Consent classes for Irish rugby team

PlaneSpeeking

LirW wrote: »

I wouldn't say you can't allow it because it's up to them but it might be unwise for certain people to engage in casual sex with strangers because of their status. Simply because there's a serious risk to leave themselves vunerable to exploitation and could ruin their hard earned reputation.
In a perfect world this wouldn't happen but we're not living on a rainbow farm so it's probably in their own best interest to think hard about your actions.

That is probably basic PR 101 when representing a sport institution.

But whilst losing the McDonald's gig might be a worry, losing 5 years in jail, one's reputation and livelihood should not be.

Triceratops Ballet

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm yet to be convinced why SOME men (not all) are to attend these mandatory brainwashing sessions classes. What good can they do if consent is not a two way street - i.e. are you giving consent when you don't mean to? Does your behaviour and words indicate a giving of consent ?

That kind of thing.

In a perfect world we'd go back in a time machine and we'd all have these lessons in school and we'd have a much better attitude to sex and a much healthier discourse around the subject in general, but we don't have a time machine and unfortunately somebody has to be the first.

IMO consent is a two way street, but from my own experience nobody seemed to be willing to tell young girls to be open to and embrace their sexuality, the message is very much focused on the bad outcomes of sex (teen pregnancy and disease) if kids, of both genders were taught to own their sexuality and had open conversations about the same and understood how to give and attain consent things would be much clearer for everyone.
(actually even the word consent implies it's something that's being taken from one person to benefit the other rather than it being a shared experience)

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Phrase it whatever way you like. I bet paddy Jackson didn’t know the risks he was taking and he paid a high price.

Im a rugby fan and hated to see things unfold as they did with Jackson. I’m delighted the IRFU is looking after it’s players.

There’s no need to turn everything into a feminism issue. This is the IRFU protecting its players and its reputation. Makes good sense to me.

Believe me, I'm no feminist!

My point stands, why should there have been risks to having sex with an enthusiastic partner and those "risks" only borne by men ?

Are you not a feminist? You live and learn.

Between the sex and the WhatsApp exchange, they did lose their job. That might surprise you to know that can happen. You still seem to find it hard to fathom. That’s why the consent and related discussion is necessary. Particularly for people in the public eye who represent organisations.

This really isn’t a feminist issue. It’s just the IRFU looking out for its players and itself.

freshpopcorn

LirW wrote: »

I wouldn't say you can't allow it because it's up to them but it might be unwise for certain people to engage in casual sex with strangers because of their status. Simply because there's a serious risk to leave themselves vunerable to exploitation and could ruin their hard earned reputation.
In a perfect world this wouldn't happen but we're not living on a rainbow farm so it's probably in their own best interest to think hard about your actions.

That is probably basic PR 101 when representing a sport institution.

Thanks for the reply.
I personally find a lot of things regarding this in the media confusing.
Take the repeal the eighth campaign I heard multiply people saying a woman should have the choice to do anything with her body. You can't really argue with that. Then they were coming out with the line No woman would ever put themselves in a position where they would give consent to group sex. I know people who'd gladly engage in it.
I don't really know how any person in the media could engage in any form of sexual activity to be honest because it could end up ruining there careers.

PlaneSpeeking

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

In a perfect world we'd go back in a time machine and we'd all have these lessons in school and we'd have a much better attitude to sex and a much healthier discourse around the subject in general, but we don't have a time machine and unfortunately somebody has to be the first.

IMO consent is a two way street, but from my own experience nobody seemed to be willing to tell young girls to be open to and embrace their sexuality, the message is very much focused on the bad outcomes of sex (teen pregnancy and disease) if kids, of both genders were taught to own their sexuality and had open conversations about the same and understood how to give and attain consent things would be much clearer for everyone.
(actually even the word consent implies it's something that's being taken from one person to benefit the other rather than it being a shared experience)

That bold part might be the most eminently refreshing and sensible thing I've read on this issue, kudos.

jimgoose

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That bold part might be the most eminently refreshing and sensible thing I've read on this issue, kudos.

Sometimes you'd almost think this modern notion of "consent" is synonymous with "effective communication"!

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you not a feminist? You live and learn.

Between the sex and the WhatsApp exchange, they did lose their job. That might surprise you to know that can happen. You still seem to find it hard to fathom. That’s why the consent and related discussion is necessary. Particularly for people in the public eye who represent organisations.

This really isn’t a feminist issue. It’s just the IRFU looking out for its players and itself.

Nope, definitely not a feminist - in the current sense of the word; I believe in pure equality and no special steps up for anyone.

I also think it's sad how women have fought tooth and nail to be taken seriously in every walk of life and yet are infantalised as "the perpetual victims" by some feminists.

That line about group sex. How does that person know ? THEY might never consent but perhaps millions would.

PlaneSpeeking

jimgoose wrote: »

Sometimes you'd almost think this modern notion of "consent" is synonymous with "effective communication"!

If it was, then I'd be an enthusiastic cheerleader for it, sadly I fear some sections of society like LON, UM, RMcC etc etc have a more nefarious agenda in mind.

Triceratops Ballet

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That bold part might be the most eminently refreshing and sensible thing I've read on this issue, kudos.

and I'm a feminist!! :eek::eek::eek:

PlaneSpeeking

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

and I'm a feminist!! :eek::eek::eek:

Ah you're not all bad! ;);)

Sure I'd have said I was 30 years ago before the lunacy started - getting told you shouldn't be at a cup final because "some bloke could have used that ticket" galvanises you!!!!

LirW

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.
I personally find a lot of things regarding this in the media confusing.
Take the repeal the eighth campaign I heard multiply people saying a woman should have the choice to do anything with her body. You can't really argue with that. Then they were coming out with the line No woman would ever put themselves in a position where they would give consent to group sex. I know people who'd gladly engage in it.
I don't really know how any person in the media could engage in any form of sexual activity to be honest because it could end up ruining there careers.

I think this is the price to pay for having a well-paying job in the spotlight, be it politics, sports or entertainment. One slip and it's over, this is not particularly new. It's just that attitude changed over time, many rockstars wouldn't get away with things anymore they were known for in the 70s or 80s.
I'm not saying that this is right and a "tough, deal with it" situation but it's the reality. And that's why you pay a lot of money to maintain your status by having a good PR team, a manager, a decent attorney and many more people that get you as a personality going.
Your mechanic might get away with some dodgy situation but others can't afford having their face plastered all over the news with a quite negative headline. Nowadays celebrities are better off to keep their political opinion to themselves or their diet. It's not worth the hassle.

El_Duderino 09

jimgoose wrote: »

Sometimes you'd almost think this modern notion of "consent" is synonymous with "effective communication"!

It is to an extent. It’s also combined with knowing the law and the responsibilities of sex and being able to form your opinion and express it clearly.

It’s hard to express a position if you haven’t thought about it.

Consent is pretty important to the individuals and the PR associated with it is pretty important to the brands. The IRFU is doing a good job of looking out for its players.

TheChizler

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why should an experience of consensual sex lead to one's career being ruined ?

If these classes also involved women and reminded them that enthusiastically consenting the night before and experiencing regret the next day is NOT rape and never will be - that would be a start.

Can you be more specific here, what classes where are you referring to? Any consent/bystander intervention type classes I'm aware of have equally involved women.

As an aside, I've heard first-hand feedback from group sessions in a university context, it was worrying how many students (male and female) felt that if you went home with someone after a night out and they passed out at some stage it was ok to have sex with them as they had previously given consent. We might feel we're sensible and would never do anything like that, but there's a not-insignificant number of people in that age group (and older) who are quite frankly clueless when it comes to this sort of thing.

El_Duderino 09

TheChizler wrote: »

Can you be more specific here, what classes where are you referring to? Any consent/bystander intervention type classes I'm aware of have equally involved women.

As an aside, I've heard first-hand feedback from group sessions in a university context, it was worrying how many students (male and female) felt that if you went home with someone after a night out and they passed out at some stage it was ok to have sex with them as they had previously given consent. We might feel we're sensible and would never do anything like that, but there's a not-insignificant number of people in that age group (and older) who are quite frankly clueless when it comes to this sort of thing.

I discussed my experience of students with similar attitudes in a recent thread and I was called a lier by posters who didn’t believe people could hold those opinions without intending to rape.

The variety of understanding is shocking to some people. Much better to discuss it and make sure everyone has a good understanding of consent.

valoren

Part of me thinks this is simply a preventative hand washing/tick the legal box exercise.

I think this is a case of the organisation covering their asses legally because in future should any
of their players find themselves accused of rape then after they're done throwing the player under the bus, with no regard for his actual guilt or not, the IRFU can point towards the fact that the player attended a consent class and it's 'nothing to see here' if the incident happened during a period where the player was actively representing them.

lalababa

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah there was no crime in the eye of the law, that's what I said.

However they, as representatives of the IRFU, acted in a way that is deemed unbecoming of a representative of the IRFU. The IRFU has a right to ask it's employees to act responsibly as a representative of the brand, it's probably something that exists in most employment contracts. They broke the terms of their contract and were punished for it. They would have gotten many perks as reps of the IRFU, all they're asked for in return is to uphold the values of the organisation and put their best foot forward. If they can't do that why shouldn't the IRFU take action?

Uphold what values?
IRFU value list:

No. 1 No drunken threesomes.
No. 2 ????

"Act responsibly as a brand representative " seems to be a very vague catch all clause , that can be used to break contract.
What if they admitted they voted against gay marriage? Would that be acting irresponsibly as a brand rep.? If the IRFU
thought the brand was damaged?

professore

LirW wrote: »

Your mechanic might get away with some dodgy situation but others can't afford having their face plastered all over the news with a quite negative headline. Nowadays celebrities are better off to keep their political opinion to themselves or their diet. It's not worth the hassle.

Here's a man doing it right :

TheChizler

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I discussed my experience of students with similar attitudes in a recent thread and I was called a lier by posters who didn’t believe people could hold those opinions without intending to rape.

The variety of understanding is shocking to some people. Much better to discuss it and make sure everyone has a good understanding of consent.

I could hardly believe it when I heard it myself, until I was shown some of the feedback forms. We're analysing this whole consent issue through our own eyes and mentalities, we know we would never do what these classes teach is wrong so we think they're a waste of time/preaching. But there are people out there who aren't as great as us! :cool:

El_Duderino 09

valoren wrote: »

Part of me thinks this is simply a preventative hand washing/tick the legal box exercise.
It would be insulting to any one having to attend a class by rule explaining consent.
I think this is a case of the organisation covering their asses legally because in future should any
of their players find themselves accused of rape then after they're done throwing the player under the bus, with no regard for his actual guilt or not, the IRFU can point towards the fact that the player attended a consent class and it's 'nothing to see here' if the incident happened during a period where the player was actively representing them.

That’s a bit cynical. Nobody blamed the IRFU for Paddy Jackson’s behaviour. The IRFU goes a lot for the players off the pitch. From making sure they do a degree and train for their careers after rugby. Making sure they’re educated on consent and surroundings issues us exactly the kind of off the pitch things the IRFU does for its players.

professore

Realistically this is what they should be teaching these guys. The Mike Pence (apparently originally it was a conservative christian called Billy Graham who first came up with this rule). Famous men will always have young attractive women throwing themselves at them - and a percentage of those WILL be crazy - in a way us normal dudes don't. Or the Justin Bieber approach of using prostitutes where it's legal also is an option. Even if the sex is 100% consensual, unless there is recorded proof the celebrity man is going to be in deep doo-doo.

