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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Man squeezes woman's boobs too hard - it ends up in court - should it have?

124678

Comments

  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    valoren wrote: »
    Fair enough he got a charge of indecent assault and must do 180 hours of community service. That's where it should have ended. To be placed on the register list is an extreme punishment given the details provided by both parties.

    I've been slapped across the head by one loon, I've had two women bite me leaving marks which weren't welcome, I've had one woman stick her thumb up my hole and after being told to stop tried it again.

    That all happened during consensual sexy time. I could have reported all of them in the same manner as the woman in that article but I didn't. I just moved on with my life.
    Your entire point is already covered in law, by the fact that nobody is obliged to report a sexual/ assault on an adult.

    Different people will respond to a traumatic event ... differently. For some people, it will have no impact, especially if they are not in a vulnerable position, and feel they can control over the situation. I assume you didn't feel vulnerable or threatened, so no problem.

    I'm sure many of us have been the victims of crimes that we didn't bother reporting, but that doesn't ordain us with the right to determine what someone else should or shouldn't do, under different circumstances, when they felt genuine fear or pain.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    DrPhilG wrote: »
    1 - how am I going to get a blowjob while lying face down on the bed?

    Am I the only one in this thread with a weiner capable of swinging? O_o
    2 - in your example, would it not be a bit daft if I receive this unexpected anal violation, object strenuously, put an end to said entry, continue on and have regular sex with this woman and then once she leaves, report her for assault?

    Once sex changes to assault, you don't go back and finish the sex before you report the assault. It's ludicrous.

    I agree entirely. Still doesn't change the fact that it was assault, though. She may be reporting it with an alterior motive but the fact remains that it counts as assault and in my view that's something which should be understood across the board. If somebody tells you in advance that a particular sex act is off the cards, it's off the cards. Failing to respect that is, indeed, sexual assault - regardless of any other factors short of a clearly expressed change of mind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Generally they can be moved in different directions... Is mine more flexible than most? :D.

    Most? I don't know
    Mine - Most definitely!

    EVERY sex act is sexual assault in the absence of consent..

    This.

    I can understand getting carried away and overstepping the mark, especially with someone new - we've most likely all done it at some stage. I've done it myself on a few occasions - it's just part and parcel of life.
    What I can not understand is doing it repeatedly when you've been already told to stop.
    That's not passion or excitement, it's just a basic lack of respect for the other person. It's knowing that you explicitly do not have consent and just not giving a flying fúck because what you want is more important - commonly known as sexual assault.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,409 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Poor comprehension there, Grayson, to say the least.

    How the hell could your complaint be the "degree of force used" (which is what I specified).

    Did you consent to a lighter beating from them or something?

    No, you didn't and so therefore your analogy is a poor one.

    No, you said degree of force used could only be determined if they required medical attention.

    I'm saying that you don't need to require medical attention to for a harmful level of force to have been used against you. Just because she didn't need to go to a hospital doesn't mean that it's not harmful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,409 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Ah here, you position yourself as someone who has more knowledge about such matters, compared to regular folk, and then you compare a man squeezing a woman's boobs harder than she'd have liked...... to being raped?? (which it would be if the guy had refused consent to such a sex act beforehand). Laughable.

    harder than she liked is putting a bit of a spin on it.

    If I punched you am I trying to get your attention harder than you'd like?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    What's the next headline?

    'Man accidentally says hello to feminist. Trial starts Monday'

    How far is this feminist hysteria going to go? The guy honked the woman's boobs during consensual sex. They will be spraying air freshener in men's faces next. This case makes a mockery of women who have suffered quite serious instances of sexual violence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    I honestly don't see the confusion here. Breasts are sexual body parts. She told him not to touch her breasts, and he touched her breasts. Ergo, he touched a sexual body part without the consent of the person whose body part it was. Ergo, he committed a sexual assault.

    This really shouldn't be as controversial as people here are making it out to be.

