The Snapper-debate

seamus · 08-01-2018 3:13pm

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

If this video was presented in court as evidence, I'd highly doubt it lead to a rape conviction.

Actually I think it'd be the exact opposite. He asked her "Are ye alrigh' Sharon?", indicating that he knew full well that she wasn't in a good a way. And therefore the better judgement would be to not have sex with her because she wasn't with it.

Also, "Is dat yeuw sqeekin'?" and his "No", would also further indicate that she was not aware of what was actually happening and was therefore incapable of consenting, while he knew exactly what was happening.

What I recall from the buke is that it's less clear-cut. He is also off his face and barely remembers the encounter. She asks herself if it's rape, but she's not sure.

The movie is a comedy, but nevertheless leaves no doubt about the interpretation. Despite being raped, her only motivation is to deny and deflect because the shame of confronting what happened and being open about it, is too much to bear.

What I've always felt changed the tone of the movie was that Tina Kellegher looked too old. Sharon is supposed to be 16/17, which stands in far more contrast to Georgie Burgess. But she looks in her early 20s, so you get more of a "drunken regret" vibe from it.

If the actress who played Sharon had looked more like the age she was supposed to be, I think the whole dynamic between her and Burgess would have come across more sinister.

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 3:21pm

seamus wrote: »

Actually I think it'd be the exact opposite. He asked her "Are ye alrigh' Sharon?", indicating that he knew full well that she wasn't in a good a way. And therefore the better judgement would be to not have sex with her because she wasn't with it.

Also, "Is dat yeuw sqeekin'?" and his "No", would also further indicate that she was not aware of what was actually happening and was therefore incapable of consenting, while he knew exactly what was happening.

What I recall from the buke is that it's less clear-cut. He is also off his face and barely remembers the encounter. She asks herself if it's rape, but she's not sure.

The movie is a comedy, but nevertheless leaves no doubt about the interpretation. Despite being raped, her only motivation is to deny and deflect because the shame of confronting what happened and being open about it, is too much to bear.

What I've always felt changed the tone of the movie was that Tina Kellegher looked too old. Sharon is supposed to be 16/17, which stands in far more contrast to Georgie Burgess. But she looks in her early 20s, so you get more of a "drunken regret" vibe from it.

If the actress who played Sharon had looked more like the age she was supposed to be, I think the whole dynamic between her and Burgess would have come across more sinister.

Be that as it may, we are discussing the incident in the film and not the book. So can only make the call using the Sharon in the film.

Burgess manages her brother on the football team and his daughter is her friend. So there is history and they obviously know each other very well.

It seems like he was wandering home after the session and stumbled across her and asked if she was alright. There was no struggle or altercation of any kind. She made the first move and he went with it...

I don't think this makes him a "raper" but it certainly does make him a creep. Also the fact that he kept her underwear to have boast with the lads would indicate that he is not ashamed of his actions and does not fear that a crime may have been commited...

....... · 08-01-2018 3:24pm

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 08-01-2018 3:38pm

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

There was no struggle or altercation of any kind. She made the first move and he went with it...

I don't think this makes him a "raper" but it certainly does make him a creep. Also the fact that he kept her underwear to have boast with the lads would indicate that he is not ashamed of his actions and does not fear that a crime may have been commited...

No no, that still makes him a rapist.

It doesn't require an "altercation" to be rape.
Someone doesn't have to say "no" for it to be rape.
Someone even appearing to be eager may still be incapable of consent, which makes it rape.
You don't have to be ashamed afterwards for it to be rape
You don't have know you committed a crime, for it to be rape

TheChizler · 08-01-2018 3:42pm

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

It seems like he was wandering home after the session and stumbled across her and asked if she was alright. There was no struggle or altercation of any kind. She made the first move and he went with it...

Is that really true though? He put himself right in her personal space while she stayed put and their arms went around each other pretty much simultaneously.

Also since when does eating the face off someone translate to "I want a ride right here on this bonnet"?

Making the first move is one thing, but assuming where the other person wants it to end up is another.

People talk about affirmative consent. That's not a signed contract as some people fond of hyperbole often like to present, and doesn't have to be verbal. Just some type of positive feedback that the person is happy to continue. The clip skips a bit of the process, maybe she said "ride me sideways" or something, but to me she seems very passive. Tough call.

bur · 08-01-2018 3:44pm

The US poster always makes me laugh.

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 3:53pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Is that really true though? He put himself right in her personal space while she stayed put and their arms went around each other pretty much simultaneously.

Also since when does eating the face off someone translate to "I want a ride right here on this bonnet"?

Making the first move is one thing, but assuming where the other person wants it to end up is another.

