Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

Impossible to know if that particular guy would have benefited. He didn’t seem to realise he’d done anything wrong. I think it’s intersting that he immediately stopped on hearing a forceful, violent no, but ignored multiple frustrated no’s. I think that’s definitely something that could be ingrained in guys in a consent class.

Hahahaha. You honestly believe consent classes would have helped that guy. He knows what no means. He just didn't care until she got violent. Maybe she should have gotten violent sooner. He sounds like an asshole who needs prison not a class.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

.

Reasons for believing the victim were brought up in relation to LON by dickswiveller.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Hahahaha. You honestly believe consent classes would have helped that guy. He knows what no means. He just didn't care until she got violent. Maybe she should have gotten violent sooner. He sounds like an asshole who needs prison not a class.

Yes I believe it might have helped. The amount of guys I’ve experienced who ignore the initial no. It’s eother classes or jail for a lot of guys.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Is it any worse than a 50 year prison guard copying memes from reddit made by a 16 year old?

Ha ha I'm only 32, a year younger than you Louise... and I don't live with my mammy.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Reasons for believing the victim were brought up in relation to LON by dickswiveller.

You literally brought up the Paddy Jackson case as an example. A specific case, with a specific outcome.

Kimbot

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I believe it might have helped. The amount of guys I’ve experienced who ignore the initial no. It’s eother classes or jail for a lot of guys.

Plenty of women that ignore No's too. Consent classes have to be given across the board.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

Sure, could have it right after the "Don't dress like a slag" class for the ladies. Both are equally patronising/insulting.

False equivalency. The problem with a class like that for women would not be that the class was assuming that all women dress “like slags”. It would be that women who dress “like slags” are responsible for their own rapes.

Consent classes do not assume that all men are rapists. Just like your theoretical class for women would not be saying all women dress a certain way.

LLMMLL

Kimbot wrote: »

Plenty of women that ignore No's too. Consent classes have to be given across the board.

I’ve no issue with that.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

You literally brought up the Paddy Jackson case as an example. A specific case, with a specific outcome.

The case was relevant as an example that LON is not
Saying that women have no voice as claimed by another poster.

That doesn’t seem to be what you’re questioning though. You keep questioning my statement of belief about the case. The issue of belief was not brought up by me. It was brought up by dickswiveler. And then you kept it going. If you don’t want me to discuss it anymore then stop asking about it.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

False equivalency. The problem with a class like that for women would not be that the class was assuming that all women dress “like slags”. It would be that women who dress “like slags” are responsible for their own rapes.

Consent classes do not assume that all men are rapists. Just like your theoretical class for women would not be saying all women dress a certain way.

I never said that. #triggered

Don't dress like a slag classes don't assume all women who dress like slags are in fact, slags. Just as consent classes don't assume all men are rapists.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

I never said that. #triggered

Don't dress like a slag classes don't assume all women who dress like slags are in fact, slags. Just as consent classes don't assume all men are rapists.

Exactly.

the purple tin

Omackeral wrote: »

Ha ha I'm only 32, a year younger than you Louise... and I don't live with my mammy.

I have a sneaking suspicion that LLML could actually be Lou's mammy. Maybe her sister would be more likely. Lou said her sis found this thread and it made her really angry.
🕵

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Exactly.

Great, as long as your happy to have both classes.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I believe it might have helped. The amount of guys I’ve experienced who ignore the initial no. It’s eother classes or jail for a lot of guys.

Tell me how these consent classes would go. I've asked El Dude but he/she won't explain.

IMO, consent class = if someone tells you no or stop or anything like that, then you stop. If you don't stop then they have every right to get violent and/or go to the police. End of class.

What more is needed? Role playing? I wallet sized card with various phrases that mean no? A certification in consent awareness? A phone app?

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

There are multiple examples that men have aired (and are airing) their concerns regarding sexual consent laws. There have been threads here on Boards started on the issue in fact. Started one myself recently enough. What you refer to as a national discussion is not really a discussion at all, but more the constant festering of a nonsense narrative.

Even in Louise docu on "rape culture" she was pretty much told her views are incorrect by someone who knows what they are talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaO76M81c_c

But yet, despite the above, look at how she behaved during, and after, the rape trial in Belfast. Safe to say that what was said to her above went in one ear and out the other. She has no interest in the truth or fairness. She only has interest in portraying women as perpetual victims of a patriarchy. Hence her obsession with writing victim porn. Even going so far as to moan on TLLS about male orgasams being prioritized by society. She's off her rocker.

But's that's the way society is now. Liberals are the new church and the media it's pulpit where they get to dictate what is and isn't acceptable for people to think or say. George Hook gets castigated for an extreme view on one side and an extreme view on the other is lauded. There is no balance anymore. Logic replaced by idealism. Express a conservative view these days and you'll be quickly categorized as a bigot. Express a liberal one and doors will open. Blindboy the perfect example. Was pretty much seen as a lout while singing about horses and banging fat chicks. Talks about feminism being positive and he's suddenly a best selling author.

Any other time in history these two fools would be laughed at for spouting incredulous nonsense but today we have people paying to hear them speak waffle.

Aaaaah, the bolded bit isn’t true. Rubberbandits were very well-received from the off, including with liberals, and people knew well that their songs were satirical. They were never seem as louts themselves, except maybe among older conservatives like my parents. They were received well critically and to suggest otherwise is revisionism.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

The case was relevant as an example that LON is not
Saying that women have no voice as claimed by another poster.

That doesn’t seem to be what you’re questioning though. You keep questioning my statement of belief about the case. The issue of belief was not brought up by me. It was brought up by dickswiveler. And then you kept it going. If you don’t want me to discuss it anymore then stop asking about it.

