What would you do if your 15-year old daughter......

Your Face

I'm sick of these imaginary people getting into these situations.

Paddy Cow

uncommon_name wrote: »

I wouldn't say its bollocks. A lot of 17 year old's today are like 10 year old from when I grew up, which wasn't that long ago at all.
They don't know if they do it, they may never get a job, it will be on the record forever possibly, they may never be able to travel to certain countries, they may not be able to live in certain areas and it could potentially ruin their own chances of ever having a family of their own.
17 year old children (especially boys) do not think of these things. They don't care about them at that age. Plus you need to remember, 17 year old's shouldn't be drinking alcohol, their bodies aren't ready for it and they probably don't know how to handle it.
I am not saying what he does is acceptable, it isn't in any way at all acceptable and I am not blaming drink on it either. He should be punished for it, but maybe not by the Police for the first time. If it ever happens again then yes, put him behind bars.
Imagine having to have that conversation with your own parents, the girl you done it to and her parents. Imagine how much torture that would be at 17 years old. I think that would be enough to make you never even think about it again.

That is complete bollox. Teenagers today aren't given as much responsibility as previous generations and have less practical skills as a consequence but in this day and age they are very clued in sexually. Consent is a HUGE topic and unless a teenage boy has been raised in a cave, there is no way they don't know that forcibly holding someone down and trying to take off their clothes against their will is wrong.

How do you know the 17 yr old would be tortured having to apologise? If they lack the conscience and empathy that most people have which stops them assaulting others, how do you know he wouldn't just go through the motions and not feel bad at all? We don't judge people on how they might feel, we judge them on their behaviour and if someone behaves like a potential rapist, they should be treated like a potential rapist.

If a 17 yr old stole my 15 yr old's phone, I'd take option d and talk to him and his parents. If he tried to rape my daughter I'd go straight to the Guards. There is a huge difference in the two crimes and it's shocking how many people don't seem to realise that.

it's exactly that, a political thread to tease out what's going on at the moment.
work for the INDO MUCH????
welcome Matt cooper!

Thread should have been locked pages ago

Snickers Man

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes - and the premise for the thread is about her and her people not dealing with it the right way.

Complete nonsense of a thread, victim blaming and highly provocative and offensive.

Victim blaming? I have not "blamed" her for anything. Unless you consider my opinion that there is zero chance of her securing a conviction against Mr Kavanaugh for what she alleges happened 35 years ago is somehow an endorsement of those actions. It isn't.

It's just that the burden of proof she could assemble is unlikely to be strong enough to gain a conviction. I believe she can't even remember where exactly it took place.
That's not victim blaming. It's assessment of a probable outcome.

I admit (again): my motivation in posing the question (to which SOME people have been able to provide a variety of answers without exhibiting apoplexy) was prompted by the real-world events going on in the US Senate. But it's not meant to be a dissection of the rights and wrongs of that particular case. It's what you would do if faced with a similar situation in your own life.

Triceratops Ballet

Snickers Man wrote:

Given what happened in the recent Belfast rugby rape trial, and given the grilling that Ms Ford is going through at the moment, albeit as a mature adult accomplished in her field and therefore more likely to have a very thick skin than a young teenager, don't you think that an alternative approach that might spare one's daughter such an ordeal might be better?

Snickers Man wrote:

Like I said, once you make it a criminal case, once it goes anywhere near a court the accused gets all the benefit of the doubt, including any doubts that can be raised about the accuser's credibility.

The criminal justice system is very tough for victims of sexual violence that's true, I don't know what the answer to that is. But I do know that sending a message to teens that your first attempted sexual assault can be made to go away with an apology to your parents and the victim is 100% not the way to handle it. It sends a message to perpetrators that their behaviour is fine and to victims that they don't matter.
That doesn't serve any party or society well.

Snickers Man

Paddy Cow wrote: »

unless a teenage boy has been raised in a cave, there is no way they don't know that forcibly holding someone down and trying to take off their clothes against their will is wrong.

