nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Ralf and Florian

She presented a documentary on rape culture during the week on RTE which focused on the issue of sexual assault against females. It's interesting to note her response to a (male) follower would tweeted that it would be hilarious to see a remake of Deliverance featuring "pissed up dickheads on a drunken stag". For anyone who's not seen the movie Deliverance its about three city dwellers who go for a weekend fishing to what could be described as a backwoods community. Central to the storyline is when they are held captive and one of them raped by a bunch of rednecks.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/794195404145442816

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

py2006

After reading your posts El_Duderino 09, I think it's safe to assume at this stage that you have little or no experience of relationships and sex. Certainly between men and women.

That is by no means meant as an insult. just my own observation based on your comments.

If im wrong, my apologies, and it suggests largely negative experiences.

RabbleRouser2k

TheDavester wrote: »

Want to bet her article this week will be about how valentines day promotes rape culture

Sadly, maybe, on the other hand, her twitter feed included this lovely indicator about how shes bought a ton of films by 'erika lust'. Now, as you are probably aware, that doesn't sound like a director of 'mainstream' cinema-and you are right.

It's a whole ton of 'feminist' porn. Where the only feminist thing is a woman directed it.

Special Circumstances

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Or do you also think you can necessarily assume consent until it's revoked

Didn't you just say all parties can just work away, assuming consent is still valid for all parties?

What is the suggested interval for reaffirming consent? ?????

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote:

If im wrong, my apologies.

You're wrong alright. Apology accepted.

neonsofa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Get what people are saying. You know consent when you see it. You never expressed exactly what context and body language etc. are included and what ones aren't. It's just something e everyone knows?

In reality everyone will have a different opinion on what counts as context and body language etc. What makes your view the official standard? You know it when you see it, right?

Chances are that everyone has a different idea of what counts as context and body language etc.

One poster said those grey areas are all 'regret sex' not to be treated as anything more than 'chalked up to experience'. That should be fairly shocking to a normal person.

Never expressed? Read my posts.

It's a discussion board, I'm giving my opinion in a discussion, never my view is the official standard. Merely stated that adults are able to intemperate the context of the situation and if it is not abundantly clear they can then ask.

El_Duderino 09

You quoted a question but didn't respond to it. My question about whether you just assume consent unless it's explicitly revoked. It's a valid question because some posters do exactly that.

Special Circumstances wrote:

Didn't you just say all parties can just work away, assuming consent is still valid for all parties?

Are you talking about in a relationship or not? I see the two as not being the same. Relationships have agreed practices worked it over time - not that that's a necessary guarantee of consent but it gives a framework.

Casual relationships need a much more explicit expression of consent because of the absence of an agreement.

Special Circumstances wrote:

What is the suggested interval for reaffirming consent? ?????

You suggested an interval for reaffirming consent, not me. If I was to try to answer your question (a courtesy you haven't paid me), if someone consented to sex yesterday then you need to gain consent again today before having sex (LTRs and casual relationships can be different).

Other than that it's not about intervals, it's about what consent was given for. E.g. you consent to sex, but that doesn't mean you consent to all and every kind of sex.

Would you just assume you can start anal sex or tiring your partner up on a ONS or would that be something you need to mention (gain consent for) before starting to do it?

neonsofa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh no this is exactly why I've been talking about. Everyone seems to think they all agree on what counts as context and body language etc. But I have no faith that they actually agree in reality.

I've been discussing this grey area all evening. Have you completely missed that? That's the whole point I'm on about

If the grey area exists and you don't think it's nothing to worry about. Then what is that grey area, in your opinion?

No they don't. People are saying it can be judged by the person in most cases. When it can't be ascertained clearly then it should be asked for. You've been off on a weird tangent about a grey area which is not what people have been talking about, people have been saying that it is usually abundantly clear, in those circumstances where it is not a person should absolutely request verbal consent. Nobody is denying that, people are denying that it is necessary to ask a person if they want sex prior to every single encounter.

El_Duderino 09

I keep asking this particular question and nobody seems to address it. So I'll give it its own post.

When sex happens in this consentual grey area, and someone shows up and considers themselves to have been raped, then what? Seriously, what would you say?

Tell them it's not rape, its just 'regret sex' and they should 'chalk it up to experience' like another poster said?

