Say no..to six bottles of wine
I'VE spent years banging on about women and rape and how No always means No.
And much of it has been aimed at men who, despite all evidence to the contrary, think No is the new Yes.
They're men who believe that when a woman says stridently (well, as stridently as she can when she's terrified) that she doesn't want sex, she's actually playing some S&M game-and she does really.
These are the blokes who believe that all women are "gagging for it", especially those who sport red lipstick, short skirts, stilettos or low-cut tops.
Their argument is that if women present themselves as sexual beings and "flaunt themselves in front of men"-ie walk around minding their own business-then neither men nor their penises can be blamed for what follows.
I've always believed women need to be protected by law from this kind of male predator.
However I'm beginning to think there needs to be a law to protect men against women who get through six bottles of wine in a sitting, who willingly consent to sex and then scream rape when they wake up the next morning feeling a bit ashamed about it.
I'm talking about Peter Bacon- the 26-year-old chef who was acquitted of rape last week after a 44-year-old woman lawyer, who still can't remember the sex actually happening, took him to court.
No matter this woman was so tanked she has no memory of the sex ever taking place. No matter that having downed four bottles of wine with her mate she then invited a man she barely knew into her home, drank two more bottles with him then took him up to her bedroom where she helped him take off her clothes and performed a sex act on him.
This woman described herself in court as a "recreational binge-drinker", which in plain language means she's a bit of a pisspot.
And while no man should ever be allowed to take advantage of a woman because she's drunk, you can understand Bacon's confusion when this woman came on to him, performed a sex act on him and then proceeded to have intercourse with him.
Why should Bacon, who'd also had a few drinks, be expected to take responsibility for this woman's body as well as his own? How, when his own judgement might have been impaired by alcohol, was he supposed to gauge exactly how much alcohol she'd had?
Rape is traumatic for women because it's not just about sex-it's about violence, it's about force, it's about fear. It's about not knowing whether you're going to live or die.
Women get raped every day in the most savage and horrendous of circumstances, and the mental and physical scars often stay with them forever. And yes, the men who do that to them should be locked up and treated like the animals they are.
But that didn't happen here.
Bacon's only crime was NOT saying No when this 44-year-old lawyer kept saying Yes, Yes, Yes.
"The law's been changed because of f***ers like you," she screamed at him the next morning, when she'd sobered up slightly-and it WAS only slightly, because she was still twice the legal limit when she was examined by a doctor later that day. The same doctor who confirmed she'd actually had sex because, until that moment, Madam didn't actually know for sure.
A jury took just 45 minutes to acquit Bacon because they obviously believed a woman can't drink numerous bottles of wine, take a man she barely knows into her bedroom and then not take responsibility for what follows.
They decided the so-called victim couldn't willingly have sex with a stranger then, having sobered up and regretted it, set about ruining his life in order to make HER feel better about what had happened.
And they were right.
No woman-particularly a lawyer -should be able to wield the law as a weapon to punish a man when, I suspect, the person she really wants to punish is herself for being so damned irresponsible.
It's grossly unfair that Mr Bacon was publicly branded a rapist and had to endure a year of hell until this came to court, while the woman who accused him remained anonymous.
And while she hides behind closed doors, she might like to look at how this happened to her. She ought to think about how HER body might just be HER responsibility.
And if she wants to continue to get bladdered that's fine-just don't expect the taxpayers to pick up a £90,000 bill for a case that should never have gone to court.
Get the News of the World print edition to read more from Carole Malone.
Please note: All comments are moderated.
Tick this box to accept our
TERMS & CONDITIONS
This article has 11 comments
This woman is a disgrace & has brought shame to herself & her profession.Thank god common sense prevailed in this case.I don't know anyone(men included)who drink to that extent.Mature women are the last you would expect to hear drinking themselves blotto like this.She needs to take a long hard look at herself(and maybe her profession)if her drinking is anything to go by! She hasn't done herself any favours by bringing this to court.She probably thought she would walk this case because of her profession.I hope she's learnt her lesson!
Anonymity should be given to both parties unless there is a conviction.In these sort of cases,time and time again,the fella always has his photo & name printed in all the tabloids BEFORE the outcome of the case.Why? How on earth is that fair? It's high time our mp's made themselves more useful(instead of counting their expenses) & raised this unfairness in the commons.The law clearly needs changing.Mud tends to stick in these sort of cases even though the fella has in this case been proved innocent.
