If men are worried about being accused of rape, when they are innocent, they need to not put themselves in situations where their could be doubt.

Not quite sure what you’re pushing for, here. I agree with your description of the problem, but burden of proof exists because the crime of punishing someone for something they didn’t do is worse than rape, and worse than murder. Do you want to lower the burden required for reasonable doubt, to increase fear in men to the point where we won’t sleep with inebriated women?

I think your first point is correct, but I’m not sure what you’re proposing as the solution. If you’re suggesting the courts lower the burden of proof so that rape cases can be convicted purely on testimony, that would set a dangerous precedent to our legal system, one that would surely be applied to all manner of crimes.

Furthermore, if you’re suggesting we do this in order to alter the social conditioning of men via fear of conviction without proof, I would submit that fear is a dangerous and inherently unstable way to try and control your citizens.

I agree with your motivations, but your proposed methods seem problematic, and your suggestion to allow innocent men to be accused and convicted as a ‘balance’ for those criminals who would otherwise go unpunished has been made for hundreds of years and has failed in all first world democracies- The Federalist Papers described it as one of the key differences between democracy and totalitarianism (hence its primacy in the US Constitution).

The system isn’t perfect, and it’s tragic that women are raped and the legal system can’t convict the majority of the bastards who do that shit, because it’s so difficult to prove. But if you remove the need for that proof, you abandon justice.

Yeah, I read the article, and a couple of variations of it in the weekend papers.

I don’t think rapists are under some kind of delusion that what they’re doing is okay.

The article doesn’t talk about lowering the standards required for conviction, but those required to start an investigation. Certain types of rape (generally those which don’t involve forced assault or drugs) are extremely difficult, in many cases impossible, to prove. They say that the police have the ability to solve almost any crime, it’s simply a matter of application of resources. Would you rather the police direct thier resources towards cases in which they think they have a chance of actually convicting the perpetator, or spreading themselves thinly on impossible-to-win cases.

The vast majority of sexual assaults come from people the victim knows. Let’s hope our friends feel comfortable enough with us to tell us when they’ve been hurt, so we can go and dish out some vigilante justice, which does not require evidence. I’ll say you were watching TV with me.

It’s refreshing to read this coming from a guy, Ade - this issue is generally one touted by women, and often the side of the husband / bofriend / male friend of the raped woman or of an unfairly accused man is not seen.

Your second point in your first reply comment is honourable: Secondly, if we could change our social conditioning or structures such that if men stopped thinking that getting girls inebriated was the best way to get laid, I’m pretty certain we would reduce the incidence of rape too. …but sadly, going over this issue again and again at debates at ‘varsity has left me jaded to the possibility of this ever becoming reality.

In an ‘educated’ atmosphere, the orientation lectures for first year men in res’s often include the ‘put a sock in her mouth’ chapter.

I’ve found that the reality of rape only really hits home for most people once it has happened to someone you care for.

raises hand

I’m one of your four. Bet I’m not the only one either.

Dan said “I don’t think rapists are under some kind of delusion that what they’re doing is okay.”

I don’t think that a lot of them think that what they’re doing is rape, particularly in cases where a woman has been drinking. Even when drink or drugs isn’t involved, it’s not always that simple. The line between persuasion and force can get real blurry real fast.

I don’t know the answers, but I know that the whole she was asking for it thing

(because she was: a) wearing (even moderately) revealing clothes b) had had a drink or two/three/four/fifteen c) female and walking alone d) had shown an interest/kissed/fondled said bloke)

gives me the shivers.

Although not quite as much as the concept of a “no crime” status on rape cases that can’t be tried in court. Just because you don’t have the evidence to prove it in a court of law, doesn’t mean that a crime wasn’t committed.

I saw something in the press recently (can’t remember where)… It was an advert for fathers telling their sons about the birds and the bees. It said something along the lines of “Don’t forget to pass on the message that violence against women is wrong too”. I wasn’t sure whether to be sad because that is the sort of thing that should be obvious from the values of society or pleased because it is the sort of thing that although important, could easily get forgotten. On the whole, it seems like a really wise suggestion, made a big impression on me and I hope I remember to explicitly mention this to any children I might have.

