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

Thongs = Consent

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,180 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Emme wrote: »
    That comment seemed unprofessional.

    There was a long debate here about the Belfast rape case and the verdict. There was a table in one of the threads (I can't find it) which outlined the several different steps or grey areas between guilty beyond reasonable doubt and not guilty. Apparently a rapist would have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted. However there are several grey areas in between "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and "not guilty". I am not a legal professional, perhaps a solicitor could provide a link to that table.

    It is horrific to think that a barrister, a supposedly educated woman, would make a remark in court about a teenager's lacy thong. Many young girls and women wear skimpy underwear for the fun of it and not because they want to have sex. I presume this woman doesn't have daughters.

    The barristers Job is to ger the client off.( that in itself sounds wrong).

    So by raising doubt it’s actually very professional. I don’t agree but that’s how defendants barristers work


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ted1 wrote: »
    The barristers Job is to ger the client off.( that in itself sounds wrong).

    So by raising doubt it’s actually very professional. I don’t agree but that’s how defendants barristers work

    There are rules around victim blaming already in rape cases, eg past sexual history of the victim etc. So the idea that everything is fair game to get the defendant off is not correct.

    I imagine this will have some impact on the Law Reform Society's current review of how rape cases are conducted in Ireland, which was kicked off by the Belfast rape case earlier this year.

    And rightly so as this line of questioning helps perpetuate the common and extremely damaging myth that what women wear has an impact on whether they consented or were 'asking for it'.

    Exhibitions like this one in Brussels try to dispel it:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42633751


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭woodchuck


    There's a story about it in the Irish Times this morning:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rally-against-victim-blaming-organised-after-thong-claim-in-rape-trial-1.3695306

    I didn't follow the case so I wouldn't assume to pass judgement on the man involved, but I really thought we were long past using a womans choice of clothing as evidence in trials.

    I wear a thong 99% of the time. I've just always found them more comfortable (call me mad!). I have a fair few black ones too, partially because I'm terrible at doing white washes so paler colours go funny colours on me. To think that my everyday choice of underwear could be used against me if something like this were to happen is shocking to say the least.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    It’s just so bonkers and irrelevant to mention the type of underwear the woman was wearing.

    Like, lots of people like to wear nice underwear out because, yeah, an intimate situation might arise. But wearing said nice underwear doesn’t mean you are consenting to everyone. It means that if you do meet somebody you like for horizontal fun, you look your best.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Macha wrote: »
    There are rules around victim blaming already in rape cases, eg past sexual history of the victim etc. So the idea that everything is fair game to get the defendant off is not correct.


    To be honest, the way I read ted’s post it was in the context of what legal arguments could be presented, not that everything is fair game at all. There aren’t any rules around victim blaming because they are always the alleged victim, or the complainant, or the witness. There is such a thing as a Section 3 application alright where a complainants previous sexual history can be introduced into evidence provided it can be shown to be relevant, and the line of questioning must only apply to the specific circumstances outlined in the application.

    I imagine this will have some impact on the Law Reform Society's current review of how rape cases are conducted in Ireland, which was kicked off by the Belfast rape case earlier this year.


    I don’t imagine it will have any impact at all, notwithstanding the fact that the review undertaken by the Law Reform Commission had nothing whatsoever to do with the case in Belfast -


    The Government decided in 2017 to ask the commission to investigate the honest belief issue at a time when it was introducing the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, which made significant reforms in the area of consent.

    And rightly so as this line of questioning helps perpetuate the common and extremely damaging myth that what women wear has an impact on whether they consented or were 'asking for it'.


    How exactly? I’m asking genuinely for you to explain how you make the link between questions regarding evidence presented in a Court of Law, and your own assertion that it somehow perpetuates this myth? They’re two completely different contexts. Already in this thread there have been a number of posts attempting to disassociate styles of underwear from anything remotely sexual as though this is an unreasonable association. However, given how common the association actually is I would say the concerted attempts to disassociate underwear from anything remotely sexual are unreasonable, particularly when they are presented in a completely different context which has nothing to do with the evidence presented in a criminal trial.

