I'm glad I'm not a student any more....

Snickers Man

Seems like first year students, of any age, who are boarding in the Trinity Hall residence in Dartry, South Dublin are having to attend compulsory "Sexual Consent" workshops as part of their orientation programme.

Yeeesh!!

And you thought we had the church on the run. You thought they were going to feck off and die, killed by a mixture of our apathy and outright hatred.
And now.......they're back. Or at least a new set of moral guardians are moving in to fill the vacuum. But who are they?

Questions I would have for these "workshop presenters":

Who designs the course content?
Who approves it?
How is/was dissent or disagreement on the content handled and taken into account during its preparation?
What is the penalty for attendees disagreeing with some or all of the messages contained within the workshop content?
What is the penalty for non attendance?

Of course, nobody is in favour of rape and one wants to discourage young people from indulging in actions they might bitterly regret. But isn't treating all that as a taboo what the church used to do as a matter of course? Most of us are only too glad to see the back of them.

At least we knew where the church was coming from. These guys? (and girls)?

Who knows?

No no, that only happens in America, not here.

strelok

*takes a sip of tea*

El_Dangeroso

You must have a very easy life if these are the types of things you have to resort to worrying about OP.

suicide_circus

The sooner the entire secondary school curriculum is scrapped and replaced with back to back gender studies classes, the better.

RWCNT

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course, nobody is in favour of rape and one wants to discourage young people from indulging in actions they might bitterly regret. But isn't treating all that as a taboo what the church used to do as a matter of course? Most of us are only too glad to see the back of them.

What's being treated as a taboo and how so?

kneemos

strelok wrote: »

*takes a sip of tea*

Now.

Generic Dreadhead

Most students these days are total bast***s

Loud, annoying, think they are funny, shouting, have their own inside-jokes and terminology and usually drunk and wearing weird clothes.

Dunno what is going on with this specific generation at all at all

Sonics2k

And it starts already.

I am in no bloody way an SJW or one of their fans, but the absolute sad fact of the matter is that classes like this are needed. Personally I think they should teach this in Secondary School during the Sex Ed classes.

You can view it as SJW's gone mad, but you'd be wrong. This is simply about ensuring that people know and understand consent and just how important it is. The sad fact of the matter is not nearly enough people do know it.

Generic Dreadhead

Good time to link this relevant sketch

Snickers Man

RWCNT wrote: »

What's being treated as a taboo and how so?

Shagging.

Snickers Man

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You must have a very easy life if these are the types of things you have to resort to worrying about OP.

Yeah cause Boards in general and After Hours in particular only ponders the really weighty questions of the day: what is life, why are we here, is there a God.

Why can't one muse politely what the agenda of the people behind these "Consent courses" might be?

Especially as they appear to be compulsory. One doesn't want to fill young people's heads with a lot of old nonsense, now, does one?

Controversial opinion:

They need to also educate students on proper alcohol consumption and decision making

upandcumming

Deleted User wrote:

They need to also educate students on proper alcohol consumption and decision making

And actually taking proper care for themselves and their wellbeing.

Wibbs

Don't drink to excess. Stay with mates around you if you do. Avoid drugs. Wear a blobby on the knobby. Don't stick your langer in loopers/don't let loopers stick their langer in you.

Wibbs course for the Kidz(™)©

Snickers Man

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't drink to excess. Stay with mates around you if you do. Avoid drugs. Wear a blobby on the knobby. Don't stick your langer in loopers/don't let loopers stick their langer in you.

Wibbs course for the Kidz(™)©

There you go. Workshop over. You can all leave now. There won't be a test.

charlietheminxx

I don't get why this is a bad thing.... Rape is a major issue. There are lots of sexual assaults on college campuses. What's wrong with a bit of a reminder about consent?

Tigger

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I don't get why this is a bad thing.... Rape is a major issue. There are lots of sexual assaults on college campuses. What's wrong with a bit of a reminder about consent?

do you think rapist will take note? i don't
do you think its just to avoid liability ? i do

Red King

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I don't get why this is a bad thing.... Rape is a major issue. There are lots of sexual assaults on college campuses. What's wrong with a bit of a reminder about consent?

Is there a lot of sexual assaults on campus here?

snickerpuss

Is it possibly a reaction to the TCD SU survey that found that 25% of female and 5% of male students had been subjected to "an unwanted sexual experience". 1 in 4 females seems extremely high.

RWCNT

Snickers Man wrote: »

Shagging.

How is it being treated as taboo in this instance?

Hint : It's not.

charlietheminxx

Red King wrote: »

Is there a lot of sexual assaults on campus here?

Absolutely. So many never report it either so I reckon the figures are higher than any estimates given.

I think people have a set view of what a "rapist" is. They aren't always tv show style baddies who set out to rape someone intentionally to hurt them. Sometimes they're a friend who doesnt take no for an answer or maybe thinks you're playing hard to get. Sometimes both parties are off their face and might remember it differently. Sometimes they're someone who thinks a girl is into reluctance fantasies, because sure wasn't she flirting only a few minutes before?

Maybe I am not getting my point across properly but if a course like this even stops one instance of non consensual sex then what's the issue?

wp_rathead

First thing that crossed my mind was "People who are going to rape aren't going to be put off by a fecking workshop"
But then the workshop isn't aimed towards the Hollywood Idea of "Creep in the alleyway trying to pounce"
It is to highlight the whole idea of "can you give consent if you're scuttered"


What we should be talking about is this crazy statistic of "25% of female students and 5% of male students" in TCD had been subjected to an unwanted sexual experience. That is pretty mental

The_Valeyard

To be honest id be livid if I was a first year student forced to attend that sh*te. Its pretty much common sense what is consent and what is not. Most of us here have been well raised to know that 'no means no'. We do not need a class lecture on what is consent and what is not.

She waves red signal flares at you - consent or not consent.

biko

The classes will be modelled on the consent courses that are now compulsory for first-year students at the Oxford and Cambridge universities in the UK.


Godammit UK, stop doing stuff!

From the article quoted in the OP.

Rice said the classes will be “promoted as mandatory” but that students will be able to leave once they begin.

So no one is being forced to sit through a course. People can leave.

I see no harm in talking about consent. I see no harm in educating both men and women about taking responsibility for their choices. I see no harm in helping people who will be trying to fit in to see that they don't have to agree to things they're not comfortable with. I see no harm in reminding people that persuasion is not seduction and persistence doesn't equal permission. I see no harm in talking about the ways mixed signals can be misinterpreted, and how clarity is important, for both genders.

I see no harm in telling young men that there's nothing unusual about not drowning in sexual encounters all the time and that it doesn't make them a failure if they don't want casual sex. Or telling girls that being called a prude is better than doing things you feel you may regret. I see no harm in telling people that not only do they have a responsibility to be sure they hear 'yes', but that they also have a responsibility to clearly say 'no' if that's what they want.

I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Even if it does no good for the majority, it's not going to do any harm.

Polka_Dot

snickerpuss wrote: »

Is it possibly a reaction to the TCD SU survey that found that 25% of female and 5% of male students had been subjected to "an unwanted sexual experience". 1 in 4 females seems extremely high.

I'd take the results of that survey with a pinch of salt. From what I remember, it was sent out to everyone in the SU weekly email, which a lot of people don't bother to read. People are more also likely to respond to the survey if they have had an unwanted sexual experience than if they hadn't. Also I'm not sure what exactly counted in that 25% (e.g. the survey asked about verbal harrassment)

upandcumming

snickerpuss wrote:

Is it possibly a reaction to the TCD SU survey that found that 25% of female and 5% of male students had been subjected to "an unwanted sexual experience". 1 in 4 females seems extremely high.

Those surveys are ridiculous - very easy to skew results. Like even the USI survey from 2013 had only 2,750 respondents - not even 10% of UCD's student population.

