Saturday 15 November 2014

Allison Pearson Will Catch Hell For This From The Feminists…

…but she’s absolutely spot on:
…the Ched Evans story is far more problematic than that of a priapic predator in a dark underpass. I’ve spent two grim days reading about everything the former Welsh international did in a hotel in Rhyl in 2011. I have come to three conclusions.
The first is that the verdict of the jury was inconsistent and quite possibly unsafe.
The second is that the football pitches of England would be half-empty this Saturday afternoon if you removed every player who has done what Evans did. (And so would many of the clubs and pubs.)
The third conclusion is probably the most troubling. We live in an era where relationships among the young have changed beyond recognition. Casual hook-ups and the exchange of sexual favours are the norm. Even “nice” girls allow themselves to be used like inflatable dolls. (If confident enough, they can use men like playthings in return.) In such a free-for-all, what is meant by “consensual sex” becomes more and more blurred.
I couldn't agree more with every word.

And in a world where a man who has taken part in a momentous scientific achievement can be humiliated and forced into a grovelling apology by the sort of morons who can barely work the smartphones they use to register their supercilious disapproval of his 'disrespectful' attire, it's (sadly) probably a dangerous opinion for her to have ventured...

But, as her column shows (and this gels with what I've heard in my own office) it's actually the mainstream opinion:
My informal jury at the beauty salon concluded that, if you go to a hotel room with a footballer, “you’re not going to end up playing Scrabble, are you?” Unlike the law of the land, the twentysomething therapists believe that young women like them have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and not rely on the bloke “to know whether you want it or not”.
The online vocal hordes are not as representative as they'd like us to believe.

12 comments:

James Higham said...

Hmmmm, ambivalent on this one. See your point but also see Jessica Ennis's.

Anonymous said...

The crucial point in my mind is that even if he was guilty why should he be banned from playing football for ever.If he was a plumber could he not "plumb" again?
What do the harpies want? For him to go on benefits for the rest of his life?
The girl in question willingly shagged the other footballer she'd just met but not Evans.
I think he will be cleared eventually.
Jaded

Woman on a Raft said...

Rape hinges on the concept that consent makes what would otherwise be an offence in to an allowable act. The 'default' setting is 'no'. It requires explicit consent. It follows that the capacity to give that consent must also be present. Someone drunk is regarded as capable of consent but someone on the verge of unconscious is not.

Most of the dispute is about whether consent - and it means reliable consent - was present. The line is difficult to draw in intimate situations. We all know that.

We no longer have the doctrine of on-going consent, so that being married does not entail on-going consent. Outside marriage we have never had the concept that if you consent to one act, you consent to all acts. The Rotherham taxi driver who says 'she consented to sex with me' cannot use that consent for his mates. Going in to a room with someone still does not entail implicit consent, however unwise the situation. The defendants were therefore tried individually.

The jury here was not required to be consistent. Consenting to one act does not entail consenting to all acts. It was open to them to find - as they did - that the first defendant either had consent or had an honest and reasonable belief in it.

The jury decided that the second defendant had no such defence. Accordingly, they convicted him.

On appeal the conviction was upheld.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

I am not an online vocal hoard. I am someone who can read a case better than Alison Pearson can, and I don't regard putting words in the mouths of 17 year old beauty therapists as a persuasive argument. But then, I also don't think that women who show their hair are obviously inciting the uncontrollable passions of fwits.

In the character stakes, cheating on your girlfriend, lying to obtain a room key, and having sex with a drunken woman you have not met before incline me to think that this is the sort of person who might well think that sex without consent was a huge adrenalin rush. Sex, remember, was widely available to him through his girlfriend, any number of explicitly consenting women, not to mention the more orthodox practice of simply hiring a prostitute who definitely does consent.

Why, then, seek sex with someone whose capacity to consent was in doubt? That is precisely what rapists do. If one does not wish to be mistaken for a duck, best not walk about quacking.

Ian Hills said...

It's nice to know that not all female journalists - and this includes bloggers too - are man-hating bitches. (Kath Lissenden is another case in point.)

Jaded's comment indicates the steady advance of corporate fascism, where unaccountable bodies assume more control over our lives. In this case the FA.

Jim said...

