The Snapper-debate

.......

This post has been deleted.

Odyssey 2005

Load of bollix...I'm out.

Ralf and Florian

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Ya mean it wasn't a Spanish Sailor with a euge lad !!?

For all you know it could have been a Pakistani postman.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If consent is given (and I'd argue it was - she hugs him and is conscious) is it revoked (assuming she remains conscious)?

Being conscious and being capable of consent are not the same thing. But yes, even if we were to assume that he believed consent had been given, then it seems clear that consent was later revoked when she asked, "is dat yeuw squeekin?"; because she clearly had no idea what was happening.

Consent must be continuous. If you have any reason to believe that consent is no longer in place (e.g. the person has passed out or appears unaware of what's happening), then it's rape if you continue.

Here I'd disagree: if you're capable if revoking consent then you've a duty to do so if you no longer wish to carry on.

I don't see how the squraking comment could be construed as having no idea what's happening? I don't believe she literally thought he was squeaking.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The books were published in 1992 - so they were set in the 80s at the time of writing, although maybe the film was set in the 90s, cant remember a specific date mentioned - open to correction.

Apologies - that was the trilogy published in 1992.

The snapper was published in 1990 so it (the book) definitely referred to the 80s.[/quote]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The books were published in 1992 - so they were set in the 80s at the time of writing, although maybe the film was set in the 90s, cant remember a specific date mentioned - open to correction.

Apologies - that was the trilogy published in 1992.

The snapper was published in 1990 so it (the book) definitely referred to the 80s.[/quote]

Wasn't it a sequeal to The Van, which was set against the backdrop of Italia 90?

SEANoftheDEAD

Georgina Curley was born in 1993 in the film.

Katgurl

seamus wrote: »

No no, that still makes him a rapist.

It doesn't require an "altercation" to be rape.
Someone doesn't have to say "no" for it to be rape.
Someone even appearing to be eager may still be incapable of consent, which makes it rape.
You don't have to be ashamed afterwards for it to be rape
You don't have know you committed a crime, for it to be rape

What is this madness?

keeponhurling

Thread needs poll

Barry Badrinath

keeponhurling wrote: »

Thread needs poll

Fcuk that!

Sharon will only get up it again!

Adamocovic

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know this is splitting hairs, but the discussion here is about the film, not the book.

Maybe it was a rape in the book, but it isn't as clear cut in the film.

Apologies, I agree with that.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Anyone else think that this film may be just slightly overrated?

cursai

Remember the time Proteus used the lure of infinite knowledge and raped Susan and they had a baby.

Source: Demon Seed

Steve F

Pat Mustard to Mrs Doyle opening the Kitchen door " I'm lookin' for a Mrs Doyle?"
Mrs Doyle(looking confused) "I AM Mrs Doyle"
Pat Mustard "Oh Sorry I thought you were Marilyn Monroe"

GOLD!!

Riddle101

Steve F wrote: »

Pat Mustard to Mrs Doyle opening the Kitchen door " I'm lookin' for a Mrs Doyle?"
Mrs Doyle(looking confused) "I AM Mrs Doyle"
Pat Mustard "Oh Sorry I thought you were Marilyn Monroe"

GOLD!!

Best Fr Ted episode ever. So many quotes from that episode.

suicide_circus

Steve F wrote: »

Pat Mustard to Mrs Doyle opening the Kitchen door " I'm lookin' for a Mrs Doyle?"
Mrs Doyle(looking confused) "I AM Mrs Doyle"
Pat Mustard "Oh Sorry I thought you were Marilyn Monroe"

GOLD!!

The funniest part about that is the fact that Marilyn Monroe was at that point dead for over 30 years.

the purple tin

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Anyone else think that this film may be just slightly overrated?

No doubt. Those Barrytown films have not aged well.
We always seem to be a bit more generous to a film just because it's Irish.

The Rape of Lucretia

c_man wrote: »

I've watched that only recently actually, never even entered my mind that someone would think it was rape.

Nor to anyone within the fictional film, nor to any real people watching it at that time. Because it wasnt rape at the time. By today's standards, it is rape to some people, and so is arguably rape today. But not definitively or universally so.

the purple tin

the purple tin wrote: »

No doubt. Those Barrytown films have not aged well.
We always seem to be a bit more generous to a film just because it's Irish.

Better they get imo, watched the snapper again recently its fantastic.

holystungun9

Is that Facebook rape thing that the politician lady was banging on about years ago still all the rage? I'm not gonna lie, I'm a bit out of touch.

the purple tin

Aidan Hot Hill wrote: »

Better they get imo, watched the snapper again recently its fantastic.

Sharon's friends in it are annoying as hell.

LadyMacBeth_

I'm going to watch this for the first time tonight!

c_man

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Anyone else think that this film may be just slightly overrated?

I really don't agree. I laughed my ass off during the last watching. An English couple joined me and really enjoyed it too. I had to do a bit of explaining at parts :P but it's a grand little film. Not the greatest, but deffo capturing a slice of an Ireland that was, in a humorous light.

Heres Johnny

It's a film about a poor working class woman setting herself up in a house for life and generous social welfare payments. She didn't care who the father was. I'd say she has 3 or 4 kids all with different daddys by now. Raking it in from tax payers. The kid in the snapper has probably reproduced with multiple sperm donors too replenishing the cycle.

So, was it rape? Absolutely. The underclass reproducing like rabbits and raping every tax payer in the country.

keeponhurling

Talk about living in different times, but there is now an App launched.
You can get approval via the App for sexual consent. It's like setting out formally the terms and conditions of an sexual encounter.
"The App also offers also extra clauses, such as the prohibition to share photos and videos. These clauses remain in effect even after the end of the consensual sex agreement, in order to protect ex-lovers should a relationship end. Therefore the app offers a penalty clause that can be used during trials, whenever the contract is infringed."
https://nltimes.nl/2018/01/11/sex-blockchain-new-dutch-app-makes-explicit-sexual-consent-easy

Allinall

Heres Johnny wrote: »

It's a film about a poor working class woman setting herself up in a house for life and generous social welfare payments. She didn't care who the father was. I'd say she has 3 or 4 kids all with different daddys by now. Raking it in from tax payers. The kid in the snapper has probably reproduced with multiple sperm donors too replenishing the cycle.

So, was it rape? Absolutely. The underclass reproducing like rabbits and raping every tax payer in the country.

They were acting.

the_pen_turner

keeponhurling wrote: »

Talk about living in different times, but there is now an App launched.
You can get approval via the App for sexual consent. It's like setting out formally the terms and conditions of an sexual encounter.
"The App also offers also extra clauses, such as the prohibition to share photos and videos. These clauses remain in effect even after the end of the consensual sex agreement, in order to protect ex-lovers should a relationship end. Therefore the app offers a penalty clause that can be used during trials, whenever the contract is infringed."
https://nltimes.nl/2018/01/11/sex-blockchain-new-dutch-app-makes-explicit-sexual-consent-easy

what happens when someone says they were forced to sign it. or too drunk to realise what they were signing.

Ralf and Florian

Heres Johnny wrote: »

It's a film about a poor working class woman setting herself up in a house for life and generous social welfare payments. She didn't care who the father was. I'd say she has 3 or 4 kids all with different daddys by now. Raking it in from tax payers. The kid in the snapper has probably reproduced with multiple sperm donors too replenishing the cycle.

So, was it rape? Absolutely. The underclass reproducing like rabbits and raping every tax payer in the country.

Ring Joe Duffy about it.

keeponhurling

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what happens when someone says they were forced to sign it. or too drunk to realise what they were signing.

At least they have actively done something to show consent.
Avoids the "eventhough I went along with it, and didn't mention consent at the time, I assumed that they assumed there was no consent" kind of cases.
Anyways, let's see if it takes off.

Heres Johnny

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Heres Johnny wrote: »

It's a film about a poor working class woman setting herself up in a house for life and generous social welfare payments. She didn't care who the father was. I'd say she has 3 or 4 kids all with different daddys by now. Raking it in from tax payers. The kid in the snapper has probably reproduced with multiple sperm donors too replenishing the cycle.

So, was it rape? Absolutely. The underclass reproducing like rabbits and raping every tax payer in the country.

Ring Joe Duffy about it.

