Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

MFPM · 14-11-2018 05:15PM

Feisar wrote: »

The thread hasn't gone down this route, however is it acceptable for a TD to hold up a knickers in the Dáil?

Seems a bit cheap and done for shock value, reminded me of Khrushchev taking off his shoe and banging it at the UN.

It's more likely she got it from her former colleague Joe Higgins who handcuffed himself in the chamber to expose the GAMA scandal back in the early 2000s.

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong in it although I think Deputy Coppinger is relentless in her pursuit of publicity for herself.

eviltwin · 14-11-2018 05:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

As the devil:

Any women I know says that thongs are very uncomfortable to wear. Is this not true?

No

Grayson · 14-11-2018 05:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Grayson you know better than that

Honestly, the thread is getting a bit confusing at this point.

I just think we shouldn't infer from someones underwear whether or not they consented to a sexual encounter. I don't think that argument should be allowed in court. I think that implying consent based on what pair of knickers someone put on hours before is just stupid. There's no logical connection between the two. If someone can make that logical connection, then sure it could be allowed. But Thong => Wants to shag you doesn't make any sense at all.

seenitall · 14-11-2018 05:19PM

King of Kings wrote: »

that maybe you which i find really weird tbh cos a normal parent would what their child to have the best defence possible.

maybe we have different views of parenthood.

The veiled condescension again. This thread, though, is not about who gets the medal for being the best parent (you can have it, btw, I well know I'm not perfect), but about the glaring irrational and barbaric inferences about women's sexuality that seem to still hold sway in the 21st century courts.

Grayson · 14-11-2018 05:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

As the devil:

Any women I know says that thongs are very uncomfortable to wear. Is this not true?

I've known women that said that and others that haven't. I know some who wear them because of pantylines and others that don't bother. I've never worn them so I can't make a judgement on their comfort, but if I did, it would just be my own judgement.

I wear boxers. I find jockeys too tight and I can't stand y fronts. Yet they still sell jockey shorts and Y fronts. I can only assume that others find them comfortable.

SusieBlue · 14-11-2018 05:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

As the devil:

Any women I know says that thongs are very uncomfortable to wear. Is this not true?

Does it matter whether they are comfortable or not? What relevance does it have??

I think you'll find the answer to be subjective, because you know, different women will have different opinions.

Feisar · 14-11-2018 05:25PM

Grayson wrote: »

Honestly, the thread is getting a bit confusing at this point.

I just think we shouldn't infer from someones underwear whether or not they consented to a sexual encounter. I don't think that argument should be allowed in court. I think that implying consent based on what pair of knickers someone put on hours before is just stupid. There's no logical connection between the two. If someone can make that logical connection, then sure it could be allowed. But Thong => Wants to shag you doesn't make any sense at all.

Yer making total sense, however the "she was asking for it" brigade are still alive and well. Obviously this is what the defence was currying favour with in the jury.

nullzero · 14-11-2018 05:26PM

seenitall wrote: »

glaring irrational and barbaric inferences about women's sexuality that seem to still hold sway in the 21st century courts.

Did I wake up this morning to an Ireland that has suddenly adopted sharia law?
A pair of underpants get shown around a court in a rape case(in which the jury found in favor of the defendant), and whilst it may have been in poor taste the ideological nightmare you've outlined above is ridiculously wide of the mark.

A rape accusation is a presumption of guilt until innocence is proven, we have a modern legal system in which due process is valued and this man faced a jury of his peers and was found to be innocent.

How a pair of underpants being displayed as part of the evidence in a rape case is barbaric I don't know.

Floppybits · 14-11-2018 05:28PM

Grayson wrote: »

Honestly, the thread is getting a bit confusing at this point.

I just think we shouldn't infer from someones underwear whether or not they consented to a sexual encounter. I don't think that argument should be allowed in court. I think that implying consent based on what pair of knickers someone put on hours before is just stupid. There's no logical connection between the two. If someone can make that logical connection, then sure it could be allowed. But Thong => Wants to shag you doesn't make any sense at all.

I can't believe this was used as a defence is a rape trial. How could anyone think what underwear a person has on is a sign they wanted sex? I am sure underwear are worn for all types of reasons that are personal to the wearer.

