Consent (Sexual)

alastair

alastair wrote: »

The context is one where actual victims of rape are not supported to the point where anywhere near a majority feel safe in bringing their abuse to the Gardai. That’s the ongoing context - a minority of men having anxiety about notional unwarranted accusations doesn’t really compare.

And... we're back to dismissing the issue. Gotcha.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

And... we're back to dismissing the issue. Gotcha.

Have you considered the possibility, now hear me out, that that’s the appropriate response? That’s it’s no more than a distraction from the actual important concern?

Silentcorner

alastair wrote: »

The context is one where actual victims of rape are not supported to the point where anywhere near a majority feel safe in bringing their abuse to the Gardai. That’s the ongoing context - a minority of men having anxiety about notional unwarranted accusations doesn’t really compare.

What if that unwarranted accusation happens in the Family Courts.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility, now hear me out, that that’s the appropriate response? That’s it’s no more than a distraction from the actual important concern?

Actually, I would consider it an appropiate response. We have a thread talking about consent. It wasn't gender specific, except for some posters answers... but you're seeking to dismiss it. Shut down the discussion.

I'm wondering why it's to be considered a distraction? Women's issues are at the forefront of media, and social debates. There's no real competition relating to topics that relate to males (that doesn't paint them in negative types).

I do find it interesting though, since I stated originally, that this consent thingy could be applied to both genders, but you chose to make this solely about women, and their issues with rape claims.

Any discussion that doesn't put women entirely in the role of the victim is a distraction. I don't think I'm being unreasonable saying that based on your two responses.

Personally, I feel that there is enough space to consider everything... There's already plenty of debate/discussion promoting change to protect women, and to give them more rights in society, especially, in the cases of sexual assault and rape. I can't see why any alternative discussion is a distraction.

alastair

Silentcorner wrote: »

What if that unwarranted accusation happens in the Family Courts.

Then it’s judged on the quality of the evidence submitted, like any other claim of domestic violence would be.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I would consider it an appropiate response. We have a thread talking about consent. It wasn't gender specific, except for some posters answers... but you're seeking to dismiss it. Shut down the discussion.

I'm wondering why it's to be considered a distraction? Women's issues are at the forefront of media, and social debates. There's no real competition relating to topics that relate to males (that doesn't paint them in negative types).

I do find it interesting though, since I stated originally, that this consent thingy could be applied to both genders, but you chose to make this solely about women, and their issues with rape claims.

Any discussion that doesn't put women entirely in the role of the victim is a distraction. I don't think I'm being unreasonable saying that based on your two responses.

Personally, I feel that there is enough space to consider everything... There's already plenty of debate/discussion promoting change to protect women, and to give them more rights in society, especially, in the cases of sexual assault and rape. I can't see why any alternative discussion is a distraction.

It’s not a thread about consent though, is it? It’s a thread about anxiety about unwarranted accusations. A different subject. I’ll choose to ignore the straw man stuff.

Silentcorner

alastair wrote: »

Then it’s judged on the quality of the evidence submitted, like any other claim of domestic violence would be.

What evidence is needed.

alastair

Silentcorner wrote: »

What evidence is needed.

Sufficient evidence to convince a judge that the claim is supported. How long is a piece of string?

tillyfilly

Chance Ashy Comics wrote: »

I spent three months in the USA on a J1 back in the last millenium. I was aware of two rapes and I physically intervened in what I believe would have been another. There was definitely a rape culture where I was.

There was no grey area about consent in any of those cases. None were prosecuted.

superman or should I say superhuman

alastair

alastair wrote: »

It’s not a thread about consent though, is it? It’s a thread about anxiety about unwarranted accusations. A different subject.

And back to the dismissal. Nice little reinterpretation. But still a dismissal. :rolleyes:

The thread could be about consent, if you didn't feel the need to dismiss or derail it. Ahh well.. alternative discussions are not allowed, I guess.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

And back to the dismissal. Nice little reinterpretation. But still a dismissal. :rolleyes:

Again - it’s the sensible response to an inane concern.

Feel free to shift the discussion to that of consent, if you’d like to return to an actual substantive issue.

:facepalm:

str8talkingguy

alastair wrote: »

Sufficient evidence to convince a judge that the claim is supported. How long is a piece of string?

Not in the family courts unfortunately backed by the scorned women in Tusla,the womans word is fact in family courts i can attest to that,and maybe this is part of the reason for real rape cases being harder to prosecute in a real court.

alastair

I guess that’s a no then.

alastair

str8talkingguy wrote: »

Not in the family courts unfortunately backed by the scorned women in Tusla,the womans word is fact in family courts i can attest to that,and maybe this is part of the reason for real rape cases being harder to prosecute in a real court.

Or maybe your view is at odds with the reality.

Silentcorner

alastair wrote: »

Or maybe your view is at odds with the reality.

He experienced a false accusation in the family court....he isn't the first and won't be the last...

You are the one at odds with reality.

SEPT 23 1989

Ever notice that the ones who push this bullsh1t are absolute hounds who wouldn't get a shag if their lives depended on it

str8talkingguy

alastair wrote: »

Or maybe your view is at odds with the reality.

Life is all about experience and perspective and i can assure you the reality is that Tusla are actively and intentionally separating fathers from their children,knowingly leaving children with abusive neglecting mothers,this is going on all across the board.

alastair

Silentcorner wrote: »

He experienced a false accusation in the family court....he isn't the first and won't be the last...

You are the one at odds with reality.

So, that means that family courts will always take the word of a woman as fact. Gotcha. 🙄

alastair

str8talkingguy wrote: »

Life is all about experience and
perspective and i can assure you the reality is that Tusla are actively and intentionally separating fathers from their children,knowingly leaving children with abusive neglecting mothers,this is going on all across the board.

Assure away, but don’t be surprised if your broad brushstrokes aren’t particularly persuasive.

alastair

Clockrocks wrote: »

I think person should be free to have casual sex without the risk of of going to jail based on a false accusation where the only proof is an accusation.

Well, welcome to this actual real world.

Silentcorner

alastair wrote: »

Assure away, but don’t be surprised if your broad brushstrokes aren’t particularly persuasive.

Jesus...talk about head in the sand...it's almost impressive!

tillyfilly

Clockrocks wrote: »

I think person should be free to have casual sex without the risk of of going to jail based on a false accusation where the only proof is an accusation.

the accusation is not usually enough to convict,usually the person will hang themselves under cross examination interviews - DONT speak to the police without a lawyer present

alastair

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus...talk about head in the sand...it's almost impressive!

Sorry to break this to you, but it’s not me with my head in the sand. His claim is ridiculous. A cursory review of current high profile family court cases will inform you otherwise.

alastair

Clockrocks wrote: »

Where an accusation without evidence is enough for a conviction? If that's the real world it is a monumental failing of the judicial system.

Nope. Try reading the post again?

alastair

Clockrocks wrote: »

You said "Well, welcome to this real actual world".

My understanding of your comment
above in response to mine is that you think in the real world an accusation alone can be enough to secure a conviction?

Is my understanding of your comment correct or incorrect?

Your understanding is incorrect.

str8talkingguy

alastair wrote: »

So, that means that family courts will always take the word of a woman as fact. Gotcha. 🙄

Proof indeed that life is stranger than fiction,not trying to persuade you of anything either,you are well entitled to continue living with your head in the sand.

alastair

Clockrocks wrote: »

Can you elaborate then, what are you trying to say?

It’s not cryptic. Nobody is being convicted on an accusation alone. This is the real world.

alastair

str8talkingguy wrote: »

Proof indeed that life is stranger than fiction,not trying to persuade you of anything either,you are well entitled to continue living with your head in the sand.

You seem like you’re trying to persuade people alright. Sorry - not buying- based on understanding the reality.

alastair

Clockrocks wrote: »

I didn't say otherwise, your comment was indeed ambiguous.

It really wasn’t.