LirW

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s a bit cynical. Nobody blamed the IRFU for Paddy Jackson’s behaviour. The IRFU goes a lot for the players off the pitch. From making sure they do a degree and train for their careers after rugby. Making sure they’re educated on consent and surroundings issues us exactly the kind of off the pitch things the IRFU does for its players.

I also go so far and say they ask for very little in return besides a good performance. Don't get in serious trouble and we pay you a salary 99% of Irish people would never dream of.
They're well within their right to cover themselves. It's a massive revenue machine with huge sponsorships and I think everyone knows you don't wanna p1ss the sponsors off.

It's not fair, I know, but that's a price you pay for being a sport star.

El_Duderino 09

TheChizler wrote: »

I could hardly believe it when I heard it myself, until I was shown some of the feedback forms. We're analysing this whole consent issue through our own eyes and mentalities, we know we would never do what these classes teach is wrong so we think they're a waste of time/preaching. But there are people out there who aren't as great as us! :cool:

What else surprised you about attitudes from the feedback? It’d be interested to know how broadly people’s understanding of consent can range.

I posted about a housemate of mine who said he didn’t think it was possible to rape your girlfriend. He thought being in a relationship meant sex was always on. He was early-mid 20s at the time.

Anyone who thinks everyone knows what’s right and wrong so consent discussions are pointless, is underestimating the range of people’s attitudes.

Triceratops Ballet

lalababa wrote: »

Uphold what values?
IRFU value list:

No. 1 No drunken threesomes.
No. 2 ????

"Act responsibly as a brand representative " seems to be a very vague catch all clause , that can be used to break contract.
What if they admitted they voted against gay marriage? Would that be acting irresponsibly as a brand rep.? If the IRFU
thought the brand was damaged?

The values of the IRFU are on their website you can view them here http://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/spiritofrugby.php

Respect, Inclusivity, Integrity, Fun and Excellence.

I would imagine that if you undertake any action that is deemed to damage the brand then you could fall afoul of that clause in your contract. If you read your contract before signing it, I'm sure you can clarify what exactly that means in terms of your personal behaviour.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What else surprised you about attitudes from the feedback? It’d be interested to know how broadly people’s understanding of consent can range.

I posted about a housemate of mine who said he didn’t think it was possible to rape your girlfriend. He thought being in a relationship meant sex was always on. He was early-mid 20s at the time.

Anyone who thinks everyone knows what’s right and wrong so consent discussions are pointless, is underestimating the range of people’s attitudes.

It surprised the hell out of me. There was some guy on Boards recently who had a friend who thought the same thing, and said he was a "decent guy". How the hell can forcing someone to do something like that that they don't want be considered in any way decent is beyond me.

The only way that could be seen as "decent" is if you put yourself first 100% of the time and the decent thing is whatever you feel like is the right thing to do, regardless what anyone else wants. From interacting with people, particularly online, this seems to be the guiding principle of a lot of people.

El_Duderino 09

lalababa wrote: »

Uphold what values?
IRFU value list:

No. 1 No drunken threesomes.
No. 2 ????

"Act responsibly as a brand representative " seems to be a very vague catch all clause , that can be used to break contract.
What if they admitted they voted against gay marriage? Would that be acting irresponsibly as a brand rep.? If the IRFU
thought the brand was damaged?

The IRFU had no desire to get rid of either of those players. They were both very important players for ulster - Jackson was pivotal hair ulster and the back up out half for Ireland.

El_Duderino 09

lalababa wrote: »

Uphold what values?
IRFU value list:

No. 1 No drunken threesomes.
No. 2 ????

"Act responsibly as a brand representative " seems to be a very vague catch all clause , that can be used to break contract.
What if they admitted they voted against gay marriage? Would that be acting irresponsibly as a brand rep.? If the IRFU
thought the brand was damaged?

The IRFU had no desire to get rid of either of those players. They were both very important players for ulster - Jackson was pivotal for ulster and the back up out half for Ireland.

TheChizler

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What else surprised you about attitudes from the feedback? It’d be interested to know how broadly people’s understanding of consent can range.

The feedback I heard was from a bystander intervention class so only touched on consent really, but one other thing that really struck me was a scenario that was described as a thought experiment (and not suggesting that this was a common occurrence before somebody claims that):
You're a woman walking past a group of guys and they start whistling and commenting sexually, one of them grabs your crotch, how would that make you feel?
Responses through the room were all as you would expect, threatened, scared, violated angry, but one woman said flattered, cause it was a compliment.

Now her feelings are as legitimate as anyone else's, but it really highlighted the extremes of opinions out there. All valid to their-selves, but problems start once you start extrapolating your opinions onto everyone else.

wexie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Being an arsehole while not on the job is not something which should affect someone's employment.

Yet it does all the time, go have a Google for how many people get sacked over something they did or said on social media. Or something they did and someone else put on social media.

Where do you draw the line? Racist rant on an airplane or in Starbucks okay?

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

It surprised the hell out of me. There was some guy on Boards recently who had a friend who thought the same thing, and said he was a "decent guy". How the hell can forcing someone to do something like that that they don't want be considered in any way decent is beyond me.

This is it. Otherwise normal people with a faulty understanding of consent. The purpose of discussing consent wouldn’t be to catch them out, it would be to make sure they all know how consent works.

El_Duderino 09

TheChizler wrote: »

The feedback I heard was from a bystander intervention class so only touched on consent really, but one other thing that really struck me was a scenario that was described as a thought experiment (and not suggesting that this was a common occurrence before somebody claims that):
You're a woman walking past a group of guys and they start whistling and commenting sexually, one of them grabs your crotch, how would that make you feel?
Responses through the room were all as you would expect, threatened, scared, violated angry, but one woman said flattered, cause it was a compliment.

Now her feelings are as legitimate as anyone else's, but it really highlighted the extremes of opinions out there. All valid to their-selves, but problems start once you start extrapolating your opinions onto everyone else.

That’s interesting. Shows the range of understanding which is at play.

I wonder about the people who thought it was ok to have sex with someone who passed out as long as they had consented earlier. I wonder if they were all nailed on rapists or it they were otherwise normal people who had picked up this incorrect belief about consent.

hatrickpatrick

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

There are a lot of upsides to being famous, but one major downside is that you don't really say things in private anymore, when everyone knows who you are someone is always watching so rightly or wrongly you have less privacy than the likes of you or me. That's just how it is.
While they're having the consent classes they could probably do with a bit of training on how to be savvy about their privacy and how to deal with the media etc

So people who are famous should be under the assumption that even text messages sent to close friends on a network which heralds end-to-end encryption as one of its major selling points have to be self-censored just in case someone accuses them of something and those messages end up plastered all over the media?

In my view, it's that new paradigm itself which we as a society should be objecting to, rather than insisting that individuals adapt their behaviour around the paradigm.

freshpopcorn

I think a lot of people know what consent is but a bit of discussion of what it is wouldn't be a bad thing.
It will probably end up being thought in schools/etc in a few years and it's important it's designed around Irish laws and in a realistic way and not by somebody Louise O'Neill.

hatrickpatrick

FunLover18 wrote: »

There's a reason it's a "not guilty" verdict and not an "innocent" verdict and it's because that's not what it means. A jury is charged with determining a person's guilt based on the evidence put before them, not their innocence.

And our society is predicated on several fundamental ideological principles, one of which is "innocent until proven guilty". So in practise, it should amount to the same thing with regard to somebody facing "consequences" for an allegation of wrongdoing. Not guilty, not punished.

hatrickpatrick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They do not work a regular 9 to 5 job. Their job involves promotional work. How they behave impacts on that.

Not how they behave at a private party in a private home, or how they communicate directly with one another over a private communications system.

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not how they behave at a private party in a private home, or how they communicate directly with one another over a private communications system.

How they behave off the field feeds into their image. There is nothing private for somebody in the public eye.

hatrickpatrick

wexie wrote: »

Yet it does all the time, go have a Google for how many people get sacked over something they did or said on social media. Or something they did and someone else put on social media.

Where do you draw the line? Racist rant on an airplane or in Starbucks okay?

If you're not on the job and it doesn't result in a criminal conviction, yes. Off the clock = out of your employer's sphere of authority over you.

Triceratops Ballet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So people who are famous should be under the assumption that even text messages sent to close friends on a network which heralds end-to-end encryption as one of its major selling points have to be self-censored just in case someone accuses them of something and those messages end up plastered all over the media?

In my view, it's that new paradigm itself which we as a society should be objecting to, rather than insisting that individuals adapt their behaviour around the paradigm.

I mean you're not wrong people should be entitled to a level of privacy like that. I don't know how it can be achieved though, for better or worse we live in a 24 hours news cycle and so that's a lot of minutes that have to be filled with content. I find it hard to imagine a scenario that would reverse that and until there is such a thing we all have to work to protect our privacy.

Maybe I'm super paranoid and the tbh the f**king Truman show did a number on me as a kid but I wouldn't write anything down that I wouldn't want anyone else to read.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not how they behave at a private party in a private home, or how they communicate directly with one another over a private communications system.

If those things make it into he public eye then yes. Those things naturally become part of the public’s opinion of them.

wexie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you're not on the job and it doesn't result in a criminal conviction, yes. Off the clock = out of your employer's sphere of authority over you.

While I personally agree with you in that is how it SHOULD be, I think we can agree that's not how it IS.

No those messages shouldn't have come into the public sphere, yet at the same time it wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out what would happen if they did.

Collie D

Collie D wrote: »

Box ticking exercise.

Pretty much like the majority of training courses in the majority of companies.

Covers their asses and gives the HR department a sense of actually doing something

You are a very cynical human being. Your comment indicates you probably need an in-service on how to be positive about change, how to embrace it and move on from hostility? It will just eat away at you until you embrace the positivity. This is the most important change in the company's history and we need everybody on board. As a key strategic partner in our success, we need you to work with us to make our company great!

Yours,

Happy workplaces Inc.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you're not on the job and it doesn't result in a criminal conviction, yes. Off the clock = out of your employer's sphere of authority over you.

The rugby is one aspect but it’s not the only part of the job. They also have responsibility for the brand they represent. I have very little influence on the reputation of my employer but Jackson had a lot of influence for his employer’s brand.

Influence=responsibility in this case. Ask paddy Jackson if you don’t believe me. That’s how it works.

professore

There seems to be a complete lack of acknowledgement in some quarters that there are some CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY women out there who would think nothing of accusing a man of raping her, for attention, for revenge, to pretend she was "raped" because she is in a relationship or from a puritanical background, or even in the Brett Kavanaugh case, that woman (not Blasey Ford, before people jump down my throat, another one) who admits she never even met Kavanaugh and is several DECADES older than him.

This type of CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY woman is especially attracted to celebrities.

Therefore steer clear and have alibis for everything is the only sane advice for men in the public eye.

professore

professore wrote: »

There seems to be a complete lack of acknowledgement in some quarters that there are some CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY women out there who would think nothing of accusing a man of raping her, for attention, for revenge, to pretend she was "raped" because she is in a relationship or from a puritanical background, or even in the Brett Kavanaugh case, that woman (not Blasey Ford, before people jump down my throat, another one) who admits she never even met Kavanaugh and is several DECADES older than him.

This type of CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY woman is especially attracted to celebrities.

Therefore steer clear and have alibis for everything is the only sane advice for men in the public eye.

There are also a lot of crazily violent and angry men out there. A really, really disturbing number if one were to pay attention to the cases reported in the media. Have a look at the stats on how many men have murdered or being violent against women versus how many women have murdered or being violent against men. There is no comparison, yet a wholly disproportionate focus here is on how evil these supposed "feminists" are. Why?