On a different note, why are universities leading the charge?

snickerpuss

snickerpuss wrote: »

Is it possibly a reaction to the TCD SU survey that found that 25% of female and 5% of male students had been subjected to "an unwanted sexual experience". 1 in 4 females seems extremely high.

Is there a source for this?

Trinity news article on it states 1,038 male and female taking part, but doesn't give a breakdown of numbers split between genders. I'm awful at maths, but.. given that there was 16,000+ students in TCD in 2013 , and 25% of the women that were polled, then it makes me wonder whether the actual figures of overall population is much lower than that.

iDave

Have they introduced this safe space nonsense yet?

One eyed Jack

Snickers Man wrote: »

Seems like first year students, of any age, who are boarding in the Trinity Hall residence in Dartry, South Dublin are having to attend compulsory "Sexual Consent" workshops as part of their orientation programme.

Yeeesh!!

They're fairly late in the game teaching these workshops at third level aren't they?

Primary school is the time that stuff should be taught, before most people become sexually active.

Sure, a refresher course does absolutely no harm whatsoever, but it appears to be pointless IMO if it's done in isolation. Just seems like a token effort IMO.

Jimmy444

strelok wrote: »

*takes a sip of tea*

I think you may be onto something

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-prevention/keeping-safe/consent-is-everything.htm

_Kaiser_

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't drink to excess. Stay with mates around you if you do. Avoid drugs. Wear a blobby on the knobby. Don't stick your langer in loopers/don't let loopers stick their langer in you.

Wibbs course for the Kidz(™)©

I bet I'm not the only one who read that to the tune of..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5giWfpANMac

Snickers Man

Candie wrote: »

I see no harm in talking about consent. I see no harm in educating both men and women about taking responsibility for their choices. I see no harm in helping people who will be trying to fit in to see that they don't have to agree to things they're not comfortable with. I see no harm in reminding people that persuasion is not seduction and persistence doesn't equal permission. I see no harm in talking about the ways mixed signals can be misinterpreted, and how clarity is important, for both genders.

I see no harm in telling young men that there's nothing unusual about not drowning in sexual encounters all the time and that it doesn't make them a failure if they don't want casual sex. Or telling girls that being called a prude is better than doing things you feel you may regret. I see no harm in telling people that not only do they have a responsibility to be sure they hear 'yes', but that they also have a responsibility to clearly say 'no' if that's what they want.

I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Even if it does no good for the majority, it's not going to do any harm.

In general terms, it's impossible to disagree with you. It's when you get down to specifics that the controversies appear.

So I ask again (even given that somebody has posted that the content will be similar to courses given in Oxford/Cambridge) whose value systems are driving the content, and thereby the emphasis and outcomes of these compulsory workshops?

There isn't a culture or value system in the world that doesn't have strong views on control of sexual behaviour. Whether it is the strict Catholic/Christian "Thou shalt not" outside of the marriage bed or even outside of intent to conceive or the ultra-feminist Andrea Dworkin line that any act of intercourse is the violation of a woman. And including all the various cultural tolerance or otherwise of topics like incest, polygamy, homosexuality and permissiveness.

If the cultural/social limitations that should be put on sexual behaviour, were a topic everybody agreed upon there would be no issue at stake here. But it's not. It is a controversial topic and always has been.

So I think the values driving the content of these seminars should be candidly disclosed and the right to challenge them should be unarguable.

Again. Who devised these courses? What's their angle? What's the harm in asking?

Anita Blow

I'm very liberal and wouldn't be conservative in the slightest but I think these workshops are too SJW for me. Perfectly okay with them being voluntary and pitched in a gender neutral manner but it's likely that neither would happen. They're often pitched almost exclusively at males and in such a militant manner that any dissent or disagreement is discouraged by insinuations that the individual involved is a rapist/sexist etc.

The nature of these SU council meetings (having attended them in Trinity myself) is that the minority involved in running the SU are tripping over themselves to come up with the next social justice initiative to promote and get patted on the back by their SU peers.

Letree

I wonder what the slant on them is. Is it basically a men are brutes workshop.

the_barfly1

South Park know the score.

SeanW

Letree wrote: »

I wonder what the slant on them is. Is it basically a men are brutes workshop.

More than likely.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

To be honest id be livid if I was a first year student forced to attend that sh*te. Its pretty much common sense what is consent and what is not. Most of us here have been well raised to know that 'no means no'. We do not need a class lecture on what is consent and what is not.

Yes, we were. I'm old enough to remember when "no means no" was a feminist rallying cry, back in the 20th century. I agreed with that, it makes sense.

The problem is that feminists are now trying to redefine rape to be much more broad, and it is now a common claim that "no means no" is no longer adequate, and the new requirement is for standards such as "affirmitive consent". This standard is usually interpreted in a manner that is totally sexist (placing higher standards on the man vs. woman) and includes a load of caveats such as being invalid if the woman has been drinking. So anyone (or more specifically any man) who's ever had a shag after a night in Coppers is a rapist. The spirit of Andrea Dworkin lives on.

Meanwhile, people who actually rape, won't pay any heed to this. Did the guys in Cologne on New Years Eve do what they did because they never attended a consent workshop? I doubt it.

Candie wrote: »

From the article quoted in the OP.

I see no harm in talking about consent. I see no harm in educating both men and women about taking responsibility for their choices.

...

I see no harm in telling people that not only do they have a responsibility to be sure they hear 'yes', but that they also have a responsibility to clearly say 'no' if that's what they want.

I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Even if it does no good for the majority, it's not going to do any harm.

There are a number of problems here. If this follows on from the American and to a lesser extent UK models (which it most likely does) the term "responsibility" will not feature, at least not in relation to both parties in an encounter.

upandcumming wrote: »

Those surveys are ridiculous - very easy to skew results. Like even the USI survey from 2013 had only 2,750 respondents - not even 10% of UCD's student population.

Yes, that sounds quite suspect.

R.D. aka MR.D

It seems like people have a weird idea that it's only women who can be raped or sexually assaulted. I've experienced first hand a friend of mine being victim of a predatory woman who took advantage of the fact that he was too drunk to know any better.

In addition to that, there was a girl driving around the town I'm from after the clubs let out and offering lifts to drunk lads and then she would pounce on them. Imagine the panic if that was a man doing it! But sure I don't think any fella went to Gards about it.

I certainly hope and I would expect that the course is aimed at both sexes.

There are plenty of women out there that need to be informed that they don't have any right to violate men and should give men the respect that they expect to get from them.

I also think the issue of male sexual assault needs to be taken more seriously. The idea shouldn't automatically be 'only men are guilty of rape'. That's really dismissive and damaging to male survivors.

Ficheall

I was eavesdropping, over breakfast in a cafe yesterday, on a table of young women who seemed to be quite the gossips, and one of the weighty issues they touched upon with seemingly little thought, was indirectly, consent.
They mentioned one of their social circle who had apparently been 'done for sexual assault' for groping the arse of another lass in their social circle, and how they would kill him if he tried the same with them, etc, which I suppose I can understand, even if I felt the story was probably not wholly reliable.
However, they then started talking about some other male friend of theirs who was 'creepy' because he would hug them any time he met them, and then I missed what they had been building up to because the waitress came along to take the order of the table beside me and I couldn't hear properly. It bothered me, though, because I regularly hug my friends when I meet them, and I would be livid/gutted if someone said/thought I was creepy for it. Truth be told, I'm pretty sure it would bother me more than someone groping my arse, although that is undeniably out of line (and no, I'm certainly not suggesting vapid gossip is as bad as rape). I guess the solution is for universities to put on a lot more "Don't be a dick/twat/whathaveyou" courses, with a gazillion modules, and for everyone to have a bit more cop on..

irishgrover

..............the irony of a course on mutual consent and respect being mandatory....

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

Controversial opinion:

They need to also educate students on proper alcohol consumption and decision making

what's proper student alcohol consumption these days? Is it still all 7 days or are they wussing out down at 5 out of 7 now?

Hammer89

I don't see much wrong with this. Sexual assault is an umbrella term for a lot of different sh*t and students may unknowingly commit such a crime under the influence of drink and whatnot.

It's important. Students are thick as sh*t regardless of their Leaving Cert score. They need to know that rape doesn't always involve their mickey. You could insert an AA battery into the arse of a sleeping woman and it constitutes sexual assault.

Hammer89

I don't see much wrong with this. Sexual assault is an umbrella term for a lot of different sh*t and students may unknowingly commit such a crime under the influence of drink and whatnot.

It's important. Students are thick as sh*t regardless of their Leaving Cert score. They need to know that rape doesn't always involve their mickey. You could insert an AA battery into the arse of a sleeping woman and it constitutes sexual assault.

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

They need to also educate students on proper alcohol consumption and decision making

It's easier to blame white men on all the problems.

snickerpuss wrote: »

Is it possibly a reaction to the TCD SU survey that found that 25% of female and 5% of male students had been subjected to "an unwanted sexual experience". 1 in 4 females seems extremely high.

My answer is a question; what were they asked?
Is being leered at "an unwanted sexual experience"?

upandcumming wrote: »

On a different note, why are universities leading the charge?

Because no-one will offer pay for it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Primary school is the time that stuff should be taught, before most people become sexually active.

Sexual education is pretty much abstinence in certain catholic schools, so can't see the course being taught correctly.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Sometimes both parties are off their face and might remember it differently.

When yes is actually no?

Hammer89 wrote: »

It's important. Students are thick as sh*t regardless of their Leaving Cert score. They need to know that rape doesn't always involve their mickey. You could insert an AA battery into the arse of a sleeping woman and it constitutes sexual assault.

Actually, I'd wonder if they were actually given proper sex education to both sexes, would it lower the stats, and the teenage birth rate?

M Anonymous

Also don't BE the looper sticking your langer where it isn't wanted.

M Anonymous

I don't know. If you look at say Ched Evans in the UK. He is a convicted rapist and he still doesn't understand why. He thought that his mate saying it was alright to give that girl one counted as consent, and he is still spending his girlfriend's dad's money going round courts and tv stations protesting.

And a lot of people agree with him, a lot of people think you can take someone comatose with alcohol and tell your Friend "Go On there" and that that is (a) A big laugh and (b) not illegal and (c) sure she's only a slag anyway.

And maybe that's the reason why it has to be compulsory so that you have at least one chance to say to the people who have "problematic" views on consent because of their upbringing/mentality that the law disagrees with them. And of course it gives those men the opportunity to publically out themselves so that the women can see them and know who they are before they encounter them plastered.

Could you not simply...stay somewhere else? Would you really say...

I'm soooo glad I'm not a student any more, cos there's this place near Trinity and the rent is huge.

or

I'm soooo glad I'm not a student any more, cos there's this place near UCG and it looks a bit rough

etc. etc.

RayM

the_syco wrote: »

It's easier to blame white men on all the problems.

You left out 'straight', dammit. Waaaaahhhh!! It's just so tough being a straight white man.

Some very telling reactions to the 25% figure. Maybe it's skewed by the fact that people who've never had a bad experience are less likely to respond. Maybe it includes women who were 'only' groped, hassled or subjected to unwanted sleazy comments - in which case, it seems possible that people fresh out of school, who view that kind of behaviour as harmless horseplay, might benefit from approaching consent courses with an open mind and a healthy dose of intellectual curiosity.

conorhal

Suggest that such courses are better targeted towards asylum reception centers however and the same people promoting them loose the rag......

valoren

How are they even able to study with all this raping going on?

FFS, it's just engendering a climate of fear.
There's rape around every corner of the quad these days!

I remember in my college days they handed out a freshers pack that had sections covering things like this.
Don't drink too much, safe sex, pregnancy and even rape.
You're a 3rd level student, so we can assume you have a modicum of intelligence and cop on.
Forcing students to sit through this when a mere leaflet would suffice is insulting their intelligence.