    Now, as to whether the penalties for such assaults with regard to having to sign the sex offenders registry, and whether those penalties are proportional to the degree of assault committed - that's a very valid conversation to have. Indeed, it's valid to question and debate all penalties under the justice system - those which people believe to be too harsh as well as those which people believe to be too lenient. But it's a separate issue to the question of whether the actual actions taken by the accused in this case constitute a valid count of sexual assault or not - and its this aspect of the case on which I'm saying there shouldn't be any confusion or ambiguity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Next time someone on AH tries to claim that there's no need for consent classes in schools and universities, I'll point them towards the result of this poll.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    So what you lie face down, spreadeagled, erection pointing towards your feet and she goes...

    I'm actually going to need a diagram or something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,945 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    AFIK you cannot consent to assault in the UK. So BDSM is technically illegal. There was a case where a group of men, who were members of a private members only BDSM club, were prosecuted for assault even thought the "victims" had signed consent forms.

    Operation Spanner :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Discodog wrote: »
    AFIK you cannot consent to assault in the UK. So BDSM is technically illegal. There was a case where a group of men, who were members of a private members only BDSM club, were prosecuted for assault even thought the "victims" had signed consent forms.


    Was that R v Brown?

    How come people can consent to getting punched in the face in a boxing match but they can't consent to another adult putting nipple clamps on them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Mrs Shaw said after meeting via Tinder and getting on well during their first date they agreed to meet again two days later.


    I cant believe she'd do that to me. She told me she was meeting friends. :eek:


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Discodog wrote: »
    AFIK you cannot consent to assault in the UK.
    Yes you can. There is literally a defence titled "consent".


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    You can analogise this fairly easily to be honest. If you consent to sex with a woman and you tell her in no uncertain terms that you have no interest in - indeed, you have a serious aversion to - being pegged, only to suddenly feel the slimy, slippery head of a lubed up strap on dildo sliding its way between your butt cheeks while you're lying face down on her bed thinking she was just going to give you a blowjob, would you not be fairly appalled?
    Well unless there's a lady head shaped hole in my mattress she's got some skills, but even if there was but instead she then she starts at my arse with a Strapadicktome 3000™ I would not be a happy camper. She'd be asked in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of both my arse and gaff and numbers would be deleted. Would I run to the Guards hoping to get my day in court? No.

    It's also the inconsistency in such cases. As TS noted https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/medical-student-too-bright-for-prison-is-spared-jail-for-stabbing-boyfriend-with-bread-knife-36166924.html where the woman stabs her boyfriend but walks away from it in court. She pulled the usual well worn "bad childhood/mental illness/I'm in therapy" defence. Even her university "remains supportive". Even though she has stabbed someone and has an "emotionally unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol-drug dependence".

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    :D:D

    We'll look back at your posts about the assault victim...

    Touché.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well unless there's a lady head shaped hole in my mattress she's got some skills, but even if there was but instead she then she starts at my arse with a Strapadicktome 3000™ I would not be a happy camper. She'd be asked in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of both my arse and gaff and numbers would be deleted. Would I run to the Guards hoping to get my day in court? No.
    Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs. That's nice to know, but it sort of completely misses the point.

    The fact that there is no obligation to report a crime of assault is reflective of the pragmatic understanding most of us share, that victims of crime perceive their experiences subjectively.

    This is why a sentencing judge will, for example, attach weight to the effect that a crime has had on the victim when she imposes a sentence.

    Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

    When the tables are turned, however, and you're alone with someone, (a near-stranger) who is physically stronger than you, and that person assaults you when you've clearly asked them not to ... well, most people can understand that this can be a frightening experience, quite aside from the physical injuries they have inflicted.
    She pulled the usual well worn "bad childhood/mental illness/I'm in therapy" defence. Even her university "remains supportive". Even though she has stabbed someone and has an "emotionally unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol-drug dependence".
    It's not unusual for anyone, of either gender, to make claims of prior psychiatric illness or disorder when they stand accused of a crime -- any crime. I'm not sure what this one, isolated incident is intended to demonstrate. It says no more about 'women' than this instant case says anything about 'men'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.
    Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

    I bet you don't realize just how sexist you sound there.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    I bet you don't realize just how sexist you sound there.
    I am sure it does sound sexist ... to all the people who think they can do whatever they want to a woman once she agrees to sex.

