Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Times Article on Consent.

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    So what? What’s the point of this that keeps being brought up? A woman can be charged with aggravated sexual assault which carries the same maximum term as rape under section 4 - life imprisonment.

    then why aim consent classes at boys?
    Because biology. It is much easier for men to rape women or other men. Reflected in the huge discrepancy of numbers of men raped.

    I don't think it would be a bad idea though to have it for both as men can be raped too.


  • Options
    #123
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No he isn’t.





    I don’t think they had a point because their assumptions were based upon an entirely hypothetical scenario, it’s a terrible way to make a point as it’s not in any way tied to reality.





    Becoming pregnant isn’t a criminal offence, rape is.
    i said they were both risks. your killer arguments fail to hit the mark then they are aimed at a point no one made.


  • Options
    #124
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Everyone is held equally responsible for their own actions. If a woman accuses a man of rape, she is responsible for accusing him of rape. It’s a jury that determines whether or not he should be found guilty of rape.

    Um, no, you’re rather missing the point.

    simple way of looking at it: A and B have both been drinking heavily (well beyond capable of consent levels). A and B have sex.

    Has a crime been committed? If so by whom?


    Interestingly, the law actually, and often controversially actually gets this right in my view quite often. There’s been several high profile judgements that have skirted around actually answering the question but have acquitted the accused. Usually the idea that a drunken yes could still be valid then gets significant outrage. Indeed it’s sometimes a disconnect between judges view and the CPS/DPP /etc that’s leads to a trial in the first place.

    For what it’s worth I’m with the head of the met, Cressida Dick on this one, who got a lot of flack for stating that “‘A misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.’”


  • Options
    #125
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    then why aim consent classes at boys?


    Because of stupid threads like this that have grown men suggesting that women might accuse them of rape after sex so they’re the “real” victims in all this.

    FWIW, I think “consent classes” are a pointless exercise, and the attitudes of those boys in the article are exactly what I would expect - time wasting piss taking, rather than any genuine interest in the topic.


  • Options
    #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Because biology. It is much easier for men to rape women or other men. Reflected in the huge discrepancy of numbers of men raped.

    I don't think it would be a bad idea though to have it for both as men can be raped too.

    if rape is covering sexual contact where consent is unclear then there is literally zero difference between the genders in terms of ability to rape


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Because biology. It is much easier for men to rape women or other men. Reflected in the huge discrepancy of numbers of men raped.

    I don't think it would be a bad idea though to have it for both as men can be raped too.

    if rape is covering sexual contact where consent is unclear then there is literally zero difference between the genders in terms of ability to rape
    I don't agree at all with that. In fact it's a laughable suggestion that men are subject to the same levels as women. Maybe I am just biased.


  • Options
    #128
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    tritium wrote: »
    Um, no, you’re rather missing the point.

    simple way of looking at it: A and B have both been drinking heavily (well beyond capable of consent levels). A and B have sex.

    Has a crime been committed? If so by whom?


    Interestingly, the law actually, and often controversially actually gets this right in my view quite often. There’s been several high profile judgements that have skirted around actually answering the question but have acquitted the accused. Usually the idea that a drunken yes could still be valid then gets significant outrage. Indeed it’s sometimes a disconnect between judges view and the CPS/DPP /etc that’s leads to a trial in the first place.

    For what it’s worth I’m with the head of the met, Clarissa Dick on this one, who got a lot of flack for stating that “‘A misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.’”


    There’s no way to determine whether or not a crime has been committed on that basis alone. It’s like suggesting that if someone rapes someone and nobody finds out about it, does that mean the person wasn’t raped? Of course it doesn’t. It simply means that the person who was raped chose not to make a complaint against the person who raped them in order for that person to be held responsible for their actions.


  • Options
    #129
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    "Neil: Yeah, sure everyone drinks.
    Richie: I don’t drink.
    Gareth: Yeah, but we’re not trying to have sex with you, Richard!. [Room laughs menacingly. The boys stand up, push over chairs and sneeringly advance towards Elaine...]"


