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
“Ireland has a rape culture”
Options
Comments
-
Veritas Libertas wrote: »The idea of consent bothers me, maybe someone can prove to me why consent classes are needed but I'm not seeing it.
The idea around consent does not protect someone from false accusations. Even with video evidence, a signed contract, the complainant could argue I consented to one thing, and not another or later I changed my mind.
I struggle to believe that large swathes of people don't understand the concept of consent. Perhaps a few outliers that probably won't change their behaviour anyway.
What good do consent classes do? What is their training and methodology based on?
How on earth would learning about consent protect you form a false accusation? Who on earth said it would?
None of your “signed contract” guff. A simple “are you on for xyz?” would do.
But it’s more than that. It’s also about thinking about what you want to do and don’t want to do and why.
How could checking for consent harm? Especially since in Ireland only a man can stand accused of rape, why would the people who pretend to care about men, not want to give boys and men the information they need? (Leave girls and women aside for a minute)0 -
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »What disservice would I be doing anyone? I’m not the person who assumes people are idiots that they need ‘consent classes’ in the first place, nor do I believe they are of any benefit to anyone who is of a mind to think only of themselves either.
I’m well aware of the content of these classes and I still see no utility in them whatsoever. Children are already taught about respect and responsibility for themselves and others by means of interactions with their families and their peer groups, and SPHE classes in school where they learn about concepts like respect for their bodies and minds, respect for other people’s bodies and minds and so on.
It’s exactly as you said previously - consent is a very simple concept that is taught in less than 10 seconds with a one syllable word - no. It’s those groups you allude to who don’t appear to be able to take no for an answer, who could do with educating themselves.
That last paragraph seems to be quoting someone other than me. I didn’t say consent is a simple concept that can be taught in less than 10 seconds.
But back to your first paragraph. I think you’re assuming that everyone else has the knowledge that you have. And they don’t. I’d also say that children don’t know everything you now. Children don’t have to be stupid to not know about the law. They also probably have no experience of sexually relationships so that’s why we teach them about those things in advance so they don’t just learn through trial and error.
I don’t know what goes into these consent classes. I didn’t know they did consent passes with primary school children. Do they do those classes?0 -
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »I’m not sure if it’s the way I phrased it, or if you’re misunderstanding my post. I didn’t claim that consent classes themselves centre around the word ‘no’. I said that consent itself is very simple to understand - if a person wants to do something, and the person they want to do it to says no, then that person does not have the other persons consent to do whatever it is they want to do to that person. Children learn this throughout their lives and well into adulthood. Not just in a classroom environment but in every interaction throughout their lives.
I never suggested consent classes were harmful, I don’t believe they involve teaching young girls that boys are a danger to them for example, an idea floated by the Executive Director of Rape Crisis Network Ireland, I simply am of the opinion that they are an ineffective waste of resources as they are duplicating what children learn in and out of school already, which simply renders the idea of consent classes unnecessary.
Your claim that “no means no” or however you phrased it, is interesting. Is “no” the only way to express non consent? How else is it expressed? How should you express consent? How do you know if someone is expressing consent to you? What should someone do if they previously expressed consent and then change their mind? How long does consent last? ( if someone expressed consent yesterday, does that mean they consent today?)
If you consent to “have sex” with someone, what acts specifically have you consented to? Rough sex? A bit of harmless choking? Is there any need to discuss/check what your partner is actually consenting to?
Have a go at answering those few started questions. (I won’t limit you to the 10 seconds you allotted earlier because they’re actually important questions).0 -
Advertisement
-
We don't have a rape culture.0
-
That's not even what she said though, is it?
She didn't say all men are rapists. She said that women, in order to ensure maximum safety to themselves, must assume that all men are rapists. Which is something very different and the context is clear.
The issue here is two very different experiences clashing over the presumed knowledge of the other.
Women live routinely under this shadow. Under the shadow that a walk home alone may end up in attack, or rape, or whatever. That being alone with a man you barely know could end up with you being afraid for your life. Whether this is a rational way to live is somewhat irrelevant, it's a knowledge passed down, it's culturally embedded. Women are taught to protect their sexuality from men, and that it's their fault if they don't.
There is an analogue in theft. If you live in a city, you lock your car, you keep an eye on your wallet, you lock your front door and you stick on your alarm. If your house gets robbed because you left your back door unlocked, you'll blame yourself and some people will call you a gobsh1te.
Now imagine that you were as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted as you were robbed. That's the reality for women (except worse). Do you get offended when your neighbour locks their door? Do you take it as a personal sleight when a culchie arriving in to a city gets a bit worried about being mugged? I doubt you do. Yet when women express concern about their safety, you take it as an attack on yourself.
Men are in general not aware of this. We don't live our lives like this, we don't live in fear, and we don't know that women live with this. We don't engage in this. We don't intimidate women, or pin them into corners. Or rape them. Where we see friendly banter, a women sees a sexual assault in the making. Where we see trying ourselves to chat a woman up in the corner of the club, she sees an enormous person far stronger than her who is blocking her only exit.
And this is where the clash occurs. When women bring up their experiences, they assume it's common knowledge. This is human nature, to assume what's common knowledge to your and your peers, is common knowledge to everyone.
Of course, men see exactly the opposite - a description of themselves and the men they know which doesn't reflect them. This shadow of fear is not something men are told about, and thus in the same vein we assume that because we've never heard of it before, then it must not exist, or it must not be as big a deal as is claimed.
And rather than accept what's being said - women are being sexually assaulted all the time - it gets hysterically called an attack on men or radical feminism.
This is where people need to drop the personal offence and listen to what's being said..
Women aren't as afraid of men as you think they are.
And why in the world would men not get offended at having their actions labaled through some spectrum of seeing women as horrifically vulnerable creatures?0 -
kildare lad wrote: »The funny thing is, all these feminist/lefties/sjw are pushing for refugees from these countries to come here . If they think irish men have a rape culture , I can't wait to see wait type of culture north African men/ Muslim men have towards women.
Women aren't as regulating of foreign men's behaviour. You know, a sleazy Spanish man isn't seen the same way as a sleazy Irish man.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »How on earth would learning about consent protect you form a false accusation? Who on earth said it would?
I'm thinking about reasons why 'consent' is a thing. It doesn't help in any meaningful way whatsoever. Could you explain how it is any way helpful or useful, you haven't done so yet.
I've asked now twice in this thread, and I have received none answers referring to; its just supposed to help people feel comfortable etc...
When in actual fact everyone knows these classes are being pushed onto us because feminists think men are rapists.
If I made a claim that this rock I have attracts luck and money, you'd surely ask me to prove this before investing in such a rock..0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »How on earth would learning about consent protect you form a false accusation? Who on earth said it would?
None of your “signed contract” guff. A simple “are you on for xyz?” would do.
But it’s more than that. It’s also about thinking about what you want to do and don’t want to do and why.
How could checking for consent harm? Especially since in Ireland only a man can stand accused of rape, why would the people who pretend to care about men, not want to give boys and men the information they need? (Leave girls and women aside for a minute)
Your last paragraph ties consent classes to rape.
Here, I'll answer your annoying question that phrases consent classes as actually happening rather than asking whether or not they should happen. But, I will not answer as if were teaching young men that women are vulnerable creatures that need to be checked
I think we should teach people (adukts not chuldren) that a yes while drunk is consenting and you can still black out ( memory and nkt unconcious) and have consented to sex.0 -
Advertisement
-
Veritas Libertas wrote: »I'm thinking about reasons why 'consent' is a thing. It doesn't help in any meaningful way whatsoever. Could you explain how it is any way helpful or useful, you haven't done so yet.
I've asked now twice in this thread, and I have received none answers referring to; its just supposed to help people feel comfortable etc...
When in actual fact everyone knows these classes are being pushed onto us because feminists think men are rapists.
Oh yeah it’s useful. It’s about knowing how to figure out what you’re comfortable doing and making sure everyone has the language to express it clearly. Just imagine a bloke who thinks his partner is consenting. He’s facing a good time and thinks his Oerter is having a good time. Then he finds out his partner was not consenting and was deeply hurt by the experience. Everyone loses, nobody wins ( that’s my understanding of the Paddy Jackson case)
That situation can be solved really simply if everyone involved knows how to ask for consent, how to receive consent and how to communicate a change in consent.
Do to answer your question, it’s about creating a common language that everyone involved knows. It’s easy to say “everyone already knows no means no”. But that’s a very basic part of the situation and it’s very limited. “No” doesn’t help you to express consent in the affirmative. It doesn’t deal with any of the nuances.
Consent is actually really important to people’s healthy sex lives. There’s loads to talk about apart from rape. It’s worth discussing.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
How could checking for consent harm? Especially since in Ireland only a man can stand accused of rape, why would the people who pretend to care about men, not want to give boys and men the information they need? (Leave girls and women aside for a minute)
Because it ruins the mood.
Nice framing of all men are rapists that need help to learn what consent is.
This is a pure abomination of what reality is actually like.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Oh yeah it’s useful. It’s about knowing how to figure out what you’re comfortable doing and making sure everyone has the language to express it clearly. Just imagine a bloke who thinks his partner is consenting. He’s facing a good time and thinks his Oerter is having a good time. Then he finds out his partner was not consenting and was deeply hurt by the experience. Everyone loses, nobody wins ( that’s my understanding of the Paddy Jackson case)
Well what if a bloke asked a girl around to his place already. They are already in the bed room. Do you still need to ask for consent? Wouldn't asking for consent in this case be more uncomfortable?
Quite frankly I find it disgusting that you assume there can be a situation where a man thinks a woman is consenting and a woman is not consenting. This is the soft bigotry of low expectations feminists have towards women.0 -
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »Your last paragraph ties consent classes to rape.
Here, I'll answer your annoying question that phrases consent classes as actually happening rather than asking whether or not they should happen. But, I will not answer as if were teaching young men that women are vulnerable creatures that need to be checked
I think we should teach people (adukts not chuldren) that a yes while drunk is consenting and you can still black out ( memory and nkt unconcious) and have consented to sex.
Is this your answer to the question I asked before? About what you’d put in a consent discussion?
You’d limit it to adults, tell people that consent still works when drunk. And us that it? Is that all you’d discuss?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Oh yeah it’s useful. It’s about knowing how to figure out what you’re comfortable doing and making sure everyone has the language to express it clearly. Just imagine a bloke who thinks his partner is consenting. He’s facing a good time and thinks his Oerter is having a good time. Then he finds out his partner was not consenting and was deeply hurt by the experience. Everyone loses, nobody wins ( that’s my understanding of the Paddy Jackson case)
That situation can be solved really simply if everyone involved knows how to ask for consent, how to receive consent and how to communicate a change in consent.
Do to answer your question, it’s about creating a common language that everyone involved knows. It’s easy to say “everyone already knows no means no”. But that’s a very basic part of the situation and it’s very limited. “No” doesn’t help you to express consent in the affirmative. It doesn’t deal with any of the nuances.
Consent is actually really important to people’s healthy sex lives. There’s loads to talk about apart from rape. It’s worth discussing.
So even if a woman consents she doesn't actually consent? Man, you really need to look at how you view women.
Honestly, it's pretty shocking you'd class the Paddy Jackson case as rape and how you immediately view the women as a victim.0 -
Veritas Libertas wrote: »Well what if a bloke asked a girl around to his place already. They are already in the bed room. Do you still need to ask for consent? Wouldn't asking for consent in this case be more uncomfortable?
Ok. I’ll answer your questions. But by even having questions you’re kinda legitimising the idea that there are questions and it’s not all intuitive and covered by “no means no”.
Yeah of course you need to ask for consent. Otherwise you’re making an argument similar to: “It can’t be rape, your honour. Shur, she was already in my bedroom. In my bedroom = consenting to have sex with me.”
In your bedroom does not = consent.
It might be uncomfortable for you. But so what? This is exactly what I said earlier. It’s about making sure everyone has a common language for discussing consent. Whether it makes you personally uncomfortable, isn’t really an argument against it.
Wasn’t stopping to put on a confirm uncomfortable fir people in the past? Now it’s just normal.
How would you answer your 2 questions?
Do you think a woman agreeing to go to a man’s bedroom = consent to sex?
Would you find discussing consent uncomfortable? If yes, what’s your point?
I also don’t phrase this as only a man’s issue. Consent is about whoever is involved. It’s a mutual thing.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Is this your answer to the question I asked before? About what you’d put in a consent discussion?
You’d limit it to adults, tell people that consent still works when drunk. And us that it? Is that all you’d discuss?
There. No backbone or hardness or even discussion. You are not giving any opinion in argument or any of your own belief.0 -
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »So even if a woman consents she doesn't actually consent? Man, you really need to look at how you view women.