    Is it sexist to say that most sex offenders are male? No
    Does it imply that men are mostly sex offenders? Obviously not.
    Are adult men typically stronger than adult women? Yes

    I'm not seeing the sexism here boss.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs.
    432428.gif
    The fact that there is no obligation to report a crime of assault is reflective of the pragmatic understanding most of us share, that victims of crime perceive their experiences subjectively.

    This is why a sentencing judge will, for example, attach weight to the effect that a crime has had on the victim when she imposes a sentence.
    So one person who is burgled thinks what the hell, it's a pain, but insurance will cover it, while another one is left distraught by a burglary, so the criminal gets a different sentence. For the same crime? A crime for which the perp - though still a scumbag BTW - has no clue how the victim will perceive it? Interesting way to look at justice there Ted. How far down that rabbit hole would you take that? I can but imagine.

    But let's descend down that rabbit hole in your own words...
    Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.
    That's all you had to say to enlighten us how you seem to think. Women are always victims, the poor dears, while men are expected to suck it up really, because well it's not really the same crime now is it? Even if it is. Preferential treatment in your version of justice based on gender. Brilliant. Though at least you're clear about your position.
    I bet you don't realize just how sexist you sound there.
    Of course he doesn't. This nonsense is extremely pervasive of late and rarely goes unquestioned, even by those who are of a questioning mind in general(as Tyrant most certainly is). It's an area where questions are largely bypass and if brought up usually swiftly glossed over. Plus there is certainly an undercurrent of you can't be sexist about men.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    I'm not seeing the sexism here boss.
    In your own words: most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. If you can't read that and see the issue with it I really don't know what to say. Hell you're not so far away from stating that sexual assault by a woman on a man is of no consequence.

    Let's tease it out more. Would you change your position if a woman committed sexual assault against another woman? I'd lay bets you would. You most certainly wouldn't suggest that it wouldn't be frightening, not typically traumatic and probably not meriting reporting.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,349 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    RayM wrote: »
    Next time someone on AH tries to claim that there's no need for consent classes in schools and universities, I'll point them towards the result of this poll.

    Foreplay now should involve a questionnaire about what is/isn't being consented to.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    432428.gif

    So one person who is burgled thinks what the hell, it's a pain, but insurance will cover it, while another one is left distraught by a burglary, so the criminal gets a different sentence. For the same crime? A crime for which the perp - though still a scumbag BTW - has no clue how the victim will perceive it? Interesting way to look at justice there Ted. How far down that rabbit hole would you take that? I can but imagine.
    Look up 'eggshell skull rule'.

    It's a fairly basic, long established principle in criminal/ common law in most western countries, that you take your victim as you find him. Or her.
    That's all you had to say to enlighten us how you seem to think. Women are always victims, the poor dears, while men are expected to suck it up really,
    Er, no. No idea where you've gotten that from.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    Er, no. No idea where you've gotten that from.
    No you really don't do you? TBH I'm surprised at that. As I said: Would you change your position if a woman committed sexual assault against another woman? I'd lay bets you would. You most certainly wouldn't suggest that it wouldn't be frightening, not typically traumatic and probably not meriting reporting. See it yet? In essence women are automatically "eggshells", men are not.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    In your own words: most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. If you can't read that and see the issue with it I really don't know what to say. Hell you're not so far away from stating that sexual assault by a woman on a man is of no consequence.
    No. I'm saying that whether or not it is of consequence depends on the circumstances, and how the victim of the crime perceives it. If a man is traumatised by a sexual assault, at the hands of a woman or another man, then I can completely understand why he should and would report that.

    If not, i can see why he wouldn't. Same with a woman. It just so happens that most men are bigger and stronger than most women
    Let's tease it out more. Would you change your position if a woman committed sexual assault against another woman? I'd lay bets you would.
    Did you bet the farm?

    No, I wouldn't Wibbs. It depends completely on how the victim themselves felt, and whether or not they found it sufficiently traumatic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.
    Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs. That's nice to know, but it sort of completely misses the point.

