Bambi985 wrote: » To retrieve her bag as she wanted to go home. "Most women I know wouldn't do that" my arse. Most women want their fcuking bag before they leave a stranger's house. And most women have been in this situation countless times, having their jeans opened or a hand into their knickers when they're hooking up with someone. Guys will try to move things towards sex often in these situations. Saying "no" or "I don't want to have sex" or backing away and indicating by your body language that you're not into it signals to most average decent non-disgusting men that they should back off, now is not the time for that. 99.9% of the time this is the case. Most men get it loud and clear. You don't walk away feeling lucky to have escaped a predator rapist, you simply signalled your intentions and the situation has now passed. And now you want to leave and need to get your bag. Which is in said fella's room, but you already told him loud and clear that sex wasn't on the cards so it's all good. Honestly, you're making a mockery out of men here. Most men are not rapists and most men know that when their advances are rejected, it doesn't mean you should be more forceful next time. Can't believe I even have to type this out.
Mrsmum wrote: » Have we not had numerous posters here laughing at the idea of checking in during the sexual experience, telling us that consent is obvious and that they are well able to tell that their partner is enjoying herself without them having to be checking all the time. If that is the case and their partner withdraws consent, would it not equally be obvious to them that she was no longer enjoying herself ???
professore wrote: » If we assume that the defendant was raped. In some ways she did get justice of a sort. The four involved have had their reputation destroyed, lost over a year of their prime rugby playing careers, and will be persona non grata after retirement for any media, coaching or promotional gigs. Of course in this scenario she also has to live with the trauma, but most people have a lot of sympathy for her.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Regarding consent where does it end? Most people would be in agreement that there isn't any issue with two people agreeing to have sex and saying yes. Lets say Bill and Jill agree to have sex. Bill starts has sex as he normally would and Jill goes along with it. It isn't the sex she's used to. She said nothing because she was scared/afraid. Could this be considered rape in the future? Will people have to sit down and agree in detail about what will happen during the intercourse.
Mrsmum wrote: » You decided it implied that. Like any reasonable person I don't agree that a person can enjoy or willingly take part in sex and the next day decide it was rape. Taking back consent means being entiltled to stop at any point during the sexual act.
masculinist wrote: » The protestors are a lunatic lynch mob . Irish people have a keen bullsh1 detector and I've been listening to all genders condemn this imported ideology of man hating and the goal of utilising propaganda against men to remove the right to due process and a fair trial . The men had a fair trial . She had more legal rights than them because she got to remain anonymous . Now they have to face a lifetime of irresponsible slander by the ideologically twisted . Not guilty means they are as innocent as any reader of this thread . There is simply nothing to charge them with . Just as there's nothing to charge you with (hopefully). Feminist sjws on the left being extremely bigoted against men view all men as being guilty and all women as perfect . This flies in the face of the facts . The Irish public who are kind to all victims knows this . Victimizing innocent men must stop
Sam Quentin wrote: » Some of these posts about: Basically stopping half way through are kinda funny .. THAT'S IF it wasn't about what could be a life changing/destroying moment.. ohhh I do apologise I'll stop right now,.. As she smokes a cigi and searches her phone for her solicitor.. Ohhhhh it looks so easy here in b+w and down in the solicitors office annnnnnnnd it the Four Courts!? Lets all start videoing our 'sex-ploits' from here on in as evidence. #GETTING RIDICULOUS
RuMan wrote: » Stop it there Bill
Sardonicat wrote: » If the sex you normally have is the type that could leave someone who's not used to it scared and afraid it might be a good idea to have a brief discussion about preferences and expectations before commencing. As in "I'm into X. Have you ever done that? Would you like to try? What are you into?" Are you telling me these conversations are not the norm in your experience?
RuMan wrote: » No i'm a man and she was a woman. We both have sexual desires and took steps to satisfy it. Enjoyable for both , now run along to ur march and hope so woman might give u a charity shag. Lets be honest they'll all like to marry Simon the rugby playing successful businessman
freshpopcorn wrote: » Most people I know who've hooked up a night night out started off making out and it went from their sometimes it consent was agreed and other times people carried on with one another because both people were willing.. If either party said stop it stopped. I never heard of people sitting down and having a big discussion about what was going to happen during sex. What was normal to the person etc it was just standard sex.
