Consent (Sexual)

meeeeh

All statistics point to the fact that rape is incredibly hard to prosecute and under reported. So rational conclusion is it's highly unlikely you will ever be prosecuted even if you commit rape and there is even less of a chance it will be successful. And yet there seems to be some sort of insane paranoia that men will be falsely and successfully accused of rape left right and centre by unhinged women. A bit more rational thinking wouldn't go amiss.

Or you can live in fear of your gf or wife reporting you for rape every Saturday you want to have a bit of action. Are we really bringing on a generation of men who like to be imaginary victims just because their role in society is changing?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who am I to say? Hilarious. Who are you to say? :rolleyes:

It's still not a brutal rape.

Ok. never mind. Forget it.

Of course it's not a brutal rape.
What's your definition of a brutal rape?
Do you think there are different levels of rape? If so, should the victims feel different?

& it's not up to either of us to say how a victim should feel, it's up to the victim how they feel.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Of course it's not a brutal rape.
What's your definition of a brutal rape?
Do you think there are different levels of rape? If so, should the victims feel different?
& it's not up to either of us to say how a victim should feel, it's up to the victim how they feel.

Nope. Rape is rape. Groping is different. Sexual harassment is different. That's why scale is important. Rape should be prosecuted and sentenced harshly.

As for how the victims feel, you introduced that, I didn't.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope. Rape is rape. Groping is different. Sexual harassment is different. That's why scale is important. Rape should be prosecuted and sentenced harshly.

As for how the victims feel, you introduced that, I didn't.

Sexual harassment is not a crime.

LuckyLloyd

I assume nobody is seriously insinuating that you can retrospectively withdraw consent, right?

alastair

OneEightSeven wrote: »

That wasn't the case for Ched Evans. He had consensual sex with a drunk woman and was convicted on anecdotal data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Evans_and_McDonald#Trial



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-37659009

That’s not ‘anecdotal’ evidence. That’s recorded evidence of the woman’s degree of intoxication - viewed by the jury.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

i've never had to attend a "consent class" but i'd be interested in hearing what proponents of such things have to say about the retrospective withdrawal of consent.

Neither have I been to a consent class but I think it depends on what you mean by withdrawal of consent.

It would depend on lots of factors. Like for example: parties consent to do x y and z sex acts. And they go on to do more than was agreed, was that consent breached? Is that a withdrawal? I’d call it a breach of consent.

What about a situation where someone consents to sex, then withdraws the consent without telling their partner. Partner continues thinking they have consent and not knowing consent has been withdrawn. I’d say that’s the responsibility of the one who withdraws consent, to tell their partner.

What about a situation where both are drunk and they never even mention consent. They’re just working on the principle of “ah shur, you know yourself, like”. And one party realises afterward that they were in no position to consent sex. That’s a much more tricky one.

What about a couple who don’t know each other well and don’t have any kind of shared understanding of consent. Don’t discuss consent at all. They’re just working on the principle of “ah shur, you know yourself, like” and then one party realises they didn’t consent (neither of them consented because they didn’t even discuss it or have a shared understanding of consent). That’s a tricky one to call too.

So could you be more specific about what you mean by “withdrawal of consent” because I don’t think it’s as simple as you’re giving credit.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

All statistics point to the fact that rape is incredibly hard to prosecute and under reported. So rational conclusion is it's highly unlikely you will ever be prosecuted even if you commit rape and there is even less of a chance it will be successful.

Yup. The rates of successful prosecution are low... I don't think anyone is denying that here. And I agree that that there are likely to be many rapes which are never reported officially... I do think there should be more effort to encourage people to come forward with rape claims.

At the same time though, I think the emphasis should be on narrowing what each category of sexual assault is, so that we have a better understanding of what's happening, rather than generalising the whole thing.

And yet there seems to be some sort of insane paranoia that men will be falsely and successfully accused of rape left right and centre by unhinged women. A bit more rational thinking wouldn't go amiss.

Ahh well, I find that's an extreme. I haven't seen any posting to suggest that males are expecting to be accused "left right and centre by unhinged women". However, it's wise to be prepared for such a thing to happen.

There is an increase in focus for the media/society with regards to the area of rape and consent. You're objecting to the posts here based on the way things are now, but I feel it's important to be prepared for what comes later. There is a strong and growing movement to improve the protections of women, and to increase the rates of convictions for rape cases.

I have no objection to that, and in fact, I support initiatives to encourage women to come forward, officially make their claims, and for the offender to be prosecuted....

But I'd like to see it organised better. I originally posted up the thread to talk about consent and how to deal with consent. The US has seen a wave of issues about consent, and while Ireland is not the US, many ideas are transported across the water to here over time. It's also a factor since many of us do travel to the US or other countries and should consider these issues.

The point was to clear away the gray area regarding consent. To discuss the overall topic. I didn't intend (foolishly perhaps), that the thread would simply talk about rape claims. I hoped that we would be discussing consent, how its given, withdrawn, and the implications over time for it.

Or you can live in fear of your gf or wife reporting you for rape every Saturday you want to have a bit of action. Are we really bringing on a generation of men who like to be imaginary victims just because their role in society is changing?

I prefer to think of it as being informed. It doesn't mean that we should be living in fear of sexual encounters. It means that we know what could arise from such a situation. Preparation, and knowledge is incredibly useful in avoiding problems in the future.

I tend to come to boards.ie to explore topics because with such a wide variety of opinions, you can get links/reports/opinions on the subject that cover many angles. Unfortunately there is now a trend of shutting down debate. Which is a pity, because a fuller and better understanding of consent, would only help women. Men being ignorant of consent and specifically how it works, only places women in risk.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Sexual harassment is not a crime.

https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-for-employers/what-does-the-law-say/sexual-harassment-and-harassment-in-the-workplace/

Under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, sexual harassment and harassment of an employee (including agency workers and trainees) in the workplace are against the law

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-for-employers/what-does-the-law-say/sexual-harassment-and-harassment-in-the-workplace/

Under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, sexual harassment and harassment of an employee (including agency workers and trainees) in the workplace are against the law

Sexual harassment is not a crime.
It may be against a workplace law, but it is not a crime.
You will not be arrested for sexual harassment
Of course, if the harassment goes further & becomes sexual assault, then you might. As that is a crime

joseywhales

I'm not liking the slide back to pre sexual liberation. It's totally valid to have a few too many drinks or whatever you like to partake in and have messy confusing but enjoyable sex. Those days are behind me but I don't think we should be discouraging two or more intoxicated people who want to orgasm from having at it. I think what's needed is to disarm sex and not to carry around so much antagonism and legacy fear associated with it. It's just sex, avoid stis and unwanted pregnancy and it can be a great pastime for all!

Eric Cartman

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I assume nobody is seriously insinuating that you can retrospectively withdraw consent, right?

In the real world - absolutely not
In universities where consent classes are given by a feminist society - yes.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I tend to come to boards.ie to explore topics because with such a wide variety of opinions, you can get links/reports/opinions on the subject that cover many angles. Unfortunately there is now a trend of shutting down debate. Which is a pity, because a fuller and better understanding of consent, would only help women. Men being ignorant of consent and specifically how it works, only places women in risk.

I'm at work so I don't have time for long delays but if I understand you correctly you think there should be more consent classes and they should be more detailed?

alastair

joseywhales wrote: »

I'm not liking the slide back to pre sexual liberation. It's totally valid to have a few too many drinks or whatever you like to partake in and have messy confusing but enjoyable sex. Those days are behind me but I don't think we should be discouraging two or more intoxicated people who want to orgasm from having at it. I think what's needed is to disarm sex and not to carry around so much antagonism and legacy fear associated with it. It's just sex, avoid stis and unwanted pregnancy and it can be a great pastime for all!

Two or more intoxicated people who want to orgasm are, by definition, consenting to sex. It’s only an issue where one of them is too drunk to be able to make that choice. That’s not any sort of liberation for them - it’s the opposite.

suicide_circus

meeeeh wrote: »

Are we really bringing on a generation of men who like to be imaginary victims just because their role in society is changing?

Victimhood is currency. Victims are venerated. So we shouldn't be surprised if men want in on the action.

meeeeh

suicide_circus wrote: »

Victimhood is currency. Victims are venerated. So we shouldn't be surprised if men want in on the action.

Does it work?

osarusan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In universities where consent classes are given by a feminist society - yes.

Can you post a link to where a university consent class says consent can be retrospectively withdrawn?


If that is happening in a consent class, it's completely wrong.

suicide_circus

meeeeh wrote: »

Does it work?

oh i doubt it, "men" are not a protected class (patriarchy you see), just saying i see where the mindset comes from.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

Two or more intoxicated people who want to orgasm are, by definition, consenting to sex. It’s only an issue where one of them is too drunk to be able to make that choice. That’s not any sort of liberation for them - it’s the opposite.

You make a valid point, but that’s not the only issue. There are many other issues, not the least of which being while they may want to have sex, they may not have wanted to have sex with just anyone (or even with each other for that matter*), and that’s an influencing factor in determining whether or not consent was present.

In reality there isn’t anything anyone, either male or female can do, to prevent themselves from being accused of committing rape, to prevent themselves from being accused of having committed any criminal act really. Inevitably if it goes that far, the outcome of each case will be determined on the circumstances of that particular case. There’s no point in mulling over what anyone can do to protect themselves from being accused of rape or sexual assault. That’s just contributing to the same sort of paranoia that feeds nonsense ideas like “rape culture”.


*The couple in question aren’t “by definition” consenting to sex either btw. They may well be horny as jack rabbits, it doesn’t mean they’re consenting to sex.

Mad_maxx

suicide_circus wrote: »

oh i doubt it, "men" are not a protected class (patriarchy you see), just saying i see where the mindset comes from.

White men are not a protected class with the exception of traveller men ( who of course are not white)

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You make a valid point, but that’s not the only issue. There are many other issues, not the least of which being while they may want to have sex, they may not have wanted to have sex with just anyone (or even with each other for that matter*), and that’s an influencing factor in determining whether or not consent was present.

In reality there isn’t anything anyone, either male or female can do, to prevent themselves from being accused of committing rape, to prevent themselves from being accused of having committed any criminal act really. Inevitably if it goes that far, the outcome of each case will be determined on the circumstances of that particular case. There’s no point in mulling over what anyone can do to protect themselves from being accused of rape or sexual assault. That’s just contributing to the same sort of paranoia that feeds nonsense ideas like “rape culture”.


*The couple in question aren’t “by definition” consenting to sex either btw. They may well be horny as jack rabbits, it doesn’t mean they’re consenting to sex.

The inanity of ramping up anxiety about any manner of unwarranted accusation has already been noted. But the truth is that the scenario of intoxicated people who want to get laid, and who ‘have at it’ with each other is a scenario of consent.

Rape culture isn’t any more of a nonsense that a culture of racism is. If there’s instances of casual dismissal or normalisation of sexual abuse, that’s a legitimate societal concern. You can argue the pervasiveness or degree of it, but there’s still an evident issue when a pair of lacy thongs are deemed worthy of being introduced as a defence in a contemporary rape trial in this country. That doesn’t come out of a vacuum.

Lonesomerhodes

alastair wrote: »

The inanity of ramping up anxiety about any manner of unwarranted accusation has already been noted. But the truth is that the scenario of intoxicated people who want to get laid, and who ‘have at it’ with each other is a scenario of consent.

Rape culture isn’t any more of a nonsense that a culture of racism is. If there’s instances of casual dismissal or normalisation of sexual abuse, that’s a legitimate societal concern. You can argue the pervasiveness or degree of it, but there’s still an evident issue when a pair of lacy thongs are deemed worthy of being introduced as a defence in a contemporary rape trial in this country. That doesn’t come out of a vacuum.

You aren't a fan of logic pal. Female barristers promote rape culture?. :rolleyes:

The person who spoke of the thong in court was a female barrister. Not a man, so you are saying female barristers promote rape culture?. It's astonishing how much rape culture feminists headers hate the truth.


Remember seeing a headcase in her thong outside the dail holding knickers saying this is not consent with bodypaint all over her and looking like she was coked to the gills.
When I pointed out to her it was a woman (a barrister no less) who made those comments NOT A MAN. She lost the rag. Couldn't do truth or logic at all, much like yourself!.

Lonesomerhodes

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

You aren't a fan of logic pal. Female barristers promote rape culture?. :rolleyes:

The person who spoke of the thong in court was a female barrister. Not a man, so you are saying female barristers promote rape culture?. It's astonishing how much rape culture feminists headers hate the truth.


Remember seeing a headcase in her thong outside the dail holding knickers saying this is not consent with bodypaint all over her and looking like she was coked to the gills.
When I pointed out to her it was a woman (a barrister no less) who made those comments NOT A MAN. She lost the rag. Couldn't do truth or logic at all, much like yourself!.

why does it make a difference that the barrister was female?
it was disgusting & really shouldn't have been allowed.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

You aren't a fan of logic pal. Female barristers promote rape culture?. :rolleyes:

The person who spoke of the thong in court was a female barrister. Not a man, so you are saying female barristers promote rape culture?. It's astonishing how much rape culture feminists headers hate the truth.


Remember seeing a headcase in her thong outside the dail holding knickers saying this is not consent with bodypaint all over her and looking like she was coked to the gills.
When I pointed out to her it was a woman (a barrister no less) who made those comments NOT A MAN. She lost the rag. Couldn't do truth or logic at all, much like yourself!.

Not sure what led you believe that women are absolved from propping up rape culture? Equally not sure what you’re mistaking for ‘logic’?

More of the same - fresh off the presses: https://twitter.com/rosemarymaccabe/status/877887985659895808?s=21

Lonesomerhodes

bubblypop wrote: »

why does it make a difference that the barrister was female?
it was disgusting & really shouldn't have been allowed.

It matters alot as feminist misandry promoting bigots say men say thongs are consent, their has been protests, blogs, articles, rallies, write it on signs, consent classes for men, consent lectures etc etc.

They rarely if ever say it was a highly educated lady who made the comments not a man.

Facts are important to a story. To most of these people facts don't matter at all, all that matters to them is their emotions and moral outrage at something regardless of facts.

Could you imagine court cases based on what people FEEL?.Cases where are prosecuted based on how upset someone is.
That's what these misandry obsessed sociopaths want.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

Rape culture isn’t any more of a nonsense that a culture of racism is.

True, they’re both equally nonsense.

alastair wrote: »

If there’s instances of casual dismissal or normalisation of sexual abuse, that’s a legitimate societal concern. You can argue the pervasiveness or degree of it, but there’s still an evident issue when a pair of lacy thongs are deemed worthy of being introduced as a defence in a contemporary rape trial in this country. That doesn’t come out of a vacuum.

The example you give isn’t an example of the issue you’re claiming exists. The example you give was neither a casual dismissal of sexual abuse, nor was it the normalisation of sexual abuse. The underwear worn was an item of evidence in that particular case, no different than any other case where evidence is presented in pre-trial hearings and is either deemed admissible or inadmissible by the Judge hearing the case.

The media taking one instance out of context and running with it is an example of an attempt to argue the pervasiveness media bias if anything, certainly not the casual dismissal or normalisation of sexual abuse. It’s not a failure of the judicial system either which endeavours to uphold the rights of the accused such as the presumption of innocence and a right to a fair trial. Witnesses for the prosecution aren’t on trial. Those procedures didn’t emerge from a vacuum either.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm at work so I don't have time for long delays but if I understand you correctly you think there should be more consent classes and they should be more detailed?

I do think there should sexual education classes for both genders which describe the world how it really is. That there should be classes explaining consent to both genders, along with the dangers of various situations that the genders get themselves involved in. Both from a social and legal perspective.

I think there needs to be a uniform idea of what consent entails, and the ways that consent can be withdrawn. A clear guide for both genders to follow. Not excusing personal responsibility for either gender. Knowing that the world is not a safe place and engaging in various activities will put you at greater risk.

So, yes. Consent classes for both genders, in school (teens), and later again for adults (a refresher).

Lonesomerhodes

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

It matters alot as feminist misandry promoting bigots say men say thongs are consent, their has been protests, blogs, articles, rallies, write it on signs, consent classes for men, consent lectures etc etc.

They rarely if ever say it was a highly educated lady who made the comments not a man.

Facts are important to a story. To most of these people facts don't matter at all, all that matters to them is their emotions and moral outrage at something regardless of facts.

Could you imagine court cases based on what people FEEL?.Cases where are prosecuted based on how upset someone is.
That's what these misandry obsessed sociopaths want.

and no doubt the barrister and her team decided to make that move, just exactly because she is a woman.
seems to have worked on you anyway:rolleyes:

It was wrong and should not be allowed, the underwear a victim has on when raped does not matter, nor does the clothes they are wearing. But, of course, barristers know that.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, they’re both equally nonsense.

Riiiight.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The example you give isn’t an example of the issue you’re claiming exists. The example you give was neither a casual dismissal of sexual abuse, nor was it the normalisation of sexual abuse. The underwear worn was an item of evidence in that particular case, no different than any other case where evidence is presented in pre-trial hearings and is either deemed admissible or inadmissible by the Judge hearing the case.

The media taking one instance out of context and running with it is an example of an attempt to argue the pervasiveness of media bias. It’s not a failure of the judicial system which endeavours to uphold the rights of the accused such as the presumption of innocence and a right to a fair trial. Witnesses for the prosecution aren’t on trial. Those procedures didn’t emerge from a vacuum either.

Nothing out of context about it. If you can’t understand that a scenario that allows a trial defence to think there’s mileage in asserting that underwear choice is a mitigating argument in a rape trial, then the failure of comprehension is yours.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

It matters alot as feminist misandry promoting bigots say men say thongs are consent, their has been protests, blogs, articles, rallies, write it on signs, consent classes for men, consent lectures etc etc.

They rarely if ever say it was a highly educated lady who made the comments not a man.

Facts are important to a story. To most of these people facts don't matter at all, all that matters to them is their emotions and moral outrage at something regardless of facts.

Could you imagine court cases based on what people FEEL?.Cases where are prosecuted based on how upset someone is.
That's what these misandry obsessed sociopaths want.

Prime facepalm material here.