Where are all the men's voices?

bcklschaps

3 important pieces of legislation are about to be passed by the Dail. All three are gender specific laws that will adversely effect every boy and man in this country ....and the silence from men is astounding. In fact the only discenting voices in the Dail, media etc. have been from other females...who clearly see that their fathers/husbands/sons are going to get a rotten deal. This is the family law courts all over again.. (and we have seen the damage done there and how slow any changes there are in coming)

1). Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2017. Amendment regarding Definition of consent.

2). Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2017.

3). Istanbul convention on violence against women.

For anybody who is not familiar with these pieces of legislation listed above, let me distil them down for you.


1). In a case where male and female disagree whether there was consent during sex. The females word will be taken as truth always, even when she freely admits that she can't remember.

2). Where sex in exchange for gratuity is found to have taken place, the purchaser is the only one who can be charged. Let's face it the purchaser of sex will 99% of the time be a man and the seller will probably 90% of the time be a woman.

3). Violence against Women will be seen as a special crime and carry special more serious punishments. Violence against men will become a defacto less serious offence

Two thirds of the politicians in the Dail are men but for some reason none have even questioned any of these laws on the grounds that they are sexist against men. If this was the other way round, there would be marches on the streets by women.

red ears

It used to be the case that less men got convicted for rape than should, guilty men walked free. The laws are being changed so more innocent men will be convicted than should.

johnnyskeleton

bcklschaps wrote: »

1). In a case where male and female disagree whether there was consent during sex. The females word will be taken as truth always, even when she freely admits that she can't remember.

Thats not an accurate summary of the section dealing with capacity to consent. Trump may be president of the US, but in Ireland we aremt quite in a post truth world yet.

2). Where sex in exchange for gratuity is found to have taken place, the purchaser is the only one who can be charged. Let's face it the purchaser of sex will 99% of the time be a man and the seller will probably 90% of the time be a woman.

This isnt an anti-male measure its an anti prostitution measure. I would be against it because a) we dont live in Victorian England and b) this is ultimately going to harm sex workers, particularly migrants and the victims of human trafficking, far more than it is going to harm the people who purchase sex.

3). Violence against Women will be seen as a special crime and carry special more serious punishments. Violence against men will become a defacto less serious offence

All other things being equal, the law already implicitly recognises that a violent attack on a woman is worse than an assault on a man. Most people IMO would view this as representing their views as well, presumably out of a sense that women are more vulnerable. Is it right? No, I think the law should consider whether the individual victim is vulnerable or not.

But in any event what are the specifics of the Istanbul protocol you disagree with or which actually change the law in a discriminatory way? Just because it emphasises violence against women doesnt automatically invalidate crimes of violence against men.

Two thirds of the politicians in the Dail are men but for some reason none have even questioned any of these laws on the grounds that they are sexist against men. If this was the other way round, there would be marches on the streets by women.

Possibly because the first two arent and the third is a requirement of international law that Ireland has agreed to.

johnnyskeleton

red ears wrote: »

It used to be the case that less men got convicted for rape than should, guilty men walked free. The laws are being changed so more innocent men will be convicted than should.

If that were even remotely true, the legislation could, and probably would, be challenged as unconstitutional. Art 38 protects the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

But its just not true and your assertions are incredibly vague. Sure, some people would like the law to change to facilitate a greater conviction rate regardless of culpability, but they are very fringe and have nothing to do with the new Bill.

livedadream

bcklschaps;1025000893 


For anybody who is not familiar with these pieces of legislation listed above, let me distil them down for you.


1). In a case where male and female disagree whether there was consent during sex. The females word will be taken as truth always, even when she freely admits that she can't remember.

#alternativetruth

2). Where sex in exchange for gratuity is found to have taken place, the purchaser is the only one who can be charged. Let's face it the purchaser of sex will 99% of the time be a man and the seller will probably 90% of the time be a woman.

thats because selling your body shouldnt be a crime, buying someones body is... it protects women who are forced into prostitution.

3). Violence against Women will be seen as a special crime and carry special more serious punishments. Violence against men will become a defacto less serious offence

again not true..

Knex*

My apologies for my ignorance, but those disputing the first claim by the OP, with regards to male & female disagreeing over whether consent was given, what is the actual reality of the bill?

So far the two posters have essentially just said, "Not really true", in response to what is a pretty heavy claim.

livedadream

Knex. wrote: »

My apologies for my ignorance, but those disputing the first claim by the OP, with regards to male & female disagreeing over whether consent was given, what is the actual reality of the bill?