How do you know the 17 yr old would be tortured having to apologise? If they lack the conscience and empathy that most people have which stops them assaulting others, how do you know he wouldn't just go through the motions and not feel bad at all? We don't judge people on how they might feel, we judge them on their behaviour and if someone behaves like a potential rapist, they should be treated like a potential rapist.

If a 17 yr old stole my 15 yr old's phone, I'd take option d and talk to him and his parents. If he tried to rape my daughter I'd go straight to the Guards. There is a huge difference in the two crimes and it's shocking how many people don't seem to realise that.

Like I said: some people can answer this question without descending into apoplexy. Witness.

Fair points but here's the thing. In the hypothetical scenario that we are discussing (which bears a strong resemblance to events described in the USA 35 years ago) the young woman wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. It MIGHT indeed have been a genuine attempt at rape, or it MIGHT have been a young man pressing his case forcefully in the hope that some sort of consent might have been forthcoming. (I'm talking about the hypothetical case here, I'm not suggesting what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford. Just to be clear)

People do that. Push their luck, hope to get what they want. Don't take no for an answer too easily. We're trained to do that in most aspects of life. We are encouraged at all times to be indomitable, not to give up, to persist. Males and females.

For those who haven't spontaneously combusted so far let me affirm clearly that in sexual matters the degree of persistence that can be tolerated is a lot less than should be tolerated from somebody trying to sell, to use your example, a mobile phone. No means No. But it doesn't mean "Don't ask". Does it?

Who decides whether the situation described (again NOT talking Ford v Kavanaugh) is a genuine attempted rape or a young guy being overly persistent? You and your daughter, with hopefully the collaboration of the boy's parents/guardians, or the courts?

Would you really put your trust in the courts as a first option? I'm not sure that I would. Think the ordeal of the girl in Belfast. Think Joanne Hayes (for those of you old enough). Neither of those women did anything wrong, but in court your credibility is put to the test ruthlessly.

Like I said earlier, the going to the parents route would be my first option. It might pan out well or it might as described earlier be met with stubborn resistance, in which case an alternative might have to be considered.

And to be clear: even if it WAS a young man pushing the boundaries, it would have been wrong and he would have to acknowledge that.

No victim blaming here.

Penn

Snickers Man wrote: »

It MIGHT indeed have been a genuine attempt at rape, or it MIGHT have been a young man pressing his case forcefully in the hope that some sort of consent might have been forthcoming. (I'm talking about the hypothetical case here, I'm not suggesting what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford. Just to be clear)

People do that. Push their luck, hope to get what they want. Don't take no for an answer too easily. We're trained to do that in most aspects of life. We are encouraged at all times to be indomitable, not to give up, to persist. Males and females.

For those who haven't spontaneously combusted so far let me affirm clearly that in sexual matters the degree of persistence that can be tolerated is a lot less than should be tolerated from somebody trying to sell, to use your example, a mobile phone. No means No. But it doesn't mean "Don't ask". Does it?

Who decides whether the situation described (again NOT talking Ford v Kavanaugh) is a genuine attempted rape or a young guy being overly persistent? You and your daughter, with hopefully the collaboration of the boy's parents/guardians, or the courts?

From your OP:

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's a probable scenario. Your 15 year old daughter goes to a party in a friend's house. Some of the kids there are a few years older than her. One of the boys, aged 17, who has had a couple of beers decides that he likes the look of your pretty daughter and inveigles her into a bedroom whereupon he throws her on the bed and tries to pull her clothes off against her will.

She resists and tries to scream, he puts her hand over her mouth and, in the presence of another friend continues what is by any sense of the term a sexual assault. Your daughter manages to break free and escapes from the room.

You extremely clearly set out the hypothetical as attempted sexual assault at the very least. What you described was not in any way a guy "pushing his luck", "doesn't mean Don't ask", or "a young man pressing his case forcefully in the hope that some sort of consent might have been forthcoming".

What you described in your hypothetical is attempted sexual assault, possibly even attempted rape.

As for "No means No. But it doesn't mean "Don't ask". Does it?", "No" would be the answer to the question that was asked. It doesn't mean "Ask again, then again, then try to pull my clothes off while covering my mouth so I can't scream because after all we are encouraged at all times to be indomitable, not to give up, to persist."

Edit: I know last paragraph there isn't what you were saying and I don't mean to imply you were, however I feel like by talking about persistence and pushing your luck with a girl in the context of a discussion such as this and with your own hypothetical which very clearly extends far beyond notions of simply being persistent, it's needlessly conflating the two.

Triceratops Ballet

Snickers Man wrote:

Fair points but here's the thing. In the hypothetical scenario that we are discussing (which bears a strong resemblance to events described in the USA 35 years ago) the young woman wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. It MIGHT indeed have been a genuine attempt at rape, or it MIGHT have been a young man pressing his case forcefully in the hope that some sort of consent might have been forthcoming. (I'm talking about the hypothetical case here, I'm not suggesting what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford. Just to be clear)

There is a big difference between the hypothetical scenario you proposed and someone pushing their luck. If a bloke was chancing his arm with me a firm no and cop yourself on would suffice, if he tried what you listed in the op there's not a hope I wouldn't involve the gardai

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Neyite wrote: »

My son knows that if someone doesn't want you to touch them and tells you so, you stop. You stop right away. He is six.

If he can get that incredibly simple concept and has an ability to apply it, so can the average teen.

It's depressing that it's barely part of the conversation here that a 17 year old should understand not to commit sexual assault because it's a violation of another person, it's more about how he might not understand the seriousness of what he's doing, i.e. he might not be able to get a job.

kylith

Penn wrote: »

What you described in your hypothetical is attempted sexual assault, possibly even attempted rape.

As for "No means No. But it doesn't mean "Don't ask". Does it?", "No" would be the answer to the question that was asked. It doesn't mean "Ask again, then again, then try to pull my clothes off while covering my mouth so I can't scream because after all we are encouraged at all times to be indomitable, not to give up, to persist."

Exactly: consent gained under duress is not consent. A woman 'consenting' because she has been bullied, coerced, or threatened into it has not consented. A woman 'consenting' because she has been pinned down, a hand put over her mouth, and her clothes pulled off... how could any sane person see that as consent??

Snickers Man wrote: »

Victim blaming? I have not "blamed" her for anything. Unless you consider my opinion that there is zero chance of her securing a conviction against Mr Kavanaugh for what she alleges happened 35 years ago is somehow an endorsement of those actions. It isn't.

It's just that the burden of proof she could assemble is unlikely to be strong enough to gain a conviction. I believe she can't even remember where exactly it took place.
That's not victim blaming. It's assessment of a probable outcome.

I'm sure that she doesn't expect to secure a criminal conviction. I believe that her initial letter was due to concern that a man with a history of sexual assault, per her accusation, would not be put in a position where he could have influence over issues such as sentencing and women's reproductive health.

bear1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's a probable scenario. Your 15 year old daughter goes to a party in a friend's house. Some of the kids there are a few years older than her. One of the boys, aged 17, who has had a couple of beers decides that he likes the look of your pretty daughter and inveigles her into a bedroom whereupon he throws her on the bed and tries to pull her clothes off against her will.

She resists and tries to scream, he puts her hand over her mouth and, in the presence of another friend continues what is by any sense of the term a sexual assault. Your daughter manages to break free and escapes from the room.

When she gets home, deeply traumatised, she confides in you as caring and sensitive modern parent(s) what has happened. So what do you do?

a) call the police and make a complaint

b) tell her to get over herself, that boys will be boys, they're only after one thing and what were you thinking about going to a party with older alcohol-swilling teenagers while you were dressed in that getup

c) sympathise with her, tell her it's a regrettable rite of passage and to bide her time. If he ever arises to a position of responsibility we'll take that skeleton out of his closet and rattle it in front of the general public

d) comfort and reassure her, tell her that regardless of youth and inexperience that sort of behaviour is unacceptable for any young man, insist that he is confronted with it in the presence of his parents and/or schoolteachers if appropriate, demand an apology from him and make it clear that he is never to think of indulging in such behaviour again, that no more will be said about it unless it becomes known that he has repeated the deed in which case this will be made known to whoever is the subsequent wronged party?

I would like to think that I would have chosen option d, if my daughter were ever the victim of such an assault and that if my son had ever done such a thing (both are long past their teens now) the parents of the girl in question would have behaved similarly with us. We would have been most grateful to them, and would have made clear to him the severity of what he had done.

I also like to think we would have equipped him with enough cop-on and manners that he would never have thought of doing such a thing in the first place but the world is a dangerous place.

What do any parents here think?

I know, this is probably not a political thread in itself but given what is going on in the US Senate at the moment.....

What in the actual fcuk?

Paddy Cow

Snickers Man wrote: »

Like I said: some people can answer this question without descending into apoplexy. Witness.

Fair points but here's the thing. In the hypothetical scenario that we are discussing (which bears a strong resemblance to events described in the USA 35 years ago) the young woman wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. It MIGHT indeed have been a genuine attempt at rape, or it MIGHT have been a young man pressing his case forcefully in the hope that some sort of consent might have been forthcoming. (I'm talking about the hypothetical case here, I'm not suggesting what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford. Just to be clear)

People do that. Push their luck, hope to get what they want. Don't take no for an answer too easily. We're trained to do that in most aspects of life. We are encouraged at all times to be indomitable, not to give up, to persist. Males and females.

For those who haven't spontaneously combusted so far let me affirm clearly that in sexual matters the degree of persistence that can be tolerated is a lot less than should be tolerated from somebody trying to sell, to use your example, a mobile phone. No means No. But it doesn't mean "Don't ask". Does it?

Who decides whether the situation described (again NOT talking Ford v Kavanaugh) is a genuine attempted rape or a young guy being overly persistent? You and your daughter, with hopefully the collaboration of the boy's parents/guardians, or the courts?

Would you really put your trust in the courts as a first option? I'm not sure that I would. Think the ordeal of the girl in Belfast. Think Joanne Hayes (for those of you old enough). Neither of those women did anything wrong, but in court your credibility is put to the test ruthlessly.

Like I said earlier, the going to the parents route would be my first option. It might pan out well or it might as described earlier be met with stubborn resistance, in which case an alternative might have to be considered.

And to be clear: even if it WAS a young man pushing the boundaries, it would have been wrong and he would have to acknowledge that.

No victim blaming here.

The scenario you described is attempted rape. She was held down, had a hand put over her mouth to hide her screams and he was trying to take off her clothes. What do you think would have happened if she hadn't escaped? Do you think he'd have taken off her clothes, tickled her and then cried "prank" lol. How you can try to justify that situation with him having boundary issues and think having a chat with his parents will sort it, is beyond me.

You made a post and most people have rounded on you because option d is ridiculous given the seriousness of what happened in your situation. Now you keep waffling and changing the goal posts. We have very clear rules in society - in day to day life you can push your luck verbally. Ask but don't ever resort to violence. It's drilled into people that no matter how far you are pushed you should walk away. Now it's being drilled into people that no matter how much you want to have sexy time with someone, if they're not into it then go take a cold shower.

No to violence.
No to violation.

It's not that hard to understand. Even 17 yr olds get it

Paddy Cow

bear1 wrote: »

What in the actual fcuk?

It's meant to be satire. In the 80's sexual assault wasn't taken seriously but in this day and age that attitude doesn't wash.

Snickers Man

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The scenario you described is attempted rape.

You made a post and most people have rounded on you because option d is ridiculous given the seriousness of what happened in your situation. Now you keep waffling and changing the goal posts. We have very clear rules in society - in day to day life you can push your luck verbally. Ask but don't ever resort to violence. It's drilled into people that no matter how far you are pushed you should walk away. Now it's being drilled into people that no matter how much you want to have sexy time with someone, if they're not into it then go take a cold shower.

No to violence.
No to violation.

