Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Sweetemotion · 15-11-2018 10:28PM

batgoat wrote: »

None of the above was applicable to this scenario, it was simply to imply she wanted to have sex because of how she dressed.

This relates to the case in terms of the psychological impact of such treatment of victims.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548?fbclid=IwAR1Ep_gGqKEfyrcurkbsm55HfWd0XvAAlDr_7ed8t5DFoa--bE6O2suFxNs

And this relates to the psychological impact of victims accused of false rape claims.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/mother-of-son-who-hanged-himself--after-being-accused-of/

This is utterly ridiculous, any man who thinks it's ok to rape a woman because she was wearing a thong is not right in the head. Anyone who thinks this case will make it ok for a man to rape a woman who wears a thong, is not right in the head.

The most dangerous thing I've seen about this case. Is hearing people telling others not to report their sexual assault.

Lillybloom · 15-11-2018 10:29PM

batgoat wrote: »

So spurious evidence that can negatively impact the victim psychologically is all good? A rape trial is traumatic for the victim in its own right so allow unnecessary humiliation and trauma to the trial is not okay. Worth checking the piece that was linked to btw.

Evidence which can affect the probabilty of events having occured should be allowed regardless of the difficulty it causes.

Should we ignore a person's google search history because it contains embarrasing evidence which could affect the outcome of a trial.

LLMMLL · 15-11-2018 10:32PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Could you explain to me what you feel is wrong with the defence presenting that argument as a reasonable assumption? The way people dress themselves it is often reasonable to assume they want to have sex. There’s nothing in that statement which implies that it is ever acceptable for anyone else to commit rape against that person for any reason.

It's really quite simple .

Given that a huge number of women wear thongs as their everyday underwear is is NOT a reasonable assumption that a woman wearing a tjong has any intent to have sex.

It's the definition of an unreasonable assumption.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-11-2018 10:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Could you explain to me what you feel is wrong with the defence presenting that argument as a reasonable assumption? The way people dress themselves it is often reasonable to assume they want to have sex. There’s nothing in that statement which implies that it is ever acceptable for anyone else to commit rape against that person for any reason.

It’s reasonable to assume that people are wearing underwear for their own comfort, people go commando for their own comfort too, an entirely reasonable assumption. It’s also a reasonable assumption that people are generally dressed the way they do in order to appeal to people who they want to find them sexually attractive. It’s also reasonable to assume that some people simply don’t care how they’re dressed. All reasonable assumptions, none of which indicates that a person wishes at any point to be raped.

By your trying to direct people’s attention away from that, you’ve actually causing them to focus on it more and ask why are you trying to direct their attention away from how a person is dressed, as though there is something wrong with assuming the way a person is dressed is an indication of plenty of things to other people. It’s an unreasonable rejection of reality which you’re asking people to accept because those assumptions don’t fit your narrative.

People are bombarded with sexualised images and messages every day in the same media that condemns people for making assumptions about people on the basis that they are fitting in with those sexualised images and messages they get from the same media.

What? Women wear red lip stick so they’re obviously promiscuous. Women wear short dresses so they’re looking for sex. Women wear high heels, they want to get laid. What about when a man is into something not conventionally sexy? Oh she was wearing a chunky knit polo neck your honor I just knew she was playing hard to get.
What if she does want to have sex, is that a blanket consent to any males that may attack her? “She was going to have sex with someone that night your honour, so why does it matter if it was me?”
Wearing a thong is not giving consent.

limnam · 15-11-2018 10:39PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This utterly ridiculous, any man who thinks it's ok to rape a woman because she was wearing a thong is not right in the head.

Where is this rubbish coming from.

Who said rape was ok?

no one.

He wasn't found guilty of rape thong or no bloody thong.

batgoat · 15-11-2018 10:40PM

Lillybloom wrote: »

Evidence which can affect the probabilty of events having occured should be allowed regardless of the difficulty it causes.

Should we ignore a person's google search history because it contains embarrasing evidence which could affect the outcome of a trial.

You deem it as okay but in all likelihood we will see changes that rightfully won't allow such situations in the future.

If a person kills themselves as a result of unnecessarily traumatising them. That's an example of a justice system failing and it does happen. There was no relevance to what type of underwear she was wearing. Underwear doesn't imply consent or a desire to have sex. A person wearing a thong, I don't view it's more probable that they want to have sex. I would say puritanical viewpoints are more likely to result in that view than anything else.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 10:40PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It would only have value in providing for a reasonable assumption if that underwear was exclusively or mostly worn by women intending to have sex. This thread has shown that is not the case.

Let me try again. Would you assume that most times a woman wears a thong she is intending to have sex? If the answer is no (as we all know it is) then it would be UNreasonable to assume that the wearing of a thong is evidence of intent to have sex. And if it's an unreasonable assumption in everyday life, it's an even more unreasonable assumption Ina court of law.

Your argument is gone to shìt on that basis alone. I would assume that, and I would assume plenty more, and in none of those assumptions is any assumption that she (or indeed he) would want to be raped.

Again there are plenty of rules and restrictions surrounding what both the defense and prosecution can use as evidence. This is not for the jury to determine, or the prosecution. It's up to a combination of the state, the courts system, precedent, and ultimately the trial judge.

The defendant shouldn't get EVERY opportunity to defend themselves. They should get every opportunity consistent with rules surrounding evidence and court procedures.

Underwear as evidence of sexual intent should most certainly not be allowed as part of that.

And in this case, her underwear met all the criteria you present above, ergo the idea that it should not be used as evidence of sexual intent to demonstrate that the defendant could have been of the reasonable and honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is an entirely valid argument. It would be the same if the evidence consisted of any evidence for why the defendant was of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual based upon an infinite number of criteria. In this case, it just so happened to be the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter was presented as evidence that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was also reasonable.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 10:44PM

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

What? Women wear red lip stick so they’re obviously promiscuous. Women wear short dresses so they’re looking for sex. Women wear high heels, they want to get laid. What about when a man is into something not conventionally sexy? Oh she was wearing a chunky knit polo neck your honor I just knew she was playing hard to get.
What if she does want to have sex, is that a blanket consent to any males that may attack her? “She was going to have sex with someone that night your honour, so why does it matter if it was me?”
Wearing a thong is not giving consent.

No, it’s not, and I never said that it was.

Sweetemotion · 15-11-2018 10:44PM

limnam wrote: »

Where is this rubbish coming from.

Who said rape was ok?

no one.

He wasn't found guilty of rape thong or no bloody thong.

That's some nice cherry picking you have done there.

limnam · 15-11-2018 10:45PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's some nice cherry picking you have done there.

I can't pick it if you don't say it.

Sweetemotion · 15-11-2018 10:46PM

limnam wrote: »

I can't pick it if you don't say it.

Read it again.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-11-2018 10:46PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes I agree in some cases the man may genuinely believe he had consent and so in law it was not rape.
But in other cases rape in law did take place and just can't be proved. Such a man would also be found 'not guilty'.

I agree, many rapes have occured, and there was no conviction for one reason or another.
However, its dangerous to assume an acquitted defendant "got off" due to insufficient evidence,

LLMMLL · 15-11-2018 10:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your argument is gone to shìt on that basis alone. I would assume that, and I would assume plenty more, and in none of those assumptions is any assumption that she (or indeed he) would want to be raped.

I didn't say anything about anyone assuming she would want to be raped. But your assumption that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex is unreasonable and quite frankly bizarre.

And in this case, her underwear met all the criteria you present above, ergo the idea that it should not be used as evidence of sexual intent to demonstrate that the defendant could have been of the reasonable and honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is an entirely valid argument. It would be the same if the evidence consisted of any evidence for why the defendant was of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual based upon an infinite number of criteria. In this case, it just so happened to be the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter was presented as evidence that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was also reasonable.

We actually have no idea whether the evidence met all the criteria I stated.

As far as I'm aware we don't know if the trial judge made any direction after the closing statement though it seems he or she did not. If it's the case that the trial judge did not, we do not know if that is consistent with precedent or law etc. Or an error on the judges part.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it was completely at the discretion of the trial judge, I am saying that this should be changed, whether that be through legislation or guidelines or whatever method the legal system finds best suited to prevent this situation from ever occurring again.

limnam · 15-11-2018 10:50PM

Sammber wrote: »

edit sorry meant clare daily, absolutely disgusting low cut tops
ewwwww

Ah she's lovely.

batgoat · 15-11-2018 10:53PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't say anything about anyone assuming she would want to be raped. But your assumption that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex is unreasonable and quite frankly bizarre.

We actually have no idea whether the evidence met all the criteria I stated.

As far as I'm aware we don't know if the trial judge made any direction after the closing statement though it seems he or she did not. If it's the case that the trial judge did not, we do not know if that is consistent with precedent or law etc. Or an error on the judges part.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it was completely at the discretion of the trial judge, I am saying that this should be changed, whether that be through legislation or guidelines or whatever method the legal system finds best suited to prevent this situation from ever occurring again.

I'm not really surprised by the poster's view unfortunately. In terms of how we handle rape trials, I'd suspect we need to start looking at other jurisdictions to see how we can improve our system. The likes of the rape crisis center have highlighted issues with how they're conducted in general. Eg 1 in 3 trials results in going over a victims sexual history.

Mrsmum · 15-11-2018 10:57PM

nullzero wrote: »

My point is that it cuts both ways.
A man could be under the impression that consent was given in a situation and be found guilty of rape.
Not all men are bad and not all women are good and vice versa.

Yes there are all sorts of possibilities. I was responding to a poster who seems to be consistently saying if rape isn't proved, it didn't happen and that's not necessarily true at all.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 11:07PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't say anything about anyone assuming she would want to be raped. But your assumption that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex is unreasonable and quite frankly bizarre.

I’m qualifying that there is a whole world of a difference between wanting to have sex, and rape. You’re attempting to play down the significance of lacy thongs in sexual encounters and I find that entirely disingenuous, because there is fcukall wrong with someone wearing a lacy thong in the pursuit of a sexual encounter. According to you that’s an unreasonable assumption. I know it’s difficult, but try and see past yourself for two minutes and imagine that people choose to wear certain clothes because they want to project a certain image of themselves. If that still sounds unreasonable to you, then fair enough. I’ll park it there.

We actually have no idea whether the evidence met all the criteria I stated.

As far as I'm aware we don't know if the trial judge made any direction after the closing statement though it seems he or she did not. If it's the case that the trial judge did not, we do not know if that is consistent with precedent or law etc. Or an error on the judges part.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it was completely at the discretion of the trial judge, I am saying that this should be changed, whether that be through legislation or guidelines or whatever method the legal system finds best suited to prevent this situation from ever occurring again.

It is ultimately as you said earlier at the discretion of the trial judge and is deliberated over before any trial even commences. There is no way to prevent situations like this from occurring again because in criminal trials where the defendant is on trial accused of rape, the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time the alleged offence was committed, will generally be considered relevant evidence for the defendant.

The only reason any argument which refers to the defendants underwear in evidence is argued against, is specifically because of the context in which it is presented by the defence. That’s not compelling enough reason to argue that it should be considered irrelevant in a case where the defendant is on trial accused of rape.

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 11:10PM

batgoat wrote: »

I'm not really surprised by the poster's view unfortunately. In terms of how we handle rape trials, I'd suspect we need to start looking at other jurisdictions to see how we can improve our system. The likes of the rape crisis center have highlighted issues with how they're conducted in general. Eg 1 in 3 trials results in going over a victims sexual history.

Yes, after a Section 3 application is made in which it is argued that the complainants sexual history is relevant.

retro:electro · 15-11-2018 11:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In this case, it just so happened to be the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter was presented as evidence that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was also reasonable.

But you’re asking the jury to consider the possibility that the underwear the plaintiff had on could have, in a pre-meditated way, informed her decision to have sex hours later that night. Surely that is absolutely no one’s business to answer only the woman who put them on? You are asking a group of strangers to make that decision on the behalf of someone else, it cannot be done. There is no way anyone could ever reasonably answer that, it is pointless, futile and judgemental rubbish.
All it concedes to do is make it even harder for victims of rape to take a case to court, because on top of being probed, examined, dissected physically, mentally and emotionally in a system where I feel like it’s not even worth it, I now have to consider whether the ****ing knickers I put on hours before will be used against me to justify how much I wanted it.

limnam · 15-11-2018 11:17PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I now have to consider whether the ****ing knickers I put on hours before will be used against me to justify how much I wanted it.

Piles, you should also consider piles. Apparently thongs can be a cause of great pain.

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2018 11:21PM

Hurrache wrote: »

Is your masculinity threatened by every woman, or just ones that talk?

Criticizing feminists =/= criticizing all women. Lazy, but predictable, ad hominem reply.

Outlaw Pete won't be happy with you, a woman, leaping to his defence though.

Speak for yourself please and I'm not sure what's rankling you anyway as I have condemned the solicitor's remarks and the judge for allowing them:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore the solicitor.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an appeal for a mistrial is lodged.

LLMMLL · 15-11-2018 11:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m qualifying that there is a whole world of a difference between wanting to have sex, and rape. You’re attempting to play down the significance of lacy thongs in sexual encounters and I find that entirely disingenuous, because there is fcukall wrong with someone wearing a lacy thong in the pursuit of a sexual encounter. According to you that’s an unreasonable assumption. I know it’s difficult, but try and see past yourself for two minutes and imagine that people choose to wear certain clothes because they want to project a certain image of themselves. If that still sounds unreasonable to you, then fair enough. I’ll park it there.

