Maybe so, but going back to your example, the guy who shot you, would still be guilty of murder no matter how stupid or naive you were to enter the room!

That’s what I’m saying. Naivety and stupidity are nobody else’s fault.

@Kenneth, ehhh? If I entered the room it would because I was naive and stupid, and would have believed that his earlier threat was a bluff. This Swedish girl, was in my opinion naive and stupid, and thought these men were just being machos, and wouldn’t force the issue. I maybe wrong

@Daphne, yes I agree it is very sad, but the example I gave, had nothing to do with and legalisms. I stopped out of common decency, and perhaps I’m old fashioned in thinking if the woman says no then it’s not going to be much fun anyway. Had I ignored her no, would I have automatically become a rapist? I don’t think so. Should the law be involved? Probably not. I guess it all comes down to common decency, which unfortunately a lot of men (and yes even women) seem to have lost (or never had)

I think the effect of bringing the law into areas previously governed by decency and common sense has led to people losing their sense of decency and common sense. Try living in the UK!!

Well perhaps not “within your rights” a male in that situation can hardly be considered a rapist and locked up for life so to speak!

Suppose that I know that in the next room there is a person who has a gun and had told me a few minutes earlier that he wants to shoot me. Suppose I enter the room. The person shooting me would be guilty of murder, but it still would be my fault that I am killed.

I think the same applies here

Except in Ben Elton’s world the man saying no would have most likely been publicly persecuted.

[Daphne – It’s so sad that legalisms have come to regulate intimacy between men and women, don’t you think? It’s like a nightmare world dreamed up by Ben Elton.]

[Daphne – Ask your women friends and relatives what they think. But be sure to tell them that she went down to the beach at night with a bunch of strange men who were asking her for sex.]

A few years ago, a man was sentenced to a four year old jail term for the rape of a woman.

During the summary court proceedings, it emerged that the alleged victim had known her assailant and that they had been actually dating for a few weeks. Later on in the proceedings, the woman, pardoned the man and withdrew the complaint lodged to the police and which had given rise to the court proceedings. (Everyone is free to draw his/her own conclusions – but my personal view it does not sound like the typical behaviour of a rape victim).

In any case, although the alleged victim’s complaint was withdrawn, since the alleged rape had been perpetrated in a public place, the police could prosecute ex officio.This left the prosecution in the uncomfortable position of seeking a jail term for the alleged perpetrator, when the alleged injured party had pardoned her agreement and had incidentally resumed her relationship with the accused.

The alleged perpetrator was found guilty but in passing judgment, the Court, having taken into consideration the pardon of the alleged victim, sentenced the accused to a four year term suspended for two years.

End of it? – No!

Immediately after judgement, the Attorney General appealed and successfully argued that a suspended sentence was not permissible for the offence of rape, or for any criminal offce which carries a jail term exceeding four years (the jail term for rape is 3 – 9 years).

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and sentenced the man to four years imprisonment. The man is currently serving time.

He’s Libyan by the way.