Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Consent (Sexual)

Options
13567…17

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    str8talkingguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 201 ✭✭str8talkingguy


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

    In the "real world" where u haven't arrived to yet,barring orders and access to children are indeed being upheld on accusations without foundation or evidence.


  • Options
    #63
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    str8talkingguy wrote: »
    In the "real world" where u haven't arrived to yet,barring orders and access to children are indeed being upheld on accusations without foundation or evidence.

    Clearly the judges disagree. It’s their job to determine if accusations have merit. Don’t like the outcome? Appeal the order.


  • Options
    #64
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Clockrocks wrote: »
    Yes it was, in fact it was misleading.

    I said I think in the real world a person should be able to have casual sex without the risk of being convicted based on an accusation being the only evidence.

    Nope. You didn’t.


  • Options
    #65
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Clockrocks wrote: »
    There it is.

    Yes. There it is. Care to point to your reference to the real world?


  • Options
    #66
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    Tyson Wilder wrote: »
    Got fairly hammered for my birthday and ended pulling a similarly drunken chick. Tried to get back to hers but no luck. Ended up fingering her down a side street (I am a classy gentleman).

    She probably only had vague memories of it (though she gave me every sign she was enjoying it) so I was a bit freaked out the Guards would come knocking. That was more than two weeks ago so I guess I am in the clear.

    did you get your finger tested? If yes then you are all clear


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    Tyson Wilder wrote: »
    I did some reading and if I understand correctly, even though she was actively enjoying it, because she was drunk she could not consent so I guess I technically raped her.

    apparently even if you got written or video consent it would not have lasted more than a few hours anyway


  • Options
    #68
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Clockrocks wrote: »
    The use of "the real world" in the sentence doesn't change the meaning.

    The following two sentences mean the same thing.

    I think a person should be free to have casual sex without the risk of being convicted based on an accusation alone.

    I think a person should in the real world be free to have casual sex without the risk of being convicted based on an accusation alone.

    The key word I think you are overlooking is "should". The use of should means I'm not commenting on how the world is or isn't I'm commenting on how it should be. Whether you specify real world or not, it doesn't alter the meaning. The real world is implied on the first sentence, I'm hardly talking about the imaginary world.

    Your understanding was incorrect. Move on.


  • Options
    #69
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Tyson Wilder wrote: »
    I did some reading and if I understand correctly, even though she was actively enjoying it, because she was drunk she could not consent so I guess I technically raped her.

    Drunkenness is not a binary negation of consent. If the woman in question was capable of turning down your request to go back to hers while langered, she was probably capable of removing her consent for your alley antics.


  • Options
    #70
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    alastair wrote: »
    Drunkenness is not a binary negation of consent. If the woman in question was capable of turning down your request to go back to hers while langered, she was probably capable of removing her consent for your alley antics.

    but there was no explicit consent, if I read correctly


  • Options
    #71
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tillyfilly wrote: »
    apparently even if you got written or video consent it would not have lasted more than a few hours anyway

    Eh? Consent doesn’t last any ‘amount of hours’. It can be withdrawn at any point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    alastair wrote: »
    Eh? Consent doesn’t last any ‘amount of hours’. It can be withdrawn at any point.

    but when giving consent is it binding until explicitly withdrawn? What form does withdrawal need to be in? Does there need to be evidence of withdrawal of consent like there does the giving of it?
    Probably not


  • Options
    #73
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tillyfilly wrote: »
    but when giving consent is it binding until explicitly withdrawn? What form does withdrawal need to be in? Does there need to be evidence of withdrawal of consent like there does the giving of it?
    Probably not

    If you’re struggling with recognising removal of consent, perhaps you’re best off not participating in the first place.


  • Options
    #74
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    alastair wrote: »
    If you’re struggling with recognising removal of consent, perhaps you’re best off not participating in the first place.

    you don't know the answers either


  • Options
    #75
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tillyfilly wrote: »
    you don't know the answers either

    I know when someone isn’t consenting. It’s not particularly tricky.


  • Options
    #76
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    alastair wrote: »
    I know when someone isn’t consenting. It’s not particularly tricky.

    I'm talking about evidence of non content

    We know kind of what the evidence of consent can be, written or video it seems


  • Options
    #77
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Clockrocks wrote: »
    Your sentence was incorrect as I've explained.

    It was fine, it was your understanding was the issue. Cheers.


  • Options
    #78
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tillyfilly wrote: »
    I'm talking about evidence of non content

    We know kind of what the evidence of consent can be, written or video it seems

    You clearly don’t, if you think anything “lasts a few hours”.


  • Options
    #79
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Clockrocks wrote: »
    Nope, it was far from fine, it didn't convey what you wanted it to mean. Furthermore, you were wrong to think that the words "in the real world" changed the meaning of my sentence. You failed to understand how the word "should" affects the meaning of the sentence. You were wrong twice.

    It did. You didn’t understand. That’s fine. Move on.


  • Options
    #80
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    alastair wrote: »
    You clearly don’t, if you think anything “lasts a few hours”.

    I'm asking the question, not stating a belief


  • Options
    #81
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Clockrocks wrote: »
    I think people should be free to have casual sex without the risk of being convicted based on an accusation alone as evidence.

    Once again - welcome to the real world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭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.

    you said this already


  • Options
    #83
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tillyfilly wrote: »
    I'm asking the question, not stating a belief
    apparently even if you got written or video consent it would not have lasted more than a few hours anyway

    No question posed there. It’s an assertion.


  • Options
    #84
    tillyfilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 567 ✭✭✭tillyfilly


    alastair wrote: »
    No question posed there. It’s an assertion.

    it's a question without a question mark


  • Options
    #85
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tillyfilly wrote: »
    it's a question without a question mark

    Riiiight.


  • Options
    #86
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    alastair wrote: »
    It was fine, it was your understanding was the issue. Cheers.

    If a person can't understand what you mean usually it is the fault of the person writing and/or speaking. The onus is on you to clarify what you mean. I had trouble with you on this issue not too long ago either.

    It was not clear at all what you meant by your comment.


  • Options
    #87
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    If a person can't understand what you mean usually it is the fault of the person writing and/or speaking. The onus is on you to clarify what you mean. I had trouble with you on this issue not too long ago either.

    It was not clear at all what you meant by your comment.

    Maybe your understanding is the issue here too?


  • Options
    #88
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    alastair wrote: »
    Maybe your understanding is the issue here too?

    Or maybe the issue is you. Why don't you firstly consider that scenario.


  • Options
    #89
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Or maybe the issue is you. Why don't you firstly consider that scenario.

    I did. And found the guy who flails around with bogus claims for what he wrote to be less compelling than any ambiguity in what I wrote. And so here we are.


  • Options
    #90
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    alastair wrote: »
    I did. And found the guy who flails around with bogus claims for what he wrote to be less compelling than any ambiguity in what I wrote. And so here we are.

    But the meaning of what you wrote was ambiguous. That's the point. And when asked to clarify you didn't. The problem is you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    But the meaning of what you wrote was ambiguous. That's the point. And when asked to clarify you didn't. The problem is you.

    It wasn’t ambiguous at all. And I did clarify.

    A demonstration:

    A: “I think money should be used as a form of currency for barter”
    B: “Welcome to the real world”


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement