The extract featured said: "Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped, and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they went too far, it wasn't forcible, they didn't make themselves clear."

In some circumstances the woman might be drunk and consenting but in the morning when the beer goggles have worn off they change their mind, is that rape? That should not mean that we stop prosecutions for rape, or treat rape differently.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Is that not abuse of someone in a diminished condition?
Alternatively, would you say a man who plies women with booze so that they fall into his bed more easily is not doing anything wrong? What if it's drugs?

If drugs are used then that is clearly illegal, already covered in law. I was not saying that a man that plies a woman with booze makes it right. They might have met at the end of the night (like many hookups, so no plying of drink) both are very drunk, the woman goes to the man's home and initiates sex, is that rape if she wakes up in the morning and discovers that she has bedded Shrek? Both were in a diminished state.

What percentage of rape cases do you think that represents? Only a tiny amount of women ever report being raped and usually they have to go against the police scaring them into going to jail for false declaration.
Don't hide the fact that rape is an issue below the fact that every now and then, a man with be accused when he's done nothing wrong.

I have no idea. Most rapes are by someone that the woman knows such as friends and family. Rapes by strangers are thankfully rare. Though it does not diminish the severity of the crime.

I think what Nick Ross was referring to is things such as Marital rape, which was only recognised in the UK in 1991. Many women still don't realise they can refuse sex, even to a boyfriend or husband.

Why is he getting grief for pointing out other people unfortunately have a different view?

because he's a man suggesting rape may actually be more complicated than 'man criminal woman victim'. There are people who will object to that almost as an act of dogma.

because he's a man suggesting rape may actually be more complicated than 'man criminal woman victim'. There are people who will object to that almost as an act of dogma.

It's only much more complicated than that. How much victim blaming goes on, such as "oh but she was drunk/dressed provocatively/walking outside alone, she deserved it" The default position for me looks like "Men can't stop their urges, it's women who should be careful", which is incredibly patronising and demeaning for men.