Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

GreeBo wrote: »

Then at worst there is one case of rape where consent was specifically removed.

One case?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are both travelling, both are drunk. Either could do something that causes a crash.

Perfect analogy.

You can blame or apportion responsibility tlll the cows come home.
Both have life long injuries.

Like those in the Belfast case.

Personal responsibility and precaution would have avoided it all.

****e analogy francie

We have this silly preconception that women give consent and men must obtain it. That’s wrong, both parties are entitled to give consent.

Consequently the same responsibility applies to both parties. If two people are drinking and then have sex while both are too mind numbingly drunk to be capable of consenting to anything it’s perverse that we might consider only one of them a victim of a rape.

This isn’t victim blaming btw, it’s applying the same standard to all parties, I.e being drunk doesn’t excuse bad behavior or decisions. We’ve seen it on this thread with posters talking about men looking for drunk women to have sex with- sorry but the far more common situation is two drunk people meeting when both are up for sex and incapable of better judgement.

GreeBo wrote: »

100% thats rape, but from what I can see that isnt the scenario that most posters are talking about.
People are talking about a confusion regarding consent, not where one party *clearly* doesnt want to have sex and 100% in her own mind knows this.

If the girl knows that she doesnt want to have sex then if at any stage she makes this clear to the other party, then at least 1 count of rape has taken place.

I was replying to your question of 'How can you not realise you didn't give consent until months later?' Maybe it's not the scenario that most posters are talking about, but it is the exact question you asked.

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, 1 case at worst.

I think you are confusing what "at worst" means....:o

I think one of us is confusing what 'at worst' means, but I'm not convinced that it's me. 'At worst' means 'in the most serious case' or 'used to say what the most unpleasant or difficult situation could possibly be'. So either you don't consider being raped for years the most unpleasant scenario, or you don't consider consenting out of fear to be rape, or you're lumping years of abuse into 'one case', or you are using some other definition to me and the dictionary.

kylith wrote: »

I was replying to your question of 'How can you not realise you didn't give consent until months later?' Maybe it's not the scenario that most posters are talking about, but it is the exact question you asked.

Fair enough then. I wasnt asking for a specific example, more about under what scenario. In any case, I would still argue that the victim know it was rape at the time, since on at least 1 occasion the resisted.

kylith wrote: »

I think one of us is confusing what 'at worst' means, but I'm not convinced that it's me. 'At worst' means 'in the most serious case' or 'used to say what the most unpleasant or difficult situation could possibly be'. So either you don't consider being raped for years the most unpleasant scenario, or you don't consider consenting out of fear to be rape, or you're lumping years of abuse into 'one case', or you are using some other definition to me and the dictionary.

I think you are still misunderstanding me, worse case scenario only 1 rape case is proved.
A better scenario would be all the accounts are proved and you get a lengthy sentence.

You are thinking that I am using "at worst" to describe the rapes where actually I am describing the outcome.

....... wrote: »

This is moving too fast to reply to each post, but I think its very easy to have confusion about consent.

In one of the incidents I described to you from my own experience, I had said that there could be kissing but no sex. The guy who tried to slip it in told me "I thought youd changed your mind". Non verbally changed my mind from what I had clearly verbally consented to earlier. Now I know he was just chancing his arm and if he'd slipped it in he would have claimed that we had both become carried away. And he definitely wouldnt have seen himself as a rapist. And while he was a bit wussy about me pushing him off and saying no - he wasnt scary. I know full well he didnt see himself as a rapist. But if id not physically pushed him off, he would have penetrated me without consent. But would I have reported it? No way. I probably wouldnt even have realised it was rape back then, I would have blamed myself for getting into the situation.

And you appear to have very clearly communicated that there was no consent, which resolved the matter.

Here’s the thing though. He claims to have picked up a vibe that you’d changed your mind, and as you say he may have been chancing his arm (or indeed may have believed it). You used clear language to override any ambiguity from non verbal signals- 100%right thing to do.

Compare this to the us comic who was put through the ringer recently! In that case in the middle of sexual activity the complainants expectation was he pick up on “clear non verbal signals” that consent was withdrawn.