JMNolan · 14-11-2018 05:28PM

nullzero wrote: »

How a pair of underpants being displayed as part of the evidence in a rape case is barbaric I don't know.

A rapist escaped justice.

nullzero · 14-11-2018 05:29PM

Feisar wrote: »

If I decked every woman that grabbed my arse I'd have some rap sheet!

You must have some hoop on ye. Pics or gtfo.

Dr. Bre · 14-11-2018 05:31PM

Can anyone explain the holes in my boxers ?

AndrewJRenko · 14-11-2018 05:31PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.

You're the one lying dear.

You said 2% of RAPES led to a conviction. I said - correctly - it was 2% of REPORTS.

I did not say 98% were lying. There are shades of grey in everything, this included.

I demand you retract the false accusation.

What you said was "the other 98% of REPORTS were just that" - so are saying that they were just reports and were not rapes? Or that they were reports of rapes?

Or put it another way - what percentage of rape reports to police do you reckon relate to actual rapes?

ohnonotgmail · 14-11-2018 05:32PM

JMNolan wrote: »

A rapist escaped justice.

Nobody has questioned the verdict.

AndrewJRenko · 14-11-2018 05:34PM

RWCNT wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Coming from the person who suggested that 98% of women who reported rape were telling lies, that's just a bit rich.
So grabbing a guy below the waist is considered consent to sex in your institution? Hopefully this is well advertised on your website so female students are well informed about the need to act like nuns if they don't want to be raped.

Grabbing a guy below the waist out of the blue could easily be classed as sexual assault in and of itself tbh.

Maybe, but it is still not consent to be raped.

JMNolan · 14-11-2018 05:34PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody has questioned the verdict.

Either the introduction of the thong was the right thing to do to help bring about the right verdict or it was the wrong thing to do but had no impact on the verdict then.

Feisar · 14-11-2018 05:35PM

nullzero wrote: »

You must have some hoop on ye. Pics or gtfo.

I have no interest in my delectable derriere becoming an internet sensation!

Cleopatra_ · 14-11-2018 05:36PM

It is pretty sh1t that your choice of underwear comes into question when you accuse someone of rape. So what if the poor girl wore a thong in anticipation of possibly meeting someone that she'd like to have sex with? That doesn't mean she wanted to have sex with this man in particular. I had an encounter with a man in March, let's just say I consider it rape, regardless of what he may or may not think. One of the many reasons I didn't go to the guards was because I knew I'd be facing all sorts of accusations like this.

I find thongs uncomfortable as feck so usually only wear them if I'm hoping there may be a possible ride, but does that mean I'm going to ride anyone at all? Of course not. Jaysus. I also shave my muff and my legs and I'm not always expecting a ride either, I'm doing it for myself. I'm sure some women just like to wear thongs because they make them feel good about themselves or to avoid VPL so the only person who knows why she was wearing a thong is the girl in question, and she shouldn't have to defend herself for such a choice.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 14-11-2018 05:38PM

Floppybits wrote: »

How could anyone think what underwear a person has on is a sign they wanted sex?

Because even the Victoria's Secret lingerie retailer has a "Date Collection" that is exactly as it sounds -- sexy underwear for young women to wear on dates. You can even buy a Date Strappy Thong.

SusieBlue · 14-11-2018 05:40PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody has questioned the verdict.

No, but a certain cohort here are clinging to that notion to try to distract from the real issue here. They are trying to make this about false rape allegations against men because it suits their narrative better.
The real issue being that the barristers remarks were absolutely unacceptable and irrelevant to the case.
No one is questioning the verdict but that seems to be lost on people.

vonlars · 14-11-2018 05:40PM

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Because even the Victoria's Secret lingerie retailer has a "Date Collection" that is exactly as it sounds -- sexy underwear for young women to wear on dates. You can even buy a Date Strappy Thong.

Going on a date with someone doesn't even mean you're consenting to sex though ...

nullzero · 14-11-2018 05:41PM

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

It is pretty sh1t that your choice of underwear comes into question when you accuse someone of rape. So what if the poor girl wore a thong in anticipation of possibly meeting someone that she'd like to have sex with? That doesn't mean she wanted to have sex with this man in particular. I had an encounter with a man in March, let's just say I consider it rape, regardless of what he may or may not think. One of the many reasons I didn't go to the guards was because I knew I'd be facing all sorts of accusations like this.