So far the two posters have essentially just said, "Not really true", in response to what is a pretty heavy claim.

sorry, in layman's terms, at least as I understand it, (without it being tested by the courts its hard) but it basically puts the onus on the accused to prove consent.
ie a guy cant say oh she didnt tell me no, or push me off or tell me to stop, getting rid of the argument that a person is too drunk or unconscious to concent it removes the confusion. ''oh i thought she was enjoying it and up for it coz she was moaning, we were both drunk, i just didnt think she was an active lover, when in reality she was passed out or something.
being drunk or on drugs cannot be a defence, [font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]if a woman is asleep or so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that she is not capable of giving consent, then there is no consent. it [/font][font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]outlines how Irish law allows (before it this new ruling)for the defence of a subjective “honest belief” on the part of the accused that the victim had consented, thats gone now.[/font]

El_Duderino 09

That sounds sensibly in principle. It treats consent assonething that has to be actively acheive rather than passively assumed.

Could man claim to have been raped under the same rules?

Would this be applied differently in relationships and casual hook-ups?

livedadream

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

livedadream wrote:

sorry, in layman's terms, at least as I understand it, (without it being tested by the courts its hard) but it basically puts the onus on the accused to prove consent. ie a guy cant say oh she didnt tell me no, or push me off or tell me to stop, getting rid of the argument that a person is too drunk or unconscious to concent it removes the confusion. ''oh i thought she was enjoying it and up for it coz she was moaning, we were both drunk, i just didnt think she was an active lover, when in reality she was passed out or something. being drunk or on drugs cannot be a defence, if a woman is asleep or so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that she is not capable of giving consent, then there is no consent. it outlines how Irish law allows (before it this new ruling)for the defence of a subjective “honest belief†on the part of the accused that the victim had consented, thats gone now.

That sounds sensibly in principle. It treats consent assonething that has to be actively acheive rather than passively assumed.

Could mam claim to have been raped untrained the same rules?

Would this be applied differently in relationships and casual hook-ups?

of course a man (it says mam but i assume you mean man) could be raped, im not sure what you mean by untrained, but the law applied to all genders and sexual orientations.
it could be applied differently in relationships etc the argument that my boyfriend doesnt specifically ask for consent everytime we have sex versus two people meeting in a club and having sex after i feel it would need to be clearly stated if there was a claim of rape, but thats why we have case law, it will have to be tested. 
its all situational, this new decision just makes it a tiny bit easier for real victims to be able to stand up and say, i did not consent.

El_Duderino 09

livedadream wrote:

of course a man (it says mam but i assume you mean man) could be raped, im not sure what you mean by untrained, but the law applied to all genders and sexual orientations. it could be applied differently in relationships etc the argument that my boyfriend doesnt specifically ask for consent everytime we have sex versus two people meeting in a club and having sex after i feel it would need to be clearly stated if there was a claim of rape, but thats why we have case law, it will have to be tested. its all situational, this new decision just makes it a tiny bit easier for real victims to be able to stand up and say, i did not consent.

Fixed typos in my last post.

So the law can be applied to all genders and orientations (orientation would be the natural next question). Sounds reasonable.

Relationships and hook-ups we different. I'd say it's reasonable to expect a more explicit expression of consent for hook-ups as there is no underlying agreement between the parties.

It all sounds reasonable. I hope it's applied reasonably.

livedadream

to be fair, the Irish judicial system is one of the most balanced im aware of. it has its faults but it does at the end of the day error on the side of caution and do pretty well in serious decisions.

tritium

I think the problem i have with it is it was presnted in the following way

1. Too drunk to consent means no consent
2. Using being intoxicated as a defence for assuming drunken consent wont wash

Neither are offensive by themselves tbh, its the potential for ched evans style scenarios where the state decides when a rape has or hasnt happend thats terrifying. To put it bluntly consider the following scenario

Two people (strangers) go out, get drunk, hook up and have sex. Both are plastered so werent sober enough to consent. Who has committed a crime here? Who has committed a greater crime?

If you cant answer that question in a way that doesnt invoke the gender of the people involved then to my mind the proposed law is horribly flawed. Id like to think its meant to be neutral but the states previous role in defending the insane difference in the laws around two underage people having sex means im slow to just assume that.

livedadream

tritium wrote: »

I think the problem i have with it is it was presnted in the following way

1. Too drunk to consent means no consent
2. Using being intoxicated as a defence for assuming drunken consent wont wash

Neither are offensive by themselves tbh, its the potential for ched evans style scenarios where the state decides when a rape has or hasnt happend thats terrifying.  To put it bluntly consider the following scenario

Two people (strangers) go out, get drunk, hook up and have sex. Both are plastered so werent sober enough to consent.  Who has committed a crime here? Who has committed a greater crime?

If you cant answer that question in a way that doesnt invoke the gender of the people involved then to my mind the proposed law is horribly flawed.  Id like to think its meant to be neutral but the states previous role in defending the insane difference in the laws around two underage people having sex means im slow to just assume that.

