Monday 17th October

Well, the jury has spoken, of course the jury has spoken twice – once five years ago when they found him guilty of rape, and now not guilty of rape.  So, what are we to think. To be perfectly honest, and of course from a male perspective, I don’t think that the case should have been brought in the first place.  Long before he was released and re-tried I couldn’t help but feel uneasy about the case.  Of course, none of us can possibly know exactly what went on in that hotel room, most of us lie or dissemble to protect our behaviour.  And let us be clear here, the behaviour of both Ched Evans and the girl, and the other footballer too was not good.  I am not defending any of them, but I am not sure that when I was that young and that inebriated I would have behaved any better.

I am more concerned with what this whole fiasco has done for sexual relations between the sexes.  Part of the problem I think comes with the difference between the legal definition of rape and the common perception of that term.  Of course before having sex with another person consent should be given, but in the heat and passion of the moment how many people actually ask their partner for permission to penetrate their body; it is done by body language and signals which are far harder to define and sometimes to actually discern.  I am also concerned with the prosecution’s argument that the girl in question was too drunk to have possibly consented.  What does that mean?  Was she unconscious?  Was she too drunk to have known what was happening?  Or is her, and incidentally Evan’s admitted, drunkenness an excuse for behaviour that the parties involved were later ashamed of.  And the common perception is, of course, that if a girl allows herself to get that drunk she is putting herself in a dangerous place and can hardly complain if things get out of hand.  And alcohol is a very common ingredient in dating and consensual sex, or what used to be called seduction; both parties using it as a possible excuse for agreeing earlier than they might otherwise have done to actually have sex.  I am more and more convinced that there should be a re-defining of the term rape, and possibly a new lesser offence of having sex without consent.  Lawyers would undoubtedly have a field day, but more and more these cases influence the common perception that rape without violence is not in fact rape, and that of course is dangerous for women who are raped.  The only good thing which may come out of all of this is that young footballers may in future be far more careful in their relations with both alcohol and women.  Also of course the two people involved have been through an awful ordeal which is still not over and may affect them for years to come.  It is also becoming more and more clear that both those accused of rape and those complaining must remain anonymous until a verdict of guilty is actually reached.