Sexual Assault ?

sbsquarepants · 20-10-2017 10:02AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know, but whoever recorded it and passed it around is an absolute c*nt.

Though - if you get drunk and you willingly do something, then it is hard to tell if it is sexual assault. Are the people in the room as drunk as her? If so, are they taking advantage then?

Jaysus, surely it is common sense to say if you go out and get hammered and then blow some fella in front of a room full of people - you kind of are the architect of your own misery. It's not like this was some hidden camera thing.

You got drunk, you done something you now regret, we've all been there - it's just unfortunate now, with the technology available to every tom, dick and harry, that you can't scratch your arse without some fúcker uploading it to the internet.

Whatever this was - it certainly is not sexual assault. Whatever you do in public, you can't really complain about the public seeing.

If you don't want a video of you sucking cock appearing on the internet, don't suck cock in front a room full of strangers with cameras in their hands. Do we really need to tell people this shít!

tritium · 20-10-2017 10:06AM

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

I didn't mention it because that's not what happened in this instance, you're just engaging in whataboutery now.

But really you have two mates where the women overpowered them, forced them to become erect, knocked the condom out of their hand, forced themselves onto their junk, and held them down while they rode them until they orgasmed? Well I guess that can happen, but the mechanics of the equipment involved and the strength of a man lend itself to sexual assault being far more likely to man on woman.

If they were really that wasted the soldier would no be able to salute. And if they were able to do that and also achieve orgasm, I don't buy the fact that they were unwilling or unwitting participants. And likewise I don't think a girl who gives a BJ is unwilling or unwitting either, most likely. Oral sex is usually something you perform on someone else, hard to make a case for it being assault then, unless the man penetrated the woman's mouth against her will or when she was unconscious.

What I'm talking about with women being too drunk to consent is more like when they are not fully aware of what's happening or passed out and guys do something to them which happens a lot, and often they feel they can't stop what's happening.

This is a really terrible post on so many levels. I'll start with the obvious "couldnt happen to a man ****e that you come up with"- yes it can, and being coherent isnt a prerequisite to getting erect. That before we get into how much drink someone needs to have before their judgement to consent is impaired

You also don't seem to understand the concept ofsexual assault more generally

lazybones32 · 20-10-2017 10:13AM

server down wrote: »

I would agree with that, although a warning should be given.

So sexual harrassment is defined by the individual interpretation?
A woman, feeling body-confident, attractive and feeling good about herself and life hears a sex joke and finds it funny.
Same woman on a bad day hears the same joke but this time it is harrassment.

We can make laws that are based on feelings that change and personal taste.

Wibbs · 20-10-2017 10:14AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If you don't want a video of you sucking cock appearing on the internet, don't suck cock in front a room full of strangers with cameras in their hands. Do we really need to tell people this sh

Yep, perfectly logical, but watch it SB lest you be accused of "victim blaming". Remember, women are always victims with no agency and it's always men's fault. AKA horsesh1t.

20-10-2017 10:18AM

server down wrote: »

I would agree with that, although a warning should be given.

I’m not sure - if it was directed at the offended person I’d say yeah a warning/disciplinary action but if it wasn’t- i would percieve it as immature not a fireable/displinary offencr

tritium · 20-10-2017 10:22AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

While a woman person is not responsible for what happens to her them while she is they are drunk, she is they are responsible for how much she has to drink.

A small but important change to your post. I dont think its what you intended here, but theres a tendency to assume "too drunk to consent" only works one way.

server down · 20-10-2017 10:23AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

So sexual harrassment is defined by the individual interpretation?
A woman, feeling body-confident, attractive and feeling good about herself and life hears a sex joke and finds it funny.
Same woman on a bad day hears the same joke but this time it is harrassment.

We can make laws that are based on feelings that change and personal taste.

well, these are company rules not laws. Easy enough to ban all sexual comments in work I would think.

20-10-2017 10:27AM

server down wrote: »

This is a thinly veiled I'm hot, you're not.

Not a bit of it no.

It is a not veiled at all attack on the culture (of some) of deriding women as having some negative attribute (Frigid - prudish - inhibited - or worse) when they do not automatically bend (over?) to the sexual will of the approaching male.

As for me being hot - I invite you to picture the milky bar kid having grown into a near 40 year old someone who has obviously worked in Science and Statistics and IT in sun excluded rooms for the majority of his working life.

The result of your imagination is likely not far off the reality that is the real me.

sbsquarepants · 20-10-2017 10:30AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

While a woman is not responsible for what happens to her while she is drunk, she is responsible for how much she has to drink.

What happens to her, no (but common sense should still apply in my opinion) But what she does herself - she's still fully responsible for.