    The fact that there is no obligation to report a crime of assault is reflective of the pragmatic understanding most of us share, that victims of crime perceive their experiences subjectively.

    This is why a sentencing judge will, for example, attach weight to the effect that a crime has had on the victim when she imposes a sentence.

    Assuming that most men are physically stronger than women, and that women typically aren't sex offenders, most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.

    When the tables are turned, however, and you're alone with someone, (a near-stranger) who is physically stronger than you, and that person assaults you when you've clearly asked them not to ... well, most people can understand that this can be a frightening experience, quite aside from the physical injuries they have inflicted.

    It's not unusual for anyone, of either gender, to make claims of prior psychiatric illness or disorder when they stand accused of a crime -- any crime. I'm not sure what this one, isolated incident is intended to demonstrate. It says no more about 'women' than this instant case says anything about 'men'.

    i can't be the only one who thinks the two bolded parts here compelely contradict one another?


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    In essence women are automatically "eggshells", men are not.
    Oh, you've looked it up then, the eggshell skull rule? Good. This is progress. Do you still want to claim that's a crazy notion, or shall we leave it there.

    And no, I don't consider women to be 'eggshells', I'm just making an observation that due to the typical difference in size and strength, I can see how the same assault could be more intimidating for a woman.

    But then, I suppose you're more interested in deliberately misunderstanding things you don't want to hear.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

    No, I wouldn't Wibbs. It depends completely on how the victim themselves felt, and whether or not they found it sufficiently traumatic.
    Buta according to you in your own words above women will automatically perceive it to be traumatic, but men automatically won't. That's what you said. Subsequent talk about how victims feel is backtracking from that position. Like I said if you can't see the issue there. But you don't so...

    Well to be fair you wouldn't be alone at all in this perception. It's very pervasive. QV domestic abuse stats are roughly equally divided between men and women, but women are seen more victimised, as being in need of more sympathy, protection and social support, hence any number of women only avenues and domestic abuse centres are to be found, but practically none for men. Hell the woman who set up the very first safe house for victims of domestic abuse originally had a near equal number of men and women seeking help, but was prevented from opening up a male only home. Indeed that same woman is now blanket banned from the very homes she set up, because she made a stink about this inequity.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    But then, I suppose you're more interested in deliberately misunderstanding things you don't want to hear.
    Irony all over the shop...

    You said quite clearly that in your opinion most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator. It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. You seem to see it as sexual assault, but because of a gender bias seem to see it as a different lesser crime. Again the question would that same logic apply to a woman who sexually assaults another woman? I mean they're likely of the same size and strength, which seems to be your metric for deciding "trauma" and "fear" within an assault.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    I read an article about female medical student who attacked her bf and it seemed to me she got off too lightly. I thought the same about Stamford swimmer who raped unconscious girl. I don't care what gender the assailant is.

    The guy in this case seems to be a complete creep. Sex offender register is probably a bit harsh but who wants to have sex with someone like that. And yes she might not go to police if he listened to her after the sex but instead she was basically used as human punch bag. I wouldn't bother going to police but I don't have any sympathy for the man. He got himself into the mess.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Buta according to you in your own words above women will automatically perceive it to be traumatic, but men automatically won't. That's what you said.
    Yeah... no it's not. Have another go there.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    You said quite clearly that in your opinion most cases of sexual assault aren't frightening when the woman is the perpetrator.
    Typically, yes. Most men have probably been touched inappropriately, without consent, by some drinken ould wan on a night out. Is that sexual assault? Unequivocally, yes. Is it intimidating? I'm not going to judge anyone for whom it is -- and I'm sure it can be. But typically, for men; no.
    It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting. You seem to see it as sexual assault
    There's no need for any of us to reinvent the legal wheel: it is sexual assault. It's a question of fact, not opinion.
    , but because of a gender bias seem to see it as a different lesser crime.
    Wibbs wibbs wibbs wibbs. No. I said in *most* cases, or *typically* men won't be intimidated, so I can understand, and would predict, that it would go unreported. It probably should go unreported.

    Similarly, sexual assaults where women are the victims (or the subject, if you prefer), and experience no intimidation whatever, should probably also be best forgotten, and not reported.