Fair enough comments. Except, I don't accept I'm changing the goal posts. In this hypothetical scenario, my first priority would be the well being of my daughter.

You say the scenario I described was attempted rape. I fully accept it might have been. But it might not have been. And if there is any sort of grey area, I would prefer it be teased out in private between the two parties (and their parents) rather than in court.

Put it this way: if MY walk through of potential interpretations of the situation raises people's hackles, what sort of outrage do you think a competent defence lawyer would cause? ( go read the reports of the Belfast rape trial or the Kerry Babies tribunal) I would prefer my daughter not be on the end of that, if she could possibly help it.

And again, regardless of whether it was attempted rape (is there even such a charge in Irish law or would it come under sexual assault?) or just over exuberant persistence let me say again (goalposts still in the same place) the young man would have been wrong.

It's what to do about it that counts.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Where does the line lie between attempted rape and a bit of "exuberant persistence"? Or even the grey area? Could you name one thing which makes them different?

Not a trick question or anything.

kylith

Snickers Man wrote: »

Put it this way: if MY walk through of potential interpretations of the situation raises people's hackles, what sort of outrage do you think a competent defence lawyer would cause? ( go read the reports of the Belfast rape trial or the Kerry Babies tribunal) I would prefer my daughter not be on the end of that, if she could possibly help it.

So instead of warning her of the potential issues and supporting her while reporting to the Gardai so that at least if he does do it again they have record that he has prior accusations you would advise her to let him off scott-free?

Snickers Man wrote: »

And again, regardless of whether it was attempted rape (is there even such a charge in Irish law or would it come under sexual assault?) or just over exuberant persistence let me say again (goalposts still in the same place) the young man would have been wrong.

Exuberant persistence.... Jesus wept. What do you think he intended to do once he had gotten her clothes off?

Penn

Snickers Man wrote: »

Fair enough comments. Except, I don't accept I'm changing the goal posts. In this hypothetical scenario, my first priority would be the well being of my daughter.

You say the scenario I described was attempted rape. I fully accept it might have been. But it might not have been. And if there is any sort of grey area, I would prefer it be teased out in private between the two parties (and their parents) rather than in court.

Put it this way: if MY walk through of potential interpretations of the situation raises people's hackles, what sort of outrage do you think a competent defence lawyer would cause? ( go read the reports of the Belfast rape trial or the Kerry Babies tribunal) I would prefer my daughter not be on the end of that, if she could possibly help it.

And again, regardless of whether it was attempted rape (is there even such a charge in Irish law or would it come under sexual assault?) or just over exuberant persistence let me say again (goalposts still in the same place) the young man would have been wrong.

It's what to do about it that counts.

Again, your hypothetical may not be attempted rape, but it's certainly and very clearly attempted sexual assault. It doesn't matter what the distinction is between those two, because for most people the line would have been crossed before both of those. The scenario you described in your OP does not constitute "over exuberant persistence", and if my daughter described what happened to her in the way you described your hypothetical, that's attempted sexual assault at the absolute minimum.

If I may ask; what if your daughter wanted to go to the guards? Would you have accepted that and supported her, or would you have tried to persuade to her she should go with Option d)? You say your first priority would be the well-being of your daughter, and rightfully so. But to what extent do you believe what you consider to be the best option should be followed rather than what she wants?

I personally said in my first post here that I'd prefer option a) all the way. However if my daughter didn't want that, I'd review other options.

Snickers Man

Penn wrote: »

Again, your hypothetical may not be attempted rape, but it's certainly and very clearly attempted sexual assault.

In fact, I would say it's very definitely an actual sexual assault. Nothing attempted about it. It's in the distinction between sexual assault and "attempted rape" that the grey area lies, IMHO.

Penn wrote: »

If I may ask; what if your daughter wanted to go to the guards? Would you have accepted that and supported her, or would you have tried to persuade to her she should go with Option d)?

Again, we're talking hypothetically and mercifully I have never actually had to face this dilemma, but I think I would have advised her in favour of option D but if she was determined to make an official complaint to the police, having made her mindful of the likely and considerable downside, I would of course have supported her. To the hilt.
Even as a 15 year old.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I can't be understanding this right.

