nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

'Gay' Mullingar chef convicted of rape

Soft Falling Rain

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-lured-lesbian-back-to-his-gay-flat-where-he-raped-her-30423668.html

I only heard about this now on the radio. Absolutely horrid stuff and I hope his victim finds peace in his conviction.

The thing I find so jarring though is that she trusted a stranger, simply because he claimed he was gay. As if being gay instantly nullified the guy as a threat in her mind.

Of course, this isn't 'victim blaming' on my part, the woman was in no way at fault. I just think it's an interesting premise to put to gay and straight men alike. I mean have ever come across this opinion before? That you are viewed as 'harmless' because of your sexuality, or because of how you're perceived to be (article alludes to the man being quiet and personality quickly changing)?

And for the ladies, how would you view such a situation, would you be more trusting of a stranger who simply claims to not be a threat? I think we've all gone back to a randomers house to keep the party going at one point, but never on our own.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

You're reading it completely wrong IMO. She did not "trust him because he was gay". She assumed that him being gay, and knowing that she was also gay, he was not interested in her and that therefore she wasn't giving him any indication that she would be sleeping with him if they went back to a party. That's an entirely different situation to trusting she would not be raped because of his sexual orientation. I doubt the thoughts of being raped even entered her head at all - why would they? Gay or straight I wouldn't think that a man was going to rape me.

Muise...

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-lured-lesbian-back-to-his-gay-flat-where-he-raped-her-30423668.html

I only heard about this now on the radio. Absolutely horrid stuff and I hope his victim finds peace in his conviction.

The thing I find so jarring though is that she trusted a stranger, simply because he claimed he was gay. As if being gay instantly nullified the guy as a threat in her mind.

Of course, this isn't 'victim blaming' on my part, the woman was in no way at fault. I just think it's an interesting premise to put to gay and straight men alike. I mean have ever come across this opinion before? That you are viewed as 'harmless' because of your sexuality, or because of how you're perceived to be (article alludes to the man being quiet and personality quickly changing)?

And for the ladies, how would you view such a situation, would you be more trusting of a stranger who simply claims to not be a threat? I think we've all gone back to a randomers house to keep the party going at one point, but never on our own.

I would trust my own instincts and while I would never assume rape as a possibility when meeting someone new, I wouldn't go off alone with them until we knew each other better. Poor lady in this case went expecting a party - I think that's where her guard was let down, not that he said he was gay. Bit in bold is a weird question -alarm bells would ring if someone actually told me they are not a threat - why would they say that?

fatknacker

He has a gay flat? Cool. How do you acquire a gay flat? Are flats generally hetero by default?

shruikan2553

fatknacker wrote: »

He has a gay flat? Cool. How do you acquire a gay flat? Are flats generally hetero by default?

It is tastefully decorated and not a mess.

Soft Falling Rain

Deleted User wrote: »

You're reading it completely wrong IMO. She did not "trust him because he was gay". She assumed that him being gay, and knowing that she was also gay, he was not interested in her and that therefore she wasn't giving him any indication that she would be sleeping with him if they went back to a party. That's an entirely different situation to trusting she would not be raped because of his sexual orientation. I doubt the thoughts of being raped even entered her head at all - why would they? Gay or straight I wouldn't think that a man was going to rape me.

I didn't mean trusting she wouldn't be raped, I just mean trusting full stop. The guy was seemingly on his own and she didn't see any of these supposed friends that were meant to be coming back to his.

It's just a dodgy situation, as I said I've gone back to randomers houses before but never on my own. I mean if I was on my own and another bloke asked me to came back to his for a few cans I'd be quite weary, as I wouldn't know him or what I was walking into.

I don't think that would be paranoid on my part, just keeping my guard up towards someone I simply don't know.

No Pants

fatknacker wrote: »

He has a gay flat? Cool. How do you acquire a gay flat? Are flats generally hetero by default?

They're a product of their environment.

floggg

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-lured-lesbian-back-to-his-gay-flat-where-he-raped-her-30423668.html

I only heard about this now on the radio. Absolutely horrid stuff and I hope his victim finds peace in his conviction.

The thing I find so jarring though is that she trusted a stranger, simply because he claimed he was gay. As if being gay instantly nullified the guy as a threat in her mind.

Of course, this isn't 'victim blaming' on my part, the woman was in no way at fault. I just think it's an interesting premise to put to gay and straight men alike. I mean have ever come across this opinion before? That you are viewed as 'harmless' because of your sexuality, or because of how you're perceived to be (article alludes to the man being quiet and personality quickly changing)?

