Was it rape? Long question but has been playing on my mind since
Scroll to see replies
Original post by chikane
She tried pushing him away and told him she wanted to go home but he wasn't listening to her at all and carried on.
Also if she woke up to find him having sex with her how could she consent to this.
Its like if a woman goes down on a guy while he has passed out that is assault as he has not consented to it.
Also if she woke up to find him having sex with her how could she consent to this.
Its like if a woman goes down on a guy while he has passed out that is assault as he has not consented to it.
when you say it like that, he's definitely in the wrong, I see your point
But do you know how it started? whether he consented?
Original post by Anonymous
I stopped and told him I wanted to go home during sex at least 4 times
You were probably too drunk to have capacity to consent, but sober or not saying you wanted to stop and him continuing = rape.
Dear idiots saying otherwise: where is the reasonable belief on his part that there was consent?
Original post by Anonymous
when you say it like that, he's definitely in the wrong, I see your point
But do you know how it started? whether he consented?
But do you know how it started? whether he consented?
Only the op knows so yes she will need to figure out what happened before she arrived at his.
If she passed out and woke up to him having sex with her then that is rape but none of us know the full details.
Original post by Good bloke
I took a step back and placed myself into the jury, with the OP as the evidence. The push and the "go home" do not need to be simultaneous to convey the meaning in the context of someone who is too drunk to assert herself effectively, which the male owes a duty to be careful of. If he is himself too drunk to notice she doesn't want sex it makes no difference, obviously.
Are lots of young men incapable of forming relationships and having sex without getting drunk? Too much alcohol and sex are very poor bedfellows in most respects.
Are lots of young men incapable of forming relationships and having sex without getting drunk? Too much alcohol and sex are very poor bedfellows in most respects.
Sex is a physical activity and a degree of physical contact is unavoidable: wriggling, moving, pushing and flailing from both sides are all par for the course. Without a verbal expression of explicit discontent these motions on their own are not sufficient to demonstrate unwillingness. The context of a dark and alchohol fuelled environment makes this point even more relevant.
There is no legal basis for a duty of care in this situation. There is only the prevailing 'duty' not to commit a crime that exists anywhere under a rule of law.
She was not so drunk that she couldn't speak and could have asserted herself if she chose to. It's entirely possible the alleged perpetrator has no idea the OP feels any regret for this situation. If she was so drunk that she couldn't physically express discontent it would clearly be rape but from the information given I don't believe that to be the case.
Your last paragraph is not relevant and suggests that your argument might reflect your personal opinion on this kind of lifestyle. We should be talking from a legal perspective here. Was a criminal act committed beyond all reasonable doubt?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by CWE
Without a verbal expression of explicit discontent these motions on their own are not sufficient to demonstrate unwillingness.
...
There is no legal basis for a duty of care in this situation. There is only the prevailing 'duty' not to commit a crime that exists anywhere under a rule of law.
.
...
There is no legal basis for a duty of care in this situation. There is only the prevailing 'duty' not to commit a crime that exists anywhere under a rule of law.
.
So it would be impossible to rape a dumb woman? I don't think so.
There are two duties: (a) not to commit a crime, rape in this case and (b) a duty to care for, minimise harm to and look after someone in need of help. If the man left the woman puking from alcohol and unattended to potentially choke on her vomit he would not be fulfilling this duty, and neither would he if he does not treat her, given her drunk condition, more carefully than he would a sober woman when seeking to have sex with her.
To everyone who keeps saying he might be able to say she raped him as he was also drunk - legally you can't rape someone unless you have a penis
Original post by iheartdjokovic
To everyone who keeps saying he might be able to say she raped him as he was also drunk - legally you can't rape someone unless you have a penis
Now you've done it! Some idiot will come in now to declaim about the unfairness of British laws, and how sexist they are.
Original post by CWE
Sex is a physical activity and a degree of physical contact is unavoidable: wriggling, moving, pushing and flailing from both sides are all par for the course. Without a verbal expression of explicit discontent these motions on their own are not sufficient to demonstrate unwillingness.
In order for sex not to be rape, there needs to either be consent (and there clearly isn't here) or be a reasonable belief in consent.
Faced with a woman who - by his own admission - was too drunk to go anywhere, has not removed the tampon she's wearing, who is saying words to the effect of 'stop, I want to go home', and having to be held down so that he could continue having sex with her... where is that reasonable belief?
Original post by iheartdjokovic
To everyone who keeps saying he might be able to say she raped him as he was also drunk - legally you can't rape someone unless you have a penis
To be pedantic, the doctrine of joint enterprise means it's quite possible for a woman to be convicted of rape and at least one has been: she held the victim down while some man stuck his penis in her without consent.
There is the crime of 'assault by penetration', where A intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of B with a part of their body or anything else. The maximum sentence is the same - life - but obviously a woman can be directly guilty of it.
Original post by unprinted
In order for sex not to be rape, there needs to either be consent (and there clearly isn't here) or be a reasonable belief in consent.
Faced with a woman who - by his own admission - was too drunk to go anywhere, has not removed the tampon she's wearing, who is saying words to the effect of 'stop, I want to go home', and having to be held down so that he could continue having sex with her... where is that reasonable belief?
To be pedantic, the doctrine of joint enterprise means it's quite possible for a woman to be convicted of rape and at least one has been: she held the victim down while some man stuck his penis in her without consent.
There is the crime of 'assault by penetration', where A intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of B with a part of their body or anything else. The maximum sentence is the same - life - but obviously a woman can be directly guilty of it.
Faced with a woman who - by his own admission - was too drunk to go anywhere, has not removed the tampon she's wearing, who is saying words to the effect of 'stop, I want to go home', and having to be held down so that he could continue having sex with her... where is that reasonable belief?
To be pedantic, the doctrine of joint enterprise means it's quite possible for a woman to be convicted of rape and at least one has been: she held the victim down while some man stuck his penis in her without consent.
There is the crime of 'assault by penetration', where A intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of B with a part of their body or anything else. The maximum sentence is the same - life - but obviously a woman can be directly guilty of it.
I'm suggesting a reasonable belief in consent here, which is the only assurance of consent in the vast majority of sexual interactions. Based on the context of prior proceedings it is entirely possible for the alleged perpetrator to believe sex was something she desired. Engagement in the act prior to the point in question means that the onus would be on the OP to make it clear the consent previously suggested is now withdrawn. Aware that the issue must be hard to talk about but I've assumed that all evidence of foul play was included in the OP - if not it changes the circumstances. It would be useful if we could get more background information on this: was she forcibly undressed? did she kiss the individual or engage in foreplay prior to the moment when she questioned her consent?
As for your other points, it is certainly not unheard of for drunk sex to happen with a tampon in. As far as I'm aware 'stop' was never explicitly stated? 'I want to go home' is not the same as stating 'I don't want to have sex' just as 'I want to eat food' would not explicitly indicate withdrawn consent. The whole situation does make me uneasy but legally speaking I don't think there is a leg to stand on.
You're aware that for this to be a crime the accused must have beyond all reasonable doubt not had a reasonable belief in consent which I do not think can be proven to be the case based on the evidence provided thus far.
For the OPs benefit I think you can agree that in a complicated situation such as this advice on here is no substitute for a legal experts advice.
Guys I dont understand one thing. This is definitely rape but how will she report it if she doesnt have proof? Like what happens?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by iheartdjokovic
To everyone who keeps saying he might be able to say she raped him as he was also drunk - legally you can't rape someone unless you have a penis
That's true. Although I the the law should be changed as sexual assault doesn't hold the same stigma as rape. A man can say he was sexually assaulted if it was done by a woman and she'll be trailed as if it were the same offence as rape.
(edited 8 years ago)
Very hard to say from what you've said. As you've explained everything 'dodgy' could be innocent and he might not have known how drunk you were (e.g. telling him you wanted to go home, if you said that and he stopped and said 'oh but it's dark' and you replied 'oh yeah lets carry on' or something to that effect it's not the same as if he essentially ignored you saying stop... 'flapping your arms about' could easily have not been clear, especially if you were hammered'). If you feel upset by this then I'd say you have a right to be as feeling like something like that has happened and you had no control is not a nice feeling and you should talk to someone and try and come to terms with it. Whether or not it would be seen as rape legally is a different matter and not too important if you're not looking to go to the police.
Technically, if you didnt say yes to him at any point, then yep, its rape, even if you did give in eventually. At least, that is what ive always thought...
Original post by *Stefan*
Rape requires that he intended to rape her and appreciated that such was the case. Doesn't really sound like it here.
She definitely did not sexually assault him, if everything she says is as it is (btw, women cannot rape unless they're convicted as accomplishes to rape).
Posted from TSR Mobile
She definitely did not sexually assault him, if everything she says is as it is (btw, women cannot rape unless they're convicted as accomplishes to rape).
Posted from TSR Mobile
That is utter rubbish. There are plenty of cases of women raping men.
Original post by milliemogs
That is utter rubbish. There are plenty of cases of women raping men.
Don't be silly - that's the law. Women can only sexually assault victims (which does carry the same penalties).
Original post by sleepysnooze
the fact that you're even asking this question means "no". if it was rape, you'd ****in' know.
On a ****ing student forum
Original post by *Stefan*
Don't be silly - that's the law. Women can only sexually assault victims (which does carry the same penalties).
In UK Law maybe, but in science and other countries laws it is absolutely possible. If a female forces a man to have sex with her, it's rape. Having an erection is not consent, it happens a lot more than you'd think.
Original post by milliemogs
In UK Law maybe, but in science and other countries laws it is absolutely possible. If a female forces a man to have sex with her, it's rape. Having an erection is not consent, it happens a lot more than you'd think.
Sure (not that I agree) but that is irrelevant... we're talking about UK law here.
Definitely rape, report him to the police. You did not consent, therefore it is rape! Read this if you are still unsure. http://au.reachout.com/what-is-sexual-consent
Original post by Anonymous
What?? This is fragments of what she remembers, I don't know how much sex you have but different thing does it for different people. Sounds like I'm stretching to justify his actions but there's just nowhere near enough known to say what went on.
As someone who has been falsely accused of serial assault, it can **** your life up, you become depressed and in my case I couldn't leave the house by myself for a long time in fear I might be accused of something again.
As someone who has been falsely accused of serial assault, it can **** your life up, you become depressed and in my case I couldn't leave the house by myself for a long time in fear I might be accused of something again.
Well the final bit is irrational. I think you're lying sweetheart.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPLast reply 30 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 35 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 35 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 37 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
