wexie wrote: » And they say romance isn't dead.....
freshpopcorn wrote: » I was just making sure you know. Hopefully he won't be asked it in a quiz.
LirW wrote: » My kid doesn't play Fortnite, it reads up Rugby News..... Nerd he is.
LirW wrote: » Show me the hoards of women please that make a career out of that please :rolleyes: What do you mean by "go throwing themselves at guys"? So if a woman gets raped or assaulted she shouldn't be surprised because she openly flirted with a guy or made out with him? Anyway it's a brilliant idea because it sets a good example. I've a very Rugby-enthusiastic son who asked me about why Paddy Jackson isn't playing anymore. So these things do not go unnoticed by the young lads that look up to them. A lot of athletes come from a line of athletes or managers, enjoy very good private education and some indeed are out of touch how the real world works and that a girl can do other things than just being a pretty WAG. There's a world difference in attitude between athletes that got scouted from a local club and one that had his name put down in Blackrock at birth and is destined to live up to their family's name. Nothing bad came out of measures like that ever. I'm just surprised that they don't talk about these things and situations in PR classes that they all probably have.
wexie wrote: » You think your kid is a nerd for not playing videogames?
FunLover18 wrote: » As previous posters have said, there's no harm in it. In fact, even they are being made to do it, it sets a good example. I think it was mentioned in the thread specifically dedicated to the Jackson trial but the Seconds Captain podcast about consent with Sadlier (who runs similar programmes with schools) did an excellent job of highlighting how out of touch sports people can be in this regard.
ANXIOUS wrote: » Wonder if the ladies team had to also undergo this "training".
LirW wrote: » Show me the hoards of women please that make a career out of that please :rolleyes:
Wibbs wrote: » Well he didn't say "hoards" for a start. Secondly no matter what the scenario, there's zero excuse for sexual assault. However there most certainly are some women who while not making a career out of it, do make it a mission to "marry well"(though when they do, the career usually takes a break). The rugger bugger scene has always had that. It being generally a more well heeled middle class D4 sport at the playing end of things anyway. They hang out where the best pickings are and make their way into the clique and take it from there. The ones with brains avoid the "easy" label mind you. Having grown up around that scene to one degree or other I can think of four or five such women like this. And that was more at the schools, club, county level, at national and international level it's even more in play. Fame of any nature, local or international is chock full of hangers on and among that group is a lot of women, she are fans, some are groupies, some want to attach themselves to players more permanently. .
LirW wrote: » I've a very Rugby-enthusiastic son who asked me about why Paddy Jackson isn't playing anymore. So these things do not go unnoticed by the young lads that look up to them.
upandcumming wrote: » LirW wrote: » I've a very Rugby-enthusiastic son who asked me about why Paddy Jackson isn't playing anymore. So these things do not go unnoticed by the young lads that look up to them. I hope you told him that he was driven out of his home by clowns didn't like an easily-found verdict in a trial in a different country?
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Nope. I asked when my workplace was suggesting them. There are religious exceptions for one particular faith (but no others) and when asked would women go the reply came "why ?????"
Assetbacked wrote: » Well those sentences have demonstrated your irrational view on the topic (as you have linked girls being easy to being raped) and therefore are unlikely to accept the point. Nonetheless;if you have ever been to a niteclub/bar in Dublin and some of the recognisable players are there there will never be a shortage of girls who climb over themselves to get to them. It is especially obvious in a niteclub as people are generally there to hook up. Remember a few years ago, the Conor Murray and Simon Zebo gangbang with the girl who ended up leaving the country in shame? The girl bragged about it to her friends after and unfortunately they made it all public but it was clear she wanted to bed them just because they were famous rugby players. This doesn't mean the girls deserve to be raped, as you have indicated there may be a link to easy girls and rape. The point is that a yes/no consent class is pointless as a rapist will still rape. Since consent classes are being provided for guys to understand whether they should be proceeding with their actions and for girls to be empowered that it is okay to say "no", this opportunity should also be utilised to discuss attitudes and respect in general.
jimgoose wrote: » The "lads" - a.k.a. "well-reared, educated grown men who should and do know better" - are demonstrated to have an terrible attitude to young women, and treated them abysmally.
FunLover18 wrote: » They were found NOT GUILTY, meaning that the jury did not believe that the evidence presented by the prosecution was enough to rule out any possible doubt that they were guilty.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » So it's about thought-crime, not actual consent? There is no indication that anything non-consensual happened. Using disrespectful language in private is just that, a private matter. Both men and women do this constantly when in their private groups of friends, and no amount of Orwellian "re-education" is going to change that. Nor should it.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I personally have no issue with a class like this. I honestly don't know will it make any difference tough. I'd welcome a class tough on how to behave on a night out and look out for one another. This would of course include consent but lots of other things to.
professore wrote: » I have nothing much to say on this except that if the prospect of having your reputation and career destroyed and a possible jail sentence don't put you off then some consent classes certainly won't. A case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. I'm not sure of the value of consent classes - I see them similar to "drink responsibly" or "don't murder anyone" classes. [url] https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/irfu-tackles-fallout-from-belfast-rape-trial-37491941.html[/url]
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Quite frankly if we could be prosecuted for sexually demeaning thoughts and language I'd have been sharing a cell with the Mulhall sisters sometime around Season 2 of The Fall! Having opinions such as those they shared is not a crime, nor should it be used to bootstrap a lame prosecution of a crime that simply did not happen.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Having thoughts like that aren't a crime, the messages were submitted in evidence for another crime. The players weren't punished by the courts for a bunch of whatsapp messages. A bunch of employees who brought the name of the organisation they work for into disrepute had disciplinary action taken against them, if they feel they were punished unfairly or outside of the terms of their contracts, they are entitled to pursue a case against the IRFU.
Kintarō Hattori wrote: » I'd be very very annoyed if I was forced into doing something like this. Raised well, I'd consider myself a balanced individual who doesn't force himself upon anyone and knows what boundaries are and what no means. As said, it really seems like a box ticking exercise and I'd do my best to resist having to take part in it if I could.
Redneck Culchie wrote: » The feminists are out of control in this country. Out of principle I would refuse to take part such a class.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » How did "they" bring anything into disrepute? If anyone brought the sport into disrepute it was either the CPS or the media. Conversations held entirely in private and then leaked to the public by others, which bring something into disrepute, are not the fault of those who held those conversations but those who publicised them.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » And the minute they do the Mulally etc crowd are on them. Can't win. Oh and they may have been "submitted in evidence" but as they were found not guilty, and we operate on "innocent till proven guilty" there was no crime. I'm sure you'd like there to have been but there was not.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » The messages they sent to each other showed them up as arseholes. No company will want to associate themselves with arseholes. It just isnt good publicity.
