‘Yes means yes’ doesn’t mean men accused of rape are now guilty until proven innocent

So if I have sex with a woman who’s drank a bottle of wine, I’m a rapist? Or is it only if I’m aware she’s drank a bottle of wine?

Question: why is her drinking history a man’s responsibility?

We’re not talking about being unconscious here, which would be rape. We’re talking about a woman choosing to get drunk, knowing her inhibitions will be lowered and then copping off with some guy at a bar. They go home, have sex, then the woman wakes up and decides to cry rape.

Any rational person can see this as the attack on men and reason it is.

Here’s the thing that bothers me about the whole question of consent. It’s the simple fact that it relies on both parties being skilled and clear communicators – communicating in a coherent and effective manner – which the other receives and accurately interprets.

How many married couples, who have been together in a committed, loving physical relationship for many years sometimes get it wrong – and misinterpret their beloveds signal only to then be rebuffed? Of course here I am not talking about the result being rape – merely a realisation of mis-communication and, for one party disappointment!

The point is, that if this happens in long term relationships how much easier is it in one that is new and where inhibitions are reduced by alcohol and a rich soup of rampant hormones? (cue memories of youth, college days etc, etc…). Being young and inexperience is also a big factor, and we so often assume that only the ‘victim’ needs help and understanding, I have worked with several young people who were sure that their partner was seeking and consenting to sex and only afterwards – sometimes years afterwards – had gained the understanding and finer nuances that made them realise this was not the case and their partner may not have felt ‘raped’ but also was not fully wanting sex either. So, in my book, the sooner we move away from slavishly trying to argue for or against simple guidelines that are by their nature limited and the quicker we recognise that there are many facets to each situation – and that the winning move is helping all people to be better communicators and to listen more, the quicker we can move on. Of course this will be of little help to the victims of the relatively small percentage who consciously choose to rape; but it will certainly make the rest of us feel more secure and less discriminated against.

I have great respect for Ally but I think it naive to think that the Police or CPS are gender neutral. Certainly there is a whole lot of training and ” guidance” that effectively targets men as perpetrators in order to be “anti-oppressive”. Because boys and men are somehow uniformly “oppressive” . As Mr. Collins points out this does indeed further push the building of cases on an assumption , if not presumption , of guilt. Thus the courts will be presented  with cases and assembled evidence based on the ” guidance”. And this is explicitly designed to shift the ground over which the case will be tried.  Once in court of course there is always risk of miscarriage , particularly in a politicised crime , as rape has become. Not least as the Judiciary are constantly exhorted to engineer more convictions. And to “set an example”. In a sense Ally himself illustrates the danger as the absence of “guidance” and the continued stereotyping of males lies behind the lack of action by CPS and Police ( and other public agencies) on abuses of boys and men, particularly  if the abuser is female. The Courts after all only try cases presented to them. 
The Courts are a human endeavour and aren’t the site of such lofty disinterested equity as Ally appears to assume. Family courts being a notorious example . Where I initially was skeptical, of possibly bitter ex-husbands until friends and acquaintances shared a uniform experience; their counsel explaining to them that they would be treated in-equitably and that this was the norm. 

@Lawrence Newman. The victims testimony is evidence. Anyway, it is common ground (and backed by Evans’ mates who filmed it) that he did come in in the middle of the night and that the sex occurred. What is left is the issue of consent. That makes your comparison rather lame. This is more like a case where I have your wallet, and my story is that we met on the road and chatted, and you felt so sorry for me that you handed over the wallet, credit cards and all. My story here (like Evans story at the trial) is so unlikely that a jury is entitled to convict, even if you could not remember what you did the night you lost it.

Mr Fogg says that “the new guidelines do not change to law, but they do clarify it”. This is true. But my gripe is with the existing law. He also says that, “the laws and the policies are gender neutral”. This is incorrect. Rape in English law is defined as non-consensual penetration using a penis, and hence is explicitly gender biased. A female cannot be a rapist in English law (though there is a parallel offence of “assault by penetration” in which any object may be used to penetrate and hence women may be guilty of this offence).

The more seriously gendered nature of the rape law, as defined by the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, is that it is only the consent of the penetrated party which defines the offence. In a heterosexual exchange, the consent of the man is of no consequence in law. This is deeply pernicious and seems acceptable to most people only because this one-sided concern is the universal prejudice of our society, not because it is morally right or equitable.

Saunders is quoted as saying, “it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink”. This is legally correct, because a rapist has to be male in English law. But it is more transparent if it is stated as, “it is a crime for a male to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink”. My point, of course, is that it is not a crime for a woman to target a man who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink (assuming that, in the resulting sex, she is the party to be penetrated). Such behaviour by women is common. It is not a crime and is not recognised by almost anyone as being morally reprehensible.

My objection to the rape law is that it reinforces the grossly inequitable status quo as regards the societal prejudice that females are precious but males are not. The importance of this can hardly be overstated since it is the source of every other disadvantage that men and boys now suffer.

Gjenganger. You sum up the position succinctly. The current law And guidance is intended to be radical and place males ” on notice”. While the public are distracted by dramatic cases in fact many very much less noteworthy cases are heard, derived from very mundane circumstances. Far from the dramas of the sordid carryings on of celebrity footballers. One may indeed want to change the law. However that should not blind people , men particularly, to it’s current form and the possibility of unwittingly being accused. Particularly in the all too common haze of a good night out. The 2003  law intended to help to increase the numbers of males accused, prosecuted and convicted of “rape”. The statistics show this has been achieved. One may think this is a legitimate aim for a democratically elected Gov. to do. 
My concern is that men may not realise the nature of the law and the dangers it poses in our sexually liberated society. 

If it was gender neutral, then rape could go both ways. As it stands rape is a term that (in the UK, as far as I understand it) only defines something a man can do to a woman. But forced sex of a man by a woman is treated entirely different.

This is a problem when requiring clear consent, because right now only the woman requires to give consent and a man does not. So it is not equal protection under the law.