Irish Times Article on Consent.

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Before attending a consent course, I actually used to think it was ok to rape women. If only this way of thinking was around for Ted Bundy.

If only Larry Murphy had of gone to consent classes.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Great argument. What gives anyone the right to cast aspersions in this way? Or to interfere in someone else's sexuality? You're espousing a sheep mentality.

Implicit in the talk is the idea that one of the audience may be a potential rapist and that outlining the 'rules' of consent will prevent a listener from committing rape.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would be unlikely to be entertained as a defence to rape at all. They’d be two separate cases and an allegation against you wouldn’t have any bearing on a case where you’re making an allegation against the person who has made a complaint against you. There’s no guarantee either case would even go to trial, and if it was established that all you were doing was making a complaint in retaliation for a complaint being made against you, you could find yourself still facing an allegation of rape and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It would also be very likely to damage your own credibility in the case against you. That’s why any lawyer would advise you when you’re in a hole, don’t keep digging and making things worse for yourself.

I wasn't suggesting it as a "defence" to be used in a court but as a defensive strategy that could be adopted in an attempt to ensure the case never came before a court at all. The most likely outcome imho would be along the lines of "I'll drop my case if you drop yours" (I've actually had a similar tactic used against me in a motor traffic accident).

The reality is that most rape cases don't fall into the simplistic "attacker in a dark alley" scenario. Many actually start off as consensual encounters and ultimately end up as "he said / she said" cases that are next to impossible to prove one way or another. Where such a case hinges on intoxication as the basis for the lack of consent any court would (and should) require evidence that the victim was heavily intoxicated whilst the perpetrator was sober.

That's extremely difficult, if not impossible to prove to a standard that any legal system could be sure they weren't incarcerating an innocent man / woman.

In a country with a national issue around self-confidence, telling people that they can't have sex when drunk is just never going to fly. When I was that age, most lads found it intimidating to so much as ask a strange girl her name at a party or disco without some dutch courage on board first.

I've been saying this for years, but taking away the alcohol element without first addressing the self-confidence thing is removing a coping mechanism from those who suffer from what is, in essence, a form of psychological weakness. The results would be absolutely disastrous, and for that reason, the simple fact is that these kids are just going to roll their eyes and ignore what they're being told.

Like it or not, most teenagers in this country drink specifically to quiet the "you're not good enough, you're going to get rejected, it's not worth even trying it on with her" voice in their heads. If anyone actually asked them honestly why there's such a strong link between socialising and alcohol, this is what they would be told. And in that context, separating getting drunk from hitting on people is simply not feasible at all.

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Previously we had rules about courtship, with etiquette and chaperones, etc., and where these weren't implemented there was good, old-fashioned stigma. It was assumed that the sexuality of young people needed supervision to prevent illegitimacy, sexual predation, loss of chastity, etc. because these things were bad for society in general.

Now that we've all been "liberated" from that oppressive, patriarchal system, the dissolution of sexual morality is becoming a burden, and even the liberal left at The Irish Times can see this. As a consequence, we have these attempts to recreate controls over sexual incontinence with a kind of mental conditioning for men, but only for men.

Whereas the old system was deemed to place too great a burden on women, the new system is an inversion of the old. It concentrates only on male behaviour, and makes no mention of female chastity or why it should be protected from a multitude of voluntary sexual encounters.

It's also interesting to note that the drunken behaviour that leads to these situations is never questioned or challenged. We dare not suggest that it's bad for men and women to go out carousing and getting drunk in the first place. The people at Diageo must be delighted with all this liberalism.

The Sexual Reformation of the new Puritanism.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/so-if-you-go-out-and-both-get-drunk-you-can-t-have-sex-that-s-f-ked-up-1.3840294


I think this is fantastic.

The Transitiion year students identified two brilliant points.

Q 1. Are men expected to ask for sex and verbailise it.
A. Yes.

Q 2. Are men supposed to be responsible for women?
A. Not answered- instead the question if steered towards men can be raped too.

This is not education. It is forcing an agenda on young men.

Previously women were told they should not have sex.

Now young men are basically being told they should not have sex or that there is a presumption against them in the absence of vocalised consent.

The simple advice should be- If there is any doubt then don't do it. This is not explained to these young men at any point.

I have to say that this sort of agenda concerns me.

George Hook said that people need to take personal responsibility and was literally fired for talking common sense. This sort of narrative is very dangerous.

Not sure you entirely understood the conclusions from the article.

Bobby: That’s not what the law says. Listen to what they’re saying. It just says there’s a point where someone can be too out of it to give consent, so even if they say yes, you should still walk away.

Richie: It doesn’t say walk away. It’s making you aware that being intoxicated can influence a person’s body language and facial expressions, even their words. It’s up to you to know how to behave if you’re ever in that situation. And remember, the law only becomes a consideration if there’s an allegation. I don’t want you to get the impression that any woman that has sex while drunk – even if she can’t remember every detail – will automatically go to the gardaí. I’m just saying you should always take responsibility for your own actions in this area.

Your suggestion that men should get an affirmative 'YES' in all situations is not correct.

In relation to the second question, it in fact says:

Richie: Don’t you think drunken people should be offered some protection by the law?

plus

Elaine: I suppose what we’re saying is how important respect is when it comes to consent. Respect for yourself and respect for others. So, just to keep that in mind – you being drunk or the other person being drunk doesn’t change that.

The emphasis here is moreso on respect than responsibility. Just because a young woman might have divested herself of self-respect doesn't make her complicit in the act of rape. This is where George Hook was wrong. The 'asking for it' argument completely misses the point and removes any blame on the guy, which is crazy. A woman who gets drunk is only guilty of lack of self respect but is totally not responsible for a sexual assault committed against her.

The problem here is consumption of alcohol. Once there's drink taken the horse has already bolted as far as any lucid analysis of whether consent has been lucidly given. 99.9% of us have had sexual relations where both partners were jarred, the issue of consent will only ever become an issue in a small minority of cases but the whole article is an important and valuable discussion highlighting societal generalisations and misperceptions that exist about consent and personal responsibility.