  • Options
    #130
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    Deleted User wrote: »
    if rape is covering sexual contact where consent is unclear then there is literally zero difference between the genders in terms of ability to rape

    "... and that is why she, in fact, raped me your Honour."


  • Options
    #131
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Because biology. It is much easier for men to rape women or other men. Reflected in the huge discrepancy of numbers of men raped.

    I don't think it would be a bad idea though to have it for both as men can be raped too.

    As an interesting aside, many years ago the cdc conducted a survey where they tried to ascertain how frequently people had been forced to have sexual against their will. They were stunned by the percentage of men who had been forced to penetrate by a female

    https://www.google.com/amp/time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/%3famp=true

    In a rather unfortunate decision this statistic was recategorised from rape to “forced to penetrate” and largely consigned to the appendices...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,351 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    I think the only way forward with this is to redefine the laws in Ireland.
    Include men/alcohol/etc. Have concent as clear cut as possible. Some may not like it.
    Teach consent as part of SPHE.
    Also get rid of Ritchie he isn't really liked by most lads. His main following is people who never heard of him until he started talking about consent.


  • Options
    #133
    judeboy101
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    James bond rules apply: "a thousand No's and one yes, means yes"


  • Options
    #134
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    "Johnny: Yeah but how are we meant to be sure?
    [Silence]
    Elaine: Anyone?
    Harry: You could ask them straight out if they’re up for it.
    Elaine: Yes! And don’t be afraid to be really specific. Communication is everything when it comes to consent."

    No one gets to 11/12 without knowing right and wrong. Could we dare to let them figure it out for themselves, like we did? You can't 'discuss' rape away, laws are there because people innately want to do destructive things.

    We will never know how many (if any) actual rapes are prevented by these conversations. Ah well, at least we can instill guilt in young people pursuing their sexualities. All the moral burdening of the Catholic Church without the possibility of redemption.


  • Options
    #135
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    There’s no way to determine whether or not a crime has been committed on that basis alone. It’s like suggesting that if someone rapes someone and nobody finds out about it, does that mean the person wasn’t raped? Of course it doesn’t. It simply means that the person who was raped chose not to make a complaint against the person who raped them in order for that person to be held responsible for their actions.

    You realize that someone doesn’t actually need to make a complaint for a rape charge to proceed right? Especially where drink is a factor? Ched Evans is possibly the most famous recent case in that regard


  • Options
    #136
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    I think the only way forward with this is to redefine the laws in Ireland.
    Include men/alcohol/etc. Have concent as clear cut as possible. Some may not like it.
    Teach consent as part of SPHE.
    Also get rid of Ritchie he isn't really liked by most lads. His main following is people who never heard of him until he started talking about consent.

    Yeah, you can fill out your SX-407c form and have it stamped by the Department of Romance before heading out. Leave the partner/s section blank if you're heading to Coppers.


  • Options
    #137
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    tritium wrote: »
    You realize that someone doesn’t actually need to make a complaint for a rape charge to proceed right? Especially where drink is a factor? Ched Evans is possibly the most famous recent case in that regard


    I do, and that has nothing to do with the question I asked, which I have to assume you chose not to give an opinion on.


  • Options
    #138
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    FWIW, I think “consent classes” are a pointless exercise, and the attitudes of those boys in the article are exactly what I would expect - time wasting piss taking, rather than any genuine interest in the topic.

    Fair play to the lads. Would you be interested in a discussion which outlines a harmful behavior you have no intention of ever engaging in?

    If you were forced to attend a domestic abuse meeting, how genuinely interested would you be in the topic? Never mind the inherent assumptions as to which side of the abuse you have been/would be on.


  • Options
    #139
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,351 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Undividual wrote: »
    Yeah, you can fill out your SX-407c form and have it stamped by the Department of Romance before heading out. Leave the partner/s section blank if you're heading to Coppers.

