Harsh sentence

One eyed Jack

Boggles wrote: »

They wouldn't have been allowed entertain his defense.

Mistaken identity is not allowed for under our legislation AFAIK.

That's why it baffling he didn't plead guilty and avoid a trial.

Mistaken identity is permitted as an explanation for the defendants actions as to their intent; it wouldn’t be regarded as a defence for their actions though, so the defendant could offer it as an explanation for their behaviour, but wouldn’t be permitted to offer it as a defence for their behaviour to imply the sexual act was consensual.

The most likely reason why he plead not guilty, from what I’ve read of the case, is that he simply doesn’t believe that what he did constitutes sexual assault. He’s obviously wrong, and the trial has shown him that he is wrong, yet even at sentencing the Judge observed he continues to fail to acknowledge any wrongdoing - he still doesn’t see anything wrong with what he did.

Kidchameleon

Is the wording of the charge he received available?

eagle eye

Demonique wrote:

Just because worse sexual crimes have received lesser sentences doesn't mean this sentence is harsh

The reason people are saying it's harsh is because there's a real possibility that there was no intent here.
Drunk guy gets into bed beside girl he thinks is his girlfriend.
If that is the case then jail seems wrong.
This isn't taking what happened lightly, this isn't disrespecting the victim either.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

The reason people are saying it's harsh is because there's a real possibility that there was no intent here.
Drunk guy gets into bed beside girl he thinks is his girlfriend.
If that is the case then jail seems wrong.
This isn't taking what happened lightly, this isn't disrespecting the victim either.

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

What does digitally mean in this context?
Also, he made a statement admitting what happened. He didn't deny what happened, he pleaded not guilty to a purposeful act.
Stop trying to make this out to way worse than it is. He didn't rape her, as soon as he realised it wasn't who he thought it was he left the room.
I can understand the girl would be upset and shaken by this. I don't think he knew it was her.

Mrsmum

eagle eye wrote: »

What does digitally mean in this context?
Also, he made a statement admitting what happened. He didn't deny what happened, he pleaded not guilty to a purposeful act.
Stop trying to make this out to way worse than it is. He didn't rape her, as soon as he realised it wasn't who he thought it was he left the room.
I can understand the girl would be upset and shaken by this. I don't think he knew it was her.

Gosh, what must it be like to want so desperately to believe someone whom the jury, having, you know, heard ALL the evidence, found guilty.

Dante7

batgoat wrote: »

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

No. It is very difficult trying to engage in a reasonable discussion when you are presented with this nonsense. It's difficult to know where to start.

ceadaoin.

Dante7 wrote: »

No. It is very difficult trying to engage in a reasonable discussion when you are presented with this nonsense. It's difficult to know where to start.

What's nonsense about it?

va·gi·na
/vəˈjīnə/
noun
1.
the muscular tube leading from the external genitals to the cervix of the uterus in women and most female mammals.

Vagina refers to the internal genitals.

batgoat

Dante7 wrote: »

No. It is very difficult trying to engage in a reasonable discussion when you are presented with this nonsense. It's difficult to know where to start.

That's the correct term from what I gather. So why is it nonsense?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jiltloop wrote: »

Well done for completely missing my point.

I didn’t miss your point. Maybe this doesn’t sit comfortably with you but not everyone is okay with being intimately touched whilst fully asleep, in any circumstance. I wouldn’t be. I would not be okay with my OH doing that.

You said I didn’t consider the nuance of different relationships and their parameters. Well, here’s the thing - really the only way you’ll find out if the person you’re seeing is okay with it is by doing it, seeing as “Would it be okay with you if I finger you when you’re asleep so that you wake up and we can have sex?” is unlikely to come up in conversation. So if you decide to go for it, you’re hoping that the person you do it to is fine with it - which they might not be. The boyfriend of my friend found that out when he got dumped. She (and I and others) found it creepy. And she got no say in it. He just did it. To try and establish that parameter, he did something that made her feel violated.

