Consent (Sexual)

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And? The defence's position is that the rape didn't happen. The knicker choice was part of a body of evidence

Anyone disputing either of those facts?

CtevenSrowder

SusieBlue wrote: »

No it doesn't. Wearing a thong doesn't mean anything, except that the person wearing it wanted to wear a thong.
Inanimate objects cannot consent on behalf of people. I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out.

Ofcourse it can mean something. A woman can wear sexy lingerie to seduce her partner because she wants to have sex.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Anyone disputing with of those facts?

Ye you.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ofcourse it can mean something. A woman can wear sexy lingerie to seduce her partner because she wants to have sex.

And it can mean absolutely nothing, other than a woman wants to wear a thong
Or 'sexy'underwear.

CtevenSrowder

bubblypop wrote: »

And it can mean absolutely nothing, other than a woman wants to wear a thong
Or 'sexy'underwear.

Absolutely. But the point is, both statements can be equally as true.

SusieBlue

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ofcourse it can mean something. A woman can wear sexy lingerie to seduce her partner because she wants to have sex.

Sorry, are you even aware of the case?
He was not her partner, he was a stranger. She was 17yrs old and he was 27. The incident occurred in the early hours of the morning down a muddy alleyway.
The barrister suggested that because she was wearing a thong, she must have been open to meeting someone that night.

This was not two loving partners having a miscommunication. This was a barristers disgusting attempt to discredit a victim based on her choice of underwear.
Knickers cannot consent on behalf of people. It literally means nothing.
Its just pure and utter victim blaming and I'm disgusted by it.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

No it doesn't. Wearing a thong doesn't mean anything, except that the person wearing it wanted to wear a thong.
Inanimate objects cannot consent on behalf of people. I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out.

You’re absolutely free to believe that for yourself. It really doesn’t apply to other people as you can’t speak for anyone else’s intentions as to why or why not they would wear their chosen underwear. It’s not an unreasonable assumption for most people to assume that a person wearing whatever underwear they choose in whatever context they choose to wear it, indicates something to them about the intentions of the wearer.

Nobody is suggesting that inanimate objects could consent, but no surprise that red herring needs to be pointed out either. It might mean nothing to you to wear a thong, but Victoria’s Secret hasn’t made millions in revenue because their underwear is in any way comfortable!

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ye you.

Care to point to where you imagine I did so?

CtevenSrowder

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, are you even aware of the case?
He was not her partner, he was a stranger. She was 17yrs old and he was 27. The incident occurred in the early hours of the morning down a muddy alleyway.
The barrister suggested that because she was wearing a thong, she must have been open to meeting someone that night.

This was not two loving partners having a miscommunication. This was a barristers disgusting attempt to discredit a victim based on her choice of underwear.
Knickers cannot consent on behalf of people. It literally means nothing.
Its just pure and utter victim blaming and I'm disgusted by it.

But you are suggesting such a thing should not be allowed in general. This case is (somewhat) irrelevant to the broader point.

Personally I believe such evidence should only be allowed on a case by case basis.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Absolutely. But the point is, both statements can be equally as true.

Yep. They can.
But what neither says is that a woman wears a thong because she is ready for sex.

It is not a given that that is the reason for wearing one.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re absolutely free to believe that for yourself. It really doesn’t apply to other people as you can’t speak for anyone else’s intentions as to why or why not they would wear their chosen underwear.

Only the barrister for the accused in a rape trial can do that.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Care to point to where you imagine I did so?

Sorry but if your comprehension ability is so poor you cant see were you did so there really is no helping you. Welcome to the real world.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Sorry but if your comprehension ability is so poor you cant see were you did so there really is no helping you. Welcome to the real world.

Thought so.

CtevenSrowder

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep. They can.
But what neither says is that a woman wears a thong because she is ready for sex.

It is not a given that that is the reason for wearing one.

I agree. But such is why I believe such evidence should only be allowed on a case by case basis. People here seem to want to never allow such evidence to be brought forward.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re absolutely free to believe that for yourself. It really doesn’t apply to other people as you can’t speak for anyone else’s intentions as to why or why not they would wear their chosen underwear. It’s not an unreasonable assumption for most people to assume that a person wearing whatever underwear they choose in whatever context they choose to wear it, indicates something to them about the intentions of the wearer.

Nobody is suggesting that inanimate objects could consent, but no surprise that red herring needs to be pointed out either. It might mean nothing to you to wear a thong, but Victoria’s Secret hasn’t made millions in revenue because their underwear is in any way comfortable!

I don't really care what other people believe, that's none of my concern.
My issue is with the fact that it was extremely inappropriate and unethical to suggest the plaintiff was up for sex down a muddly alleyway with a man 10 years her senior purely because of her choice of underwear.
Statements like that have no place in a rape trial, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future cases.

It doesn't matter what she was wearing. It doesn't matter that her knickers had lace on them. None of those things imply consent. And the barrister was stating that they did. That's what the problem is.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I agree. But such is why I believe such evidence should only be allowed on a case by case basis. People here seem to want to never allow such evidence to be brought forward.

Cut and paste obviously required:

Can only speak for myself, but at the risk of repetition - it’s nothing to do with what’s permissible to enter into a trial, nor anything to do with the verdict, but a defence that introduces underwear choice as a reasonable mitigation in the face of that rape claim, is a reflection of broader social concerns on the issue of an understanding of rape.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I agree. But such is why I believe such evidence should only be allowed on a case by case basis. People here seem to want to never allow such evidence to be brought forward.

The clothes someone wears when raped had no bearing on the case. None.

I linked in another thread to an exhibition held wear all the clothes from rape victims wear displayed. Just to emphasis the point that clothes don't matter.
I'm in the phone now but I'll look for it

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Cut and paste obviously required:

Can only speak for myself, but at the risk of repetition - it’s nothing to do with what’s permissible to enter into a trial, nor anything to do with the verdict, but a defence that introduces underwear choice as a reasonable mitigation in the face of that rape claim, is a reflection of broader social concerns on the issue of an understanding of rape.

No, it isn't.

CtevenSrowder

bubblypop wrote: »

The clothes someone wears when raped had no bearing on the case. None.

I linked in another thread to an exhibition held wear all the clothes from rape victims wear displayed. Just to emphasis the point that clothes don't matter.
I'm in the phone now but I'll look for it

I'm not talking about that case in particular, but in general terms.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm not talking about that case in particular, but in general terms.

Yes, in general terms the clothes or underwear of an injured party has no bearing on the case.

SusieBlue

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But you are suggesting such a thing should not be allowed in general. This case is (somewhat) irrelevant to the broader point.

Personally I believe such evidence should only be allowed on a case by case basis.

To play devils advocate, if we were to look at it with a broader viewpoint, and look at the whole context, its even worse.

She was 17, she was highly intoxicated, and she was 10 years his junior. She was a virgin. She was walking home from a party on her own when she came across this man.
The incident occurred down dark alleyway.
An independant witnessed confirmed she saw the man choking the girl, with his hands around her throat.
He then left her lying in the mud, alone. Her family went looking for her when she didn't return home and didn't find her until hours later in a disorientated state.
The defendant was known to Gardaí, he was a married man with several children, and this wasn't the first time such an accusation was made against him.

So with all that context in mind, do you still think its acceptable and appropriate that this young woman's choice of underwear was used by the defence to imply she consented to all of that?

uptherebels

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

I find it ironic though many here are so delusional and egotistical and vain they assume they know more than a barrister on the law and creating a defence. :rolleyes:

Creating a defence? Apt choice of words in this scenario. A defence shouldn't need to be created. Unless it's a mud slinging exercise and not based on establisable facts.

creditcarder

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, are you even aware of the case?
He was not her partner, he was a stranger. She was 17yrs old and he was 27. The incident occurred in the early hours of the morning down a muddy alleyway.
The barrister suggested that because she was wearing a thong, she must have been open to meeting someone that night.

This was not two loving partners having a miscommunication. This was a barristers disgusting attempt to discredit a victim based on her choice of underwear.
Knickers cannot consent on behalf of people. It literally means nothing.
Its just pure and utter victim blaming and I'm disgusted by it.

He was found not guilty. Why are you calling her a victim?

CtevenSrowder

SusieBlue wrote: »

To play devils advocate, if we were to look at it with a broader viewpoint, and look at the whole context, its even worse.

She was 17, she was highly intoxicated, and she was 10 years his junior. She was a virgin. She was walking home from a party on her own when she came across this man.
The incident occurred down dark alleyway.
An independant witnessed confirmed she saw the man choking the girl, with his hands around her throat.
He then left her lying in the mud, alone. The defendant was known to Gardaí, he was a married man with several children, and this wasn't the first time such an accusation was made against him.

So with all that context in mind, do you still think its acceptable and appropriate that this young woman's choice of underwear was used by the defence to imply she consented to all of that?

You haven't looked at anything in general there. Yiu are still referring to that one case.

Regardless, in that case, from what I know of it, no I don't believe such evidence should've been allowed.

That does not mean there should be a blanket ban on such evidence ever being produced however.

SusieBlue

creditcarder wrote: »

He was found not guilty. Why are you calling her a victim?

Because she is a victim. Just because it wasn't proved beyong reasonable doubt, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Particularly when barristers are willing to use disgusting, underhanded tactics in their efforts to discredit said victim.

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

I hope so. It’s a nonsense.

I'm sorry but how in the works is it nonsense? Everything I said about the studies are true so prove me wrong

CtevenSrowder

creditcarder wrote: »

He was found not guilty. Why are you calling her a victim?

To be fair, I think there was a huge miscarriage of justice in that case.

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

He was found not guilty. Why are you calling her a victim?

A tiny minority of rape victims get a conviction. They’re still victims. Do you have the same difficulty with murder victims?

creditcarder

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because she is a victim. Just because it wasn't proved beyong reasonable doubt, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Particularly when barristers are willing to use disgusting, underhanded tactics in their efforts to discredit said victim.

You repeat disgusting a lot.

Why are you in the country if you see the justice system as such a kangaroo court? Its absurd that you are still calling her a victim without any form of proof

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

I'm sorry but how in the works is it nonsense? Everything I said about the studies are true so prove me wrong

It’s rubbish - which is why you’re not attempting to support your claims.