    It's just that, due to size and strength disparities, prevalence of media coverage of sexual violence, which usually involve men, it's probably a good deal more likely that a woman will be frightened or intimidated.

    And that's where your new best friend, the eggshell skull, comes in.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    meeeeh wrote: »
    I read an article about female medical student who attacked her bf and it seemed to me she got off too lightly. I thought the same about Stamford swimmer who raped unconscious girl. I don't care what gender the assailant is.
    Ditto, but all too often too many do. We see this in cases of teachers and others in positions of trust who have sex with underage individuals. When it's a women perp they're are treated more leniently than when it's a male perp. This has begun to change and more such women predators are getting more gaol time, but parity is some ways away.

    I think it comes down to some degree on the old idea that sex is something men do and women have done to them. That women are the "submissive" role in sex, that they agree to/choose having it done to them as it were and any taking away of that choice is somehow worse(or more traumatic, frightening and of merit in reporting). Whereas men are always up for it and will always choose to go for it if the opportunity arises. So the sexy teacher that screws her 14 year old male pupil and we have the South Park "niiiiice"/I wish I had teachers like that in my day memes, but the sexy teacher who screws his 14 year old female pupil is a deviant. Even if in both cases the victim "consented". This perception changes if they're homosexual relationships though. Both men and women in such cases are seen as deviants. Which IMHO reflects an underlying homophobia.
    The guy in this case seems to be a complete creep. Sex offender register is probably a bit harsh but who wants to have sex with someone like that. And yes she might not go to police if he listened to her after the sex but instead she was basically used as human punch bag. I wouldn't bother going to police but I don't have any sympathy for the man. He got himself into the mess.
    I agree TBH. Something is off about this case. Or at least what has been publicly released. I could be very wrong, but I suspect that there is more to yer man's background and other evidence beyond he said/she said that influenced the judge and judgement.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    And that's where your new best friend, the eggshell skull, comes in.
    Tying yourself in knots again, but we get it, women probably a good deal more likely to be eggshells. Case closed.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.
    I am sure it does sound sexist ... to all the people who think they can do whatever they want to a woman once she agrees to sex.

    I didn't say anything like that, but nice try at painting me as a "bad guy".
    Is it sexist to say that most sex offenders are male? No
    Does it imply that men are mostly sex offenders? Obviously not.
    Are adult men typically stronger than adult women? Yes

    That's a nice group of strawmen you have there. At least you had the decency not to put a "what about" in amongst them.
    I'm not seeing the sexism here boss.

    Of course you don't. You implied that male pain pretty much doesn't matter and the damage a woman can do to a man is pretty much inconsequential and irrelevant. It's misandrist attitudes like that that sees women get shorter prison sentences than men for the same crimes, there's also a curious hint of benevolent sexism as well.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    You implied that male pain pretty much doesn't matter
    No. Read it again. Pain is pain, trauma is trauma, and intimidation is intimidation, regardless of gender. If any of those ingredients are present in any material way, then the crime should not be dismissed.

    All I am saying is that in cases of, say, inappropriate touching, males are probably less likely to feel that pain, trauma, or intimidation.

    It isn't that male pain is unimportant. It is very important.

    BUT it probably is less frequent, less typical, than intimidation felt by females, in cases like the one I'm talking about. Wouldn't you agree?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    No. Read it again.
    Maybe you should read it again T. You're not quoting me.
    Pain is pain, trauma is trauma, and intimidation is intimidation, regardless of gender. If any of those ingredients are present in any material way, then the crime should not be dismissed.
    Seems fair enough.
    All I am saying is that in cases of, say, inappropriate touching, males are probably less likely to feel that pain, trauma, or intimidation.
    Why? Why do you automatically assume this? Why are women more likely to feel "pain, trauma, or intimidation"? You still haven't squared away my question about a situation where it's a woman sexually assaulting another woman. Would a man sexually assaulting another man be a greater or lesser issue?
    It isn't that male pain is unimportant. It is very important.
    Apparently not as important as women's pain, because you automatically assume women are more vulnerable to pain.
    BUT it probably is less frequent, less typical, than intimidation felt by females, in cases like the one I'm talking about. Wouldn't you agree?
    I wouldn't. Or certainly not as an assumption outa the gate as you seem to. Though you also seem divided on the matter.
    Wow you sure are a REAL MAN Wibbs.
    In this response you seem to agree with me. That my brushing off of such an assault is some trite macho response worthy of the lulz, but that it might not be the case for many, if not most men. So why the later contradiction?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    All I am saying is that in cases of, say, inappropriate touching, males are probably less likely to feel that pain, trauma, or intimidation.

