'Gay' Mullingar chef convicted of rape

padser · 14-07-2014 12:48PM

Medusa22 wrote: »

I was referring to any kind of reckless behaviour. I am not of the opinion that what a woman wears or how she behaves has any bearing on whether she is raped or not or that she is somehow to blame.

However, if you do walk into a mens' prison naked then of course in an ideal world you would not be raped, but this is reality and it is sensible to take precautions and protect yourself. That is the point I was making.

Yeah the sensitivities now around "victim blaming" are absolutely crazy.

It's absolutely possible to question the choices someone makes or even to say "what they did was pretty reckless and invited a high degree of danger on themselves" without in any way diminishing the level of responsibility on the person who commits the offence.

Did she deserve what happened to her? Of course not. Does she have a degree of blame for what happened to her. Of course not. Was going home with a guy she just met to an empty apartment probably something which increased her risk factor. Absolutely. Was she influenced in her decision to do that because she though he was gay. Probably.

Muise... · 14-07-2014 12:53PM

long range shooter wrote: »

and a bisexual flat then

that'd be a mezzanine.

Wibbs · 14-07-2014 01:00PM

padser wrote: »

Did she deserve what happened to her? Of course not. Does she have a degree of blame for what happened to her. Of course not. Was going home with a guy she just met to an empty apartment probably something which increased her risk factor. Absolutely. Was she influenced in her decision to do that because she though he was gay. Probably.

Whoa, hang on there a sec. Now I'm well on board with the idea that "victim blaming" as a meme is too often used to shut down debate, but in this case I'd love to know what anyone could have done to see that coming. Men and women go to other peoples houses every day of the week and as Whoops pointed out no one has any expectation of being assaulted never mind raped. And in 99.9% of case everything is cool. The risk factors of being raped are pretty damn low overall. That's why sensible precautions are incredibly hard to pin down, never mind take. Not leaving your house. Ever. Yea that might do it. Oh wait women have been raped by burglars. Back to drawing board.

whirlpool · 14-07-2014 01:10PM

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-lured-lesbian-back-to-his-gay-flat-where-he-raped-her-30423668.html

I only heard about this now on the radio. Absolutely horrid stuff and I hope his victim finds peace in his conviction.

The thing I find so jarring though is that she trusted a stranger, simply because he claimed he was gay. As if being gay instantly nullified the guy as a threat in her mind.

Of course, this isn't 'victim blaming' on my part, the woman was in no way at fault. I just think it's an interesting premise to put to gay and straight men alike. I mean have ever come across this opinion before? That you are viewed as 'harmless' because of your sexuality, or because of how you're perceived to be (article alludes to the man being quiet and personality quickly changing)?

And for the ladies, how would you view such a situation, would you be more trusting of a stranger who simply claims to not be a threat? I think we've all gone back to a randomers house to keep the party going at one point, but never on our own.

It seems rational to me to assume that someone who isn't attracted to women isn't going to want to sexually assault a woman.

Obviously, this is not always the case, but it does seem like a rational assumption to make. You seem to think it's an irrational assumption to make - is that what you're saying?

Medusa22 · 14-07-2014 01:19PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Whoa, hang on there a sec. Now I'm well on board with the idea that "victim blaming" as a meme is too often used to shut down debate, but in this case I'd love to know what anyone could have done to see that coming. Men and women go to other peoples houses every day of the week and as Whoops pointed out no one has any expectation of being assaulted never mind raped. And in 99.9% of case everything is cool. The risk factors of being raped are pretty damn low overall. That's why sensible precautions are incredibly hard to pin down, never mind take. Not leaving your house. Ever. Yea that might do it. Oh wait women have been raped by burglars. Back to drawing board.

I don't want to remove responsibility in any way from the rapist but I am surprised that you are struggling to see how to minimise the risks here. Yes, of course people go into a strangers' house or let a stranger into their house every day but usually for a specific purpose, perhaps a UPC worker or someone else doing a service for you.

You are right in saying that there is no way to completely remove risks, like you said, even if you stay in your house then a burglar can break in and assault you. However, time of day is also relevant, and going to a stranger's house at night after being in a nightclub (and possibly being inebriated) is a more risky situation than letting a UPC worker into your house to look at your tv during the day.

Although if I know that I will be meeting a stranger, such as someone that I have bought something online from and I am picking it up, I would always bring someone else with me, to further diminish risk.

Ideally I shouldn't have to do that, and if someone assaults me it is completely their fault, but I do that to keep myself safe and I'd suggest the same to others. It is about personal safety and responsibility more than anything.

RaRaRasputin · 14-07-2014 01:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard. Seriously. You can't see the difference between a driver accidentally hitting a person who walks into the road, and someone who purposely rapes an entirely innocent person?

Man, if that's the kind of mindset rape victims have to face, is it any wonder the figures for reporting attacks is so low.

I don't quite see why you are getting so hysterical here. To me the scenario was supposed to be a comparison of situations in which some extra caution could have prevented a situation which is fair enough.

Nobody here claimed the woman was to blame for what happened to her, but I wonder why/ how so many people still think it's OK to trust a stranger without any reservations...because it is not.

Soft Falling Rain · 14-07-2014 01:34PM

whirlpool wrote: »

It seems rational to me to assume that someone who isn't attracted to women isn't going to want to sexually assault a woman.

Obviously, this is not always the case, but it does seem like a rational assumption to make. You seem to think it's an irrational assumption to make - is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. RaRaRasputin put it best

Nobody here claimed the woman was to blame for what happened to her, but I wonder why/ how so many people still think it's OK to trust a stranger without any reservations...because it is not.

Amirani · 14-07-2014 01:37PM

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Nobody here claimed the woman was to blame for what happened to her, but I wonder why/ how so many people still think it's OK to trust a stranger without any reservations...because it is not.

Who said she had no reservations?

Some people obviously have very different levels of risk aversion here. I've done similar to the woman in question on a number of occasion, as I'm sure have plenty of others on here. 99%+ of the time, there's not going to be any issues and you'll have a fun time.

floggg · 14-07-2014 01:48PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Who said she had no reservations?

Some people obviously have very different levels of risk aversion here. I've done similar to the woman in question on a number of occasion, as I'm sure have plenty of others on here. 99%+ of the time, there's not going to be any issues and you'll have a fun time.

Exactly. I have done it plenty of times, be it for parties or sex. As have most people here.

And don't the statistics say that you are more likely to be raped by somebody you know? Which means you can never really tell when you might be at risk.

So if you argue that going back to somebody's house on the first night is risky, so too is going back to their house after 5 dates, or two years of friendship.

You have no way of knowing what will happen of when.

And the only safe way to avoid being assaulted (sexual or otherwise) is to avoid all contact with people.

I really don't think people should be debating a specific case and what you shouldn't have done.

There is a real victim here and I would hate for her, or her friends and family, to have to think people were debating her actions and questioning whether she was reckless or not.

Soft Falling Rain · 14-07-2014 01:49PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Who said she had no reservations?

Some people obviously have very different levels of risk aversion here. I've done similar to the woman in question on a number of occasion, as I'm sure have plenty of others on here. 99%+ of the time, there's not going to be any issues and you'll have a fun time.

I have as well. But, speaking personally and using myself as an example, I wouldn't be comfortable heading to a stranger's house without anyone I knew. That's not about being a wet blanket or having a high "risk aversion" born out of paranoia, it's just how I exercise caution.

RaRaRasputin · 14-07-2014 01:50PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Who said she had no reservations?

Some people obviously have very different levels of risk aversion here. I've done similar to the woman in question on a number of occasion, as I'm sure have plenty of others on here. 99%+ of the time, there's not going to be any issues and you'll have a fun time.

Yes, 99% of the time still leaves 1% of risk that you might run into a bastard. So if you want to be safe don't do it. There is no way of knowing who you just met, so you wouldnt want to be on your on own in their territory.

miss no stars · 14-07-2014 01:52PM

few years ago I started a new job.

All the new starts had a night out to get to know each other, some people brought along flatmates and so on who were also new to the area and trying to make friends. Fair enough, fairly standard.

I can't remember why I couldn't get the nitelink home, I'm guessing it was something other than Friday or Saturday, but for whatever reason I was facing a taxi ride home on my own. Pricey, the guts of €40. One of the lads said to me "We can share a taxi back to mine, it's only about a tenner in total, the you can get the bus home tomorrow if you want". He seemed nice, we'd chatted once or twice before, he wasn't making any effort to chat me up or anything, I had no reason not to trust him, so I crashed on his couch. He didn't have to claim to be gay for me to trust him and I'm sure there are thousands of women out there who've also crashed on a straight guy's couch after a night out. All turned out fine. In fact, I ended up moving in with him.

What's the point of that little story?

People trust others all the time. She had no reason to suspect he'd rape her. So stop victim blaming.

RDM_83 again · 14-07-2014 02:06PM

Its a bit silly making the comparison between the standard calling into somes house and the heading back on your own to some-ones gaff that you've literally just met after drinking
Obviously 99% of the time its fine but i've known guys to get a kicking at randomers houses and a guy i knew murdered last year after doing something similar. Bad shiit does happen occasionally to both men and woman, the vast majority of people are grand but its in no way victim blaming to point out that certain situations are more risky than others.

Soft Falling Rain · 14-07-2014 02:13PM

miss no stars wrote: »

So stop victim blaming.

Except no-one is doing that, and I've explained what I've thought about victim blaming more than once. So I would appreciate it if people stopped making this accusation.

You gauged the situation based on a number of variables such as the fact you worked with the guy and it wasn't the first night you had met him (and yes I know about the stats saying most rapists are known to their victim).

Would you say you would have made the same decision if didn't work with guy, and was someone you had only met on that actual night?

whirlpool · 14-07-2014 02:13PM

She was silly and naive to go back to the apartment of a stranger, regardless of the gender or the sexual preferences of anyone involved. She made a mistake. She has more than paid for that mistake.

Amirani · 14-07-2014 02:17PM

whirlpool wrote: »

She was silly and naive to go back to the apartment of a stranger, regardless of the gender or the sexual preferences of anyone involved. She made a mistake. She has more than paid for that mistake.

I wouldn't call it silly and naive. I've done it plenty of times as have friends of mine, despite knowing the inherent dangers. You make probabilistic decisions every day of your life. The overwhelming probability was that nothing would happen to her, as is the case with most people, she unfortunately got unlucky.

If you want to completely avoid being raped like you seem intent to do, you probably should avoid having close family or friends, because you're more likely to get raped by one of them.

miss no stars · 14-07-2014 02:19PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its a bit silly making the comparison between the standard calling into somes house and the heading back on your own to some-ones gaff that you've literally just met after drinking
Obviously 99% of the time its fine but i've known guys to get a kicking at randomers houses and a guy i knew murdered last year after doing something similar. Bad shiit does happen occasionally to both men and woman, the vast majority of people are grand but its in no way victim blaming to point out that certain situations are more risky than others.

I'm going to assume this was in response to me?

So let me clarify what I was saying.

1. She didn't know the guy. I also didn't know the guy whose house I stayed in. I'd talked to him once or twice before ("Hi, I'm XXX"; "Oh Hi I'm XXX, Nice to meet you, whose group are you working in?" "Oh I'm in XXX's group, which office are you in?" "Oh I'm in the lab, anyway, was just getting a cup of tea, better head back to it, see you around" "yeah sure, might see you at the night out" sorta stuff). The couple of minutes of chat before the night out is hardly enough to determine "not a rapist" if you want to take the approach that everyone is a rapist until proven otherwise.

2. The first time I properly spoke to him was with drink taken. Much the same.

3. I had no reason to suspect he was interested in me, much the same as this girl had no reason to suspect her attacker had any interest in her. Actually, I should have had more reason to given that my friend's not gay, nor am I.

4. Most people aren't rapists.

5. Taking a suspicious approach to life where you question the morality of everyone and believe everyone to harbour bad intentions towards you is called paranoia.

Anyone who drinks makes decisions with drink taken after a night out. You have to - you've to get home! But how are you going to do that? Do you get into a taxi in the middle of the night on your own? Do you head back for a few beers with someone and crash on the couch of someone you've spent the whole night with and make your way home the next morning? Making that decision means weighing up the associated risks of both. If I have no reason to be suspicious of the person in question, I'm open to both options.

Saying that she made a bad decision can only be said if she was making that decision in a vacuum - she wasn't - she was weighing it up against other options that all came with their own risks. So I'll reiterate - most people aren't rapists. So few actually are (and so many rapes are carried out by someone well known to the victim) that it's abnormal to add undue weight to it in assessing the risks.

iDave · 14-07-2014 02:21PM

Whats the thread about again?
A girl got raped right? If so lock him up.

miss no stars · 14-07-2014 02:25PM

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Except no-one is doing that, and I've explained what I've thought about victim blaming more than once. So I would appreciate it if people stopped making this accusation.

You gauged the situation based on a number of variables such as the fact you worked with the guy and it wasn't the first night you had met him (and yes I know about the stats saying most rapists are known to their victim).

Would you say you would have made the same decision if didn't work with guy, and was someone you had only met on that actual night?

My comment wasn't specifically aimed at you, it was aimed at the general trend in this thread to lay the blame on her. Most of us who've ever had a social life (not that I have one at all atm but that's another matter) have crashed in someone's house. She made the same decision that thousands of people have made many times before. She got unlucky. End of.

As for whether I'd have made the same decision? I don't know. Possibly, possibly not. If it was his housemate who I'd never met before that night, I'd probably have crashed there yeah.

padser · 14-07-2014 02:30PM

miss no stars wrote: »

few years ago I started a new job.

All the new starts had a night out to get to know each other, some people brought along flatmates and so on who were also new to the area and trying to make friends. Fair enough, fairly standard.

I can't remember why I couldn't get the nitelink home, I'm guessing it was something other than Friday or Saturday, but for whatever reason I was facing a taxi ride home on my own. Pricey, the guts of €40. One of the lads said to me "We can share a taxi back to mine, it's only about a tenner in total, the you can get the bus home tomorrow if you want". He seemed nice, we'd chatted once or twice before, he wasn't making any effort to chat me up or anything, I had no reason not to trust him, so I crashed on his couch. He didn't have to claim to be gay for me to trust him and I'm sure there are thousands of women out there who've also crashed on a straight guy's couch after a night out. All turned out fine. In fact, I ended up moving in with him.

