legalbeagle

Garnish

Based purely on the numbers of people reading and commenting on the Ched Evans thread, there is a high statistical likelihood that some will have been affected by the subjects discussed. I thought it might be useful to pull out and post here links to organisations that can offer help, in case anyone is interested either in volunteering or finding help: For men living with violent partners: http://www.mankind.org.uk/ http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk/mens_advice.php.html For men who are newly single parents, and particularly with access to children issues: http://www.onlydads.org/ For women living with violent partners: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/ (they also help children) http://www.hestia.org/ (London based charity) For newly single women with children, including who have issues with partners: http://www.onlymums.org/ For victims of rape: http://www.rasasc.org.uk/ (have a south London helpline) http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/ (It's worth noting that if you go to a rape crisis centre, many will ask you to go into the room with your adviser alone. This is very hard for some people to do, so you need to mentally prepare for it. It is done so that your adviser can be sure that you are not being watched or coerced while you get support. You can have a friend/family member on the phone with you right up to the point when you go in if that helps. Not every centre does this, but many do.) Personal safety related products: (please read this first before buying anything: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm) http://www.checkyourdrink.co.uk/ http://www.crimepreventionproducts.co.uk/personal-alarms/ Please post here anything you have found useful too.

DaveR "So when your opinion is challenged by men you wonder whether the reason is that as a matter of fact they have had drunken unthinking sex that, as a matter of reasonable opinion, you might categorise as rape. " Again, you completely misunderstand. I worry that they think that I THINK they are a rapist, however reasonable they think they and the woman in question were being. That I might have held them to some higher standard of behaviour and found them lacking when actually all they are doing is asking questions based on their own perfectly reasonable experience. As I have said, I do not think that. I was trying to make the debate more open and inclusive, not less so, by pointing out that if they had gone to the extreme of thinking that I was judging them for raising questions, that I wasn't. I maintain that you have put forward a very unpleasant misinterpretation of what I said and what I think. You don't need to lecture me on subconscious prejudice either. I'm aware of how people's opinions are formed, and that no one is perfect or has all the answers, least of all me since I am not an expert in this field. If a certain proportion of women have excluded men from debate then that's their bad, not mine.

On a slightly different note, if you are out drinking (male or female, although females more commonly targeted) you might also want to look at this product, which is cheap and shows immediate results: http://www.checkyourdrink.co.uk/

DaveR - what a horrible misrepresentation that is. I was trying to say that some people on the thread appeared to me to be worrying that I might think they had done something awful, or agree with something awful, because of the type of questions that they were raising. If there is even a remote possibility they think that, I was trying to make it clear that I did not think such things of them. That I am NOT peering into their past and going "ooooo SHE was a bit tipsy... WHAT DID YOU DO??!!" If we cannot ask the hard questions (when is drunk? what is consent? what is rape?) then we cannot learn or progress. People should have the debate free from silly accusations about their intentions. Free, in fact, from the kind of nonsense that you just aimed at me. Contrary to what you might think of me personally, I am very aware of how utterly appalled some (most?) men would be at the thought of someone questioning their past with such dreadful terms as "rapist". It is a truly awful thing to say of anyone. Not in a million years would I say that lightly. At no point have I said, or would I ever say, that if you don't agree with me you are a rapist. You have utterly misunderstood and misrepresented, my intentions. And besides which, I am not the high watermark of human behaviour on this topic. I don't decide who is a rapist. That's the job of courts. It just happens to be a subject about which I feel very strongly, and about which I honestly believe that openness and debate DO make a difference.

Dopamine/Jeremy. If someone is looking for a woman to abuse, then a drunk or unconscious woman is probably an easier target than a sober one. In much the same way that it is easier to mug a woman (likely to be weaker and less aggressive), a pensioner (frail), or a drunk man (less aware of surroundings), it is probably easier to rape a drunk woman. It is a great shame that we have to educate women on their personal safety and predatory men, but we do, and it would be irresponsible not to. I will also educate my children on gang behaviour, and awareness of personal safety (boys are very likely to be beaten up at some point in their lives, and so helping them spot danger is important too.) There are lots of crimes we can help young people avoid. That's not the same as saying they deserve it if it happens to them. The fact that a crime is made easier to commit, or a victim is not very streetwise, does not mean the victim is to blame in any way, or that the crime is less appalling. As a matter of fact, I do not know if more women are raped drunk than sober. In the whole of the crime, I suspect not. Most rapes are not random punters you pick up in a club who got you pissed. Most reported rapes are committed by friends/family/people already known to the victim. In the category of "went out for the night and was raped by a stranger" well I guess possibly more are drunk than not, since as you say, they are easier for a predator to abuse. Again, that speaks to the MO of the criminal. It is not the fault of the victim.