    Why? Why do you automatically assume this? Why are women more likely to feel "pain, trauma, or intimidation"?
    Nothing more than a very unscientific opinion, based on personal observation, I'm afraid.

    In cases of sexual assault that involve violence, it's simply my guess that experiences of fear and trauma would be more evenly distributed between the sexes. In cases that do not involve violence (such as inappropriate touching), it is simply my 'hunch' that men are less likely to feel intimidated or afraid, and part of that is due to differences in strength (again, men typically being bigger & stronger than women) and anatomy (capacity to get pregnant as a result of rape), as well as a few other reasons.
    You still haven't squared away my question about a situation where it's a woman sexually assaulting another woman. Would a man sexually assaulting another man be a greater or lesser issue?
    Again, a great deal would probably depend on the differences in strength between the two women. A female athlete receiving unwanted attention from a 'handsy' but diminutive older lady at a bar, seems unlikely to engender much fear or intimidation. It will probably be forgotten about as a creepy but inconsequential experience, much the same as a man who is the subject of unwanted touching from a smaller woman (or another man, for that matter), standing at a bar.

    if the shoe were on the other foot, and it were the female athlete assaulting the diminutive woman, and not at a bar, but in a private setting; I can see how that could indeed be frightening, and worth pursuing.
    Apparently not as important as women's pain, because you automatically assume women are more vulnerable to pain.
    I wouldn't put it that way, because it isn't qualified. Not all women are vulnerable, by any means. But typically, I am guessing that most women who are the receiving end of a sexual assault, are smaller than the person assaulting them. It's simply more likely, I would surmise, that they might be intimidated, than if the guy were some scrawny, anaemic dwarf (sinister as that image is, now that I think about it).
    In this response you seem to agree with me. That my brushing off of such an assault is some trite macho response worthy of the lulz, but that it might not be the case for many, if not most men. So why the later contradiction?
    It was the tone of what you wrote, in its entirety, that I was taking a shot at. Probably a bit too personal on my behalf, apologies. It's something that has popped up on a few occasions on this thread... guys (in particular) describing how macho we are, and implying that people shouldn't be so 'soft' as to go running to the police.

    Perhaps that's not a fair representation of your view. What I mean to say, in a less confrontational way, is that this is perhaps one of those rare occasions when we could all take a leaf out of the book used by judges when they hear these cases. They do not, and we should not, hold victims to our own personal standards. It should be about listening to the victim, listening to the extent of the very real impact that the assault had on them, and leave our own personal baggage and prejudices at the door.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,349 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    The jury found him guilty, and the judge passed an appropriate sentence IMO.

    There was no jury, nor was there a judge for that matter. It was a magistrate who believed her story over his in a "he said, she said" scenario.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    that women typically aren't sex offenders
    More like they don't get charged as sex offenders? Female teacher ****s a male student, student gets high fives, and she gets put into jail. Sexes reversed, the guy gets jailed as a pedophile, and her name doesn't get released.
    It isn't typically traumatic, and probably doesn't merit reporting.
    Rape is about power play. Afraid of been laughed at, they don't report it.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No it shouldn't, are you mad!
    the_syco wrote: »
    More like they don't get charged as sex offenders? Female teacher ****s a male student, student gets high fives, and she gets put into jail. Sexes reversed, the guy gets jailed as a pedophile, and her name doesn't get released.
    As a matter of fact, neither the names of male or female offenders who are convicted of sexual offences are released, unless the victim (of either gender) waives their right to anonymity. The only reason you've seen the name of the offender, Philip Queree, published in this article is because the victim, Bridget Shaw, waived her right to anonymity.

    Secondly, in your example involving a putative female teacher, you mention her being imprisoned. Surely that's a statement of public abhorrence in itself, regardless of whether the student's juvenile classmates 'high five' him. Further, the hypothetical female offender is no less likely to be put on the sex offenders' list than if she were male.

    Going back to the high fives, though, it is entirely possible that men are conditioned to be more resilient about non-violent sexual assaults.

    Many of us will be acquainted with older men who were once abused by schoolteachers or sports coaches, and whom never made complaints, because they were told to 'forget about it'. That might not have been bad advice.

    I happen to think that society's response to minor incidents of sexual violence, and our promotion (or even insistence) of the victim's trauma can be counter-productive, causing them to dwell on it where they might otherwise have dismissed it and become more resilient.

    But the cat is out of the bag now, and I suppose that's a whole other can of worms that we should leave to one side, for now. All I am saying is that where any victim, male or female, is genuinely traumatised, or has felt really frightened and intimidated, we should listen to them and respect their feelings, without encouraging a sense of victimhood, especially in cases of non-violent assaults, regardless of gender.

    namloc1980 wrote: »
    There was no jury, nor was there a judge for that matter. It was a magistrate who believed her story over his in a "he said, she said" scenario.
    In fairness, there was also some visible bruising which seems to have been introduced as evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wibbs wrote: »
    So one person who is burgled thinks what the hell, it's a pain, but insurance will cover it, while another one is left distraught by a burglary, so the criminal gets a different sentence. For the same crime? A crime for which the perp - though still a scumbag BTW - has no clue how the victim will perceive it? Interesting way to look at justice there Ted. How far down that rabbit hole would you take that? I can but imagine.

    Far from heading down a rabbit hole, victim impact reports (or more usually, the Judge simply asking the victim how s/he feels, rather than going through the formality of a prepared report) is very standard in assault and sexual assault cases.

    And again, anyone who is found as a matter of fact to have repeatedly persisted in an action, grabbing someone's breasts (or indeed vagina or testicles), leaving them bruised, pleading with the perp to stop, crying...they takes their chances and my sympathy for the accused would be limited.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Any amount? Give over.

    So if a guy is getting a blow job and a woman uses her teeth too much, that's sexual assault because the guy didn't consent to her being so rough?? No it's not.

    If she keeps using her teeth after he asks her not to, then that is certainly assault, physical if not sexual. Women can sometimes unintentionally be a bit teethy but should amend that if their attention is brought to it. If their attention is brought to it and they continue to forcefully use their teeth, there is malicious intent there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I was referring to a bite that would break the skin and at least draw blood and even then it would want to be bloody deep for me to go to hospital / the Gardai and report them.

    As for this girl being "injured" - give me a break. Difficulty lifting her arm because her boobs were squeezed too hard would only be because it made the bruise sore. It's still a bruise though and again we only have her word that she was bruised. But even assuming she's not exaggerating, it's still not anywhere near being an injury that would require a court case. I can't believe anyone would think it should.
    So let me get this straight: The sex act in my example, when performed without consent, constitutes sexual assault - but the sex act in the article, when performed without consent, does not?

    Yes.

    Again: when the complaint is "degree of force" (as it was here) then how the hell could that be considered an assault? Your example would only be a fitting one if the guy had agreed to be shagged up the arse with the strap-on / dildo but the girl was doing it too hard and told her to go easy, but when she went at it again, she was still too rough for him and bruised his buttocks.
    EVERY sex act is sexual assault in the absence of consent.

    He had consent. She only removed consent with regards to degree of force.
    There are certain sex acts which are considered part and parcel of consensual sexual activity, sure - unless one of the parties specifically states that they are not comfortable with that particular act, at which point it becomes non-consensual if the other party(s) ignores this and performs it anyway.

    Absolutely. Which is why I said the following in the opening post:
    Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that if some woman went full Catherine Tramell on me that I'd feel it okay for her to have done so given that I'd consented to have sexual intercourse with her, but surely there is a level of personal responsibility that people need to take for what happens them when engaged in sexual hi-jinks and I don't see that line was really crossed here. If he whipped out some metal nipple clamps and started dragging her round the room, resulting in her ending up in casualty.... course the guy (or girl) should be charged, and conceivably for some things not so violent to (just using that as a an example).