Honestly, it's pretty shocking you'd class the Paddy Jackson case as rape and how you immediately view the women as a victim.
I’m not even sure you’re reading my posts. None of what you’ve said above is accurate. I don’t view the Jackson case as a rape (couldn’t be bothered to explain further because I don’t think you’re discussing this in good faith)
G’luck.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »In your bedroom does not = consent.
Just because she's in your room doesn't mean you can rape her?
You honestly believe people are that stupid and don't understand consent? Now I think I understand your position.
You have been deluded.
Is there not an implication of sex when someone invites another to stay around or stay over? Of course this doesn't mean "you can rape her", but it means you could try start kissing, (unless she says no or pulls back) this can leads to other things.
The idea of consent is for people who don't know how to say no.
Feminists assuming women can't say no is the soft bigotry of low expectations.0 -
Veritas Libertas wrote: »Because it ruins the mood.
Nice framing of all men are rapists that need help to learn what consent is.
This is a pure abomination of what reality is actually like.
It ruins the mood? Seriously? That’s probably what people said about condoms back in the 80s and 90s when there was a big push to encourage conform use.
The second part about only men can stand accused of rape, isn’t be phrasing anything. It’s the law in Ireland. Under itltish law, only a man can commit a rape. It’s an incredible law and it should be changed. But don’t shoot the messenger.
I’m assuming you didn’t know that’s the law. And you learned it through having a discussion about consent. Still see no merit to discussing consent?0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »It ruins the mood? Seriously?
That's what you propose is the reason for implementing 'consent'
You said it made people more comfortable.
I'm just pointing out it ALSO makes people uncomfortable. Its still on you to prove why consent classes are a benefit to anyone at all.0 -
hes not everyones cup of tea, but richie sadlier has been doing great work in the aftermath of the belfast rugby players case, in and out of the media.
discussions (not "classes") on behaviour and responsibilities to yourself and other with groups of young lads at various schools. open questions, scenarios, a fair tolerance for range of answers and feedback, an invite to consider different perspectives.
an awful lot of constructive dialogue and material came out of that case in general simply because of the publicity and the nature of the events, and its a pity that it had to (perhaps inevitably) boil down in most cases to #ibelieveher #yesallwomen #suemepaddy #rapeculture sh1te on one side and #lockherup #notallmen #falseaccusation on the other.
nobody is born knowing how to handle the things that young adult life in particular will throw at most kids on a regular basis, and pretty much *everything* about the dance of romance/attraction/lust is coded heavily societally, individually and contextually- until it isnt- for both genders, constantly.
the problem with any term like "rape culture" and its use and subsequent "hey what im only ~asking a question~" is that it so clearly presupposes the correct diagnosis and has a very clear idea of the solutions to be imposed.
dont agree with that? into the scum bucket with you.
have questions that lead you off the one true path? bucket
engage but dont come to the correct conclusion? bucket
anyone not orthodox is heretic.
its a stupid term driven by clever people to rigorous but self-limiting ends and for that reason it needs to be challenged every time it comes out.
either you know it only causes this type of clash but think thats an important and valuable clash to carve out cultural space/awareness for the issues (i disagree but sympathise maybe) or you think that the actual term and argument behind it hold significant truths (i disagree and question your grasp of the inherent subtleties of human nature).
do the main proponents of the term itt know which of the above they are? do they think there are more options? be interested to hear them- but not be lectured by them.0 -
Veritas Libertas wrote: »Just because she's in your room doesn't mean you can rape her?
You honestly believe people are that stupid and don't understand consent? Now I think I understand your position.
You have been deluded.
Is there not an implication of sex when someone invites another to stay around or stay over? Of course this doesn't mean "you can rape her", but it means you could try start kissing, (unless she says no or pulls back) this can leads to other things.
The idea of consent is for people who don't know how to say no.
Feminists assuming women can't say no is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
So how exactly do you indicate consent? Invite someone to your room. Start kidding them and if they don’t say “no/stop” then you’re golden. So tell me this, how does a teenager who has never invited someone to their room, know about these rules if yours?
Also, is that the only way to gain consent?
So what if checking consent killed the mood?0 -
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »hes not everyones cup of tea, but richie sadlier has been doing great work in the aftermath of the belfast rugby players case, in and out of the media.
discussions (not "classes") on behaviour and responsibilities to yourself and other with groups of young lads at various schools. open questions, scenarios, a fair tolerance for range of answers and feedback, an invite to consider different perspectives.
an awful lot of constructive dialogue and material came out of that case in general simply because of the publicity and the nature of the events, and its a pity that it had to (perhaps inevitably) boil down in most cases to #ibelieveher #yesallwomen #suemepaddy #rapeculture sh1te on one side and #lockherup #notallmen #falseaccusation on the other.
nobody is born knowing how to handle the things that young adult life in particular will throw at most kids on a regular basis, and pretty much *everything* about the dance of romance/attraction/lust is coded heavily societally, individually and contextually- until it isnt- for both genders, constantly.
the problem with any term like "rape culture" and its use and subsequent "hey what im only ~asking a question~" is that it so clearly presupposes the correct diagnosis and has a very clear idea of the solutions to be imposed.
dont agree with that? into the scum bucket with you.
have questions that lead you off the one true path? bucket
engage but dont come to the correct conclusion? bucket
anyone not orthodox is heretic.
its a stupid term driven by clever people to rigorous but self-limiting ends and for that reason it needs to be challenged every time it comes out.
either you know it only causes this type of clash but think thats an important and valuable clash to carve out cultural space/awareness for the issues (i disagree but sympathise maybe) or you think that the actual term and argument behind it hold significant truths (i disagree and question your grasp of the inherent subtleties of human nature).
do the main proponents of the term itt know which of the above they are? do they think there are more options? be interested to hear them- but not be lectured by them.
This is a podcast he did where he chats about the consent discussions he has with transition year students. Sounds like an excellent idea to me.
https://www.secondcaptains.com/2018/03/29/episode-1124-the-belfast-rape-trial-sexual-consent-and-a-toxic-dressingroom-culture/0 -
eldude, your definition of consent seems to need to be a lesson delivered only to women, from what i can see, tbh
edit, not an attack, im confused by one of yr posts that seems not to jibe with yr overall thoughts is all0 -
Veritas Libertas wrote: »That's what you propose is the reason for implementing 'consent'
You said it made people more comfortable.
I'm just pointing out it ALSO makes people uncomfortable. Its still on you to prove why consent classes are a benefit to anyone at all.
You said it makes you uncomfortable. One of the points of discussion consent is to make people comfortable with discussing it. Your argument that it would kill the mood for you, is as valid as saying confines kill the mood. It’s not just about you.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »do the main proponents of the term itt know which of the above they are? do they think there are more options? be interested to hear them- but not be lectured by them.
Answering as a critic:
I was watching a feminist youtube channel recommended to me to understand this better. The channel proposed that women's deepest darkest feeling most of the time was 'feeling safe'.
It's clear that modern day feminists have latched onto this idea, and they are manipulating every statistic they can to have us believe there are large swathes of men raping women everywhere. They do this for power and for funding.
To have us believe that 1/5 women on college campus' get raped is an abomination. The highest rate of rape in the world is in war torn countries, in fact they call it 'war rape'(Both men and women) and that statistic stands at 1/5 people. LUDICROUS!!
Here's what advocates of consent classes fail to understand:
What if a man asks a woman for consent and she says yes. What if the stupid man interprets this consent to think he can do whatever he liked? If he's that stupid that he needs to be taught about consent, why would he not be so stupid to interpret the consent as he can do anything he likes?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »You said it makes you uncomfortable. One of the points of discussion consent is to make people comfortable with discussing it. Your argument that it would kill the mood for you, is as valid as saying confines kill the mood. It’s not just about you.
Within the context of our conversation; I'm asking you to prove why consent classes are needed. You answered because it helps alleviate discomfort. I merely pointed out it also creates discomfort.
You still need to prove why consent classes are helpful. They clearly aren't.(from my perspective)0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »eldude, your definition of consent seems to need to be a lesson delivered only to women, from what i can see, tbh
edit, not an attack, im confused by one of yr posts that seems not to jibe with yr overall thoughts is all
Not at all. Consent is equally incumbent on all parties involved. (But Irish law only recognised men as capable of rape).
Consent isn’t just about rape. It’s primarily about everyone involved having an enjoyable experience. The normal working of consent would be a mutually enjoyable experience for everyone involved. Rape only cones into the situation when things have gone seriously wrong.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement