21% think sex without consent is OK in some situations - poll

The flying mouse

21% of Irish, and 27% of EU respondents, think that having sexual intercourse without consent is OK in certain situations.

A small number of Irish people also thought that walking home alone, wearing certain clothing and going home with someone made intercourse without consent acceptable.

11% of Irish people surveyed said that being drunk or on drugs justifies sex without consent.

9% said that intercourse without consent is justified if a person voluntarily goes home with someone.

9% also said that sexual intercourse without consent is justified if the person is wearing revealing, provocative or sexy clothing.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1125/834358-sex-consent-day-to-end-violence-against-women/

I am a bit speechless at this, Surely if a person does not want to have sex, no matter what there wearing or even if they go back to house with them they don't have to ?

Am I reading this right ? open to correction.

midnight city

Stealing from another poster, who stole from another poster -

midnight city wrote: »

I stole this from another poster:

"they havent published that the survey actually shows that WOMEN actually believe non consensual sex is justified in more cases than men (by 78% to 74%)
and 11% of women (according to this survey) actually believe that non consensual sex is justified in the case of "wearing revealing clothing" as compared to 7% of men

it also shows that ireland, as a whole, believe non consensual sex is unjustified in all cases in a greater majority than the rest of europe (76% compared to 68%)"

Frigating

It depends on the meaning of "no consent". If it means one party expressly said no to sex, or wasn't able to say no, then obviously that's never ok. If it means two people met in a club, went home and had sex, without anyone asking "do you consent to sex", that's more of a grey area and depends on the exact circumstances. In most cases though, if you willingly go home with someone, have consensual sex, then turn around and say it wasn't consensual, you are a scumbag.

Gatling

I actually fear for my daughter's growing up ,

retro:electro

Having studies statistics at length in college, I guarantee you that the questions in this survey were deliberately ambiguous in order to produce a shocking result and allow the newspaper to push a certain agenda.

Mr. FoggPatches

Anyone that's ever woken up with their gf/wife on top of them will know that there are circumstances where its not just OK, its fantastic.

Christy42

Frigating wrote: »

It depends on the meaning of "no consent". If it means one party expressly said no to sex, or wasn't able to say no, then obviously that's never ok. If it means two people met in a club, went home and had sex, without anyone asking "do you consent to sex", that's more of a grey area and depends on the exact circumstances. In most cases though, if you willingly go home with someone, have consensual sex, then turn around and say it wasn't consensual, you are a scumbag.

The first meaning seems pretty well implied. It is certainly what I would take from the question.

retro:electro

Gatling wrote: »

I actually fear for my daughter's growing up ,

Why?

Zaph

On the one hand it's good that we're lower than the EU average, but on the other it still means that a fifth of the population essentially think that rape or sexual assault is OK under certain circumstances. Wtf is wrong with those people?

The flying mouse

Mr. FoggPatches wrote: »

Anyone that's ever woken up with their gf/wife on top of them will know that there are circumstances where its not just OK, its fantastic.

I know what your saying there, But what about if its not fantastic and you just not in the humour, You don't want to have sex, You have a headache ? Do you think its still right ?

I don't.

Mr. FoggPatches

The flying mouse wrote: »

I know what your saying there, But what about if its not fantastic and you just not in the humour, You don't want to have sex, You have a headache ? Do you think its still right ?

I don't.

I think if that happened, I'd see a doctor.

The flying mouse

anna080 wrote: »

Having studies statistics at length in college, I guarantee you that the questions in this survey were deliberately ambiguous in order to produce a shocking result and allow the newspaper to push a certain agenda.

What agenda would the state broadcaster have for publishing theses results ?

Ineedaname

Christy42 wrote: »

The first meaning seems pretty well implied. It is certainly what I would take from the question.

You and I might think that but it doesn't mean everyone will.

Some of the questions are far too vague and open to interpretation.

KERSPLAT!

Zaph wrote: »

On the one hand it's good that we're lower than the EU average, but on the other it still means that a fifth of the population essentially think that rape or sexual assault is OK under certain circumstances. Wtf is wrong with those people?

Without the questions for the poll that was conducted it's hard to have any meaningful discussion regarding it tbh. Polls and results can be twisted.

hatrickpatrick

As I said in the other thread, appalling if true, BUT, I want to know what questions were asked to arrive at this conclusion. Similar studies in the US have asked questions about having sex while drunk or not remembering a romp fully the next day because of drink, and essentially extrapolating that as automatically rape regardless of how the supposed perpetrator or victim felt about it. Destroys the credibility entirely in my view.

I'm not saying that that's happening here, just that it does have precedent and as a result I'm always skeptical unless I can see a full breakdown of the actual questions and answers involved.

SEPT 23 1989

The flying mouse wrote: »

I know what your saying there, But what about if its not fantastic and you just not in the humour, You don't want to have sex, You have a headache ? Do you think its still right ?

I don't.

Said no husband ever

jcsoulinger

The walking alone one is the most disturbing to me, how can people think thats acceptable?

I wonder what those peoples opinion would be if it was a man walking alone that was sexually assaulted by a bigger man?

_Kaiser_

Being discussed on NewsTalk now...

seamus

Crossposting...

The report itself at the conclusion states that the results of the survey are a reason to be cautiously optimistic because attitudes are improving.

So despite the fact things are getting better and Ireland being 7th best out of 28, some quarters have decided to paint this as a shocking and terrible figure.

I do also have an issue with that specific question in that it's too vague;

QB10 Some people believe that having sexual intercourse without consent may be justified in certain situations. Do you think this applies to the
following circumstances?
(SHOW SCREEN - READ OUT - MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)
Wearing revealing, provocative or sexy clothing
Being drunk or using drugs
Flirting beforehand
Not clearly saying no or physically fighting back
Being out walking alone at night,
Having several sexual partners
Voluntarily going home with someone, for example after
a party or date
If the assailant does not realise what they were doing
If the assailant regrets his actions
None of these
Refusal (SPONTANEOUS)
Don't know

So two examples there where it could easily be vague;
1. "Having several sexual partners". Someone could easily read that and think it means threesomes or swinging. And that "without consent" means "without specifically asking if they want to have sex".

2. "If the assailant does not realise what they were doing", Is incredibly vague. Does the assailant think they have consent? Or is the assailant too drunk to give consent themselves? Or is the assailant asleep? Because if it's the case that both people are blackout drunk, then I'm kind of on the side of "justified" in that scenario, since neither party are capable of consent.

The question realistically should begin with a statement clarifying what "consent" is. And also using the word "acceptable" instead of the word "justified". That makes it a much more definitive expression of meaning.

Full report is here;
http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/75837

One stat I found most interesting were the age profiles. People over 55 and under 25 were the most likely to find non-consensual sex acceptable in some circumstances. This would reflect old attitudes in the former, and immature/inexperienced attitudes in the latter.
For women in particular, the young and the old were a third more likely than the 25-55 age group to say that it was acceptable in certain circumstances.

Timberrrrrrrr

The flying mouse wrote: »

I know what your saying there, But what about if its not fantastic and you just not in the humour, You don't want to have sex, You have a headache ? Do you think its still right ?

I don't.

Men don't use the "not tonight love I have a headache" excuse

Assetbacked

In order to properly understand the sentence "sex without consent is justified in circumstances", we must first address what this is saying.

Firstly, "sex without consent"; does this mean that the person is silent as to consent and the act happens based on body language or does it mean the person has expressly signalled that they do not wish to have sex?

Secondly, the "is justified in certain circumstances"; what does this mean? Did these respondents mean in a roleplay situation where a fantasy is being acted out or where consent is not expressed in words but implied in body language (as with "sex without consent" above)?

Thirdly, the intended meaning of the newspaper is to use that statistic to say that certain people believe that rape is okay. There will be people who agree with this and that is disturbing but as to the statistic of people quoted, I find it hard to believe that these disturbed people amount to the figure quoted.

Christy42

Ineedaname wrote: »

You and I might think that but it doesn't mean everyone will.

Some of the questions are far too vague and open to interpretation.

Honestly if that were the case I would believe the respondents need English lessons. The intent is clear. The only reason to call them vague is to muddy the water. I.e. There is a post above talking about what about role play non consensual sex? That is just ridiculous to think that is what is being covered here. If you hear a question asking if it is wrong to kill people you don't go wondering if it is assisted suicide.

hatrickpatrick

ITT: Lads literally never say no to sex. It's impossible for a guy not to be in the mood.

I'm sorry lads, but if anyone, even a girlfriend of several decades, had tried to mount me during the All Blacks match last weekend I would have taken my telly and locked myself into a different room

Annasopra

anna080 wrote: »

Having studies statistics at length in college, I guarantee you that the questions in this survey were deliberately ambiguous in order to produce a shocking result and allow the newspaper to push a certain agenda.

What newspaper?