...which is something you brought up.

I questioned firstly, the veracity and secondly, the relevance of your opinion on the outcome of the case. Both of which are the sum total of zilch.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

Great, as long as your happy to have both classes.

No because one class says that women who dress a certain way are responsible for their own rape.

The consent class says that men who ignore consent are responsible for rape.

Neither class says anything about all men or all women.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Tell me how these consent classes would go. I've asked El Dude but he/she won't explain.

IMO, consent class = if someone tells you no or stop or anything like that, then you stop. If you don't stop then they have every right to get violent and/or go to the police. End of class.

What more is needed? Role playing? I wallet sized card with various phrases that mean no? A certification in consent awareness? A phone app?

I wouldn’t say role playing but examples of scenarios and discussions around them I think would be helpful.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

...which is something you brought up.

I questioned firstly, the veracity and secondly, the relevance of your opinion on the outcome of the case. Both of which are the sum total of zilch.

Veracity in what sense? Nobody has any claim to veracity on that case. Neither the court verdict nor public opinion.

The relevance was in relation to being asked why LoN would believe the victim without knowing her. I gave my reasons for belief as an example of why someone who doesn’t know the victim might believe her.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

No because one class says that women who dress a certain way are responsible for their own rape.

The consent class says that men who ignore consent are responsible for rape.

Neither class says anything about all men or all women.

Wow wow wow, read my post again, I never said that.

So really, these idiotic, theoretical consent classes should be for rapists only? Since it's not saying anything about all men.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn’t say role playing but examples of scenarios and discussions around them I think would be helpful.

Scenarios and discussions beyond "she said no so you should stop"? You must have associated with some real scumbags or morons if you think guys need a better explanation than that.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

Wow wow wow, read my post again, I never said that.

So really, these idiotic, theoretical consent classes should be for rapists only? Since it's not saying anything about all men.

No I said that your supposed class for women saying don’t dress “like a slag” are unacceptable.

The reasons they are unacceptable is that they imply that women who dress a certain way are responsible for their own rapes.

So how is that related to your issue with consent classes for men?

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Veracity in what sense? Nobody has any claim to veracity on that case. Neither the court verdict nor public opinion.

The relevance was in relation to being asked why LoN would believe the victim without knowing her. I gave my reasons for belief as an example of why someone who doesn’t know the victim might believe her.

Veracity in the literal sense. We already have gone over you or her not being present in the court.

As mentioned, the relevance of your or LONs beliefs are non existent because of the first point, veracity.

And around we go again...

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

Veracity in the literal sense. We already have gone over you or her not being present in the court.

As mentioned, the relevance of your or LONs beliefs are non existent because of the first point, veracity.

And around we go again...

Again nobody has any claim to veracity on that case. Or do you think the jurors 100% know what happened that night.

Beliefs are relevant because another poster asked about it and you keep asking about it too. That’s why we’re discussing beliefs in this thread.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I said that your supposed class for women saying don’t dress “like a slag” are unacceptable.

The reasons they are unacceptable is that they imply that women who dress a certain way are responsible for their own rapes.

So how is that related to your issue with consent classes for men?

And I said they are as (un)acceptable as consent classes for men.

Similarly to a woman being told how to dress, a man does not need to be told not to rape.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

And I said they are as (un)acceptable as consent classes for men.

Similarly to a woman being told how to dress, a man does not need to be told not to rape.

That’s a false equivalency because they are unacceptable (to you ) for different reasons.

One class tells women it’s wrong to do something they should be free to do.

The other tells men it’s wrong to do something they most definitely should not be free to do.

Even if you disagree with consent classes your example
Is awful as they’re two completely different things.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again nobody has any claim to veracity on that case. Or do you think the jurors 100% know what happened that night.

Beliefs are relevant because another poster asked about it and you keep asking about it too. That’s why we’re discussing beliefs in this thread.

The jurors have claim to higher veracity on the case than you or LON, or anyone else who wasn't in the court.

Beliefs aren't relevant when they are uninformed, as I said, some people believe the earth is flat.

LLMMLL

Ush1 wrote: »

The jurors have claim to higher veracity on the case than you or LON, or anyone else who wasn't in the court.

Beliefs aren't relevant when they are uninformed, as I said, some people believe the earth is flat.

But conviction in court isn’t about belief, it’s about proof to a certain standard, typically characterised as “beyond reasonable doubt”.

So basically if there’s reasonable doubt as to their guilt then they’re not guilty.

Not only have the jurors heard more but they have a stricter criteria.

It’s perfectly possible to believe the victim and find the accused not guilty.

Lads..can we stop bringing up that trial in relation to this?.. It was a grim affair, and if anything, the reaction to it would indicate LON etc are on to something about a rape culture.. Sexual crime can be a very grey area, and should be treated with a lot more tact and seriousness than just shouting about it on the internet..
But, I think, the reaction could have been due to this being made a fnckin political issue rather than one of human decency..

Maxpfizer

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Tell me how these consent classes would go.

Teacher: OK class, who here thinks rape is OK?
Class: *silence*
Teacher: Hm, I'll try again. Who thinks it's OK to have sex with someone without their consent?
Class: *more silence*
Teacher: Wow, tough crowd. OK who thinks it's OK to have sex with someone who is passed out.
Student A: Sorry, did you say "someone who is up for it".
Teacher: No I said "someone who is passed out"
Student A: Oh, OK, well not me then.
Teacher: Anyone? Anyone think it's OK?
Rest of Class: *continued silence*
Teacher: OK, next weeks lesson is "Don't Dress Like A Slag" and for next weeks homework just try to not rape anybody. Class dismissed.