LAWS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT

(Comments: tony.papard@btinternet.com)

I am quite worried about the way the UK's laws on sexual assault and rape are heading. We now have the suggestion that if someone is intoxicated they are in no position to give their consent to sexual intercourse, and we already have the relatively new notion of 'rape' within a marriage.

It seems the distinction between serious sexual assaults and rapes, often by complete strangers, and maybe a bit of harmless 'hanky-panky' which one party later feels got out of hand, are being blurred.

Let's take the alcohol question first, or indeed any situation where a person's judgment may be clouded, such as if they are on drugs. Obviously giving someone a 'date rape' type drug to take advantage of them must be regarded as a serious offense. Similarly deliberately getting them so drunk they don't know what they are doing, in order to take advantage of them in this state. But there are many situations outside these two extremes. I know of people, my life-partner was one, who could not even THINK of sex, or of doing anything sexual at all, unless they were on some kind of drug, in his case 'speed'. I know of others, such as some bisexuals, who need considerable amounts of alcohol to indulge in any form of gay sex. They don't regret it when they are sober, but they need a few drinks to lose their inhibitions. To say their sexual partners are then guilty of 'rape' or 'sexual assault' is plainly nonsense. I don't know about the straight scene, but in gay backroom clubs most people are drinking and often taking drugs, and then indulging in sexual encounters. Are they all to be accused of raping each other? I hope, and assume, one party would have to be deemed absolutely paralytic and out-of-it before a judge could rule they were in no stage to give their consent.

Then let's take marriage, or civil partnerships. Not so long ago it was taken that both men and women in a marriage had conjugal rights, that's correct, RIGHTS! In other words, if the man, or the woman, didn't agree to consummate the marriage, it was annulled, or at least grounds for divorce. Now women seem to be able to fall back on the old excuse of 'a headache' or not being 'in the mood' and their husbands dare not press the point for fear of being accused of rape. I find the notion of rape within marriage or a civil partnership very strange indeed. Surely when these couples get married/enter into a civil partnership they agree to sexual relations by that very contract? This physical aspect of the relationship may become less important, and die out as the emotional takes hold, but if one partner is not happy with this situation it is grounds for divorce, not to be accused of rape. They may not be in the mood at certain times, but can they really claim it was 'rape' if the other partner goes a little too far when they are not 'in the mood'? If they don't want sexual relations any more, get a divorce. If it is just a temporary reluctance and their partner forces the issue, then whatever it is it can hardly be put in the same category as rape by a complete stranger on an unwilling victim. There is also the question of when 'no' really means 'no' and not: 'I want you to be the dominant partner and take the lead'. This does happen in marriages and relationships, although it may not be fashionable to say so. The whole realm of S&M sex revolves around this issue, which is why code words are often used so each party knows when 'no' really means 'no' and not 'yes'.

This seems to me to be very dangerous territory. Do we want lawyers and judges in the bedrooms of married and co-habiting couples? What next, CCTV cameras and audio recorders in our bedrooms? Rape is very hard to prove, even between complete strangers, unless there is physical evidence, usually of extreme violence or force being used. It usually boils down to one person's word against another. It is all very well for women, and men, to complain about the difficulty of proving they were raped, but the level of proof NEEDS to be quite high. Otherwise it is all to easy for people to agree to sexual intercourse, then change their minds later, for whatever reason, and claim they were raped. There are very seldom witnesses to testify in court on behalf of either party.

I don't know what the answers are on this very sensitive subject, but saying anyone who has had a few beers and then has sexual intercourse has been 'raped' is clearly going too far. As I've already said, many people can't perform sexually at all without some kind of stimulant such as alcohol or a drug. And what if both partners have had a few drinks? Who 'raped' who, or can they charge each other with 'rape'? This is political correctness gone beserk.

The lawyers, judges and legislators must move extremely cautiously on any reform of our existing laws in this area.

HOME