    None of that however, has anything to do with the particular circumstances in a criminal trial where the defendant is accused of rape, and the clothing the alleged victim and the defendant were wearing at the time is often presented in evidence, unless it would be prejudicial to the defendants right to a fair trial, such as the way the photos of the blood stained sheets were excluded from evidence in the case in Belfast as they would have been prejudicial to the defendants right to a fair trial.

    If anyone were to be held responsible for focusing voyeuristic people’s minds on the salacious details of any criminal trial where the defendants are on trial accused of committing rape or sexual assault, and the details gleaned and presented about the alleged victim, then it is the media and lobbyists should be held responsible for perpetuating myths and stereotypes about rape.

    Exhibitions like this one in Brussels try to dispel it:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42633751


    I don’t see how that’s dispelling any myths about rape to be honest. To me it just looks like exhibitionism appealing to voyeurism.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    [QUOTE=One eyed

    How exactly? I’m asking genuinely for you to explain how you make the link between questions regarding evidence presented in a Court of Law, and your own assertion that it somehow perpetuates this myth? They’re two completely different contexts. Already in this thread there have been a number of posts attempting to disassociate styles of underwear from anything remotely sexual as though this is an unreasonable association. However, given how common the association actually is I would say the concerted attempts to disassociate underwear from anything remotely sexual are unreasonable, particularly when they are presented in a completely different context which has nothing to do with the evidence presented in a criminal trial.[/QUOTE]

    Underwear can be sexy, it can be worn with intention of having sex but that doesn't mean that every person wearing sexy underwear wants to have sex. It's a logical fallacy and used only to insinuate something that can't be proven with the type of underwear. You can argue probability but when I was in my 20's thongs were worn by everyone in my age group. Does that mean we all wanted to have sex all the time? And there is real problem with trying to create the impression about alleged victim's morals by their clothing. It can be even worse, there was a famous Italian rape case that went to supreme court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim_Day

    I don't blame the barrister because their duty is to defendant but judges should be able to caution them and dismiss arguments that are based on innuendo.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    I don’t see how that’s dispelling any myths about rape to be honest. To me it just looks like exhibitionism appealing to voyeurism.
    You don't see how an exhibition that shows that rape victims wear ordinary clothes when they're raped, not revealing, 'sexy' clothes like say, lacy black thongs helps dispel the myth that revealing clothing leads to rape?

    And you consider an exhibition of clothes donated by actual rape victims in an effort to dispel this myth and address the guilt that many rape victims feel in somehow feeling responsible for their attack 'appealing to voyeurism'?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Underwear can be sexy, it can be worn with intention of having sex but that doesn't mean that every person wearing sexy underwear wants to have sex. It's a logical fallacy and used only to insinuate something that can't be proven with the type of underwear. You can argue probability but when I was in my 20's thongs were worn by everyone in my age group. Does that mean we all wanted to have sex all the time? And there is real problem with trying to create the impression about alleged victim's morals by their clothing. It can be even worse, there was a famous Italian rape case that went to supreme court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim_Day

    I don't blame the barrister because their duty is to defendant but judges should be able to caution them and dismiss arguments that are based on innuendo.


    I wouldn’t argue probability because even if every woman on the planet were to opine that they too wear a thong, their choice of underwear for themselves would have no bearing on the context in which the evidence is presented in a criminal trial where a rape is alleged to have taken place, and the defendant maintains that they are innocent. The idea of calling any line of questioning in a Court of Law ‘victim blaming’ implies that the alleged victim shouldn’t be questioned, as every question implies partial responsibility for their allegedly being raped by the defendant.

    Even alternative perspectives of any alleged rape presented to the jury would be regarded as innuendo because they imply that the complainant has credibility issues, and to do that is again ‘victim blaming’. The logical conclusion of any such argument is that the accused is automatically guilty, as no questioning of the alleged victim is allowed, because every question will imply that the alleged victim is partially responsible. That should never be how any justice system functions, because while it may be a noble endeavour to seek justice for the victim, it’s just as important in the interests of justice that the defendant is given the opportunity to defend themselves against accusations made against them lest we convict people of crimes they didn’t commit.

    I agree there’s a real problem with trying to create an impression about an alleged victims morals by their clothing, but the real problem is actually caused by consideration of the allegation that they are a victim of rape. If they weren’t a victim of rape, then their clothing wouldn’t matter, as it wouldn’t be relevant because they’re not claiming they were the victim of rape. That’s why we had all the posters here posting about their underwear, and not one single post of their experience of rape. Immediately the idea seems to have been to attempt to disassociate any association between a persons choice of underwear and consensual sexual activities. I can only surmise that the attempt was made on the basis that if someone claims they were raped, they were raped and there should be no trial, the accused should be sentenced automatically.

    There are buckets of myths about rape and victims of rape and criminal trials and court procedures that people summarily ignore because of their own biases, prejudices, beliefs and attitudes about all these things, and we even witnessed in this thread people who have no issue with putting a woman on trial by social media when she doesn’t fit their morals, yet they’ll be the same people who will give it welly about how the alleged victims are put on trial. It’s fcuking odd, I have to be honest, and I’m acutely aware that this is the Ladies Lounge and I have to restrict myself to giving my opinion within that context, but the way some people like Ciara Kelly doing what I would see as the equivalent of what George Hook did (and by equivalent I mean their opinions were a complete crock, devoid of any thought for anyone but themselves), it just demonstrates to me at least how for some people it isn’t about victims of rape, it isn’t about dispelling myths about rape, it isn’t about women’s rights or women’s welfare... it’s entirely about themselves and what they would do if they ever had the power to do it.

    Judges do give juries directions and instructions in cases all the time btw, but the journalists reporting on this particular case appear to have focused solely on one particular statement that they knew would generate controversy. It’s still disgusting to have implied it, but if I were facing the prospect of a criminal conviction and sentence of up to 10 years in prison for a crime I did not commit, I might be likely to feel very differently about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Macha wrote: »
    You don't see how an exhibition that shows that rape victims wear ordinary clothes when they're raped, not revealing, 'sexy' clothes like say, lacy black thongs helps dispel the myth that revealing clothing leads to rape?

    And you consider an exhibition of clothes donated by actual rape victims in an effort to dispel this myth and address the guilt that many rape victims feel in somehow feeling responsible for their attack 'appealing to voyeurism'?


    I don’t see that exhibition how you appear to see it above, no.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    I agree there’s a real problem with trying to create an impression about an alleged victims morals by their clothing, but the real problem is actually caused by consideration of the allegation that they are a victim of rape. If they weren’t a victim of rape, then their clothing wouldn’t matter, as it wouldn’t be relevant because they’re not claiming they were the victim of rape. That’s why we had all the posters here posting about their underwear, and not one single post of their experience of rape. Immediately the idea seems to have been to attempt to disassociate any association between a persons choice of underwear and consensual sexual activities. I can only surmise that the attempt was made on the basis that if someone claims they were raped, they were raped and there should be no trial, the accused should be sentenced automatically.

    There are buckets of myths about rape and victims of rape and criminal trials and court procedures that people summarily ignore because of their own biases, prejudices, beliefs and attitudes about all these things, and we even witnessed in this thread people who have no issue with putting a woman on trial by social media when she doesn’t fit their morals, yet they’ll be the same people who will give it welly about how the alleged victims are put on trial. It’s fcuking odd, I have to be honest, and I’m acutely aware that this is the Ladies Lounge and I have to restrict myself to giving my opinion within that context, but the way some people like Ciara Kelly doing what I would see as the equivalent of what George Hook did (and by equivalent I mean their opinions were a complete crock, devoid of any thought for anyone but themselves), it just demonstrates to me at least how for some people it isn’t about victims of rape, it isn’t about dispelling myths about rape, it isn’t about women’s rights or women’s welfare... it’s entirely about themselves and what they would do if they ever had the power to do it.

    .
    That's actually insulting. I actually have a bit of experience that you are looking for. I was blonde when I visited Turkey for the first time. I visited it another two times as brunette and my experience was completely different. First time I was grabbed, pulled into the shops, it got so bad I couldn't actually walk around the Grand Bazar. Someone also tried to rape me in the hostel. I never reported it but it was clear assumptions were made about me and my look. Prettier friend of mine who was not peroxide blonde was left alone. I was considered easy. People have assumptions about others seeing what they wear, how they wear it, how they look and barrister will abuse that. Nobody is asking to sentence someone without fair trial, all me and I suspect many women want is that our clothing choices aren't used as proof of our actions. Nobody would flash man's boxers with skid marks in court claiming they clearly had no intention to have sex or rape because their underwear is in such a state. All we ask is a bit of respect for alleged rape victims and not judge their intentions or character by underwear we wear. Use the underwear for forensic evidence not for evidence of their character.

    You are doing exactly the same as solicitor yesterday on C. Kelly and dragging in physical evidence hat nobody objects to into discussion just to muddy the water.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    I wouldn’t argue probability because even if every woman on the planet were to opine that they too wear a thong, their choice of underwear for themselves would have no bearing on the context in which the evidence is presented in a criminal trial where a rape is alleged to have taken place, and the defendant maintains that they are innocent. The idea of calling any line of questioning in a Court of Law ‘victim blaming’ implies that the alleged victim shouldn’t be questioned, as every question implies partial responsibility for their allegedly being raped by the defendant.

    Even alternative perspectives of any alleged rape presented to the jury would be regarded as innuendo because they imply that the complainant has credibility issues, and to do that is again ‘victim blaming’. The logical conclusion of any such argument is that the accused is automatically guilty, as no questioning of the alleged victim is allowed, because every question will imply that the alleged victim is partially responsible. That should never be how any justice system functions, because while it may be a noble endeavour to seek justice for the victim, it’s just as important in the interests of justice that the defendant is given the opportunity to defend themselves against accusations made against them lest we convict people of crimes they didn’t commit.

    I agree there’s a real problem with trying to create an impression about an alleged victims morals by their clothing, but the real problem is actually caused by consideration of the allegation that they are a victim of rape. If they weren’t a victim of rape, then their clothing wouldn’t matter, as it wouldn’t be relevant because they’re not claiming they were the victim of rape. That’s why we had all the posters here posting about their underwear, and not one single post of their experience of rape. Immediately the idea seems to have been to attempt to disassociate any association between a persons choice of underwear and consensual sexual activities. I can only surmise that the attempt was made on the basis that if someone claims they were raped, they were raped and there should be no trial, the accused should be sentenced automatically.

    There are buckets of myths about rape and victims of rape and criminal trials and court procedures that people summarily ignore because of their own biases, prejudices, beliefs and attitudes about all these things, and we even witnessed in this thread people who have no issue with putting a woman on trial by social media when she doesn’t fit their morals, yet they’ll be the same people who will give it welly about how the alleged victims are put on trial. It’s fcuking odd, I have to be honest, and I’m acutely aware that this is the Ladies Lounge and I have to restrict myself to giving my opinion within that context, but the way some people like Ciara Kelly doing what I would see as the equivalent of what George Hook did (and by equivalent I mean their opinions were a complete crock, devoid of any thought for anyone but themselves), it just demonstrates to me at least how for some people it isn’t about victims of rape, it isn’t about dispelling myths about rape, it isn’t about women’s rights or women’s welfare... it’s entirely about themselves and what they would do if they ever had the power to do it.

    Judges do give juries directions and instructions in cases all the time btw, but the journalists reporting on this particular case appear to have focused solely on one particular statement that they knew would generate controversy. It’s still disgusting to have implied it, but if I were facing the prospect of a criminal conviction and sentence of up to 10 years in prison for a crime I did not commit, I might be likely to feel very differently about it.


    I've read the bolded paragraph three times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say - no exaggeration, it's just word salad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    B0jangles wrote: »
    I've read the bolded paragraph three times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say - no exaggeration, it's just word salad.

    Ok I'm glad I'm not the only one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    meeeeh wrote: »
    That's actually insulting. I actually have a bit of experience that you are looking for. I was blonde when I visited Turkey for the first time. I visited it another two times as brunette and my experience was completely different. First time I was grabbed, pulled into the shops, it got so bad I couldn't actually walk around the Grand Bazar. Someone also tried to rape me in the hostel. I never reported it but it was clear assumptions were made about me and my look. Prettier friend of mine who was not peroxide blonde was left alone. I was considered easy. People have assumptions about others seeing what they wear, how they wear it, how they look and barrister will abuse that. Nobody is asking to sentence someone without fair trial, all me and I suspect many women want is that our clothing choices aren't used as proof of our actions. Nobody would flash man's boxers with skid marks in court claiming they clearly had no intention to have sex or rape because their underwear is in such a state. All we ask is a bit of respect for alleged rape victims and not judge their intentions or character by underwear we wear. Use the underwear for forensic evidence not for evidence of their character.

    You are doing exactly the same as solicitor yesterday on C. Kelly and dragging in physical evidence hat nobody objects to into discussion just to muddy the water.


    How does what you’ve written above even make sense? You’re saying that what a person was wearing when they are raped isn’t relevant, but all of your examples are entirely based around how you thought you looked to others, or how they looked to you, and you’re still not anywhere near putting it in the context of how evidence is presented in a Court of Law because I’m not suggesting anyone’s clothing is evidence of their actions, or even their intent. I’m making the point that we make judgements about people based on how they present themselves every day, we make judgements on ourselves even, and depending upon the context, of course our judgements are going to be influenced by context.

    You’re only seeing one side of the story outside of a court of law, but that’s not how a Court of Law actually works. The person who is accused of rape maintains they are innocent. Your actions aren’t going to lead to any legal consequences for you unless you attempt to pervert the course of justice by lying on the stand (and that’ll be another case), whereas the consequences of a conviction are obvious.

    You and Ms. Kelly are wrong about the whole idea that a mans skid marked boxers, briefs, tanga, whatever, wouldn’t be paraded around the Courtroom, because in the course of any investigation, evidence such as a persons clothing is collected, and you can be absolutely guaranteed it would be paraded in front of the jury if either the prosecution or the defence thought it would be useful for their case, and they would make all sorts of inferences from it, if they thought it would help their case. I don’t know where anyone would get the idea that this isn’t the case or that it wouldn’t happen.

    I’m not dragging any physical evidence into the discussion that nobody objects to into the discussion to muddy the water, I’m saying that the idea that it is unreasonable to draw inferences from a persons clothing is itself, unreasonable, and your own examples bear this out.

    What actually muddies the water is when a statement like ‘it doesn’t matter what someone was wearing when they are raped’ is distorted to mean the same thing in a Courtroom. That’s bloody dangerous, because what it implies is that the Courts already accepts that the alleged victim was raped by the defendant, and so why is a trial taking place at all?

    It doesn’t matter what the victim was wearing when they were raped is stating the bloody obvious. That’s not a myth. That’s a fact. Be it from eight year old boys to eighty year old women. That’s not the same thing as saying it shouldn’t matter what the alleged victim was wearing at the time of the event when it’s a criminal trial and the alleged victim is appearing as a witness for the Prosecution in the States case against the defendant who is on trial accused of rape and they maintain they’re innocent. Then of course it absolutely matters, everything matters, and that’s something that as I said from my very first post in this thread - I don’t think witnesses are ever sufficiently prepared for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Ridiculous comment. I wear thongs when I’m lounging about like a sloth because I hate VPL. It’s not an open invitation to shove your penis in me. Silly girl should have had the foresight to have worn her rape proof full knicker briefs.
    Just when you think you cannot be personally scrutinised, examined and judged any more in order to blame you for your own rape. Not even the knickers you have on are safe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    How does what you’ve written above even make sense? You’re saying that what a person was wearing when they are raped isn’t relevant, but all of your examples are entirely based around how you thought you looked to others, or how they looked to you, and you’re still not anywhere near putting it in the context of how evidence is presented in a Court of Law because I’m not suggesting anyone’s clothing is evidence of their actions, or even their intent. I’m making the point that we make judgements about people based on how they present themselves every day, we make judgements on ourselves even, and depending upon the context, of course our judgements are going to be influenced by context.
    .
    Are you saying it was ok to judge me as easy because I was peroxide blonde? And would it be fair to claim that in court. Just answer yes or no or in couple of sentences because I 'm not going through a wall of text. It's a simple question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    B0jangles wrote: »
    I've read the bolded paragraph three times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say - no exaggeration, it's just word salad.


