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.
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. You cant change the behaviour of other people but you can change how you conduct yourself out socialising. There is nothing whatsoever for women in one night stands, no love, no intimacy, no concern by men for the woman, its wham bang and then man falls into a snoring alcohol filled sleep. He wont even remember what the woman looked like the next day but if she decides that she didnt get the respect she deserved then she can make an allegation of rape and everyone will believe her because, why would she, yadda, yadda, yadda
georgina toadbum wrote: » If a girl goes out in very revealing clothes or gets drunk it shouldn't be risky. She shouldn't be at a higher risk of getting raped because of what she's wearing.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » In law the onus is on the victim and the DPP to show the defendant has done something illegal not the other way round.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » Children shouldn't get cancer and pedophiles shouldn't exist and murders should not happen either.........
martingriff wrote: » But you were still a victim of a robbery and your case would be looked at or do you think if you car was robbed our house burgled the cops would not investigate it the perpetrator not sent to jail if they were open
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » May I be as kind to suggest you pull your head out of the clouds. This is not justification of anything, nobody is trying to justify bad behavior. This is about giving good advice but the crazed feminist movement do not want to take this advice, does not want to take any responsibility for putting themselves in venerable situations because they do not want to admit 1. They are vulnerable and 2. That they put themselves in this situation. In these circumstances women are vulnerable because in any physical altercation with a man, men will win out almost 100% of the time. There are people in the world that do not have your best interests at heart they will take advantage of you given the opportunity. If you voluntary walk into these situations, chances are you are never going to be able to prove a crime took place.
professore wrote: » Personally I think consent classes are really stupid.
If someone says NO or is asleep then it's clear if you continue you are a rapist. Consent classes won't make one iota of difference for someone who is of that mindset.
If consent classes worked, then we should also have theft classes, murder classes, fraud classes etc etc because the only reason any crime at all exists is because the poor criminals are too dumb to realise they are committing a crime.
If both parties are drunk and not sure what they are doing it's a very very grey area. In that case both parties have a responsibility to behave better, not just the man.
Does anyone seriously think that the situation in Paddy Jackson's bedroom, regardless of your opinion of their guilt or innocence, wouldn't have happened had all parties had consent classes?
Classes around the differences between male and female sexuality, precautions and appropriate behaviour would be far more effective.
seamus wrote: » Your witty facetiousness exposes one of the core fallacies around rape and consent - the idea that it's simple and straightforward. Only evil and violent people commit rape, and reasonable and rational people could never find themselves being accused of it. It's the "only criminals misuse guns" argument in a different jacket. When it's clearly much more nuanced than that; and as we see from the outcome of many rape trials, there is apparent disagreement on what "rape" actually is. There's also something of a parallel with vaccination and herd immunity. While 99% of people are reasonable and don't desire to hurt anyone, there is that 1% (figures illustrative) who may not be reasonable and don't care about hurting others. When the 99% are left to their own devices, they don't hurt eachother, but they are still open to the whims of the 1%. They don't know how to react to a violator. And violators themselves are not aware that their behaviour is frowned upon. Their behaviours and attitudes can then bleed out and spread, and others, who were part of the 99%, believe it is acceptable, because the violators aren't punished (socially) for their behaviour. By including education on the ideas of consent, you arm the 99%. Not only are they then aware of how to react when they encounter a violator, they are also guarded against violators spreading their poisonous behaviours and attitudes. The violators then become isolated and may change their behaviour. Preventing rape is not about catching rapists. A person is not a rapist until they've raped. So catching rapists doesn't prevent rape. Preventing rape requires preventing rapists. And for that you need to educate everyone. Because you have no idea who may be a rapist and who may be a victim until the crime has occurred.
georgina toadbum wrote: » ShowMeTheCash wrote: » Children shouldn't get cancer and pedophiles shouldn't exist and murders should not happen either......... Exactly, and you don't blame the children's clothes or something they did if they got cancer do you? No, you just accept it happened. Same should be applied to a rape.
georgina toadbum wrote: » Exactly, and you don't blame the children's clothes or something they did if they got cancer do you? No, you just accept it happened. Same should be applied to a rape.
retro:electro wrote: » She did not did she.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » You don't get it. You want to put yourself at risk and argue it had nothing to do with it. Get drunk go back to a strangers house and get raped. You want to argue the getting drunk and going back to their home is not putting yourself at risk.... It is. Smoking 80 fags a day, you are probably putting yourself at risk of getting lung cancer!
