Proposal to make colleges obliged to provide consent classes

Beta Ray Bill

SoundsRight wrote: »

Predators target drunk girls.

Predator's always gonna look for Prey
But they don't see themselves as Predators as already mentioned

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Yes. So... girls shouldn't be allowed to ever get drunk? Perhaps we could ban women from drinking altogether, and then rape wouldn't happen?

Or we could target our measures at the actual criminal involved...

No, I don't believe that women shouldn't be allowed to get drunk.
But they need to understand that there are Predators out there waiting for their chance. If you get very drunk and get separated from your friends, you're giving a predator that chance.

Rape is a crime committed by a scumbag, and these scummers will always be around.

I work in town Dublin city and often have to work very late, there's been 4 or 5 times where I've been walking/riding down Harcourt street around 3am and I've had to stop, as there is some youngwan passed out, on their own, on the steps of some Georgian building, usually opposite Coppers or Diceys.
I feel bad for them, so wake them up and try to call their parents or mate (female mate) or something and wait their with them.

In these cases that person has put themselves at serious risk, they're just lucky I wasn't a predator, otherwise it'd be into a Taxi they'd go.

I get what you're saying that this Predator should be prosecuted, but how the hell do you prove it wasn't consensual? Probably not the first time this Predator did such a thing either.

And this is my point about teaching consent. Predators don't care about consent (at this stage in their lives), so it's pointless.
It needs to be thought at home

KikiLaRue

Calhoun wrote: »

See above the usual approach when implementing these courses is that all men are bad and likely to rape.

That is quite simply not true, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

grahambo wrote: »

I work in town Dublin city and often have to work very late, there's been 4 or 5 times where I've been walking/riding down Harcourt street around 3am and I've had to stop, as there is some youngwan passed out, on their own, on the steps of some Georgian building, usually opposite Coppers or Diceys.
I feel bad for them, so wake them up and try to call their parents or mate (female mate) or something and wait their with them.

In these cases that person has put themselves at serious risk, they're just lucky I wasn't a predator, otherwise it'd be into a Taxi they'd go.

I get what you're saying that this Predator should be prosecuted, but how the hell do you prove it wasn't consensual? Probably not the first time this Predator did such a thing either.

And this is my point about teaching consent. Predators don't care about consent, so it's pointless.

If someone is drunk enough to have passed out, then having sex with them is assault by default because they do not have the capacity to consent. The fact that you don't get that just goes to show that there is a need for consent classes.

How could having sex with someone who is passed out from alcohol, or simply asleep, be considered anything other than assault?

Floppybits

Feisar wrote: »

My opinion is as you point out based upon my own mileage as they say. I've always taken no as no and hmm as a no.

And a drunk yes is also taken as a no.

Boggles

Is there any reliable credible data that suggest consent classes lead to a noticeable decrease in sex crimes?

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

Is there any reliable credible data that suggest consent classes lead to a noticeable decrease in sex crimes?

The only way to gather such data would be to run a trial, surely? Perhaps over three years at one of the country's universities. If it helps, it could be brought out on a wider scale.

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The only way to gather such data would be to run a trial, surely? Perhaps over three years at one of the country's universities. If it helps, it could be brought out on a wider scale.

I imagine they have been ran in other countries, do they not have data?

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine they have been ran in other countries, do they not have data?

I don't know. Feel free to Google it and let me know if you're interested.

Is there data to prove advertising campaigns to wear your seat belt and not drink drive work?

Calhoun

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That is quite simply not true, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

No thank you the conversation has been done to death on boards. Until the attacks on all things male from the likes of Blackwell stop your always going to see her actions being questioned as divisive.

KikiLaRue

Calhoun wrote: »

No thank you the conversation has been done to death on boards. Until the attacks on all things male from the likes of Blackwell stop your always going to see her actions being questioned as divisive.

Okay, well you are very much mistaken in your unfounded assertion that consent classes are run on the premise that all men are rapists...

Floppybits

Are the consent classes for both Male and Female and everything inbetween or just male?

xckjoo

This thread just highlights that everyone need to learn how to communicate better.



Teach it in SPHE. Why wait until 3rd level? I remember those teenage days of asking your mates to ask someone for the shift cause you've no idea how to actually talk to someone and communicate. They were awful. So much desire, so little idea sense of self.

Women need to learn it too. I've met my fair share of rapey women over the years. Just because they can't physically force someone to do something doesn't make them less rapey.

KikiLaRue

There's a very interesting contradiction on how men are reacting to this conversation.

On the one hand, it's very much #notallmen, and men getting offended at the idea that as a group they are being treated as potential rapists.

On the other hand, telling women not to get drunk or wear revealing clothes suggests that we actually should be treating men as a group as potential rapists.

So which is it lads?

Beta Ray Bill

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If someone is drunk enough to have passed out, then having sex with them is assault by default because they do not have the capacity to consent. The fact that you don't get that just goes to show that there is a need for consent classes.

How could having sex with someone who is passed out from alcohol, or simply asleep, be considered anything other than assault?

Completely agree with you!
My point is they're a scumbag/predator/rapist and they don't care.

They don't care if you want it or not, all they care about is what they want.
A consent class at 20 years of age is not going to help them.

I get that in my example above the case was extreme.

My understanding is that if a woman case 2 or 3 drinks and says Yes to a man, but then the next day says No, I was intoxicated. That man has effectively raped her.
Again it's an extreme scenario, but a possible scenario none the less.

Genuinely, as a man, I wouldn't bring a Woman home that's had more that 2 drinks.

c.p.w.g.w

I think there needs to be a level of personal responsibility on both genders.

Don't get soon drunk that might lead to a dangerous situation.

But I'm victim shaming now no doubt.

But if a woman gets so drunk and falls down a flight of stairs and sustains injuries she is responsible for getting into such a state. Yet if she is that drunk goes home with a man(equally as drunk) and then have sex, she can claim rape, even though neither were able to give consent.

A couple of women have said that women need to learn how to drink responsibly but were ripped apart online as they were victim shaming...which they certainly were not

KikiLaRue

xckjoo wrote: »

Women need to learn it too. I've met my fair share of rapey women over the years. Just because they can't physically force someone to do something doesn't make them less rapey.

The lack of raping actually does make them a lot less rapey.

Calhoun

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Okay, well you are very much mistaken in your unfounded assertion that consent classes are run on the premise that all men are rapists...

That is your opinion, just like i have an opinion. My opinion is that i have seen in both Ireland and in other jurisdictions that consent classes have been used as a stick to beat men and have them not be little rapists.

Beta Ray Bill

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There's a very interesting contradiction on how men are reacting to this conversation.

On the one hand, it's very much #notallmen, and men getting offended at the idea that as a group they are being treated as potential rapists.

On the other hand, telling women not to get drunk or wear revealing clothes suggests that we actually should be treating men as a group as potential rapists.

So which is it lads?

It's an unknown, and that's what so dangerous about it.

El_Duderino 09

grahambo wrote: »

Read this today:


This p*sses me off a lot!

Consent is something people should know about well before they've reached college.
It's a very simple set rules:
You do not force yourself on anyone.
You don't wait until someone has had a few drinks to take advantage of them.
You don't say inappropriate things of a sexual nature to someone that doesn't want to hear it from you.

This is sh*t that should be thought (Drilled into teenagers) at home from young age.

Is this the SJWS over reacting or is the Problem that bad that we actually need this. (Which is sh*t if it is)

Sorry but your simple set if rules don't cut it in reality.

Take this one for example : "You don't wait until someone has had a few drinks to take advantage of them".

I think taking advantage of someone before or after a few drinks is probably wrong. Plus lots of people have sex when drunk. Are they all violating your rules?

As is always the case with these discussions, some people would like to pretend it's ever so simple but then balls it up because it's not simple at all. Consent and related issues are actually pretty complex and important because of the potential consequences.

I don't know that I'd support mandatory consent classes at uni because I think it should be an ongoing discussion which should have Started long before uni and and should not exclude people who don't go to uni.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There's a very interesting contradiction on how men are reacting to this conversation.

On the one hand, it's very much #notallmen, and men getting offended at the idea that as a group they are being treated as potential rapists.

On the other hand, telling women not to get drunk or wear revealing clothes suggests that we actually should be treating men as a group as potential rapists.

So which is it lads?

Wow... it's as if not all men think the same.

#mindblown

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don't know. Feel free to Google it and let me know if you're interested.

Well you are the one calling for a 3 year trial. Surely that has to be based on more than "I don't know".

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Is there data to prove advertising campaigns to wear your seat belt and not drink drive work?

Yes, irrefutable.

But back on topic.

Is there evidence that suggests that misunderstanding consent is a reason for sexual assault and do these consent classes lead to a decrease in assault?

I am if yes, absolutely no problem with them, if "I don't know" or no, then why are they trying to wastes people time, invest the money elsewhere that will make a difference.

At the end of the day Rapists are gonna rape, it's a crime prevention and prosecution issue.

xckjoo

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There's a very interesting contradiction on how men are reacting to this conversation.

On the one hand, it's very much #notallmen, and men getting offended at the idea that as a group they are being treated as potential rapists.

On the other hand, telling women not to get drunk or wear revealing clothes suggests that we actually should be treating men as a group as potential rapists.

So which is it lads?

:eek:
Ah lads. Who's not following the company line. Did you not get the monthly email


It's nearly like men are all individuals and not some single entity engaged in group think.

KikiLaRue

Calhoun wrote: »

That is your opinion, just like i have an opinion. My opinion is that i have seen in both Ireland and in other jurisdictions that consent classes have been used as a stick to beat men and have them not be little rapists.

No, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Can you show any evidence to back up what you're saying? Can you show me a curriculum outline that suggests all men are rapists at one of these classes.

Of course you can't, because that's not how it's taught.

Floppybits

grahambo wrote: »

Genuinely, as a man, I wouldn't bring a Woman home that's had more that 2 drinks.

Would the same rule apply to you? Would you go home with a woman if you had more than 2 drinks?

pleas advice

Floppybits wrote: »

And a drunk yes is also taken as a no.

How drunk though? And it applies to both parties, right?

c.p.w.g.w

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The lack of raping actually does make them a lot less rapey.

It's a legal definition which leads women not able to commit rape, yet they can commit sexual assault. I would change the legal definition to make females legally capable of rape. Would certainly help with creating a more equal society, and would help males feel less criminalised by vurtue of having a penis

xckjoo

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The lack of raping actually does make them a lot less rapey.

The f*ck it does. Intent is intent.

Beta Ray Bill

Floppybits wrote: »

Would the same rule apply to you? Would you go home with a woman if you had more than 2 drinks?

I'd have "floppybits" too after maybe 4 or 5 beers, so kind of a null point.
#brewersdroop

If I didn't know them, then probably not, no.

If I did know them, I don't know to be honest.
Single for nearly 2 years now after a 9 year relationship, hasn't happened yet.
Probably not, to much hassle.

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

Is there evidence that suggests that misunderstanding consent is a reason for sexual assault and do these consent classes lead to a decrease in assault?

I am if yes, absolutely no problem with them, if "I don't know" or no, then why are they trying to wastes people time, invest the money elsewhere that will make a difference.

In a large number of rape trials, the defence is that the sex was consensual. My opinion (and I don't have data on this) is that in some cases both parties are telling the truth - he honestly believed she consented, she is sure she didn't.

So men need to get better at establishing consent, and women need to get better at asserting what they want/ don't want.

Education around this is in itself a good. Healthy communication around sex is good. If we call it 'Communicating in Sexual Relationships' and just leave out the word consent, would you all be a bit more comfortable?

Boggles wrote: »

At the end of the day Rapists are gonna rape, it's a crime prevention and prosecution issue.

That suggests you think some people are born rapists and there is no way to stop them. That might be true for a very small number of sociopaths but in general I think rape is very preventable, and education is a part of this. There was a time not so long ago when it was legal to rape your wife. Cultural and societal change is possible.

Floppybits

pleas advice wrote: »

How drunk though? And it applies to both parties, right?

Well this is the thing, Does it apply to both parties?

It seems that if a man and woman are both drunk and have sex, it can be perceived the man has taken advantage of her, in extreme and rare cases the man could be charged with rape.

KikiLaRue

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

It's a legal definition which leads women not able to commit rape, yet they can commit sexual assault. I would change the legal definition to make females legally capable of rape. Would certainly help with creating a more equal society, and would help males feel less criminalised by vurtue of having a penis

Yes, if a woman puts a strap-on on and ****s a guy (or other woman) without consent, she should be charged with rape.

xckjoo wrote: »

The f*ck it does. Intent is intent.

Do you understand the difference between intent to commit a crime and committing a crime? Very, very different things. That's not my opinion, that's the law...