Your last few posts say of the same incident it'd be important to figure out as parents if it were an attempted rape or a sexual assault, and if it were an attempted rape or overexuberant persistence. You see how that implies the latter two categories are at least in some cases mutually inclusive?

Are you distinguishing rape from sexual assault in the same way the law does? Would this very stern talking to boil down to "while you had her restrained, were stopping her from screaming, and attempting to remove her clothes, were you intending to put any part of you inside her if she hadn't gotten away, it's very bad either way but I'm not going to go to the gards and ruin your life if you weren't going to penetrate her, but just..." I'll not finish the sentence, you can if you like.

TaurenDruid

Jebus. And people wonder why so few victims of rape and sexual assault come forward and report.

Attitudes like yours, Snickers Man, is why.

Penn

Snickers Man wrote: »

In fact, I would say it's very definitely an actual sexual assault. Nothing attempted about it. It's in the distinction between sexual assault and "attempted rape" that the grey area lies, IMHO.

But why does it matter when your daughter is the victim of it? Matters to the courts, absolutely, as both would carry different sentences, require different evidence etc. But it's your daughter (hypothetical or otherwise) we're talking about. For me, whether someone sexually assaults my daughter or attempts to rape her, I don't give a flying f*ck what the consequences are for the boy, I would encourage my daughter to go to the guards.

Having a sit-down discussion with his parents, and making the boy apologise to my daughter... not a chance (again, if it was my decision, or what I'd encourage my daughter to do). He deserves worse than that, and my daughter would deserve to know it wasn't just swept under the rug or he wasn't just given a stern talking to. He absolutely deserves to be hauled in front of the guards and up in court over it, and even if he's found not guilty (which I would have tried my best to prepare my daughter for), that he has faced serious consequences over it.

Going to his parents about it means diddly-squat, because neither you nor your daughter may ever know if he does it to another girl, because she might not come forward about it. Or if another girl's parents go to the boys parents about it, the parents may pretend it never happened because otherwise the next step would be the guards. Even when it happens to your daughter, you don't know if he's done the same to another girl before, whether they came forward or not.

You agree it constitutes sexual assault. Do you really think sitting your daughter down in front of him and making him apologise to her is sufficient?

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

In fact, I would say it's very definitely an actual sexual assault. Nothing attempted about it. It's in the distinction between sexual assault and "attempted rape" that the grey area lies, IMHO.
.

But that is a legal definition. The DPP can decide the law.
It shouldn't matter diddly squat to you whether the 17 year old sexually assaulted your daughter or attempted to rape her.
I understand the issues Victims in these cases have, probably a lot more than yourself OP, no offence. But the issues they have & the attitudes they face will never change unless people like you stand up & say a victim is a victim.

sbsquarepants

Snickers Man wrote: »

Fair enough comments. Except, I don't accept I'm changing the goal posts. In this hypothetical scenario, my first priority would be the well being of my daughter.

.

It shouldn't be your first priority - it should be your only priority.

Fúck, her attackers future.

BBFAN

Snickers Man wrote: »

Victim blaming? I have not "blamed" her for anything. Unless you consider my opinion that there is zero chance of her securing a conviction against Mr Kavanaugh for what she alleges happened 35 years ago is somehow an endorsement of those actions. It isn't.

It's just that the burden of proof she could assemble is unlikely to be strong enough to gain a conviction. I believe she can't even remember where exactly it took place.
That's not victim blaming. It's assessment of a probable outcome.

I admit (again): my motivation in posing the question (to which SOME people have been able to provide a variety of answers without exhibiting apoplexy) was prompted by the real-world events going on in the US Senate. But it's not meant to be a dissection of the rights and wrongs of that particular case. It's what you would do if faced with a similar situation in your own life.

Except the situation is not at ALL similar in that she didn't tell her parents at the time.

So why come up with a scenario that's not at all similar?

dulceetdecorum

Mm not sure about this thread, there was a certain level of detail in that op