A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Mr Mystery]

Except the guy admits to pushing his luck. They have taken his word over hers.

In this particular case, both were drunk, so it's different the scenario outlined above. But - here the (alleged) victim has to prove she didn't give consent.

The fact the dude even admits to being told no and nicking off? How the hell does that count in his favour?

[Denzark]

He said 'I picked up the wrong vibe' and that when she told him to stop he did and left. With character witnesses and rubbish evidence handling, the jurors unanimously found that his actions didn't amount to sexual assault. Presumably they found his account - that he stopped as soon as consent was denied - credible.

Perhaps a bad example. I can't be arsed to go into better detail because I can't think of a way to illustrate this without thinking of a variety of sexual assault scenarios and trying to recount them and that's not a pleasant way to spend Saturday night.

[Mr Mystery]

So he touched her up without permission, admits it, and walks?

Really?

Now I suspect there's quite a bit more to it than that article. After all, it makes a big thing about Police procedural failures, and missing text messages - it's my guess there were allegations about what those texts contained or indeed didn't contain.

I would also consider this - what would the alleged victim have to gain from a malicious allegation against the guy?

[Denzark]

So he touched her up without permission, admits it, and walks?

Really?

Now I suspect there's quite a bit more to it than that article. After all, it makes a big thing about Police procedural failures, and missing text messages - it's my guess there were allegations about what those texts contained or indeed didn't contain.

I would also consider this - what would the alleged victim have to gain from a malicious allegation against the guy?

Umm - sometimes people have second thoughts about who they have been with - slept with. Sometimes just second thoughts, sometimes because they have been unfaithful. The point to this particular case is that he claimed he felt that his approach was invited. That when he tried to touch her and she made it inherently clear that was not what was wanted, he stopped and left.

The jury - 5 men and 7 women - unanimously felt that having gone back to hers, hand in hand, kissing, cuddling, being invited into her single bed, and spooning was reasonable for him to perceive she may accept him initiating sexual relations. He claimed as soon as this was readily apparent that wasn't what she wanted he stopped.

Arguably he could have said 'do you mind if I touch you sexually?' (I personally think this is not a realistic expectation) but even if that is the way the exchange had gone and she had said no, without other evidence it would be one person's word against the other and if both people are of sound mind and good character it is usual to presume innocence rather than presume guilt.

[Mr Mystery]

Generally, I take a come-on from a girl as involving kissing immediately prior. It might be naiveity, a lack of technique, or chancing it on his account, but if you're tongues are doing the two-step at that point, keep your hands to yourself.

[Denzark]

His account was that she was grinding her bum into his groin. They had been kissing earlier.

On what basis should a jury take her account over his?

Seriously though, I get what you say - why would a girl make up a malicious allegation. On the flip side, why would a bloke risk everything to get his chirps in - something he can do adequately on his own? neither make a huge amount of sense and without evidence to the contrary, the jury must acquit if they have any reasonable doubt.

[Psychosplodge]

Under Scottish law, if you have sex with someone incapable of giving consent because they're drunk, stoned or otherwise off their face? That's rape.

There is no such thing as assumed consent. There is no such thing as implied consent.

Rest of the world needs to follow suit.

I thought the law in scotland said the victim had to violently object not just say no, or have the changed it?

[Mr Mystery]

Seems it changed in 2009ish, according to Wikipedia.

Consent has to be active.

[Psychosplodge]

ah, that's probably why I'd heard of the original at all then.

[Mr Mystery]

So rather than saying 'No', you have to obtain a clear Yes.

It's pretty much my approach too. Given the New Year Unpleasantness, quite a few of my friends being survivors as well, and my being a fairly big bloke, I'm arguably over cautious when it comes to getting some with a stranger (I have a friend and we have an agreement - I know when she's giving me a Yes!).

After all, I would far, far rather miss out on a leg over, than go where I'm not invited. I don't want to go into that territory ever.

And on a purely selfish note, I'm fully aware a single allegation could wreck my career. That's a damned good secondary reason to show some respect and assume nothing!