Tbh I struggle to understand why clear unambiguous verbal communication is so difficult for both parties. Some posters seem to only be able to see one side of the fence. If it seems common sense that a party can say “may I” then it’s also common sense that a party can say “No”. I apply that both ways btw. Clear easily understood words! If that was all we looked to cover in consent classes we’d have made a decent start.

tritium wrote: »

****e analogy francie

We have this silly preconception that women give consent and men must obtain it. That’s wrong, both parties are entitled to five consent.

Consequently the same responsibility applies to both parties. If two people are drinking and then have sex while both are too mind numbingly drunk to be capable of consenting to anything it’s perverse that we might consider only one of them a victim of a rape.

This isn’t victim blaming btw, it’s applying the same standard to all parties, I.e being drunk doesn’t excuse bad behavior or decisions. We’ve seen it on this thread with posters talking about men looking for drunk women to have sex with- sorry but the far more common situation is two drunk people meeting when both are up for sex and incapable of better judgement.

The point was about personal responsibility.
If you are going to get blotto and put yourself in vulnerable situations, it matters not what state the other person is on.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Second Captains Podcast is really excellent. On the point of persuasion they were saying how culturally men are expected to be the pursuers and nice girls to say no a few times even when they really want to be persuaded into it. IMO then it is not hard to understand how signals get mixed up with that mindset. The boy feels pressure to override her objections and the girl feels he just wouldn't have no for an answer. And again because Mary allowed him to override her objections without repercussions because she wanted to have sex with him doesn't mean Ann wants it too.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you want to do an end-run around parental consent so that your ideas and values can be imparted to their children, rather than the parents having the ability to decide for their children what ideas and values they should be taught.

Teaching children about consent, without their parents consent... I'm not sure you'll appreciate the irony.

Can't see much irony there at all.

It's treating young people as individuals in their own rights and not just a product of their parents.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also I think the persuasion starts when the boy is say 16 (?) and it earns him rewards with young girls and it becomes his go-to modus operandus thereafter. No need to check or converse, just keep at her till she gives in.

GreeBo wrote: »

Fair enough then. I wasnt asking for a specific example, more about under what scenario. In any case, I would still argue that the victim know it was rape at the time, since on at least 1 occasion the resisted.

But the other times they didn't resist, so they don't see it as having been raped. It's an attitude which we've seen from the other side on this thread; that if the woman isn't actively resisting then it's not rape and there's no need to check if everything's ok even though it has been said many times at this stage that it takes only a couple of seconds to say 'are you alright with this?/Do you like this?/Would you like me to?' with one person even taking the rather scary view that to do so would be to 'talk themselves out of sex'.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you are still misunderstanding me, worse case scenario only 1 rape case is proved.
A better scenario would be all the accounts are proved and you get a lengthy sentence.

You are thinking that I am using "at worst" to describe the rapes where actually I am describing the outcome.

Ah, I see now. You hadn't actually sued the word 'proven' in your original comment which seems to be where the confusion started:

GreeBo wrote: »

Then at worst there is one case of rape where consent was specifically removed.

GreeBo wrote: »

With respect I dont think it is.
In your own words you said that parents were consenting for one thing and now another thing was being added in, but somehow consent for that is implied.

Sure one is education and the other is sex, but the logic of consent should really be the same, no?

No, I didn't say that the teaching of sexual education curriculum would begin before a parent consents to the teaching of it. I'm not sure what the problem is.
I'd be certain and hope, even though I don't have children, that parents would be consulted before a sex education curriculum is introduced.

erica74 wrote: »

It's very very different though. OEJ was suggesting children would be taught something without their parents consent. We're talking about a parent consenting to what their child is educated about not sexual activity in a bedroom.
Parents enrol their children, there is an agreement and information about what education their child will receive. Parents are perfectly entitled to go to the school and say I don't agree with my child being taught x and y (now, obviously I don't know the situation there, I think you'd have to get the board of education involved maybe?) because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What a load of complete and utter made up ****e :rolleyes:

erica74 wrote: »

What's the context of that? Who is Louise? Was she one of the other female witnesses?

Louise O'Neill shared it on Twitter. She said somebody sent it to her.