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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Feisar wrote: »

Do we really need consent classes? I don't know how I made it through my teens and twenties without one of these classes to teach me some very basic right from wrong!

The recent Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding case would argue in favour of yes. Not saying they were guilty, but a bit or awareness might have helped them sense a change in the woman's attitude and a potential revoking of consent; and spare them a very public court-case.

It's not just about rape, it's also about sexual assault. Plenty of people - famous and otherwise - have wound up on court not necessarily because they were guilty of a non-consensual crime, but because they didn't know that what they were doing might be construed as a sexual assault.

Another example: grabbing a woman's (or man's) backside in a bar or club; some people think that's perfectly ok behaviour, some people see it as assault.

gizmo555

It's very simple. Someone who tells racist jokes is a racist. Someone who tells anti-Semitic jokes is an anti-Semite.

And someone who tells a joke (if it was one) that rape isn't rape if the rapist enjoys himself is self-evidently, to use the other poster's term, a "rape apologist".

Pug160

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The recent Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding case would argue in favour of yes. Not saying they were guilty, but a bit or awareness might have helped them sense a change in the woman's attitude and a potential revoking of consent; and spare them a very public court-case.

It's not just about rape, it's also about sexual assault. Plenty of people - famous and otherwise - have wound up on court not necessarily because they were guilty of a non-consensual crime, but because they didn't know that what they were doing might be construed as a sexual assault.

Another example: grabbing a woman's (or man's) backside in a bar or club; some people think that's perfectly ok behaviour, some people see it as assault.

I would be more inclined to believe that certain people are probably somewhat arrogant and feel that they can get away with things that others perceived to be below them cannot get away with. The only thing I took from that case you have mentioned is that supposedly respectable and middle class people can act in a lowbrow way just as anyone from a lower social standing can. Most probably don't, but some do.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's very simple. Someone who tells racist jokes is a racist. Someone who tells anti-Semitic jokes is an anti-Semite.

And someone who tells a joke (if it was one) that rape isn't rape if the rapist enjoys himself is self-evidently, to use the other poster's term, a "rape apologist".

So, does the joke about the Wicklow farmer discovering two new uses for a sheep - food and wool - make me a Wicklow farmer or a sheep-shagger?

Sometimes a joke is just a joke. Tasteless, offensive, badly premeditated; yes - but ultimately just a joke.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pug160 wrote: »

I would be more inclined to believe that certain people are probably somewhat arrogant and feel that they can get away with things that others perceived to be below them cannot get away with. The only thing I took from that case you have mentioned is that supposedly respectable and middle class people can act in a lowbrow way just as anyone from a lower social standing can. Most probably don't, but some do.

Sometimes, yes: but the great leveller here is sexual crime. No matter how much money or power you have, sexual crime is the one thing the rick or powerful can generally not get away with. Not any more, anyway.

There's no way in hell they would have thought "I don't mind going to court accused of rape - we'll be found not guilty and no one will care" going into the bedroom.

Pug160

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sometimes, yes: but the great leveller here is sexual crime. No matter how much money or power you have, sexual crime is the one thing the rick or powerful can generally not get away with. Not any more, anyway.

There's no way in hell they would have thought "I don't mind going to court accused of rape - we'll be found not guilty and no one will care" going into the bedroom.

Well they probably weren't thinking about too much at all. I wouldn't imagine hedonists, fuelled by testosterone, booze and overinflated egos do.

I agree that things are probably changing now. At the very least a lot of people will think twice about what they are doing.

sydthebeat

gizmo555 wrote: »

a joke (if it was one) that rape isn't rape if the rapist enjoys himself is self-evidently, to use the other poster's term, a "rape apologist".

:eek:

youve a weird understanding of rape.

and you completely misunderstood the text

gizmo555

sydthebeat wrote: »

:eek:

youve a weird understanding of rape.

and you completely misunderstood the text

If you think I did, perhaps you could explain what "It's not rape if you enjoy it!" is supposed to mean.

sydthebeat

gizmo555 wrote: »

If you think I did, perhaps you could explain what "It's not rape if you enjoy it!" is supposed to mean.

Its a reference to to the person being raped

gizmo555

sydthebeat wrote: »

Its a reference to to the person being raped

"the person being raped" - does that make it better, so?

El_Duderino 09

Peter Denham wrote: »

You're claiming that if he was better educated on violence he never would have punched someone ?

It's actually very naive that you believe we can eradicate bad human behaviour through childhood classes. You assume that through education people will become good people.

Who said eradicate? I certainly didn’t. I think education on rights and responsibilities and consequences is always good. It doesn’t make people good, it allows people to make more informed decisions.

That’s one of the principles behind education in most circumstances. Why’s it so difficult to grasp in this situation? Or in the case of consent?

God you’d argue against gravity if LON said it exists.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes..I appreciated the point..in light of that do you perhaps think consent classes might be a fairly simplistic answer to the issues around this?..

I didn’t say it would be the answer. I don’t think any single thing would be the ‘answer to the issues around this’.

I think discussing consent is a great idea and would be very helpful though.

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Did he go to prison for murder? I would think something like that would come under involuntary manslaughter, no?

Yes something like that. I was young and don’t remember the legal terms. He did jail, he killed someone by accident, he did something which caused another person to die. I think they’re the salient points.

Major life changing event whatever the charge was called. Wouldn’t you agree

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Did he go to prison for murder? I would think something like that would come under involuntary manslaughter, no?

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think the poster will understand that though. He can't see the difference between consent classes for both genders and some "journalist" saying that boys need to be taught not to rape.

I’m sure you completely missed the fact that I haven’t said anywhere that I think there should be a class to teach boys not to rape. I’ve said half a dozen times that I think discussion around consent is a great idea.

I haven’t said it should just be aimed at boys, I haven’t said it should be to teach boys not to rape. Hope this clears it up for you.

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

That's not what seems to be happening though. It's more of a focus on "men" or "masculinity" as some kind of inherent evil that needs to be moulded and manipulated.

I’ve been vocally supportive of the course I heard about. It was deliverer by Richy Sadlier. To transition year students. It didn’t take the approach that men or masculinity are evil.

But don’t let that get in the way of of the pity parade that some posters are so on board with. The idea that men are under attack and you’re the real victim. I wouldn’t support any course that teaches that men and masculinity are evil. But that’s not part of the course I know was delivered.

Watch this actual course be completely ignored in favour of the non existent course which posters imagine LON would deliver.

sydthebeat

gizmo555 wrote: »

"the person being raped" - does that make it better, so?

Of course not, what kind of a weirdo are you?

El_Duderino 09

Feisar wrote: »

Do we really need consent classes? I don't know how I made it through my teens and twenties without one of these classes to teach me some very basic right from wrong!Also, rape culture? There isn't one, unless one means it in the same context as murder culture, or burgalry culture. No culture involved, bad people do bad things.

My Mrs works with criminals in a hospital setting. You’d be shocked at the beliefs sone people hold. The things some people assume are normal. Assumptions based on norms from their upbringing, family, peers.

Domestic violence and sexual abuse are two really clear ones. If people are exposed to domestic violence or sexual abuse in their formative years, they normalise those things. They form beliefs that rationalise and justify those behaviours. I’m not talking about psychopaths. I’m talking about normal people with faulty assumptions which lead them to do things that harm people and get them in trouble with the law.

I have a good mate whose a normal guy. In his early 20 he was joking about having sex with his girlfriend in the middle of the night when she’s asleep to begin with. Long story short, he said, ‘sure you can’t rape your girlfriend’. We stopped joking and said that you seriously could rape your girlfriend. He hadn’t thought about it before and didn’t accept it at first. It took time to sink in because it was such a basic fact in his view. He’s a normal guy who is now a teacher. He had a seriously faulty belief that needed to be challenged and it was challenged.

gizmo555

sydthebeat wrote: »

Of course not, what kind of a weirdo are you?

I'm a weirdo who doesn't accept the notion of "rape culture" promoted by O'Neill.

However, no matter what way you interpret it, the other poster's claim that people send each other this kind of revolting and contemptible joke "all the time", and that I'm overreacting makes me wonder if she's right after all.

Pug160

On a side note: it is my understanding that a lot of sports stars and celebrities quite often use escorts as a means of protecting their privacy. It obviously wouldn't give them a licence to do anything outside of the law, but I think it's important to understand that the life of someone who is ''powerful'' is a lot different to that of your average Joe Bloggs. Exploitation can also work both ways and there are surely some women out there who would happily make some money if the opportunity presented itself. This has happened countless times. It can be ugly on both sides and I think anyone in a position of power where they have a high level of sexual market place value and status would be well advised to go over all sorts of potential pitalls with a fine tooth comb.

I guess the point I was trying to make earlier there was that those rugby players are probably just jerks. People like that come in all forms, which include those who have had a very well balanced upbringing and education. Consent classes or similar ideas just seem like another well meaning idea that certain people who are mostly on the left have. But it will either be ineffective or it will just complicate things further. It's unnecessary. I think what we have here are lots of ideas that are originating in America from intelligent but privileged young people with naive ideologies. I'm not referring to this particular proposal - just in general. Preserving masculinity (at least the heathly aspects) is immensely important. The consequences of not doing so are in my opinion even worse than letting unhealthy aspects thrive. Part of me thinks that most of the really silly stuff will stay in America and elesewhere - that it wouldn't creep in closer to home. But sometimes I wonder.

The J Stands for Jay

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

My Mrs works with criminals in a hospital setting. You’d be shocked at the beliefs sone people hold. The things some people assume are normal. Assumptions based on norms from their upbringing, family, peers.

Domestic violence and sexual abuse are two really clear ones. If people are exposed to domestic violence or sexual abuse in their formative years, they normalise those things. They form beliefs that rationalise and justify those behaviours. I’m not talking about psychopaths. I’m talking about normal people with faulty assumptions which lead them to do things that harm people and get them in trouble with the law.

I have a good mate whose a normal guy. In his early 20 he was joking about having sex with his girlfriend in the middle of the night when she’s asleep to begin with. Long story short, he said, ‘sure you can’t rape your girlfriend’. We stopped joking and said that you seriously could rape your girlfriend. He hadn’t thought about it before and didn’t accept it at first. It took time to sink in because it was such a basic fact in his view. He’s a normal guy who is now a teacher. He had a seriously faulty belief that needed to be challenged and it was challenged.

Could you start a new thread about the things people believe? I think that'd be interesting to hear about what criminals think.

El_Duderino 09

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Feisar wrote: »

Do we really need consent classes? I don't know how I made it through my teens and twenties without one of these classes to teach me some very basic right from wrong!

The recent Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding case would argue in favour of yes. Not saying they were guilty, but a bit or awareness might have helped them sense a change in the woman's attitude and a potential revoking of consent; and spare them a very public court-case.

It's not just about rape, it's also about sexual assault. Plenty of people - famous and otherwise - have wound up on court not necessarily because they were guilty of a non-consensual crime, but because they didn't know that what they were doing might be construed as a sexual assault.

Another example: grabbing a woman's (or man's) backside in a bar or club; some people think that's perfectly ok behaviour, some people see it as assault.

Discussing consent would have made the lads more aware of what could be considered consent. It would have also given the woman a clear template for what to do if she wasn't I to it any longer.

If either the lads had spotted a change or she had known exactly what to do to express the change, then all 5 of them could have avoided the entire problem. But some people will still argue against discussing the issue which is baffling to me.

I think grabbing arses or crotches in a bar or club is a great example. Some people think it's grand and others think it's assault. There was a thread about it before and of the men thought it was not assault when it happened to them. That's a situation that's ripe for misunderstanding. But still some will argue we shouldn't have a discussion about it. Fascinating

0cp71eyxkb94qf

This post has been deleted.

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m sure you completely missed the fact that I haven’t said anywhere that I think there should be a class to teach boys not to rape. I’ve said half a dozen times that I think discussion around consent is a great idea.

I haven’t said it should just be aimed at boys, I haven’t said it should be to teach boys not to rape. Hope this clears it up for you.

You did say rape could be accidental. Please give an example of a situation where someone could accidentally rape someone else. Because I can't think of one.

Yeah_Right

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's very simple. Someone who tells racist jokes is a racist. Someone who tells anti-Semitic jokes is an anti-Semite.

And someone who tells a joke (if it was one) that rape isn't rape if the rapist enjoys himself is self-evidently, to use the other poster's term, a "rape apologist".

What's the difference between a truck load of sand and a truck load of babies?
You can't unload a truck load of sand with a pitchfork.

OMG I'm supporting the killing of babies! I'm a baby killer!

Peter Denham

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

God you’d argue against gravity if LON said it exists.

I've never mentioned Louise O' Neill once, I actually know very little about her. Not sure why you made that statement.

I was just replying to your naive suggesting that lack of education leads to rape when everybody knows rape is wrong but people do it anyway. Education does not equate to good morals, it's simplistic and pretty childish to think otherwise.

skooterblue2

gizmo555 wrote: »

I'm a weirdo who doesn't accept the notion of "rape culture" promoted by O'Neill.

Ahhhh Poor Louise, Thinking every man because he has a penis is a potential rapist. If she wants to see real rape culture then she should head to Sweden or South Africa. Those are real centers for rape. You dont see her high lighting those countries, Do you? Its all about the white middle class males on college campus that need to be demonised.

gizmo555

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What's the difference between a truck load of sand and a truck load of babies?
You can't unload a truck load of sand with a pitchfork.

OMG I'm supporting the killing of babies! I'm a baby killer!

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, because it doesn't seem very obvious to you, whereas in general truckloads of babies are not unloaded with pitchforks, women and men, girls and boys - and babies - do get raped, all the time.

Baby remains in intensive care after alleged rape

A baby allegedly raped in Northern Ireland late last month is understood to be still in intensive care in a Belfast hospital.

A spokesman for the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children would only confirm that there was a “child in our care” when asked about the incident.

A 25-year-old man appeared in Armagh Magistrates Court last week charged with the rape of and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to a two-week-old baby.

So, while I might laugh at your pitchfork joke, if you joked that this wasn't rape if the baby enjoyed it, I would not.

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You did say rape could be accidental. Please give an example of a situation where someone could accidentally rape someone else. Because I can't think of one.

In a situation where both parties have a different understanding of consent.

Done clown earlier said there’s a difference between ‘stop’ and ‘ah stahp’. Is there a difference in the law? Could you explain that difference to a judge that ‘she didn’t say stop. She said ‘ah stahp’, your honour’.

I also mentioned my mate above who thought it wasn’t possible to rape your girlfriend. That was in about 2013. It’s really foolish to think that if something is obvious to you that it’s obvious to everyone else.

Those are two examples of how someone could commit a rape without intending to. Neither are psychopaths (or sycophants as one poster called them) And education is the cure in both of those examples.

I think any time people have different understanding of consent there’s an opportunity for misunderstanding. The bigger the difference the bigger the misunderstanding can be.

Do you accept that those examples could lead to a rape that wasn’t intended?

gizmo555

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Its all about the white middle class males on college campus that need to be demonised.

If, as other posters are claiming, white middle class males think it's normal and only a bit tasteless to joke that rape isn't rape if the rape victim enjoys it, that would certainly add credibility to O'Neill's demonisation.

El_Duderino 09

Peter Denham wrote: »

I was just replying to your naive suggesting that lack of education leads to rape when everybody knows rape is wrong but people do it anyway. Education does not equate to good morals, it's simplistic and pretty childish to think otherwise.

Oh man, that’s where you’re completely wrong. Everyone knows that rape is wrong but not everyone knows exactly what a rape is. The finer points of consent are actually much more interesting than you think.

A few questions to illustrate:
1 what is consent?
2 Do you need to consent to sex or can consent be assumed unless stated otherwise?
3 can someone consent when unconscious?
4 Can someone consent when very drunk?
5 can consent be given and then withdrawn during sex? If yes, how?
6 when someone consents to have sex non verbally through body language, what sex acts have they consented to exactly? Oral sex, penetrative sex, a bit of heavy petting, anal sex, sh1tting on each other’s chests and having sex in the mess?

I don’t consider these questions to cover all the nuances of consent but I challenge you to briefly answer those questions. Unless all the other posters agree with your answers, there’s a potential for misunderstanding.