMPLE & you don't need to ramble for pages & pages to explain it.
If a woman is too drunk to consent, & man penetrates her with her penis (regardless of whether she is throwing herself at him or not) it is RAPE. Why any man would want to have sex with someone so drunk is beyond me, but there you have it.
How about, instead of telling women to not get off their faces so they don't get raped, we tell MEN to not get so drunk they accidentally rape someone?
I was extremely uncomfortable with people calling you a rapist and using your wife as an instrument to insult you, but at least you've (to an extent) acknowledged that all that vitriol was likely a result of you telling those who have suffered this abuse that really, by your definitions, they had never been violated at all.
Your infatuation with the change in law is weird as hell. I mean, it wasn't until 1991 that non-consensual sex within a marriage was perfectly legal, but no sane person would look at that change in law and exclaim 'but they're redefining rape! what about the husband who still honestly thinks his behaviour is fine?' Neither that change nor the one you mention is 'redefining rape', but rather acknowledging extenuating circumstance make no difference on whether or not a victim is raped. A husband can honestly believe a marraige contract gives him leave to take advantage, like a random person can honestly believe a drunken invitation for coffee means they must try their best to have sex with the inviter no matter what, but neither is a remotely reasonable excuse.
There's a really thoughtful and clear account of reasonable belief here: http://nowlookhere.collinsho.me/?p=53
Aside from the law being moot here when it comes to what rape actually is (we can presumably take for granted the act of rape existed before there was a word for it after all), this post has a disturbing focus on punishment at the hands of that law. Seriously, would you tell your kid 'murder is bad because you'll be punished' or would you tell them 'murder is bad because it's wrong to hurt others'. Maybe the thrust of your post shouldn't be 'guys should be careful because otherwise they might get punished'. Maybe it should be more along the lines of 'guys should be careful because otherwise they might really hurt somebody'.
Sorry ladies, but the blog is about when a woman is drunk and consents. You can't start arguing about times when she doesn't consent because that is clearly rape. Reasonable belief comes into play when a woman is drunk enough to consent but may regret of forget her actions in the morning. The law is dangerously moving towards a bias of belief towards the word of a woman and not the evidence at hand.
Rape is hard to prove so the best way to avoid rape is by educating men to respect women (i.e don't have drunken sex) and for women to respect themselves (don't agree to sex with strangers when drunk).
Drunken sex can be dangerous and I do not recommend it.
I agree men need to be educated on their responsibility in society as with being the physically stronger sex does come responsibility which I notice is lacking even in how they conduct them selves generally in society. I have been crashed into by men in the street not taking care despite being bigger and stronger than the women around them. Its almost like they are still children in a man's body. The attitude in society to bad behaviour of men is often 'boys will be boys' which doesn't help. Your article does seem overly concerned with boys getting into trouble rather than men acting with responsibility and integrity in society. Only a complete opportunistic arse hole would have sex with a very drunk woman its also pathetic if a man cant find a sober woman who will sleep with him. I know a tutor at Uni who said he found it quite disturbing how many young men seem to have a very vague idea of the line between consensual sex and rape. It is up to us as parents to educate them what is acceptable moral behaviour in their sexual conduct and more sex education in schools about this subject is essential.
No Steve, the law actually isn't moving toward a bias in favour of women, it's just finally becoming more balanced after an extremely long and already demonstrated history of bias toward men. You remind me of those religious people who claim they're being discriminated against because the laws that previously granted them certain immunities are being retooled toward genuine equality. Our gender isn't being discriminated against, it's just finally being held to reasonable account.
You wrote a blog about rape, and the laws surrounding it, don't get pissy when the commenters take you to task about those things. You used the exact phrase 'redefining rape'. That is what you're talking about, so that is what we are talking about.
According to Rape Crisis, this bizzarely specific scenario of yours is staggeringly uncommon, and a cursory search on google finds way more examples of men worrying about it than women who feel they have been victims of it. And don't misunderstand me, I don't mean the situation is uncommon, but rather your weird little obsession with girls who cry rape afterwards. The law, including the change, is focused on the (significantly, like, seriously fucking significantly) most common form of rape both reported and unreported; where the survivor has clearly and consciously felt violated. This matters. This is what rape is. And this is why the change in the law that you're so concerned about is actually removing a male bias rather than adding a female one (if we must gender this at all, it happens in other directions too, hetero or otherwise, albeit less commonly), because, as if it needs repeating, the intentions of the rapist do not determine whether or not a person is raped.
Also, just fyi, I'm a man, twenty five years old, these scenarios aren't exactly far from home. Personally, I am way, WAY more concerned about all my friends and lovers getting a decent chance of justice if they're ever raped than I am about them lying or exploiting a law after a heavy night of drinking! And since we know which of those scenarios is statistically more likely, the law as it stands is a good thing.
Chat about education all you want. People have been before you, and nobody will disagree. But don't pretend you only wrote a blog about 'drunk sex', when you litteraly use the phrase 'redefining rape' to describe a law that better serves actual survivors of rape.
Ah, 'redefining the crime' was your actual words, now that I skim back over, but the sentiment 'redefining rape' is expressed in those words, and prevalent throughout your whole post.
Steve you can go on and on about how the law is moving towards favouring women but here are the facts:
25% of all women will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lives. One quarter. One quarter. Just take some time to digest that. It's a staggering percentage.
Of those who are raped (about one in ten - one in twenty, depending on whose numbers you believe), 85-90% will never report it.
Of the 10-15% who do report it, 90% of them will not see their cases go to court. Only 6% will see their rapist found guilty. This is in spite of the fact that the rate of false allegations is something between 2-8% (Baroness Stern advises more research to be done on this.)
And you are worried that men will be held accountable for their violence against women? Because make no mistake, whether overt force is used or not, rape is terrible violence, psychological violence that does terrible damage without the victim necessarily being made aware that she has been damaged. 25 years after my rapist raped me, I had a nervous breakdown when I realised the impact he had had on my life without me being aware of that impact.
You have no idea what you are talking about and if you are going to write blogs about rape, you have a duty to speak to organisations (such as Rape Crisis) who know about it so that you can educate yourself instead of spreading rape myths. The world you live in, is a dangerous one for all the women you love - every fourth woman you know, statistically, will either have experienced some sort of sexual assault in her life or will experience that in future. Part of the reason that violence is so prevalent, is because of rape myths. If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem - and do you really want to be part of the problem that makes the women you love and respect, so unsafe?
Post a Comment