Drunken sex

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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...