Ineedaname

Christy42 wrote: »

Honestly if that were the case I would believe the respondents need English lessons. The intent is clear. The only reason to call them vague is to muddy the water. I.e. There is a post above talking about what about role play non consensual sex? That is just ridiculous to think that is what is being covered here. If you hear a question asking if it is wrong to kill people you don't go wondering if it is assisted suicide.

Have you read any of the questions?

Timberrrrrrrr

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

ITT: Lads literally never say no to sex. It's impossible for a guy not to be in the mood.

I'm sorry lads, but if anyone, even a girlfriend of several decades, had tried to mount me during the All Blacks match last weekend I would have taken my telly and locked myself into a different room

Doggy style was created for such scenarios

Mr. FoggPatches

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Doggy style was created for such scenarios

Imagine having sex with a girl while watching 30 drug addled men pound each other.
Bit ghey if you ask me, but to each their own.

Christy42

Ineedaname wrote: »

Have you read any of the questions?

Yes. I read the poll. What was unclear. No consent is not talking about role play or non verbal consent being given as both those obviously involve consent being given. I can't see the issue.

NomadicGray

Sounds like an absolute **** survey, the one number you need to see is under "Refusal" and its a zero

Outlaw Pete

Gatling wrote: »

I actually fear for my daughter's growing up ,

Just tell them not to take a course in Gender / Women's Studies. They'll be grand.

Irish Guitarist

I sincerely doubt that many people think it's justified to rape a woman who's walking home alone. I think it's more likely they were asked something like "who is most at risk of being raped, a woman in a pair of jeans or a woman in a short skirt". Nowadays having the opinion that it might not be a great idea to for a woman to walk around on her own late at night in revealing clothes is seen as 'victim blaming'.

Donal55

Mr. FoggPatches wrote: »

Anyone that's ever woken up with their gf/wife on top of them will know that there are circumstances where its not just OK, its fantastic.

'...Gf & wife on top of them... '
FYP.

Grandeeod

anna080 wrote: »

Why?

Im a male in my 40s with a young daughter. I fear for her and I base that on when I was growing up and my ability to keep up with modern day sexual trends. Therefore I will educate her bluntly in relation to sexual behaviour. Threre is no point in being blase and saying what will be will be. The world is changing rapidly, from the easy access to porn, the making of amateur porn via available tech and the resulting revenge porn. And that is lterally the tip of the iceberg.

There are so many aspects to sexual behaviour these days, that got caught up in a changing society over the course of a short timespan, that any parent needs to keep an eye on the ball. Its still a scary prospect though.

ligerdub

Every other day there is a new topic on the topic of rape. Different titles, same discussion.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

Having studies statistics at length in college, I guarantee you that the questions in this survey were deliberately ambiguous in order to produce a shocking result and allow the newspaper to push a certain agenda.

Exactly.

The questions were most likely framed in a way that defined 'sexual consent' as there being a presence of a 'Yes'. There was a lecturer in Louise O'Neil's recent 'Asking For It' TV show that, when speaking to her class, said "'Consent is not merely the absence of a no, but the presence of a 'Yes''" and on that basis and by those definitions, many people are bound to then say sex without "consent" is sometimes okay.

hatrickpatrick

Mr. FoggPatches wrote: »

Imagine having sex with a girl while watching 30 drug addled men pound each other.
Bit ghey if you ask me, but to each their own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTpXymuwxNs

Dr Jakub

I'd be one of the 21% but that's because in reality people have sex without both clearly saying 'yes I want this'. We're humans, not robots.

Ineedaname

Christy42 wrote: »

Yes. I read the poll. What was unclear. No consent is not talking about role play or non verbal consent being given as both those obviously involve consent being given. I can't see the issue.

The poll doesn't define what "sex without consent" is. It could mean someone saying no or it could mean someone not explicitly saying yes. Sex during the former is obviously not okay. The latter is a much greyer area.

seamus

Christy42 wrote: »

Honestly if that were the case I would believe the respondents need English lessons.

Then so be it. If questions can be potentially misinterpreted, then the validity of the survey is called into question.

Zaph

Zaph wrote: »

On the one hand it's good that we're lower than the EU average, but on the other it still means that a fifth of the population essentially think that rape or sexual assault is OK under certain circumstances. Wtf is wrong with those people?

Honestly though we don't know what the questions were, what they defined as consent, so it's a bit much to say that 20% say that rape and sexual assault is OK, when you're basing it on incomplete information.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly.

The questions were most likely framed in a way that defined 'sexual consent' as there being a presence of a 'Yes'. There was a lecturer in Louise O'Neil's recent 'Asking For It' TV show that, when speaking to her class, said "'Consent is not merely the absence of a no, but the presence of a 'Yes''" and on that basis and by those definitions, many people are bound to then say sex without "consent" is sometimes okay.

It depends though. If someone asked you if "Sex without consent is ok" and told you that was all the information you had to go on and you had to do a yes/no answer then what do you think your answer would be?

Is it a statement you'd feel fine saying without clarification?

Besides the fact is that although you could be finicky about some of the questions there are some that are obvious and clear.

QB10 Some people believe that having sexual intercourse without consent may be justified in certain situations. Do you think this applies to the
following circumstances?
(SHOW SCREEN - READ OUT - MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)
Wearing revealing, provocative or sexy clothing
Being drunk or using drugs
Flirting beforehand
Not clearly saying no or physically fighting back
Being out walking alone at night,
Having several sexual partners
Voluntarily going home with someone, for example after a party or date
If the assailant does not realise what they were doing
If the assailant regrets his actions
None of these
Refusal (SPONTANEOUS)
Don't know

It's never ok to think that because someone is out walking alone it's acceptable to have sex without consent.

In the ones I didn't bold, we may come up scenarios where it's ok, but in general it's wrong.

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

It depends though. If someone asked you if "Sex without consent is ok" and told you that was all the information you had to go on and you had to do a yes/no answer then what do you think your answer would be?

But we don't know that was all the information they had.

I live in Ireland. I highly fcuking doubt 20% of of the population believe sexual assault / rape can sometimes be okay, which is how certain sections of the media are now spinning this.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/more-than-one-in-five-irish-people-think-sex-without-consent-is-fine-in-certain-circumstances-35245174.html

Yea, regretting sex after the fact doesn't mean you didn't consent to it.

HellSquirrel

There's another way to consider it though and that is is it not a little horrible that this situation has to exist at all? For the vast majority of people, a yes is clearly indicated by both partners being into it*. Honest mistakes can occur, but in general, shouldn't we be asking why are women so socially inhibited from sex, be it a repressive morality or the consequences of pregnancy. Make no mistake about it, women generally are on the losing end of the consequences of sexual freedom.

So, even if that's the root cause of part of this long-running and bitter social issue is that, then shouldn't that be changed? And anyway, regardless of what side anyone's on, anyone who answers that sexual intercourse without consent can be justified by walking alone at night to any question bar "what does a rapist think?" has serious misconceptions.


*Can anyone come up with a way to sanely legislate "into it" in a way that can't be weaseled around? "Consent" is the best of a poor lot of legalese synonyms.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

Edit: just to say I realise one instance does not a viable example make, however...

I was not at all surprised by the outcome of this, however leading the questions. I was having a drink in my friend's house during the summer and there were a good few people, strangers and friends, milling around in different groups. I was tired but not really that drunk, I was leaning on my hand with my elbow on the arm of the couch and my eyes must have lolled closed. Next thing I knew, the total stranger beside me (he'd been talking to a different group) has one hand between my legs, one up my shirt and is eating the face off me.

Like I said, I wasn't drunk so I reacted quite violently to this totally unexpected situation, basically smacking him in the face first and then kneeing him in the crotch as he'd almost climbed on top on me. Everyone ran over and dragged him off bleeding and hunched from me and I shouted that I'd closed my eyes for a second and he'd started molesting me.

He maintained that I had been flirting with him (I hadn't even spoken to him) and that I had made a pass at him first. My friends all wanted to call the GardaÃ႒­ but he started shouting that he'd have me for assault and I just wanted him out of the house before I did some actual damage.

After he left, we established that nobody knew who he was and he didn't really appear to have come to the party with anyone, just sneaked back after the pub. We were all pretty sober but it just goes to show there are actual literal predators out there who are so charmless and entitled that they just wait for a sign of weakness and pounce.

I'm glad I smacked him and sack tapped him and I only wish my friends HADN'T come to my assistance because I would certainly have grievously harmed him, had I been allowed to defend myself further. I'm unexpectedly strong and wily in a violent situations because I grew up dodging blows and anticipating assaults. To my mind, physical force is the only deterrent for these people who use their size advantage to push themselves on women. Maybe if I'd broken his face open he might think twice about the next time he molests somebody.

K-9

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Without the questions for the poll that was conducted it's hard to have any meaningful discussion regarding it tbh. Polls and results can be twisted.

Yep.

Though the idea that a woman wearing short clothes is up for it, is still common enough.

And before the "but wimmin" crowd nit pick, yes, women can be as bad for these attitudes.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Yep.

Though the idea that a woman wearing short clothes is up for it, is still common enough.

And before the "but wimmin" crowd nit pick, yes, women can be as bad for these attitudes.

Oddly, according to this poll, it was actually women that believed this more than men.

tritium

seamus wrote: »

Crossposting...

The report itself at the conclusion states that the results of the survey are a reason to be cautiously optimistic because attitudes are improving.

So despite the fact things are getting better and Ireland being 7th best out of 28, some quarters have decided to paint this as a shocking and terrible figure.

I do also have an issue with that specific question in that it's too vague;


So two examples there where it could easily be vague;
1. "Having several sexual partners". Someone could easily read that and think it means threesomes or swinging. And that "without consent" means "without specifically asking if they want to have sex".

2. "If the assailant does not realise what they were doing", Is incredibly vague. Does the assailant think they have consent? Or is the assailant too drunk to give consent themselves? Or is the assailant asleep? Because if it's the case that both people are blackout drunk, then I'm kind of on the side of "justified" in that scenario, since neither party are capable of consent.

The question realistically should begin with a statement clarifying what "consent" is. And also using the word "acceptable" instead of the word "justified". That makes it a much more definitive expression of meaning.

Full report is here;
http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/75837

One stat I found most interesting were the age profiles. People over 55 and under 25 were the most likely to find non-consensual sex acceptable in some circumstances. This would reflect old attitudes in the former, and immature/inexperienced attitudes in the latter.
For women in particular, the young and the old were a third more likely than the 25-55 age group to say that it was acceptable in certain circumstances.

At least two of those scenarios in the question that was posted would likely form a solid basis for absence of any guilty intent (mens rea?) in any trial post event.

I guess theres a degree of sympatising that someone may feel they didnt consent but not equating that with rape in a legal definition in every instance

Tbh if the question was really framed this way then the survey is really being designed to get a particular outcome

Walter2016

Surveys surveys surveys

If people were to believed they also eat 40 pancakes on pancake Tuesday, get 35 Valentines cards, drink to oblivion every night and shag from the age of 10.

People are so sick of "surveys" than many respondants treat them as a joke and provide equally joke answers.

HellSquirrel

Walter2016 wrote: »

Surveys surveys surveys

If people were to believed they also eat 40 pancakes on pancake Tuesday, get 35 Valentines cards, drink to oblivion every night and shag from the age of 10.

People are so sick of "surveys" than many respondants treat them as a joke and provide equally joke answers.

Er..would you really imply you were a rapist just for the lulz on a survey?

Michaela Rich Spat

Michaela Rich Spat wrote: »

Not at all surprised by the outcome of this. I was having a drink in my friend's house during the summer and there were a good few people, strangers and friends, milling around in different groups. I was tired but not really that drunk, I was leaning on my hand with my elbow on the arm of the couch and my eyes must have lolled closed. Next thing I knew, the total stranger beside me (he'd been talking to a different group) has one hand between my legs, one up my shirt and is eating the face off me.

Like I said, I wasn't drunk so I reacted quite violently to this totally unexpected situation, basically smacking him in the face first and then kneeing him in the crotch as he'd almost climbed on top on me. Everyone ran over and dragged him off bleeding and hunched from me and I shouted that I'd closed my eyes for a second and he'd started molesting me.

He maintained that I had been flirting with him (I hadn't even spoken to him) and that I had made a pass at him first. My friends all wanted to call the Gardaí but he started shouting that he'd have me for assault and I just wanted him out of the house before I did some actual damage.

After he left, we established that nobody knew who he was and he didn't really appear to have come to the party with anyone, just sneaked back after the pub. We were all pretty sober but it just goes to show there are actual literal predators out there who are so charmless and entitled that they just wait for a sign of weakness and pounce.

I'm glad I smacked him and sack tapped him and I only wish my friends HADN'T come to my assistance because I would certainly have grievously harmed him, had I been allowed to defend myself further. I'm unexpectedly strong and wily in a violent situations because I grew up dodging blows and anticipating assaults. To my mind, physical force is the only deterrent for these people who use their size advantage to push themselves on women. Maybe if I'd broken his face open he might think twice about the next time he molests somebody.

I'm really sorry that happened to you, I hope you're okay.

I do think the guards should have been called but I know it's different on the spot at the time. Still, chilling to think some random opportunist predator was sitting in a room of strangers, biding his time.

That assault completely warranted you getting him off you by any means possible.