chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

I've just been reading the below article in The Independant. I thought although a touchy subject, it may bring some good debate about the whole 'date rape' thing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...xpires_in=4380

I personally do not agree with Dame Helen Mirran and think a "no means no" answer is there BUT agree it can be a very grey area when things such as alcohol and provocative and/or deliberate actions arise.

Also, is it possible for a male to be 'date raped'? Or is this purely a female thing with the majority of males "always up for a bit of crumpet" etc?

Poll added, discuss...

stilover

Rape is Rape. End of.

Can a man be date raped???? I'm willing to find out.

ScoobyWon't

According to the legal definition of rape, it's by penetration. The grey area surrounds whether a female penetrating a male by her fingers counts as rape.

A female penetrating a male with an object, rather than a body part, would be looked at as a sexual assault.

boxst

It is a difficult subject. If someone says 'no' then it should be 'no' and there isn't really any other answer.

However, there appears to be quite a lot of circumstances where either the girl didn't remember, regretted it or just out of spite has called rape. I thankfully have never been in this situation but if I were younger and active I would probably record things (purely for this purpose of course, nothing perverted ).


What I do categorically disagree with is naming the accused rapist whilst the accuser remains anonymous. Either both should be public or neither until the result of the investigation / trial.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I agree that rape is rape it is truely evil thing to do.

Date rape though often involves the victim having no chance of saying 'no', as they are drugged.

I do feel that some people put themselves at risk by their own doing.
If you walk into a warzone, is it fair to say that you might get shot?
If a girl goes to a club, already pissed up, wearing a belt for a skirt, continues to drink and does not care where the drink comes from, is it fair to say that she is a bit of a muppet and is giving a rapist a very big helping hand?

Some would argue no and that we should all be allowed to act like ***** with no self responcibility.
But in my view, we all know that rapists exist and pray on young, drunk girls who crave attention. The writing is on the wall people.

Tidgy

if the woman says no or stop no mater where the events have got to, they should stop. same if a bloke says no.

ScoobyWon't

I once spent about five hours on a cordon, in the rain, as some silly girl stayed out all night and didn't want to tell her parents, so reported that she had been raped.

Then there was all the other police staff involved. SOCO, CID, custody staff, etc. The girl ended up in court for wasting police time.

On the other end of the spectrum was when I saw a 15 year old being raped, while unconscious. She didn't want to support a prosecution.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

No means no. End of! As long as the "no" is articulated. I don't see that there is a tenable argument otherwise.

If you're part welsh like me Baaaaaaa also means no.

IIRC According to the law a man can't be raped by a woman as, basically, a woman does not have a ***** with which to rape (still a bit dark ages in that respect) I think the charge would be sexual assault. It's bull**** though as non-consensual sex is non consensual sex irrespective of which side is the perpetrator.

Ns04

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I have been brougth up with No = No.

I have on some occasions been told the answer is NO but don't stop trying.

In my opinion it is to easy for a woman to shout rape if she either regrets what she is doing or wants to get the bloke in trouble. I also thing it is unfair when underage girls manage to get into clubs and pubs with fake ID lead someone on and then the bloke gets done for underage sex or rape.

Tidgy

GlesgaKiss

She might be giving him a hand in the sense that she's making it easier, in a practical sense, for him to drug and rape her, but that doesn't justify what he's doing. It means she has been a bit reckless; it doesn't mean she is responsible for someone choosing to do that to her (a criminal act).

The answer is that she should have been allowed to act how she liked in that situation. It's not a legal responsibility to prevent yourself from being raped.

Where her behaviour might come into question and affect the outcome for the 'rapist' would be if her consent was a grey area. But that's a different principle to the one in your example. Yours is pretty clear cut.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I think that's the key point that some people struggle with.

By way of analogy using a less emotive crime: if you leave your doors and windows open when you go out to work, you have created a situation where a burglary is much easier to comit, but the criminal offence is someone else exploiting the conditions of vulnerability you created to steal something that doesn't belong to them!

Some people would undoubtedly say you were "asking for it" by the lack of foresight and common sense exhibited in your behavior, but that does not detract from the fact that behaving in a way that makes the commission of a crime easier is NOT the same as giving someone consent to commit a crime against you. It is still the perpetrators decision to do something they know is illegal!

Going back to date rape: I think the difficult situation occurs when a woman/man compromises their own ability to give informed consent via booze or drugs, but even then if someone has drunk or drugged themselves into a position where they can barely speak, let alone make an informed decision about sex and this is understood to be the case by the other person, then they are in effect having sex with someone who is not capable of giving consent or, perhaps more importantly, withholding/withdrawing consent. It's the ability to make the decision which I think is key.

It's much more clear cut when that ability has been taken away from a a person by a third party e.g. someone spiking their drink. There can be no defence for that!

Bean1984

iTrader: (3)

Difficult subject. No means no but its easy for a girl to go home with mr lucky, do the business then go to the cop station crying in a state of shock n cry rape.

Ive seen it loads of times in my line of work so my advice is lads if you pull miss sexy in a club only sleep with her if she is 100% sober. Reason being alcohol will be eliminated so she cant use the excuse " i cant remember" so if you slept with her and she didnt agree then there would be visable signs on the body of force.

EddScott

Thats rape.

GlesgaKiss

Yep. As NS04 says, I don't think the people who've chosen the grey area option in the vote have properly read or understood what she was saying. If a person has sex with another against their will, that's a clear boundary crossed into coercion. Even in its 'milder' forms, e.g. a couple who've previously had sex and the woman was consenting up to the point of intercourse but then changed her mind, you could imagine it being a pretty traumatic experience. Being physically forced to do anything is, but something so intimate has to be much worse.

I suppose there could be a grey area when the person who isn't consenting doesn't really make it clear they no longer consent, and then afterwards they'll be thinking, 'well I didn't really want to do that, so was I raped?' I really can't see how that would stick, though. It would need to be communicated somehow that consent was no longer given: either physically, i.e. resisting, or verbally.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Exactly! If the above quote is accurate and not out of context, I find that view indefensible.

By her way of thinking if a female mate got drunk around mine and slept in the same bed as me in her underwear (making no attempt to be modest) and then having a cheeky kiss and fondle, if I decided to go further and she said "no" then she wouldn't be justified in claiming rape if I forced myself on her!!

Frankly, that's an offensive and dangerous view. Implies that all men are drooling beasts who just can't help themselves if a hint of ***** is waved under their noses, thus negating their responsibility for their own actions and implying that under some circumstances women who say no can expect little sympathy if the guy doesn't respect their wishes.

Whatever happened to different levels of intimacy? Why on earth should it be not ok to engage in some mild sexual activity and not want to take it any further on that occasion. It is a person's prerogative to say no at ANY stage in the proceedings and any half way decent/reasonable partner would respect that wish....irrespective of how horny they were!

That actually makes me angry that a woman would perpetuate such a bull**** excuse for criminal behaviour!

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

i think man rape is usually up the pooper by another man, but if your still willing pop to your local bar that has a rainbow above the door and hang out in the toilets.

report your findings back here...........

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

How did you respond to seeing that ?

scud8

iTrader: (1)

Very topical with the Julian Assange case. In his case (or one of them) the victim willingly went to bed with him and had sex a couple of times, then woke up in the morning to find him having another go. The issue for her was that in the morning he didn't use a condom. Several days later she threatened him with the police if he didn't agree to have a blood test, and he refused to give in to what he saw as blackmail.

In the circumstances a rape charge seems tough, but according to Swedish law it is definitely rape. On a strict interpretation of UK law it could be viewed as rape as well since she was not in a position to consent while asleep or drowsy and the consent from the night before would no longer apply - but I'm not sure whether a UK jury would convict in such a case.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

If they were convinced she was asleep, I imagine they'd have to because an unconscious person can't give consent. If she was asleep and he started to have intercourse with her I have no sympathy for the guy at all!

EddScott

I didn't know that was the deal with the Assange case.

The thing is, I've been woken up by a partner doing stuff and vice versa - although having been with them for a good while you would think by now that it was OK.

I guess if you were new to each other that could go either way. I think then if you are told to stop (and I don't believe anyone you can't tell the difference between I want you to stop and stop because I want you) you must stop. Anything else is just wrong.

I think in Mirren's defence I think she is looking at it from an older-time view. A time when a woman was never going to get backup if she tried to stand up for herself - even from other women and the fact that a woman having carried out other sexual acts but refusing sex would get nowhere in court. However, to suggest mediation as an alternative is a bit naive.

One thing I would say thought is the case for when two people, both drunk have sex and then the woman cries rape the following day. I think then you might get the grey area bit - from a legal POV anyway. If she was all up for it and her turning on you is a complete surprise then perhaps its her with the issues. If you were both drunk and yet she still said no at the time then that is when conviction is probably harder. Having said that, as the bloke, you'd still know what you did wasn't right

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

That's definitely the difficult area. My view is if both parties put themselves in a vulnerable position e.g. get drunk, but where neither party says "no" or physically protests and they go through with it and subsequently regret it then no crime has been committed. It's an error in judgement made whilst voluntarily intoxicated and just something that they have to chalk up to experience. IMO for a conviction of rape to be valid someone has to knowingly have non-consensual sex or deliberately remove the other person's ability to consent e.g by spiking their drink.

Accusing someone of forcing sex on you when in point of fact you were in a situation that a reasonable person would regard as a precursor to sex or otherwise conducive with sex AND in which you did not explicitly not give consent to sex is a terrible thing to do. The difference between this view and Dame Mirren's is that as soon as non consent has been explicitly expressed, just because the precursors to sex have occurred does not mean that one is entitled to it regardless of whether the other individual changes their mind.

speedking

Unfortunately, car insurers beg to differ. If you leave your keys in the car, you will not be able to make a claim against your insurers even though it is not your fault that a criminal offence occurred.

I would imagine that if there were such a thing as insurance against being raped, that dressing unprovocatively, not going to certain places, not getting drunk if you don't have at least 2 sober friends present etc. would be among the conditions.

GlesgaKiss

It probably would. But we're not talking about insurance. There's no doubt that there's a scale of prudence in these matters.

What this is about is whether it should lessen the crime of rape. Should a woman be responsible for the fact that a man has raped her? That's like saying the car thief should receive a lesser punishment or be let off if the keys were left in it. So the precedent that sets is that taking someone's property is really not that much of a deal if they made it easy. Like I say, there is no responsibility for a person to ensure they aren't a victim of crime.

Insurance is contract to which both parties agree. If certain terms of the contract stipulate that the insurer will not pay out in the case you describe, that is known and agreed in advance, and that is the reason the insurer doesn't pay out. But like I say, it's a completely different issue and not really the topic of this debate.

David Lock

If I was a girl () and had sex with my boyfriend after an all night party when I was a bit tiddly and kind of wanted it but said no then I think I would feel rough for a week or so.

But if I was walking home from college through a woodland, dragged into some bushes by a complete stranger and raped it would traumatise me for years.

So almost completely different crimes??

dl

Devildog

Its an interesting subject (nice to see its being maturely discussed too), and whilst I do not agree with dame Helen's stance I can sort of understand where she is coming from.

I suppose that one question to consider is that perhaps in law there should be difference between the scenario where someone is forced to have non consensual sex at knifepoint and the scenario at the other end of the scale where couple have been drunkenly ******** all night quite happily, he jumps on next morning when she's half asleep and she says no. Is that just as serious a rape just because he penetrates her and she then says no as the masked fiend dragging someone off a walkway into the undergrowth?

Edit - similar thinking to DL above

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Believe it or not, that's not strictly true:

I know of one civil case where an individual sued a car insurance company who refused to pay out after their car was stolen as they argued that the insurance company's claim that they were negligent in leaving the keys in the car was invalid as it was a "momentary aberration of judgement", or words to that effect, which did not fall under the scope of negligence.

BUT ANYWAY ....

The insurance company's position with regards to theft is unavoidable as they have to use a risk based metric to determine the probability of theft given the factors that the person has identified (e.g. location, type of car etc) in order that they can change a justified premium. To do this they have to take certain things for granted i.e. the car is always secured. Otherwise they're just pulling figures out of the air! Be that as it may I very much doubt any insurance company would argue that that the fact you left your keys in the car absolves the thief of any blame (and the court certainly won't if they catch the thief)..... it's just that they won't buy your next car!

Rape insurance: I'm Not sure Moley would underwrite that policy!

boxst

Having seen some of the pictures of the people on here, I'm sure he'd guarantee that no-one would rape them

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Like any crime, there are degrees of severity.

However, I think the degree of severity rests resides in the factors associated with the "assailant's" behaviour and not determined by factors associated the victim (beyond whether they gave consent of not, of course).

Looking at the two extremes:

Scenario 1) Man grabs woman in a park and forces sex on her at knife point.

Scenario 2) Man pulls woman at the pub, goes home, she gives him oral sex, but makes it clear she doesn't want penetration that evening. He refuses to take no for an answer and forces sex on her.

Now if I were asked to comment on which was the more serious, I'd say number one was the more serious of two very serious offences (Duh!) BUT NOT not because of ANYTHING about the victim, but rather because a) There was greater mens rea evident in the first crime: no reasonable person would think that a total stranger would consent to sex after being dragged off into the bushes at knife point. The assailant HAD to mean to have non-consensual sex b) a weapon was used to coerce someone into having sex. c) the circumstances of the crime are likely to be even more traumatic for the victim.

The dangerous thing about looking at what was going on with the victim in terms of the severity of the crime (beyond examining whether they explicitly declined sex, which one obviously has to do) is that it has the effect of negating the offender's responsibility for the offence.

By way of example: is scenario 1 any less serious if it transpired that the woman was dressed provocatively and was making out with a guy at a bus stop in public before the attack? With regards to number 2. Would it be less serious if the woman had changed her mind before penetration rather than asserted that oral was as far as it would go from the outset? I would argue: of course it isn't less serious in both instances. Looking at the victim's behaviour beyond whether they gave consent or explicitly declined consent is tantamount to asking: 'What was the victim doing to "ask for it" which implicitly shifts some of the responsibility for the crime to the victim. i.e. that their dress/conduct made the assailants conduct less culpable in -for example- both variations of the above scenarios. I reckon that's a dangerous road to go down!

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Low premiums all around then!

There was an even more bad taste joke I could have made then, but I should probably limit such material to the adult forum! At the very least so as not spoil a good debate.