I find thongs uncomfortable as feck so usually only wear them if I'm hoping there may be a possible ride, but does that mean I'm going to ride anyone at all? Of course not. Jaysus. I also shave my muff and my legs and I'm not always expecting a ride either, I'm doing it for myself. I'm sure some women just like to wear thongs because they make them feel good about themselves or to avoid VPL so the only person who knows why she was wearing a thong is the girl in question, and she shouldn't have to defend herself for such a choice.

If you were raped you need to press charges end of.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 14-11-2018 05:43PM

vonlars wrote: »

Going on a date with someone doesn't even mean you're consenting to sex though ...

You're right, it doesn't.

But if a woman went on a date with her alleged assailant, wearing sexy underwear in anticipation of sleeping with him, the defense can use those facts to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. It makes it much harder to secure a conviction.

vonlars · 14-11-2018 05:44PM

nullzero wrote: »

If you were raped you need to press charges end of.

Have you thought about taking up a job in a rape crisis centre? They could do with more people like you.

Go to any of them and they'll dissuade you from reporting unless you have ample evidence. They know the **** storm you're getting yourself in for.

Cleopatra_ · 14-11-2018 05:46PM

nullzero wrote: »

If you were raped you need to press charges end of.

It's a lot more complex than that. There's the word of a man against the word of a woman. Then the character assassination of the woman, how many people have I slept with, do I seem to be promiscuous, how much had I to drink that night, what was I wearing? There's such a low rate of rape convictions I felt it wasn't worth putting myself through further trauma only to find out that a case wouldn't proceed or have it proceed and then have a not guilty verdict returned.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 14-11-2018 05:46PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

The real issue being that the barristers remarks were absolutely unacceptable and irrelevant to the case.

The barrister's remarks were evidently effective, given that her client was found not guilty. So she did her job, which was to keep her client out of jail. She was not there to make some kind of feminist statement -- she was there to defend the accused.

vonlars · 14-11-2018 05:47PM

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

You're right, it doesn't.

But if a woman went on a date with her alleged assailant, wearing sexy underwear in anticipation of sleeping with him, the defense can use those facts to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. It makes it much harder to secure a conviction.

Why should that create a reasonable doubt? Have you never been on a date where you realise the person isn't exactly who they said they are, or even that you just don't like them?

Being open to the possibility of sex does not being open to having sex. As someone said here earlier, should shaved legs be allowed to be adduced as evidence?

Also, underwear doesn't even really show intent. Sometimes we just wear it to feel good about ourselves, nothing to do with men. Shocker.

retro:electro · 14-11-2018 05:48PM

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Because even the Victoria's Secret lingerie retailer has a "Date Collection" that is exactly as it sounds -- sexy underwear for young women to wear on dates. You can even buy a Date Strappy Thong.

People who go on dates and intend on having consensual sex still get raped.

Seriously.

SusieBlue · 14-11-2018 05:49PM

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

The barrister's remarks were evidently effective, given that her client was found not guilty. So she did her job, which was to keep her client out of jail.

I don't care that they were effective, because I don't care about the verdict.
The verdict is irrelevant. If the man had been found guilty I would be of the same opinion.
Her choice of knickers should never have been called into question to determine whether she was up for the ride or not.
A court of law is no place to be analysing the underwear of a 17 year old girl.

nullzero · 14-11-2018 05:49PM

vonlars wrote: »

Have you thought about taking up a job in a rape crisis centre? They could do with more people like you.

Go to any of them and they'll dissuade you from reporting unless you have ample evidence. They know the **** storm you're getting yourself in for.

If you were genuinely raped you shouldn't be put off by anybody or any rhetoric.

I've been assaulted and had my life threatened by people with histories of violent behaviour, I didn't let them away with it and have had to attend court to deal with those issues.
When someone does something to hurt you you can let it go or fight, and I'm sorry but letting somebody away with rape because it's too much hassle allows them to re offend so there is a moral imperative to report a serious crime of any kind. Not having the stomach to deal with it isn't a valid excuse.

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments