LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 She didn't actually report a rape apparently, she told the police she had her drink spiked (nothing in her system) and had lost her bag. The police opened the case. True though, will be alot of sex pests out there. You see em on club dancefloors at 3am just before closing. I guess I'm just putting together a character profile in my head. Takes drugs. Pisses in the street. Has sex with a complete stranger etc. Of course that doesn't mean she should be taken advantage of. The most common way drinks get spiked is not with specialist drugs but simply with extra shots of alcohol that the person isn't aware they're consuming. The fact nothing showed in her system doesn't necessarily rule out her drink being spiked. Similarly, given she has no memory of what happened, it's understandable she didn't report the rape but clearly at that point she didn't realise she'd had sex with Evans. And, as you point out, the fact she takes drugs, pisses in the street and has sex with strangers have no real bearing on whether or not she was raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think its very hazy. If I try and have sex with my girlfriend after she's had a glass of wine or two, and she consents non verbally, I haven't raped her have I FFS. And everyone is different when they're drunk, who is to say a girl will consent and then simply change her mind? Also a hell of a lot of blokes will have been raped too then, if they're hammered and have sex with a drunk girl. Raping each other in your opinion. I think that' 'consents non-verbally' is the key point you've missed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need a written and signed statement of consent but you do need the person to be both aware of what you're doing and happy for you to do it - otherwise there is no consent. And clearly there's a world of difference between one or two glasses of wine and someone who's clearly not in control of their actions. The second point you've made isn't really relevant. Firstly, if someone consents and then changes their mind then I'd hope any sensible decent person would stop having sex with them. And men being hammered and having sex with drunk girls is a completely different thing for biological reasons I really hope I'm not going to be pressed to go into here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think its very hazy. If I try and have sex with my girlfriend after she's had a glass of wine or two, and she consents non verbally, I haven't raped her have I FFS. And everyone is different when they're drunk, who is to say a girl will consent and then simply change her mind? Also a hell of a lot of blokes will have been raped too then, if they're hammered and have sex with a drunk girl. Raping each other in your opinion. Staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 The point of this case is that it highlights that if a man does not seek consent from a woman before initiating sex, or that if she is not in a fit state to give consent then IT IS RAPE, and a lot more men should thank god be aware of that now. Precisely. I'd really hope, if one good thing came out of this case, it would be that realisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think that' 'consents non-verbally' is the key point you've missed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need a written and signed statement of consent but you do need the person to be both aware of what you're doing and happy for you to do it - otherwise there is no consent. And clearly there's a world of difference between one or two glasses of wine and someone who's clearly not in control of their actions. The second point you've made isn't really relevant. Firstly, if someone consents and then changes their mind then I'd hope any sensible decent person would stop having sex with them. And men being hammered and having sex with drunk girls is a completely different thing for biological reasons I really hope I'm not going to be pressed to go into here. What you're saying is that because she can't remember it from the night before, she obviously didn't consent to it. I've had memory loss from drinking before but that doesn't mean at the moment in question she said no. I meant the girl changes her mind days/weeks later as to whether she was 'raped' or not. Sorry I don't have a clue what you mean, biological reasons. If a man is drunk and has memory loss and has sex, then by Dolly's definition he has been raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Staggering. Care to contribute or you sticking to one liners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 She didn't actually report a rape apparently, she told the police she had her drink spiked (nothing in her system) and had lost her bag. The police opened the case. True though, will be alot of sex pests out there. You see em on club dancefloors at 3am just before closing. I guess I'm just putting together a character profile in my head. Takes drugs. Pisses in the street. Has sex with a complete stranger etc. Of course that doesn't mean she should be taken advantage of. So, the girl was a 'pissed-up slag' (as mentioned by Dolly earlier) and had just been 'screwed' by her first partner - interestingly, and this is important?, I have been unable to establish whether or not she actually ate her infamous pizza! Whatever. Our friend Ched arrives and asks for some 'sloppy seconds' (whilst my mates film it on their mobile phones from outside the hotel room). This 'pissed-up slag' apparently (in her drunken/drugged state) consents. Ched. You should be ashamed of yourself, rape or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 So, the girl was a 'pissed-up slag' (as mentioned by Dolly earlier) and had just been 'screwed' by her first partner - interestingly, and this is important?, I have