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

Why do some men commit rape?

1…6791112…20

Comments

  • #242
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Maguined wrote: »
    If you want to discuss Tritiums points then quote him and reply to him but this is just getting messy if you want to quote me (in response to Orgasphon) but are actually discussing Tritiums points which are unrelated to what I said (in response to Orgasphon).

    It will just mire the discussion in confusion.

    Will do. Btw, his lawsuit is twofold. If title such and such violates constitutional rights, then he wins that part. But it doesn't mean no crime was committed.


  • #243
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    smash wrote: »
    I'd like to congratulate NI24 for turning this thread in to a complete mess... :rolleyes:

    /slow clap

    Ah, silly old me actually looking at the facts and pointing out the flaws in a supposed piece of journalism. How dare I!


  • #244
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Lemming wrote: »
    I think you'll find that US campuses are terrified of losing their federal funding which was a direct threat leveled at them for failing to comply with the remarkably wooly, vague, and abstract directive that is Title IX put before them. Thus a) the bar for investigation & due process is incredibly low so as to be seen to be doing something and b) it encourages "results" for the sake of being seem to be doing something rather than doing it right.

    So yes, the college authorities literally are covering their asses.

    Ok now I see what he's saying. If that is what they're doing than that's not only unfortunate, but illegal. I didn't realize funding was dependent on the amount of crimes it exposed.


  • #245
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    NI24 wrote: »
    Ok now I see what he's saying. If that is what they're doing than that's not only unfortunate, but illegal. I didn't realize funding was dependent on the amount of crimes it exposed.

    Drop the sarcasm. I never said it was dependent on numbers; I said it was dependent on their being seen to be complying with Title IX (or failing to in that regard).

    The colleges have not been issued any guidance on what constitutes failure to comply nor on how to approach dealing with Title IX, simply that failure (or being seen to fail at any rate) would result in federal funding being withdrawn.

    The result has been throwing male students under a proverbial bus under the most dubious of circumstances whilst reducing what is a serious crime into a petty blogging scandal. The whole approach by college campuses utterly trivialises what rape is and sends out the wrong message; on the seriousness of the crime, that it's not a crime so the police wont be involved, and that the bar of evidence is so low that you can destroy someone else's life literally on accusation alone if you are the right gender.


  • #246
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    NI24 wrote: »
    Will do. Btw, his lawsuit is twofold. If title such and such violates constitutional rights, then he wins that part. But it doesn't mean no crime was committed.

    No of course not. Sure crimes get committed all the time but without prove there is no conviction. If he was convicted of this crime in a court of law he would not be able to sue. However he is allowed sue because there was no complaint made to the police, that would require the woman to press charges which she has not as she considers it consensual.

    There are literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing right now over students suspended from college due to Title IX resulting in their due process being denied.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    NI24 wrote: »
    Ah, silly old me actually looking at the facts and pointing out the flaws in a supposed piece of journalism. How dare I!

    You're not looking at the facts, you're picking apart an article to find anything to suit your agenda and allocate blame.


  • #248
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Maguined wrote: »
    No of course not. Sure crimes get committed all the time but without prove there is no conviction. If he was convicted of this crime in a court of law he would not be able to sue. However he is allowed sue because there was no complaint made to the police, that would require the woman to press charges which she has not as she considers it consensual.

    I don't think that's necessarily true. If the school launches its own investigation and finds evidence of a crime, then I think they have the authority to hand it over to police and the police are required to follow through. I know that in domestic abuse cases, if a third party calls in the crime, and there is evidence of abuse, someone has to go to jail.


  • #249
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    smash wrote: »
    You're not looking at the facts, you're picking apart an article to find anything to suit your agenda and allocate blame.

    Her recollection of events and subsequent statement to investigators is indeed fact. Their contrary version of events is fact. So much so that it was pointed out in the article. So save the blame for yourself.


  • #250
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    NI24 wrote: »
    Ok now I see what he's saying. If that is what they're doing than that's not only unfortunate, but illegal. I didn't realize funding was dependent on the amount of crimes it exposed.

    That is why there are hundreds of students suing colleges because it is illegal. The problem is that Title IX is not a new law. It is an old law from the 70's that was introduced to stop gender discrimination. However it's use was reinterpretted years ago as basically saying colleges were not supporting gender equality as women were being sexually assaulted on college so a threat as made that if a college failed to stem sexual assault they had failed their Title IX responsibilities and so the college would lose state funding.

    The preponderance of evidence was also then changed which is a violation of due process.


  • #251
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    NI24 wrote: »
    I don't think that's necessarily true. If the school launches its own investigation and finds evidence of a crime, then I think they have the authority to hand it over to police and the police are required to follow through. I know that in domestic abuse cases, if a third party calls in the crime, and there is evidence of abuse, someone has to go to jail.

    The college investigators will ask the victim if they want to involve the police. However even if the person does not and is not going to press for criminal charges the investigators still conclude their own investigation and as the preponderance of evidence is so low and they fear losing federal funding it is simply easier for them to assume people are guilty and suspend them.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,291 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    smash wrote: »
    I'd like to congratulate NI24 for turning this thread in to a complete mess... :rolleyes:

    /slow clap
    Dial that kinda thing back please. Attack the posts, not the poster.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #253
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Maguined wrote: »
    That is why there are hundreds of students suing colleges because it is illegal. The problem is that Title IX is not a new law. It is an old law from the 70's that was introduced to stop gender discrimination. However it's use was reinterpretted years ago as basically saying colleges were not supporting gender equality as women were being sexually assaulted on college so a threat as made that if a college failed to stem sexual assault they had failed their Title IX responsibilities and so the college would lose state funding.

    The preponderance of evidence was also then changed which is a violation of due process.

    Well all I can say to that is it's unfortunate that a law is being twisted and due process violated.
    Maguined wrote: »
    The college investigators will ask the victim if they want to involve the police. However even if the person does not and is not going to press for criminal charges the investigators still conclude their own investigation and as the preponderance of evidence is so low and they fear losing federal funding it is simply easier for them to assume people are guilty and suspend them.

    But if they don't want to press charges I believe the onus is still on the police to carry out an investigation.


  • #254
    ChampagnePop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭ChampagnePop


    Whats going on at the moment in the states in colleges is a joke, it's not fair on real victims or in the small number of falsely accused and expelled students


  • #255
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    NI24 wrote: »
    Well all I can say to that is it's unfortunate that a law is being twisted and due process violated.

    Well that is the problem when someone does something with the noblest of intentions (everyone would like there to be less sexual assaults) but with poor implementation.

    It is the exact same as what we did in Ireland regardng co-habitation laws. The government were getting pressured by the younger generations to allow same sex marriage but did not want to put it to a vote as they knew that would upset their older generation voters so brought in the co-habitation partnership laws which was fine in theory until people realised it was a opt-out situation rather than opt-in. If you are in a relationship with someone and live with them for 5 years you by default have all the obligations of marriage and you have to put in legal paperwork to avoid it.

    Noble intention of providing homosexual partnerships with the same legal safeties of marriage (though as a cowardly way to avoid actually allowing them to to het married) and then a few years later we got to vote on gay marriage and it passed anyway.
    NI24 wrote: »
    But if they don't want to press charges I believe the onus is still on the police to carry out an investigation.

    If a report is made to the police they will completely pursue an investigation but there is no onus on the victim to press charges. In this specific case if the college notified the police and the police asked the woman and she tells them she considered it consensual that would most likely be the end of it. The department of prosecutions would not have enough evidence to go to trial when the woman herself does not believe she was raped but considered it consensual.


  • #256
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Faith+1 wrote: »
    The question I'd like to ask is how women can falsely accuse a man of raping her and avoid a custodial sentence. That pisses me off

    What's also bad is the "listen and believe" campaign. Imagine that world.


  • #257
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Maguined wrote: »
    Well that is the problem when someone does something with the noblest of intentions (everyone would like there to be less sexual assaults) but with poor implementation.

    You're a kinder person than me if you think it's noble. I have no proof of my hunch on this matter so I will go no further.
    Maguined wrote: »
    If a report is made to the police they will completely pursue an investigation but there is no onus on the victim to press charges. In this specific case if the college notified the police and the police asked the woman and she tells them she considered it consensual that would most likely be the end of it. The department of prosecutions would not have enough evidence to go to trial when the woman herself does not believe she was raped but considered it consensual.

    Not necessarily. The police would ask her to explain step-by-step what happened that night and if her recollection of events is the same then that's cause for a conviction. That is, if they believe her and not him.


  • #258
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    NI24 wrote: »
    You're a kinder person than me if you think it's noble. I have no proof of my hunch on this matter so I will go no further.

    I do not believe how it has been enacted is noble, I believe the intentions were noble to begin with. They wanted to lessen sexual assault on campus which I do not think anyone would disagree with. They just screwed up how to actually implement a change that would help with that.
    NI24 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. The police would ask her to explain step-by-step what happened that night and if her recollection of events is the same then that's cause for a conviction. That is, if they believe her and not him.

    I simply do not believe there will ever be a conviction of rape where the alleged victim was capable of consent and as a witness testifies it was consent. If you can show me any conviction otherwise that is not based upon the incapacity to give consent then I will believe you.


  • #259
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    NI24 wrote: »
    I'm saying that consenting after the act of rape is committed is irrelevant. Once it's committed, that is the "salient point". Perhaps she said she didn't want to have sex, but she still wanted to fool around and then he penetrated her. She made her intentions clear, but qualified it with, hey, let's do other stuff, but he ignored that and penetrated her. He's still guilty of sexual impropriety in that scenario, which is probably why he was never charged. But this is merely speculation. We'd have to read her statements.
    That's a strawman argument, if ever I saw one. Nobody has attempted to say that she consented after the fact because that is not possible.
    NI24 wrote: »
    At what point she consented is what's being contested. The article does not provide that information.
    This timing issue is a red herring. Consent cannot be given afterwards. She said that she consented. If she consented, the consent had to have been given beforehand. There is no question of timing.
    NI24 wrote: »
    So if it's unlikely it isn't true? Sorry that doesn't cut it. Strange things happen, it could have happened here. Stockholm syndrome is unlikely, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. *Okay, I'm editing this part to say that if it's unlikely it's not proof of guilt, however, there may be more to her statement that made it likely. We simply don't know from the information provided in the article. Also, he was never charged with a crime, he was suspended from school.
    What you have written above is fiction, based on your own imagination. Men are rapists, women are victims. It's like a bad Swedish crime novel.


  • #260
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    That's a strawman argument, if ever I saw one. Nobody has attempted to say that she consented after the fact because that is not possible.


    This timing issue is a red herring. Consent cannot be given afterwards. She said that she consented. If she consented, the consent had to have been given beforehand. There is no question of timing.


    What you have written above is fiction, based on your own imagination. Men are rapists, women are victims. It's like a bad Swedish crime novel.

    Actually that is what she argues herself. She did not want to have unprotected sex, he penetrated her then immediately stopped then asked if he got protection would it be okay and she said she was fine and consented with it. She then continued to see him and had sex with him on other occassions after.

    The question of timing is completely important. NI24 believes he is automatically a rapist because he did penetrate her after she said no. The woman herself believes she can give consent because he stopped and got a condom so timing is everything.


  • #261
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Maguined wrote: »
    The question of timing is completely important. NI24 believes he is automatically a rapist because he did penetrate her after she said no. The woman herself believes she can give consent because he stopped and got a condom so timing is everything.

    But there cannot be an issue wrt timing of consent.

    She says that she consented. Therefore, she must have consented beforehand.

    I don't see any other way of reading this.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    But there cannot be an issue wrt timing of consent.

    She says that she consented. Therefore, she must have consented beforehand.

    I don't see any other way of reading this.

    She told him she did not want to have sex without protection. He penetrated her then immediately stopped and asked if he put on a condom would it be okay. She said yes giving consent and was fine with the incident. From a purely technical point of view he penetrated her when she said no as she didnt want to without protection so from NI24's point of view that is immediately rape and him stopping after the fact and the two of them consenting to protected sex is irrelevant. The second he penerated her he commmited rape and the woman then cannot retroactively consent to that fact.

    It is not a viewpoint I believe but the issue of timing is the crux of the matter.


  • #263
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Maguined wrote: »
    She told him she did not want to have sex without protection. He penetrated her then immediately stopped and asked if he put on a condom would it be okay. She said yes giving consent and was fine with the incident. From a purely technical point of view he penetrated her when she said no as she didnt want to

    If he penetrated her without consent, that's a whole new ballgame. That's not just a technical matter at all.

    She said that she consented. Consent cannot be given after the fact. Therefore, she must have consented before penetration. If the consent was not spoken, it must have been non verbal.

    If what she says is true, there is no other way of looking at it.


  • #264
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    If he penetrated her without consent, that's a whole new ballgame. That's not just a technical matter at all.

    She said that she consented. Consent cannot be given after the fact. Therefore, she must have consented before penetration. If the consent was not spoken, it must have been non verbal.

    If what she says is true, there is no other way of looking at it.

    Have you read the article?
    “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”


  • #265
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Maguined wrote: »
    Have you read the article?

    Are you trying to say that there was no non verbal consent even though the woman consented, just because non verbal consent is not mentioned in that statement?

    Grant Neal's account:
    She was very adamant in pulling me close and wanting me to have intercourse with her.


  • #266
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    Are you trying to say that there was no non verbal consent even though the woman consented, just because non verbal consent is not mentioned in that statement?
    Grant Neal's account:

    I am not saying what did or did not happen, according to her statement she verbally told him no to unprotected sex. According to her verbal non consent did happen.
    “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

    You said timing was not an issue but I believe it was. I do not believe she was raped because she herself states she does not believe she was raped. I believe what she herself but timing is certainly an issue in this case.


  • #267
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    "The law is an ass". Remember that phrase folks. It's there for a reason.

    I suspect that if this case were ever to see the inside of a court, it'd be thrown out in short order because the courts do not take a literal interpretation of the law (as to do so is impossible to legislate for). Not least because the woman in question herself is adamant that she was not raped and that she did consent to sex; just not unprotected sex and of which the accused immediate stopped and sought further consent and that both parties continued the encounter enthusiastically. Indeed, continued with further encounters on top of that.


  • #268
    Tipperary Fairy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭Tipperary Fairy


    Yeah, as I said pages ago, technically she was raped but most people would choose not to look at it that black and white.

    Just saw this -http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent - wtf


  • #269
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Tipperary Fairy wrote: »
    Yeah, as I said pages ago, technically she was raped but most people would choose not to look at it that black and white.

    Just saw this -http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/oral-sex-rape-ruling-tulsa-oklahoma-alcohol-consent - wtf

    I think the most pertinent part of the report is this
    But legal experts and victims’ advocates said they viewed the ruling as a sign of something larger: the troubling gaps that still exist between the nation’s patchwork of laws and evolving ideas about rape and consent.

    Basically the court appeared to do exactly what the law requires in judging this. However there's a gap in the law that this slipped through. Not a great situation tbh and one you'd hope will be quickly addressed.

    The last line of the quote above could (and probably should) however be applied as part of a much wider discussion about rape and consent, preferably one where a full range of voice are heard in an absence of emotive pleadings, as unfortunately doesn't appear to be the case on for example US campuses at present

    *its actually quite sad that both sides of the debate can find so much evidence to support the position that the law is unfair to them. We've ended up with an arms race of victimhood where everyone loses *


  • #270
    Tipperary Fairy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭Tipperary Fairy


    Yeah it's a matter of the law catching up, but you would like to think these gaps should be closed before it gets to this point.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Maguined wrote: »
    I am not saying what did or did not happen, according to her statement she verbally told him no to unprotected sex. According to her verbal non consent did happen.

    You said timing was not an issue but I believe it was. I do not believe she was raped because she herself states she does not believe she was raped. I believe what she herself but timing is certainly an issue in this case.

    Well, I don't see how we can put the matter any further, then. Each of us believes the other to be wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.


Advertisement