Thongs = Consent

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Who is claiming that nothing a person wears is relevant?

If I'm accused of robbing a bank and the evidence shows I was caught on CCTV running out of the building wearing a balaclava and gloves on a boiling hot day, I don't think anyone would argue that that is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant and actually dangerous, is to suggest to a jury that an item of clothing which is commonly worn by women suggests a willingness to have casual sex with whoever happens to be around.

I doubt the barrister really believes that a woman's choice in underwear tells you something about her attitude to casual sex - she just hoped the jury did.

Remember: Winning is everything.

Yeah, and like I said, a comment like that can go either way with the jury. It’s a disgusting comment IMO, but the bit in bold isn’t what I took from the comment, and maybe that’s why I don’t get the whole “it’s a piece of fabric, it makes men rapey” or that the barrister was suggesting it was an indication that the alleged victim was willing to have casual sex with whoever happen to be around. The barrister was very careful in asking the question first relating directly to all of the evidence -


“Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

The way she was dressed is only part of the evidence as part of her argument that no rape took place, that the sex was consensual. People here seem to be arguing from the position that they already believe it wasn’t.

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

So win by any means. Btw it was solicitor who claimed what accusers intention was and unless they were present at the time then they couldn't be absolutely certain someone didn't do it. In fact if there was absolute certainty the case wouldn't ecen make it to the court because rape is very hard to prove even when there is anything but absolute certainty.

Nobody can be certain of anything, that’s why the standard of reasonable doubt exists before we find someone guilty of a criminal offence which is actually fairly well defined in Irish law. It’s of course going to be hard for the prosecution to meet that burden if there is a lack of evidence for their case, or if their case hangs on a thong as the critical piece of evidence, and it shouldn’t be made any easier IMO.

B0jangles

'Does the evidence rule out the possibility she was planning an evening of hurling pebbles at cars? She was wearing a thong with elasticated side which can easily double as a handy slingshot.'

It's easy to point out that the evidence doesn't prove the absence of intent on the part of an alleged victim - how could it?

The barrister was counting on the likelihood of the jury assuming a woman who wears a thong is promiscuous -She was using an ugly myth to help win her case.

That's pretty much it.

JP Liz V1

Ruth Coppinger holds up a thong in the Dáil

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1113/1010650-politics/

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, and like I said, a comment like that can go either way with the jury. It’s a disgusting comment IMO, but the bit in bold isn’t what I took from the comment, and maybe that’s why I don’t get the whole “it’s a piece of fabric, it makes men rapey” or that the barrister was suggesting it was an indication that the alleged victim was willing to have casual sex with whoever happen to be around. The barrister was very careful in asking the question first relating directly to all of the evidence -


“Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

The way she was dressed is only part of the evidence as part of her argument that no rape took place, that the sex was consensual. People here seem to be arguing from the position that they already believe it wasn’t.

But even if I go out in my skimpiest of outfits with the intention of attracting and sleeping with 50 men, if one of them- even one I'm attracted to and may want to sleep with at some stage- has sex with me without my consent it doesn't somehow make it consensual just because I went out looking for the ride initially. Even with the intention of having sex with that particular man.

It's the lack of consent (if indeed thats what happened, think he was found not guilty?) when he had sex with her that is the issue, not her intention at the beginning of the night when she put some underwear on.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

'Does the evidence rule out the possibility she was planning an evening of hurling pebbles at cars? She was wearing a thong with elasticated side which can easily double as a handy slingshot.'

It's easy to point out that the evidence doesn't prove the absence of intent on the part of an alleged victim - how could it?

The barrister was counting on the likelihood of the jury assuming a woman who wears a thong is promiscuous -She was using an ugly myth to help win her case.

That's pretty much it.

Where are you getting that from? It’s far more likely she wasn’t counting on any myths to defend her client by suggesting that, ugly and all as the reality is, that teenagers are generally promiscuous, and in the case of the alleged victim and her client - the sex was consensual.

retro:electro

It no more indicates she wants the ride more than wearing red nail varnish means I love giving hand jobs.
It’s an essential piece of clothing. Nothing more nothing less.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

But even if I go out in my skimpiest of outfits with the intention of attracting and sleeping with 50 men, if one of them- even one I'm attracted to and may want to sleep with at some stage- has sex with me without my consent it doesn't somehow make it consensual just because I went out looking for the ride initially. Even with the intention of having sex with that particular man.

It's the lack of consent (if indeed thats what happened, think he was found not guilty?) when he had sex with her that is the issue, not her intention at the beginning of the night when she put some underwear on.

Yeah, the jury found him not guilty of rape, now whether or not they deliberated over consent is anyone’s guess (but I wouldn’t trust the media to report shìt tbh), but the defence is certainly entitled to put forward their version of events however they see fit. They’re not going to hold back because “Ahh you’re being accused of rape, now be nice”.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

It no more indicates she wants the ride more than wearing red nail varnish means I love giving hand jobs.
It’s an essential piece of clothing. Nothing more nothing less.

That’s your take on it - a thong is now an essential piece of clothing.


Man I’m getting old.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, the jury found him not guilty of rape, now whether or not they deliberated over consent is anyone’s guess (but I wouldn’t trust the media to report shìt tbh), but the defence is certainly entitled to put forward their version of events however they see fit. They’re not going to hold back because “Ahh you’re being accused of rape, now be nice”.

It's not about being "nice". So what if she went out to get the ride? It has no relevance on consent in the moment he had sex with her.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

It's not about being "nice". So what if she went out to get the ride? It has no relevance on consent in the moment he had sex with her.

That seems to be the general gist of it - if you’re accused of rape, you (or at least your legal representation) have to be nice to the person who is accusing you of rape. No thanks like.

It’s relevant to the evidence given against the defendant as a whole. Her intentions aren’t what is being questioned, it’s whether or not the defendant could have had the belief that consent was present is what matters. That’s why hearing all this “thongs are an essential item of clothing” stuff really just sounds so silly and unnecessarily justifying their choices of underwear or their behaviour and all the rest of it. Tell that to Victoria’s Secret (although I will say it may well be argued that anything Victoria’s Secret are an essential item of clothing ).

B0jangles

So in the face of multiple women telling you that thongs are a completely unremarkable item of clothing, you are sticking to your stance that they are in fact remarkable, and indicative of....something or other.

Upon what do you base your strong opinions on the meaning of thong-wearing?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

So in the face of multiple women telling you that thongs are a completely unremarkable item of clothing, you are sticking to your stance that they are in fact remarkable, and indicative of....something or other.

Upon what do you base your strong opinions on the meaning of thong-wearing?

Unremarkable for those multiple women is something I would certainly accept, however the whole point of reasonable doubt is creating the impression that for millions more people in the Western world at least, lacy thongs are associated with sex. That’s not a myth, and it’s not an unreasonable assumption either. Certainly one can provide numerous other alternative and more practical uses for why anyone would wear thongs (wouldn’t be my thing but whatever), I would suggest myself that they were more generally worn as a fashion item among teenage girls, but that wouldn’t take from the fact that other people may make far more reasonable assumptions in specific circumstances.

astrofool

B0jangles wrote: »

So in the face of multiple women telling you that thongs are a completely unremarkable item of clothing, you are sticking to your stance that they are in fact remarkable, and indicative of....something or other.

If multiple people then say they are a remarkable item of clothing, does that make them relevant? Are you saying this item of clothing has always existed and only used based on it's pure functional basis? It's a court case involving two people, either one is lying, or there is a misunderstanding around one or both reading signals from each other. In these cases, how that misunderstanding came about (if that is the argument) is going to be key in the trial, including how remarkable or unremarkable lots of items were that both people were wearing, shoes, socks, top, hair, setting, what was said, how it was said, how other people saw it being said or not said.

With regard to clothes (any clothes) the argument is that what you wear determines your objective and how you behave towards others, this is true for many clothes, suits, dresses, shorts, boxers, briefs and is of relevance in any trial of this nature, or we come to a consensus that nothing anyone wears matters at all.

This is not saying someone definitely has certain intentions due to wearing one item of clothing over another, but that on average someone wearing X over Y will be seen as having a certain intention due to other people who wear X also having that intention. This doesn't mean it's wrong or right that this is signalled when the person doesn't want it to be signalled, but people often indicate things they don't mean due to pre-conceived notions of what signals we send to each other mean, including people poring over phone messages looking at the intonation of someone's voice to determine their next response. If 90% of people wearing red hats were involved in robbery then wearing a red hat would be a relevant part of any trial involving a robbery, as stupid as it would be as a piece of evidence.

What's being missed is what are the other facts of the case, the man is now innocent, was it a false claim, a misunderstanding, or has justice failed and let down the victim.

