“Ireland has a rape culture”

Enough is Enough!

anewme wrote: »

That’s not what the guys in the program said.

I'm not one of those guys.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm not talking about the law.

As I pointed out already, our rape laws are ridiculous.

I know you’re not talking about the law, you’re talking shìte, frankly.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A woman can rape - literally force you to have sex with her while you scream no - and it's totally legal.

I'm talking about common sense.

What you’re describing, a woman could find herself convicted of aggravated sexual assault, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

You’re not even coming close to common sense.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re not even coming close to common sense.

You agree with the law that only men should be convicted of rape?

And women can bring a guy home, get into bed with him, and the next day say he raped her because he couldn't read her mind that she was thinking but not saying "no".

That's pretty disgusting.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You agree with the law that only men should be convicted of rape?

How did you come up with that? There’s no such law on the books in Ireland.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

And women can bring a guy home, get into bed with him, and the next day say he raped her because he couldn't read her mind that she was thinking but not saying "no".

That's pretty disgusting.

Yep, it is.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How did you come up with that? There’s no such law on the books in Ireland.

You literally just pasted it here.

Read it again.

Notice it only applies to men.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, it is.

But you just said I'm not even coming close to common sense, so that must mean you disagreed with everything I've been saying.

Seems you actually agree with me on some things, so you just wanted to pretend I'm not even coming close to common sense.

That's odd, don't you think?

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You literally just pasted it here.

Read it again.

Notice it only applies to men.

That’s only one Act under which a person can be charged with the offence of rape under Irish law. There are a few more, including Acts under which a woman can also be charged with rape, or as I suggested, far more likely she would be charged with aggravated sexual assault as the prosecution would be more likely to secure a conviction under the circumstances you described.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But you just said I'm not even coming close to common sense, so that must mean you disagreed with everything I've been saying.

Seems you actually agree with me on some things, so you just wanted to pretend I'm not even coming close to common sense.

That's odd, don't you think?

I agreed that what you posted is disgusting, and you’re still not coming close to common sense, so nothing odd about anything I’ve said so far. I can understand why you might think it’s odd though, because as you’ve already admitted - you don’t care what the law says.

The difference between us is that I do care what the law says, and that’s why I’m suggesting for your own sake that you familiarise yourself with Irish law so that should you ever find yourself in circumstances you described earlier, you’ll at least be in a position to know your rights in those circumstances.

OMM 0000

The issue here is you're being incredibly literal and refuse to have a conversation outside the confines of the law.

I'm trying to talk about what should be common sense (e.g. men shouldn't need to be psychic) and you are only willing to talk about the law.

So no matter what I say, if it isn't part of the current law, you dismiss as "not common sense".

Can you see how that might be a bit unreasonable?

Justin Credible Darts

If a man posted we live in a whore culture and all women were nothing better than gold digging tramps and prostitutes, they would be lambasted, called sexist and criticized.

But when a women makes out all men are potential rapists living in a prevalent rape culture, it is even promoted by media outlets and women defend that ****.

Yet some people fail to see how the women spewing such nonsense is not a sexist cow

OMM 0000

Based on the Criminal Law (Rape) Act posted earlier:

if he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it

I think every man in Ireland could be done for rape based on this.

J: "Did you specially ask her for consent?"

"No".

J: "How reckless".

Seems these laws need a major updating.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The issue here is you're being incredibly literal and refuse to have a conversation outside the confines of the law.

I'm trying to talk about what should be common sense (e.g. men shouldn't need to be psychic) and you are only willing to talk about the law.

So no matter what I say, if it isn't part of the current law, you dismiss as "not common sense".

Can you see how that might be a bit unreasonable?

Ok, being honest with you, I do see how my position could be seen as completely unreasonable, and you’re right, I really don’t care for people’s opinions outside of the context of Irish law.

That’s why not only did I try to correct your understanding of rape under Irish law, but I’m also not inclined to take someone like Ruth Coppinger seriously when she’s waving her knickers about in the Dail in protest when a man was found not guilty of rape.

It was because of your claim that a woman should speak up if she doesn’t want to have sex, and your claim that it was perfectly legal for a woman to commit sexual assault, that I said you weren’t even coming close to common sense and were simply talking shìte.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Based on the Criminal Law (Rape) Act posted earlier:



I think every man in Ireland could be done for rape based on this.

J: "Did you specially ask her for consent?"

"No".

J: "How reckless".

Seems these laws need a major updating.

Relax OMM, bit more to it than that

osarusan

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The issue here is you're being incredibly literal and refuse to have a conversation outside the confines of the law.

I'm trying to talk about what should be common sense (e.g. men shouldn't need to be psychic) and you are only willing to talk about the law.

So no matter what I say, if it isn't part of the current law, you dismiss as "not common sense".

Can you see how that might be a bit unreasonable?

If somebody is on trial for rape, what matters, 'common sense' or the legal definition of rape?

El_Duderino 09

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No. Women aren't children.

If a woman doesn't want to have sex she needs to speak up.

If a woman isn't confident enough to speak or say what she wants, then she shouldn't be having sex.

It would be wildly inappropriate for a woman to bring a guy home, kiss, get naked, get into bed, have sex, and then accuse him of rape because he couldn't read her mind.

If it's good enough for you to need to tell people on this thread, wouldn't it also make sent to teach young people that it's important to express consent/non consent, clearly and with confidence?

FishOnABike

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither. He didn't think consent came into it if you were in a relationship. He thought sex was always on when you're in a relationship. He didn't think the concept of rape in a relationship could even arise. Do you get it now?

You're confused by his belief so the salient point is that You don't know what other people think. You understand things that other people don't understand. And the best way to straighten those things out is to simply discuss them with young people to straighten them out early.

From a current day perspective it might be difficult to imagine someone having thought that way but depending on how long ago this was it might not have been so out of step with wider societal views of the time.

Marital rape only became a crime under section 5 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, which abolished ‘any rule of law by virtue of which a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife’.

Under the common law prior to the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife due to their mutual matrimonial consent.

It seems incredible to think that this was the legal situation less than thirty years ago.

PostWoke

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Based on the Criminal Law (Rape) Act posted earlier:



I think every man in Ireland could be done for rape based on this.

J: "Did you specially ask her for consent?"

"No".

J: "How reckless".

Seems these laws need a major updating.

How exactly? There's a lot of... nuance when it comes to this issue.

osarusan

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A woman can rape - literally force you to have sex with her while you scream no - and it's totally legal.

You are correct to say that it wouldn't be (can't be) legally considered rape, but you are absolutely incorrect to say it's totally legal. It would be legally considered sexual assault.


I think this is more evidence of the merit of a process by which people are educated as to what Irish law actually says about granting consent, reasonable belief that consent had been granted, recklessness regarding the granting of consent, and, consequently, whether a sexual offence has been committed.


Because it doesn't matter what people think the law says, or what people think the law should say, it just matters what the law actually says.

OMM 0000

osarusan wrote: »

If somebody is on trial for rape, what matters, 'common sense' or the legal definition of rape?

Sure, but this thread isn't only about discussion of the law, there are many people (I'm one of them) talking about how rape is perceived in our culture (that's what the thread is actually about) and my main point is it's ridiculous some people think it's too much to ask women to verbally communicate what they want.

I know there's a lot of shy and socially awkward people on boards but you need to be willing to talk, especially when sex in involved.

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was because of your claim that a woman should speak up if she doesn’t want to have sex, and your claim that it was perfectly legal for a woman to commit sexual assault, that I said you weren’t even coming close to common sense and were simply talking shìte.

That's not what I said. I don't understand why people on boards always do this.

I was talking about rape. Look at the updated rape laws. The definition of rape is a man using his penis to forcibly enter a vagina or anus, or someone facing something into a vagina.

That means:

If a man and woman are having sex, she's on top, and he tells her to stop, and she keeps going, that's not rape.

But if a man and woman are having sex, he's on top, and she tells him to stop, and he keeps going, that's rape.

Everyone should agree this is wrong and our laws need updating.

OMM 0000

PostWoke wrote: »

How exactly? There's a lot of... nuance when it comes to this issue.

The law says if he was "reckless" about whether she does or she does not want to have sex.

Reckless:

doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and the possible results.


So it means he doesn't seek clear consent before having sex. Forget for a moment this would be his word against hers, my point was almost no mean seek clear consent before having sex. That's not how sex works.

Scenario:

You've been with your wife for 10 years. You're both drunk. You both get into bed, fumble around, and end up having sex.

Congratulations husband, you're a rapist now.

Of course, I know the law isn't usually applied this way, but it could be. The fact they made the rape laws about men raping women makes me think whoever came up with these laws didn't think things through, hence this vague reckless caveat.

OMM 0000

osarusan wrote: »

You are correct to say that it wouldn't be (can't be) legally considered rape, but you are absolutely incorrect to say it's totally legal. It would be legally considered sexual assault.


I think this is more evidence of the merit of a process by which people are educated as to what Irish law actually says about granting consent, reasonable belief that consent had been granted, recklessness regarding the granting of consent, and, consequently, whether a sexual offence has been committed.


Because it doesn't matter what people think the law says, or what people think the law should say, it just matters what the law actually says.

You're right.

I think the solution isn't consent classes. It's teaching women to be assertive. If you don't want something, you need to be able to verbally express this.

We can't keep treating women like pathetic children and putting the entire responsibility on men.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

osarusan wrote: »

You are correct to say that it wouldn't be (can't be) legally considered rape, but you are absolutely incorrect to say it's totally legal. It would be legally considered sexual assault.


I think this is more evidence of the merit of a process by which people are educated as to what Irish law actually says about granting consent, reasonable belief that consent had been granted, recklessness regarding the granting of consent, and, consequently, whether a sexual offence has been committed.


Because it doesn't matter what people think the law says, or what people think the law should say, it just matters what the law actually says.

You're right.

I think the solution isn't consent classes. It's teaching women to be assertive. If you don't want something, you need to be able to verbally express this.

We can't keep treating women like pathetic children and putting the entire responsibility on men.

Teaching girls how to say no, how to handle awkward pressure situations is part of consent awareness.

El_Duderino 09

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Based on the Criminal Law (Rape) Act posted earlier:



I think every man in Ireland could be done for rape based on this.

J: "Did you specially ask her for consent?"

"No".

J: "How reckless".

Seems these laws need a major updating.

Definitely important to be able to chat freely about consent then.

Discussing consent with with young people would give them the language and the confidence to chat about consent with their partners when the time comes. Then people wouldn't be so reckless with regard to consent.

El_Duderino 09

FishOnABike wrote: »

From a current day perspective it might be difficult to imagine someone having thought that way but depending on how long ago this was it might not have been so out of step with wider societal views of the time.

Marital rape only became a crime under section 5 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, which abolished ‘any rule of law by virtue of which a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife’.

Under the common law prior to the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife due to their mutual matrimonial consent.

It seems incredible to think that this was the legal situation less than thirty years ago.

It was in either 2011 or 2012. The guy was 21. So not fadó fadó.

The salient point is that you really can't presume that "everyone knows that". A few people have suggested knowledge is innate and everyone developers the same understanding of consent without discussing it. I disagree. I think most knowledge is learned so it's important to teach a decent standard to correct any beliefs like my friend had.

But you're right it is incredible to think marital rape was only criminalised so recently.

El_Duderino 09

PostWoke wrote: »

How exactly? There's a lot of... nuance when it comes to this issue.

There is. And would you consider it reasonable then that a woman could claim that she gave nuanced signals that she changed he mind about consent while having sex?

If there's nuance it's worth discussing consent with young people to make sure they know what exactly those nuances are. Consider normal people who don't read social cues well. Or people who have faulty beliefs. We owe it to young people to give them the knowledge to have good relationships without having themselves or others.

i missed el dudes story about his friend.

possibly the finer details may change my mind, but does that story mean that ireland has a rape culture?

id imagine not.

El_Duderino 09

OMM 0000 wrote: »

... my main point is it's ridiculous some people think it's too much to ask women to verbally communicate what they want.

I know there's a lot of shy and socially awkward people on boards but you need to be willing to talk, especially when sex in involved.

I completely agree with this part. And it's obvious from this thread that people have different views on how consent should be discussed or whether it needs to be discussed at all.

It's such a simple thing to chat with young people about. They don't have all the same hangups that older people have.

One eyed Jack

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're right.

I think the solution isn't consent classes. It's teaching women to be assertive. If you don't want something, you need to be able to verbally express this.

We can't keep treating women like pathetic children and putting the entire responsibility on men.

Your thinking on this is all arseways OMM. You seem like a reasonable guy and I do understand where you’re coming from, you’re using hyperbole and exaggeration to make your point - I get it.

The thing is, if you want something, then the obligation is on you to ask or find out does the other person feel the same way as you do. It’s when you assume that by default they do, that the trouble starts, and if you carry on under the assumption that because they haven’t tried to stop you and you’ve made no effort to make sure they’re as into it as you are - that’s when you could find yourself in a whole boatload of trouble. And the thing is, it wouldn’t be anyone else’s fault, it would be entirely your own fault because it was your responsibility in the first place to be assertive and to check if they were into it in the same way you were.

The onus is on you to verbally express yourself, as opposed to just assuming that someone is into it because they haven’t made it crystal clear to you that they absolutely and categorically have no interest nor wish to have sex with you. Nobody is treating women like children, and by that same token, nobody should have to tolerate men behaving like spoilt children either crying foul when they don’t get their own way or they’re pulled up on their shìtty attitudes and behaviours.

There’s no need for scaremongering children in schools and putting them off the idea of being able to trust each other, instilling in them a fear of the opposite sex and so on, it’s just so unnecessary. Teaching children respect for themselves and respect for others as we do now works out just fine for most people. It’s the few who have no respect for other people who the law seeks to punish.

The law has never sought to punish people who are innocent of any wrongdoing, it’s quite the opposite, but don’t just take my word for it - look up Blackstones ratio. It’s one of the reasons why convictions for rape are as low as they are, and I think that’s a good thing for society, because it maintains the understanding of rape as the most heinous violation of another person there is, as opposed to the idea of maintaining that everyone in society is guilty by association of contributing to the poisonous notion of “rape culture”. That’s an attempt to turn the law on it’s arse - assuming by default that everyone in society is guilty of contributing to an individual’s choice to commit rape.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

i missed el dudes story about his friend.

possibly the finer details may change my mind, but does that story mean that ireland has a rape culture?

id imagine not.

No. Nor did it claim to mean that. It does mean what I suggested it means: you can't assume everyone comes to the same understand of consent on their own. So its worth discussing consent with young people so they understand the concept and correct any false beliefs.

manonboard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thing is, if you want something, then the obligation is on you to ask or find out does the other person feel the same way as you do. It’s when you assume that by default they do, that the trouble starts, and if you carry on under the assumption that because they haven’t tried to stop you and you’ve made no effort to make sure they’re as into it as you are - that’s when you could find yourself in a whole boatload of trouble. And the thing is, it wouldn’t be anyone else’s fault, it would be entirely your own fault because it was your responsibility in the first place to be assertive and to check if they were into it in the same way you were.

The onus is on you to verbally express yourself, as opposed to just assuming that someone is into it because they haven’t made it crystal clear to you that they absolutely and categorically have no interest nor wish to have sex with you. Nobody is treating women like children, and by that same token, nobody should have to tolerate men behaving like spoilt children either crying foul when they don’t get their own way or they’re pulled up on their shìtty attitudes and behaviors.

I dont think this would work for me and my partner. I know she would find it an incredible turn off to verbally check if we are going to have sex. It forces the person to create this decision, for anyone with any anxiety around these things, this would be a very unpleasant situation.
Just the other day, we had a chat and she told me that she felt pressure to have sex that day because I was leaving for the weekend and we wouldn't get to for a few days. It apparently started because in the morning i said i'd like to have sex before i leave (5 hours later i was due to leave).
She expressed it creates this time window type of pressure.

Its very clear to me that she would prefer if i just randomly initiate sex without bringing her cognitive decision making/decision planning into it.
Her body and mind enjoy it alot more if it 'just happens in the moment'.

This is something that perplexes me in these situations. I myself would strongly dislike someone asking me to have sex each time verbally. I much prefer they initiate and i will check in with my body/mind as it continues and stop it if i have a problem or need to adjust something.

I find an important part of enjoyable sex is the ability the more active thinking part of the mind and just allow things to happen unless our bodies say no.

Could i ask you to share your thoughts on this aspect? I understand and partially agree about the verbal consent model being proposed alot, but i find it quite incompatible with how people like things in the moment.

Thanks OEJ

Ray

OMM 0000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thing is, if you want something, then the obligation is on you to ask or find out does the other person feel the same way as you do. It’s when you assume that by default they do, that the trouble starts, and if you carry on under the assumption that because they haven’t tried to stop you and you’ve made no effort to make sure they’re as into it as you are - that’s when you could find yourself in a whole boatload of trouble. And the thing is, it wouldn’t be anyone else’s fault, it would be entirely your own fault because it was your responsibility in the first place to be assertive and to check if they were into it in the same way you were.

I can't get behind this because that's not how sex works in the real world.

Let's do some simple and inaccurate maths:

200,000 acts of sex in Ireland every day.

50 of them are "rape" due to a "misunderstanding".

We have two broad ways of solving this:

A) In all 200,000 instances of sex, the man seeks explicit consent.

OR

In the 50 cases of misunderstanding, the women say "Hey, I don't want to have sex now, sorry, please stop".

The solution has to be (B). Three reasons:

1) It's the simplest solution.

2) It has the highest chance of being implemented (200,000 horny men vs 50 uncomfortable women).

3) It's a much more natural solution (speaking out when you don't want something vs interrupting the flow of every sex act to seek explicit consent).

We need to move past the idea that women need to be coddled so much that even expecting them to speak is too much to ask for. It's an incredibly sexist mentality.

I can't keep repeating myself so this is my last post here unless the usual weirdos come along making up things like I'm saying rape should be legalised or love rape or whatever.