Sigh. Forgive me Lord, for what I am about to do.

In situations where the line is blurry, the courts have to side with the accused. If you can’t prove that a crime has been committed, you can’t put someone away for it. That doesn’t mean that a crime hasn’t been committed. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t, as individuals and a society, make it clear to people who do these things (or skirt the line) that it’s not acceptable. But the courts don’t have (and bloody hell, should NOT have) the power to punish people unless there is no reasonable doubt that they’d done what they’re accused of. The reason that so few rapes are convicted is because they’re very difficult to prove. This is not a problem with the legal system. It’s a symptom of the restrictions we’ve placed on the law to prevent it from having too much power. It’s an unfortunate symptom -for the specific crime we’re discussing it’s a tragic one- but the alternative you are leaning towards is worse.

The gender of the accused, the nature of the crime, conviction statistics, sexism in recent legal history, it’s all irrelevant to the law. If you can’t prove the crime was commited, you can’t convict the accused. This means some crimes have lower conviction rates. Insider trading is extremely frequent, but has an incredibly low conviction rate, because it’s so hard to prove.

The percentage of false accusations have nothing to do with it. It could be 0.1%. It could be 99.99% Doesn’t matter a jot. If you can prove the crime occured, you get a conviction. If you can’t, you don’t. This is not misdirection. It’s the nature of the justice system.

Dan said: “In situations where the line is blurry, the courts have to side with the accused.”

Of course they do - but that’s why so many rapes go unreported.

It’s not the justice system that needs changed - because that road leads to all manner of scary things - but, as Adrian has said, it’s the attitudes in relation to what is or is not acceptable behaviour.

Ultimately, if there’s any doubt as to whether someone is consenting (whether they’re drunk, drugged, sober, whatever), don’t do it. “I thought he/she wanted it” should never be an excuse.

If he/she explicitly says yes, then regrets it during/after/later that’s something entirely different.

ouch - I think the comment about the courts being male dominated might not ring true with a whole host of people - but that aside, look at the figures - whilst it might be true that the conviction rate is low, the number of reported rapes or sexually motivated attacks is very low. This might also be symptomatic of the fact that, as has been said, most of these are committed by people who knew their attacker (and a scary number by husbands or wives)

I did not take your comment as an insult to the number of women or lack of in the legal profession. Your comment seemed to indicate that the courts were ‘favouring’ men - in which case many people would argue the opposite.

The law today makes no distinction about the gender of the victim of rape. Everything you point out, Adrian, applies completely equally to male rape victims. So this cannot properly be regarded as a gender-bias issue.

It’s about the difficulty of securing evidence about what two people were thinking at some point in the past.

In terms of law, it’s not a crime if he or she DID ‘want it’. And his or her behaviour is relevant in establishing whether or not the person who had sex with them might have reasonably believed they were consenting.

The law must acquit any suspect if it cannot be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not have a reasonable belief that the other party was consenting to sex.

That ‘reasonable’ in ‘reasonable belief’ takes into account the social mores of the time. Let’s not forget that it was only in 1991 (!) that the law was changed (by a progressive House of Lords, not by Parliament!) so that it became possible in law for a husband to be convicted of rape of his wife.

It’s only men who are behind society in what they think is reasonable to do to get someone into bed who run the risk of criminal conviction. It’s not the ‘prevailing attitudes’ that are the problem - prevailing attitudes are the yardstick - and they are also that it’s wrong to drug someone (using booze or whatever else) to render them compliant.

You used the phrase ‘getting girls inebriated’, which is open to a lot of challenge. Unless you’re dealing with spiking, both the parties involved must consider it socially acceptable to take the drink, or it wouldn’t end up being swallowed.

Stop struggling. It is rape, legally speaking.

It would also under the old law have been ‘administering a substance to facilitate intercourse’ - but under the new Act, it’s only a crime if: (1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally administers a substance to, or causes a substance to be taken by, another person (B)- (a) knowing that B does not consent, and (b) with the intention of stupefying or overpowering B, so as to enable any person to engage in a sexual activity that involves B.

Again you use the phrase ‘getting the girl drunk’. As if her volition has somehow been overborne. There’s a world of difference between two people drinking together and the alcohol’s effect on their inhibitions leading them to have a consensual sexual encounter, and one person raping another who is incapable through drink.

I think you are overstating matters to say that ‘men’ or ‘most men’ don’t see the difference. The term for that small number of men who don’t is ‘rapist’.

PS - and while you’re quite right that it’s fair to focus on the rape of women by men, when something applies equally across genders, it isn’t fair to try and portray it as gender-biased in nature.

I’m going to try to avoid too much social commentary, cos who am I to say what should or shouldn’t be regarded as right in society? But in terms of the law, ‘pressuring’ someone into sex isn’t rape. Violence or threat of violence is. Using unconsciousness is. Slightly oddly, deception as to the nature of the sex act itself is.

But ‘pressure’ isn’t. Otherwise, the law would criminalise saying to your wife ‘it’s my birthday, go on, give me a blowjob’. If that was held to vitiate consent, then that blowjob would be rape.

Generally, the law sees you as giving valid consent, unless you’re threatened by force, rendered unable to consent, too young or mentally disordered to consent, etc. Simply being pressured, negotiated, or persuaded into something does not take away your ability to choose.

I’ve taken jobs that I didn’t really like doing, because I needed the money. The contract was still binding - the fact that it was money pressures that made me sign didn’t take away my genuine free choice about whether or not I took the responsibility on. Sex is regarded the same, ‘pressure’ or having taken some drink does not negate the free will of the person involved. If they consent, however grudgingly, or for whatever reason, it’s still consent.

To say otherwise would lead to a situation when anyone who had had any intoxicant, would be unable to give a valid consent to anything. So you can’t buy that second pint in the pub, because the effects of the first one mean that you are incapable in the eyes of the law of entering into the contract of sale necessary to get you the second one.

So no, in legal terms what you’ve said above isn’t right. And if you want it to be right socially, where do you draw the line? Is it wrong to have a glass of wine and go to bed with your partner? Alcohol is affecting both of your judgments… perhaps he/she is only going along with it because of the drink. Saying that a choice that is still made by the free volition of the person choosing should not be regarded as ‘properly’ consensual really isn’t a tenable position.

Someone very close to me was raped - I’m not going to discuss it further - but I do have a grasp on the devastation it causes and the permanence of the horror.

People who are accused of rape, and I think some other crimes, should have some protection; false accusations have literally ruined people lives and that is not fair either. Both are individual tragedies, it does not matter that one tragedy occurs more frequently.

You also make the (false) assumption that it is only women who are raped.

“he goes about this by getting the girl drunk enough that she can’t say no then I struggle to see how this is not rape”.

Unless it’s a spiking/drugging situation, who “got who drunk” and the intentions of the parties in buying anyone drinks are irrelevant, as I believe that they should be when dealing with adults and the serious charge of rape. People drink. People have sex. The two often go together. I’m not a criminal lawyer, but it seems to me that it comes down to this decision for a jury - was the victim bascially so pissed that the accused could not possibly have had a reasonable belief that the victim had consented. If the answer is yes, it’s rape.

The way that attitudes can shift here is on the question of how drunk you have to be before it’s “obvious” that valid consent cannot have been given. At the moment, that line is drawn at pretty paralytically drunk. I’m inclined to agree that it should remain a pretty high threshold. I have been pretty drunk in my time on occasions, but I wouldn’t say that I’ve ever been incapable of deciding whether I did or did not want to do something. The mere influence of alcohol in steering someone into doing something he or she would perhaps not have done stone-cold sober is not enough. And it shouldn’t be enough. Otherwise, just about everyone would have committed rape and no-one could ever risk having sex without first breathalysing the other party. The reduction ad absurdum here is people getting done for rape having plied the other party with oysters and asparagus.

It seems to me that it comes down to three questions: was anyone forced with violence or threats? Was anyone incapable of resisting? Was anyone incapable of deciding? Remember we only get into the difficult issue of inebriation vitiating consent in situations where there were no threats or violence.

But this is very difficult isn’t it. Interesting post and some interesting comments.

Sorry Adrian, I believe the statement, “catagorically the vast majority of rape is men on women,” is a non-falsifiable truth. It would be correct to claim, “catagorically the vast majority of reported rape is men on women.”

It is my understanding that male rape is both endemic and prevalent in prisons and young offender insitutions.

Fair point that men get raped as well, but in both cases we are talking about a crime that is committed by men (although I’m sure you can find a case of a woman sexually assaulting a man, but we are talking about the majority of cases here). I also don’t think you can say that “putting pressure” on someone doesn’t constitute rape. Intimidation can be done several ways; the threat of violence is just one of them.

I don’t mean to make light of the subject in any way, but I was browsing away when I came across this article from, coincidentally, South Africa, which may be a deterrent for some men from doing what I would deem to be ‘the unthinkable’.

Lots of guys get girls deliberatly drunk to get laid.

Many refer to this as ‘dating’. Not that I would ever do such a thing.

Matthew- ow! ow! ow! That’s what I call ‘instant karma’. Brilliant.

Of course if, after a few drinks perhaps, somebody forgot to take one of those things out before getting busy, they’d have to retrospectively cry rape, otherwise they’d get charged with ABH themselves…

But I suppose that’s one way of answering the question of when you’re too drunk to give consent. If you forget to take out your tallywacker-trapper, you must have been too pissed to consent; ergo it must have been rape.

In all seriousness though, it is very depressing that men’s treatment of women has got to such a state in parts of SA (or anywhere else for that matter) that such devices are being contemplated.

“Intimidation can be done several ways; the threat of violence is just one of them”… true, but intimidation does not invalidate consent, by taking away the choice from the consenting party.

If A threatens to tell B’s husband about her previous indiscretions unless she sleeps with him, it’s a vicious thing to do, but B still has a choice. If A renders B unconscious, or inflicts such pain on her that her will is broken, her choice is taken away.

Such a situation might be a crime of blackmail, but rape is about sex with someone who has no choice. If you start to include cases where ‘putting pressure’ short of choice removal, there is no clear distinction.

My partner once ‘put pressure’ on me to have sex by promising various domestic favours in return - was she ‘attempting to rape’ me? Should she be morally condemned for those evil words ‘Go on, you’re not that tired… and I’ll make you breakfast in bed tomorrow…’.

If the line isn’t drawn at actually taking away a victim’s volition, then any test of what constitues rape/not rape ‘pressure’ becomes pure emotivism - categorising as illegal what I don’t like the feel of. Criminal Justice becomes ‘I don’t think you should have said that to your girlfriend to persuade her to have sex with you, so you’re now a rapist’. The individual concerned might be a heel, but that’s so far removed from someone who chooses sex with the incapable, or someone who takes someone’s ability to choose away, and then has sex with them. Conflating the two is really poor thinking.

And while I’m ranting, the statement ‘rape is a crime committed by men’ conveniently forgets that rape is a crime committed actually only by rapists. Agendas that try to equate masculinity with rape don’t help anyone.

Some black people commit crime. But attempting to equate black skin with criminal behaviour is logically incorrect, and generally socially recognised as utterly unacceptable. The rapists=men equation (with the implied ‘therefore men=rapists - or at least potential rapists) is just as bigoted, and flawed.

Adrian, while you may be morally correct, I think Tol is more on the mark in terms of the law. These various ‘other ways’ you refer to, while morally abhorrent, aren’t actually illegal. Indeed, one begins to think that if they were, a significant portion of all consensual sexual encounters would be rendered illegal.