Try arguing that you have no personal responsibility on the grounds of intoxication in front of a judge if you're caught drink driving.
"I didn't know what I was doing your honour, sure I was hammered, it's not my fault!"

If legally you are held to be competent enough to decide whether you should drive or not, why would you not be competent enough to decide whether or not to have sex, either with someone or in front of them?

server down · 20-10-2017 10:35AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not a bit of it no.

It is a not veiled at all attack on the culture (of some) of deriding women as having some negative attribute (Frigid - prudish - inhibited - or worse) when they do not automatically bend (over?) to the sexual will of the approaching male.

As for me being hot - I invite you to picture the milky bar kid having grown into a near 40 year old someone who has obviously worked in Science and Statistics and IT in sun excluded rooms for the majority of his working life.

The result of your imagination is likely not far off the reality that is the real me.

You were responding to a guy who said that most sexual encounters in Ireland involve drink, you responded by saying that may apply to the poster but not to you, because the sober girls liked you. In reality he is right.

The whole "some girls are called frigid" argument you are having with yourself.

sbsquarepants · 20-10-2017 10:38AM

server down wrote: »

well, these are company rules not laws. Easy enough to ban all sexual comments in work I would think.

Who do you work for - the legion of Mary!

20-10-2017 10:39AM

server down wrote: »

You were responding to a guy who said that most sexual encounters in Ireland involve drink

I think you might benefit from going back and re-reading it. That is not at all the part I responded to. Though I would use the word "many" not "most" (unless you have statistics to offer?) I have no disagreement with the statement _you_ are making here.

server down wrote: »

The whole "some girls are called frigid" argument you are having with yourself.

Again a re-read to refresh your memory might benefit you here. To help you along here are the exact words the user used "many women in Ireland still seem very inhibited and prudish when sober"

And I am suggesting that given my experience - and that of people I know - does not match with this that perhaps the common denominator being him is worth consideration.

Heckler · 20-10-2017 10:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the response you're fishing for is "oh congratulations and well done, obviously it was so good you rushed to tell everyone on AH".

Not fishing for a bit Conor.

Was trying to open up a debate.

lazybones32 · 20-10-2017 10:57AM

server down wrote: »

well, these are company rules not laws. Easy enough to ban all sexual comments in work I would think.

Why stop there? If speaking about a natural human activity is offensive, we must stop speaking about othrr human activities too.

lazybones32 · 20-10-2017 11:01AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Who do you work for - the legion of Mary!

Oi! Leave the Legion alone...they volunteer their time visiting people abandoned in hospitals and the housebound who get no visitors. No need to insult them to make your point.

sbsquarepants · 20-10-2017 11:02AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Oi! Leave the Legion alone...they volunteer their time visiting people abandoned in hospitals and the housebound who get no visitors. No need to insult them to make your point.

I bet they don't tell them any good knob jokes though!:D

20-10-2017 11:13AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I bet they don't tell them any good knob jokes though!:D

No need. The "assumption" they make about Mary is itself comedy gold.

wakka12 · 20-10-2017 11:13AM

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

When you mature a bit you'll realize that taking advantage of a drunk girl is scummy. I dunno about assault, each situation is different but really you should make sure a girl is sober enough to consent.

That said, without alcohol I dunno would anyone get laid in this country, many women in Ireland still seem very inhibited and prudish when sober and nearly seem to only give themselves permission to act on their desires/accept advances from men when booze is on board. But that doesn't mean that they should be preyed on while drunk, and I can't imagine it feels good to know you've taken advantage of someone like that. I'm glad to see that men who are doing stuff like that are getting called out so that young men will hopefully be aware how unacceptable it is.

And I think filming someone else in a sex act without their consent and distributing it should be an offense. That's an awful thing to do, the man won't get any criticism while the woman is ruthlessly slutshamed.

Theres a bit of give and take here, girls shouldnt get to a point where theyre so drunk that they believe they are not accountable for their actions and that a man shouldnt get with her even if she might be initiating it

sbsquarepants · 20-10-2017 11:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

No need. The "assumption" they make about Mary is itself comedy gold.

No camera phones in Marys day - or it could have been a very different story.

3 strange blokes turned up with pressies after the birth didn't they?:)

20-10-2017 12:00PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Theres a bit of give and take here, girls shouldnt get to a point where theyre so drunk that they believe they are not accountable for their actions and that a man shouldnt get with her even if she might be initiating it

Careful now, you don’t want to be victim blaming now and the 3rd wave feminist/twitter brigade will be after you

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2017 12:10PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Being drunk does not absolve women of all responsibility.

Never said it did, hence the second part of my sentence.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2017 12:11PM

tritium wrote: »

A small but important change to your post. I dont think its what you intended here, but theres a tendency to assume "too drunk to consent" only works one way.

Point accepted, but the specific case was a woman, hence the pronouns.

Outlaw Pete · 20-10-2017 12:16PM

If you search xHamster for 'Féile '91 Mullingar Fiona' you won't get any results.

Thank fcuk for that! :P

Tayschren · 20-10-2017 12:30PM

Not sexual assault. The person filming the act to send out for **** and giggles is a pure wanker. Not a crime and neither should it be.
If your wasted and blowing some side in a room full of people then you bear the responsibility for your own shame

Don't mention George Hook

20-10-2017 12:40PM

Tayschren wrote: »

If your wasted and blowing some side in a room full of people then you bear the responsibility for your own shame

Not sure I can see it that way.

If, for example, you consent to sex and someone flips you over and engages in anal sex - you would not say "Well if you are acting sexually in a room full of people you bear the responsibility" or "if you are having sex with someone it's on you what happens there".

Consent to one sexual act is not a broad consent to all sexual acts.

To my mind filming sex - let alone distributing that material - is itself a sexual act. In that it is something sexually you should be able to consent to.

So having sex with someone alone or in a room full of people is not explicitly or implicitly consent to be filmed. It is not a difficult thing to say "Wow this is hot - can I video this" and listen to the reply. And anyone who does find that difficult might also find this set of tips useful.

Also I do not see anything that is "shame" about "blowing" someone in a room full of people. Why is a given sexual act being seen as "shameful" exactly? Assuming the consent of everyone involved I do not see _any_ sexual act in any context as inherently shameful. Should I? Why?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2017 12:41PM

Tayschren wrote: »

Not sexual assault. The person filming the act to send out for **** and giggles is a pure wanker. Not a crime and neither should it be.
If your wasted and blowing some side in a room full of people then you bear the responsibility for your own shame

Don't mention George Hook

Sending explicit images of someone to a third party without their consent shouldn't be illegal..?

Anyway, it soon will be (unless they've got round to it already).

The Minister will create two new criminal offences, including making it illegal to intentionally post intimate images of a person online without their consent.
The legislative change will also extend the offence of harassment to ensure it includes activity online and on social media.
It will also expand the offence of sending threatening or indecent messages to digital forms of communication.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stalking-and-revenge-porn-to-become-criminal-offences-1.2921564

wakka12 · 20-10-2017 12:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure I can see it that way.

If, for example, you consent to sex and someone flips you over and engages in anal sex - you would not say "Well if you are acting sexually in a room full of people you bear the responsibility" or "if you are having sex with someone it's on you what happens there".

Consent to one sexual act is not a broad consent to all sexual acts.

To my mind filming sex - let alone distributing that material - is itself a sexual act. In that it is something sexually you should be able to consent to.

So having sex with someone alone or in a room full of people is not explicitly or implicitly consent to be filmed. It is not a difficult thing to say "Wow this is hot - can I video this" and listen to the reply. And anyone who does find that difficult might also find this set of tips useful.

Also I do not see anything that is "shame" about "blowing" someone in a room full of people. Why is a given sexual act being seen as "shameful" exactly? Assuming the consent of everyone involved I do not see _any_ sexual act in any context as inherently shameful. Should I? Why?

Blowing somebody in front of a crowd is not socially acceptable and thus is shameful, its completely inappropriate and how do you know everyone present was comfortable with it occurring? Im sure lots of people werent
Wtf is this bull**** use your common sense. Not everything can be scientifically proven or proven by law, some things are just not okay such as performing oral sex in front of lots of people
Would your parents think its shameful if you blew a guy in front of a crowd?I dont think youll be able to convince them otherwise with even the most liberal or forward thinking arguments
She was also a minor and I dont know what country this occurred in but she and the guy that did this with her would have also been exposing other minors to this
If you dont see anything wrong with this then I dont know what else to say.
If I wore nappies with no pants in public its not against any law but its still shameful isnt it? Not because its hurting anyone or any consent issues or any law issues but simply because its something thst society deemed inappropriate and we have to take that as it is

Tayschren · 20-10-2017 12:59PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure I can see it that way.

If, for example, you consent to sex and someone flips you over and engages in anal sex - you would not say "Well if you are acting sexually in a room full of people you bear the responsibility" or "if you are having sex with someone it's on you what happens there".

Consent to one sexual act is not a broad consent to all sexual acts.

To my mind filming sex - let alone distributing that material - is itself a sexual act. In that it is something sexually you should be able to consent to.

So having sex with someone alone or in a room full of people is not explicitly or implicitly consent to be filmed. It is not a difficult thing to say "Wow this is hot - can I video this" and listen to the reply. And anyone who does find that difficult might also find this set of tips useful.

Also I do not see anything that is "shame" about "blowing" someone in a room full of people. Why is a given sexual act being seen as "shameful" exactly? Assuming the consent of everyone involved I do not see _any_ sexual act in any context as inherently shameful. Should I? Why?

But your examples don't relate to the OPs topic. The whataboutery is light but only suits your own views. My point is simple and only based on the OPs post.

The girl who got blotto and performed a sex act in a room full of people bears responsibility for the outcome( being filmed by other drunk loosers) and any shame she feels. Blaming the arsehole who filmed it doesn't change the fact she did it, nobody forced her.

Now for some whataboutery

If she was spiked before and these guys sober predators then yes it's sexual assault.

sbsquarepants · 20-10-2017 01:44PM

These days camera phones are absolutely ubiquitous - it's a silly argument that she didn't consent to being filmed - she's in public. She had absolutely no reason to expect privacy in a room full of drunken people.
If she had snook off to a bedroom or something like that and someone secretly filmed her without her consent, where she might have reasonably expected privacy, that's a completely different matter.
If it was a video she made for herself or to share with select other people and one of them gave it away to an "outsider" then that's a different matter.
If it was just on her phone and someone went through and sent it on - again that's bang out of order.

But.....she took it upon herself to blow some bloke in full few of everybody - she may well regret doing that now, but it doesn't change the fact that she done it un-coerced and of her own volition.

She fúcked up, she's not a victim!

20-10-2017 01:45PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Blowing somebody in front of a crowd is not socially acceptable

wakka12 wrote: »

its completely inappropriate

Not acceptable and inappropriate to _you_ you mean? I certainly have no issue with it nor can I think of anyone I know who might. I think it is socially acceptable to consent to sex with whomever you want. Be that one person or a room full of people. Be it direct sexual interaction or indirect through their presence.

So when you label it as inappropriate - I do not think it is. With the caveat that -

wakka12 wrote: »

and how do you know everyone present was comfortable with it occurring?

- I absolutely agree with this part. I think witnessing a sexual act is itself a sexual act and hence should be consented to. There is nothing inappropriate with engaging in sexual acts in front of other people. At all. Even a little bit. But they must accept / consent to that.

Of course though I doubt in most situations that people _suddenly_ drop their underwear and start shoving things into other things. There is some level of build up and so forth during which I am sure people can up and leave when they see where it is going. But sure - ideally explicit consent should be sought! You are right on the money there.

wakka12 wrote: »

Wtf is this bull**** use your common sense. Not everything can be scientifically proven or proven by law, some things are just not okay such as performing oral sex in front of lots of people

That my common sense reaches a different conclusions to yours - does not mean I have not employed mine. Unfortunatley "common sense" tends to be what people won't (or can't) argue to be true so the phrase "common sense" is their attempt to make it the default.

But I repeat - assuming the consent of all involved - there is nothing "not okay" about almost _any_ sexual act done in _any_ context with _any_ number of people present.

If it is not ok _for you_ that is entirely fine! Do not do it or watch it. But it not being ok for you is a much different thing that it not being ok at all.

wakka12 wrote: »

Would your parents think its shameful if you blew a guy in front of a crowd?

No. My parents brought me up to respect the will and rights of others. And to be myself in a way that combines being moral to others but not needlessly pandering to the judgements of others who simply like / want different things to me.

So my parents would not at all care if I engaged in a 10-way sex orgy including a spanish midget and a russian contortionist infront of an audience of 100 people if it was A) what everyone involved wanted

No one was hurt or harmed by the event and C) I respected the rights and well being of everyone else while pursuing my own pleasures.

And that is the exact same world view I would pass on to my own current son (3) and daughter (7) over their current and future development.

wakka12 wrote: »

If you dont see anything wrong with this then I dont know what else to say.

That is a big "if" there. I was not discussing that aspect of it all. But I can assure you that "informed consent" (of which a minor is not capable) is the core foundational axiom upon which _all_ my sexual morality is based. So you can rest assured that any aspect of this - or other cases - that involve a minor will fall under that.

I was solely commenting on the aspects I have thus far mentioned directly - in a general sense - and not limited to this one event of which - lets face it - we know very little other than the OPs description without link.

wakka12 wrote: »

If I wore nappies with no pants in public

Note however you have used your analogy to move from a sexual event in the room of a house (say) to an action engaged in "in public". So I am not sure this is a fair or relevant analogy at all.

its not against any law but its still shameful isnt it? Not because its hurting anyone or any consent issues or any law issues but simply because its something thst society deemed inappropriate and we have to take that as it is[/QUOTE]

Sexual Assault ?

Comments