I've no credit the bleedin social won't release my payment

keeponhurling

keeponhurling wrote: »

Talk about living in different times, but there is now an App launched.
You can get approval via the App for sexual consent. It's like setting out formally the terms and conditions of an sexual encounter.
"The App also offers also extra clauses, such as the prohibition to share photos and videos. These clauses remain in effect even after the end of the consensual sex agreement, in order to protect ex-lovers should a relationship end. Therefore the app offers a penalty clause that can be used during trials, whenever the contract is infringed."
https://nltimes.nl/2018/01/11/sex-blockchain-new-dutch-app-makes-explicit-sexual-consent-easy

"Consent may be withdrawn at any moment, the app maker says"

So... Not much protection.

AndrewJRenko

Heres Johnny wrote: »

It's a film about a poor working class woman setting herself up in a house for life and generous social welfare payments. She didn't care who the father was. I'd say she has 3 or 4 kids all with different daddys by now. Raking it in from tax payers. The kid in the snapper has probably reproduced with multiple sperm donors too replenishing the cycle.

You must be thinking of a different movie, because none of that stuff happened in the Snapper.

BarryD2

pipelaser wrote: »

Have just shown The Snapper to an English friend.

She reffered to the car park Sharon-George Burgess scene as a rape. (See link above)

Whatever you think but nonetheless a great film and made with English money. Much to the disgrace of our supposed love of the arts.

xckjoo

I haven't seen this movie in about 15 years but I always took it as rape. Slightly worried that so many people seem to think it wasn't but maybe I need to re-watch it.

Anyone remember Revenge of the Nerds? That took a creepy turn towards the end.

minikin

Georgie Burgess, cross-examines himself in the trial... the guards put him under arrest because he was so gorgeous.

Gorgeousgeorge

just realised he is pat mustard.

whatdoicare

I'm confused - how do people not think it was rape?? Even when I first watched it as a naive teen I knew it was rape (when it first came out)- it's portrayed as rape!! FFS there's even a scene where she relives it and freaks out! The dirtbag even gave her a tenner for some sweeties (because even as he raped her he saw her as a child and don't forget her best friend of the same age was his daughter!) and kept her knickers!

What in the fup is wrong with you guys that ye didn't cop that???

BattleCorp

whatdoicare wrote: »

I'm confused - how do people not think it was rape?? Even when I first watched it as a naive teen I knew it was rape (when it first came out)- it's portrayed as rape!! FFS there's even a scene where she relives it and freaks out! The dirtbag even gave her a tenner for some sweeties (because even as he raped her he saw her as a child and don't forget her best friend of the same age was his daughter!) and kept her knickers!

What in the fup is wrong with you guys that ye didn't cop that???

I don't think it is so clear cut.

Some people get sh1tfaced and make poor judgements, especially when it comes to who they sleep with.

Sharon was drunk and obviously horny because when she saw Burgess she said 'man' and she initiated the romantic liaison (not that it was very romantic).

If Sharon was unconscious and Burgess had sex with her, then I would 100% consider it rape but that isn't what happened in the film. It was two drunk people shagging (poor judgement on both parts but not necessarily rape).

Regarding Sharon having the flashbacks, I've had similar flashbacks and regrets for things I've done while drunk. That doesn't mean that there was rape involved.

the_pen_turner

whatdoicare wrote: »

I'm confused - how do people not think it was rape?? Even when I first watched it as a naive teen I knew it was rape (when it first came out)- it's portrayed as rape!! FFS there's even a scene where she relives it and freaks out! The dirtbag even gave her a tenner for some sweeties (because even as he raped her he saw her as a child and don't forget her best friend of the same age was his daughter!) and kept her knickers!

What in the fup is wrong with you guys that ye didn't cop that???

because there is no signs in the film that it was rape. drunken mistake yes but not rape.

giving her money or keeping her knickers doesn't make it rape, just a dirty oul fella.

.......

This post has been deleted.

the_pen_turner

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

..

.......

This post has been deleted.

the_pen_turner

how could she be so unaware and out of it but still remember the details like that. this is her flash back we are seeing.
if they wanted to show her getting raped then they should have shown that and clearly shown if she was out of it.
it is far to open to interpretation

the purple tin

There's a very good 4 part miniseries from the 90's based around Doyle's Paula Spencer character called Family. I don't think RTE have ever repeated it since it was first shown probably because there was a bit of a to-do around it especially from the church because of some of the themes it dealt with.