My thoughts weren't particularly aimed at you Otta - and I have assumed that none of you think you have raped someone, it was more whether you thought I would think you have, if you see what I mean. Yes, it is in theory possible to be having a great night with someone only to wake up and discover she feels very differently to the point of considering it a rape. But I would say highly unlikely. As we've explored, the point of intoxication that means consent cannot be given would be obvious to most - as you have described. Even if she was a person whose drunkeness displayed in such an odd way that she appeared sober but was actually beyond consenting, I can't see the CPS being likely to prosecute. That would not detract from her distress but it would be unlikely to result in a conviction. Theses scenarios are always worth discussing, but if we are going to address the prevalence of rape, then they are not at all common, and I don't think they help us much. Most rapes involving alcohol are clearly rapes, and involve behaviours that no decent person would exhibit.

JohnL - it's a hard scenario to imagine, to be honest. They appear sober enough to know exactly what they are doing but were in fact so drunk that they have no memory? Possible I suppose but not usual. You'd usually see other signs they were that drunk. In real life, it would be a question of evidence for the court to decide. Did you see how much they drank? Did you know them? Did you buy them a lot of alcohol? Blood samples, CCTV footage of how they were walking, etc etc. It would be VERY hard to spot that a person behaving utterly normally was actually so drunk they'd lost their memory. But yes, in theory you could end up in court. Although the chances of the CPS prosecuting a case like that are extremely remote indeed.

It occurs to me re reading all of this that there are no women saying my views are wrong, and mostly men questioning them (and some men agreeing). I wonder if the men questioning do so in part because you are all thinking back to drunken encounters and half pissed rolls in the sack, and wondering if on closer scrutiny you would, in my opinion be a rapist. (Or a victim of rape, if you are a female reading this.) Can we just be clear then? In my experience (I've discussed this at length with friends, some of whom have been raped, some of whom haven't, and I've worked with victims in this area through charities, but i am no expert, it's just MY experience) very few women who have consented while intoxicated consider themselves victims the next day. On the whole they are fine, some might laughingly regret their choice a little, some might seriously regret their choice a lot, but most of the ones I know were fully aware of what they were doing and wouldn't for a moment consider themselves a victim of anything other than too many martinis. The danger area (morally, and in the eyes of the law) is the point at which your judgement is SO impaired that you can't really agree to anything. Commonly that's when you would be falling over/have no memory of events/be stumbling and slurring/throwing up. Look, we've all seen our mates/girlfriends/wives in that state, right? We KNOW what that looks like. Common sense tells you you shouldn't be trying to screw them. The law points out that the time a woman cannot consent may in fact happen sooner than the point at which she is in the state I have described and THAT'S what makes this so difficult. It's a point that is different for each person. And THAT is why I take the line I do with my son. Because it is so hard to know for sure when you are on the edges of doing great harm without realising. I'm not suggesting that without a stone cold sober woman who has signed a contract for sex after taking advice from her lawyer, you are a rapist. I'm simply pointing out that there is a line, it is different for each person, and if you are a half decent person you are probably already very careful about that anyway.

Jeremy - the situation where woman "definitely says yes" and then regrets it in the morning is certainly not rape. It's a decision she regrets, which is a shame but not a crime. There's a question as to how you know she definitely says yes, but that's one for court to opine on, not me. Should it ever get that far. [Edited because I misunderstood David's point on first reading.....] Otta - yes women should take responsibility too. That's what part of education is for. They need to be taught that there are predatory/foolish/young/very drunk people out there, some of whom will be ignorant of the law and some of whom will not care. They need to be taught that drink impairs judgement, and the fact that they are drunk can be used against them. That is NOT to say that they should be blamed ever, in any way, for being raped. But awareness of yourself and your surroundings is useful and might teach you how to stay safe.

Asset - I suspect partly because they will simply say that it is sour grapes from parents whose children were not clever enough to pass the entrance test. I also think that a parent is unlikely to spend time, energy, money and possibly legal action to shoehorn their child into a school that does not want them. What I can tell you in that I have an admission, in writing, from the head of one school telling me that they have never accepted a child with a diagnosed learning difficulty. I also have, in writing, from another head, the statement that they cannot have a child with a learning disability in their school since it might upset the other children. Several others simply refused to provide a suitably adjusted test so that those with different learning styles could show their intelligence. Much like telling a wheelchair user they can join the club if they run up a flight of stairs to collect the relevant application form. As I say, insert "black" or "muslim" in place of "disability" and you will see how atrocious that is. Although I'm sure you can see that anyway. I also note, in passing, that innovation never comes from a roomful of people who are the same, but that's tangential to the point that the spirit of what I was told was far from charitable, even if, as an institution, they jump the relevant hoops in order to qualify as a charity. It's utterly disgraceful. I have no expertise to tell you whether it is illegal.

Oh I do mostly agree with your conclusion. Just bringing us back to the point of the thread. On which we also seem to mostly agree. I may need to lay down.

Man buns (just.... stop it). Beards (traumatised at a young age by Quentin Blake's illustrations of Mr Twit) Those trainer type shoes that have toes. (Stop It).