    Of course people can consent to some sexual acts and not others but that's a much different scenario to the one we're discussing here.
    Since the pegging thing is obviously considered in a different category to everything else for whatever reason, let's go again. Supposing you've only consented to a vanilla sexual encounter, you explicitly told the other person that you wern't comfortable with facesitting, and they climb onto your face regardless. Is that legitimate sexual assault in your view?

    Nope. It just means that the two people are not sexually compatible and would be better off deleting each other's numbers.
    Where do you draw the line, and why? It's so much simpler to just agree that any sex act which a person has explicitly stated they are not comfortable with is non-consensual if somebody ignores that statement and performs it anyway. The woman in this article told the guy she didn't want her breasts touched. Touching them after this fact constitutes a non-consensual sex act - no two ways about it.

    How about french kissing then, Paddy, what if a guy says 'No tongues' but the woman keeps shoving her tongue into the guy's mouth despite his protestations. Should we hall her before the courts? Or what a man who doesn't like his arse being grabbed during copulation, but again the woman is mad for it and keeps squeezing it, resulting in bruising. Five years on the sex offenders register for her??

    Jebus, even when we were kids, who hasn't received a love bite against their wishes and had to spend the next few days wearing a PLO scarf so the folks wouldn't ask questions. Just me? Fair enough. I'll pop down to the Gardai and see if I can get the little minx retrospectively charged. On my neck like a vampire she was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,686 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    If she keeps using her teeth after he asks her not to, then that is certainly assault, physical if not sexual. Women can sometimes unintentionally be a bit teethy but should amend that if their attention is brought to it. If their attention is brought to it and they continue to forcefully use their teeth, there is malicious intent there.

    It's the usual "well aren't you lucky to be in that situation" type of comments a man would undoubtedly receive upon raising the issue that would stop it ever being something that is raised.

    A man grabs a woman's genitals it's sexual assault, a woman grabs a man's genitals and she's doing him a favour somehow.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nullzero wrote: »
    It's the usual "well aren't you lucky to be in that situation" type of comments a man would undoubtedly receive upon raising the issue that would stop it ever being something that is raised.

    A man grabs a woman's genitals it's sexual assault, a woman grabs a man's genitals and she's doing him a favour somehow.


    From whom though?

    Both could potentially be viewed as sexual assault (or indecent assault as it was in this case), and that's why everyone has the same opportunity as anyone else to report their grievance to the authorities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    nullzero wrote: »
    It's the usual "well aren't you lucky to be in that situation" type of comments a man would undoubtedly receive upon raising the issue that would stop it ever being something that is raised.

    Er, not to be indelicate, but in my own experience of this, charges of teethiness were very much taken on board. I'd say many women learning how to do BJs when they first start being sexually active are given pointers on how to improve. "Would undoubtedly receive"? Don't make such daft generalisations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭Prune Tracy


    I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.
    I have heard men say stuff like "I wish I could get sexually harassed" and "isn't he lucky to be getting some" though.

    Think that's what nullzero means.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I have heard men say stuff like "I wish I could get sexually harassed" and "isn't he lucky to be getting some" though.

    Think that's what nullzero means.

    The same mentality that has some men saying ‘niiiiiice’ when a teenage boy is groomed by an older woman.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.
    There should be a rule where couples having intercourse stop every 20 seconds to check with each other that its ok to proceed, that would sort it out right there

    Ignoring idiots who comment "far right" because they don't even know what it means



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    lmimmfn wrote: »
    There should be a rule where couples having intercourse stop every 20 seconds to check with each other that its ok to proceed, that would sort it out right there

    i bet you thought you were wildly exaggerating to make a point, you failed :D

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/23102/pc-gone-wild-ca-high-schoolers-taught-they-must-hank-berrien
    CA High Schoolers Taught They Must Obtain Sexual Consent Every Ten Minutes

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
Advertisement