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

Man squeezes woman's boobs too hard - it ends up in court - should it have?

Options
1…7891113

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I think that it is reasonable to expect that when you're having sex you would be able to touch your partner's breasts. But if they tell you not to, then that's an end to it.


  • Options
    #303
    Vela
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Vela


    kylith wrote: »
    I think that it is reasonable to expect that when you're having sex you would be able to touch your partner's breasts. But if they tell you not to, then that's an end to it.

    Again, "touching" and inflicting pain are two different things. One can be reasonably expected, the other most definitely wouldn't be.


  • Options
    #304
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    "Hey man I've just met on the internet, can you please stop grabbing my breasts. Keep on having intercourse with me though. I notice you haven't stopped grabbing my breasts yet. Remember not to take your penis out of me though".

    He clearly wasn't going to stop grabbing her breasts. Instead of telling him to get lost she made the decision to keep having sex with him. Common sense is gone out the fucking window nowadays and if you comment on the stupidity of something like this you're the worst man since Ted Bundy.


  • Options
    #305
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Vela wrote: »
    Again, "touching" and inflicting pain are two different things. One can be reasonably expected, the other most definitely wouldn't be.

    Exactly


  • Options
    #306
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    "Hey man I've just met on the internet, can you please stop grabbing my breasts. Keep on having intercourse with me though. I notice you haven't stopped grabbing my breasts yet. Remember not to take your penis out of me though".

    He clearly wasn't going to stop grabbing her breasts. Instead of telling him to get lost she made the decision to keep having sex with him. Common sense is gone out the fucking window nowadays and if you comment on the stupidity of something like this you're the worst man since Ted Bundy.

    Maybe he should have got you up on stand as a 'sex expert'. You seem to have it all figured it out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    the bruises are simply on her evidence there were no pictures shown in court
    its a simple his word against hers as to whether she rmoved permission to touch her breasts and the magistrate decided tobtake her word and also to release his name before the apeal

    for perspective i was attacked in 04 by two lads with box cutters for putting them outvof a pub as a bouncer
    i disarmed one of them and the two if tgem drove off
    garda arrived and told me that it was my word agin theirs even tho there was a knife onnthe ground that would have had my assailants prints onnit

    burden of proof here is much lower


  • Options
    #308
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    The part she repeatedly told him she did not consent to wasn't!

    That's the bit he got in trouble for.

    his coaim is that she didnt


  • Options
    #309
    Johngoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Johngoose


    If this woman is a bit unhinged she could easily be exaggerating and might be just a total bunny boiler


  • Options
    #310
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Maybe he should have got you up on stand as a 'sex expert'. You seem to have it all figured it out.

    It's not hard to figure out really. If you want someone to stop sexually assaulting you then stopping having sex with them is a good place to start.


  • Options
    #311
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    It's not hard to figure out really. If you want someone to stop sexually assaulting you then stopping having sex with them is a good place to start.

    As I said you seem to have this figured out and I don't know for the life of me of me why you didn't offer your services to guy who hurt that women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    Point proven. Common sense isn't very common nowadays.


  • Options
    #313
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    Seriously how hard is it to grasp that she could have told him to stop and, based on her own story, he would have? I don't mean tell him to stop grabbing her breasts, but tell him to stop all physical contact and get lost. She decided she wanted to have sex more than she wanted him to stop grabbing her breasts. You can't have your cake and eat it.


  • Options
    #314
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    Seriously how hard is it to grasp that she could have told him to stop and, based on her own story, he would have? I don't mean tell him to stop grabbing her breasts, but tell him to stop all physical contact and get lost. She decided she wanted to have sex more than she wanted him to stop grabbing her breasts. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    What? You mean that women should accept that if they're going to have sex with a man he's going to cause them physical pain?

    Shame on her for expecting an adult male to be able to modify his behaviour so as to not cause distress and injury to his sexual partner!


  • Options
    #315
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    kylith wrote: »
    What? You mean that women should accept that if they're going to have sex with a man he's going to cause them physical pain?

    Shame on her for expecting an adult male to be able to modify his behaviour so as to not cause distress and injury to his sexual partner!

    Jesus Christ.


  • Options
    #316
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.

    Who knows why she didn't just kick him out. Maybe he was really nice in other areas and she thought this was just some weird sex thing they could work through. Maybe she was genuinely worried about what he would do to her if she tried to call a halt to the sex completely.

    Regardless, I really don't see why you're resorting to epithets in relation to a man being asked to modify his sexual behaviour. Could you explain that please?

    Seriously, why of the two options is him stopping doing the thing that’s hurting her apparently the more unrealistic option?


  • Options
    #317
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    kylith wrote: »
    Who knows why she didn't just kick him out. Maybe he was really nice in other areas and she thought this was just some weird sex thing they could work through. Maybe she was genuinely worried about what he would do to her if she tried to call a halt to the sex completely.