This thread started as a question about Ched Evans and rape. Feminism, or any other ideology aside, rape is overwhelmingly something done by men, to women. It is an act of power and control, not sexual attraction. It is one of the few crimes in which victim blaming is rife. The definition of consent is widely misunderstood by the public, and until relatively recently by the police and court system too. In fact, the court system is still in the process of defining it. The suggestion that if you are falling over drunk and someone has sex with you, you are at least in part to blame, is abhorrent under any circumstances. Men who do that do NOT have an uncontrollable urge to have sex with you because you led them on and they can no longer help themselves. They have an uncontrollable urge to show their power over and disrespect for women. I've suggested that educating young people on this topic is key and I stand by that. I will be teaching my son that if a woman he does not know is properly drunk, and shows an interest in him, then he should take her number and deliver her safely home to sleep alone. If he doesn't know whether her consent is genuine because she is only tipsy, he should do the same. If the now sober girl is still interested in him the next day, then lucky him. If she's not, then it's a good indication that she wasn't really interested the night before either. He may get less sex that way. But he also won't be a rapist. If any male wants to get laid because he is hormonal/immature/hasn't had it for a while, and so goes for the pissed women, he is a sleezebag. Have some respect for the bodily integrity of another human being and grow the fuck up. If you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions. It's a dick. Contrary to popular belief, it does not dictate everything that you do. (If it does, get help.) I will also be teaching my daughter that she SHOULD be treated with this level of respect by men, but will undoubtedly meet some who fall short. I can only hope she will spot them in time. If you agree with that Loz, then no, we are not too far apart.

He suggests "genderist" - so when someone advocates something that is not equal, for either sex, they are a generist - as someone who persecutes on the basis of race would be labelled a racist. Then you won't hear people saying: "I'm not a feminist....but I believe in equality" because it is equality that is the acceptable way of thinking, and not the assumption that one must still fight for it, and be labelled as such. That is not the word we currently use in public discourse. We still use (and until this changes, we still need) feminist.

You can do what you like! (It's very funny too tho.....)

Loz - watch the Joss Whedon speech. It's really good (it's only 14 mins).

I disagree Loz. I think groups who do not believe in equality have hijacked a word that labels those who fight for equality.

If you can't be bothered to listen to it, then the salient point is this: [on why he hates the word feminist] "You can't be born an "ist". It's not natural. You can't be born a baptist; you have to be baptized. You can't be born an atheist or a communist or a horticulturalist. You have to have these things brought to you. So "feminist" includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda." He believes equality should be a natural state, and yet it does not exist. He goes on to explain how he wishes we could move past the need for the word feminist, and find a word that labels those who don't believe in equality, rather than those who do (he explains why sexist and misogynist don't work for him).

Loz has sort of stumbled over a valid point though he hasn't made it quite in the way I would. I would give you my response but actually Joss Whedon says it so much better than I ever could. I know it's a little long, but please do listen to it: http://jezebel.com/watch-joss-whedon-make-the-perfect-speech-about-the-wor-1460080685

To your point DaveR, yes times are changing. Most of the men I know now identify themselves as feminists on the basis that the dictionary definition is "an advocate of women's rights based on equality of the sexes". Rather than a man hater.

Jeremy take a look at the stories men tell in my two earlier links. Although it is very much more rare, men can feel just as afraid. But that said it's not a competition and yes men are generally stronger and quicker to violence than women. I'm sure we all agree the real point is that no one should live in fear of their personal safety. Horrible experience Otta. I'm sorry you had to go through it.

Jeremy I think you are in part correct, in that when men are abused for the first time, they often feel unable to defend themselves since we are told from an early age that you shouldn't hit women. They also feel ashamed and as though their masculinity is in question (you got beaten by a GIRL?!) That said, in most situations the man is stronger and could do more damage, all things being equal. However the key point is that in most DV cases against men, all things are not equal. For a variety of reasons the man in question will neither fight back nor leave. Take a look at my two earlier links for more info.

Blah Blah Wrote: "the real issue, that rape is predominently a > female experience, and predominently perpetuated > by men. How we work to change attitudes and > behaviour with regards to that should be what we > are talking about. How do we make some men behave > better than they do, so that they don't take a > drunken women to a hotel room, and then call their > 'mate' to join in on the way." But mostly, in the context of this thread, THAT is what I think.

I wasn't leaving as such. I'm just not sure I have much else to say. This thread was about Evans and rape and I stand by what I've said so far. If you genuinely want my thoughts on the specific point about domestic violence against men, and conservative party policy for this parliament then I would say: 1. I don't need to justify it, since I neither voted for them, wrote their manifesto, nor drafted their policy. I don't know why they decided to chose that specific policy, or how they would justify doing so if asked. 2. Were I to speculate on the reasons I would say that they decided to tackle the bigger of the two problems based on historical statistics, bearing in mind they have limited time and money and cannot focus on everything that needs solving in one 4 year parliamentary cycle. But that is just speculation. They may have had other reasons - I have no idea. 3. If you are asking whether I think that we do enough to tackle the subject of domestic violence as it affects men, then no, I do not. 4. If you are asking whether I think this changes my view that the subject needs to be tackled separately for men and women, then no, it does not. 5. There is a very good support group here: http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk/mens_advice.php.html and also here: http://www.dvmen.co.uk/ who offer advice and support to men who might find themselves the victim of violence. As is so often the case with these issues it is charities that pick up the slack and do the best work, for men and women, when it comes to DV. 6. It is my bed time. Good night all.