retro:electro wrote: » Eh last time checked it wasn’t a crime to touch someone’s thigh. If he asked her to remove it and she relented, then yes that is a violation. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and call for all casual contact to be ceased. If you don’t know the difference between how inappropriate it is to touch someone’s boob vs a casual touch on a thigh mid then I’m afraid I can’t help you there. And I’m not a Feminist. Old school yes, but by today’s standards no.
tretorn wrote: » You need to explain very clearly to young girls that going out in clothes that are very revealing, drinking to a point where you are past self control and leaving nightclubs with randomers you have just met is very risky behaviour.
tretorn wrote: » Consent works both ways. No woman has the right to put her hand anywhere on a stranger, the man didnt want her hand there so he removed it. You cant have one standard of rules for men and another for women.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Deary, deary, me. Just be honest and say you think "they're asking for it".
hill16bhoy wrote: » Your definition of "common sense" (along with that of poster RuMan) is that it's perfectly alright to carry out sex acts on people who are asleep. So you'll forgive me if I disregard whatever your definition of "common sense" is, thanks.
tretorn wrote: » The moral of the story is.........................
tretorn wrote: » Leaving night clubs with strange men and going to their bedrooms in my eyes means yes, both parties are looking for casual sex.
FrancieBrady wrote: » In a nightclub? Don't think I ever said that.
retro:electro wrote: » tretorn wrote: » Did she ask for consent though, isnt that the whole point. Why do you think its a crime for a man to put his hand on a woman but you scoff at anyone questioning a woman intruding on a mans private space. If the man in question didnt move his hand does that mean he was up for further sexual contact or is moving his hand enough. In Iceland you now have to say Yes so him removinghis hand mightnt be enough. The double standards are just so despicable. Feminists want men to have incredible high standards but yet a strnage woman can put her hand wherever she likes and this isnt a problem at all. Eh last time checked it wasn’t a crime to touch someone’s thigh. If he asked her to remove it and she was relentless, then yes that is a violation. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and call for all casual contact to be ceased. If you don’t know the difference between how inappropriate it is to touch someone’s boob vs a casual touch on a thigh mid conversation then I’m afraid I can’t help you there. And I’m not a Feminist. Old school yes, but by today’s standards no.
tretorn wrote: » Did she ask for consent though, isnt that the whole point. Why do you think its a crime for a man to put his hand on a woman but you scoff at anyone questioning a woman intruding on a mans private space. If the man in question didnt move his hand does that mean he was up for further sexual contact or is moving his hand enough. In Iceland you now have to say Yes so him removinghis hand mightnt be enough. The double standards are just so despicable. Feminists want men to have incredible high standards but yet a strnage woman can put her hand wherever she likes and this isnt a problem at all.
tretorn wrote: » Leaving night clubs with strange men and going to their bedrooms in my eyes means yes, both parties are looking for casual sex. This means if you claim you were raped afterwards you will need a very high standard of evidence to prove your claim. This wasnt the case in the Belfast trial so hence the verdict.
seamus wrote: » Avoid having sex when you're completely off your face and you're less likely to end up in court?
hill16bhoy wrote: » You have a real problem understanding what consent is.
hill16bhoy wrote: » I read the posts you made on Sunday, so I know full well what your views are.
seamus wrote: » By that logic then, all you have to do is convince someone to come into your bedroom and the onus is on them to prove that they didn't want anything else to happen. Sounds a bit...rapey...to me. Surely a person retains the exact same presumption of consent right up until the initiation of the act - i.e. the presumption of no consent. After that perhaps a higher standard is required to show that consent was withdrawn mid-coitus. But it should not be presumed that because the other party is standing in your bedroom that they're up for anything.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » The issue is proving it. You voluntary go back to someones house in the small hours after a night out it is going to be near impossible to prove consent was given or not given. That is the hard reality of these kinds of situation.
tretorn wrote: » Exactly, that should be the key message in whatever sex consent classes schools are going to get involved in. Its not the place of schools to get involved in these conversations at all, its the job of parents to advise their children not to drink to excess and not to sleep with randommers while intoxicated.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You just commented on a reasonable real world bit of advice for young people that you 'might as well say that they were asking for it'. I would not have much confidence in your interpretative skills. Good luck to you.
Neyite wrote: » It's hilarious that what a woman wears, consumes or place she socialises in is justification for her rape. As if by her actions, ordinary men who are powerless over their urges turn into rapists and it's all her fault.
Allinall wrote: » Neyite wrote: » It's hilarious that what a woman wears, consumes or place she socialises in is justification for her rape. As if by her actions, ordinary men who are powerless over their urges turn into rapists and it's all her fault. Where did anyone, anywhere say that? Perhaps read the words that are in front of you, rather than what you imagine the poster is saying.
Colser wrote: » I read that bit of advice as being aimed at girls only..did I interpret it incorrectly?
Neyite wrote: » It's hilarious that what a woman wears, consumes or place she socialises in is justification for her rape. As if by her actions, ordinary men who are powerless over their urges turn into rapists and it's all her fault. If that's the case, you'd imagine that men would get raped all the time for parading naked/wet /covered in soap around gym showers and changing rooms by all those gay men who also can't control those primitive manly urges. Or, more likely: The men who have a rapey mindset target women who look and act like you described because they can easily overpower her, get what they want and also they know a prevailing social attitude will attribute at least some of the blame for the rape on the woman. Ordinary, nice, decent men control their dicks, and don't stick it anywhere they know it's not wanted or they check if they aren't sure. Rapey fcukers pretend they can't control themselves, pretend they don't understand consent, and act like a short skirt made them do it.
Allinall wrote: » Where did anyone, anywhere say that? Perhaps read the words that are in front of you, rather than what you imagine the poster is saying.
retro:electro wrote: » :rolleyes:
Appledreams15 wrote: » K How is this even fathomable. I've been on a beach with plenty of men who were half naked in shorts, some in tiny speedos. Yet I managed to have the cop on not to go over and: Massage their chest, Feel their dick. That is sexual assault. Are you living in the real world?