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

There seems to be a complete lack of acknowledgement in some quarters that there are some CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY women out there who would think nothing of accusing a man of raping her, for attention, for revenge, to pretend she was "raped" because she is in a relationship or from a puritanical background, or even in the Brett Kavanaugh case, that woman (not Blasey Ford, before people jump down my throat, another one) who admits she never even met Kavanaugh and is several DECADES older than him.

This type of CRAZZZZZZZYYYYYY woman is especially attracted to celebrities.

Therefore steer clear and have alibis for everything is the only sane advice for men in the public eye.

I think you could give men in the public eye some more advice than “steer clear and have alibis for everything”.

You’re talking about people who intend to commit a crime by making up an allegation. Discussing consent isn’t likely to have much impact on those people. It’s the uninformed and misinformed people who would benefit from the discussion.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

There are also a lot of crazily violent and angry men out there. A really, really disturbing number if one were to pay attention to the cases reported in the media. Have a look at the stats on how many men have murdered or being violent against women versus how many women have murdered or being violent against men. There is no comparison, yet a wholly disproportionate focus here is on how evil these supposed "feminists" are. Why?

This story about the IRFU having consent classes for its players is of course absolutely nothing to do with feminists. But some posters are obsessed with shoehorning their opposition to feminism into any topic.

The fact that discussing consent is a good thing doesn’t stop them from opposing it. If there’s a choice between helping men or having a pop at feminists, they’ll completely ignore the opportunity to support the help for men and trip over each other to give out about feminism.

El_Duderino 09

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

I can think of 2 recent cases in Irish news one in Foxrock and one in Australia where a women brutally murdered a man. One actually multilated the man.
And yet Irish feminist icon Ruth Coppinger wants to end women being sent to prison and release all female prisoners. Irish feminists are dangerous idiots.

You mean Ruth Coppinger is a dangerous idiot in your opinion.

lalababa

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The values of the IRFU are on their website you can view them here http://www.irishrugby.ie/irfu/spiritofrugby.php

Respect, Inclusivity, Integrity, Fun and Excellence.

I would imagine that if you undertake any action that is deemed to damage the brand then you could fall afoul of that clause in your contract. If you read your contract before signing it, I'm sure you can clarify what exactly that means in terms of your personal behaviour.

So no drunken threesomes then??
Or just respectful, inclusive (very inclusive), fun and excellent threesomes!
I don't think you could possibly clarify what exactly that means in terms of your personal behaviour. Just how many situations could you clarify to cover yourself?

professore

Deleted User wrote: »

There are also a lot of crazily violent and angry men out there. A really, really disturbing number if one were to pay attention to the cases reported in the media. Have a look at the stats on how many men have murdered or being violent against women versus how many women have murdered or being violent against men. There is no comparison, yet a wholly disproportionate focus here is on how evil these supposed "feminists" are. Why?

The crazy men are not dressing up sexily and going after celebrity women in the same way. So that's irrelevant to this thread.

freshpopcorn

Deleted User wrote: »

There are also a lot of crazily violent and angry men out there. A really, really disturbing number if one were to pay attention to the cases reported in the media. Have a look at the stats on how many men have murdered or being violent against women versus how many women have murdered or being violent against men. There is no comparison, yet a wholly disproportionate focus here is on how evil these supposed "feminists" are. Why?

I think lots of the countries in the World has issues with violence against women and there is a lot that can be done to prevent it and change attitudes but I think when I hear people say there is a lot of violent and angry men out there I sort of find it an exaggeration.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you could give men in the public eye some more advice than “steer clear and have alibis for everything”.

You’re talking about people who intend to commit a crime by making up an allegation. Discussing consent isn’t likely to have much impact on those people. It’s the uninformed and misinformed people who would benefit from the discussion.

Doing a risk analysis - which I'm sure these have done - I bet this English company will present it from this angle, as the main goal is to protect the players, their clients, not the accusers, potential accusers or victims. So basically how to avoid an accusation rather than how to not be a rapist. I suspect this is why the English company was hired and not the rape crisis centre or whoever else was advising them as they would completely miss this angle.