So for anyone here saying that waking your OH up in that way for sex is normal for your relationship - there had to be a first time it happened. How did you gauge whether or not your partner would dig it?

eagle eye

Mrsmum wrote:

Gosh, what must it be like to want so desperately to believe someone whom the jury, having, you know, heard ALL the evidence, found guilty.

It's impossible to predict a jury most of the time.

PARlance

batgoat wrote: »

That's the correct term from what I gather. So why is it nonsense?

It's the correct term but it's often misused to include the outer area. It's incredibly poor journalism not to mention penetration if that was the case.

I read it as a misuse of the word as it references "touching her vagina". I don't think many would describe penetration in that way.

Dante7

It's nonsense because the court report stated that the accused touched the victim's vagina. To extrapolate from this that this meant that the accused inserted digits is pure nonsense. Again, where to start.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

It's nonsense because the court report stated that the accused touched the victim's vagina. To extrapolate from this that this meant that the accused inserted digits is pure nonsense. Again, where to start.

The vagina is an internal organ. The outside parts is called the vulva.

He touched her vagina, and since it's inside her body that's where the insertion bit comes into it.

Where to start indeed. Anatomy would be a good place.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

eagle eye wrote: »

The reason people are saying it's harsh is because there's a real possibility that there was no intent here.
Drunk guy gets into bed beside girl he thinks is his girlfriend.
If that is the case then jail seems wrong.
This isn't taking what happened lightly, this isn't disrespecting the victim either.

The jury must have established intent because he was convicted. We haven’t been given enough details really. How did you figure out that “there’s a real possibility that there was no intent”? Nothing in the article clarifies that for me.

Dante7 wrote: »

It's nonsense because the court report stated that the accused touched the victim's vagina. To extrapolate from this that this meant that the accused inserted digits is pure nonsense. Again, where to start.

So touching just the labia is no problem?

Dante7

Candie wrote: »

The vagina is an internal organ. The outside parts is called the vulva.

He touched her vagina, and since it's inside her body that's where the insertion bit comes into it.

Where to start indeed. Anatomy would be a good place.

I'll start here so. Vagina is colloquially used to describe not only the internal feminine sex organs, but also the the external labia, clitoris and vulva. If someone is described as touching someone's vagina, it is 100% implied that they touched the outer tissues and did not digitally penetrate the victim. It's that simple.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

I'll start here so. Vagina is colloquially used to describe not only the internal feminine sex organs, but also the the external labia, clitoris and vulva. If someone is described as touching someone's vagina, it is 100% implied that they touched the outer tissues and did not digitally penetrate the victim. It's that simple.

You realize that precise language is required in court? If he was convicted of sexual assault on the basis that he touched her vagina, then vagina it was. Not whatever you decide a vagina is on any given day.

Hilarious that you feel touching her vulva is somehow a much lesser crime deserving of minimal punishment, if any at all. I wonder how you'd feel if a bigger man than you climbed into bed while you were asleep and put his fingers and hands on or in your intimate body parts. I somehow doubt you'd think a bit of a telling off was all he needed.

Your use of minimizing language in the OP tells me all I need to know about your attitude to sexual assault.

ceadaoin.

Dante7 wrote: »

I'll start here so. Vagina is colloquially used to describe not only the internal feminine sex organs, but also the the external labia, clitoris and vulva. If someone is described as touching someone's vagina, it is 100% implied that they touched the outer tissues and did not digitally penetrate the victim. It's that simple.

in court would correct descriptions not be required? Also, I'd have thought his lawyers would be quick to correct if an inaccurate term that was used if this is not what happened

GreeBo

batgoat wrote: »

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

As we have seen on this thread first hand, it is not remotely reasonably to some people, however, as we have also seen first hand on this thread, it is reasonably to others.

So it seems wrong to me that the result of the same act by the same person can result in some cases to having sex and in others to a prison sentence (where ironically unwanted penetration is very likely on the cards)

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t miss your point. Maybe this doesn’t sit comfortably with you but not everyone is okay with being intimately touched whilst fully asleep, in any circumstance. I wouldn’t be. I would not be okay with my OH doing that.

That is a bizarre thing to accuse anyone of.

Your boundaries are your boundaries, nobody is judging you either way. The reality is nobody cares what you or your partner get up to. You do understand that right?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You said I didn’t consider the nuance of different relationships and their parameters. Well, here’s the thing - really the only way you’ll find out if the person you’re seeing is okay with it is by doing it, seeing as “Would it be okay with you if I finger you when you’re asleep so that you wake up and we can have sex?” is unlikely to come up in conversation.

I haven't seen one person suggest fingering a partner out of a deep sleep would be a clever thing to do.

You keep bringing it up based on an anecdote. Why do you continue to try and apply something to a conversation nobody is having?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So for anyone here saying that waking your OH up in that way for sex is normal for your relationship - there had to be a first time it happened. How did you gauge whether or not your partner would dig it?

Discussing likes and dislikes in relation to intimacy is a perfectly normal healthy thing do in a relationship, so it's not an absolute that a partner just tries something without discussing it beforehand.

But it does happen and in my experience if a partner tries something on me or vice-versa that we didn't "dig", then a simple "I'm not cool with that" suffices.

For me personally I understand people are fallible and the vast majority of them are not sexual deviants, so if a boundary is crossed I tend not to go apocalyptic and immediately issue divorce proceedings or P45's.

But like I said, that's me. Each to their own. It's none of my business what people do or do not get up to.

jiltloop

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t miss your point. Maybe this doesn’t sit comfortably with you but not everyone is okay with being intimately touched whilst fully asleep, in any circumstance. I wouldn’t be. I would not be okay with my OH doing that.

You said I didn’t consider the nuance of different relationships and their parameters. Well, here’s the thing - really the only way you’ll find out if the person you’re seeing is okay with it is by doing it, seeing as “Would it be okay with you if I finger you when you’re asleep so that you wake up and we can have sex?” is unlikely to come up in conversation. So if you decide to go for it, you’re hoping that the person you do it to is fine with it - which they might not be. The boyfriend of my friend found that out when he got dumped. She (and I and others) found it creepy. And she got no say in it. He just did it. To try and establish that parameter, he did something that made her feel violated.

So for anyone here saying that waking your OH up in that way for sex is normal for your relationship - there had to be a first time it happened. How did you gauge whether or not your partner would dig it?

Maybe this doesn't sit comfortably with you but some people clearly are comfortable with that in their relationships. You or anyone else can state that you're not comfortable with it and that's fine, I couldn't care less.

However don't tell people who are comfortable with it that they are assaulting their partner who is also comfortable with it. That's what I have an issue with, people forcing their opinion on others as if it's a fact.

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

Kidchameleon

Whack1 wrote: »

The article only barely scratches the surface of detail of the case. This is not a harsh sentence, believe me!

I don't believe you unless you provide evidence.

eviltwin

Whack1 wrote: »

The article only barely scratches the surface of detail of the case. This is not a harsh sentence, believe me!

Please elaborate

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

That is a bizarre thing to accuse anyone of.

Your boundaries are your boundaries, nobody is judging you either way. The reality is nobody cares what you or your partner get up to. You do understand that right?



I haven't seen one person suggest fingering a partner out of a deep sleep would be a clever thing to do.

You keep bringing it up based on an anecdote. Why do you continue to try and apply something to a conversation nobody is having?



Discussing likes and dislikes in relation to intimacy is a perfectly normal healthy thing do in a relationship, so it's not an absolute that a partner just tries something without discussing it beforehand.

But it does happen and in my experience if a partner tries something on me or vice-versa that we didn't "dig", then a simple "I'm not cool with that" suffices.

For me personally I understand people are fallible and the vast majority of them are not sexual deviants, so if a boundary is crossed I tend not to go apocalyptic and immediately issue divorce proceedings or P45's.