Two people (strangers) go out, get drunk, hook up and have sex. Both are plastered so werent sober enough to consent.  Who has committed a crime here? Who has committed a greater crime?- who has alleged a crime has taken place?  if its a male-female partnership when if the man says hold on, i didnt want to have sex i was raped then the female will have prove to she had his consent. 
theres the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. the intent of this law is to protect people who have been attacked and/or sexually assaulted and/or raped. be they male or female or other.
the laws around underage sex in Ireland, ohh god, okay so the romeo and juliet law as its known was found to be constitutionally sound because basically girls can get pregnant and boys cant. section 5 of the sexual offences act 2006 says that a girl under the age of 17 cant be guilty of an offence of engaging in an act of sexual intercourse, 
yes many believe this is unconstitutional and a guy (a child of 15) took a case years ago about it (he was accused of a forceful act of bum sex and oral sex, was convicted and said it was discriminatory because they girl was also under age)., the supreme court ruled that it wasnt discriminatory because of difference of physical and moral capacity and social function (from the constitution) because again, girls can have longer lasting consequences of underage etc (da babies )
so yes some would argue that its positive discrimination but, when 13 year old boys are popping out babies and ending up single parents and getting stuck in a cycle like that ill listen to how unfair life is.
the fact of the matter is most countries take into account the age difference, if a relationship was ongoing, the age of the children in general, an 11 year old versus a 17 year old etc.

newport2

livedadream wrote: »

Two people (strangers) go out, get drunk, hook up and have sex. Both are plastered so werent sober enough to consent.  Who has committed a crime here? Who has committed a greater crime?- who has alleged a crime has taken place?  if its a male-female partnership when if the man says hold on, i didnt want to have sex i was raped then the female will have prove to she had his consent. 
theres the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. the intent of this law is to protect people who have been attacked and/or sexually assaulted and/or raped. be they male or female or other.

If as you say the man goes to the guards and says he didn't give consent, how can the woman possibly prove he did? If she can't, is she then taken to be guilty of rape, ie guilty unless she proves she's innocent?

In this scenario surely neither gave consent as they were both intoxicated, ie no consent?

livedadream

newport2 wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

Two people (strangers) go out, get drunk, hook up and have sex. Both are plastered so werent sober enough to consent.  Who has committed a crime here? Who has committed a greater crime?- who has alleged a crime has taken place?  if its a male-female partnership when if the man says hold on, i didnt want to have sex i was raped then the female will have prove to she had his consent. 
theres the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. the intent of this law is to protect people who have been attacked and/or sexually assaulted and/or raped. be they male or female or other.

If as you say the man goes to the guards and says he didn't give consent, how can the woman possibly prove he did? If she can't, is she then taken to be guilty of rape, ie guilty unless she proves she's innocent?

In this scenario surely neither gave consent as they were both intoxicated, ie no consent?

dude, come on, youre asking me an entirely hypothetical question based on a new ruling, I dont know. at the moment we will have to wait and see what case law comes out of this.
From the situation you gave me its very black and white and things rarely are. the grey is where judges come in. in general the new law is saying you have to prove consent was given. therefore the onus would be on the women to prove the man gave her consent being ****faced is not an excuse,

lets put it this way: if you had 20 pints and a few jagerbombs and got into you car and tried to drive home, get pulled over by the cops and are breathalyzed, should you be allowed stand up in court and when the judge says so, are you guilty of driving while drunk, say, well judge i was langers i mean i cant be held responsible coz i was drunk

?

tritium

newport2 wrote: »

If as you say the man goes to the guards and says he didn't give consent, how can the woman possibly prove he did? If she can't, is she then taken to be guilty of rape, ie guilty unless she proves she's innocent?

In this scenario surely neither gave consent as they were both intoxicated, ie no consent?

Your last point is key. If someone is intoxicated thr law will say they can't consent, exactly the position the cps used in prosecuting ched evans even though there was no actual complaint. Hence why its important that any law csn apply a gender blind view in the scenario i gave

newport2

livedadream wrote: »

lets put it this way: if you had 20 pints and a few jagerbombs and got into you car and tried to drive home, get pulled over by the cops and are breathalyzed, should you be allowed stand up in court and when the judge says so, are you guilty of driving while drunk, say, well judge i was langers i mean i cant be held responsible coz i was drunk

?

That's exactly the issue. If the new law is saying that intoxication means you can't give consent, it is effectively saying " i cant be held responsible coz i was drunk".

