Alleged rape by two footballers, woman too drunk to remember anything

Scroll to see replies

I usually stay sober but all my friends, who manage to walk home in mostly straight lines and seem fairly with it claim huge losses of memory the next day. There's lots I remember happening that they do not.

ah, well being relieved of your wallet is not something anyone ever enjoys or means to allow, even when sober. Whereas having sex is, according to recent surveys, really rather popular. Even among women.

Your mates are probably exaggerating, you don't lose huge chunks of your memory unless you get absolutely off your face. I've blacked out a few times before, I know.

So what? It's the same principle, just because she may have drunkenly nodded her head or said yes through confusion how is that any different to someone nodding their head or saying yes to me stealing their wallet?

What you are saying is that she got a bit tipsy had sex with them, regretted it afterwards and lied about it. That's clearly not what happened because the hotel staff were concerned about her and one of the footballers asked the staff to keep an eye on her because of how drunk she was. If someone is slightly tipsy this wouldn't have happened.

Reply 61

NB_ide

Original post by laura130490

It's not different fundamentally, they're both dip****s for being taken advantage of. But my point is that 90% of the time when a drunk girl has sex, she doesn't mind. But 100% of the time when someone hands over their wallet drunk, they wish it didn't happen.

What you are saying is that she got a bit tipsy had sex with them, regretted it afterwards and lied about it. That's clearly not what happened because the hotel staff were concerned about her and one of the footballers asked the staff to keep an eye on her because of how drunk she was. If someone is slightly tipsy this wouldn't have happened.

I have no idea how drunk she was.

Reply 62

username129099

Original post by laura130490

If I went up to someone that drunk and said, can I have your wallet? And they through sheer drunken confusion nodded their head or said yes does that mean I'm not a thief taking advantage of an incredibly drunk person who has no idea what is going on?

This is the point, you are taking advantage of the situation but if you take that person to court, they didn't take your wallet without consent, they asked and you consented to them having it. The argument as in this case is whether that consent is valid, whether you can make decisions which you are later held acceptable for. If being drunk means you aren't accountable for decision made while drunk, where does that end?

Reply 63

theoferdinand

Original post by Like a BAWS

Taking advantage of someone that's drunk =/= Rape.

Does it make everyone who goes to nightclubs, pubs etc with the hope of 'pulling' rapists? After all, nearly everyone there will be under the influence of alcohol to a greater or lesser extent. Nearly EVERYONE at some point or other has sex when one person was under the influence of alcohol. To have a criminal record of being a Rapist tagged on you for the rest of your life for having sex with a girl that consented but was mildly intoxicated, to me, is unfair. I'm sorry, but even though taking advantage of a very drunk girl might be immoral and a low-life thing to do, it is not of the same magnitude as rape.

Spoken like a bawss . 100 percent spot on

Reply 64

theoferdinand

Original post by blu tack

If she's 'so inebriated' then she would have been too drunk to give real consent. Non consensual sex = rape.

fact is when two people have sex most times it does NOT start off with "do you want to have sex"

Reply 65

laura130490

Original post by NB_ide

I just think it's rather sad that some people have this view that it's perfectly acceptable for people who are drunk to be taken advantage of because they got themselves in that situation. Yes she was an idiot for getting that drunk, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for two completely sober men to target her and push her into doing things which due her state of intoxication she couldn't properly consent to. If she wasn't very very drunk the hotel staff and footballer wouldn't have been concerned about her.

Reply 66

minimarshmallow

Original post by Kdm4life

So what if she was the one who brought up sex, and she actually asked them to have sex with her, are they still in the wrong? Thats BS. It doesnt matter how drunk you are, if you tell somebody they can have sex with you, that is the definition of the word consent. How are they in the wrong because a woman who consented to sex cant remember it? Just because you cant remember something in the morning doesnt mean you cant give consent to sex the night before.

The thing about alcohol is that it causes frontal lobe dis-inhibition, you don't act in the same was as you would when you're sober - your decision making and other executive functions are compromised. In terms of the function of the brain, having sex with a very inebriated 22 year old woman because she said 'Have sex with me' is like having sex with a sober 12 year old because they said the same thing and their frontal lobe is under developed.
However, if this was a 12 year old who had 'consented' to sex and the men were being prosecuted, I don't think we'd be having the same argument.

And to those who say that you don't get any leway if you start a fight drunk, that's because you have committed a crime. Yes, you may have been suffering from frontal lobe dis-inhibition but that doesn't take away what you did to the victim. However, if you have got drunk and then was raped, you haven't done anything that is illegal (presuming you're over 18, but even then it wouldn't be okay to rape a drunk 17 year old). The two situations are in no way comparable, and as the best friend of a rape victim, I find it disgusting that anyone would compare the two.

Reply 67

laura130490

Original post by doggyfizzel

There's obviously different levels of drunkeness, and that's where the confusion lies. How drunk is too drunk to make consent invalid?

To me this story sounds very predatory, in that they (when sober) deliberately targeted a very drunk girl because they knew they could get her to do things most sober girls wouldn't do. I.e have a threesome with two complete strangers and let them film it.

Reply 68

mabrookes

Original post by joan2468

Mindsets like these are a big reason why rapists get away with the crime all the time.

If she was too drunk to remember if she had consented or not, then she was in no state to give consent to sexual intercourse. The state of mind during the time is important, if she was that inebriated then she was in no position to be asked to have sex, if she was even asked. The woman was clearly very drunk, "she was stumbling and slurring and occasionally grabbing hold of Mr McDonald to steady herself." They took advantage of her current condition, plain and simple, and that is inexcusable.

Dont be pathetic, it is not that simple at all. I know people who can be so drunk they won't remember anything the next day who look pretty fine and nothing but tipsy. Then there is the fact that you only defend the women, if the men are also that drunk why are they expected to know and assess someone elses state or have a clue whether she can when you just admited you can't even asses your own state when like that. But they should then be called rapists while the woman gets sympathy?

I am not saying any of this is in this case, but we don't know the details of this case anyway. I just find your limited view disturbing.

Reply 69

NB_ide

Original post by laura130490

I have never met anyone who has that view. Have you?

Reply 70

laura130490

Original post by NB_ide

I have never met anyone who has that view. Have you?

There's quite a few people on this thread with that view. Post like "It's her fault for getting so drunk" etc. Clearly don't see anything wrong with the situation.

Reply 71

NB_ide

Original post by mabrookes

Women = helpless
Men = evil

get with the program!

Reply 72

cl_steele

Original post by laura130490

Your mates are probably exaggerating, you don't lose huge chunks of your memory unless you get absolutely off your face. I've blacked out a few times before, I know.

just remember alcohol effects everyone differently ... just because it takes one person to drink a truck of stolis finest to get memory loss doesnt mean someone can get mildly wasted off of a few cans and not remember everything with crystal clarity.

Reply 73

jet870

I don't know why this thread was even started.

Yes the consent question can be difficult when the people involved have been drinking but how on earth can someone consent to sex when she can't even stand up straight? These men came across her practically on the street, 19 years old, unable to walk, and took her to a hotel room. I mean - how can anyone justify that. It is completely plausable that while in this state she didn't have the awareness to fight them off or say no.

No decent man would find this teenage girl in the street and bring her to his hotel room to share with his friend - it's disgusting and if this is how the events happened then there is absolutely no question that it is, not only a scumbag thing to do, but without a doubt within the legal definition of rape. Any of you who contest this definition, lets be honest, who cares what you think? I mean, I think you should be ashamed of yourself but you can think what you like. Your opinions are worthless because thankfully we have people who actually know what they are talking about making the laws.

I just hope for your sake it isn't you, your daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife, mother or friend some day drunk and on their own in a vulnerable situation while two pathetic excuses of human beings are prowling the kebab shops looking for victims.

Reply 74

Katie_p

I think the standard needs to be the same for men and women - at the moment the law defines a rapist as a man or a transgender woman. It needs to include women in the definition of rape, and allow for intoxication of both sides (victim and offender) in assessing whether a rape has occured. Two heavily intoxicated people who "consent" to have sex are as good or bad as each other, in my opinion. If, in the above case, the man/men are sober, then clearly it is rape, where the woman is as badly intoxicated as she was, but if both parties are beyond the point at which their consent is valid, a rape has either not occurred, or both parties should be guilty of it.

Reply 75

laura130490

Original post by cl_steele

Yes alcohol does effect everyone differently, but some people are saying that someone who is mildly drunk i.e tipsy could have prolonged periods of memory loss enough to forget having sex, this isn't true. You may have trouble recalling all the details of the night, but to be that drunk to not remember having sex you would need to be more than mildly drunk. How much it takes for someone to get that drunk though obviously depends upon the person.

Reply 76

username129099

Original post by laura130490

That's my point. As far as I can see, if anything else happens under the influence, unless you're an addict, then diminished responsibility doesn't apply as the cause of the diminished responsibility was voluntary. You are still held in a position that your decision would have consequences.

But yes, as I said it has got serious vibes of predatory about it. Its pathetic on their part.

Reply 77

Like a BAWS

Original post by minimarshmallow

Doesn't that suggest girls shouldn't get totally drunk then if people are aware of the effects of alcohol ? Gonna bring a humorous analogy into this :wink:

If during the Wimbledon final Federer plays a very drunk Nadal and destroys him 3-0 in sets. It would be like Nadal saying "That wasn't a fair game ! Alcohol has terrible effects for someone during sport, my balance was all over the place etc. I was in no fit state to play, you took advantage of the situation ! I was so drunk the match should never have happened, you should've noticed the state I was in and postponed the match". People wouldn't be very tolerant of that logic used by Rafa

Reply 78

minimarshmallow

Original post by Like a BAWS

Doesn't that suggest girls shouldn't get totally drunk then if people are aware of the effects of alcohol ? Gonna bring a humorous analogy into this :wink:

Except that I'm pretty sure in your example that Rafa wasn't dragged from a night out and on to a tennis court in his inebriated state and made to play tennis. He would have known he would have to play tennis, and if he did turn up drunk of his own accord and Federer beat him, Federer would not be breaking the law. The example is in no way comparable to a drunk woman being raped.
A woman shouldn't have to restrict her actions that are within the law because of the off chance that someone might try and break the law and rape her. By your logic, no man should ever get drunk either, in case another man rapes him. So nobody should ever drink because there are so many variables associated with how drunk you are going to get any given night.
Or, people should not break the law...

Reply 79

cocobubbles

It is this particular area of law which is one of the most difficult to analyse, simply because it is so fuzzy. It is unfair to make judgements not knowing the full facts if the case, and it is only with ALL the facts that people can come to a fair conclusion. A poster before said the difficulty lies in the line between being really drunk, and being too drunk to consent.

My days of criminal law are a few years back but from what I can remember, the woman saying yes is largely irrelevant if she can be said to be so drunk that consent would be invalid. In most cases one would assume this to be obvious (i.e. she is practically comatose) but I do see the problems for both men and women. So the issue here is how drunk she was, and the men's awareness of this drunkeness (i.e. they weren't steaming drunk too).

It's difficult because rape is largely unreported because of the very low conviction rate which does need to be changed. However, just because there is a low rate doesn't mean that standards need to be lowered just so more people are convicted when perhaps it might not be fair (legally wise). If she was ridiculously drunk, then yes I do find it disgusting that the men took advantage of that, BUT rape carries a prison sentence, and is their complete stupidity enough to warrant a criminal record? I don't think we have enough information to make a judgement!