Mrsmum wrote: » Maybe this is a mad idea but would there be any benefit to have four separate court cases ? Would that be fairer at all to the girl as in a one to one rather than four against one? Each defendant had different claims to defend and as witnesses for each other wouldn't have complete knowledge of what each other had said. Might they not be the ones tripping themselves up then ? No ?
irishrebe wrote: » I literally linked the first post that came up on Google for someone who doesn't seem to think there can be a legal definition of drunk. It's I'm in disbelief that this isn't common sense.
Omackeral wrote: » You got this dreadfully wrong quoting me if you think I'd have anything to do with those retarded marches, I was typing that top shagger comment very much in jest. I think nearly every self announced feminist I know has a poisonous, ignorant and sexist outlook. Wouldn't catch me near one of their marches. I'm not too badly stuck for a charity ride either, unless you yourself are offering!
Giftini wrote: » The conviction rate for rape is 58%. That bears repeating. The conviction rate for rape, is 58%. The conviction rate for reportable crimes of all types is 57%. I know you will have heard the figure of 6%. Everyone has. That figure is actually an attrition rate, not a conviction rate. An attrition rate is the amount of convictions resulting from reports of a crime, and is not routinely calculated for any crime other than rape. Therefore without manually undertaking the exercise, it is impossible to compare the (true) attrition figure for rape with other crimes. A conviction rate is the amount of convictions following a trial, and is calculated for all reportable crimes. Why is this important? Because the rhetoric of rape, which largely propounds myths, puts survivors off reporting the crimes committed against them, making them perceive that the system designed to assist them is actually wholly against them.
Silentcorner wrote: » Wow...thats a huge difference to what I've been led to believe...any links?
Appledreams15 wrote: » Everyone knows that rape and sexual assault is a massive problem throughout the world right? Governments are only beginning to get a tackle on it now. Isn't it a very animalistic world where the physically stronger overpower and rape the physically weaker? You know it goes on in so many countries. The facts and statistics are there. It's a nightmare of a world. Why do you want women to live in a world like this.Imagine we could travel around space and we stumbled across a planet. You saw that there were millions of men and women on the planet. You looked closer and saw that men were raping, gang raping,abusing and hitting the women on that planet, and displaying women in porn in violent and degrading situations for their own amusement, you saw that men took over most countries governements, so that women had no way to charge their rapists, you saw that women were committing suicide due to it. What would you describe it as? I would describe it as hell.
The Talking Bread wrote: » you sound like a right juvenile gobsh*te! The fact that you think people are prudish because they are pointing out that sex or a blowjob with a motionless sleeping body with a is pretty telling, on your behalf! Noone is saying you or (hopefully) your lucky partner can't enjoy it, people are merely saying on the balance of society, it is outside of the norm of sexual enjoyment and is, most definitely illegal Just because you enjoy something doesn't make other people prudes. Get over yourself
RuMan wrote: » The Talking Bread wrote: » you sound like a right juvenile gobsh*te! The fact that you think people are prudish because they are pointing out that sex or a blowjob with a motionless sleeping body with a is pretty telling, on your behalf! Noone is saying you or (hopefully) your lucky partner can't enjoy it, people are merely saying on the balance of society, it is outside of the norm of sexual enjoyment and is, most definitely illegal Just because you enjoy something doesn't make other people prudes. Get over yourself I'm grand mate. You seem uptight. Sex is not some sort of legal contract, its unbridled passion between 2 parties either of whom can say stop at any point should they so desire. I've never discussed consent prior to it, never had a women raise consent nor heard of that happening. That is the world i live in. Good luck with your legal discussions.
Faugheen wrote: » You keep putting your penis/fingers/whatever in women's vaginas when they're asleep and see where it gets you so.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Florence's evidence corroborated the woman's account of what state she was in. The complainant didn't claim she was fighting or screaming. Florence backed this up and also stated she observed no signs of positive consent. The only way that one can categorically state that a woman who is not fighting or screaming is not being raped, is for one to believe that if a woman doesn't fight or scream, it can't be rape. That idea, as we know, is categorically false.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