    Regardless, I really don't see why you're resorting to epithets in relation to a man being asked to modify his sexual behaviour. Could you explain that please?

    Seriously, why of the two options is him stopping doing the thing that’s hurting her apparently the more unrealistic option?


    Absolutely nowhere in her story does she say she was coerced. She said she wanted to continue having sex with him. Then after he was gone she texted him.

    It's unrealistic to claim to be sexually assaulted but for it not to put you off of having sex with the person who is assaulting you. And it's unrealistic to expect anything from a complete stranger that you've only spoken to for a few minutes on the internet. He should have stopped grabbing her but he clearly wasn't going to. It was up to her to 'modify her sexual behaviour' by ending things.

    Either you want someone to stop 'assaulting' you or you don't. You don't tell them to stop but to continue having intercourse. That's ridiculous. There's no half measures.


  • Options
    #318
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    kylith wrote: »
    There is a contradiction if the issue is that those who think #metoo was overreaction and that if someone believes that they have been assaulted they should let the law decide.

    Just because I don't believe serious sexual assault is something that should be hashtag'd, doesn't mean I am then a hypocrite unless I support everything every woman moans about to the police.
    This woman felt that she had been assaulted and she let the law decide. The law agreed with her.

    Aye, pretty sure I addressed that:
    But, as a barrister myself, I fear the service is sliding towards the status of a noisy pressure group in the grip of feminist dogma.

    No longer the stern, impartial bulwark of our legal system, it now appears to be increasingly driven by fashionable politics and ideological fads.

    It wasn't a 'bruised tit' it was a painful experience that he continued doing even though she repeatedly told him to stop. You have to be very rough to bruise breasts; this was not run-of-the-mill boob-squeezing, this was him really digging his fingers in. Bruising has been used in other assault cases because, in most instances, people are relatively difficult to significantly bruise.

    Yes, bruising has been used as evidence, but in much more serious cases though, not something as farcical as this. Had he grabbed her boobs in Tesco, even without bruising, that would warrant reporting and charges being brought. She however invited this man into her bed and CHOOSE to have sex with him even 'after' knowing he had a penchant for rougher sex than she herself would appreciate and that's where personal responsibility kicks in.
    I have never denigrated men's experiences of sexual assault.
    If a man felt that his partner had been too rough and continued to do so after being told to stop then he absolutely has the right to make a legal complaint, especially if he is in pain and has significant bruising.

    And you'd support a woman being brought before the courts for squeezing a man's chest or arse too hard, would you? Without pics and if she didn't even break the skin?

    The world's gone mad. Young women in western society today have been so pandered too at this stage that they think every single negative thing that happens to them, society must remedy. Think Camille Paglia (as ever) nails it when she says:
    Too many young middleclass women, raised far from the urban streets, seem to expect adult life to be an extension of their comfortable, overprotected homes. But the world remains a wilderness. The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense.

    Current educational codes, tracking liberal-Left, are perpetuating illusions about sex and gender. The basic Leftist premise, descending from Marxism, is that all problems in human life stem from an unjust society and that corrections and fine-tunings of that social mechanism will eventually bring utopia. Progressives have unquestioned faith in the perfectibility of mankind.

    A bruised boob sustained during sex is not a matter for the courts, no chance. No more than it should be a matter for the courts if say two guys were 'play fighting' with a no hitting in the face the agreed rule but one of them hauls off and gives the other a shiner. Well, tough sh1t tbh, don't play fight with the fcuker anymore.


  • Options
    #319
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Johngoose wrote: »
    If this woman is a bit unhinged she could easily be exaggerating and might be just a total bunny boiler

    And if the man is a bit unhinged he could easily be lying. Have you hidden a point in there somewhere?

    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    He should have stopped grabbing her but he clearly wasn't going to. It was up to her to 'modify her sexual behaviour' by ending things.

    Sweet jesus - it's her fault that he hurt her? You've had a good auld think about things and that's your opinion?
    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    You don't tell them to stop but to continue having intercourse. That's ridiculous. There's no half measures.

    That's a fúcking ridiculous statement!

    You've never been told by anyone to stop doing "x" but sex still continued?
    I don't believe that for 1 second.

    Consent is not some binary option - It's not an either / or - don't touch, or do whatever the fúck you like.

    You'll find that in real life, yours included - you will like somethings but not like others. It's clearly not a matter of consent to everything or consent to nothing.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »

    Aye, pretty sure I addressed that:

    You never addressed this - Do you think the woman was assaulted at all?

    Not, do you believe her story. Assuming her story is 100% true as she told it- would that count as an assault or not in your book?

    Yes or no.


  • Options
    #320
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #321
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I already said (many times now) that I don't think this case should have ended up in court. Why would I say that if I was of the belief that she had been sexually assaulted? You're asking a question that doesn't need answering tbf.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Oh give over with the sanctimonious nonsense. She was left her in tears, she was covered in bruises..... Well, if she was so physically hurt or emotionally upset, why did she keep f***ing him then?
    Inflicting rough sex on a non-consenting partner is assault, clear and simple.

    As I said before, if someone is into rough sex, find a partner who also wants it, and agree up front what the deal will be. But don't get an unsuspecting person to consent to intercourse, and then start physically attacking her, ignoring her requests to stop.

    What a load of exaggerated bollox. Attacked her??

    You see, if you were so right about the position you're taking, then you wouldn't feel the need to exaggerate so much. You're doing so as you really have to in order to justify this ending up in court.

    You say she was in tears, covered in bruises cause he attacked her, but what woman would want to keep having sex with a guy (and she clearly did) that did all that to her?? None. Her behaviour is not consistent with the scenario you paint having happened at all. It's far more indicative that he was just squeezing her breasts harder than she liked is all. He didn't attack her. She even asked him to stay. Why would a woman want an attacker to stay in her apartment and have a chat?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Sweet jesus - it's her fault that he hurt her? You've had a good auld think about things and that's your opinion?

    You really have to be hurt pretty badly to keep having sex with someone, ask them to stay and discuss things and then text them after they're gone. You've clearly thought this through yourself.


  • Options
    #323
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    i thinknit boils down to this
    i do not believe that she was intimidated
    i do not believe that she told him to not touch her breasts
    i believe she allowed him consentually to keep on ploughing away and that she said ow or stop that and that he got confused

    and that she decided after he got his but and made like a tree
    that he had assaulted her

    maybe im wrong but if l am why didnt she tell him to stop the sex


  • Options
    #324
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    The whole story she came out with is bizarre. This bit strikes me as the most unbelievable.
    Mrs Shaw added: 'After she showed him the bruise he responded that he had had rougher sex than that.
    'She did not want him to leave and did not want to believe what had happened.
    'She wanted him to stay and discuss it. His demeanour then changed. He had tears in his eyes and said he needed to go and think about what he had done to her.
    'He then stormed out the door. She was in complete and utter shock and texted him, imploring him to return.

    Who in their right mind 'implores' someone who has assaulted them to come back?

    And that line about him saying he 'needed to think about what he had done to her' sounds like something a barrister would make up to make him look guilty. It just sounds so fake. It sounds particularly suspicious after that bit about him having had rougher sex than that. I get the impression that was designed to make it look like he was some kind of serial woman abuser who hadn't yet been caught. Why would he proudly state he had already done worse but then start crying about what he had just done?


  • Options
    #325
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    The Telegraph puts a bit more flesh on the bones...

    "She decided to report what had happened after conversations with friends and family"


  • Options
    #326
    222233
    Registered Users Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭222233


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    The Telegraph puts a bit more flesh on the bones...

    "She decided to report what had happened after conversations with friends and family"

    On reading that article I wonder what would have happebed if he hadn't left? It appears based on this account that she didn't want him to leave, based on the continued consensual sex, showering and then requesting him to stay and talk (tad unusuall )


  • Options
    #327
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    222233 wrote: »
    On reading that article I wonder what would have happebed if he hadn't left? It appears based on this account that she didn't want him to leave, based on the continued consensual sex, showering and then requesting him to stay and talk (tad unusuall )

    Whike I think he was a right sh1t of a man, I don't think this was 'sexual' assault, and demeans actual sexual assault and devalues the register.
    If he had a relationship with the lady in question, rather than bolting out the gap, we'd never have heard of this. She got used, and wanted revenge IMO.

    A good kicking might be more appropriate for him.


  • Options
    #328
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I already said (many times now) that I don't think this case should have ended up in court. Why would I say that if I was of the belief that she had been sexually assaulted? You're asking a question that doesn't need answering tbf.

    That's a nice dodge but it's just not the question(s) I've asked, I know you don't believe it should have ended up in court - but as I've said that wasn't my question.

    The question I'm asking you is, assuming her story is true i.e. she asked him to stop, he didn't, they continued to have consensual sex anyway.

    My question is in that exact circumstance do you think that is assault, or do you think that the consent to sex somehow negates or over rides the part where he physically hurt her - and by extension, do you not agree that intentionally physically hurting someone during sex, after they have explicitly informed you that they do not consent is pretty much the definition of sexual assault?

    So - is that an assault - yes or no?
    If yes, is it therefore a sexual assault - yes or no?

    I'm not asking do you believe her story, or do you think she should have stopped sex altogether, or what you would have done in the circumstances or anything else for that matter.

    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    You really have to be hurt pretty badly to keep having sex with someone, ask them to stay and discuss things and then text them after they're gone. You've clearly thought this through yourself.

    Ok same questions to you so. You clearly don't believe her, that's your own decision to make and that's perfectly fine by me. That's why we have juries for certain trials after all.

    But hypothetically - lets say she's 100% telling the truth.

    Would that be an assault, and would it therefore be a sexual assault?
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    A good kicking might be more appropriate for him.

    I don't know about more appropriate - but appropriate definitely!


  • Options
    #329
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Tigger wrote: »
    i thinknit boils down to this
    i do not believe that she was intimidated
    i do not believe that she told him to not touch her breasts
    i believe she allowed him consentually to keep on ploughing away and that she said ow or stop that and that he got confused

    and that she decided after he got his but and made like a tree
    that he had assaulted her

    maybe im wrong but if l am why didnt she tell him to stop the sex

    Well, unfortunately for him, you weren't in the court listening to the testimony and the cross examination. This may come as a surprise to you, but when decisions are made in court they tend to be based on considerably more information than appears in the subsequent newspaper stories.

    Yes, given the nature of what we are talking about, it will come down to "he said / she said", but clearly the court believed what she said, and not what he said.

    Whilst you might believe she was not intimidated, or that she told him to stop mashing her breasts, the court did. I would like to think that is because the court had access to considerably more information than you do, and would hope that had you access to the same information you opinion might be different.

    With respect to whether or not it should have been in court at all... Clearly it should have been. She reported it to the police, and they, unlike Outlaw Pete and a few other posters, believed that an offence may have been commit ed. They will then have interviewed both parties and formed a view. They would have then discussed the matter with the CPS. The CPS will have looked at the evidence gathered and made a decision on whether or not to charge and proceed with the prosecution. In making this decision they will have made a qualitative assessment of the evidence to decide if they believe an offence was committed, as well as assessing their chance of securing a conviction and if the prosecution is in the public interest. Of course, the CPS do get it wrong sometimes, but the next stage would tend to indicate they got it right here. It went to court and the court found that guy guilty. He was found guilty because the court believed her, and not him.

    MrP


  • Options
    #330
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    My question is in that exact circumstance do you think that is assault, or do you think that the consent to sex somehow negates or over rides the part where he physically hurt her - and by extension, do you not agree that intentionally physically hurting someone during sex, after they have explicitly informed you that they do not consent is pretty much the definition of sexual assault?

    You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You keep asking me questions and saying 'I know you don't believe her, but...' as if I am answering only in that context. How many times do I need to say that I believe ALL sexual assaults should end up in court and so that should tell you that I don't believe that what this woman claimed happened amounted to one.

    The fact that I don't believe her is immaterial in that regard, as when I say it never should have went to court, I'm saying that it should never have went to court even if her version of events is 100% accurate.
    So - is that an assault - yes or no?

    Nope, cause he had consent to squeeze her breasts. She just didn't appreciate the 'degree of force'.

    He would have had to have used an unreasonable amount of force for it to qualify as an assault given that they were both sexually consenting to one another. An injury of some kind that required medical treatment perhaps. Or anally penetrating her against her wishes. But a bruise? Don't be ridiculous.

    If he was walking past her in a crowded pub and squeezed her breast causing the same bruise, sure, that's a sexual assault but it's not when you've invited that man into your bed. Merely telling that person that they are being too rough does not suddenly make further contact of the same kind a sexual assault.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »

    Nope, cause he had consent to squeeze her breasts. She just didn't appreciate the 'degree of force'.
    No. Being generous, and sensible, he had implied consent to touch her breasts as most people would consider that to be part of having sex, to which she consented. The point is, she objected to how he was touching her breasts and made it clear he did not have consent to touch them in that manner.

    Consenting to sex is not consenting to everything that might mean.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    He would have had to have used an unreasonable amount of force for it to qualify as an assault given that they were both sexually consenting to one another. An injury of some kind that required medical treatment perhaps. Or anally penetrating her against her wishes. But a bruise? Don't be ridiculous.
    Anal might not cause any injury at all. Why would that be an assault but mashing her breasts in a way she does not consent to, even after she has asked for it to stop, wouldn't be?
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    If he was walking past her in a crowded pub and squeezed her breast causing the same bruise, sure, that's a sexual assault but it's not when you've invited that man into your bed. Merely telling that person that they are being too rough does not suddenly make further contact of the same kind a sexual assault.
    Again, consenting to sex is not consenting to everything that might possibly happen, and even if it was, consent can be withdrawn in whole or in part.

    Or, is it your view that once consent for sex is given then it cannot be withdrawn, in whole or in part?

    MrP


Advertisement