cloudatlas wrote: » Most cases of rape and sexual assault occur between acquaintances not strangers. It is absurd for 51 per cent of the population to live by the limitations that the daily threat of assault imposes. Being attacked, assaulted or even being the receiver of lewd comments in the street violates a woman's right to be in any place at any time. Telling women to not go out drink have a good time, to be careful, to only go in herds is not an answer, it only perpetuates further fear. Masculine power relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces... 'she was wearing a short skirt' 'she was walking alone' etc., The victim is always addressed and preventative measures in society are scoffed at and ridiculed. Sex education in school has to change. Young boys with phones are watching porn without any understanding of what they are looking at, porn ideation creates a false expectation of what happens in the bedroom, sure even the 'nice one' after he comforted the complainant sent a three some porn video to his mate. The focus is always on the potential culpability of the person who has been assaulted, not on why the man did it. The issues of violence and threats against women are not ones for women to address. Women are not responsible for defending themselves.
FrancieBrady wrote: » When you can soberly assess that it is safe to do so. Not when you are drunk and alone and in a strangers house. Seems to me if you are going to advise men that consent must be clear, then you have to equally advise a young woman not to enter a situation where consent is blurred by alcohol, consumed by both parties.
joe40 wrote: » Well thanks for your answer at least you are clear. You do realise if all young women were to take that advice there would be alot of frustrated young men about. In this country socialising and alcohol go hand in hand. Socialising and meeting romantic partners are also go together. Your advice is like something from rc controlled ireland that you railed against yesterday. A couple must both be sober before been in a room together. Good luck with that
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not that difficult a future to imagine when we are being warned that employers are searching social media histories of potential employees. Isn't it proposed that you will have to give access to your social media accounts if asked at US immigration? Quite possible your private messaging will be searched as a part of that.
Silentcorner wrote: » I can't make head nor tail of the point he is trying to make either. It seems to me, he is asking you if you agree that in the future should we all be held accountable for our messages we send one another, and that there would be panels of people who's job it will be to sort out the good messages from the bad messages and then a further panel of people who may punish us for the bad messages assuming the people on the panels have the authority to punish us for our messages...have I got that right?
facehugger99 wrote: » It will also be interesting to see whether he can ever get back to the level where he was before his disgraceful behaviour.
FrancieBrady wrote: » joe40 wrote: » Well this is a genuine question for you. At what stage is it safe or appropriate for a woman to go to a man room. ( just keeping it heterosexual for convenience) I'm not trying to be awkward. Genuine question. When you can soberly assess that it is safe to do so. Not when you are drunk and alone and in a strangers house. Seems to me if you are going to advise men that consent must be clear, then you have to equally advise a young woman not to enter a situation where consent is blurred by alcohol, consumed by both parties.
joe40 wrote: » Well this is a genuine question for you. At what stage is it safe or appropriate for a woman to go to a man room. ( just keeping it heterosexual for convenience) I'm not trying to be awkward. Genuine question.
joe40 wrote: » Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction. You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to. In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events. Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona. I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women. If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.
ArthurDayne wrote: » joe40 wrote: » So are you talking about these messages in particular, because that is a different argument. If you are saying the men involved were judged harshl since the comments weren't actually that bad. Then fair enough I don't agree but it is not ridiculous.What is ridiculous is that you envisage a future where we will have to submit all private messages for external scrutiny. That is ridiculous, there is no evidence that such a future awaits nor any evidence that there is a desire for such a future anywhere. You might point out where I said that i envisaged this happening. I asked you a hypothetical question -- that is all. It is somewhat irritating to have my extrapolations called 'ridiculous' when it would seem apparent that you have not actually even read my posts. Were these men judged harshly for their messages? On the basis that the messages were taken by many in the public to be compelling evidence that the guys were rapists --- on the basis that they have been deprived employment and, as seems likely, the chance to reach the pinnacle of their careers -- on the basis that they have been made the symbol of male entitlement / sexism / sexual deviancy -- yes, I think the messages have been judged harshly. They were pig-headed, stupid, tasteless and offensive messages and the language/terms used were not admirable, 'cool' or necessarily remotely funny. But they were intended privately and just because they got out in public does not mean that those messages should be seen as definitive and indicative as to how those guys see women or believe women should be treated. People are much more complex than that. As I have said before -- I have bragged about sexual encounters to my friends. Among my friends I have referred to some women that I have slept with in all manner of crude and objectifying language. I've seen girls doing this too. Yes it's all very tasteless and context-sensitive and some people take it better than others. Yes, I guess it means I'm a d*ck sometimes and by speaking the way I do maybe there are some people who won't want to be in my company. That's fair enough. But the reasons people talk like this are similar to the reasons people go to see Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle or any other dark-humoured comedian --- for whatever reason, even good-natured and kind people enjoy dark humour because we are all flawed humans and not morally perfect angels. Making a racist joke does not automatically make you a racist. Making a joke about Protestants doesn't automatically make a Catholic sectarian. The inference people have made is that the sexist statements of these rugby lads automatically means they are sexists and thus need to be punished for it. It's a black-and-white absolutist interpretation and I cannot see how it is ridiculous at all to say that if we applied it equally and consistently to everyone -- that this would not eventually lead us to a world where we must speak with the diligent perfection of a PR agent at all times to ensure we don't end up facing the lash of public outrage if, say, someone who doesn't like you decides to send your messages or recorded statements to a newspaper or just to your boss so that you lose your job and your reputation is tarnished.
joe40 wrote: » So are you talking about these messages in particular, because that is a different argument. If you are saying the men involved were judged harshl since the comments weren't actually that bad. Then fair enough I don't agree but it is not ridiculous.What is ridiculous is that you envisage a future where we will have to submit all private messages for external scrutiny. That is ridiculous, there is no evidence that such a future awaits nor any evidence that there is a desire for such a future anywhere.
FrancieBrady wrote: » joe40 wrote: » Since you said genuine question.First of all I think women know much better than we do how vulnerable they are in these positions they don't need to be told by you or I or the rape crisis centre or anyone else. They know. They still want to meet guys and boys want to meet girls (or whatever combination) This involves the girl having to make judgement calls. Maybe she wants a sexual encounter but not full sex she has to take the chance the guy will respect that. These judgement calls are been made all the time. Drinkaware and schools do talk about the dangers of alcohol loss of inhibition and poor decisions around sexual behaviour. Std s and unwanted pregnancy are often mentioned. But in the aftermath of a case like this there is no need to link the Woman behaviour with any harmful effects which occurred to her. You have accepted that she felt "badly treated". That is my view on this, you don't have to agree but thats how I feel. Yet she did it and many more do it, every night of the week and weekend. Yet nobody in all this debate has addressed it publicly, and when someone tried he was hounded out of his job too. I think you are totally wrong.
joe40 wrote: » Since you said genuine question.First of all I think women know much better than we do how vulnerable they are in these positions they don't need to be told by you or I or the rape crisis centre or anyone else. They know. They still want to meet guys and boys want to meet girls (or whatever combination) This involves the girl having to make judgement calls. Maybe she wants a sexual encounter but not full sex she has to take the chance the guy will respect that. These judgement calls are been made all the time. Drinkaware and schools do talk about the dangers of alcohol loss of inhibition and poor decisions around sexual behaviour. Std s and unwanted pregnancy are often mentioned. But in the aftermath of a case like this there is no need to link the Woman behaviour with any harmful effects which occurred to her. You have accepted that she felt "badly treated". That is my view on this, you don't have to agree but thats how I feel.
meeeeh wrote: » So you think there is only lesson for women in this whole saga? It's only women that need to be taught how to behave.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » How about teaching them that regret is not rape? That you can’t withdraw consent after the fact? That men aren’t mind readers so if you don’t want it make it clear? Also we might add that a few text messages aren’t enough to condemn a man as a misogynist or run him out of his job.
FrancieBrady wrote: » joe40 wrote: » I thought nothing untoward happened any young women in this story so what is the problem with VIP areas and stranger's houses. Like everyone else, I accept the young lady thinks she was badly treated. If she does, if people here think she was, then we need to have a debate about behaviours that can lead to women feeling that way. Would you advise her to do the same next weekend for instance, if you think she did nothing wrong? Genuine question.
joe40 wrote: » I thought nothing untoward happened any young women in this story so what is the problem with VIP areas and stranger's houses.
meeeeh wrote: » Yes but they weren't let go for rape, it was their what's app messages. So tell me is that a message we should give to young girls. You are there to provide two holes, don't worry about your own enjoyment.
Squatter wrote: » So where did you pull the current Mrs. Brady, Francie? It wouldn't by any chance have been on the parish pilgrimage to Knock, would it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Don't you think they should be told that they are probably not going to find it hanging around the VIP sections of nightclubs or by ending up drunk and alone in the houses of strangers. Should that advice not have been offered in all the public debate on this case?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I’m not taking that bait sorry but nice try. I’ll say it again- they didn’t do anything wrong, they only realized later that she was upset and their private conversations should be used as a stick to beat them with. Also tears and blood do not mean rape has occurred.
meeeeh wrote: » And did they care? No they called themselves top shaggers
ArthurDayne wrote: » joe40 wrote: » My position is pretty much the way things are. Your privacy is protected currently but if private messages become public, and those messages are damaging you are liable for the consequences. Whether serious or minor Why are you trying to paint some type of dystopian future with thought police etc I am just saying how things currently are, there is no basis for ridiculous extrapolations And again -- you deal with the superficial. 'Ridiculous' is a very easy word to type, though I note you provide no reason for saying my extrapolations are ridiculous. I would have presumed if you find something I say to be ridiculous -- you could do me the courtesy of telling me why? Do you not agree that this trial and the way these players have judged by society, whether fairly or unfairly, will have prompted many to be scared to use objectifying language or dark humour around friends? Isn't that what you want? A world we are all perfectly mannerly and morally upstanding in all our words and conduct -- and if we are not then we should be made to suffer for it? Clearly as we have seen from this trial, messages getting out can be damaging. But that is not the substantive issue of my argument. We are not arguing whether these messages are damaging -- because clearly we can see that they were. What we are arguing is why they are damaging and whether they even should be considered damaging when dark and objectifying humour is a very normal part of human discourse and can actually promote equality rather than restrict it.
joe40 wrote: » My position is pretty much the way things are. Your privacy is protected currently but if private messages become public, and those messages are damaging you are liable for the consequences. Whether serious or minor Why are you trying to paint some type of dystopian future with thought police etc I am just saying how things currently are, there is no basis for ridiculous extrapolations
meeeeh wrote: » And did they care? No they called themselves top shaggers next day because a crying and bleeding girl is a proof you are a top shagger. Is that what you are saying?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » God forbid anyone should try to advise women to be careful and not get themselves caught up in potentially dangerous or compromising situations that they may later regret. That kind of logic isn’t allowed nowadays.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I think you’ll find most men don’t only think of themselves and that the young men in this case genuinely thought the girl was up for it and enjoyed it. It was only after the fact that they realized she was upset.
