Women using contraception have less excuse for being raped?!?

Avatar MIA

Is the Bishop (Kevin Doran) saying what I think he's saying?

"It may seem to some that contraception has liberated women insofar as it allows them to take control of their own fertility,” he said. “But the fact that they are less likely to become pregnant also takes away from women one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying no to unwanted sex.”

Less freedom for having unwanted sex, is he for real ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/principles-of-contraceptive-ban-ignored-for-too-long-says-bishop-1.3586958?mode=amp

Halloween Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Is the Bishop (Kevin Doran) saying what I think he's saying?

"It may seem to some that contraception has liberated women insofar as it allows them to take control of their own fertility,” he said. “But the fact that they are less likely to become pregnant also takes away from women one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying no to unwanted sex.”

Less freedom for having unwanted sex, is he for real ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/principles-of-contraceptive-ban-ignored-for-too-long-says-bishop-1.3586958?mode=amp

You have to laugh at these absolute dinosaurs and their overwhelming appetite for massive self sabotage. Yesterday’s busted ideology, The spells and hocus pocus would be quaint if it wasn’t for the rather nasty strains of homophobia and misogyny that underpin it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

Avatar MIA

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

Motivation to resist less? The assault of rape, possibility of life altering disease not enough? Plus, no thanks to the Bishop abortion methods now remove the getting pregnant concern.

sydthebeat

Single Old Man lectures people on fundamental of society within which he doesn't partake.

Im going to give this article the absolute disdain it deserves.

Collie D

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

Explain it for us then.

I can't imagine he'd be so crass to suggest what the OP is saying but I'm not sure what it is that he is saying.

Either way he probably should have said nothing.

The Rape of Lucretia

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Motivation to resist less?
The assault of rape, possibility of life altering disease not enough?

Yes.
And, no. For some.

There was a case earlier this year in the north of some of the Irish rugby squad falsely accused of rape, for example. A motivation not to become pregnant 'might' have been sufficient motivation for some not to get into those type of situations where things go further than planned and they might perceive themselves to have been raped, or indeed, in other cases, actually be raped.
The availability of contraception adds some element or sense of security which can lead women to find themselves in dangerous situations.

Halloween Jack

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

Not only is this notion moronic, it’s offensive.

Annasopra

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There was a case earlier this year in the north of some of the Irish rugby squad falsely accused of rape, for example.

Well that is utter nonsense. Noone has been convicted of false accusation of rape in that case.

Avatar MIA

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes.
And, no. For some.

There was a case earlier this year in the north of some of the Irish rugby squad falsely accused of rape, for example. A motivation not to become pregnant 'might' have been sufficient motivation for some not to get into those type of situations where things go further than planned and they might perceive themselves to have been raped, or indeed, in other cases, actually be raped.
The availability of contraception adds some element or sense of security which can lead women to find themselves in dangerous situations.

Perhaps we could bring in Sharia law, for their safety.

No one should have the worry, is it okay tonight to go out BECAUSE I've taken the pill. But you're missing the key word the prince said, and that's Freedom. What do you think his grace means by the word freedom here?

looksee

I really doubt that the risk of pregnancy is the most immediate thought of anyone being raped. An immediate after thought, certainly, but I doubt anyone has thought "ah sure, fortunately I am using a contraceptive as I figured I might get raped so I might as well enjoy it'.

What is amazing is not that he had the thought, that's uderstandable, but that he did not immediately see the flaws and irrationality in the argument, then having written it down did not rethink it, then finally made the decision to publish it. Proof of existence on another planet.

Silentcorner

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

Maybe women should just carry condoms for rapists...you know...just to make it easier for themselves...

upandcumming

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not only is this notion moronic, it’s offensive.

Of course it is. Shocking, Joe.

batgoat

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

Doran has a long history of outrageous comments. The fact you're claiming there's some logic in there is desperation. Lack of contraception does not make a woman less likely to be raped. Pregnancies as a result of a rape occur.

Turnipman

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Is the Bishop (Kevin Doran) saying what I think he's saying?

"It may seem to some that contraception has liberated women insofar as it allows them to take control of their own fertility,” he said. “But the fact that they are less likely to become pregnant also takes away from women one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying no to unwanted sex.”

Less freedom for having unwanted sex, is he for real ?

Removing the negatives from His Grace's stirring verbal ejaculation gives us:-

“The fact that they are less likely to become pregnant also gives women one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying yes to wanted sex.”