By Steve M.. Posted April 13 2009 at 6:46 PM.
The woman is a disgrace and should never be allowed to practice as a lawyer again. Her name should be made known to the general public, she acted like a vulnerable victim without any thought of the poor man she falsely accused. If she can't remember what happened she should be seriously worried about her lifestyle. God knows she could go out and get drunk and do the same to another man. Women have to be careful about sexual predators but so should men, I'm just glad he will be able to put this behind him now.
By irene tirtoprodjo.. Posted April 12 2009 at 7:27 PM.
well wrote and fair article. its ridiculous this case ever went to court in the 1st place especially been as the women had no re-collection of the night and she may or may not have consented to sexual intercourse with this man. To send someone to jail for an offence means that you must be able to convict them being a reasonable doubt and idon't see how this gentleman given the facts we do now could have possibly been convicted or even charged. The doctor according to news reports never mentioned no tell tale signs of rape such as tearing and swelling of the vaginal wall you would expect if a woman had struggled not to have intercourse. then as the article says if he and she where both drinking who is to judge whether the gentleman was able enough to give reasonable consent so sureley she should have been charged for rape if he was as well. why do women always seem to get treated more leniently and favourably by the law and society in general. Womens rights have no surpassed mens maybe men should start and equal rights for men campaign. When a woman joins the army or police force the physical test achievements she needs to pass are lower than that of a man yet the woman would be payed equally even though she is possibly not capable as doing an equal days work to a man.
By simon h.. Posted March 30 2009 at 5:03 PM.
part 2 slighty different subject but is a continuaton of the previous point i've made, hopefully its been published. it about woman being treated in society better than men and men no longer have equal rights to a woman as womens rights due to pc gone mad have now surpassed a mans. when it comes to war the enemy or your collegue who needs you to hold a heavy bomb steadily in the air while its defused doesn't care about sex, the enemy would want to kill either man, woman or child or foe alike and someones collegue would like to know they are working with the best available person to safeley do the job. if it was found out that men had to meet a lower standard of achievement to get a job than a woman had to for whatever reason their would be a public outcry and general anger displayed by the tabloids..its a strange world but neverless is the truth!
By simon h.. Posted March 30 2009 at 5:05 PM.
So if this binge drinking woman is not responsable for her actions when drunk, can the same be said for the thousands of peeheads, who fight, urinate and vandalize in our streets every weekend.
Of course not.
By Marko.. Posted March 29 2009 at 7:25 PM.
In a real country and not Broken Britain this case would not have been anywhere near a court......how the hell, given the evidence, did the police or the CPS think they would get a conviction.
In these cases either both parties should be named or neither....it is not right that only one of them is named at present......and this woman should certainly be named if only to protect any future men in her life.
By Mikesell .. Posted March 29 2009 at 7:01 PM.
i was in the sam situation months back, celebrating with friends, bloke walks me home, invite him in, have a kiss, pass out, bloke goes no further.
Her problem she doesn't remember anything before she passed out i did? You can say no drunk! This is my point.
By may.. Posted March 29 2009 at 5:01 PM.
This man wasn't the vacuous dullard she assumed him to be. Quite the contrary, she claims not to have known of his presence at her home until the morning, then how would she explain how he got to her home in the first place (taking him there was the only way).
What annoys me evern more from this lawyer, is that, she still accepts no responsibility for the predicament she found herself in. May I suggest any man drinking with this woman in a casual environment, stay sober the entire time and refrain from enjoying himself, in order to stop this woman causing hullabaloo wherever she lay her court room cap.
Kind regards,
Wayne Davies.
By Wayne Davies.. Posted March 29 2009 at 3:37 PM.
You're spot on Carole. I find myself questioning the amount she claims to have drunk... I simply cannot comprehend someone drinking 6 bottles of wine. I like a few glasses of wine but on the odd occasion that I've drunk too much of it, I've fallen asleep after the equivalent of a bottle and a half! 6 bottles and I'd be in a coma or in hospital!
By Vic.. Posted March 29 2009 at 3:31 PM.
I feel sorry for the guy having to wait 12 months to be found not guilty she should be named and shamed just in case she tries it on again when shes bladdered and all court costs should be paid by her for wasting police time and honest tax payers money
By susanah.. Posted March 29 2009 at 12:32 PM.
Quite right. This woman's name should be made public.
By Christine.. Posted March 29 2009 at 9:28 AM.