I would agree if you could prove the other person was sober, but not if they're both drunk.

livedadream

newport2 wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

lets put it this way: if you had 20 pints and a few jagerbombs and got into you car and tried to drive home, get pulled over by the cops and are breathalyzed, should you be allowed stand up in court and when the judge says so, are you guilty of driving while drunk, say, well judge i was langers i mean i cant be held responsible coz i was drunk

?

That's exactly the issue. If the new law is saying that intoxication means you can't give consent, it is effectively saying " i cant be held responsible coz i was drunk".

I would agree if you could prove the other person was sober, but not if they're both drunk.

thats the opposite of that it means, it means being drunk is not an excuse for 'forgetting' or not remembering to get consent or if it was given.. if you raped someone before, saying we were both **** faced judge, she was really drunk but up for it but didnt say yes i want to have sex, or saying she was a bit sleepy so i thought it was okay it no longer a defense, if someone is passed out and if someone does not consent you are not able to say they gave consent or didnt say no IMPLY consent.

basically saying well they didnt fight me off, or they didnt say stop or no or shout out, is no longer a defense to a rape allegation.

newport2

livedadream wrote: »

thats the opposite of that it means, it means being drunk is not an excuse for 'forgetting' or not remembering to get consent or if it was given.. if you raped someone before, saying we were both **** faced judge, she was really drunk but up for it but didnt say yes i want to have sex, or saying she was a bit sleepy so i thought it was okay it no longer a defense, if someone is passed out and if someone does not consent you are not able to say they gave consent or didnt say no IMPLY consent.

basically saying well they didnt fight me off, or they didnt say stop or no or shout out, is no longer a defense to a rape allegation.

If that's what it means it has my full support.

Carlos Orange

If men continue to vote for parties despite the fact they are anti male and women continue to vote for parties because they are anti male then you can expect anti male laws. The impression I get is all the parties are pretty uniformly anti male despite the fact we have so many of them.

Pherekydes

bcklschaps wrote: »

Two thirds of the politicians in the Dail are men...

Citation needed!

livedadream

psinno wrote: »

If men continue to vote for parties despite the fact they are anti male and women continue to vote for parties because they are anti male then you can expect anti male laws. The impression I get is all the parties are pretty uniformly anti male despite the fact we have so many of them.

I'm intrigued what parties are anti male?

Carlos Orange

livedadream wrote: »

I'm intrigued what parties are anti male?

Which parties have clear policy positions and manifesto commitments on reducing gender gaps where men have the worse end?

- education
- life expectancy
- unemployment
- public service employment
- pay gap for childless people


For bonus points which parties support fathers having automatic guardianship of their children due to their relationship to the child and not dependent on their relationship with the mother.

livedadream

The only thing I agree with there is guardianship... and that's a social issue not a political one.

Carlos Orange

livedadream wrote: »

The only thing I agree with there is guardianship... and that's a social issue not a political one.

You don't agree men live shorter lives , are less educated or have higher unemployment rates? You can't agree or disagree with facts you can just present sources.

Fathers having less rights than mothers is something that should be addressed by changing the law which is what politics is about. Politicians can not make people treat them equally but they can make them equal before the law.

bcklschaps

psinno wrote: »

Which parties have clear policy positions and manifesto commitments on reducing gender gaps where men have the worse end?

- education
- life expectancy
- unemployment
- public service employment
- pay gap for childless people


For bonus points which parties support fathers having automatic guardianship of their children due to their relationship to the child and not dependent on their relationship with the mother.

You can add unequal treatment before the courts for the same crimes to that list.

...and now a whole raft of new laws that effectively persecute men simply for being men.


For all the apologists who have responded to my opening message...just wait til you or somebody you know comes up against our judicial system and then tell me if it's a best of breed model and balanced & fair etc.

py2006

The whole, "please fair maiden, can I have your permission to do the horizontal boogie with you" consent nonsense is never gonna work.

Generally we know by body language etc. I'd imagine it would be a huge turn off for women if I man came outright with a verbal request.

Our pal Louise O'Neil (who clearly never had a date) says men should openly ask permission when on a first date with a woman, "can I have your permission to have sex with you later?". Ffs, most women would run a mile.

I remembee being told in my teens that it was a huge turn off for girls to be asked could they be kissed. It was to happen organically.

littlevillage

Whatever about the specifics of the legislation I think the lack of men's voices in the discussions leading up to these very sensitive new laws is pretty alarming.

I watched a segment about the criminalising of sex purchasing on RTE1 there a few months back, I think it was Marian O'Callaghan as presenter and four female panelists discussing something that will affect only MEN. So much for gender balance from the state broadcaster ?? Imagine if RTE had an abortion discussion with a male presenter and four male panelists....Twitter would explode !!!

py2006

Feminists claim to be about equality yet clearly they are not. Hence not speaking of these from a male perspective.

