tritium wrote: » Only men can commit can commit the legally defined crime of rape.
Mr.H wrote: » irishrebe wrote: Why is it always a competition? You are aware that working on women's rights doesn't mean taking away men's rights? Campaigning for rape kits and access to abortion for women doesn't mean men shouldn't have them. It's largely a women's issue because more women are raped than men, and if you hadn't noticed, men can't get pregnant. A large part of an initial report of rape is taking care of emergency contraception and so on. It's not a competition. You were asked what rights men have in Ireland that women don't. When you count unreported rape the figures are actually closer than you think. Men in prisons are also raped. Do they not count?
irishrebe wrote: Why is it always a competition? You are aware that working on women's rights doesn't mean taking away men's rights? Campaigning for rape kits and access to abortion for women doesn't mean men shouldn't have them. It's largely a women's issue because more women are raped than men, and if you hadn't noticed, men can't get pregnant. A large part of an initial report of rape is taking care of emergency contraception and so on.
tritium wrote: » Only men can commit can commit the legally defined crime of rape. Either gender can force the other (or their own) to have sex with them against their will. The CDC has a rather shameful episode of reclassifying and hiding that exact thing in the appendices a while back. Not really cool to use a flaw in the legal versus common understanding of the term to score points on something like this tbh
Stonedpilot wrote: » What utter utter utter crap. So if a grown woman forces herself on a young boy Pins him down, mounts him threatens him and has sex against his will that isnt rape?. Of course it is. Its your kinda crap excuses female paedophiles. Disgusting post frankly.
Appledreams15 wrote: » Havent I just said two posts ago? It is not about this particular case. It is about the wider issue of women being failed in the court systems in the rep and n.ireland. That can be changed going forward. I have to say lads, you're doing an awful lot to live up to your current reputation as Irish men as 'sexist, cruel and nasty'. If you want to keep in that vein so be it. I have been talking to men abroad on whatsapl, ive travelled a fair bit, and they were all incredibly supportive. So I think I will go and talk to the supportive people and the Irish women who actually want change. Ye need to take a hardlook at how you're acting, and how you are now looking on a global stage.
Appledreams15 wrote: The first thing I think of is : not being raped.
Appledreams15 wrote: Protest marches in ireland are the no.1 story on the daily mail online. So so proud of women in Ireland! We made it!
RuMan wrote: I assumed poster was taking the piss?!
mayolady14 wrote: » The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report (2002) is now fourteen years old and it remains a deeply disturbing work. Among its findings: 27% of Irish women and men experience sexual violence in their childhood. Roughly one third of Irish women and men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.
Mokuba wrote: » Women are suffering. Jesus Christ. This generation of women is the most privileged generation in the history of time, and have have not only found equality with men, but have surpassed men. Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia where there is real suffering going on? Christ. Deluded. Anyone in those parades should be avoided.
GreeBo wrote: » I'm not saying only women can be raped, I'm saying that only men can commit rape.
We also pooled four years of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data and found that 35 percent of male victims who experienced rape or sexual assault reported at least one female perpetrator. We found that, contrary to assumptions, the biggest threat to women serving time does not come from male corrections staff. Instead, female victims are more than three times as likely to experience sexual abuse by other women inmates than by male staff.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » What specifically do you want to change about the justice system, though? How would you change it in such a way that did not infringe upon the right to due process? Honestly, most people who oppose the protests are all ears, waiting for those protesting against a ruling by an impartial jury to make any concrete or credible suggestions as to how the court system should be changed. What exactly is it that can be done, in your view?
Greysquirel09 wrote: » Have to agree. The moment I heard the witness say she walked in and saw a threesome they were walking free.
Utopia Parkway wrote: » Anyone following the case should not have been surprised in the slightest. It was fairly obvious weeks ago that the verdict was heading the way it did. Too many inconsistencies and not enough evidence.
Parklife1988 wrote: » Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling. I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously? Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters. You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.
Parklife1988 wrote: Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.
Parklife1988 wrote: Worth a read. Written by someone who agrees with me.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » To those attacking GreenBo, incredibly depressingly it is actually correct that rape is defined as penetration without consent, not intercourse without consent. So in most Western legal systems, the definition of rape physically cannot extend to a woman having sex with a man who did not consent.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » In any civilised country, due process and the principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" apply. These people were not proven guilty, ergo they are innocent. It's that simple. Any deviation from this threatens every democratic freedom our society is built upon.
One_Of_Shanks wrote: » All you can do is go on the evidence presented and if I was on the jury and going on what I heard and read from the trial I would have reached the same verdict as the jury. I think these fellas let themselves down badly and they come out of it looking like juvenile morons. And while we're at it, a bunch of ass-holes. But at the same time you cannot lock them up for that. It's a tad scary the amount of people saying they should have been locked up for a crime they've been found not guilty of. Why there exists an appetite for finding people guilty without sufficient evidence probably says a lot more about the people who are calling for it, or complaining about the verdict. Maybe its the fact they're wealthy or just the understandable disdain for their extremely poor behaviour but whether anyone likes it or not there really wasn't a whole lot of evidence there to send them to prison and the jury took a few hours to reach a verdict on a case that went on for months, which says a lot about the lack of evidence. Ultimately people attacking the verdict are doing so for their own reasons, and not for the evidence (or lack of) presented during the trial. The jury could only go on evidence and therefore they called it correctly imo.
Parklife1988 wrote: » And that society and everything it stands for is helped by people calling the woman involved a slut and calling for her to be named and the endless amount of people pretty much supporting this type of incident and outcome? I hardly think so