The Fernieside Three Campaign

 By Carole Malone,

28/03/2009

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.