“Ireland has a rape culture”

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but the 'all men are potential rapists' line is as much of a pointless exaggeration as 'all women are gold-diggers'.

The ultimate problem here is the ignorance surrounding the idea that "consent" is merely the same as 'not rape'.

The ultimate problem here, for you, is that you aren’t able to convince adults that they live in a society where they are under the constant threat of rape, and you imagine you’ll have better luck attempting to convince children, by attempting to go behind their parents backs in the school.

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but the 'all men are potential rapists' line is as much of a pointless exaggeration as 'all women are gold-diggers'.

The ultimate problem here is the ignorance surrounding the idea that "consent" is merely the same as 'not rape'.

Again the posters are proving that consent classes are just spreading the word rape to acts that are not rape.

Its pretty much legitimising the absurd studies that say one in four women are raped.

Reviews and Books Galore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ultimate problem here, for you, is that you aren’t able to convince adults that they live in a society where they are under the constant threat of rape, and you imagine you’ll have better luck attempting to convince children, by attempting to go behind their parents backs in the school.

Pretty good reply imo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but the 'all men are potential rapists' line is as much of a pointless exaggeration as 'all women are gold-diggers'.

The ultimate problem here is the ignorance surrounding the idea that "consent" is merely the same as 'not rape'.

The ultimate problem here, for you, is that you aren’t able to convince adults that they live in a society where they are under the constant threat of rape, and you imagine you’ll have better luck attempting to convince children, by attempting to go behind their parents backs in the school.

What, exactly, in that post have you that impression...??

I argued in favour of mandatory sexual health education, and you said no.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but the 'all men are potential rapists' line is as much of a pointless exaggeration as 'all women are gold-diggers'.

The ultimate problem here is the ignorance surrounding the idea that "consent" is merely the same as 'not rape'.

Again the posters are proving that consent classes are just spreading the word rape to acts that are not rape.

Its pretty much legitimising the absurd studies that say one in four women are raped.

No, because - again - you've equated non-consent with rape and stopped listening.

It IS possible to violate someone's consent, without actually commiting rape.

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, because - again - you've equated non-consent with rape and stopped listening.

It IS possible to violate someone's consent, without actually commiting rape.

Fair enough, is that a sex crime?

El_Duderino 09

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but the 'all men are potential rapists' line is as much of a pointless exaggeration as 'all women are gold-diggers'.

The ultimate problem here is the ignorance surrounding the idea that "consent" is merely the same as 'not rape'.

I've been trying to explain that consent is about much more than rape but some posters just don't want to hear it. If hey pretend not to understand anything apart from."Consent =not rape" then they can persist with the narrative that consent classes are just about teaching men not to rape.

They completely ignore everything else about consent. Like for example the shared responsibility on all parties involved to express consent or lack of consent or a change of mind. Since its a shared responsibility, any sensible discussion would teach girls and boys about they shared responsibility to express themselves.

For example It would have to tell girls that there's no point in not clearly expressing consent or a change of mind.

But apart from that, there's plenty to discuss except rape

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In what you’re presenting above, I just don’t see how consent classes are an attempt to prevent people from committing rape, or preventing people from becoming victims of rape? You’re talking about men in prison having been convicted of committing rape, I’m asking about preventing people from committing rape and preventing people from becoming the victims of people who choose to commit rape in the first place?

well, yeah but the example I gave above is not of a bloke sitting in prison who decide to rape anyone. I have an example of someone who thought he had consent be abuse of a misunderstanding. Because loads of people in this thread have a "shur, you know yourself, like" attitude to reading body language about consent and some even admitted they are afraid to speak about consent in case they end up not getting the ride or "killing the mood" or whatever.

There's loads of scope for misunderstanding when relying on body language, when drunk.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ultimate problem here, for you, is that you aren’t able to convince adults that they live in a society where they are under the constant threat of rape, and you imagine you’ll have better luck attempting to convince children, by attempting to go behind their parents backs in the school.

I don't think live in a society where I'm.in constant danger of being hit by a car, but I support learning to drive safely as standard. We don't have to be in imminent danger to act in everyone's best interest. Sex and relationships are really important in my opinion.

I have no doubt that there are bloke's who have been accused of rape by a wan who has faulty beliefs about consent. A woman who changes her mind and doesn't express it clearly, then accuses the bloke of rape. That's tragic for everyone involved. Why you wouldn't want to act to educate young people to prevent that situation arising is ideological madness to me.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think live in a society where I'm.in constant danger of being hit by a car, but I support learning to drive safely as standard. We don't have to be in imminent danger to act in everyone's best interest. Sex and relationships are really important in my opinion.

I have no doubt that there are bloke's who have been accused of rape by a wan who has faulty beliefs about consent. A woman who changes her mind and doesn't express it clearly, then accuses the bloke of rape. That's tragic for everyone involved. Why you wouldn't want to act to educate young people to prevent that situation arising is ideological madness to me.

Sounds like a false allegation imo.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, because - again - you've equated non-consent with rape and stopped listening.

It IS possible to violate someone's consent, without actually commiting rape.

Fair enough, is that a sex crime?

Would depend on the specific violation, obviously.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Sounds like a false allegation imo.

Right. And for some reason you're opposed to discussing the issue with young people to stop that situation arising.

Sh1 situation for the lass who thinks she was raped. Sh1t situation for the bloke who gets accused of rape. So why exactly would you oppose discussing consent?

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Would depend on the specific violation, obviously.

Fair enough, so what specific violation of the woman shouldn't be classed as a sex crime?

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Right. And for some reason you're opposed to discussing the issue with young people to stop that situation arising.

Sh1 situation for the lass who thinks she was raped. Sh1t situation for the bloke who gets accused of rape. So why exactly would you oppose discussing consent?

No, I oppose portraying women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual victimisers.



As I have said before, it is blatantly obvious that this is wordplay that is trying to broaden the definition of rape (violation being another loaded word) under the guise of 'teaching consent'.



And, I repeat, it sounds like a false accusation of rape. Do you agree?

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

No, I oppose portraying women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual victimisers.



As I have said before, it is blatantly obvious that this is wordplay that is trying to broaden the definition of rape (violation being another loaded word) under the guise of 'teaching consent'.



And, I repeat, it sounds like a false accusation of rape. Do you agree?

Yeah I agree (I agreed in the first word of the last post "right") It's a false accusation of rape based on a misunderstanding of what Consent is, how it's expresses and how it's received. In this case I've outlined above it's the woman who's making the accusation that has made the mistake. and still you oppose discussing consent with young people as I've outlined.

You might note that I have never made consent about men being rapists. Have you at least noticed that? Serious question which I'd like you to answer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Would depend on the specific violation, obviously.

Fair enough, so what specific violation of the woman shouldn't be classed as a sex crime?

You see, if you have to ask questions like that, I'd argue you're actually portraying the need for some form of sexual communication ideals.

In answer to your question, though; persistent unwanted non-sexual physical touching (e.g. arms around shoulders) and verbal and virtual harassment (including "catcalling" and sexually explicit images).

If you don't agree, ask some women you know about how they feel about unsolicited dickpics.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What, exactly, in that post have you that impression...??

I argued in favour of mandatory sexual health education, and you said no.

Well you didn’t just argue in favour of mandatory sex education, you made the point that you considered it child abuse if a parent didn’t want their children exposed to your idea of sex education. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were being hyperbolic rather than actually seriously suggesting you would accuse a parent of abusing their children if they didn’t want their child to be exposed to your idea of sex education which you consider essential, and I don’t.

You argued that it would be right for the State to step in in those circumstances, and to my mind that’s nothing more than if parents don’t comply with what you want, they’ll be made to comply by the State at the risk of some form of punishment if they still refuse to comply.

I’m not going to be obtuse and pretend I don’t see how you see it as of greater benefit to society that children are exposed to your ideas without their parents consent. I just don’t agree because that was tried already in the past by the State, and it didn’t work out well for society at all. Families and people’s lives were destroyed, and many people are still living with the effects of it. An apology from the State doesn’t undo the harm that has already been done as a result of their heavy handed tactics.

JJayoo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you don't agree, ask some women you know about how they feel about unsolicited dickpics.

How exactly do women receive these pics? Are pervy guys just sending pics of their junk to random numbers hoping it will be a woman?

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You see, if you have to ask questions like that, I'd argue you're actually portraying the need for some form of sexual communication ideals.

In answer to your question, though; persistent unwanted non-sexual physical touching (e.g. arms around shoulders) and verbal and virtual harassment (including "catcalling" and sexually explicit images).

If you don't agree, ask some women you know about how they feel about unsolicited dickpics.

That's nice.



Anyway, just to clarify you are saying the above is not meant to be a sex crime or should be a sex crime?



Yeah, I know a few women who say they have not recieved dick pics (unsolicitated) and believe it is more of a fad to say that you have. They are in their thirties and from Eastern Europe if that affects what they said.

suicide_circus

JJayoo wrote: »

How exactly do women receive these pics? Are pervy guys just sending pics of their junk to random numbers hoping it will be a woman?

i'm guessing its on the tinders or something?

JJayoo

suicide_circus wrote: »

JJayoo wrote: »

How exactly do women receive these pics? Are pervy guys just sending pics of their junk to random numbers hoping it will be a woman?

i'm guessing its on the tinders or something?

But you can't send pictures on tinder

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

well, yeah but the example I gave above is not of a bloke sitting in prison who decide to rape anyone. I have an example of someone who thought he had consent be abuse of a misunderstanding. Because loads of people in this thread have a "shur, you know yourself, like" attitude to reading body language about consent and some even admitted they are afraid to speak about consent in case they end up not getting the ride or "killing the mood" or whatever.

There's loads of scope for misunderstanding when relying on body language, when drunk.

The bloke in prison is there though because he was convicted of committing rape in a Court of Law. Consent classes aren’t going to prevent that from happening, nor should they be expected to. The defendant (or defendants) were found guilty of a criminal offence because a jury of their peers determined that there was sufficient evidence to find them guilty of having committed rape. The jury would have to have been of the opinion that the defendants belief consent was present was unreasonable in order to find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt - the defendant may well have misread the signals and so on, and they might still protest their innocence of having committed any wrongdoing, but a jury disagrees with them, that’s what a trial comes down to.

The scope for misunderstanding isn’t made any narrower by having people attend consent classes, because the possibility of being raped, or the possibility of being accused of rape, is outside the scope of most people’s minds, it doesn’t occur to most people in the course of their daily lives, nor should it. Nobody should live their lives as though they have to protect themselves from being raped, nor that they have to protect themselves from being accused of rape. Consent classes are an attempt to make people paranoid about rape, and I say an attempt, because most people don’t live their lives in a constant state of fear of either being raped, or being accused of committing rape.

OMM 0000

This "misreading the signals" thing just isn't true.

"I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU".

"STOP I DON'T WANT THIS".

No one hears the above and thinks OH THEY'RE UP FOR IT.

Any person who claims otherwise in an assault trial is a rapist trying to get away with things on a technicality.

Consent classes aren't going to protect anyone, and they are (as One eyed Jack cleverly pointed out) an attempt to get people to believe rape is all around them. They're unable to trick adults into believing this, as almost everyone knows most people aren't rapists, so they're having to go to impressionable children so they can force this ideology onto them.

If you are sincere about preventing rape and assault, we need a complete prevention overhaul. For example, if you notice you're attracted to children or think you have rapey feelings, then there should be some sort of super nice and non-judgemental medical service you can attend where you get free therapy and perhaps medication to help reduce or eradicate these thoughts.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The bloke in prison is there though because he was convicted of committing rape in a Court of Law. Consent classes aren’t going to prevent that from happening, nor should they be expected to. The defendant (or defendants) were found guilty of a criminal offence because a jury of their peers determined that there was sufficient evidence to find them guilty of having committed rape. The jury would have to have been of the opinion that the defendants belief consent was present was unreasonable in order to find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt - the defendant may well have misread the signals and so on, and they might still protest their innocence of having committed any wrongdoing, but a jury disagrees with them, that’s what a trial comes down to.

The scope for misunderstanding isn’t made any narrower by having people attend consent classes, because the possibility of being raped, or the possibility of being accused of rape, is outside the scope of most people’s minds, it doesn’t occur to most people in the course of their daily lives, nor should it. Nobody should live their lives as though they have to protect themselves from being raped, nor that they have to protect themselves from being accused of rape. Consent classes are an attempt to make people paranoid about rape, and I say an attempt, because most people don’t live their lives in a constant state of fear of either being raped, or being accused of committing rape.

Ah. So you're saying that the only way to get convicted of rape is to have intentionally raped someone. So the scenario I outlined earlier ( guy believes he had consent, woman believes she was raped) couldn't possible happen? Now, that's either naive or just discounting the possibility for the sake of this discussion.

It also excludes the possibility of a woman making an accusation of rape because she believes she was being raped but the guy thinks he had consent because she didn't explicitly say "no/stop".

But ultimately you're denying the possibility of a misunderstanding arising when relying on body language and when drunk (which is where these misunderstandings are most likely to occur. See Paddy Jackson trial for an example). And that's just a step too far for plausible naivety.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What, exactly, in that post have you that impression...??

I argued in favour of mandatory sexual health education, and you said no.

Well you didn’t just argue in favour of mandatory sex education, you made the point that you considered it child abuse if a parent didn’t want their children exposed to your idea of sex education. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were being hyperbolic rather than actually seriously suggesting you would accuse a parent of abusing their children if they didn’t want their child to be exposed to your idea of sex education which you consider essential, and I don’t.

You argued that it would be right for the State to step in in those circumstances, and to my mind that’s nothing more than if parents don’t comply with what you want, they’ll be made to comply by the State at the risk of some form of punishment if they still refuse to comply.

I’m not going to be obtuse and pretend I don’t see how you see it as of greater benefit to society that children are exposed to your ideas without their parents consent. I just don’t agree because that was tried already in the past by the State, and it didn’t work out well for society at all. Families and people’s lives were destroyed, and many people are still living with the effects of it. An apology from the State doesn’t undo the harm that has already been done as a result of their heavy handed tactics.

First paragraph - no I didn't, and even if I had, it wouldn't fit answer my question: I never discussed consent with you. Quote my posts directly or back down.

Paragraphs two and three - not about consent at all.

El_Duderino 09

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This "misreading the signals" thing just isn't true.

"I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU".

"STOP I DON'T WANT THIS".

No one hears the above and thinks OH THEY'RE UP FOR IT.

Any person who claims otherwise in an assault trial is a rapist trying to get away with things on a technicality.

And that would be a good example of clear expression of consent. But this thread is full of people saying you can express consent through much more subtle methods such as body language. So a woman subtly suggests through body language she's Interested in sex it's green light. A woman subtly suggests she's changed her mind, then it's wide open to misinterpretation.

One aspect of the discussion would be about how to express themselves clearly so misunderstandings don't occur.

I've absolutely no understanding of the opposition to such a basic and normal part of education. There's no need for it to be anti men as so many men have said it has to be. It's just a normal part of learning to deal with a situation before it arrises so they're prepared to be in control of their own lives. No big deal. The opposition is really fascinating though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JJayoo wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you don't agree, ask some women you know about how they feel about unsolicited dickpics.

How exactly do women receive these pics? Are pervy guys just sending pics of their junk to random numbers hoping it will be a woman?

Really...?

Are you arguing dickpics don't exist?

OMM 0000

A man and woman go out for dinner and drinks.

They go back to his house.

They start kissing, take off their clothes, and get into bed.

They kiss some more, he penetrates her and they have sex.

At no point does she say she doesn't want to have sex, or tell him to stop.

It doesn't matter how much she regrets it the next day, she wasn't raped.

That's it.

In principle I have no problem with consent classes as part of a general programme around sexuality. I do have a problem with the ideology behind them that teaches boys they are evil rapists in waiting and girls that when in doubt it's always rape and touching a shoulder is sexual assault if you're female.

Also that a woman would never lie about sexual assault or ever use a false sex allegation to further her career or gain an advantage over a man. That I have a huge problem with.

I grew up in a generation in the 80s that was taught thst women were morally superior to men. It took some hard life lessons to find out that wasn't true.

This current crop is trying to bring this nonsense back in through the back door. They can't claim sexual purity anymore so they resort to this.

Reviews and Books Galore

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A man and woman go out for dinner and drinks.

They go back to his house.

They start kissing, take off their clothes, and get into bed.

They kiss some more, he penetrates her and they have sex.

At no point does she say she doesn't want to have sex, or tell him to stop.

It doesn't matter how much she regrets it the next day, she wasn't raped.

That's it.

Yes, this is something that is often lacking in these discussions by some of the posters. Sex takes two people, but, in their head, it's always the woman being some kind of passive object.



You know, women do enjoy sex. Just throwing that out there.