Do people think the sentence is fair? I followed the case. I think it is about right. Probably on the lower end of a sexual assault case but i do think a custodial sentence was required.
Rightly or wrongly, he would not have been convicted if he had just denied the event took place right? I mean for her to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he assaulted her while asleep would have been impossible. So his honesty has been detrimental here. It just reminds me that in all things involving police and the law, offer no information ever, unless legally compelled to do so.
I'd like to see you try and explain exactly what is weird about it? Seems like you're just stereotyping what you see in movies and trying to craft it into some sort of insult. You can't just claim that any sort of unorthodox thinking is indicative of someone being a serial killer. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with lots of women if that's what you've issue with. It's simply a clever method of making sure that you're far less likely to be accused of rape.
You have gone off on a nonsensical tangent, there is nothing purporting to doggy style and consent in our laws.
The law is crystal clear, you cannot consent when you are asleep.
Well that is clearly nonsense, but so is the contention that no way this couldn't happen between partners.
You cannot consent when you are asleep, whether it is a one night stand or ye are married 50 years.
The guy in the case was 100% wrong and she was 100% the victim, he committed sexual assault.
Now if I were to do the exact same to my partner, it would be exactly the same crime.
So the nuance here is not really the crime itself, but the reporting of the crime. He got for want of a better word 'unlucky'. Not as unlucky as her obviously - she is still very much the victim in this, but separately judging it on the facts and merits of the case I am surprised he received a custodial sentence.
The judge seems to have second guessed her own judgement.
A relationship is the most likely place for that discussion to happen at all. Much less lilely to happen in an ONS situation but not impossible. But why is it so unlikely between adults in a relationship? How do couples figure out they're into anything beyond vanilla sex? They talk about it.
This is beginning to sound like peoppe who can't discuss sex with the very person they're having sex with. Sounds childish TBH.
sounds like the actions of a closet serial killer in my opinion. What weirdo carries on like that?
But would you also bother to teach them not to initiate sex with someone who is asleep and can't consent or is that not an important thing to learn from this example?
Sure but thats just one detail in this story, as I said earlier, he should have shown her the door once she began having buyers remorse, she was at best a flake ,unfortunately she was much worse
There seems to be a consensus that waking someone up for sex is wrong now? Would morning sex not fall into this category too since they're just after waking up and not in their right frame of mind. I mean where does it stop?
I don't believe so and the devil would be in the detail, but as reported:
"The bill would change the current situation where a man is not guilty of rape if he believed that he had the consent of a woman.
Under the new proposals, the accused's defence that he believed she was consenting has to be objectively reasonable."
As things stand, the benefit of the doubt (that can inevitably arise in such cases) is given to the accused party. As reported, the benefit of the doubt will now be given to the accuser.
That's a very big and fundamental change. It's a potential charter for mostly women to deny they gave consent and have their partners prosecuted & convicted of rape.
Please explain how it could be otherwise. In such a case, presumably the judge & jury would hear evidence from both sides but when push comes to shove, the benefit of the doubt will now be given to the accuser.
This is poor proposed legislation and should be resisted by any right thinking person.
Well then teach them not to grope sleeping women who already said no, it's not the psychological minefield you're portraying it to be.
Well of course, but what I'm saying is that it would take a lot more nerve to do so if the girl knows that it was her who seduced him. What I'm also saying is that - usually - no one is completely without blame when rape claims are made. Even if it's a false claim, the guy must have made some mistake along the way. It could be that he kicked her out in the morning (as he would be entitled to do), spoke rudely to her, or ignored her. Now if someone already regrets the night before, that's really going to rub it in. So although the guy mightn't have raped the girl, claiming rape might be the only way for her to get back at him.
I’ve been making this point throughout so I think we agree here.
Just you get the usual suspects talking about contracts with their wives pretending to not know the difference.
The risk? The law is clear.
What you are talking about is the risk that you will be reported for sexual assault - that's very different, where your partner will in all likely hood sprain your hand and tell you do one, some one you don't know may report you. But even that is extremely rare.
In both situations it is very much sexual assault. You cannot consent when you are asleep.
Water off a ducks back
Look if some guys willingly sign up to a new deal which is ridiculously lob sided in terms of balance ( consent places all responsibilities on the guy in any encounter) that's their choice ,personally I would not wish to see either my son or a friend hauled off to the clink in the name of ideological purity
Not everyone however is willing to play ball with this new WOKE paradigm shift so i say deny everything and do not send texts, being a sacrificial lamb is a mugs game, for the zealous, this guy will still be condemned when he leaves prison
You would have to be fairly specific and even at that the law may not see it that way.
But the reality is couples are not having that conversation it's just not realistic.
What happens in reality is the other person responds favourably or tells you fúck off back to sleep and that's the end of it.
But the jist of the OPs point is correct even if unlikely, if you touch your partner while they are asleep that is sexual assault according to our laws, it's crystal clear, if not the most crystal of clear of laws surrounding consent.
It's extremely rare a case like this would get to court. It's why there is 3 threads on it.
But it is a discussion worth having, now the extremes of she is a mental ill bítch to he is a serial predator is nonsense, the debate lies firmly in-between.
The risk is there no matter what, of course, but the likelihood of two partners, having built up an understanding and trust over a number of years, taking a case compared to two randomers is much lower.
I don’t judge what two people in a relationship would do in their bedrooms, but it doesn’t mean that this guy can have a free-for-all just because it’s alright among two partners in someone else’s house.
So far in a thread on sexual assault we have the usual types of posters playing what about bingo.
Topics that have nothing to do with sexual assualt but have been brought in.
Lisa Smith
Anti immigrant chat.
She should no longer have been in his bed once she got an attack of buyers remorse or whatever, most people aren't comfortable bringing strangers home to nap beside them ,he made his first mistake by not asking her to leave once she decided she didn't fancy him anymore, her reason for being there in the first place had now expired
This wasn't someone he was in a relationship with, obviously in that instance you don't expect a partner to leave
Guy was a prize schmuck from start to finish
It would still be his word against hers though. And that appears to be a mojor problem too. Should he have her sign something. Or record a video saying she consents?
I don't usually bite on loaded questions so il answer by saying the aim would be to teach him not to be a willing sap, using this chump as an example, could keep a lot of guys out of jail
Whataboutism at its finest.
Maybe. But if you actually chat with your partner and tell them you'd like to be woken up with them touching you, that's different to doing it without ever discussing it. I don't know the specifics of the law so if you know them, I'll defer to you.
Why are my posts being deleted especially the one where I stated that there's a discussion around the new laws about consent on the radio? How is that deemed inappropriate?
Edit: Apparently there's a duplicate thread. Could the mods merge or delete one of them please
Yeah that's one approach. But another approach is to be a grown up and chat about it.
Like, the question "do you like that" isn't just a rhetorical device to get the other person to tell you what a brilliant lover you are. It's also a genuine way to make sure the other person is having a good time and consenting to what they're both doing.
You're not trying to get sex FROM someone, you're trying to have sex WITH someone.
Same judge, not sure how all of this aligns with sentencing when you also account for the 15 months Lisa Smith got for joining ISIS
If you chat with your partner and have consent to wake them up with a bit of action, then there's no real problem. But that's because they've dealt with consent
There is no such thing as a consent blank cheque to be cashed at some point in the future.
The law is clear, you cannot consent when you are asleep.
Some unlikely conversation between partners would not be a defence to that, unless it was an extremely recent conversation with specifics. Even at that, consent has to be 'ongoing' under the law.
One PUA artist said that what he would do with any girl he brings home, is that once he gets them into the bedroom, he makes no advances and waits (for as long as it takes) for them to take the initiative. And then he'd ask them if they sure they want to, several times, before anything happens. A sure proof method of never being accused of rape, which you would need if you were having sex with that large a volume of girls.
They get it, they're just pretending not to, which is a lot more disturbing.
"Under McEntee's vision, a man could be found guilty of rape if he believed he has the woman's consent for sex but she denies it. So two people meet, they agree to have sex but she later regrets this and accuses him of rape."
You have completely misunderstood/misrepresented what that actually means. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that a woman could retroactively withdraw consent. Nothing.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/05bfdb0bc9f81b358ccf2f55186422bb.svg)