I doubt that's what most people would to.

machiavellianme

Apparently Society has taken many opportunities to tell Louise O'Neill to stop, but do you think she listens?

El_Duderino 09

neonsofa wrote:

Never expressed? Read my posts.

I'm not asking for explicit details. Those seem perfectly fine and unlikely to lead to misunderstanding.

I'm asking about the grey areas.

neonsofa wrote:

It's a discussion board, I'm giving my opinion in a discussion, never my view is the official standard. Merely stated that adults are able to intemperate the context of the situation and if it is not abundantly clear they can then ask.

And in the grey areas, what makes your understanding more valid than someone else's?

You give people too much credit if you think everyone has the same understanding as yourself.

You don't think consent is contained in 'she accepted a drink' or 'she danced all sexy like' or 'she chatted to me all night'. And when someone else does think consent is contained in this, then you have different understandings within the grey area. So what then?

When someone initiates sex with the assumption of consent when it hasn't actually been gained. Sone people will explicitly say 'gerrup outta that'. Others will feel cornered and go along with it. Have those people been raped?

El_Duderino 09

neonsofa wrote:

. You've been off on a weird tangent about a grey area which is not what people have been talking about, people have been saying that it is usually abundantly clear, in those circumstances where it is not a person should absolutely request verbal consent.

I've really only been discussing the grey area because that's where misunderstandings happen and that's where things go wrong.

neonsofa wrote:

.
Nobody is denying that, people are denying that it is necessary to ask a person if they want sex prior to every single encounter.

I never said every single encounter (though you seem to think that the standard in LTRs but not necessarily in casual relationships because of body the reliability of language etc.)

You're actually the only poster so far to say that consent should explicitly be sought in grey area yet you think everyone is saying that. I see that as a good example of everyone having a different understanding but assuming they all have the same understanding.

El_Duderino 09

Timbb505 wrote:

So if you had sex 5 hours ago you can assume consent now? That's ridiculous.

DK you think you could assume consent from the sex you had 5 hours ago?

El_Duderino 09

Timbb505 wrote:

What's a death here and there, let's ban cars.

Again you jump to banning. I dismissed it about drink/pubs but you thought it was such a good analogy that it was worth a second airing?

Timbb505 wrote:

Do you know anyone who thinks you can have sex with someone simply because they bought a drink?

I don't know any personally. My iartmer works in a forensic unit. Forensic units are full of people with wild understandings of consent. It would send shivers down your spine to hear the things they come out with. Normal seeming people with twisted ideas. They're out there no doubt.

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Normal seeming people with twisted ideas. They're out there no doubt.

They sure are...

;-)

orubiru

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I keep asking this particular question and nobody seems to address it. So I'll give it its own post.

When sex happens in this consentual grey area, and someone shows up and considers themselves to have been raped, then what? Seriously, what would you say?

Tell them it's not rape, its just 'regret sex' and they should 'chalk it up to experience' like another poster said?

I doubt that's what most people would to.

This kind of situation needs to be decided in court in front of a judge and a jury. That is, realistically, the only way.

If there is a "not guilty" verdict then what can we really do beyond saying "it's not rape, time to move on"?

That might seem harsh but what else can you do?

It doesn't really matter if someone online thinks it's rape and someone else online thinks it isn't. Nobody is obligated to believe one side or the other, especially when they don't personally know the individuals involved, so discussion is bound to come out of that.

If we admit that there are grey areas, or at least admit that it's somewhat complicated, then it's natural that discussion will occur around those complexities.

If people are going to take risks with each other by not clearly communicating then they have to face up to any consequences that come from that. It's harsh but what else can we really say? You aren't responsible for your own actions?

Understanding that people are different is a big part of practicing safe sex though. The things your last partner was really into may not necessarily be things that your next partner wants. However, if people are not open and honest and communicating with each other then they kind of have to take responsibility when things go wrong.

You may find yourself with a partner who demands that he "check in" every 90 seconds by asking "is this OK" and you may find that this doesn't really work for you.

Or you may find yourself with a partner who just wants you to aggressively have sex them without asking because that's what they are into (where you both agree on a "safe word" that is a clear signal to stop, yup people like that exist) and you may find that this also doesn't really work.

We can deconstruct both of those situations and ask whether or not consent was really given or assumed or interpreted but, in the end, if an accusation is made then it's up to the justice system to decide if someone is guilty or not guilty.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is it normal and healthy to assume consent without actually gaining it. Then someone says they were raped and you tell them to chalk it up to experience for not saying stop.

And I'm ludicrous? I've been pursuing one simple line; you need to gain consent before having sex. Posters have a whole range of variations on constant is always assumed, consent is in body language etc. and if someone says they were raped after the fact, it's nothing to worry about because it's just experience. I genuinely don't know what people are going to say next.

What I'm going to say next? Well unlike your border insane posts (straight out of the LON handbook) I usually say something logical, rational and that reflects the average person. Can't say the same for you.

You've either had little experience in this area, or you have had some strange seriously strange encounters with really odd folks.

Just to make it abundantly clear for you, I'm not saying consent should be assumed.. but to be honest, I really have no idea what you mean by assumed.. Unless you close your eyes and ears, it should be fairly easy to know if the guy or girl wishes to have sex. To say that the only way to know the person wants to have sex, is by explicitly asking them is just ridiculous and show's a serious lack of understanding on your part, how normal, healthy sexual liasons happen. I can safely say I've never uttered the words 'do you want to have sex' and I have never been raped, nor raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Sure I've said 'want to go upstairs' after things get heated, girl's have said 'have you a condom' (pretty sure she didn't mean so i could make balloon animals). The fact is, most (normal/undamaged) folks don't feel the bizarre need to ask a ridiculously blunt question.

At this point, I can't actually believe you are serious with your point of view, but if you are, you might want to change your high horse posting attitude. It's not winning you any friends or arguments. (And before you go off on one, my 'attitude' is in a direct response to yours, I've tried to lighten the mood with some humour, but nope, can't be having that)

Maguined

The issue I see with your verbal affirmative consent El_Duderino is that two people who both wanted to have sex would be considered to have raped each other.

To remove any potential gender bias lets assume two men meet each other in a loud nightclub, they start dancing with each other, start kissing each other and then one of them invites the other back to their place where the kissing turns to touching and then sex but at no stage did either ask the other verbally "do you want to have sex". Under your definition both of them could be considered as raping each other as neither confirmed affirmative verbal consent. For the rest of us in this discussion there was no rape as there was non verbal consent and at no stage did either object and stop proceedings.

I think if your definition labels these two individuals who both were fine with the encounter as both being guilty of rape then your definition of consent is flawed and not useful.

Special Circumstances

I dunno what yer problem is tbh. I think el duderino is on the right track here but thinks we are not ready to keep confirming consent right to the very last stroke. It's the only logical conclusion from the track he's on. I mean if you can't "just know" before you start, how are you to "just know" once you have started.

I'm in luck here tbh as pretty much all of my fantasies involve signing forms in triplicate in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths who then accompanies us to the bedroom wearing full PPE to bear witness to the consent involved in the clerical and clinically sterile acts that follow.

I feel much better after getting that out there.

orubiru

machiavellianme wrote: »

Apparently Society has taken many opportunities to tell Louise O'Neill to stop, but do you think she listens?

If you wanted to find someone who absolutely does not understand consent then one of these mainstream Feminists would be the first person to look for.

If you don't want my ideology then I'm just going to have to force it on you. Remember everyone, don't force things upon unwilling people.

These people aren't Feminists? Maybe we can just shame them into accepting Feminism.

In the same way that "women can't be sexist" they don't really feel like consent applies to them. Or at least they don't feel like consent applies outside the context of sex.

It's predictable.

The guy at the party ranting about how homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting? He's gay.

The preacher running his mouth about sins of the flesh? He hires prostitutes.

The Feminist writing crap novels about consent or demanding that we have consent classes in every university? She doesn't understand consent.

orubiru

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"The context leading up to it". That's a half step away from "the southeast asking for it wearing that skimpy outfit. What did she think was going to happen?"

So I think the problem here is that you are almost conflating serious terrible behavior, such as "she was asking for it with that outfit", or having sex with someone who is passed out, and rather less clear issues like miscommunication and misunderstanding.

I do not believe for a second that any poster on this thread thinks it's OK to have sex with someone who is passed out. I do not believe that any poster on this thread thinks it's OK to just have sex with someone because they were wearing a skimpy outfit.

You are trying to tie those things, and the obvious stigma that would come with thinking those things are OK, to genuine points about consent.

The poster has said "it is the context of the interactions leading up to sex that is important". You say this is "a half step away" from basically condoning rape.

It's not "a half step away" it's a whole goddam planet in another galaxy in another dimension away and you should already know that.

Stuff like this does not help the credibility of your arguments at all.

El_Duderino 09

orubiru wrote:

This kind of situation needs to be decided in court in front of a judge and a jury. That is, realistically, the only way.

I agree.

And yet nobody challenged the assertion that ALL those exact circumstances are 'regret sex' and should be 'chalked up to experience'. Proposing actually gaining consent lead to pages and pages of often angry and sometimes unsulting replied. Interesting to say the least.

orubiru wrote:

You may find yourself with a partner who demands that he "check in" every 90 seconds by asking "is this OK" and you may find that this doesn't really work for you.

Or you may find yourself with a partner who just wants you to aggressively have sex them without asking because that's what they are into (where you both agree on a "safe word" that is a clear signal to stop, yup people like that exist) and you may find that this also doesn't really work.

Neither of those cases are necessarily for me, but in both cases the people involved are creating an agreement around consent. Have at it, after that.

orubiru

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree.
And yet nobody challenged the assertion that ALL those exact circumstances are 'regret sex' and should be 'chalked up to experience'. Proposing actually gaining consent lead to pages and pages of often angry and sometimes unsulting replied. Interesting to say the least.

Again, you are conflating something that is objectively bad with something that is obviously debatable.

Nobody was ever saying that rape victims should "chalk it up to experience".

I didn't challenge those posts because I understood that the posters were not condoning rape. They were discussing the intricacies of consent.

The reason why you are getting replies to what you see as innocently "proposing actually gaining consent" is because what you are proposing does not align with most people's life experiences.

I would put this forward as an issue with the Feminist Movement or Feminist Theory as a whole. They are out of touch with the people they are trying to influence and/or preach to.

I'm not understanding how you can read all the posts and not take away the idea that many people in this world do not feel that they require explicit verbal consent when there are other indicators that consent has been given.

I wonder if the argument could be boiled down to the idea that you are trying to expand the definition of rape while others are trying to narrow down the definition?

So for example, two people who have sex without too much verbal conversation might agree that they had a great time, 10/10, would bang again. Now someone comes along and says "well, there was no verbal consent so this was rape, sorry guys". Maybe the woman doesn't want to see the man go to prison and he definitely does not want to be considered a rapist so they both want to narrow the definition of rape such that it does not include the act they were just engaged in.

Obviously this theoretical happy and satisfied couple are going to aggressively oppose the idea that one of them is a rapist.

On the other hand you might have someone who got drunk and invited someone back to their house for sex but now feels they were taken advantage of because they decided they didn't want sex but were too afraid to say "no" so they went along with it. This person wants to expand the definition of rape so that they can have justice.

This person will aggressively oppose the idea that this wasn't rape because they want what happened to them recognized as a serious criminal act.

Something has to give but nobody is willing to budge because everyone has a lot to lose.

I am going to copy and paste Maguined's example and ask for your take on it.

Two men meet each other in a loud nightclub, they start dancing with each other, start kissing each other and then one of them invites the other back to their place where the kissing turns to touching and then sex but at no stage did either ask the other verbally "do you want to have sex".

What if at a future point one of them decides "I didn't consent and I want to press charges" but the other says "well, I didn't explicitly consent and I kind of regret the sex but I'm just gonna chalk it up to experience". Should they both be charged? Or should only one be charged? Or should neither of them be charged?

Does changing the individuals involved from a man and a woman to two men make any difference in your eyes? Should it make any difference in the eyes of the law?

orubiru

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither of those cases are necessarily for me, but in both cases the people involved are creating an agreement around consent. Have at it, after that.

OK and this is why you, or me, or anyone else who weighs in on this topic, get so many "angry replies".

People create their own agreements around consent. Then someone comes along and tries to say those agreements are either immoral or illegal. Or maybe they just flat out don't understand the agreements.

It's such a personal thing and so it's obviously going to annoy and anger many folks.

Any deep dive into this brings you to the conclusion that people need to take responsibility for their actions, for their safety and for their ongoing well-being because society will always struggle to come to a consensus on this issue.

Like even if we went to extremes and made a law that sex with a lady who has had more than one unit of alcohol is considered rape. Then you will have defendants saying "she told me she was sober" and prosecutions saying "it's not her responsibility to prove she is sober it's your responsibility to not sleep with drunk women".

The you will have MILLIONS of people on the sidelines saying "what the f is this? I have drunk sex all the damn time and it's awesome".

If 2 people meet, chat, move to a more private location and are about to have sex is there an argument that if one of them does not want to proceed at any point they should say "I don't want to do this"?

Or is it immoral for me to suggest that if you don't want to do something you should declare a strong and purposeful "NO"?

Special Circumstances

Ah now obiru, that sounds a bit too straightforward and grown up and "individual best judgement".

Wouldn't you prefer instead to replace one doctrines "original sin" with another doctrines version? Repent fornicators, Repent! Hellfire awaits ye who have skipped Form 57 Subsection F, question 48!

FishOnABike

fullstop wrote: »

Did you ask him the question in return, yes or no? You keep avoiding the point.

Perhaps it is assumed ?

silverharp

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ah now obiru, that sounds a bit too straightforward and grown up and "individual best judgement".

Wouldn't you prefer instead to replace one doctrines "original sin" with another doctrines version? Repent fornicators, Repent! Hellfire awaits ye who have skipped Form 57 Subsection F, question 48!

internalised misogyny is the new original sin and Feminism is required just like Scientology is needed to clear the Thetans to be redeemed. Im sure your averge 60's feminist would be horrified to discover that they became the new Puritans.

fullstop

FishOnABike wrote: »

Perhaps it is assumed ?

Why should it be assumed for him, but not for her?

El_Duderino 09

orubiru wrote:

Nobody was ever saying that rape victims should "chalk it up to experience".

The dismissed the notion that it could possibly be considered rape. It was regret sex and the 'victim' should 'chalk it up to experience'. I found that to be genuinely disturbing to know that's how some people think.

orubiru wrote:

I didn't challenge those posts because I understood that the posters were not condoning rape. They were discussing the intricacies of consent.

Not even considering the possibility of rape. Not condoning rape by definition.

orubiru wrote:

Two men meet each other in a loud nightclub, they start dancing with each other, start kissing each other and then one of them invites the other back to their place where the kissing turns to touching and then sex but at no stage did either ask the other verbally "do you want to have sex".

Strictly speaking it's in the consent grey area. The way you define it sounds like they both have the same understanding of what they were consenting to. So it sounds unlikely that either would be unhappy with having sex. But who's to know what other people are thinking without asking? (mind readers maybe?)

orubiru wrote:

What if at a future point one of them decides "I didn't consent and I want to press charges" but the other says "well, I didn't explicitly consent and I kind of regret the sex but I'm just gonna chalk it up to experience". Should they both be charged? Or should only one be charged? Or should neither of them be charged?

It's a lilegal issue now. No consent was gained so they're on shaky ground. One word against the other. If one of them feels they were raped it's a bit too late for words now though. Likely to be nobody happy by the end. All for lack of simply gaining consent before having sex.

orubiru wrote:

Does changing the individuals involved from a man and a woman to two men make any difference in your eyes? Should it make any difference in the eyes of the law?

No. Genders don't really mater to me in this context. Sick to the back teeth saying that.

El_Duderino 09

orubiru wrote:

People create their own agreements around consent. Then someone comes along and tries to say those agreements are either immoral or illegal. Or maybe they just flat out don't understand the agreements.

I haven't mentioned morality or legality. I have the same question about sex in the grey area a dozen times only had 2 responses.

One response says it's always regret sex and never to be considered rape and the victim should chalk it up to experience.

The other said it's a matter for the court to decide.

I think there should simply be respect enough for each other and for the importance of sex as bonding and recreation, to gain consent before having sex. I'm mad for thinking that apparently.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The dismissed the notion that it could possibly be considered rape. It was regret sex and the 'victim' should 'chalk it up to experience'. I found that to be genuinely disturbing to know that's how some people think.

in fairness what would genuinely disturb you probably isn't a good test of anything :pac: