“Ireland has a rape culture”

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Or the woman is using the current climate to maliciously make a false allegation.



You know, women aren't just women, daughters or sisters. They can be gods, devils, heroes, villians and everything in between.



Just throwing that out there.

El_Duderino 09

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.

Sure, regret isn't rape. Expressing clearly that you don't want to have sex is the best solution.

What if she used some subtle body language. Subtle mind, not pushing him away and saying "no". Subtle. Is that rape if she thinks she expressed herself and the bloke doesn't think so? Add booze or drugs i to the mix and you have a classic he said, she said situation.

Subtle body language is good enough to express consent. So is subtle body language enough to express the opposite?

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Seriously? You were taught women are morally superior to men? By who? I certainly wasn't taught that.

How prevalent was that teaching? It might go some way to explaining the paranoia around the idea of talking to young people about these things.

JJayoo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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?

Ah no I asked a very simple question which I assumed would have a very simple answer, not sure how you got confused.

JJayoo

JJayoo wrote: »

Ah no I asked a very simple question which I assumed would have a very simple answer, not sure how you got confused.

it seems to be common on reddit - but there have been a few accidental sending to men ones as well

there's some other app where you post something you're thinking in picture form and it happens there as well. can't remember the name of it

One eyed Jack

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.

Well at least we’re agreed that sex and relationships are really important, but where we appear to disagree is how we go about it. I do understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t know if you understand where I’m coming from - basically I don’t place the same importance as you do in ensuring I’ve instilled in children a fear of things that are unlikely ever to happen to them. I don’t see that as acting in anyone’s best interests as I approach sex and relationships education from a positive perspective, one that encourages trusting in other people as opposed to having anyone imagine the worst of other people.

My methodology has the double effect of teaching people to have respect for themselves and for others, and that sex and relationships are experiences to be enjoyed, not anything which should be feared. That way the situations you describe are less likely to arise, whereas if they are taught by your methodology, the most likely outcome is simply that complaints of rape increase.

The reason I made the distinction there is because whether or not a person has faulty beliefs about consent, that’s a completely separate issue from someone choosing to make a false allegation against another person. False allegations have nothing to do with people who are the victims of someone who chose to commit rape.

I know you want to have all these scenarios up for discussion in consent classes, but that’s what I would consider idealism, because it doesn’t map to reality where the furthest thing from most people’s minds in their daily lives is being raped, or being accused of rape. Consent classes are just an attempt to make people paranoid about rape, whereas what I value is encouraging trust in people, because that’s what great relationships are about, and sex is only a small part of that.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Or the woman is using the current climate to maliciously make a false allegation.



You know, women aren't just women, daughters or sisters. They can be gods, devils, heroes, villians and everything in between.



Just throwing that out there.

Look. Nothing is going to stop someone from Intentionally breaking the law. Neither committing rape or making a false allegation.

I haven't tried to simplify women. I've hold them equally responsible for consent issues.

But I asked you this question earlier and I'd really like an answer.

"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"

Cheers.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well at least we’re agreed that sex and relationships are really important, but where we appear to disagree is how we go about it. I do understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t know if you understand where I’m coming from - basically I don’t place the same importance as you do in ensuring I’ve instilled in children a fear of things that are unlikely ever to happen to them.

I'll stop you there. Theres absolutely no need for fear in this. It's about having enjoyable relationships. No need for the moralising that seems to be assumed. The knee jerk instinct that we shouldn't talk to children about these things seems Victorian.

No need for fear to teach children how to behave. No need for fear when we teach children about personal hygiene. No need for fear when we teach children about the loads of things. Its about teaching them so they're prepared to think for themselves to keep themselves safe, healthy and happy. No need for fear.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

Me hole will I back down :pac:

You asked me a question about the importance of sexual health education, and I gave you your answer. In the very same way as you’ll draw conclusions from my posts, you’re damn right I’m gonna draw conclusions from yours and you can be absolutely certain I’m not going to back down when you imply that I am advocating child abuse.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll stop you there. Theres absolutely no need for fear in this. It's about having enjoyable relationships. No need for the moralising that seems to be assumed. The knee jerk instinct that we shouldn't talk to children about these things seems Victorian.

No need for fear to teach children how to behave. No need for fear when we teach children about personal hygiene. No need for fear when we teach children about the loads of things. Its about teaching them so they're prepared to think for themselves to keep themselves safe, healthy and happy. No need for fear.

There’s no point in trying to tell me consent classes aren’t about instilling fear in people, while at the same time arguing that consent classes are necessary because of the potential negative consequences for society if children aren’t educated according to how you believe they should be educated.

What’s that, if not attempting to use fear to justify the necessity for consent classes?

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look. Nothing is going to stop someone from Intentionally breaking the law. Neither committing rape or making a false allegation.

I haven't tried to simplify women. I've hold them equally responsible for consent issues.

But I asked you this question earlier and I'd really like an answer.

"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"

Cheers.

Fair enough.



You said your neighbour thought it was okay to rape his girlfriend and you have been very, very light on the details of why you said that.

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.

Just bumping this up as I am curious about the answer as my question was phrased oddly.



Should what you mention be classed as a sex crime as my question was asking what shouldn't.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JJayoo wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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?

Ah no I asked a very simple question which I assumed would have a very simple answer, not sure how you got confused.

Well, you never actually stated whether or not you agree, you just asking questions.

In answer to your question though - yes. They do. But they already know it's a woman. Or someone claiming to be


Now - are asked for examples of non-consent acts that were not sex crimes. I've given you some. Do you now accept that it is possible to act in a non-consentual way and not be guilty of a crime, and that non-consent is not nessecarily rape? Yes or no?

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, you never actually stated whether or not you agree, you just asking questions.

In answer to your question though - yes. They do. But they already know it's a woman. Or someone claiming to be


Now - are asked for examples of non-consent acts that were not sex crimes. I've given you some. Do you now accept that it is possible to act in a non-consentual way and not be guilty of a crime, and that non-consent is not nessecarily rape? Yes or no?

Should they be a sex crime? Yes or no?

Annurca Apples

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.

I find women touch people quite a lot more than men. When you talk to a woman she will often touch you on the arm or shoulder for example, men much less so.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

That’s not what I said. I said that the only way a person can be convicted of rape is if a jury is of the opinion that the defendant is guilty.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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".

No it doesn’t. Women (and men, and children) could still make a complaint of rape against another person, but in order for that person to be convicted of rape, it would still be up to a jury to decide whether they have found the defendant guilty on the basis of the evidence presented to them.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I’m not denying the possibility of misunderstandings arising when relying on body language or when drunk. I’m assuming we’re both sober right now and we can’t see each other and there appears to be plenty of misunderstanding between us. It’s naive to think you can prepare people for circumstances which happen because the victim didn’t account for every possibility and prepare accordingly.

I know it’s not your intent (and I can’t stress that enough that I do believe you’re making your points in good faith), but what you’re arguing for is no different to arguing that the victim is responsible if they are raped. It allows for people to point out that the behaviour of the victim led to them being raped, and “if they had prepared as they were taught to prepare, it wouldn’t have happened”.

“If only people had taken consent classes” will be the new argument in hindsight when people are raped because a person chooses to commit rape. All you’re doing is making excuses for people who commit rape and trying to shift the responsibility off the person who chooses to commit rape. I know that’s not your intent, but a person who chooses to commit rape has already accounted for that possibility, and they’re prepared accordingly, because their intent is to avoid being caught.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, you never actually stated whether or not you agree, you just asking questions.

In answer to your question though - yes. They do. But they already know it's a woman. Or someone claiming to be


Now - are asked for examples of non-consent acts that were not sex crimes. I've given you some. Do you now accept that it is possible to act in a non-consentual way and not be guilty of a crime, and that non-consent is not nessecarily rape? Yes or no?

Should they be a sex crime? Yes or no?

Answer the question in bold above first, and ask one.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Fair enough.



You said your neighbour thought it was okay to rape his girlfriend and you have been very, very light on the details of why you said that.

???
Is that an answer the question I asked? I think this is actually a pretty important question so il like you to answer it.

cheers.

"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"

FYI. Your retelling of the story is wrong. It was a bloke I loved with in uni and he believed it wasn't possible to rape your girlfriend. What details? I said it because it happened and it's relevant to the topic.

But answer the question I asked above if you're serious about having a conversation.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

FYI. Your retelling of the story is wrong. It was a bloke I loved with in uni and he believed it wasn't possible to rape your girlfriend. What details? I said it because it happened and it's relevant to the topic.

Sorry El_D, couldn’t resist

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

???
Is that an answer the question I asked? I think this is actually a pretty important question so il like you to answer it.

cheers.

"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"

FYI. Your retelling of the story is wrong. It was a bloke I loved with in uni and he believed it wasn't possible to rape your girlfriend. What details? I said it because it happened and it's relevant to the topic.

But answer the question I asked above if you're serious about having a conversation.

So, he literally said 'yeah, I can rape my girlfriend.' or was it a case of him not asking for consent to get into her bed.



and I did answer the question above :rolleyes: You're phrasing that story as him saying it was okay to rape his girlfriend, but, in reality, you were asking him about consent.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Answer the question in bold above first, and ask one.

Is that a command or a request?



You first. You have not answered my question on what sholdn't be a sex crime and whether yout were answering on should or shouldn't.



Lads, why in the world would you give your boys emotional development over to people who dodge questions, do wordplay and act puprosely obtuse.

Annurca Apples

Some absolute twats like to twist words for their agenda.

One eyed Jack

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Lads, why in the world would you give your boys emotional development over to people who dodge questions, do wordplay and act puprosely obtuse.

This is it really for me. Posters here going on about consent and teaching people to communicate and all the rest of it, all the while ignoring the fact that effective communications are based upon trust. Misunderstandings and bad communications are caused by a lack of trust - if someone doesn’t trust you, they’re sure as hell not going to trust you if you try to force the issue. They’re going to get the feeling that something stinks!

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Seriously? You were taught women are morally superior to men? By who? I certainly wasn't taught that.

How prevalent was that teaching? It might go some way to explaining the paranoia around the idea of talking to young people about these things.

This was common in boys sex education if you could call it that in the 80s. Boys were sex crazed lunatics who had to control their urges and girls were innocents looking for love and only agreed to sex as a part of that. That's what we were told by everyone.

The reality didn't match up at all.

There was a Pet Shop Boys song that explained it well "It's a sin". They were gay so they had an extra layer but that was a typical education for Irish guys in the 80s. All about shame.Even masturbation was highly shameful and sinful.

Justin Credible Darts

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

As someone who grew up in the 80s also, I can understand how you got that impression, as most women sex ed teachers were men hating kuntz.


Most of the male teachers were feminized and emotionally castrated by an over bearing woman.

I remember one incident in my secondary school back in 1985 and we were asked what we wanted in a partner.
one of the girls in my class, (the first year girls were now sharing what was once an all boys secondary school) said she wanted a man with money to look after her, her friend nodded and agreed also.


I spoke up, and asked what was the difference between them and whores, to which i was told women liked security by my emasculated excuse of a male teacher.

Again I asked what was the difference between them and whores who would sleep with someone for financial reasons and I was called a bad influence and ordered out of the class..


People think sexism towards men is a new thing, its always been there, just nowdays its shoved in peoples faces more often and god forbid you point out the women are wrong in any capacity, you will be called a sexist, , which is not bad since we already are now being called rapists anyway like that cow in the opening post.

joeguevara

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

As someone who grew up in the 80s also, I can understand how you got that impression, as most women sex ed teachers were men hating kuntz.


Most of the male teachers were feminized and emotionally castrated by an over bearing woman.

I remember one incident in my secondary school back in 1985 and we were asked what we wanted in a partner.
one of the girls in my class, (the first year girls were now sharing what was once an all boys secondary school) said she wanted a man with money to look after her, her friend nodded and agreed also.


I spoke up, and asked what was the difference between them and whores, to which i was told women liked security by my emasculated excuse of a male teacher.

Again I asked what was the difference between them and whores who would sleep with someone for financial reasons and I was called a bad influence and ordered out of the class..


People think sexism towards men is a new thing, its always been there, just nowdays its shoved in peoples faces more often and god forbid you point out the women are wrong in any capacity, you will be called a sexist, , which is not bad since we already are now being called rapists anyway like that cow in the opening post.

Not to drag the thread off topic (which I think it already has as most discussion is now about consent rather than rape being a culture or a societal norm) but you equate a young girl in 80s Ireland (where unemployment was rife and women only had low paying jobs to look forward to) who hoped for a husband who could provide as a wh0re and classify this as sexism against men... Wow.

Justin Credible Darts

joeguevara wrote: »

Not to drag the thread off topic (which I think it already has as most discussion is now about consent rather than rape being a culture or a societal norm) but you equate a young girl in 80s Ireland (where unemployment was rife and women only had low paying jobs to look forward to) who hoped for a husband who could provide as a wh0re and classify this as sexism against men... Wow.

The point you missed or chose to miss is not that the girls were sexist towards me, the teacher was because of what i said.


I have no problem with whores as I called them back then, nor have I ever, they were doing what they could, mostly out of need rather than choice, and for many of them a dangerous and horrible life but when women sleep with people for money , or even marry for it rather than love to me that is prostitution no matter how you spin it, and for me to be called out on that as a woman hater was sexism towards me.


If a woman spoke out like i did, would she be called a sexist towards women ?.
Like the previous poster mentioned, we were almost brainwashed into thinking men were lesser than women when it came to values, morality etc, which is absolute horsesh1t

Eric Cartman

The biggest issue with cases where both sides acknowlege that sexual intercourse took place is that people have been taught to believe that any given man is more likely to be a rapist than any given woman is to be a liar

joeguevara

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

The point you missed or chose to miss is not that the girls were sexist towards me, the teacher was because of what i said.


I have no problem with whores as I called them back then, nor have I ever, they were doing what they could, mostly out of need rather than choice, and for many of them a dangerous and horrible life but when women sleep with people for money , or even marry for it rather than love to me that is prostitution no matter how you spin it, and for me to be called out on that as a woman hater was sexism towards me.


If a woman spoke out like i did, would she be called a sexist towards women ?.
Like the previous poster mentioned, we were almost brainwashed into thinking men were lesser than women when it came to values, morality etc, which is absolute horsesh1t

I was only making a point that I thought you were wrong. I would say you were called out for using the word wh0re rather than the point you were trying to make.

Also do you really believe that people were educated that girls were considered innocent saintly people and guys were demonized? I am asking a realistic question when unmarried girls were sent away and their children ripped from them with countless numbers adopted against their will or worse still ending up in septic tanks.. Do you honestly think that women were considered innocent when marital rape was only criminalized in Ireland in 1990.l

Education in Ireland in the 80s was shocking but I doubt people were brainwashed as you said when the evidence suggest that when a teenage boy got a girl Pregnant he didn't get anywhere near the punishment or isolation the girl got.

And again a young girl in the 80s who had no real knowledge or ambition who wanted a husband with money to bpe compared to a wh0re is wrong. In my opinion. Point missed or not.

Justin Credible Darts

joeguevara wrote: »

I was only making a point that I thought you were wrong. I would say you were called out for using the word wh0re rather than the point you were trying to make.

Also do you really believe that people were educated that girls were considered innocent saintly people and guys were demonized? I am asking a realistic question when unmarried girls were sent away and their children ripped from them with countless numbers adopted against their will or worse still ending up in septic tanks.. Do you honestly think that women were considered innocent when marital rape was only criminalized in Ireland in 1990.l

Education in Ireland in the 80s was shocking but I doubt people were brainwashed as you said when the evidence suggest that when a teenage boy got a girl Pregnant he didn't get anywhere near the punishment or isolation the girl got.

And again a young girl in the 80s who had no real knowledge or ambition who wanted a husband with money to bpe compared to a wh0re is wrong. In my opinion. Point missed or not.

Unmarried mothers having their children taken from them was not something I was aware of in the 80s, which no doubt happened a lot more in the decades previous...so before my time.



When i was growing up I was taught to respect people no matter what sex they were by my parents, and my use of the word whore was done to emphasize my point to the teacher and be confrontational, as I honestly wanted the teacher to tell me I was wrong , when I knew I was right no matter what agenda he had ., which he clearly showed. Even today I believe screwing someone for money makes you a prostitute.



I knew plenty girls back then who were more crass, vulgar, manipulative, and devious than guys. There was and is good and bad in both sexes. and will always be that way, but this notion that all men are potential rapists pisses me off.. as if decency, morality etc is something women have a monopoly on.



Maybe I am the romantic one, the decent one, in that I grew up thinking that loving someone for what they are , and not what they have in the bank was the right thing to do.or in my case the natural thing to do.


Sick to the teeth of man hating women using every opportunity to berate men as if we are all savages, enjoying some made up rape culture., and sick of the media, who even encourage those men hating women to promote their bitter agenda.

anewme

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

joeguevara wrote: »

I was only making a point that I thought you were wrong. I would say you were called out for using the word wh0re rather than the point you were trying to make.

Also do you really believe that people were educated that girls were considered innocent saintly people and guys were demonized? I am asking a realistic question when unmarried girls were sent away and their children ripped from them with countless numbers adopted against their will or worse still ending up in septic tanks.. Do you honestly think that women were considered innocent when marital rape was only criminalized in Ireland in 1990.l

Education in Ireland in the 80s was shocking but I doubt people were brainwashed as you said when the evidence suggest that when a teenage boy got a girl Pregnant he didn't get anywhere near the punishment or isolation the girl got.

And again a young girl in the 80s who had no real knowledge or ambition who wanted a husband with money to bpe compared to a wh0re is wrong. In my opinion. Point missed or not.

Unmarried mothers having their children taken from them was not something I was aware of in the 80s, which no doubt happened a lot more in the decades previous...so before my time.



When i was growing up I was taught to respect people no matter what sex they were by my parents, and my use of the word whore was done to emphasize my point to the teacher and be confrontational, as I honestly wanted the teacher to tell me I was wrong , when I knew I was right no matter what agenda he had ., which he clearly showed. Even today I believe screwing someone for money makes you a prostitute.



I knew plenty girls back then who were more crass, vulgar, manipulative, and devious than guys. There was and is good and bad in both sexes. and will always be that way, but this notion that all men are potential rapists pisses me off.. as if decency, morality etc is something women have a monopoly on.



Maybe I am the romantic one, the decent one, in that I grew up thinking that loving someone for what they are , and not what they have in the bank was the right thing to do.or in my case the natural thing to do.


Sick to the teeth of man hating women using every opportunity to berate men as if we are all savages, enjoying some made up rape culture., and sick of the media, who even encourage those men hating women to promote their bitter agenda.

I grew up in the 80's... remember a very elaborate "story" about a girl going to college to study nutrition with Eamonn Coughlan but the reality was she was sent to Dublin to have her baby and give him up for adoption.

That was 1986.