And for the ladies, how would you view such a situation, would you be more trusting of a stranger who simply claims to not be a threat? I think we've all gone back to a randomers house to keep the party going at one point, but never on our own.

I read that very much as victim blaming to be honest.

Once you start questioning the mind set, judgment or actions of the victim you are victim blaming to some degree.

A girl should be able to walk naked into a prison full of sex starved inmates and not be raped. If she is, the fault is entirely with the rapist(s).

Soft Falling Rain

floggg wrote: »

I read that very much as victim blaming to be honest.

Once you start questioning the mind set, judgment or actions of the victim you are victim blaming to some degree.

A girl should be able to walk naked into a prison full of sex starved inmates and not be raped. If she is, the fault is entirely with the rapist(s).

You can read it as victim blaming if you want. You'd be wrong.

[Deleted User]

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I didn't mean trusting she wouldn't be raped, I just mean trusting full stop.

Where does it say she trusted him because he was gay?

And what is the point of this thread?

No Pants

Man lured lesbian back to his "gay" flat where he raped her

I read that headline on Friday morning and I wondered why the word lesbian was used. How was it relevant?

Spunge

The perfect alibi

Soft Falling Rain

Deleted User wrote: »

Where does it say she trusted him because he was gay?

And what is the point of this thread?

That is what happened though isn't it? Once he told her he was gay she went back to a stranger's apartment as she felt there were no sinister motives.

And I think I outlined clearly the point of the thread as I asked what other people would do in the situation. It's an honest question posed by someone who has a clean record on boards in case you're suggesting I'm trolling.

jellyboy

While the op is asking a question based o a headline/newspaper report

Lets not make this a "only women get raped" thread

its doing a huge disservice to People who have been abused on their healing path

and it reinforces the gender stereotyping that prevents people from seeking help or support

[Deleted User]

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

That is what happened though isn't it? Once he told her he was gay she went back to a stranger's apartment as she felt there were no sinister motives.

And I think I outlined clearly the point of the thread as I asked what other people would do in the situation. It's an honest question posed by someone who has a clean record on boards in case you're suggesting I'm trolling.

Were you there? I don't think you were. So you can't say that she trusted him because he was gay. He deceived her by telling her he was gay, so it's very relevant to the case to prove that he had every intention of raping her. However, to say that's the reason she trusted him is way beyond the information that is contained within that article. Perhaps it did lend some weight to his argument, she felt he would not be interested in her because he was gay and that made her feel at ease. But it really really isn't as simple as "she trusted him because he was gay", you can see that, surely?

I didn't suggest you were trolling at all. I asked what's the point of the thread? Is it to see if she's the only person who would go back to someone's house? To see if she's the only person to trust a person because of their sexual orientation?

A woman has been raped. What good can come of a thread which poses the question "what would you have done in the same situation"? I would suggest that no good can come of it. As much as you say that you are not victim blaming, asking these kind of questions, and suggesting that she should not have trusted the man, do in fact make rape victims question if they were in the wrong somehow which of course, they are not.

floggg

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

You can read it as victim blaming if you want. You'd be wrong.

You might not intend to, but by focusing on her choices or actions leading up to the rape and questioning the logic of them, you are doing so.

The inplication of this thread (whether intentional or otherwise) is that if she had made better judgments she wouldn't have been raped.

That is a form of victim blaming, whether you mean it to be or not.

The only judgments or actions we should be analysing are those of the rapist.

Birneybau

No Pants wrote: »

I read that headline on Friday morning and I wondered why the word lesbian was used. How was it relevant?

That's the only issue you had with it? No problem with 'gay flat'?

wilser

I thought she felt safe cos he was from Mullingar

Potatoeman

fatknacker wrote: »

He has a gay flat? Cool. How do you acquire a gay flat? Are flats generally hetero by default?

Maybe you can only enter it through the back door? :-)

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

You're reading it completely wrong IMO. She did not "trust him because he was gay". She assumed that him being gay, and knowing that she was also gay, he was not interested in her and that therefore she wasn't giving him any indication that she would be sleeping with him if they went back to a party. That's an entirely different situation to trusting she would not be raped because of his sexual orientation. I doubt the thoughts of being raped even entered her head at all - why would they? Gay or straight I wouldn't think that a man was going to rape me.

QFT.

Soft Falling Rain

Deleted User wrote: »

Were you there? I don't think you were. So you can't say that she trusted him because he was gay. He deceived her by telling her he was gay, so it's very relevant to the case to prove that he had every intention of raping her. However, to say that's the reason she trusted him is way beyond the information that is contained within that article. Perhaps it did lend some weight to his argument, she felt he would not be interested in her because he was gay and that made her feel at ease. But it really really isn't as simple as "she trusted him because he was gay", you can see that, surely?

I didn't suggest you were trolling at all. I asked what's the point of the thread? Is it to see if she's the only person who would go back to someone's house? To see if she's the only person to trust a person because of their sexual orientation?

A woman has been raped. What good can come of a thread which poses the question "what would you have done in the same situation"? I would suggest that no good can come of it. As much as you say that you are not victim blaming, asking these kind of questions, and suggesting that she should not have trusted the man, do in fact make rape victims question if they were in the wrong somehow which of course, they are not.

To say that I am victim blaming suggests I think the blame is in anyway with the woman. I do not think that it is. I do not think a woman who dresses a certain way is asking for it. I do not believe a woman is fair game when drunk. I do not in any way think someone is ever at fault when they are a victim of sexual assault. It's as simple as that.

But I believe that everyone should be mindful of themselves on nights out. I don't see the big deal in saying that as it's no different from what friends would say to each other or what a mother and father would say to their child.
I'm sorry if that comes across as judgemental.

Spunge

Deleted User wrote: »

Were you there? I don't think you were. So you can't say that she trusted him because he was gay. He deceived her by telling her he was gay, so it's very relevant to the case to prove that he had every intention of raping her. However, to say that's the reason she trusted him is way beyond the information that is contained within that article. Perhaps it did lend some weight to his argument, she felt he would not be interested in her because he was gay and that made her feel at ease. But it really really isn't as simple as "she trusted him because he was gay", you can see that, surely?

I didn't suggest you were trolling at all. I asked what's the point of the thread? Is it to see if she's the only person who would go back to someone's house? To see if she's the only person to trust a person because of their sexual orientation?

A woman has been raped. What good can come of a thread which poses the question "what would you have done in the same situation"? I would suggest that no good can come of it. As much as you say that you are not victim blaming, asking these kind of questions, and suggesting that she should not have trusted the man, do in fact make rape victims question if they were in the wrong somehow which of course, they are not.

Are you saying that encouraging women to be careful is victim blaming ?
Sounds like you cant say 2 words without victim blaming being thrown out. Sure, if youre referring to specific cases hindsight would not help the victim as whats done is done but maybe it would help other people in the future ?

floggg

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

To say that I am victim blaming suggests I think the blame is in anyway with the woman. I do not think that it is. I do not think a woman who dresses a certain way is asking for it. I do not believe a woman is fair game when drunk. I do not in any way think someone is ever at fault when they are a victim of sexual assault. It's as simple as that.

But I believe that everyone should be mindful of themselves on nights out. I don't see the big deal in saying that as it's no different from what friends would say to each other or what a mother and father would say to their child.
I'm sorry if that comes across as judgemental.

I agree in advising people to be cautious in any abstract/non-specific to any individual way.

But you are talking about a specific person who suffered a traumatic ordeal and questioning her choices. I don't think it's fair to her to debate whether others would have made different choices in her position.

People enter strangers homes, or allow strangers enter theirs everyday for countless reasons. Most people have an expectation of safety when they do so.

Without any of is being in this woman's shoes on that exact night I don't think it's right for us to comment, other than to condemn the rapist and offer our support to her.

Zillah

No Pants wrote: »

I read that headline on Friday morning and I wondered why the word lesbian was used. How was it relevant?

I think it shows a degree of premeditation on his part. He told her he was gay too, to try and create a rapport with her and to lure her into a trusting state.

Soft Falling Rain

floggg wrote: »

I agree in advising people to be cautious in any abstract/non-specific to any individual way.

But you are talking about a specific person who suffered a traumatic ordeal and questioning her choices. I don't think it's fair to her to debate whether others would have made different choices in her position.

People enter strangers homes, or allow strangers enter theirs everyday for countless reasons. Most people have an expectation of safety when they do so.

Without any of is being in this woman's shoes on that exact night I don't think it's right for us to comment, other than to condemn the rapist and offer our support to her.

But I am talking in an abstract and broad manner, that's why I said everyone needs to be mindful on nights out. Please do not think I am having a go or picking on this woman as that was absolutely not the intention.

I can accept that the creation of this thread wasn't well thought out, if mods wish to close it they can.