Lol where did I say there is anything wrong with wearing Lacy thongs during a sexual encounter. This just gets more and more crazy.

I'm arguing against your assertion that it's REASONABLE to assume that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex.

What is your definition of test of the reasonableness of an assumption?

A pretty standard test would be whether your assumption generally proves to be true or has any predictive power, I.e. if I interviewed 100 women wearing thongs and asked them were they intending to have sex today and whether the thong was indicative of that. If most of them said yes I would agree that your assumption is reasonable.

However as this thread has shown most women seem to find it laughable (if it wasn't so tragic in this case) that their wearing of a thong has anything to do with sexual intent. The number one reason given has been comfort.

Unless you think all these women are lying, then this is clear evidence that your assumption is false.

Basically, if you assume that a woman in a thong intends to have sex in most cases you would be incorrect. How on Earth could anyone define an assumption that is wrong more often than it's right as reasonable. The mind truly boggles.

It is ultimately as you said earlier at the discretion of the trial judge and is deliberated over before any trial even commences. There is no way to prevent situations like this from occurring again because in criminal trials where the defendant is on trial accused of rape, the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time the alleged offence was committed, will generally be considered relevant evidence for the defendant.

The only reason any argument which refers to the defendants underwear in evidence is argued against, is specifically because of the context in which it is presented by the defence. That’s not compelling enough reason to argue that it should be considered irrelevant in a case where the defendant is on trial accused of rape.

You mean the context that the underwear is evidence of sexual intent? Yes I am arguing against that and I think that should be prevented, by whatever methods we have available to prevent that.

I'm not saying underwear can never be used, as forensic evidence for instance.

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2018 11:28PM

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

So not only are women to blame for their own rape, because they wore a thong, they should also be denied abortions from those rapes.

Not everyone who voted No has, or would have, an issue with abortion in cases of rape.

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Nothing wrong in any legal sense but it does show her opinion towards women, imo

Worth remembering: 50% of babies aborted will be female and so maybe don't be so quick to judge someone as not caring about females just because they wouldn't vote to make elective abortions legal.

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Women can hold whatever opinions they like as long as their opinion doesn’t interfere or damage another person.

Well then why are you prochoice? Cause it for sure interferes and damages other human beings, the ones that have their heartbeats stilled.

limnam · 15-11-2018 11:31PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

The number one reason given has been comfort.

Thongs and comfort.

Something doesn't add up here...

limnam · 15-11-2018 11:35PM

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Wearing a thong is not giving consent.

What if it's this one?

One eyed Jack · 15-11-2018 11:38PM

retro:electro wrote: »

But you’re asking the jury to consider the possibility that the underwear the plaintiff had on could have, in a pre-meditated way, informed her decision to have sex hours later that night. Surely that is absolutely no one’s business to answer only the woman who put them on? You are asking a group of strangers to make that decision on the behalf of someone else, it cannot be done. There is no way anyone could ever reasonably answer that, it is pointless, futile and judgemental rubbish.
All it concedes to do is make it even harder for victims of rape to take a case to court, because on top of being probed, examined, dissected physically, mentally and emotionally in a system where I feel like it’s not even worth it, I now have to consider whether the ****ing knickers I put on hours before will be used against me to justify how much I wanted it.

You’re asking a group of strangers to consider whether or not that belief is reasonable, as it goes to show the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual was reasonable. In a court of law where the complainant is claiming that they were raped by the defendant, then evidence like that is of course relevant.

I know that it makes it harder for victims of rape to make a complaint which could lead to a prosecution, or could lead to a trial which may not have the outcome they were hoping for, but that is entirely their responsibility. The law also has a responsibility towards the defendant in a criminal trial, and I’ve met many people who have been raped who don’t accept that.

I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone question whether they are responsible in any way for their being raped. The chances are your underwear you were wearing at the time would be used against you, and I don’t feel that people are ever sufficiently prepared for that inevitability. In those circumstances of course it can be difficult to trust that 12 complete strangers to you will be able to come to the same conclusions you do, but you’re not on trial as you aren’t being accused of having done any criminal wrongdoing. It’s always going to be the accused is on trial, and if I were on that jury, I would have found the barristers attempt to appeal to reason off-putting, rather than anything which would assist in her clients defence.

Mrsmum · 15-11-2018 11:59PM

One of the very common reasons women wear thongs is to hide a visible panti line. Ask any woman and she will agree. For instance when wearing trousers women don't want the world and his aunt to clearly see the shape of their knickers. For some this is because they don't think a vpl is a stylish look and for other women having a vpl is actually embarrassing as it is revealing their underwear even under clothes. So wearing a thong is the very opposite of sending forth messages of sexual intent. They are wearing thongs to hide their underwear and just have a smooth line to their outer clothing. Therefore it is absolutely ludicrous to me to have it used in court as if it always means being ready for sex.
Also can I just say if being dressed in a sexy or pretty way for sex is important to a particular woman, I can't square that with doing the big reveal in a muddy back alley where their impact is zero.

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 12:07AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol where did I say there is anything wrong with wearing Lacy thongs during a sexual encounter. This just gets more and more crazy.

I'm arguing against your assertion that it's REASONABLE to assume that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex.

What is your definition of test of the reasonableness of an assumption?

A pretty standard test would be whether your assumption generally proves to be true or has any predictive power, I.e. if I interviewed 100 women wearing thongs and asked them were they intending to have sex today and whether the thong was indicative of that. If most of them said yes I would agree that your assumption is reasonable.

However as this thread has shown most women seem to find it laughable (if it wasn't so tragic in this case) that their wearing of a thong has anything to do with sexual intent. The number one reason given has been comfort.

Unless you think all these women are lying, then this is clear evidence that your assumption is false.

Basically, if you assume that a woman in a thong intends to have sex in most cases you would be incorrect. How on Earth could anyone define an assumption that is wrong more often than it's right as reasonable. The mind truly boggles.

I don’t assume all these women are lying L, and I would base any assumptions I make on what appear to me to be reasonable grounds for making that assumption. One of the reasonable grounds on which I make that assumption is personal experience. The fact that your personal experiences may differ from mine inform what we believe to be reasonable assumptions. Your earlier assumption for example you predicted that I would agree with you, and you were wrong, but it was still a reasonable assumption to make and I wouldn’t criticise you for it as I know you and I don’t think the same way about a whole lot of things, so what appears to either of us to be reasonable assumptions to make about other people, are likely to be just as different as our differences of opinion.

You mean the context that the underwear is evidence of sexual intent? Yes I am arguing against that and I think that should be prevented, by whatever methods we have available to prevent that.

I'm not saying underwear can never be used, as forensic evidence for instance.

I guess I’m asking what do you feel is so fundamentally wrong with assuming that underwear is indicative of sexual intent? I can understand that it may well be humiliating for the complainant in a rape trial, I think we can agree that’s a reasonable assumption? My point is that if it wasn’t their underwear, it would simply be something else, and barristers would find all sorts of ways to push the envelope because that is what they do. Rather than shying away from comments like that, I say let them make them, and figuratively at least - give them enough rope to hang themselves. Comments like that generally don’t help their case, because they sound exactly as they are - the barrister making a moral judgement on the complainants sexual behaviour. It’s not an unreasonable assumption IMO to imagine that the members of the jury would have seen those comments the same way I do.

ceadaoin. · 16-11-2018 12:12AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

One of the very common reasons women wear thongs is to hide a visible panti line. Ask any woman and she will agree. For instance when wearing trousers women don't want the world and his aunt to clearly see the shape of their knickers. For some this is because they don't think a vpl is a stylish look and for other women having a vpl is actually embarrassing as it is revealing their underwear even under clothes. So wearing a thong is the very opposite of sending forth messages of sexual intent. They are wearing thongs to hide their underwear and just have a smooth line to their outer clothing. Therefore it is absolutely ludicrous to me to have it used in court as if it always means being ready for sex.
Also can I just say if being dressed in a sexy or pretty way for sex is important to a particular woman, I can't square that with doing the big reveal in a muddy back alley where their impact is zero.

This.I only wear thongs when I don't want a visible underwear line through my clothes. Seems like most of the people on here saying that wearing a thong means a woman wants sex or that thongs are associated with sex in the first place are men. Like is it so unthinkable that a woman might wear an item that men find sexy not for men at all, but for other reasons!

One eyed Jack · 16-11-2018 12:23AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This.I only wear thongs when I don't want a visible underwear line through my clothes. Seems like most of the people on here saying that wearing a thong means a woman wants sex or that thongs are associated with sex in the first place are men. Like is it so unthinkable that a woman might wear an item that men find sexy not for men at all, but for other reasons!

And yet it was a female who suggested it as a reasonable argument?

I just don’t get why you would think a handful of women on here should over-ride anyone else’s opinion based upon their personal experiences of women (or indeed men) who wear thongs and the reasons why they wear them. It’s like you can’t accept that people might have different reasons for doing things to your reasons for doing things. The fact that you wear thongs because you don’t want VPL only tells me something about you, it doesn’t tell me anything about anyone who is not you.