Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Courts Reject "Romeo & Juliet Law" Challenge

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    I think you may be missing my point.

    Sexual/Vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse are two different sexual acts.

    The only act girls are immune from prosecution for engaging in while underage is sexual intercourse.

    So while she can't be prosecuted for having sex with him, surely she can be prosecuted for having anal sex with him?


  • Options
    #123
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    I am not playing naive, I am simply saying she said she felt forced and pressured into it.

    i am dubious about that too. Rape cannot be post-hoc. If she agreed, despite being fearful, she consented. Unless that consent was predicated on physical violence then it is consent - however lightly given - and the guy could not have been of "guilty mind".

    That is only relevant were they of the age of majority anyway. As minors the law is discriminatory against guys which is the topic.


  • Options
    #124
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    So while she can't be prosecuted for having sex with him, surely she can be prosecuted for having anal sex with him?

    I was going to mention this actually. If she consented to anal sex, she should be prosecuted ( or else the judge is saying that vaginal sex over-rides the anal, since she could become pregnant and one normal act of sexual intercourse makes her innocent of numerous other acts which would otherwise have incriminated her).

    What a crazy law.


  • Options
    #125
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Pittens wrote: »
    What a crazy law.

    A crazy law that was introduced in a rush to appease crazy people.


  • Options
    #126
    consultech
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,956 ✭✭✭consultech


    Presumably a supreme court challenge will follow? I reckon the charges will be "Nolle Pros'ed" at that point. God forbid the SC allow it go to Europe for them to absolutely laugh their heads off at our ruling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    A recent Crisis Pregnancy Agency campaign stated that a 1/3 of males and a 1/4 of females had their first sexual experience before they were 17. Assuming most were having sex with people their own age, this law is in affect criminalising 33% of teenage boys before their 17th birthday. This is utterly ridiculous.


  • Options
    #128
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I realise that and all I said was "stick to the facts".

    That is not being aggressive.
    I find you aggressive and overbearing at times - that is not intended as an insult (up to you how you take it), it is simply my opinion.
    You keep on going off on nonsensical tangents
    How do I "keep" going off on such tangents here, and why do you think "they" are nonsensical?
    Why can't you just admit that the law is sexist and discriminatory in the extreme without all these side comments?
    I already did "admit" (as if I'd have a problem with saying it) that the law is sexist and discriminatory against men. I told you before, I did a pretty big research project into this issue, and got some of it published.

    I did not mention the thing about the girl saying she felt forced and pressured into anal sex in a "oh yeah, the law is terrible to men, but..." way, but I knew it would be received as such. She may not have been bullsh1tting, that's all.

    Oh look, three people voted in favour of this law, but still the anti woman comment - how is it even definite these voters are female anyway...?


  • Options
    #129
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    dudess maybe if you are finding a boards contributor aggressive and overbearing is it possible that with almost 20000 posts you might be spending a little more time looking at your computer screen than is good for you and perhaps you should take up a hobby like roller blading or buy a dog?
    :cool:


  • Options
    #130
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Yeah steady on, lads.

    Have any girls, anywhere in the thread, suggested support of this law?


  • Options
    #131
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Dudess wrote: »
    I find you aggressive and overbearing at times - that is not intended as an insult ..

    Course not, it was obviously a compliment :rolleyes:
    Dudess wrote: »
    (up to you how you take it)

    I'll take it how it was intended.
    Dudess wrote: »
    it is simply my opinion.

    Dudess, let's just stick to the topic please, if that's okay with you.

    Attack me personally if you wish, it's of no surprise to be honest as it's not the first time you have done this in threads, to myself and other posters also.
    Dudess wrote: »
    How do I "keep" going off on such tangents here...

    As I and others, have already said, you are making comments that are beside the point and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
    Dudess wrote: »
    and why do you think "they" are nonsensical?

    In context to this case it is a NONSENSE to make a statement like:
    Dudess wrote: »
    Not many young teenage girls find the prospect of being, to be coarse about it, fcuked up the bum particularly appealing.
    Dudess wrote: »
    I did not mention the thing about the girl saying she felt forced and pressured into anal sex in a "oh yeah, the law is terrible to men, but..." way, but I knew it would be received as such.

    It was more the follwoing comment:
    Dudess wrote: »
    At the same time though, didn't the girl say she did not give her consent at the time?

    This would imply that you are not entirely opposed to Justice Dunne's ruling here.
    Dudess wrote: »
    She may not have been bullsh1tting, that's all.

    It's by the buy, the court have not charged him with rape and this thread is about a discriminatory law which could possible end up with a young man doing five years while the girl has immunity from being charged.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Pete and Dudess, I think you are both reading things into each others posts that simply aren't there. Maybe call it quits?


  • Options
    #133
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Course not, it was obviously a compliment :rolleyes:
    No it wasn't, it was neither an insult nor a compliment. It doesn't have to be a case of either one or the other.
    I'll take it how it was intended.
    Just my opinion - nothing sinister behind it whatsoever.
    Attack me personally if you wish, it's of no surprise to be honest as it's not the first time you have done this in threads, to myself and other posters also.
    It wasn't a personal attack - you are being too sensitive. If I ever appear to get personal with people here, it is 100% based on what they post themselves. I don't set out to be nasty to people..
    This would imply that you are not entirely opposed to Justice Dunne's ruling here.
    Well I am. Make your mind up whatever way you want.
    It's by the buy, the court have not charged him with rape and this thread is about a discriminatory law which could possible end up with a young man doing five years while the girl has immunity from being charged.
    Still nothing wrong with just mentioning it - it is still connected with the case and is noteworthy in and of itself. Pittens explained how above.


  • Options
    #134
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Dudess wrote: »
    No it wasn't, it was neither an insult nor a compliment. It doesn't have to be a case of either one or the other.

    Don't be pedantic.
    Dudess wrote: »
    Just my opinion - nothing sinister behind it whatsoever.

    ALL personal abuse is "just an opinion".
    Dudess wrote: »
    It wasn't a personal attack - you are being too sensitive.

    Dudesss, I couldn't give two fucks what you think of me.
    Dudess wrote: »
    If I ever appear to get personal with people here, it is 100% based on what they post themselves. I don't set out to be nasty to people..

    How you set out and where you end up are two different things.
    Dudess wrote: »
    Well I am. Make your mind up whatever way you want.

    Well, your not too emotive about it.

    If this was a girl being charged with a crime while the boy was immune just because of his sex, you would be up in arms.

    How do I know?

    Cause I have been reading your posts for years and you are frequently biased towards women's injustices and regularly ignore mens.
    Dudess wrote: »
    Still nothing wrong with just mentioning it - it is still connected with the case and is noteworthy in and of itself. Pittens explained how above.

    There is EVERYTHING wrong with just mentioning it.

    It's irrelevant at this point.

    He is NOT being charged with rape.

    CONSENT is not being contested here.

    They are charging the boy with sex with a minor and she is immune from the charge because she is female, nothing else.


  • Options
    #135
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    this romeo and juliet ruling is all about gender hate, it is a miscarriage of justice to send this teenager to jail, rte described him as a man, no 18 year old is a man

    women are the most frequent voters that is why they are indulged so abusively in this society..

    ads on rte with foolish dishonest male and sensible smart patient tv licence lady
    reverse the roles and their would be screaming

    ad on radio about n7 going to belfast via kildare shopping outlet..lady says laughing to her smart female friends 'i told him i dont know what you are talking about' lying to men is ok, they are only men after all..

    yet what about your sons, nephews and grandsons?

    namby pambys like fine gaels tallaght td, Brian hayes, does not get through an hour without saying we need more women in the dail
    but will not add...and it will happen when they allow men have an equal share in rearing children in and out of courts
    scandanavian women do not send the children off to child prisons to keep men on the periphery, during daylight, they trust men to not damage their own children and mind them, scandanavia has balanced parliamentary representation and balanced outcomes in their family courts,
    some in dublin have secured similar...by not accepting the gender prejudice and insisting that men and women, though different, are e q u a l

    this ruling is basically a lynching by female legal practitioners


  • Options
    #136
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Don't be pedantic.
    I'm not being pedantic - there was no insult intended behind it. It is an opinion based on my observations.
    ALL personal abuse is "just an opinion".
    But there's nothing abusive in what I've said - you're only interpreting it that way. Up to you though...
    Dudesss, I couldn't give two fucks what you think of me.
    Evidently you could...
    How you set out and where you end up are two different things.
    I've seen people make horrible comments here - nearly always unsubstantiated or insufficiently supported - against gay people, immigrants, people from council estates, single mothers, men and women... if I attack those comments and it seems personal to you, so be it.
    Well, your not too emotive about it.
    Jesus... so what? I'm not into getting all hysterical - when it comes to anything. Why are you ignoring my post giving examples of how I feel men experience discrimination and bias?
    Cause I have been reading your posts for years and you are frequently biased towards women's injustices and regularly ignore mens.
    Complete and utter bullsh1t. What's the point in saying that, other than to rile? Look at my stance on those "Woman having sex with underage boys" threads for instance. I once started a thread about men being abused and humiliated in music videos and it didn't get much of a response, in fact some guys told me to lighten up.
    I'm not even feminist (apart from being in agreement with the ideology way back when it began) - just against all gender-based discrimination.


  • Options
    #137
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Dudess wrote: »
    I'm not being pedantic - there was no insult intended behind it. It is an opinion based on my observations.

    And why are you taking time out on a thread to call me "Overbearing"?

    Stick to the thread topic.

    You say it's just your opinion, who cares what your opinion on Boards users is?

    That's some ego you have there to think that you should just say something like that mid-thread.
    Dudess wrote: »
    Evidently you could...

    Why? Cause I tell you that saying someone is "Overbearing" is a persoanl attack? Laughable.

    Trust me Dudess, I couldn't care less what someone like you thinks of me.

    Which is why I am asking you to stick to the topic.
    Dudess wrote: »
    just against all gender-based discrimination.

    Then why are not just condemning Justice Dunne here along with the R&J law?

    You say that you have admitted that the law is unjust but you keep reverting back to irrelevant things that the girl said or implying she was raped.

    Why?


  • Options
    #138
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    it may be connected to corks war with dublin, that dublin is so far unaware off

    've seen people make horrible comments here - nearly always unsubstantiated or insufficiently supported - against gay people, immigrants, people from council estates, single mothers, men and women... if I attack those comments and it seems personal to you, so be it.

    i made an observation on a racist thread about african taxi drivers, reminding people to remember that the excellent barack obama's dad was in similar position to many economic migrants

    but I phrased it cryptically, along comes dudess with the big judgemental observation, ... and demands that I clarify the observation, which i damn well ignored,

    there are many addictions and sometimes one is a combination of seeking to feel holier than thou and computer addiction..

    outlaw pete is correct in his views...it does not surprise me that he is a pupil of some man for one man - springsteen


  • Options
    #139
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Dudess and Pete, please stop arguing.
    Everyone, please provide links when reporting "facts".


  • Options
    #140
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    healthy debate,


    the alternative is what is your earliest memory
    :eek:
    or how far did you ever vomit


  • Options
    #141
    doncarlos
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭doncarlos


    Heterosexual woman under 50 should no longer be employed if they are sexually active as they can get pregnant and get maternity leave but sexually active men can't.

    Well hey if you can have one discriminating law using pregnancy as an excuse, why not have another! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Porkpie
    Registered Users Posts: 717 ✭✭✭Porkpie


    They ought to arrest half the country's population so. Fu**ing idiotic 'justice' system.