    Well it appears to be what some people want.
    The state might eventually agree to something similar. Not everybody will like it.
    Back in 1990's nobody would have imagined how Ireland would be like now.


  • Options
    #140
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I do, and that has nothing to do with the question I asked, which I have to assume you chose not to give an opinion on.

    You didn’t ask a question, you just avoided mine. Like, not subtly, not by raising an interesting counterpoint, just plain dodged it with a frankly nonsense reply...

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    There’s no way to determine whether or not a crime has been committed on that basis alone. It’s like suggesting that if someone rapes someone and nobody finds out about it, does that mean the person wasn’t raped? Of course it doesn’t. It simply means that the person who was raped chose not to make a complaint against the person who raped them in order for that person to be held responsible for their actions.

    Let’s break this stuff down so since you’re eager....

    1. You can absolutely decide if a crime has been committed. You simply consider the law and apply it. For example, if I substitute the following:
    two people A and B. A meets B and punches B in the face without provocation. Has a crime been committed?

    Most people would say that’s pretty easy. You actually have to really work at making up scenarios that devote from the obvious answer. My original question is similar....

    2. You’re really going to have to explain how your hypothetical situation there is anything remotely close to the scenario I posed- like within say a light year. Cause the analogy is a bit bonkers....

    3. And I covered the complaint bit already....


  • Options
    #141
    Hoboo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    So what? What’s the point of this that keeps being brought up? A woman can be charged with aggravated sexual assault which carries the same maximum term as rape under section 4 - life imprisonment.

    Why bring it up? Because another poster made the point that two teenagers can have consensual sex, wake up and regret it, yet only one person, the boy, can be possibly charged with rape.

    You said that's not true. But it is!

    A woman can only be charged with aggrevated sexual assualt if there is penetration with an object.

    Unless she penetrated him with an object she has nothing to answer for.

    So that's what. You're trying to argue a point that had nothing to do with a post that you said was incorrect. You were wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Well it appears to be what some people want.
    The state might eventually agree to something similar. Not everybody will like it.
    Back in 1990's nobody would have imagined how Ireland would be like now.

    How is Ireland now? I don't see a huge difference in young people now and then.

    This seems to me to be the progressive equivalent of those abstinence speakers we had in school. Also, why was this discussion only given to boys? Would love to hear female opinions on verbal mutual consent, false accusations and whether men can be forced.


  • Options
    #143
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Undividual wrote: »
    Fair play to the lads. Would you be interested in a discussion which outlines a harmful behavior you have no intention of ever engaging in?

    If you were forced to attend a domestic abuse meeting, how genuinely interested would you be in the topic? Never mind the inherent assumptions as to which side of the abuse you have been/would be on.


    I don’t see what fair play to them is about, far better that they just wouldn’t waste everyone’s time with something they had absolutely no interest in.

    In the same way, no, I wouldn’t be interested in attending a domestic abuse meeting when I knew it was going to be a complete waste of my time.

    I don’t see any reason to try giving young boys or young girls for that matter, the impression that either young boys are danger to them as the director of the RCNI tried to do recently, or conversely that young girls are a danger to boys as some posters here are attempting to do, because neither perspective is an accurate representation of reality.


  • Options
    #144
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,646 ✭✭✭storker


    I thought Shane had a good attitude...his highlighting of non-verbal cues suggests that he is focused (or planning to be) on his partner's reactions and not just spoken words, suggesting that he'd be capable of hearing a "no" without needing to have it said.


  • Options
    #145
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I don’t see what fair play to them is about, far better that they just wouldn’t waste everyone’s time with something they had absolutely no interest in.

    In the same way, no, I wouldn’t be interested in attending a domestic abuse meeting when I knew it was going to be a complete waste of my time.

    I don’t see any reason to try giving young boys or young girls for that matter, the impression that either young boys are danger to them as the director of the RCNI tried to do recently, or conversely that young girls are a danger to boys as some posters here are attempting to do, because neither perspective is an accurate representation of reality.

