Drunken sex

I always thought that if a man got so drunk that he'd be incapable of giving consent, then he'd be incapable of having sex (properly, at any rate, with full penetration).

I suppose it's not always the case...

Oh, blimey, grannyactivist, you're thinking of that footballer. I can't get my head around it either. They are now saying he only got off because the woman's sex life was discussed in court and now they reckon it will put off other rape victims from reporting the crime. Well, it would, wouldn't it? Perhaps there is a lawyer on GN who can enlighten us?

To add to the confusion, there have been certain publicised rape cases (not this one) where the fact that the woman had given consent was not considered relevant because she was drunk and therefore incapable of giving her considered consent.

It is a minefield.

The assumption seems to have been reinforced that if a woman is sexually promiscuous she cannot be raped - clearly nonsense.

I cannot answer your question ga, but something seems to be awry in this case.

I have been trying to get my head around this too.

On one hand you probably have loads of young women throwing themselves at footballers who will happily have a one night stand with them and on the other hand there are probably a few footballs with more money then sense who think they are gods gift and any woman shoukd feel privileged to have sex with them

Not a straight forward case at all, but I do think the jury made the right decision although neither of them were really innocent parties . In my opinion only.

It was not only the recent case that got me thinking about this. I was on jury service earlier this year and it was a rape case too. I just can't get my head around what seems to me to be an impossible law. Basically I think it means that two drunken people having sex are acting outside the law as it stands; as neither can be deemed to be capable of giving consent. So basically it means (doesn't it?) that if either party wakes up the following morning and thinks 'I wish I hadn't done that' they can claim rape?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Just did a quick google search in the interests of science and the mechanisms governing erection and ejaculation differ; it is possible to maintain an erection whilst drunk (although possibly of an inferior quality - ahem), but ejaculation is much more difficult to achieve - although still possible of course.

I feel I should point out that I don't actually spend a LOT of time thinking about drunken sex!

Although I suppose the act of penetration in itself is enough to constitute rape, I would assume. But I'm not absolutely positive...

I'm sure one of our children was conceived via a couple of bottles of champagne.

Neither do I, grannyactivist, but it is quite a complex issue and does deserve some thinking about.

There seem to be a variety of offences, usually against women, described as sexual assaults but not actually rape. Some of them appear to relate to penetration by other means.

A girl could give consent while totally out of it but forget in the morning and then cry "rape". Very difficult- there is one lawyer on GN, maybe he will help us out?

Have there been any cases where a man, over the age of consent, has accused a woman of raping him?
When men are victims of rape it is, surely, an act of penetration carried out by another man. Ah yes - indeed - this info from Wikipedia indicates that you have to penetrate with a penis to commit "rape"
Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, a rape can only be committed by a male as the penetration can only be done with his penis. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Sexual Assault by Penetration".
The offence is created by section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
“1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

I do not think, in the current case in the news, that the men involved were so drunk they did not know what they were doing. I personally think it probably was rape, i.e. deliberately seeking & having sex with a person too drunk (or druggged) to give consent/ to be aware what was happening.
A man is totally responsible for what he does with his penis and this continual attempt to blame women for being raped is just plain wrong!

JessM, there was the infamous "manacled Mormon" case in the 1970s. Joyce McKinney was convicted of indecent assault under the law of the time, but her victim alleged that she raped him. I had to google the case to find Joyce McKinney's name and she's certainly had a colourful life since, but I won't divert the thread by going into it!

I remember that case, Maggie, it was all over the news at the time! Wasn't skiing down a cliff with a rose between the teeth involved? Or was that all in her mind?

(don't worry you don't have to answer - if I can be bothered I'll google!)

I think this case is unusual. The judge allowed the past history of a complainant to be part of the evidence, which is highly unusual, apparently. That allowed the evidence that the complainant had apparently told a previous suitor to "f.. me harder". Maybe the Jury took that suggestion if enjoyment of sex as a factor of her personality that may have led indirectly to what subsequently happened to her

However, I think the key bit of evidence wasn't the suggestion of promiscuity, but the fact that the Receptionist heard noises of "enjoyment" emanating from the hotel bedroom.

So: enjoyment of sex=consent. Not rape.

Another thing: in the Western Mail today there's a summary of the events of the evening. In it, Ched Evans implied that he withdrew from the complainant as guilt took hold. I'm not sure if that means he penetrated her but did not ejaculate. So, yes, there was sex but not the full act so to speak. So maybe not quite "rape"? And she had already had consensus sex with Ched's mate.

Not sure I'm making sense. .

I saw somewhere that the girlfriend of Evans offered 50K for evidence and these other witnesses were actively sought. I hope that they were really checked out for ' integrity' as it were - would be easy to embroider a story to share in 50K - but that is just cynical me!
Not good publicity for any of them.

From today's Telegraph, Welshwife:

Ched Evans' fiancée offered a key witness in his rape trial a £50,000 "bribe" for evidence to clear him, it can now be revealed. Natasha Massey, 27, sent a Facebook message about the huge cash reward to hotel receptionist Gavin Burrough - and signed it with a kiss.Prosecuting barrister Simon Medland QC said the "subtle and repeated" five-figure sum was "akin to a bribe". The jury at Evans' retrial was not told about the Facebook messages after the judge ruled them inadmissible.

The £50,000 was also offered on Evans' website to anyone coming forward with information to clear his name.

What a farce of a trial...

Even IF someone heard noises that they interpreted as 2 people enjoying sex ..the fact that the woman concerned was not in a state to give consent/ may have been partly unconscious might not preclude her making instinctive noises which may not have been a sign of enjoyment.

It is also horrendous that something a woman may have said during consensual /conscious passionate sex can be used to infer she is happy to have sex with anyone and is 'easy'! That would make a good many of us at risk of not being believed if we had the dreadful misfortune to be sexually assaulted.

These cases are always difficult, but the suggestion that she enjoyed sex should be a factor in the verdict is worrying.

The bribe information should have been admissible I think as it calls into question the integrity of the witnesses - the jury needs to know that.

I find the whole episode sad and sordid, but I am old fashioned.

Neither of them have come out of this situation with flying colours.

grannyA I think most people are in the dark about this proving consent business.If both people are even a bit drunk, and go back to where one of them lives and start kissing and canoodling ( being polite here) does the man have to say ' please say that you agree to have sex with me'? It used to be the case, that in that scenario, if the woman said, stop! Or no! And the man didn't stop, that it was rape, but this having to give verbal consent business......well, it ain't gonna happen surely?