What's the point of that little story?

People trust others all the time. She had no reason to suspect he'd rape her. So stop victim blaming.

Yeah that makes complete sense.

I went home with a stranger. He didn't rape me. Therefore it's obviously a safe thing to do.

Furthermore it also means anyone suggesting that going home alone with a stranger increased this girls risk factor is victim blaming.

miss no stars · 14-07-2014 02:37PM

padser wrote: »

Furthermore it also means anyone suggesting that going home alone with a stranger increased this girls risk factor is victim blaming.

No it doesn't, as I said above she didn't make the decision in a vacuum. If she said no and got a taxi home on her own and the driver raped her, people would be on here spouting about how she had been offered a nice safe couch from a gay guy she'd spent the whole night with so why did she get into a taxi on her own ffs? Or if she was standing on D'Oilear street on her own at 4 in the morning and got attacked, why didn't she get a taxi or crash at someone's house?

brian_ire · 14-07-2014 02:58PM

This thread shows exactly how much further our society has to come in terms of dealing with rape culture and yes, victim blaming.

Victim blaming is often unintentional, as you can see throughout this thread by those actively saying that they are not, when actually they are. The second you question the "decisions" of somebody who has been raped you are by default apportioning some of the blame to that person. Unfortunately the society we have been raised in has trained us to think that women needed to be protected and therefore a woman choosing to go home with somebody she just met is "risky" while if the gender roles were reversed then very little risk is present.

To be clear there should be nothing risky about taking a taxi ride with somebody you just met or going home with somebody you just met. The way our society seems to talk about this "risk" must have some affect on the psychology of a rapist and the thought process of "well she obviously wants it or she wouldn't have come back here with me".

And don't get me started on the Indo's headline, how the sexual orientation of the victim is relevant and deserving of a headline spot is beyond me, let alone giving an inanimate object like an apartment a sexual orientation as well!

Wibbs · 14-07-2014 03:18PM

brian_ire wrote: »

This thread shows exactly how much further our society has to come in terms of dealing with rape culture and yes, victim blaming.

The very second I read "rape culture" I usually have a hard time going along with what follows. Describing most societies as "rape cultures" is well within the realms of histrionic fantasy. And before you or anyone else brings up the one in four stat I'll happily and easily tear that one apart.

Victim blaming is often unintentional, as you can see throughout this thread by those actively saying that they are not, when actually they are. The second you question the "decisions" of somebody who has been raped you are by default apportioning some of the blame to that person.

Ok let's take an example. Man and woman get drunk in a pub/club. Meet up, dance or whatever and start snogging, go back to his or hers, get hot and heavy, foreplay kicks off and they get hotter and heavier and intercourse kicks off, she decides - which is 110% her right BTW - that she doesn't want to continue what has already started, but he doesn't take no for an answer. Is he a rapist? Yep he is. Is she anyway complicit in what led up to that point? Apparently not.

Unfortunately the society we have been raised in has trained us to think that women needed to be protected and therefore a woman choosing to go home with somebody she just met is "risky" while if the gender roles were reversed then very little risk is present.

Nonsense. Far more men are at risk of assault on a night out. Their overall risk is higher.

To be clear there should be nothing risky about taking a taxi ride with somebody you just met or going home with somebody you just met. The way our society seems to talk about this "risk" must have some affect on the psychology of a rapist and the thought process of "well she obviously wants it or she wouldn't have come back here with me".

Well clearly the risk is very low. Many thousands upon thousands of women take taxis and go home with men they've just met and nothing at all untoward happens. You've just disproved we live in anything approaching a "rape culture".

And don't get me started on the Indo's headline, how the sexual orientation of the victim is relevant and deserving of a headline spot is beyond me, let alone giving an inanimate object like an apartment a sexual orientation as well!

I'm with you 100% on this point. Well it is an Irish newspaper. Well known for pure drivel masquerading as journalism.

TeddyTedson · 14-07-2014 03:19PM

Poor woman. He completely deceived her and I imagine she'll find it very hard to trust any man again after such an awful experience. The amount of times I've crashed in places of people I've only met on a night out and thankfully never once had a negative experience. It's really sad actually because I don't think it's something people should worry about because it's something that just shouldn't happen and in reality is unlikely to happen. Obviously though you just never know.

humanji · 14-07-2014 03:30PM

I'm going to have to close this as it's referencing a specific case and as such is unfair to the person involved. But that said, the topic itself is worthy of discussion, so if anyone wants to start a new thread on the topic and not go into details about specific cases, then please feel free.

'Gay' Mullingar chef convicted of rape

Comments