    Waste everyone's time!??! THEIR time was being wasted! They didn't organize these speakers! They were being forced to attend a discussion about consent (the lack of which is rape) aimed at an exclusively male audience! Amazing to me that that is how you view this. I would hope my child was outraged at being subjected to this crap.

    If I was one of their parents, I'd have sat in the room with them and challenged them on their nonsense. Telling how they don't engage with the valid concerns of the boys. They were only there to impose their 'verbal' consent agenda.


  • Options
    #146
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,351 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Undividual wrote: »
    How is Ireland now? I don't see a huge difference in young people now and then.

    This seems to me to be the progressive equivalent of those abstinence speakers we had in school. Also, why was this discussion only given to boys? Would love to hear female opinions on verbal mutual consent, false accusations and whether men can be forced.

    Well I my opinion attitudes towards homosexuality, divorce, women in the work place, men being fathers, attitudes regarding sex, etc all have changed in Ireland a lot over the last few decades and other counties.
    Well in this case it was an all boys school from what I know. But from I see in general they are mainly aimed at teenager boys.
    I think these classes should be done for both teenage boys/girls if they are to be given.


  • Options
    #147
    Undividual
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Well I my opinion attitudes towards homosexuality, divorce, women in the work place, men being fathers, attitudes regarding sex, etc all have changed in Ireland a lot over the last few decades and other counties.
    Well in this case it was an all boys school from what I know. But from I see in general they are mainly aimed at teenager boys.
    I think these classes should be done for both teenage boys/girls if they are to be given.

    I know what you mean. My view is that generally people should stay out of other peoples' sexualities. Let s/he who is without perversion cast the first stone.


  • Options
    #148
    orourkeda1977
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭orourkeda1977


    Just have a good ****.


  • Options
    #149
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Undividual wrote: »
    Waste everyone's time!??! THEIR time was being wasted! They didn't organize these speakers! They were being forced to attend a discussion about consent (the lack of which is rape) aimed at an exclusively male audience! Amazing to me that that is how you view this. I would hope my child was outraged at being subjected to this crap.

    If I was one of their parents, I'd have sat in the room with them and challenged them on their nonsense. Telling how they don't engage with the valid concerns of the boys. They were only there to impose their 'verbal' consent agenda.


    I don’t see a whole lot to be amazed about tbh. Don’t get me wrong, I actually genuinely do understand where you’re coming from and exactly why you’d be, dare I say it, outraged. I also understand where they’re coming from in attempting to shove their agenda down the throats of a captive audience.

    I just have more faith in young people than to take such nonsense seriously, when their reality is that they aren’t in any danger whatsoever from each other, and so they simply can’t relate either to people saying they could be raped, or find themselves accused of rape. That’s why I simply wouldn’t be worried about my child being exposed to that nonsense, because like the boys in that class, he has more sense than to be offended by it.


  • Options
    #150
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,351 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Undividual wrote: »
    I know what you mean. My view is that generally people should stay out of other peoples' sexualities. Let s/he who is without perversion cast the first stone.

    I'd have a similar opinion in some ways.
    I am hated by some people on here.
    I have heard some feminist journalist at times say stuff a long the lines of . No women would wanted to be treated like this/etc. in my opinion they shouldn't be telling women what kind of sex is right/wrong.
    So a little part of me is saying give them what they want and see how they and the generally public like it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Undividual wrote: »
    Waste everyone's time!??! THEIR time was being wasted! They didn't organize these speakers! They were being forced to attend a discussion about consent (the lack of which is rape) aimed at an exclusively male audience! Amazing to me that that is how you view this. I would hope my child was outraged at being subjected to this crap.

    If I was one of their parents, I'd have sat in the room with them and challenged them on their nonsense. Telling how they don't engage with the valid concerns of the boys. They were only there to impose their 'verbal' consent agenda.

    The funny thing is, when you strip away some of the messing that was going on, a room full of teenage boys at many points actually showed a far greater appreciation for the complexity of the concept than the people sent to “educate” them


Advertisement