The Snapper-debate

....... · 08-01-2018 5:08pm

This post has been deleted.

AndrewJRenko · 08-01-2018 5:10pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If consent is given (and I'd argue it was - she hugs him and is conscious)

So every time I hug someone while I'm conscious, I'm saying that it's OK for them to shag me now?

the_pen_turner · 08-01-2018 5:10pm

its amazing that people can see one scene and see completely different things.
it is 100% not rape in my view . others are 100% the other view.
nothing wrong with that but its interesting

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 5:11pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think if it were supposed to be a rape scene, then the entire film/story would of played differently. Guards would of been involved and Dessie would of done more than just threaten Georgie in the jax. The brother would of done more than just break his windows...

Also, this is all based of a piece of fiction, so the author is the only one who can confirm what exactly happened in the incident. With that in mind, we have to assume it was supposed to be a story based on Sharon's drunken mistake and not a Georgie got away with rape story...

....... · 08-01-2018 5:15pm

This post has been deleted.

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 5:16pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a fair point.

BattleCorp · 08-01-2018 5:17pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes:

Yep, you are dead right. If someone raped my sister, me and me da would have been grand about it back in the 80's.

TheChizler · 08-01-2018 5:20pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Yep, you are dead right. If someone raped my sister, me and me da would have been grand about it back in the 80's.

And if she described what really happened as differently as in the film?

decky1 · 08-01-2018 5:24pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Tell your English friend it was a film, not real life.

FFS.

great point , when are people going to stop finding bad in everything, get a life 'It's A FILM'

....... · 08-01-2018 5:25pm

This post has been deleted.

Odyssey 2005 · 08-01-2018 5:28pm

Ya mean it wasn't a Spanish Sailor with a euge lad !!?

seamus · 08-01-2018 5:29pm

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Ya mean it wasn't a Spanish Sailor with a euge lad !!?

Excuse me, it was a hefty langer.

BattleCorp · 08-01-2018 5:31pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh, maybe because she wasn't. Just an idea.

Adamocovic · 08-01-2018 5:36pm

If the author himself calls it rape then you can't really debate whether it was or not since that's what he wrote and his intentions for the scene. However I would agree that it was poorly handled in the movie and left a little unclear leading to the dividing opinions.

c_man · 08-01-2018 5:50pm

I've watched that only recently actually, never even entered my mind that someone would think it was rape.

....... · 08-01-2018 5:51pm

This post has been deleted.

BattleCorp · 08-01-2018 5:52pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

If the author himself calls it rape then you can't really debate whether it was or not since that's what he wrote and his intentions for the scene. However I would agree that it was poorly handled in the movie and left a little unclear leading to the dividing opinions.

I know this is splitting hairs, but the discussion here is about the film, not the book.

Maybe it was a rape in the book, but it isn't as clear cut in the film.

BattleCorp · 08-01-2018 5:55pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah look, I've woken up beside 'quare' wans years ago when I was on the lash that I wouldn't brag about.

And many of my conquests wouldn't brag about me either, they were drunken flings that seemed like a good thing at the time when we were all wearing the beer goggles.

Some of the women that slept with me in those circumstances would have rather owned up to being with a 'Spanish Sailer' rather than BattleCorp.

c_man · 08-01-2018 6:00pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

His name was Pedro. Pedro the sailor man...

Floppybits · 08-01-2018 6:08pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But thats the whole point of the film. Its a picture of the culture of the time and if Sharon had said she was raped, everyone would have said the things you are saying now. Because casual rape was more acceptable in the 80s. Its a social commentary of its time.

So rather than anyone go down for rape, the family just gets on with it - amid much hi jinx in Barrytown.

Such was life in the 80s.[/quote]
Always thought it was the 90's.

....... · 08-01-2018 6:11pm

This post has been deleted.

Odyssey 2005 · 08-01-2018 6:14pm

Load of bollix...I'm out.

Ralf and Florian · 08-01-2018 6:17pm

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Ya mean it wasn't a Spanish Sailor with a euge lad !!?

For all you know it could have been a Pakistani postman.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-01-2018 6:53pm

seamus wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If consent is given (and I'd argue it was - she hugs him and is conscious) is it revoked (assuming she remains conscious)?

Being conscious and being capable of consent are not the same thing. But yes, even if we were to assume that he believed consent had been given, then it seems clear that consent was later revoked when she asked, "is dat yeuw squeekin?"; because she clearly had no idea what was happening.

Consent must be continuous. If you have any reason to believe that consent is no longer in place (e.g. the person has passed out or appears unaware of what's happening), then it's rape if you continue.

Here I'd disagree: if you're capable if revoking consent then you've a duty to do so if you no longer wish to carry on.

I don't see how the squraking comment could be construed as having no idea what's happening? I don't believe she literally thought he was squeaking.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-01-2018 7:15pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The books were published in 1992 - so they were set in the 80s at the time of writing, although maybe the film was set in the 90s, cant remember a specific date mentioned - open to correction.

Apologies - that was the trilogy published in 1992.

The snapper was published in 1990 so it (the book) definitely referred to the 80s.[/quote]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The books were published in 1992 - so they were set in the 80s at the time of writing, although maybe the film was set in the 90s, cant remember a specific date mentioned - open to correction.

Apologies - that was the trilogy published in 1992.

The snapper was published in 1990 so it (the book) definitely referred to the 80s.[/quote]

Wasn't it a sequeal to The Van, which was set against the backdrop of Italia 90?

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 7:16pm

Georgina Curley was born in 1993 in the film.

Katgurl · 08-01-2018 9:25pm

seamus wrote: »

No no, that still makes him a rapist.

It doesn't require an "altercation" to be rape.
Someone doesn't have to say "no" for it to be rape.
Someone even appearing to be eager may still be incapable of consent, which makes it rape.
You don't have to be ashamed afterwards for it to be rape
You don't have know you committed a crime, for it to be rape

What is this madness?

keeponhurling · 08-01-2018 9:27pm

Thread needs poll

Barry Badrinath · 08-01-2018 9:27pm

keeponhurling wrote: »

Thread needs poll

Fcuk that!

Sharon will only get up it again!

Adamocovic · 08-01-2018 9:38pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know this is splitting hairs, but the discussion here is about the film, not the book.

Maybe it was a rape in the book, but it isn't as clear cut in the film.

Apologies, I agree with that.

The Snapper-debate

Comments