irishrebe wrote: » Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it?
irishrebe wrote: » I'm saying you have to be seriously thick to believe that all cases of sexual assault (or any crime, really) lead to convictions.
GreeBo wrote: » Lack of evidence is your problem. Care to show some that indicates that our society is one where rape is considered normal and is tolerated? Perhaps you are posting from some part of India or the middle East?
emeraldwinter wrote: » Where is this coming from ? Figures, Or is it it's not reported but actually reported but not taken to the police ?
_Dara_ wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Of course it is. There are always saps around. Idiots like that don't represent all women any more than misogynist trolls speak for all men. Well, you know, that person was still at the protest, waving that moronic banner. It’s a public act and people will comment on it. As for us not all being a hive mind - I agree. But there has been a LOT of speaking of behalf of ALL women by many #IBelieveHer commentators across social media in the last few days. In that context, a banner that tars all men is problematic.
irishrebe wrote: » Of course it is. There are always saps around. Idiots like that don't represent all women any more than misogynist trolls speak for all men.
irishrebe wrote: » So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.
Ace2007 wrote: » Ok, so how would you go about changing the way a "small minority" of males and females speak about the opposite sex. Considering you view it as "Bravado" among friends and don't speak up? The way I suggested is you included everyone that way you don't miss anyone, but yet you seem offended? I'm giving you a possible solution whereas you are trying to deny a problem exists and won't provide an alternative solution?
Silentcorner wrote: » I am working off the figures posted earlier by someone else, there were 2,500 reports of rape/sexual assault...59 made it to court...we have a conviction rate of about 6/7%... I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that half of these sexual assaults are not reported...
Curly Judge wrote: » Unsubstantiated BS! There may be a 100 girls who wake up the next morning and decide, retrospectively, that they have been raped. Hardly the same thing?
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in. You have literally lost you mind! As has the other OP. You main issue is you think these guys are guilty and should of been found guilty as this is the narrative you are taking. But lets take this narrative, so if this was a gay man who has went back with 4 gay rugby players are you suggesting that men would have more sympathy for a guy saying he was raped than a woman?
irishrebe wrote: » And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.
Rodin wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it? I don't recall saying anything was women's fault so your use of the word 'also' is null and void.
irishrebe wrote: » I've lost my mind? I'm literally just suggesting a hypothetical scenario in which a man was in the same position rather than a woman. Rather funny you find it so extreme, and rather telling. No, I don't mean a gay man. I mean a straight man. What does sexual orientation matter if someone is too drunk to consent? Women, regardless of whether we're gay or straight, keep being told we shouldn't get drunk around men because they might want to rape us. Well, some men are gay. So would you agree that a straight man who goes back to a house party with men he doesn't know and ends up having sex with multiple men when drunk has no grounds to bring a rape case?
emeraldwinter wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it? Really how did that work with languages that mescaline and feminine.
emeraldwinter wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I've lost my mind? I'm literally just suggesting a hypothetical scenario in which a man was in the same position rather than a woman. Rather funny you find it so extreme, and rather telling. No, I don't mean a gay man. I mean a straight man. What does sexual orientation matter if someone is too drunk to consent? Women, regardless of whether we're gay or straight, keep being told we shouldn't get drunk around men because they might want to rape us. Well, some men are gay. So would you agree that a straight man who goes back to a house party with men he doesn't know and ends up having sex with multiple men when drunk has no grounds to bring a rape case? Did he consent in this case ?
irishrebe wrote: » I'm not sure if you're on a wind up or you really do have some sort of deficiency, so I'll leave this unanswered.
irishrebe wrote: » The lads said he did, he says he didn't.
Silentcorner wrote: » So...rape doesn't exist then....right....
emeraldwinter wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I'm not sure if you're on a wind up or you really do have some sort of deficiency, so I'll leave this unanswered. You said society, I asked how that would work in France for example ?
irishrebe wrote: » Again, are you for real? How would it work in France? How do you think it worked in France?
Deleted User wrote: » I will ask again, in your opinion, if a man and a woman who have consumed similar amounts of alcohol, leaving them intoxicated, decide to have sex, has that man raped the woman due to her not being able to consent?
irishrebe wrote: » Women, regardless of whether we're gay or straight, keep being told we shouldn't get drunk around men because they might want to rape us.
Curly Judge wrote: » Of course, rape exists. Where did I say otherwise?
emeraldwinter wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Again, are you for real? How would it work in France? How do you think it worked in France? Easy women would be a feminine word. So how would it default to the male he ?
Silentcorner wrote: » Read your post again... More like 100 women wake up and decide retrospectively that they have been raped...implies explicitly that the 100 women in this country (50 of whom will report the crime to the gardai*) are all making it up.... You are a right charmer you are!!*Those who do report a rape, are subjected to a very invasive body exam, very often miles away from home.
irishrebe wrote: » Depends on various factors. I'm dating a man who is 6'4 and well built. I'm 5'4-5'5 and skinny. If we share a bottle of vodka, which of us is going to end up worse off?
emeraldwinter wrote: » Would it not be safer not to contaminate the evidence ?