    It’s very simple- outside of a criminal trial is one thing. Inside of a Courtroom is a different thing entirely, and this idea that we can’t infer things about a person from the way they were dressed or are dressed is nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    It’s very simple- outside of a criminal trial is one thing. Inside of a Courtroom is a different thing entirely, and this idea that we can’t infer things about a person from the way they were dressed or are dressed is nonsense.

    Ok I think I got my answer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    It’s very simple- outside of a criminal trial is one thing. Inside of a Courtroom is a different thing entirely, and this idea that we can’t infer things about a person from the way they were dressed or are dressed is nonsense.

    Who is claiming that nothing a person wears is relevant?

    If I'm accused of robbing a bank and the evidence shows I was caught on CCTV running out of the building wearing a balaclava and gloves on a boiling hot day, I don't think anyone would argue that that is irrelevant.

    What is irrelevant and actually dangerous, is to suggest to a jury that an item of clothing which is commonly worn by women suggests a willingness to have casual sex with whoever happens to be around.

    I doubt the barrister really believes that a woman's choice in underwear tells you something about her attitude to casual sex - she just hoped the jury did.

    Remember: Winning is everything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Are you saying it was ok to judge me as easy because I was peroxide blonde? And would it be fair to claim that in court. Just answer yes or no or in couple of sentences because I 'm not going through a wall of text. It's a simple question.


    It would certainly be fair to claim that in court if you were giving evidence that I had raped you when I’m absolutely certain I hadn’t.

    ‘Do you think it would be ok to claim I raped you if we had sex?’ is the equivalent of your loaded question. I don’t need an answer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    It would certainly be fair to claim that in court if you were giving evidence that I had raped you when I’m absolutely certain I hadn’t.

    ‘Do you think it would be ok to claim I raped you if we had sex?’ is the equivalent of your loaded question. I don’t need an answer.

    So win by any means. Btw it was solicitor who claimed what accusers intention was and unless they were present at the time then they couldn't be absolutely certain someone didn't do it. In fact if there was absolute certainty the case wouldn't ecen make it to the court because rape is very hard to prove even when there is anything but absolute certainty.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Who is claiming that nothing a person wears is relevant?

    If I'm accused of robbing a bank and the evidence shows I was caught on CCTV running out of the building wearing a balaclava and gloves on a boiling hot day, I don't think anyone would argue that that is irrelevant.

    What is irrelevant and actually dangerous, is to suggest to a jury that an item of clothing which is commonly worn by women suggests a willingness to have casual sex with whoever happens to be around.

    I doubt the barrister really believes that a woman's choice in underwear tells you something about her attitude to casual sex - she just hoped the jury did.

    Remember: Winning is everything.


    Yeah, and like I said, a comment like that can go either way with the jury. It’s a disgusting comment IMO, but the bit in bold isn’t what I took from the comment, and maybe that’s why I don’t get the whole “it’s a piece of fabric, it makes men rapey” or that the barrister was suggesting it was an indication that the alleged victim was willing to have casual sex with whoever happen to be around. The barrister was very careful in asking the question first relating directly to all of the evidence -


    “Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

    The way she was dressed is only part of the evidence as part of her argument that no rape took place, that the sex was consensual. People here seem to be arguing from the position that they already believe it wasn’t.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    meeeeh wrote: »
    So win by any means. Btw it was solicitor who claimed what accusers intention was and unless they were present at the time then they couldn't be absolutely certain someone didn't do it. In fact if there was absolute certainty the case wouldn't ecen make it to the court because rape is very hard to prove even when there is anything but absolute certainty.