But like I said, that's me. Each to their own. It's none of my business what people do or do not get up to.

Aah, people in this actual thread have said they do. Not to a waking, sleepy partner, to a FULLY asleep one. And have defended it. Apparently in the context of waking them for sex, it’s okay. Some of those people have thanked your post.

If you think people haven’t said they do that, you haven’t read the whole thread.

I’ll happily provide examples. Unless they have gone back and edited. In which case, the editing timestamp will be telling.

Jiltloop reiterated after your post that I quoted here. He said this earlier in the thread too. He is quite literally saying his partner is fully asleep sometimes when he touches him/her. And the goal seems to be to initiate sex. How can you say you haven’t seen anyone say this on the thread? Unless you’re getting into technicalities about how far in the fingers go. Vagina, vulva, it’s all creepy to me.

jiltloop wrote: »

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jiltloop wrote: »

Maybe this doesn't sit comfortably with you but some people clearly are comfortable with that in their relationships. You or anyone else can state that you're not comfortable with it and that's fine, I couldn't care less.

However don't tell people who are comfortable with it that they are assaulting their partner who is also comfortable with it. That's what I have an issue with, people forcing their opinion on others as if it's a fact.

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

My opinion is my opinion. You can take it or leave it. Nobody can force their opinion on anyone. But at the same time, taking issue with somebody’s opinion doesn’t mean the opinion-holder has to care. You take issue with my opinion. Grand? If you’re comfortable in your actions, what do you care what my opinions of those actions are? I’m not obliged to agree.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't believe you unless you provide evidence.

The onus is on the people here saying that the conviction and sentence was harsh to provide evidence, tbh. The jury convicted after hearing all the arguments and evidence.

eagle eye

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:

The onus is on the people here saying that the conviction and sentence was harsh to provide evidence, tbh. The jury convicted after hearing all the arguments and evidence.

How would it be? The details made available to us make a lot of us believe the sentence was harsh.
If you want to say it's not and suggest you know more then share it.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My opinion is my opinion. You can take it or leave it. Nobody can force their opinion on anyone. But at the same time, taking issue with somebody’s opinion doesn’t mean the opinion-holder has to care. You take issue with my opinion. Grand? If you’re comfortable in your actions, what do you care what my opinions of those actions are? I’m not obliged to agree.

You’re displaying the same attitude as the guy who didn’t agree that what he did to someone who wasn’t his girlfriend, constitutes sexual assault. It turned out that the Courts can force their opinions on him and have him locked up for an opinion like that. He doesn’t have to change his opinion, and he can’t be punished for having an opinion, but that whole opinion-holding and whether or not one has to agree or disagree with any one particular individual is just nonsense. The experience you presented is not the same scenario as the circumstances in which a man was found guilty of sexual assault. Whether or not other people are comfortable in their actions doesn’t prohibit them from disagreeing with your standards you have for yourself. It’s down to the individuals involved as to whether or not they determine they were sexually assaulted or not, and if they determine that they weren’t, then no amount of your claiming that they were, is in any way helpful. It just comes off as an insidious attempt to control people who don’t conform to your standards.

The onus is on the people here saying that the conviction and sentence was harsh to provide evidence, tbh. The jury convicted after hearing all the arguments and evidence.

The onus is on the one-post wonder to provide evidence for their claim that there’s more to the story. I don’t think the sentence was particularly harsh and I’m still not going to put much stock in the claims of an anonymous person on the Internet just because their opinions happen to align with mine. I’m well aware there’s more to this case than was reported in the newspapers, and I still wouldn’t encourage anyone to risk contempt of court charges to gain brownie points on the Internet, it’s not particularly helpful to anyone but the one-post wonder.

Dante7

Whack1 wrote: »

The article only barely scratches the surface of detail of the case. This is not a harsh sentence, believe me!

I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

How would it be? The details made available to us make a lot of us believe the sentence was harsh.
If you want to say it's not and suggest you know more then share it.

Erm but most of them view it as acceptable behaviour. Also ye don't seem to view the lack of remorse to be an issue.

Dante7 wrote: »

I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

One year! Most of the two and a half years suspended, you're happy to point out suspended sentences when it suits so you're intentionally misrepresenting.

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

There’s no disparity only where you go looking for it, and you’ll find it easy enough when you’re willing to ignore context which doesn’t fit with your particular narrative.

Dante7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no disparity only where you go looking for it, and you’ll find it easy enough when you’re willing to ignore context which doesn’t fit with your particular narrative.

Nonsense. There is a huge disparity with sentencing. What sentence do you think Martin Nolan would have given?

One eyed Jack

Dante7 wrote: »

Nonsense. There is a huge disparity with sentencing. What sentence do you think Martin Nolan would have given?

There isn’t any huge disparity in sentencing. You’re just ignoring the facts. I have no idea what sentence Martin Nolan would give as the circumstances wouldn’t be the same. The case would be in front of a different Judge and perhaps the defendant may not have appeared so up his own hole that he showed no remorse and nothing but contempt for the victim and his actions, which showed he still doesn’t see what he did was in any way wrong or why his actions were wrong, or why he found himself in the dock.

Sentencing guidelines do exist, and the Judge ultimately has discretion in the sentencing they hand down, based upon the circumstances of any particular case and other factors such as mitigating and aggravating factors. In this case the Judge could have handed down a 5 year sentence for sexual assault, but chose to hand down a 2.5 year sentence, with the last 18 months suspended.

You call that harsh? I call it bloody lenient myself given the circumstances that we are aware of.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

Erm but most of them view it as acceptable behaviour. Also ye don't seem to view the lack of remorse to be an issue.

Well it says he made a statement to a Garda detailing what happened. If he did that then he must have remorse.
If there was no remorse he would hardly detail the events to a Garda.
As he did make a statement it appears that his not guilty plea was a technical one where he felt there was no intention on his part.
This is based on the information made available to us.

eagle eye

Whack1 wrote:

He didn't admit it in a statement to the Garda.

Thanks a is from the article linked in the op.
'Doran met with Gda Stears and told him he was drunk on the night and had gotten into the wrong bed and that it took him a minute to realise the woman was not his girlfriend'.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it says he made a statement to a Garda detailing what happened. If he did that then he must have remorse.
If there was no remorse he would hardly detail the events to a Garda.
As he did make a statement it appears that his not guilty plea was a technical one where he felt there was no intention on his part.
This is based on the information made available to us.

Eh, stating what happened is not an indication of remorse. He'd have gotten an even worse sentence if he lied to the gardaí about what happened. In addition, as previously pointed out, the statement of the judge indicates a lack of remorse.

GreeBo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My opinion is my opinion. You can take it or leave it. Nobody can force their opinion on anyone. But at the same time, taking issue with somebody’s opinion doesn’t mean the opinion-holder has to care. You take issue with my opinion. Grand? If you’re comfortable in your actions, what do you care what my opinions of those actions are?

What, you mean other than labelling people with a different opinion than you as sexual abusers?

Kimbot

Whack1 wrote: »

He didn't admit in his statement to Garda that he touched her vagina. He told Garda in his statement that he got into the bed, put his arm around her, realised he was in the wrong bed and got up and left the room. He also said in his statement to Garda that she never woke.

If she never woke, how did she know anything had happened?!

Was she asleep or falling asleep tho?

"She said she was falling asleep when Doran came into the room and got into her bed"

Kimbot

Whack1 wrote: »

She was asleep for literally seconds before he entered the room. The incident happened at 6.30/7am on Sunday morning, she had been awake from 8am the previous day.

Well that's not what's reported so how come you seem to know more?

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

Eh, stating what happened is not an indication of remorse. He'd have gotten an even worse sentence if he lied to the gardaí about what happened. In addition, as previously pointed out, the statement of the judge indicates a lack of remorse.

She said that his failure to acknowledge his wrongdoing was an issue. She never mentioned remorse or that he lied or anything like that according to the article.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Aah, people in this actual thread have said they do. Not to a waking, sleepy partner, to a FULLY asleep one. And have defended it. Apparently in the context of waking them for sex, it’s okay. Some of those people have thanked your post.

If you think people haven’t said they do that, you haven’t read the whole thread.

I’ll happily provide examples.

Please do.

bilbot79

batgoat wrote: »

As already pointed out, vagina implies internal. So he digitally penetrated a sleeping woman. That's not remotely reasonable and it's even worse because he doesn't recognise the impact of his actions.

Don't disagree with this but still the sentence seems harsh. This is a conversation about sentencing as opposed to the crime itself. He's guilty all day long but I don't think jail time is warranted on a first offence here

Boggles

bilbot79 wrote: »

Don't disagree with this but still the sentence seems harsh. This is a conversation about sentencing as opposed to the crime itself. He's guilty all day long but I don't think jail time is warranted on a first offence here

It's entirely his own fault he got a custodial sentence.

Apart from the crime itself, the judge looks at 3 main things before determining an appropriate sentence. He had the 2 "hardest" ones covered.

No previous record and long employment history.

The 3rd being remorse, the easiest one, because you can fake it.

The case is bizarre because the jury had absolutely no choice but to find him guilty IMO, even if they believed his version of events, mistaken identity is not an excuse for lack of consent.

Surely his legal team would have advised him to plead guilty, send in a long letter of apology and not take it to trial. He chose to take to trial where he chose not act contrite.

The question is why didn't he?

Either he is complete d1ckhead simpleton or as I suspect given the dynamics of the relationships involved, the glaring animosity grew from further events after that night.

In comparison to other sentences, yes it would appear harsh, but that was his fault ultimately.

Kidchameleon

Boggles wrote: »

Surely his legal team would have advised him to plead guilty..... The question is why didn't he?

Plead guilty to what? What was he charged with? Does anyone in this thread know the exact wording of the charge?


If the charge was knowingly assaulting the woman then why in the hell would he plead guilty to that if he believes he did not do it knowingly?

Boggles

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Plead guilty to what? What was he charged with? Does anyone in this thread know the exact wording of the charge?

Sexual Assault.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If the charge was knowingly assaulting the woman then why in the hell would he plead guilty to that if he believes he did not do it knowingly?

Because his legal team would have pointed out to him, that under law mistaken identity is not an excuse for lack of consent.

It's specifically defined in legislation.

---

Also a few people have said that "touching a vagina" is automatically digital penetration.

It isn't, I suggest looking at other similar court reporting.

jiltloop

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Boggles wrote: »

That is a bizarre thing to accuse anyone of.

Your boundaries are your boundaries, nobody is judging you either way. The reality is nobody cares what you or your partner get up to. You do understand that right?



I haven't seen one person suggest fingering a partner out of a deep sleep would be a clever thing to do.

You keep bringing it up based on an anecdote. Why do you continue to try and apply something to a conversation nobody is having?



Discussing likes and dislikes in relation to intimacy is a perfectly normal healthy thing do in a relationship, so it's not an absolute that a partner just tries something without discussing it beforehand.

But it does happen and in my experience if a partner tries something on me or vice-versa that we didn't "dig", then a simple "I'm not cool with that" suffices.

For me personally I understand people are fallible and the vast majority of them are not sexual deviants, so if a boundary is crossed I tend not to go apocalyptic and immediately issue divorce proceedings or P45's.

But like I said, that's me. Each to their own. It's none of my business what people do or do not get up to.

Aah, people in this actual thread have said they do. Not to a waking, sleepy partner, to a FULLY asleep one. And have defended it. Apparently in the context of waking them for sex, it’s okay. Some of those people have thanked your post.

If you think people haven’t said they do that, you haven’t read the whole thread.

I’ll happily provide examples. Unless they have gone back and edited. In which case, the editing timestamp will be telling.

Jiltloop reiterated after your post that I quoted here. He said this earlier in the thread too. He is quite literally saying his partner is fully asleep sometimes when he touches him/her. And the goal seems to be to initiate sex. How can you say you haven’t seen anyone say this on the thread? Unless you’re getting into technicalities about how far in the fingers go. Vagina, vulva, it’s all creepy to me.

jiltloop wrote: »

People in a loving and understanding relationship can touch each other intimately while asleep and it's completely normal as long as it's within those parameters. Your personal opinions or preferences are not enforceable on others as some kind of moral rule.

I have stated that for me and my partner waking each other up with sleepy intimate fondling is normal.

Your translation of this is that I wake my partner out of a deep sleep by inserting fingers in to her vagina??!!

This is why I usually don't offer an opinion in topics such as this, there's always someone to misrepresent it and then the debate breaks down from something that could be healthy and constructive to a pointless situation where one has to argue about what their position or argument is.

The fact is initially stated my opinion that certain carte blanche statements on this thread by 2 or 3 posters labelled perfectly normal behaviour between consenting adults in long term relationships as sexual abuse.

I'll bow out of this now because your tactics are not what I'd call a reasonable discussion.

Kidchameleon

Boggles wrote: »

Sexual Assault.

So one could be charged with sexual assault in Ireland even if there is no intent?

Boggles wrote: »

Because his legal team would have pointed out to him, that under law mistaken identity is not an excuse for lack of consent..

Yeah maybe if he had of worded things better he might have got the whole sentence suspended. I still think the victim impact statement is a load of crap though, nobody could be traumatized by that - a mistake that lasted the best part of a second.


Also, a bit of whataboutery but if the roles were reversed, and she grabbed his d*ck with intent and showed no remorse whilst he said he was traumatized, you can bet your life she would not see the inside of a jail. Equality indeed...

GreeBo

Pure speculation on my part but i wonder does any apparent lack of contrition result from how the victim may have responded afterwards.

E.g. if she started telling all and sundry that he had sexually abused her he might find it hard to act as remorseful as otherwise. Or even if she knew it was an accident but still registered it as an assault, if he was like a brother then she was like a sister to him. I'd expect a different reaction from a friend never mind a sister.

Boggles

GreeBo wrote: »

Pure speculation on my part but i wonder does any apparent lack of contrition result from how the victim may have responded afterwards.

Similarly TBF it could also be how he acted afterwards.

Also I would suggest that his defense all though plausible IMO, may not actually be true.

He could have well chanced his arm while his Fiancé was passed out in another room, also plausible.

Court reporting by the media is by and large a shambles, if the case was more salacious or involved someone famous we'd have full transcripts.

batgoat

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So one could be charged with sexual assault in Ireland even if there is no intent?





Yeah maybe if he had of worded things better he might have got the whole sentence suspended. I still think the victim impact statement is a load of crap though, nobody could be traumatized by that - a mistake that lasted the best part of a second.


Also, a bit of whataboutery but if the roles were reversed, and she grabbed his d*ck with intent and showed no remorse whilst he said he was traumatized, you can bet your life she would not see the inside of a jail. Equality indeed...

Your lack of even trying to empathise with the victim is pretty shameful tbh. Waking with a supposed friend with their hands on your genitals can easily be traumatising. That could easily make a person far less trusting of friends in general and events like that do tend to stick with you. So that's a long term impact. Just because you would apparently be fine is not the baseline.

Kidchameleon

batgoat wrote: »

Your lack of even trying to empathise with the victim is pretty shameful tbh.

I don't need to try, I have been there. Its not that big of a deal, sure, I was pissed off but that's about as far as it went. I can tell from the victim impact statement that she is simply baying for blood, now that is shameful because the guy is now going to spend a year in jail (where his chances of being actually raped increase). He will be on the sex offenders register. His life is ruined over an honest mistake a snowflakes fee fee's.