“And while I’m ranting, the statement ‘rape is a crime committed by men’ conveniently forgets that rape is a crime committed actually only by rapists. Agendas that try to equate masculinity with rape don’t help anyone.”

Tol, you mistinterpreted what I was saying. I was responding to other people’s comments regarding the assumption that rape is a crime committed against women. My point was, regardless of the gender of the victim, the crime is still (mostly) perpetuated by men. So my argument was, the issue wasn’t necessarily different based on the gender of the victim.

“…I think their is a big difference between a consensual couple putting pressure on each other to have sex in one of the many acceptable ways, and say for example an ‘older uncle’ putting pressure on his 12 year old niece to have sex. Or his 18 year old niece.”

This is exactly what I was cautioning against - criminalising what feels ‘acceptable’ to you, and permitting what you like. Crucially, sex in situations of vastly differing maturity or vulnerability is criminalised. But it’s NOT rape. Rape DOES need threats/violence or drugs/insensibility to happen. (Or deception as to the nature of the sex act itself - Or impersonating the husband of the victim… go figure!).

Rape is a technical word used to describe only sex where one party has no choice about it. There are other sorts of sexual activity which are criminalised and/or morally abhorrent. They aren’t rape, either in terms of the law, or the proper English meaning of the word.

Attempting to draw these other sexual acts into the meaning of rape only dilutes it. And hence reduces the social stigma and criminal penalty associated with it. It’s like believing hurting someone really badly is wrong, and trying to get that included in the definition of murder. Net result; reduction in murder sentences, and the newly-defined ‘murder’ being regarded as less serious.

“the vast majority of rapists are significantly men. That does make it a gender issue.” No, all rapists are men, the law defines it that way. There is no crime of rape by a female. Parallel acts would be considered to be a serious sexual assault. So the statistics that give your significant difference are drawn from a framework that makes them the only logical outcome. Hence they are meaningless for drawing wider social conclusions.

It would be much more persuasive to say that sexual crime is significantly more perpetrated by males. But again, that doesn’t make it a gender issue about the gender of the victim, as the legal framework making proving the crime difficult is exactly the same regardless of the gender of either party involved.

“And the problem is men.” No, the problem is rapists. Or sexual criminals, or whatever. Visualise the Venn diagram, it’s a tiny, tiny subset of the set of men, not the set of men itself. And that makes an enormous difference.

Sir Paul Condon identified that when he was Police Commissioner in the Met, essentially all muggings (street robberies) were committed by black youths. He was utterly wrong to say that the mugging problem is young black men. The mugging problem was a tiny subset of young black men. Post-feminist apologetic chastising of an entire gender for the activity of a small number of aberrant criminals is meaningless.

‘Post-feminist apologetic chastising of an entire gender for the activity of a small number of aberrant criminals is meaningless.’ Tol: rape is about power, not sex. All rapists are men. This is not to equate all rape with all men, but with a masculinity where status is gained by exercising power, i.e making others (male or female) submissive. Rapists aren’t another species, they are men who get kicks out of making others submit to them. You can’t talk of them as if they were monsters; rape can only be tackled if men examine their sexual behaviour, rather than thinking of sexual violence as someone else’s problem. Tol, your argument that the law treats victims the same regardless of gender is laughable. When’s the last time you were deemed rapable for the tightness of your trousers, or your sexual past, or having the audacity to be out drinking after dark? The courts are not immune to culture, and our culture still has double standards for the sexual behaviour of men and women. So, going back to your comment: ‘Post-feminist apologetic chastising of an entire gender for the activity of a small number of aberrant criminals is meaningless.’ I’m not apologising for anyone. You seem to be. It’s not a small number of aberrant criminals, it’s people known to 1 in 4 women - boyfriends, relatives, friends. Not monsters.

A recent decision of the English court in relation to this issue would suggest that men may not end up being the worried ones after all.