I'd have more agreement with WOAR's moral stance if I thought it applied to women who sleep with drunk men as much as men who sleep with drunk women.

When is the first woman going to be prosecuted for raping a man who wakes up next morning in bed next to a right munter and no recollection of how he got there?

Indeed what was Evan's level of intoxication on the night in question? One assumes that footballers on a lads night out aren't drinking Perrier. There's every chance he too was many times over the drink driving limit - if two intoxicated people sleep together why should the man alone hold the responsibility for determining if the woman is too drunk to consent?

Anonymous said...

Woman on a Raft said...

"On appeal the conviction was upheld."

Because there was no significant new evidence and there were no procedural errors.

A normal appeal can't change a jury verdict just because they think it was wrong.

Chris Oakley said...

The attitude of "feminists" in this particular case has, in my view, reversed years of progress on sexual equality.

Essentially the feminists and their allegedly progressive friends have undermined respect for the law by simultaneously using it as an excuse for their extremism and aggression whilst claiming that the law's punishment is not enough and that they have the right through other means of effectively imposing a life sentence that is over and above the punishment the law recognises for the crime involved

I do understand the sentiment behind some of the emotional outpourings, but this is a really bad case on which to base any rational attempt to make progress on improving relations between the sexes and reducing the incidence of violence against women.

It is sheer idiocy or perhaps arrogance to believe that extending Evans' punishment beyond what the law requires under the circumstances of this case will make anything better.

I despair for our society and for the cause of genuine equality. This case has demonstrated how divided we really are.

JuliaM said...

"See your point but also see Jessica Ennis's."

I'm afraid I can't. It's too much like bandwagon-jumping and 'look at me!'ism...

"The girl in question willingly shagged the other footballer she'd just met but not Evans."

For once, Jaded, spot on!

If she's being called 'a slag' on social media, well, yes. What else would you call such a girl?

" It follows that the capacity to give that consent must also be present. Someone drunk is regarded as capable of consent but someone on the verge of unconscious is not."

I'd love to know just when 'drunk but able to consent to the other footballer' became 'too drunk to consent to Evans', wouldn't you?

And...several people are in a room, all having taken drink. Yet only those with a penis bear any responsibility in law for what happens next?

My, the properties of a vagina are far more extensive than I ever learned in biology lessons!

"In the character stakes, cheating on your girlfriend, lying to obtain a room key, and having sex with a drunken woman you have not met before incline me to think that this is the sort of person who might well think that sex without consent was a huge adrenalin rush."

Then why isn't he out stalking the streets? It seems to me if that was your 'thing' you'd make damn sure you got it, not rely on 'Blurred Lines' situations (like so many other people in your 'industry').

JuliaM said...

"It's nice to know that not all female journalists - and this includes bloggers too - are man-hating bitches. "

We really aren't!

And as Allison's experience in the beauty parlour shows, nor are most women. Sadly, the ones that are, are vocal beyond their number in the equation.

"When is the first woman going to be prosecuted for raping a man who wakes up next morning in bed next to a right munter and no recollection of how he got there?"

Never. The offence of rape requires penetration. For a man, it would have to be sexual assault.

"...if two intoxicated people sleep together why should the man alone hold the responsibility for determining if the woman is too drunk to consent?"

THIS! Squared.

"It is sheer idiocy or perhaps arrogance to believe that extending Evans' punishment beyond what the law requires under the circumstances of this case will make anything better. "

And if it succeeds, the 'Guardian' mods are going to be busy, because I for one will bring it up under every criminal-coddling article about rehabilitation of offenders and how we should not bar them from employment on release.

Flaxen Saxon said...

Legal definitions when applied to human behaviour are difficult and fraught with contradictions. Consent can be withdrawn up to the point of consensual sex. If the man continues this is deemed rape. People, and especially young people, have to take care in their social interactions. Of course, this the counsel of perfection. When young we are not always prudent. We grow wise with age. Perhaps if everyone was ready made at 45 we wouldn't have these issues and advocates would be flipping burgers at Maccas.

Anonymous said...

FOR ONCE? FOR ONCE? I'm always right Julia, you just haven't realised it yet....resistance is futile...
Jaded

Anonymous said...

"FOR ONCE? FOR ONCE? I'm always right Julia"

You two must get a room and eat out.