Ched Evans submits 'fresh evidence' in attempt to overturn rape conviction

Scroll to see replies

The answer, in practical terms, is don't get drunk and then have sex with someone who is also drunk. It is directly equivalent to not drinking before driving.

Perhaps some sort of sobriety test can be implemented before sex?

Maybe we could also have a parenting test?

Sex is only for zee master race of elitists!

Reply 41

Wade-

Original post by Good bloke

The answer, in practical terms, is don't get drunk and then have sex with someone who is also drunk. It is directly equivalent to not drinking before driving.

Or you could say to the woman

Reply 42

SnooFnoo

Original post by Wade-

Or you could say to the woman you're an adult, behave responsibly and don't get so drunk that you consent to sex you wouldn't if you were sober or end up in a position where you can't say yes or no

Morally I agree that doing anything sexual with anyone who is too drunk is wrong but legally there's no logic to it

Posted from TSR Mobile

So women should alter their behaviour to avoid sexual assault? Nice.

Reply 43

Wade-

Original post by SnooFnoo

So women should alter their behaviour to avoid sexual assault? Nice.

No they should alter their behaviour to make sure they're happy with all sexual relations they consent to engage in

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 44

Good bloke

Original post by Wade-

There is a perfect logic to it. If a party commits a crime due to their own wilful intoxication they have to face the legal consequences. If a party is taken advantage of in a criminal way while intoxicated they have to face the physical and emotional consequences but the perpetrator has to face the legal consequences.

Reply 45

SnooFnoo

Original post by Wade-

No they should alter their behaviour to make sure they're happy with all sexual relations they consent to engage in

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's exactly the same.

Women should alter their behaviour so a man doesn't stick his cock in her unless she's happy with it. How about men just don't engage in sexual relations with a drunk person?

Reply 46

Wade-

Original post by Good bloke

If a woman says 'I don't know if I consented because I was so drunk but wouldn't have consented sober' and the man says well at the time she said yes then she is also culpable, without her actions the sex would never have taken place. Outside of contracts the law holds you responsible for the things you do when drunk...oh wait it also says you can't be responsible for saying yes but anything outside of that you are responsible for when drunk

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 47

Wade-

Original post by SnooFnoo

Ok so what if a man were to complain first and say he was far too drunk and the woman sexually assaulted him?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 48

Good bloke

Original post by Wade-

The law is consistent is saying that nobody can, with impunity, take advantage of someone who is too drunk give consent, whether that is getting them to sign a contract or having sex. Only one party is ever culpable in rape. The woman certainly isn't - she is the victim.

Original post by Wade-

Ok so what if a man were to complain first and say he was far too drunk and the woman sexually assaulted him?

It is sexual assault.

Reply 49

SnooFnoo

Original post by Wade-

Ok so what if a man were to complain first and say he was far too drunk and the woman sexually assaulted him?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well then she has assaulted him...

Reply 50

joey11223

What I want to know is what ends up happening if the guy says (and lets assume its the truth), he was too drunk to remember exactly what happened, but he remembered chatting to her in the club, they both went to his...he assumed she consented? She says she was too drunk to consent? Guess it goes nowhere...or do we side with the female?

Reply 51

Good bloke

Original post by joey11223

If even he cannot remember that consent was given and she remembers that it wasn't then nothing contradicts her statement that it wasn't given. He is in trouble.

It appears TSR is populated to a significant extent by males who are unable to get close to a sexual encounter without the aid of alcohol, acting either to raise their own courage or to lower the inhibitions of the girl, or to put her into oblivion so she doesn't care.

Alcohol and sex are generally very poor bedfellows (if you'll pardon the expression).

Reply 52

Wade-

Original post by SnooFnoo

Well then she has assaulted him...

But what if she's really drunk also? Did she assault him or was it rape?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 53

FreedomofSpeech9

Once a rapist, Always a rapist.

Reply 54

caravaggio2

Original post by SnooFnoo

Either way consent is not effective once someone is drunk.

Just repeating it doesn't make it correct.

Reply 55

james22

Original post by Wade-

That's literally like saying if I shoot someone I haven't killed them the bullet did.

Either you've never been drunk or drunk around women if you really think it's 'very easy' to tell if she's sober enough to reasonably consent when you're also very drunk

Posted from TSR Mobile

How is it like saying that?

If you cannot tell the difference, don't get so drunk.

Reply 56

Good bloke

Original post by Wade-

But what if she's really drunk also? Did she assault him or was it rape?

The perpetrator of a crime's drunkenness is irrelevant. Don't you get it yet?

Reply 57

joey11223

Original post by Good bloke

If even he cannot remember that consent was given and she remembers that it wasn't then nothing contradicts her statement that it wasn't given. He is in trouble.

Yes but surely as she herself says she was so drunk she can't have consented (not that she didn't, because she doesn't remember events clearly), he can say he was too drunk to consent himself? Clearly the male is generally going to be a "perpetrator" in an encounter in that he's penetrating her, but if a male is rather drunk and is convinced by a sober female to have sex with her when he wouldn't if he'd been thinking straight, has she sexually assaulted (can't rape obviously) him? Just seems a bit bias against blokes in these sort of situations. I mean I get what you're saying, don't get that drunk and don'\t risk it if she's that drunk, but you'll always get times where both are rather drunk, probably won't remember the whole night, have a drunken fumble which tbh probably isn't much sex as it is vague fondling or attempts at it, but if she cries rape/sexual assault after the hangover wears off and her mates are taking the piss...he seems screwed even though either COULD be a perpetrator depending on what is said, who if either are coerced, clearly it's a joint endeavor.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 58

Wade-

Original post by Good bloke

The perpetrator of a crime's drunkenness is irrelevant. Don't you get it yet?

My point is if both people are drunk how can you conclusively say whether the woman has committed a sexual assault because the man is too drunk to consent or whether the man has committed rape because the woman is too drunk to consent?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 59

Good bloke

Original post by Wade-

You seem to be heading down the path of suggesting that many so-called rapes are actually sexual assaults of the man by the woman. This seems unlikely to me.

You may not have sufficient (or any) corroborative evidence in any given situation. In the Evans case, I believe that CCTV and witnesses support the contention that she was incapable of making decisions.