People talk about affirmative consent. That's not a signed contract as some people fond of hyperbole often like to present, and doesn't have to be verbal. Just some type of positive feedback that the person is happy to continue. The clip skips a bit of the process, maybe she said "ride me sideways" or something, but to me she seems very passive. Tough call.

Someone give Roddy a ring and get we this mess all cleared up :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-01-2018 3:54pm

seamus wrote: »

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

There was no struggle or altercation of any kind. She made the first move and he went with it...

I don't think this makes him a "raper" but it certainly does make him a creep. Also the fact that he kept her underwear to have boast with the lads would indicate that he is not ashamed of his actions and does not fear that a crime may have been commited...

No no, that still makes him a rapist.

It doesn't require an "altercation" to be rape.
Someone doesn't have to say "no" for it to be rape.
Someone even appearing to be eager may still be incapable of consent, which makes it rape.
You don't have to be ashamed afterwards for it to be rape
You don't have know you committed a crime, for it to be rape

But did any of that happen?

If consent is given (and I'd argue it was - she hugs him and is conscious) is it revoked (assuming she remains conscious)?

Kermit.de.frog · 08-01-2018 3:54pm

Is it true the film was supposed to be called "The Slapper"?

keano_afc · 08-01-2018 3:57pm

bur wrote: »

The US poster always makes me laugh.

Is that Jennifer Aniston?

seamus · 08-01-2018 4:06pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If consent is given (and I'd argue it was - she hugs him and is conscious) is it revoked (assuming she remains conscious)?

Being conscious and being capable of consent are not the same thing. But yes, even if we were to assume that he believed consent had been given, then it seems clear that consent was later revoked when she asked, "is dat yeuw squeekin?"; because she clearly had no idea what was happening.

Consent must be continuous. If you have any reason to believe that consent is no longer in place (e.g. the person has passed out or appears unaware of what's happening), then it's rape if you continue.

....... · 08-01-2018 4:46pm

This post has been deleted.

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 4:50pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, I'd say any woman who had relations with him ended up in distress when she thought back on it.

BattleCorp · 08-01-2018 4:54pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair, if you were a young wan who had drunken (consentual) sex with an auld fella like Georgie Burgess, you'd probably be in a bit of distress too.

I mean, he's no Pat Mustard now is he...... oh wait.

....... · 08-01-2018 4:54pm

This post has been deleted.

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 4:57pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fixed that for you

....... · 08-01-2018 4:59pm

This post has been deleted.

the_pen_turner · 08-01-2018 5:00pm

seamus wrote: »

No no, that still makes him a rapist.

It doesn't require an "altercation" to be rape.
Someone doesn't have to say "no" for it to be rape.
Someone even appearing to be eager may still be incapable of consent, which makes it rape.
You don't have to be ashamed afterwards for it to be rape
You don't have know you committed a crime, for it to be rape

are you aware that all that applies to her raping him too.

fergus1001 · 08-01-2018 5:01pm

Pat mustard loves to put his big tool in your box

seamus · 08-01-2018 5:01pm

the_pen_turner wrote: »

are you aware that all that applies to her raping him too.

Yup.

As portrayed though, it's pretty clear that he's fully aware and capable of consent.

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 5:02pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the scene, she clearly approched him in what was told as a drunken mistake.

Not once in the film was the word rape ever used, nor applied.

....... · 08-01-2018 5:02pm

This post has been deleted.

the_pen_turner · 08-01-2018 5:04pm

seamus wrote: »

Yup.

As portrayed though, it's pretty clear that he's fully aware and capable of consent.

she appear to be fairly capable of consenting herself. she wanted it and went after it.

I see the squeezing remark as more of a light hearted joke rather than lack of awarness

08-01-2018 5:04pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are imagining subtlety that's not there. It was clearly concensual to anyone not hell bent on trying to paint men as being bad. There was the two of them in it, both drunk and both happy to get the ride.

the_pen_turner · 08-01-2018 5:05pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

lets not go down the route again. we all know that law is very flawed. we all know that men can get raped by women as well.

....... · 08-01-2018 5:05pm

This post has been deleted.

fergus1001 · 08-01-2018 5:06pm

BattleCorp wrote:

I mean, he's no Pat Mustard now is he...... oh wait.

Standing over you with his lad in his hand

SEANoftheDEAD · 08-01-2018 5:06pm

The squeekin' remark I thought was asked out of confusion on whether it was Burguss or the car?

....... · 08-01-2018 5:07pm

This post has been deleted.

the_pen_turner · 08-01-2018 5:08pm

he approached a girl he knew to chat or at least ask is she alright. nothing wrong with that. the first move was made by her

The Snapper-debate

Comments