Mena Mitty

the purple tin wrote: »

There's a very good 4 part miniseries from the 90's based around Doyle's Paula Spencer character called Family. I don't think RTE have ever repeated it since it was first shown probably because there was a bit of a to-do around it especially from the church because of some of the themes it dealt with.

It was about wife beating or as we call it today Domestic abuse. The priest from the Field movie was the husband iirc and there was some great acting.

the purple tin

Mena Mitty wrote: »

It was about wife beating or as we call it today Domestic abuse. The priest from the Field movie was the husband iirc and there was some great acting.

That's right. It also touched on incest and sexual abuse and that was what really got the clergy in a tizz as I recall.

whatdoicare

BattleCorp wrote: »

whatdoicare wrote: »

I'm confused - how do people not think it was rape?? Even when I first watched it as a naive teen I knew it was rape (when it first came out)- it's portrayed as rape!! FFS there's even a scene where she relives it and freaks out! The dirtbag even gave her a tenner for some sweeties (because even as he raped her he saw her as a child and don't forget her best friend of the same age was his daughter!) and kept her knickers!

What in the fup is wrong with you guys that ye didn't cop that???

I don't think it is so clear cut.

Some people get sh1tfaced and make poor judgements, especially when it comes to who they sleep with.

Sharon was drunk and obviously horny because when she saw Burgess she said 'man' and she initiated the romantic liaison (not that it was very romantic).

If Sharon was unconscious and Burgess had sex with her, then I would 100% consider it rape but that isn't what happened in the film. It was two drunk people shagging (poor judgement on both parts but not necessarily rape).

Regarding Sharon having the flashbacks, I've had similar flashbacks and regrets for things I've done while drunk. That doesn't mean that there was rape involved.

First of all Mr Burgess wasnt drunk. So no, not two drunk people shagging. He took her knickers, gave her money for "sweeties" and left her where she was despite knowing she was out of her mind drunk. He even made sure she was that way in his way of questioning. It was veey much shag her as quick as he could and run away before anyone sees! He knew what he was doing was wrong! He knew he wasnt going to be met with a happy girl with love in her eyes next time he saw her. He was hoping to get his bit and she be too drunk to remember and he get away with it.

When he was done she actually says something like, what was that?? During it all shes away in laalaa land and not remotely aware of whats happening asking if that was him squeaking!

Sharon doesnt realise until a flash back much later that she had sex. It is definietly not regret thats on her face, very much horror!

BattleCorp

whatdoicare wrote: »

First of all Mr Burgess wasnt drunk. So no, not two drunk people shagging. He took her knickers, gave her money for "sweeties" and left her where she was despite knowing she was out of her mind drunk. He even made sure she was that way in his way of questioning. It was veey much shag her as quick as he could and run away before anyone sees! He knew what he was doing was wrong! He knew he wasnt going to be met with a happy girl with love in her eyes next time he saw her. He was hoping to get his bit and she be too drunk to remember and he get away with it.

When he was done she actually says something like, what was that?? During it all shes away in laalaa land and not remotely aware of whats happening asking if that was him squeaking!

Sharon doesnt realise until a flash back much later that she had sex. It is definietly not regret thats on her face, very much horror!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To quote The Big Lebowski. ... "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

I wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the events.

I did a quick poll here in the office and I'm the only man and there are seven women here. None of them thought it was a rape. They all considered it to be a drunken encounter that Sharon regretted, but not a rape.

seamie78

I see someone mentioned the family there, I missed it at the time anyone know wer you could watch that now, it was never repeated and doesn't appear to available digitally ..........apologies for going off topic

.......

This post has been deleted.

the purple tin

seamie78 wrote: »

I see someone mentioned the family there, I missed it at the time anyone know wer you could watch that now, it was never repeated and doesn't appear to available digitally ..........apologies for going off topic

You can watch the 4 episodes on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVecSVezYG4

Also Amazon have it on dvd https://www.amazon.co.uk/Family-DVD-Se%C3%A1n-McGinley/dp/B004URO43I/ref=oosr