So it's a win - win for everyone, as his Grace has helpfully pointed out!

Well done that virgin!

fin12

Sorry this is a bit offtopic? But why do men always make assumptions that u are some kind of slut if you have condoms in ur bag?

They’ve no problem having sex with you but then they have to make their ****ty remarks about you carrying condoms in your bag.

looksee

And then there is his equating of contraception with abortion and euthanasia...

looksee

fin12 wrote: »

Sorry this is a bit offtopic? But why do men always make assumptions that u are some kind of slut if you have condoms in ur bag?

They’ve no problem having sex with you but then they have to make their ****ty remarks about you carrying condoms in your bag.

Anyone making ****ty remarks promptly loses the opportunity.

fin12

looksee wrote: »

Anyone making ****ty remarks promptly loses the opportunity.

They usually make it after so that the problem...

Silentcorner

fin12 wrote: »

Sorry this is a bit offtopic? But why do men always make assumptions that u are some kind of slut if you have condoms in ur bag?

They’ve no problem having sex with you but then they have to make their ****ty remarks about you carrying condoms in your bag.

If you are meeting men who always comment on that, then you have not yet learned how to avoid men that dumb...

HappyAsLarE

It’s a bit fcuked up for this idea to pop into one’s head.

HappyAsLarE

fin12 wrote: »

Sorry this is a bit offtopic? But why do men always make assumptions that u are some kind of slut if you have condoms in ur bag?

They’ve no problem having sex with you but then they have to make their ****ty remarks about you carrying condoms in your bag.

Promiscuity is a negative trait in women from an evolutionary biology perspective. Unselective women are more likely to bear weaker offspring. So we instinctively look down on such women without giving it much conscious thought.

eviltwin

Bishops seem to spend a lot of time thinking about others sex lives the dirty fcuks.

looksee

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Promiscuity is a negative trait in women from an evolutionary biology perspective. Unselective women are more likely to bear weaker offspring. So we instinctively look down on such women without giving it much conscious thought.

But surely carrying condoms is saying 'I am very selective and don't want to bear your child'. Is this to be condemned for rejecting (you) that individual, or approved for being selective?

I am not being entirely serious here. And off topic.

edit - and I do not disagree with your argument.

dav3

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well, he is right is he not ?
The motivation for a woman to resist is, in some cases at least, likely to be higher if they are motivated by a desire not to become pregnant as well as a desire not to be raped.
But its like the George Hook comment - you can spin it to say woman therefore become in some way responsible for the rape. But that is not what Hook or Bishop Doran are really saying. Its suits some people to deliberately misunderstand some comments so that they can then affect outrage and offence.

I see what you're saying. As a man cannot get pregnant, they'll be more up for being raped over a woman, as you don't really know if a woman is on contraception on not. Doran is actually asking rapist to rape men instead of women as they won't put up as much of a fight.

I mean it's difficult to match the absolute s*ithousery that comes out of Doran's mouth, but I'm at least giving it a try.

Cian_ok

Unwanted sex doesn't necessarily mean non consensual sex.

When I was eating my breakfast I didn't *want* the last slice of toast. But I ate it anyway.

hatrickpatrick

As a former Catholic and an ongoing Christian, f*ck this organisation of hateful sexual authoritarianism. The sooner it collapses from lack of active members, the better for humanity. So long and good riddance.

Honestly, how many "isolated cases not representative of the whole organisation" do we have to hear about before it becomes acceptable to call a spade a spade - the Catholic church is, by and large, managed, controlled, and operated at the highest level by sick, twisted, evil individuals who have an utterly toxic world view and should have absolutely no mainstream influence on literally anything whatsoever.

HappyAsLarE

looksee wrote: »

But surely carrying condoms is saying 'I am very selective and don't want to bear your child'. Is this to be condemned for rejecting (you) that individual, or approved for being selective?

I am not being entirely serious here. And off topic.

edit - and I do not disagree with your argument.

Ha yeah that is a real irony I hadn’t thought of.

Of course evolutionary instinct doesn’t consider the logical facts or context.

acai berry

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes.
And, no. For some.

There was a case earlier this year in the north of some of the Irish rugby squad falsely accused of rape, for example. A motivation not to become pregnant 'might' have been sufficient motivation for some not to get into those type of situations where things go further than planned and they might perceive themselves to have been raped, or indeed, in other cases, actually be raped.
The availability of contraception adds some element or sense of security which can lead women to find themselves in dangerous situations.

Incorrect! It has never never been stated it was a false accusation. The parties were found NOT GUILTY, because the case could not be proven, due to lack of evidence. That does not make it a false accusation. So, true or false, regarding the accusation, has to remain open.

Donald Trump

I took it to be a logical sentence.

Any of the ladies here ever had sex with a fella they weren't really that "sure" about but went ahead anyway because they were in the moment and had condoms? Some fella they wouldn't otherwise have had sex with had they not had the condoms?

Or any woman who was not in the mood or ready to get to that stage but was pestered by their other half because "ah sure c'mon, you're on the pill". Or conversely anyone ever used the "excuse" that "I didn't take my pill" to not have sex when in reality they didn't want it anyway?

I'm not saying anything about morals, just the logic of the statement


Unfortunately there are too many people looking out for statements of any particular group they don't like for any way that they can twist it to push their own agenda or intolerance against it. That is what the majority of this thread will be

hatrickpatrick

Donald Trump wrote: »

I took it to be a logical sentence.

Any of the ladies here ever had sex with a fella they weren't really that "sure" about but went ahead anyway because they were in the moment and had condoms? Some fella they wouldn't otherwise have had sex with had they not had the condoms?

Or any woman who was not in the mood or ready to get to that stage but was pestered by their other half because "ah sure c'mon, you're on the pill". Or conversely anyone ever used the "excuse" that "I didn't take my pill" to not have sex when in reality they didn't want it anyway?

I'm not saying anything about morals, just the logic of the statement

The point is that no "excuse" is necessary. "I don't want to ride you, sorry 'bout that" is literally the only excuse that's required.

This is at best a horrible insight into how senior members of the Catholic hierarchy view sexual consent, and at worst a pathetic attempt to manipulate people into opposing sexual freedom through bullsh!t mental gymnastics.

Either way, it's symptomatic of an evil and corrupt organisation. That anyone at a senior level can make a remark like this and not draw instant condemnation from someone higher up the chain of command is utterly abhorrent.

You can bet that if a bishop came out and said that contraception and gay sex were ok, the condemnations would come straight from the Vatican itself and probably include excommunication or loss of clergy membership. But no high level condemnation of bullsh!t remarks like this.

The institution is an evil perversion of what was supposed to be a message of love and happiness for people to live by. F*ck the lot of them. :mad:

colm_mcm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I took it to be a logical sentence.

Any of the ladies here ever had sex with a fella they weren't really that "sure" about but went ahead anyway because they were in the moment and had condoms? Some fella they wouldn't otherwise have had sex with had they not had the condoms?

Or any woman who was not in the mood or ready to get to that stage but was pestered by their other half because "ah sure c'mon, you're on the pill". Or conversely anyone ever used the "excuse" that "I didn't take my pill" to not have sex when in reality they didn't want it anyway?

I'm not saying anything about morals, just the logic of the statement


Unfortunately there are too many people looking out for statements of any particular group they don't like for any way that they can twist it to push their own agenda or intolerance against it. That is what the majority of this thread will be

+1, I took “saying no to unwanted sex” to mean consentual but still not particularly wanted. It’s being called rape here, which makes for great priest bashing.

Donald Trump

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The point is that no "excuse" is necessary. "I don't want to ride you, sorry 'bout that" is literally the only excuse that's required.

This is at best a horrible insight into how senior members of the Catholic hierarchy view sexual consent, and at worst a pathetic attempt to manipulate people into opposing sexual freedom through bullsh!t mental gymnastics.

Either way, it's symptomatic of an evil and corrupt organisation. That anyone at a senior level can make a remark like this and not draw instant condemnation from someone higher up the chain of command is utterly abhorrent.

You can bet that if a bishop came out and said that contraception and gay sex were ok, the condemnations would come straight from the Vatican itself and probably include excommunication or loss of clergy membership. But no high level condemnation of bullsh!t remarks like this.

The institution is an evil perversion of what was supposed to be a message of love and happiness for people to live by. F*ck the lot of them. :mad:

You have a particular hatred or agenda that will cloud your ability to see logic on any topic related to this.


You'll just post boilerplate scattergun "points" that have no relation to the subject.


They might sound correct in your head, but don't refute in any logical way what was said.




Man says "Having access contraception reduces the motivations for a woman to say no to sex"


Unless you say that that is false then you are agreeing with the man. You can do that if you want.





"but but but, babies in a tank and Magdalene laundries" doesn't refute the logic

sydthebeat

How in any language can "unwanted" equal consensual ????

Seriously, that's just a silly stretch

looksee

Donald Trump wrote: »

Man says "Having access contraception reduces the motivations for a woman to say no to sex"


Unless you say that that is false then you are agreeing with the man. You can do that if you want.

I thought we had already refuted that? Beginning of the thread. You are also reducing all women's reactions to sexual activity to identical reasoning.

Edit, you also omitted the word 'unwanted' in pursuit of your defence of this pathetic little man.

colm_mcm

sydthebeat wrote: »

How in any language can "unwanted" equal consensual ????

Seriously, that's just a silly stretch

Reading back on my post, I wasn’t clear. What meant to say was that there are people not saying no to unwanted sex.

Donald Trump

looksee wrote: »

I thought we had already refuted that? Beginning of the thread.

Refuted what?
You mean your own interpretation of what he meant?


What do you think he said? Can you paraphrase? Do you think he actually meant "women on the pill are asking, and deserve to be raped"?

looksee wrote: »

You are also reducing all women's reactions to sexual activity to identical reasoning.

Huh???

looksee wrote: »

Edit, you also omitted the word 'unwanted' in pursuit of your defence of this pathetic little man.

Look, you have an agenda. That's your issue. An article in a paper with some quote and because the fella who said it is a priest he's a "pathetic little man".


I'm not defending anyone. I don't know who your man is. Never heard of him and probably never will again. It's just funny for me to see how quick people are to attack anything or anyone that mentions the church. It's fairly intolerant and bigoted to be honest

dav3

Donald Trump wrote: »

Man says "Having access contraception reduces the motivations for a woman to say no to sex"

This man is, as far as we know, a celibate catholic priest. I think you may be giving him too much reverence in having some deep understanding on this issue.

Donald Trump

dav3 wrote: »

This man is, as far as we know, a celibate catholic priest. I think you may be giving him too much reverence in having some deep understanding on this issue.

Who am I giving reverence to? You might want to get yourself an oul' dictionary there me oul' mucker


I'm not sure how to improve the levels of reading comprehension in Irish schools. Something is going wrong. The title of this thread is not what was reported in that article. Simple as that.

biko

Public figures can't say anything these days without some snowflake on the left or right spinning it to get offended.

Stop being victims people, it does not become you.

looksee

I am basing my opinions on what was said in the article, not on the title of the thread. Before you bluster about other people's ability to read you should maybe pay more attention to your own ability to quote accurately.

He (the irrelevant, pathetic little man) must actually be arguing about whether active Catholics should follow Church teaching (presumably, as there is no reason why anyone else should take an interest), so its only Catholic rapees (ie, unwilling participants to sex) that are being confused by using contraceptives, and of course those Catholics are not using contraceptives anyway, so the argument is all irrelevant. Maybe Catholic rapists should consider whether they should waste their seed on the artificially barren ground of women using contraceptives? He could issue a statement about that.

padd b1975

Silentcorner wrote: »

Maybe women should just carry condoms for rapists...you know...just to make it easier for themselves...

I've heard worse suggestions.

hatrickpatrick

biko wrote: »

Public figures can't say anything these days without some snowflake on the left or right spinning it to get offended.

Stop being victims people, it does not become you.

This isn't about being a victim, it's adding more weight to the idea that we need to get this ultraconservative, bigoted, authoritarian dumpster fire of an organisation 100% out of our education system. This kind of ideology is not something children should be indoctrinated with.

hatrickpatrick

looksee wrote: »

I am basing my opinions on what was said in the article, not on the title of the thread. Before you bluster about other people's ability to read you should maybe pay more attention to your own ability to quote accurately.

He (the irrelevant, pathetic little man) must actually be arguing about whether active Catholics should follow Church teaching (presumably, as there is no reason why anyone else should take an interest), so its only Catholic rapees (ie, unwilling participants to sex) that are being confused by using contraceptives, and of course those Catholics are not using contraceptives anyway, so the argument is all irrelevant. Maybe Catholic rapists should consider whether they should waste their seed on the artificially barren ground of women using contraceptives? He could issue a statement about that.

He made reference to encouraging "sex only for procreation" sex education as well, in my view that's the other toxic and dangerous ideology he's expressing here.

sydthebeat

Donald Trump wrote: »

Man says "Having access contraception reduces the motivations for a woman to say no to sex"

Well done on selective quoting.... You omitted one very very important word... "unwanted"

Completely changes the tenor of what this bishop is saying

dav3

biko wrote: »

Public figures can't say anything these days without some snowflake on the left or right spinning it to get offended.

Stop being victims people, it does not become you.

Don't forget the people in the centre a.k.a the liberals.

You're not actually suggesting the nutters are allowed free reign without being challenged are you? Especially when they're pushing for their beliefs to be brought into schools.

“The principles of Humanae Vitae have been ignored for too long and need to be presented in a fresh way,” he said.

There is undoubtedly a place in schools for an appropriate presentation of the church’s teachings on human sexuality.

Humanae Vitae teaches that every act of intercourse should be open in principle to the gift of life

To propose once again as Paul VI did a coherent and integrated vision of human sexuality in which the unitive purpose of the sexual act is never separated from the openness to the act of giving life.

It may seem to some that contraception has liberated women insofar as it allows them to take control of their own fertility,” he said. “But the fact that they are less likely to become pregnant also takes away from women one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying no to unwanted sex.

Bishop Doran added that the “contraceptive mentality” in society was linked to the “surprisingly high number” of people in favour of same sex marriage.

Another speaker at the conference on Saturday, Dr Marie Meaney of the International Theological Institute, delivered a presentation on reproductive technologies, in which she said the practice of in vitro fertilization (IVF) was “murderous”.

I’m not going to talk about the fact that men have to masturbate to get the sperm, which couples say is a very unpleasant experience. It’s very clinical. It has nothing to do with love, and, very often, to be able to do that, men watch porn. That means using another person.

At the conclusion of the conference, contributions from the audience included suggestions that the principles of Humanae Vitae ought to be “declared boldly” and without apology

Some wonderful quotes from their little meeting. Why would people not want to discuss them, and more importantly, why would people not want to remind them that their beliefs have no place in Ireland's future?

acai berry

Bishop Doran also said contraception impinged upon the “dignity of women”.

“It may seem to some that contraception has liberated women insofar as it allows them to take control of their own fertility,” he said. “But the fact that they are less likely to become pregnant also takes away from women one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying no to unwanted sex.”

Reading through this thread, which seems to be all over the place, I went back and reread the article in question.

I'm noticing, that nowhere in the article is the word "rape" mentioned. Are we making something out of something that is not there? It is obvious from reading the article, that the Bishop would like to be able to turn back the clock to the 1960's, when there would be no contraception, no abortion, no same sex marriages.

Bishop Doran was speaking at an event in Dublin marking the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.

The Bishop is exhorting us to go back to those days of Humane Vitae. That is an impossibility, in light of all that has happened in the meantime. You can't turn back the clock, much as he'd like to.
This thread has developed into a discussion of rape, when in actual fact, rape was never mentioned in the article. The article, and especially the bishop's words, are a bit all over the place, but this thread is even more so.

sydthebeat

acai berry wrote: »

This thread has developed into a discussion of rape, when in actual fact, rape was never mentioned in the article. The article, and especially the bishop's words, are a bit all over the place, but this thread is even more so.

Please describe your take on the phrase "unwanted sex"?

If it's the woman who does not want the sex being referred to, then how could it be anything other than rape?

Donald Trump

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well done on selective quoting.... You omitted one very very important word... "unwanted"

Completely changes the tenor of what this bishop is saying

That's silly


Most sane and normal people would assume that "unwanted" is implicit, or at least contained within, situations where you want to say "no" to something.




Unless you are one of these people who thinks "yeah she said no, but I knew she really wanted it"?

acai berry

sydthebeat wrote: »

Please describe your take on the phrase "unwanted sex"?

If it's the woman who does not want the sex being referred to, then how could it be anything other than rape?

This point has been discussed earlier in this thread. The point was made that there may be instances of women concenting to sex even though it is "unwanted". Is that rape or is it not?

The point I'm making is that this thread is all over the place. It's making the article into something that it's not. There's not a lot of logic being displayed in the article and the Bishop's words - even less in this thread. That's all I'm saying. I'm not here to discuss rape.

sydthebeat

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's silly


Most sane and normal people would assume that "unwanted" is implicit, or at least contained within, situations where you want to say "no" to something.




Unless you are one of these people who thinks "yeah she said no, but I knew she really wanted it"?

The bishop expressly said "unwanted sex"..... No need for you to make anything implicit or making assumptions

So if you going to quote the Bishop, quote the relevant phrases correctly.... Because there's a world of difference between what you said and what the Bishop said.