So the silence is our own fault. Men generally don't talk about this kinda thing until it hits them hard directly.

ligerdub

littlevillage wrote: »

Whatever about the specifics of the legislation I think the lack of men's voices in the discussions leading up to these very sensitive new laws is pretty alarming.

I watched a segment about the criminalising of sex purchasing on RTE1 there a few months back, I think it was Marian O'Callaghan as presenter and four female panelists discussing something that will affect only MEN. So much for gender balance from the state broadcaster ?? Imagine if RTE had an abortion discussion with a male presenter and four male panelists....Twitter would explode !!!

To be fair......I have seen that happen

I guess the difference there though was the men on the panel didn't trash women for an hour and suggest ways to lock them up for life.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ligerdub

Ignoring the prostitution ruling (I don't really have a strong opinion on that), although it's obviously clear that's a law which will impact men much more than women, and that's not great. I wasn't aware there was any issue with the laws on that as they stood.

In terms of the political rationale and lack of pushback, it all comes down to risk v reward in my opinion. Political parties do what they need to do to get elected. I reckon some of them would push for a resurrection of Oliver Cromwell if it meant they'd get into power. So what do we have now? We have a culture where women's issues are the political soup of the day. It's all abortion and rape laws..."do something". There is no upside for political parties to fight for laws which iron out inequalities in law or social issues which advantage women over men, it would be very unpopular. The feminist movement of recent years has achieved a victory of sorts in some ways in that it has spilled over to be accepted in the media as a positive thing, it very much owns the hearts and minds of those in the media and by association, into politics.

It's almost the minimum acceptable criteria to be supportive of abortion rights, quotas for women in certain positions, and rape legislation. The gender split of TD's is largely irrelevant, and if anything a greater percentage of men is no way of helping inequalities for men. It doesn't surprise me the main vocal opposition are women, men face accusations of misogyny and sexism at any attempt of looking like introducing a rule which goes against a feminist narrative. There's no incentive to speak up, easier life to just keep the head down and get on with it.

As far as these laws go, I can't help but see this as something which massively disadvantages men, and if it's the way it has been described in this thread then it seems very wrong to me.

bcklschaps

ligerdub wrote: »

Ignoring the prostitution ruling (I don't really have a strong opinion on that), although it's obviously clear that's a law which will impact men much more than women, and that's not great. I wasn't aware there was any issue with the laws on that as they stood.

In terms of the political rationale and lack of pushback, it all comes down to risk v reward in my opinion. Political parties do what they need to do to get elected. I reckon some of them would push for a resurrection of Oliver Cromwell if it meant they'd get into power. So what do we have now? We have a culture where women's issues are the political soup of the day. It's all abortion and rape laws..."do something". There is no upside for political parties to fight for laws which iron out inequalities in law or social issues which advantage women over men, it would be very unpopular. The feminist movement of recent years has achieved a victory of sorts in some ways in that it has spilled over to be accepted in the media as a positive thing, it very much owns the hearts and minds of those in the media and by association, into politics.

It's almost the minimum acceptable criteria to be supportive of abortion rights, quotas for women in certain positions, and rape legislation. The gender split of TD's is largely irrelevant, and if anything a greater percentage of men is no way of helping inequalities for men. It doesn't surprise me the main vocal opposition are women, men face accusations of misogyny and sexism at any attempt of looking like introducing a rule which goes against a feminist narrative. There's no incentive to speak up, easier life to just keep the head down and get on with it.

As far as these laws go, I can't help but see this as something which massively disadvantages men, and if it's the way it has been described in this thread then it seems very wrong to me.

Excellent post. The laws were pretty sensible as they stood. A small but vocal minority pressed for changes that will affect the silent majority. A good many of whom are either unaware of the changes or afraid to speak up in case they are seen as clashing with the feminist zeitgeist of today

red ears

ligerdub wrote: »

In terms of the political rationale and lack of pushback, it all comes down to risk v reward in my opinion. Political parties do what they need to do to get elected. I reckon some of them would push for a resurrection of Oliver Cromwell if it meant they'd get into power. So what do we have now? We have a culture where women's issues are the political soup of the day. It's all abortion and rape laws..."do something". There is no upside for political parties to fight for laws which iron out inequalities in law or social issues which advantage women over men, it would be very unpopular. The feminist movement of recent years has achieved a victory of sorts in some ways in that it has spilled over to be accepted in the media as a positive thing, it very much owns the hearts and minds of those in the media and by association, into politics.

I think you are absolutely right here, feminism owns the hearts and minds in almost every facet of society these days. Its the same in the workplace, men are very careful how they act yet women are free to carry on and joke as they please. Men are heavily policed these days morally and legally. It would require a politician with significant integrity to stand up against some of these changes. Most don't have that level of integrity. They should be standing up and saying wait a minute these laws are unfair on our sons, brothers, fathers etc. Much easier for them to say nothing and get reelected.

Samuel T. Cogley

Not looked very hard, but any link to the bill. Is it the 2015 bill?

ligerdub

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not sure you've thought that through...

One is still the client and one the prostitute.

Not sure why but I found that very funny.

OK so a man and woman are equally drunk, have sex, and both can not remember the night before?

Who committed a crime if both state that they can not remember giving consent?

Also isn't there something about women not being able to legally rape men (no penetration of the victim)

johnnyskeleton

Knex. wrote: »

My apologies for my ignorance, but those disputing the first claim by the OP, with regards to male & female disagreeing over whether consent was given, what is the actual reality of the bill?

Its mostly about preventing child trafficking and abuse. The OP is correct about what hes saying re: criminalising the purchasers of prostitution rather than the providers. There is some stuff about capacity to consent, but its not what the OP is saying at all.

If he wants to assert a specific meaning in the bill, he should quote the text, provide a link and give an analysis. Im not going to prove a negative. Simply asserting that there is now a presumption of guilt in rape cases is, as you say, a heavy claim. Let him prove it

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

OK so a man and woman are equally drunk, have sex, and both can not remember the night before?

Who committed a crime if both state that they can not remember giving consent?

Also isn't there something about women not being able to legally rape men (no penetration of the victim)

Neither. If they're both genuinely that drunk neither party possesses the mens rea (guilty mind) to commit the crime of rape.

Your last point is oft cited but slightly misunderstood. Actually my bad...

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.

From my reading of the thread, i get the gist that from here on in, regardless of how your evening went, if a girl takes the hump with you the next day and tells the Gardai you raped her, unless you have a signed document and video footage of her agreeing to sex, then you're pretty much a rapist and tough luck to you?


And from what I've seen in other threads in the past, if she then comes out with 'lol jk he didnt rape me', despite you being tarred for life and on the verge of having spent a lot of your time in prison, she'll face practically zero consequences for her actions?


Seems fair to me.

ligerdub

Personally I think that rather than focusing on redefining rape laws and increasing the scope of its application, the courts should be focusing on more severe penalties and rehabilitation program for offenders. Nowadays it's relatively short custodial sentences even for the most depraved sexual acts, and these people are more kept inside for that period rather than trying to resolve their problems. To me this is possibly making the problem even worse, in that it has killed the social status of the rapist (both in terms of their career &life prospects on the outside), has formed the psychological state into their mind that they are dirty sex pests (which I wouldn't deny they are), and they leave without any impact into controlling their tendencies. When you consider how many murderers had committed acts of sexual violence prior to these acts it shows how dangerous this mix is. There's a danger that whatever pent up frustration, urges, and anger can unravel in a frenzy of acts upon their release.

I'm probably gonna get slaughtered for this one but how or never, I think it's time that people front up that there are various degrees of rape. In recent times the feminists have taken the line that "rape is rape", and while that's true, and has recognised the various perhaps less known categories it could fall into (e.g. marital rape), there are various levels of severity and for want of a better word, seriousness. However, there is a danger here that people who attack random vulnerable women at night, and use such a vile act to sate an internal desire requiring the dominance of another, are lumped into the same category as somebody who had a drunken fool around with somebody and it turned sour afterwards. They aren't the same thing, and I really can't see the benefits for anybody of doing so.

Bringing this back on-topic somewhat, I think there is an issue of a lack of a men's rights lobby group whereby men are vulnerable to spurious claims against them which both cost them a serious loss of status, of their freedom for a period, and for their overall prospects in life.

johnnyskeleton

ligerdub wrote: »

Personally I think that rather than focusing on redefining rape laws and increasing the scope of its application, the courts should be focusing on more severe penalties and rehabilitation program for offenders. Nowadays it's relatively short custodial sentences even for the most depraved sexual acts, and these people are more kept inside for that period rather than trying to resolve their problems. To me this is possibly making the problem even worse, in that it has killed the social status of the rapist (both in terms of their career &life prospects on the outside), has formed the psychological state into their mind that they are dirty sex pests (which I wouldn't deny they are), and they leave without any impact into controlling their tendencies. When you consider how many murderers had committed acts of sexual violence prior to these acts it shows how dangerous this mix is. There's a danger that whatever pent up frustration, urges, and anger can unravel in a frenzy of acts upon their release.

Do you have any evidence for any of this. For the most depraved secual offences judges usually give 12 years to life imprisonment. Hardly short.

And there are loads of courses and post release supervision options. Building Better Lives programme is one, working closely with sex offenders. We even have a prison specifically for sex offenders - arbour hill.

As for recidivism, yes there are repeat offenders. And while it does involve a level of speculation, id say this is due to them being unable to change rather than as a result of frustration at the current system.

iptba

ligerdub wrote: »

I'm probably gonna get slaughtered for this one but how or never, I think it's time that people front up that there are various degrees of rape. In recent times the feminists have taken the line that "rape is rape", and while that's true, and has recognised the various perhaps less known categories it could fall into (e.g. marital rape), there are various levels of severity and for want of a better word, seriousness. However, there is a danger here that people who attack random vulnerable women at night, and use such a vile act to sate an internal desire requiring the dominance of another, are lumped into the same category as somebody who had a drunken fool around with somebody and it turned sour afterwards. They aren't the same thing, and I really can't see the benefits for anybody of doing so.

Yes, this is something that has bothered me for decades. With other crimes there are different severities of an offence/different mitigating factors but we are supposed to accept "rape is rape is rape".

bcklschaps

ligerdub wrote: »

Bringing this back on-topic somewhat, I think there is an issue of a lack of a men's rights lobby group whereby men are vulnerable to spurious claims against them which both cost them a serious loss of status, of their freedom for a period, and for their overall prospects in life.

I think thats the nub of the issue right there. Legislation in Ireland is framed very much with a feminist agenda in mind.
There is no mens version of the National Womens Council of Ireland (government funded to the tune of €1 million per year I might add) and legislation is not checked to see if it might affect men unfairly.
There is a naive presumption amoung men that feminism is a good thing for women and NOT necessarily a bad thing for men.

But I ask you, how can that ever be true???

We are dealing with power at the end of the day and power is a zero sum game. To empower one group you have have to disempower another group.


As men I guess we have always presumed our historical patriarchal advantage would mean that we always held sway (or at least got a fair shakedown equality wise) the point I am making is that is simply not the case anymore.

Alan Shatter when he was minister for Justice had some reservations about all of the laws mentioned in my opening post. Basically that there was a risk of wrongfully and needlessly criminalising men. He was turfed out and a self proclaimed feminist Frances Fitzgerald took over. The fact that she is a feminist alone should make her unfit to be Minister for Justice and Equality.

Feminism is not equality. Its seeking advantage for females over males. A feminist minister for equality is a contradiction.

bcklschaps

Just to add fuel to the fire here lads.


This is from yesterdays Irish Times. (I'll try to put the link in)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-domestic-violence-legislation-covers-people-in-dating-relationships-1.2962315



Tánaiste and Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald (and Feminist) said the Domestic Violence Bill 2017 would empower those affected by such violence
to access protection.

“We have a new emergency barring order where in fact we are putting life and limb ahead of property and we are making sure that the person who is in a dangerous situation, even if she has or he has no rights to the property, can still get a barring order. That’s really important,” she said.


Yes, you read correctly "even if she has or he has no rights to the property" and she goes on to explain how this legislation will also cover cohabiting and non cohabiting couples who are in an intimate and committed relationship.

Ok.....for anybody in the backrow.... Domestic Violence is not necessarily hitting somebody over the head with a mallet, its anything from severe physical assault to passive aggression to coercive behaviour to something as minor as a sulk or slamming a door.

So basically a casual girlfriend can get me kicked out of MY house for any old spurious reason. Whats the bets that I have to still maintain my house (pay mortgage etc.) and then have to go to court to get back into MY house....and naturally the onus is on me to prove my innocence.

I would love to know how many barring orders are granted to male victims of Domestic Violence....I would hazard absolutely ZERO.

red ears

The woman's council isn't enough it seems, now we have the women's collective too to look after women's interests. Still nothing to represent the interests of boys. I won't mention men's interests that is a losing battle. Someone is needed to speak up for male interests though. What will things be like for boys if we have another 30 years of laws made with only woman and girls in mind.

Wibbs

bcklschaps wrote: »

As men I guess we have always presumed our historical patriarchal advantage would mean that we always held sway (or at least got a fair shakedown equality wise) the point I am making is that is simply not the case anymore.

"Presumed" advantage being the operative words for me. When one examines history more closely, yes there were men at the top running things, but they were a tiny minority. Of the vast swathes of working men they were in little better shape than the vast swathes of working and/or housebound women. Feminism today keeps rattling on about this "patriarchy" as if it proffered advantage to anyone with an Y chromosome, but this is patently daft. Even at the very height of such a system women were the more protected gender in wider society. Feminism still bangs this drum complaining about glass ceilings and the like. Yes they can and do exist and yes there are more men at the top of the heap, but the vast majority of the rest of us, men and women, live squarely within said heap, though increasingly women are higher in the heap.

bcklschaps

Deleted User wrote: »

From my reading of the thread, i get the gist that from here on in, regardless of how your evening went, if a girl takes the hump with you the next day and tells the Gardai you raped her, unless you have a signed document and video footage of her agreeing to sex, then you're pretty much a rapist and tough luck to you?


And from what I've seen in other threads in the past, if she then comes out with 'lol jk he didnt rape me', despite you being tarred for life and on the verge of having spent a lot of your time in prison, she'll face practically zero consequences for her actions?


Seems fair to me.

This is my understanding of the new law too.

If a victim of alleged Rape is prepared to perjure themselves, this leaves the accused with absolutely no defence.... The spirit of the law has always been with the victim anyway but has allowed a defence of implied consent and reasonable misunderstanding...and a Judge/Jury decided on the veracity of that on a case by case basis. The negative media reporting normally destroyed the accused anyway, even if they were found to be entirely innocent.

Now the letter of the law will be most definitely on the side of the victim and gives the Judge/Jury no wriggle room in cases even where they sense all is not as it seems.

Should make rape trials very short. (no need for jury's really) Gardai, Judges and Feminists will all be very happy. Men will be shaking in their boots.


and still not a word from our Male politicians and media representatives.

My own feeling is this is a step too far that will lead to many innocent lives destroyed it will probably take a few monumental miscarriages of justice and about 20 years for it to be repealed.

Samuel T. Cogley

While I'm sure this won't be popular...

There is a huge deficiency in our laws regarding rape, but we're not alone, nor are we the worst (looking at you Sweden). It's an extremely difficult area to get right but I do feel we focus far too much on the 'Copper's Scenario'. There is a prevailing attitude in Ireland and the UK that it's a good idea to go out get bladdered and shag the nearest and most 'up for it' piece as totty one can find. Now I have to say I blame our completely ridiculous and repressed attitude to sex for this but that's a different discussion.

If one deconstructs that scenario it's generally the male that initiates and that's were the problem lies. I do think there needs to be an education piece around if you're pissed, or even getting there, you're not best able to assess how drunk your partner is and maybe it's time to take a step back and think is this worth it?

Frankly I think making the option of paying a completely sober professional at this point, illegal is absolutely ridiculous but again a different discussion.

tritium

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

While I'm sure this won't be popular...

There is a huge deficiency in our laws regarding rape, but we're not alone, nor are we the worst (looking at you Sweden). It's an extremely difficult area to get right but I do feel we focus far too much on the 'Copper's Scenario'. There is a prevailing attitude in Ireland and the UK that it's a good idea to go out get bladdered and shag the nearest and most 'up for it' piece as totty one can find. Now I have to say I blame our completely ridiculous and repressed attitude to sex for this but that's a different discussion.

If one deconstructs that scenario it's generally the male that initiates and that's were the problem lies. I do think there needs to be an education piece around if you're pissed, or even getting there, you're not best able to assess how drunk your partner is and maybe it's time to take a step back and think is this worth it?

Frankly I think making the option of paying a completely sober professional at this point, illegal is absolutely ridiculous but again a different discussion.

Except the idea of the male initiating things is really little more than a social presumption with no basis. Its largely again based on concepts like chivalry rather than any statistical study and id wager is pretty inaccurate based in my own experience over the years in nightclubs etc.

Of course that has no beearing on the proposed law and the bizarre scenario it appears to create whereby two people do the same thing while in the same condition but magically one is tagged as a victim and the other as a predator based on their genitalia.

Btw sweden ia a poor example to cite for deficiencies in rape law- the greatest weakness there is theyve tried to shoehorn everything that could fit under the rape umbrella so they can have national self flagellation about their shameful rape culture.

ligerdub

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for any of this. For the most depraved secual offences judges usually give 12 years to life imprisonment. Hardly short.

And there are loads of courses and post release supervision options. Building Better Lives programme is one, working closely with sex offenders. We even have a prison specifically for sex offenders - arbour hill.

As for recidivism, yes there are repeat offenders. And while it does involve a level of speculation, id say this is due to them being unable to change rather than as a result of frustration at the current system.

Yeah fair post, agree with a lot of it. I worked onsite in the prison services in a low-level administrative capacity some years ago so I became aware of the work in Arbour Hill, fair cop. Granted my views are probably biased on the basis of some of the more liberal policies suggested by some professionals were not popular by many of the powers that be around that time. Granted that was about 15 years ago at this stage.

I do remember though (my apologies I don't have the source) there was a report that stated the average sentence given for rape convictions was in the region of 7 years.

It doesn't seem so odd to me, because, although merely anecdotally, I do notice there have been quite a few cases in the news in recent years which suggested a long period of sexual abuse which resulted in only minor prison terms, in the region of a couple of years, in some cases less than that.