  • Options
    #143
    Hank_Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,783 ✭✭✭Hank_Jones


    Magnus wrote: »
    Dudess and Pete, please stop arguing.


    Throw some jello on them I say. :p


  • Options
    #144
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Stick to the thread topic.
    Yes mod.
    who cares what your opinion on Boards users is?
    I asked you to stop being aggressive - you said you weren't being aggressive, I said I thought you were. Simples.
    That's some ego you have there to think that you should just say something like that mid-thread.
    Good god do you analyse and come up with stuff that isn't there...
    someone like you
    So YOU can get personal with people - gotcha.
    Which is why I am asking you to stick to the topic.
    Who the fuck made you mod of After Hours?
    You say that you have admitted that the law is unjust but you keep reverting back to irrelevant things that the girl said or implying she was raped.

    Why?
    See Pittens' post for explanation as to why. But you'll decide what you want... I'm not interested in men's rights - bla bla bla, ignore the evidence to the contrary.
    moonpurple wrote: »
    it may be connected to corks war with dublin, that dublin is so far unaware off
    Nah I'm not interested in that Cork v Dublin nonsense either.
    i made an observation on a racist thread about african taxi drivers, reminding people to remember that the excellent barack obama's dad was in similar position to many economic migrants

    but I phrased it cryptically, along comes dudess with the big judgemental observation, ... and demands that I clarify the observation, which i damn well ignored
    So you make a cryptic comment and I, along with others, ask you to elaborate? How awful of me. Why else would it be cryptic other than to get noticed?
    there are many addictions and sometimes one is a combination of seeking to feel holier than thou and computer addiction..
    Come to whatever conclusion you want - up to you. The same could be applied to OutlawPete funnily enough.


  • Options
    #145
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    That judge can go suck my balls, no sense of justice whatsoever. There isn't even a hint of ambiguity in what the outcome should have been.


  • Options
    #146
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    correction dudess, only you hovered and asked for elaboration, no one else, and if people do not type on a forum to elicit response...what is the point of a forum,

    allow me to be candid,

    you have moderator under your name and this flavours your contributions, but not in a healthy way


  • Options
    #147
    Michael B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Michael B


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    They're basically saying a girl couldn't possibly know about the dangers of underage sex, while a boy of similar age obviously knows what he's doing and must be punished
    Exactly, the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.


  • Options
    #148
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    moonpurple wrote: »
    correction dudess, only you hovered and asked for elaboration
    I wasn't the only one who said ":confused:" to it though - is that not the same thing?
    if people do not type on a forum to elicit response...what is the point of a forum
    Yes, and you got your response on that thread - so what exactly is your issue, other than to take a snide dig at me here?


  • Options
    #149
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Dudess wrote: »
    Yes mod. Who the fuck made you mod of After Hours?

    You called me "Overbearing", asking you to stick to the topic is not acting like a Mod.

    Now where have I heard someone say that before .. hhhmmm.
    Dudess wrote: »
    I asked you to stop being aggressive - you said you weren't being aggressive, I said I thought you were. Simples.

    Yes you were wrong, glad you can accept that, I forgive you.
    Dudess wrote: »
    ]So YOU can get personal with people - gotcha.

    Yes, I don't care what someone like you thinks based on your posts.

    That is not a personal attack Dudess, you as a MOD should know the difference.

    See I stick to attacking the post, not the poster, you should give it a try sometime.


  • Options
    #150
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    To say you're not getting personal with me is hilarious - but one rule for you, another for everyone else...
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Yes you were wrong, glad you can accept that, I forgive you.
    Oh no, it's still my opinion you can get aggressive - and you treat After Hours like your own personal fiefdom, where people must walk on eggshells around you, and must not dare disagree with you, even if they can back it up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Sharpshooter
    Registered Users Posts: 31,859 ✭✭✭✭Sharpshooter


    OutlawPete, leave the modding to the mods.


    If you post in this thread again I will ban you.

    You have ignored a mods on thread warning already.


Advertisement