B0jangles

astrofool wrote: »

If multiple people then say they are a remarkable item of clothing, does that make them relevant? Are you saying this item of clothing has always existed and only used based on it's pure functional basis? It's a court case involving two people, either one is lying, or there is a misunderstanding around one or both reading signals from each other. In these cases, how that misunderstanding came about (if that is the argument) is going to be key in the trial, including how remarkable or unremarkable lots of items were that both people were wearing, shoes, socks, top, hair, setting, what was said, how it was said, how other people saw it being said or not said.

With regard to clothes (any clothes) the argument is that what you wear determines your objective and how you behave towards others, this is true for many clothes, suits, dresses, shorts, boxers, briefs and is of relevance in any trial of this nature, or we come to a consensus that nothing anyone wears matters at all.

This is not saying someone definitely has certain intentions due to wearing one item of clothing over another, but that on average someone wearing X over Y will be seen as having a certain intention due to other people who wear X also having that intention. This doesn't mean it's wrong or right that this is signalled when the person doesn't want it to be signalled, but people often indicate things they don't mean due to pre-conceived notions of what signals we send to each other mean, including people poring over phone messages looking at the intonation of someone's voice to determine their next response. If 90% of people wearing red hats were involved in robbery then wearing a red hat would be a relevant part of any trial involving a robbery, as stupid as it would be as a piece of evidence.

What's being missed is what are the other facts of the case, the man is now innocent, was it a false claim, a misunderstanding, or has justice failed and let down the victim.

The thread is about the defence barrister bringing up the fact that the alleged victim was wearing a thong as suggesting she was more likely to have willingly had sex with the defendant. This is a dangerous and misleading fallacy.

If this had been a case in another country, one in which a defence barrister claimed an alleged victim is lying about being raped because she was out alone and night, and 'everyone knows' women who go outside alone at night are prostitutes (who, of course, cannot be raped), would you think that was a reasonable point to raise? After all, prostitutes do go outside sometimes, so it's not exactly untrue.

The other facts of case are beyond the scope of the thread, which is presumably why they are not being discussed

One eyed Jack

astrofool wrote: »

What's being missed is what are the other facts of the case, the man is now innocent, was it a false claim, a misunderstanding, or has justice failed and let down the victim.

The Examiner carried an article on it which gave some more details of evidence provided in the case, and to be honest it doesn’t paint the defendant in any sort of a good light -

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html

To be honest I find some of the details given in that article far more disturbing and disgusting than the barristers comments and I don’t know why more wasn’t made of that evidence than anything said about the girls underwear. That being said though, I am reminded that just because I don’t like someone or their attitudes or behaviour isn’t a sufficient reason to convict someone of rape in it’s legal context.

In that sense it’s kind of like the decision in the trial up in Belfast in that the defendants while their attitudes were utterly repugnant and their behaviour was disgusting, they could not be convicted of rape when it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of rape in it’s legal context.

eviltwin

I don't and have never owned a thong, I wonder would people infer something about me and my sexual habits on that basis?

I find the whole thing disgusting that clothing would ever be used in this way, I wonder if male victims of sexual assault are judged on how they were dressed at the time.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

The thread is about the defence barrister bringing up the fact that the alleged victim was wearing a thong as suggesting she was more likely to have willingly had sex with the defendant. This is a dangerous and misleading fallacy.

It would be, if that was the reason she brought it up. I don’t think it was though as the barrister would only be interested in representing their clients interests and presenting the case that the defendant had a reasonable basis for their homest belief that consent was present. It’s based on the evidence given in this particular case; that is to say another case would be an entirely different set of circumstances and criteria.

If this had been a case in another country, one in which a defence barrister claimed an alleged victim is lying about being raped because she was out alone and night, and 'everyone knows' women who go outside alone at night are prostitutes (who, of course, cannot be raped), would you think that was a reasonable point to raise? After all, prostitutes do go outside sometimes, so it's not exactly untrue.

The other facts of case are beyond the scope of the thread, which is presumably why they are not being discussed

Just so I’m clear - you’re not suggesting that’s what the defence barrister in this case claimed, are you? You’re presenting a totally hypothetical and completely different scenario not based on this case at all?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't and have never owned a thong, I wonder would people infer something about me and my sexual habits on that basis?

I find the whole thing disgusting that clothing would ever be used in this way, I wonder if male victims of sexual assault are judged on how they were dressed at the time.

They are. Just out of curiosity, why would you think they wouldn’t be?

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They are. Just out of curiosity, why would you think they wouldn’t be?

Any source for that because I never saw any report that would mention it. I 'm not saying they don't exist but I would like to know how you can make a statement with such authority.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That seems to be the general gist of it - if you’re accused of rape, you (or at least your legal representation) have to be nice to the person who is accusing you of rape. No thanks like.

It’s relevant to the evidence given against the defendant as a whole. Her intentions aren’t what is being questioned, it’s whether or not the defendant could have had the belief that consent was present is what matters. That’s why hearing all this “thongs are an essential item of clothing” stuff really just sounds so silly and unnecessarily justifying their choices of underwear or their behaviour and all the rest of it. Tell that to Victoria’s Secret (although I will say it may well be argued that anything Victoria’s Secret are an essential item of clothing ).

So once the defendant deems her garments to be some bizarre form of consent, then consent has been given and he's innocent? So if I happen to flash a bit of a lace bra strap and the guy I'm on a date with thinks that is me indicating consent well then really what should I have expected... cause bras from Victoria secret are obviously all about sex...?? I honestly don't understsnd the train of thought??

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Any source for that because I never saw any report that would mention it. I 'm not saying they don't exist but I would like to know how you can make a statement with such authority.

Good article on it from an Irish perspective here point out that -

Only 5-10% of make victims report the crime to the Gardai. Many ‘fear rejection and disbelief from authorities', while others think that society believes a man ‘should be able to resist'.


This is an organisation that work with RAINN in the US:

Myths and Facts About Male Sexual Abuse and Assault


Male victims do face the same types of stigmatisation and judgements about them as female victims, and there are some differences too obviously, and that’s why I personally anyway don’t understand why anyone would ask the question “I wonder do men face the same judgement and stigma that women do in relation to rape and their treatment by the authorities and the legal system?”, because I’m kind of thinking “well it’s not a bloody competition of who has it worse!”. Like, it’s not really much of a point is what I’m saying, because every individual is different and has different circumstances and influencing factors and ways of processing their experiences that aren’t solely based upon their sex either, but a whole boatload of other factors.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s your take on it - a thong is now an essential piece of clothing.


Man I’m getting old.

Underwear is an essential piece of clothing that comes in a variety of styles, some more delicate than others, and serve the same principle and function as men’s underwear. Fancy underwear happens to be worn during sexy time.. but it’s not a baramoter of horniness or an indicator that you want it.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

So once the defendant deems her garments to be some bizarre form of consent, then consent has been given and he's innocent? So if I happen to flash a bit of a lace bra strap and the guy I'm on a date with thinks that is me indicating consent well then really what should I have expected... cause bras from Victoria secret are obviously all about sex...?? I honestly don't understsnd the train of thought??

I wouldn’t either, because that’s not anything like what I was saying. I certainly didn’t say that once the defendant deems her garments to be any form of consent, that consent has been given. It would have to be established in trial whether or not the defendant could have had the honest belief that consent was present, and whether that belief was reasonable, as would be determined by a jury. That’s the whole point of making an argument as to the defendants honest belief and whether or not it was reasonable to believe consent was present.

It wouldn’t simply be dependent upon your choice of underwear or any individual criteria, but would be determined on the basis of all the evidence presented at trial, which is why the barrister didn’t solely focus on just the alleged victims underwater alone, but the journalist did. That suggests more about the journalists intent than anything it suggests about the barrister.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

Underwear is an essential piece of clothing that comes in a variety of styles, some more delicate than others, and serve the same principle and function as men’s underwear. Fancy underwear happens to be worn during sexy time.. but it’s not a baramoter of horniness or an indicator that you want it.

I totally get that, but that’s why a jury would be expected to take into consideration all the evidence presented at trial rather than being focused on one single aspect of the evidence presented.

sullivlo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I totally get that, but that’s why a jury would be expected to take into consideration all the evidence presented at trial rather than being focused on one single aspect of the evidence presented.

The issue that all of the women commenting on this thread has is that what a woman wore was blamed for her being raped. That she wore a thong so was “asking for it”. I don’t think that you will ever understand the viewpoint of a female.

Neyite

retro:electro wrote: »

Underwear is an essential piece of clothing that comes in a variety of styles, some more delicate than others, and serve the same principle and function as men’s underwear. Fancy underwear happens to be worn during sexy time.. but it’s not a baramoter of horniness or an indicator that you want it.

Many times high stilletto heels are worn during sex too. If you go by porn as a sample, they are often the last item of clothing to come off, if at all. So by the barristers logic, women who wear heels are up for it as well.

Wonder what kind of shoes she wore to court that day??

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I totally get that, but that’s why a jury would be expected to take into consideration all the evidence presented at trial rather than being focused on one single aspect of the evidence presented.

I don’t see why it’s even relevant. You can go out with the intention of getting the ride and still end up getting raped. You’re making it very black and white when it’s not at all.

astrofool

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t see why it’s even relevant. You can go out with the intention of getting the ride and still end up getting raped. You’re making it very black and white when it’s not at all.

You have literally said why it's relevant, the defendant's defence was that it was consensual, and that was what she was out to do, where she was and what she was wearing is relevant to that defence for the defendant, it is then up to the jury on whether to believe that defence or not. The prosecutions case was that it was not consensual, and that the victim had never engaged in sexual contact before, and that there had been no kissing beforehand, of which there was no witnesses who could testify that they were kissing (one had given a statement, but did not give evidence at the trial), there is not enough information in the reporting to speculate further, but it seems to me that the defendant was found not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to convict, rather than anyone believing his story.

Had the case been the other way around, with a woman being prosecuted, what the victim (man in this case) was wearing would be part of her defence as well (if their legal representation felt it helped her case, e.g. he was well dressed, wearing cologne, CK underwear).

One eyed Jack

sullivlo wrote: »

The issue that all of the women commenting on this thread has is that what a woman wore was blamed for her being raped. That she wore a thong so was “asking for it”. I don’t think that you will ever understand the viewpoint of a female.

I understand the viewpoint, I just don’t agree with it, whether it’s a male or a female is putting forward that viewpoint. The thing I don’t understand is why you would think I would need to understand the argument from the point of view of a female (which I do), when it was a female who put forward the argument in defence of their client which you disagree with. There were also four women on the jury who didn’t see the issue from your viewpoint either as the defendant was found not guilty by a unanimous verdict. I don’t think it’s necessary for me to be a female to understand your point of view.

What a woman wore is not blamed for her being raped. What a woman wore was evidence which was used by a female barrister to present a legitimate legal defence for her client who was accused of rape. I don’t need to be a female to understand that a lot of people, whether they are male or female, would have massive issues with how the barrister chose her words. I don’t have massive issues either with some people implying that the defendant is a rapist even though he was found not guilty by a jury after a criminal trial in a court of law.

If issues like legal definitions of consent or legal definitions of rape or court procedures in relation to alleged victims are to mean anything in law, then surely it would be determined by laws, and not by the individual, regardless of whether they’re male or female.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t see why it’s even relevant. You can go out with the intention of getting the ride and still end up getting raped. You’re making it very black and white when it’s not at all.

You can, and I’m not disagreeing with you, and I’m not making it very black and white when I know all too well it’s very much based upon context in a case by case basis in a court of law, which is about as independent an arbiter of law as can be achieved in the pursuit of justice. I’m saying it’s not black and white because it would depend upon the evidence and the circumstances presented in each and every case. The evidence doesn’t fit with some peoples beliefs and opinions about rape and consensual sex and law and court procedures, so who’s black and white about it when they’re assuming that the alleged victim was raped, in spite of having zero evidence upon which to base their claims? Who’s perpetuating myths and stereotypes about rape then?

Triceratops Ballet

The verdict of the case is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is disputing the verdict. I can also see the validity of people's clothes being collected as evidence for a trial, clothes often contain evidence such as dna/clothing fibers and have to be collected and submitted to evidence. What is disputable is the inference that any item of clothing means anything other that the person wearing it chose it to cover their body.
The barrister in this case inferred that a girls underwear was indicative of her consent. It's not. Underwear is underwear, it just covers your body. Regardless of anything else that transpired underwear does not send messages.

I wear a thong to the gym, if I reported a guy at my gym for rape, what relevance is my thong to the trial beyond as a statement of fact? ie: the accuser is x height yz years of age, clothing including hoodie, sports bra, leggings, vest, thong, socks and trainers were recovered for forensic analysis and x evidence was found/not found.

Fotish

The issue here should not be about the thong at all.
The real issue is the stupidity of the Barrister involved using the thong as an argument.
Imagine if a male Barrister had done this ,his career would be finished.

Rochelle

sullivlo wrote: »

The issue that all of the women commenting on this thread has is that what a woman wore was blamed for her being raped. That she wore a thong so was “asking for it”. I don’t think that you will ever understand the viewpoint of a female.

Sorry, who was raped?

SusieBlue

Rochelle wrote: »

Sorry, who was raped?

Oh, give over. :rolleyes:

Maggiesm70

what needs to be done in schools as part of the sex education is consent, guys need to know that No means No, i remember guys would buy you a drink and expect you to get into the back seat of the car with them, or if you were not in the mood you had to submit and let them have their way just because their hormones are raging, another is having sex with your wife/GF when they are asleep, just because your in bed with a guy does not mean you've consented to sex, i was hoping that respect for women had improved, if the schools are starting sex education consent must be a big part of it.

neonsofa

Maggiesm70 wrote: »

what needs to be done in schools as part of the sex education is consent, guys need to know that No means No, i remember guys would buy you a drink and expect you to get into the back seat of the car with them, or if you were not in the mood you had to submit and let them have their way just because their hormones are raging, another is having sex with your wife/GF when they are asleep, just because your in bed with a guy does not mean you've consented to sex, i was hoping that respect for women had improved, if the schools are starting sex education consent must be a big part of it.

If there are girls or women feeling that they have to "submit and let men have their way" then surely we should be teaching them to actually have the confidence to say no, and not just "let" people have sex with them (and I'm speaking very specifically in the context of that example you gave, not in general terms). I mean there is no point teaching men that no means no if no isn't being said in the first place.

eviltwin

neonsofa wrote: »

If there are girls or women feeling that they have to "submit and let men have their way" then surely we should be teaching them to actually have the confidence to say no, and not just "let" people have sex with them (and I'm speaking very specifically in the context of that example you gave, not in general terms). I mean there is no point teaching men that no means no if no isn't being said in the first place.

Pretty much this.

Most men are decent and will respect the wishes of their partner. Say No and they will back off. If someone is saying yes when they don't really want to who is responsible there? I'd say the person who submits.

Teaching children that No means No is important but we also need to empower our children to be able to refuse to engage in behaviour they aren't OK with.

Maggiesm70

eviltwin wrote: »

Pretty much this.

Most men are decent and will respect the wishes of their partner. Say No and they will back off. If someone is saying yes when they don't really want to who is responsible there? I'd say the person who submits.

Teaching children that No means No is important but we also need to empower our children to be able to refuse to engage in behaviour they aren't OK with.

your probably right

kylith

eviltwin wrote: »

Pretty much this.

Most men are decent and will respect the wishes of their partner. Say No and they will back off. If someone is saying yes when they don't really want to who is responsible there? I'd say the person who submits.

Teaching children that No means No is important but we also need to empower our children to be able to refuse to engage in behaviour they aren't OK with.

That's why young people need to be taught that consent needs to be freely and enthusiastically given. If a person can't tell whether their sexual partner is just 'letting' them do stuff then they have problems.

There is a tell in that you use the word 'submit'. Submission is not enthusiastic consent. Submission is what happens when someone has been worn down and doesn't feel that refusal is an option.

Maggiesm70

kylith wrote: »

That's why young people need to be taught that consent needs to be freely and enthusiastically given. If a person can't tell whether their sexual partner is just 'letting' them do stuff then they have problems.

There is a tell in that you use the word 'submit'. Submission is not enthusiastic consent. Submission is what happens when someone has been worn down and doesn't feel that refusal is an option.

very well put

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

That's why young people need to be taught that consent needs to be freely and enthusiastically given. If a person can't tell whether their sexual partner is just 'letting' them do stuff then they have problems.

There is a tell in that you use the word 'submit'. Submission is not enthusiastic consent. Submission is what happens when someone has been worn down and doesn't feel that refusal is an option.

It’s a nice idea in theory, but anyone intending to commit rape doesn’t care one way or the other whether consent is present, and anyone intending to have sex has no control over whether or not they are raped, or whether they are later accused of committing rape.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a nice idea in theory, but anyone intending to commit rape doesn’t care one way or the other whether consent is present, and anyone intending to have sex has no control over whether or not they are raped, or whether they are later accused of committing rape.

No, of course it won't do anything about people who intend to commit rape, but there are too many men who think it's acceptable to pester a woman into sex or to go out with him, or guilt her, or attempt to get her drunk in order to lower her resistance. There is too much of an emphasis of the woman: look at what she was wearing, she shouldn't have been drinking, what did she expect would happen.

As for people being falsely accused of rape: a man is much more likely to be sexually assaulted himself than to be falsely accused of rape.