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's like saying to somebody you should never be in accident with a drink driver because that is wrong and everyone knows it is wrong. So drive away. We all know 'in the real world' that you can still be hurt or injured by a drink driver. But let's ignore that I wish to pontificate about perfect world's.
Neyite wrote: » But we don't blame the passenger of the car the drunk driver drove, do we? We don't say that because it was the passengers birthday celebrations it was his fault. Or because he was the one that initiated the round of shots. The only one to blame is the person who got behind the wheel and made a poor and illegal decision. Is the passenger responsible because he should have known the driver was drunk. Is he responsible because he failed to get the keys off the driver? Maybe he should have fought him for the keys I suppose. If there's no sign of a fight then maybe the passenger wanted to be driven. Maybe the driver was too drunk to know what he was doing and was egged on by other passengers. Or maybe nobody except the person who put the key in the ignition is responsible.
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.
seamus wrote: » Sure. But legally everyone enjoys the presumption that by default, they have not consented. So rape cases are a matter of somehow fitting the two of these things together. The victim's assertion will be that consent was never given or was later withdrawn. Which is very difficult to prove - but should they have to? After all, if I invited you to a party at my house and you took €50 that was sitting on a windowsill, the only thing I would really have to prove is that you took the money. You could certainly make an argument in your defence that I told you to take it. Then the horse-trading can begin around who said what. But from the off it wouldn't be assumed by default that I said you could take it, or that by inviting you into my home that I should expect it would be taken or that I have implied it could be taken. And if you think that creates a dangerous precedent in the case of rape, then you must be of the opinion that there are hoardes of people out there just champing at the bit to get a ride and then get their day in court.
georgina toadbum wrote: » Can you show me statistics that show that if a girl is wearing a skirt and has a few drinks that she's at a higher risk of getting raped?
yourdeadwright wrote: » Serious question , Is there footage of the bar that night ? Iv heard people on social media say the women in question can be seen putting her hand uninvited on Kyle Lafferty's thigh and he then removes it ? Is this true does anyone know ?
tretorn wrote: » If she hadnt drunk so much and hadnt got into a taxi with total strangers and hadnt gone into a bedroom with Jackson who didnt even know her name then none of this would have happened.
seamus wrote: » Sure. But legally everyone enjoys the presumption that by default, they have not consented.
seamus wrote: » So rape cases are a matter of somehow fitting the two of these things together. The victim's assertion will be that consent was never given or was later withdrawn. Which is very difficult to prove - but should they have to?
seamus wrote: » After all, if I invited you to a party at my house and you took €50 that was sitting on a windowsill, the only thing I would really have to prove is that you took the money. You could certainly make an argument in your defence that I told you to take it. Then the horse-trading can begin around who said what. But from the off it wouldn't be assumed by default that I said you could take it, or that by inviting you into my home that I should expect it would be taken or that I have implied it could be taken. And if you think that creates a dangerous precedent in the case of rape, then you must be of the opinion that there are hoardes of people out there just champing at the bit to get a ride and then get their day in court.
georgina toadbum wrote: » It's statistically proven smoking 80 fags a day would increase your risk of getting lung cancer. Can you show me statistics that show that if a girl is wearing a skirt and has a few drinks that she's at a higher risk of getting raped?
Fann Linn wrote: » I'd blame the passenger also.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/pages/alcohol.aspx Here you go.
GreeBo wrote: » What % of rapists do you believe dont know they are rapists? Unless we can show that its a large %, then all the consent lessons in the world aren't going to make much difference. Do we have "no murdering" lessons in school? If not, why not?
joe40 wrote: » Personal responsibility is one thing but a young woman should still be to go to house with someone, engage in "sexual behaviour" but still have the right to stop at any stage or not go further than they are happy with. I was young many years ago and it was common enough to go back to a house even to a bed with someone but full sexual intercourse was never expected as a right in those circumstances.