[Deleted User]

Spunge wrote: »

Are you saying that encouraging women to be careful is victim blaming ?
Sounds like you cant say 2 words without victim blaming being thrown out. Sure, if youre referring to specific cases hindsight would not help the victim as whats done is done but maybe it would help other people in the future ?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that questioning the motives and mindset of a woman who has been raped and asking the question "would you have done the same thing" is bordering on victim blaming. I'm aware that that was not the OP's intention, but asking a victim of rape why they made a particular choice does in fact imply that their choice was a contributing factor to their attack.

Floggg explains it well.

floggg wrote: »

I agree in advising people to be cautious in any abstract/non-specific to any individual way.

But you are talking about a specific person who suffered a traumatic ordeal and questioning her choices. I don't think it's fair to her to debate whether others would have made different choices in her position.

People enter strangers homes, or allow strangers enter theirs everyday for countless reasons. Most people have an expectation of safety when they do so.

Without any of is being in this woman's shoes on that exact night I don't think it's right for us to comment, other than to condemn the rapist and offer our support to her.

Medusa22

Well, for myself anyway I would let my guard down a bit more with a man who told me that he was gay. Simply because I wouldn't expect him to come onto me then. Actually, a couple of times in the past I have been convinced that a guy I was talking to was gay so I have been more relaxed with him, not wondering if I was leading them on in any way and then all of a sudden I'd find myself being kissed.

I learned my lesson after that

I'd be the first to admit that when I was single, after having too many drinks I occasionally did go back to a stranger's flat, however I would consider that irresponsible behaviour on my part. I don't think the victim went back to the guy's flat just because he said he was gay, she may have been more relaxed with him because she thought that he would have no reason to think that she would sleep with him and also because she thought that she was going to a party. In that sense, that he pretended to be gay may have played a certain part.

I certainly don't want to victim blame and I probably shouldn't speculate on the woman's reasons for going to his flat. That being said, I agree with the OP and I don't believe that the OP is victim blaming. I think that generally speaking you shouldn't go to a person's flat on your own if you don't know them. As a general guide for being mindful. I think it is an interesting discussion about how people may let their guard down if they assume that the person they are talking to is gay.

Maybe it is considered victim blaming but I just think it would be incredibly reckless for a woman to go into a men's prison naked, as another poster gave as an example.

Where do you drawn the line between victim blaming and just reckless behaviour? I also wouldn't suggest that someone should cross the road without looking, and of course the driver should be on the look-out, but is that victim blaming too if the person gets knocked down?

[Deleted User]

Medusa22 wrote: »

Where do you drawn the line between victim blaming and just reckless behaviour? I also wouldn't suggest that someone should cross the road without looking, and of course the driver should be on the look-out, but is that victim blaming too if the person gets knocked down?

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard. Seriously. You can't see the difference between a driver accidentally hitting a person who walks into the road, and someone who purposely rapes an entirely innocent person?

Man, if that's the kind of mindset rape victims have to face, is it any wonder the figures for reporting attacks is so low.

Medusa22

Deleted User wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard. Seriously. You can't see the difference between a driver accidentally hitting a person who walks into the road, and someone who purposely rapes an entirely innocent person?

Man, if that's the kind of mindset rape victims have to face, is it any wonder the figures for reporting attacks is so low.

I was referring to any kind of reckless behaviour. I am not of the opinion that what a woman wears or how she behaves has any bearing on whether she is raped or not or that she is somehow to blame.

However, if you do walk into a mens' prison naked then of course in an ideal world you would not be raped, but this is reality and it is sensible to take precautions and protect yourself. That is the point I was making.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard. Seriously. You can't see the difference between a driver accidentally hitting a person who walks into the road, and someone who purposely rapes an entirely innocent person?

Woefully silly comparison alright. I think there are two separate threads running through this. 1) blaming a victim, any victim, of any violent crime is a no no. Or bloody well should be. 2) taking sensible precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime. EG if someone walked drunk late at night through a very rough area wearing expensive gear, no way should he or she be blamed if they're attacked and mugged. The blame lies entirely with the person who purposely chooses to attack. However the victim was being irresponsible any which way you cut it as we don't live in anything approaching a perfect world.

Alright, however, the problem with applying this principle to rape is that in the majority of cases(this case being the perfect example) no such "sensible precautions" can be taken. To make a further analogy to other violent crimes, the vast majority of rapes are akin to walking down a "nice" street in broad daylight, minding your own business and a bloke just runs up and punches you in the face. Date rapes where drink is involved can be a grey area though.

long range shooter

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It is tastefully decorated and not a mess.

and a bisexual flat then