been unable to establish whether or not she actually ate her infamous pizza! Whatever. Our friend Ched arrives and asks for some 'sloppy seconds' (whilst my mates film it on their mobile phones from outside the hotel room). This 'pissed-up slag' apparently (in her drunken/drugged state) consents. Ched. You should be ashamed of yourself, rape or otherwise. Yeh I agree there, he is a dirty bastard as I mentioned before. Just go home FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 What you're saying is that because she can't remember it from the night before, she obviously didn't consent to it. I've had memory loss from drinking before but that doesn't mean at the moment in question she said no. I meant the girl changes her mind days/weeks later as to whether she was 'raped' or not. Sorry I don't have a clue what you mean, biological reasons. If a man is drunk and has memory loss and has sex, then by Dolly's definition he has been raped. What I'm saying is a jury has carefully considered the facts and concluded she was raped. As such, that's the legally accepted version of what happened and, without any evidence to contest that, it seems a bit daft for people on an internet forum to play Miss Marple and pick holes on a case they've not heard in as much detail as the jury did. What I mean by, for biological reasons, is that the way men and women are designed makes it much easier for a man to have sex with a semi-conscious woman than vice-versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 What I'm saying is a jury has carefully considered the facts and concluded she was raped. As such, that's the legally accepted version of what happened and, without any evidence to contest that, it seems a bit daft for people on an internet forum to play Miss Marple and pick holes on a case they've not heard in as much detail as the jury did. What I mean by, for biological reasons, is that the way men and women are designed makes it much easier for a man to have sex with a semi-conscious woman than vice-versa. I haven't said a thing about being semi-conscious. Dolly is talking about being drunk and therefore not being able to properly consent to sex. That applies to both men and women does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I'm not sure what the argument is. If you want clarity just consult what is written in law. Its pretty clear imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Sorry I don't have a clue what you mean, biological reasons. If a man is drunk and has memory loss and has sex, then by Dolly's definition he has been raped. If he didn't give consent to whoever had sex with him, then yes, he has, and should report it as such. But as London Bristolian says, it's much harder for a woman to have sex with a semi-conscious man. I shall say it again, if they do not give consent, or are not in a fit state to give consent, then in the eyes of the law IT IS RAPE be they a man, or a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I haven't said a thing about being semi-conscious. Dolly is talking about being drunk and therefore not being able to properly consent to sex. That applies to both men and women does it not? To be honest, you really don't seem to understand Dolly's point and seem to be arguing against a different argument to the one she made. I don't think she's saying that anyone who is drunk cannot consent to sex but that taking advantage of someone who is clearly so wasted they are no longer in control of their actions is rape. Which it is, both in fact and in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I'm not sure what the argument is. If you want clarity just consult what is written in law. Its pretty clear imo. I think what some are trying to say is the "Drunk, easy, druggy girl" should have been more grateful that 2 highly payed footballers had sex with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 To be honest, you really don't seem to understand Dolly's point and seem to be arguing against a different argument to the one she made. I don't think she's saying that anyone who is drunk cannot consent to sex but that taking advantage of someone who is clearly so wasted they are no longer in control of their actions is rape. Which it is, both in fact and in law. No what I am saying is that 'not being in a fit state to consent' can mean being drunk, not necessarily half conscious. How people react and the different degrees of being drunk are vastly different on a person to person basis so we'll never know what sort of state to consent the girl was in. She was conscious enough to remember she lost her bag somewhere on the journey, to walk in and out of the hotel on her own and remember she left her pizza outside the hotel (and went to go get it). Evans arrived AFTER all this and people usually sober up as time lapses not the other way around. As I say I'm not entirely convinced about this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 To be honest, you really don't seem to understand Dolly's point and seem to be arguing against a different argument to the one she made. I don't think she's saying that anyone who is drunk cannot consent to sex but that taking advantage of someone who is clearly so wasted they are no longer in control of their actions is rape. Which it is, both in fact and in law. At the risk of contradicting myself, it is never as clear cut as that, especially in established, happy relationships. If a sleeping (in effect unconscious), very happily married husband is awoken by some "attention" from his wife, that might be as far removed from rape as it possibly could be. OK, not wasted (though could be on another day), but already too late to consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 No what I am saying is that 'not being in a fit state to consent' can mean being drunk, not necessarily half conscious. How people react and the different degrees of being drunk are vastly different on a person to person basis so we'll never know what sort of state to consent the girl was in. She was conscious enough to remember she lost her bag somewhere on the journey, to walk in and out of the hotel on her own and remember she left her pizza outside the hotel (and went to go get it). Evans arrived AFTER all this and people usually sober up as time lapses not the other way around. As I say I'm not entirely convinced about this one. 'Not being in a fit state to consent' can mean being drunk. But if you're not in a fit state to consent, you're not in a fit state to consent and anyone having sex with you is raping you because, by definition, you aren't in a fit state to consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think what some are trying to say is the "Drunk, easy, druggy girl" should have been more grateful that 2 highly payed footballers had sex with her. Really, who said that? Or are you just building a straw man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 'Not being in a fit state to consent' can mean being drunk. But if you're not in a fit state to consent, you're not in a fit state to consent and anyone having sex with you is raping you because, by definition, you aren't in a fit state to consent. No, sorry, that is Dollys argument, that being drunk means you cannot be in a state to consent. I am disagreeing with that point. You can be drunk and still consent for/against things IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 At the risk of contradicting myself, it is never as clear cut as that, especially in established, happy relationships. If a sleeping (in effect unconscious), very happily married husband is awoken by some "attention" from his wife, that might be as far removed from rape as it possibly could be. OK, not wasted, but already too late to consent. Sure. But in those cases the person is making a judgement call that their partner will be happy to get that attention and will consent in retrospect. Which is a judgement call that you can probably make it you've been together for long enough - although that obviously shouldn't mask the fact that rape does happen in marriages and long-term relationships - but as you say it's not clear-cut. But nonetheless, if you have sex with someone without being confident that they are in a fit state to consent or that they would be happy for you to be doing what you're doing, then you are putting yourself at risk of being accused, and indeed convicted, of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 I am disagreeing with that point. You can be drunk and still consent for/against things IMO. True. I've consented many times in that state. So has my wife. Unless you are absolutely sure its fine you have to accept the consequences. Simple. And the law backs up the person who's drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 No, sorry, that is Dollys argument, that being drunk means you cannot be in a state to consent. I am disagreeing with that point. You can be drunk and still consent for/against things IMO. You can be drunk and still consent to things. But it depends how drunk. I've certainly seen women (and indeed men for that matter) who, whilst not unconscious, were not in a state where they could reasonably be said to be able to consent to things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Slightly off topic. I seem to remember hearing on the radio this week that a 'consent app' has been created so that a record of consent exists first on both sides. How romantic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 No, sorry, that is Dollys argument, that being drunk means you cannot be in a state to consent. I am disagreeing with that point. You can be drunk and still consent for/against things IMO. You are twisting my words, go back and read my posts, I said if you are not in a fit state to consent, not just a blanket "anyone who is drunk" comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 You are twisting my words, go back and read my posts, I said if you are not in a fit state to consent, not just a blanket "anyone who is drunk" comment. The girl was drunk, able to walk on her own, eat her pizza etc. Not semi conscious. But not in a state to consent to sex with a second man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 The girl was drunk, able to walk on her own, eat her pizza etc. Not semi conscious. But not in a state to consent to sex with a second man? Obviously not, or he would not have been found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Obviously not, or he would not have been found guilty. Based on her word against his I guess. You agree with the Pistorious manslaughter verdict then? Because of course that's what the jury found... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Really, who said that? Or are you just building a straw man? A straw person. I was just summarising the gist that I was getting into one sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Based on her word against his I guess. You agree with the Pistorious manslaughter verdict then? Because of course that's what the jury found... The two are entirely different cases in different countries with wildly different justice systems, so not comparable in this case. And now i'm off to Divvy's funeral, so forgive me if I don't get back to you for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 The two are entirely different cases in different countries with wildly different justice systems, so not comparable in this case. And now i'm off to Divvy's funeral, so forgive me if I don't get back to you for a bit. Just making a point the outcome of a case may not always be right. Impossible for them to be. Give him a good send off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.