    Nobody can be certain of anything, that’s why the standard of reasonable doubt exists before we find someone guilty of a criminal offence which is actually fairly well defined in Irish law. It’s of course going to be hard for the prosecution to meet that burden if there is a lack of evidence for their case, or if their case hangs on a thong as the critical piece of evidence, and it shouldn’t be made any easier IMO.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    'Does the evidence rule out the possibility she was planning an evening of hurling pebbles at cars? She was wearing a thong with elasticated side which can easily double as a handy slingshot.'

    It's easy to point out that the evidence doesn't prove the absence of intent on the part of an alleged victim - how could it?

    The barrister was counting on the likelihood of the jury assuming a woman who wears a thong is promiscuous -She was using an ugly myth to help win her case.

    That's pretty much it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 84,341 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    Yeah, and like I said, a comment like that can go either way with the jury. It’s a disgusting comment IMO, but the bit in bold isn’t what I took from the comment, and maybe that’s why I don’t get the whole “it’s a piece of fabric, it makes men rapey” or that the barrister was suggesting it was an indication that the alleged victim was willing to have casual sex with whoever happen to be around. The barrister was very careful in asking the question first relating directly to all of the evidence -


    “Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

    The way she was dressed is only part of the evidence as part of her argument that no rape took place, that the sex was consensual. People here seem to be arguing from the position that they already believe it wasn’t.

    But even if I go out in my skimpiest of outfits with the intention of attracting and sleeping with 50 men, if one of them- even one I'm attracted to and may want to sleep with at some stage- has sex with me without my consent it doesn't somehow make it consensual just because I went out looking for the ride initially. Even with the intention of having sex with that particular man.

    It's the lack of consent (if indeed thats what happened, think he was found not guilty?) when he had sex with her that is the issue, not her intention at the beginning of the night when she put some underwear on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    B0jangles wrote: »
    'Does the evidence rule out the possibility she was planning an evening of hurling pebbles at cars? She was wearing a thong with elasticated side which can easily double as a handy slingshot.'

    It's easy to point out that the evidence doesn't prove the absence of intent on the part of an alleged victim - how could it?

    The barrister was counting on the likelihood of the jury assuming a woman who wears a thong is promiscuous -She was using an ugly myth to help win her case.

    That's pretty much it.


    Where are you getting that from? It’s far more likely she wasn’t counting on any myths to defend her client by suggesting that, ugly and all as the reality is, that teenagers are generally promiscuous, and in the case of the alleged victim and her client - the sex was consensual.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    It no more indicates she wants the ride more than wearing red nail varnish means I love giving hand jobs.
    It’s an essential piece of clothing. Nothing more nothing less.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    neonsofa wrote: »
    But even if I go out in my skimpiest of outfits with the intention of attracting and sleeping with 50 men, if one of them- even one I'm attracted to and may want to sleep with at some stage- has sex with me without my consent it doesn't somehow make it consensual just because I went out looking for the ride initially. Even with the intention of having sex with that particular man.

    It's the lack of consent (if indeed thats what happened, think he was found not guilty?) when he had sex with her that is the issue, not her intention at the beginning of the night when she put some underwear on.



    Yeah, the jury found him not guilty of rape, now whether or not they deliberated over consent is anyone’s guess (but I wouldn’t trust the media to report shìt tbh), but the defence is certainly entitled to put forward their version of events however they see fit. They’re not going to hold back because “Ahh you’re being accused of rape, now be nice”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,457 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    It no more indicates she wants the ride more than wearing red nail varnish means I love giving hand jobs.
    It’s an essential piece of clothing. Nothing more nothing less.


    That’s your take on it - a thong is now an essential piece of clothing.


    Man I’m getting old.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    Yeah, the jury found him not guilty of rape, now whether or not they deliberated over consent is anyone’s guess (but I wouldn’t trust the media to report shìt tbh), but the defence is certainly entitled to put forward their version of events however they see fit. They’re not going to hold back because “Ahh you’re being accused of rape, now be nice”.

    It's not about being "nice". So what if she went out to get the ride? It has no relevance on consent in the moment he had sex with her.


Advertisement