Posts by Tess Rooney
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
she would have been told that the defence is likely to digging into her past and be asked to provide a heads up on anything that might be problematic to the prosecution.
Okay, fair enough, BUT... why should an expression of _fantasy_ (something unreal and imaginative) be problematic in the first place? If I was raped I would have never considered that previous discussion of my fantasies would be relevant to me not giving my consent and being forced into having sex.
What this case says is that if you told someone you think about a certain sexual act you've just given consent for that act to happen, even if you change your mind. Pretty much we've got the "She asked for it 'cos she talked dirty."
God help phone sex workers.
-
the most important outcome of this or any other trial.
I can't speak for Emma, but I think the most important part of a trial is justice being done.
Fantasy is unreal, it is imaginative, it is where we can explore aspects of our self that we wouldn't in real experiences. There isn't justice in determining consent through a person's sharing of an imaginative situation.
As Isabel said, consent isn't a one time deal; after someone says 'no' it's rape to continue no matter what was said prior to the 'no'. Your hypothetical example provides NO relationship between the fantasy of sex and the actuality of rape.
The question is not "Did she deep down want this sexual encounter?", it is "Did she provide consent for this sexual encounter?" How does having a fantasy give consent? I don't think it does.
-
You are caught lying, means you lose credibility.
I was under the impression that what destroyed her credibility and why the judge ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts was because they had evidence of her (supposedly) wanting group sex with strangers; NOT that she was lying by omission and thus was untrustworthy.
-
Angus: What I don't understand is how a fantasy, something imaginative 'unrestricted by reality' would inform us of a person's credibility in regards to reality.
I would say that many, if not most people have fantasised about group sex. That doesn't mean many, if not most people want group sex in reality. But it seems as though that if people write down their fantasises they are no longer protectable by the law should someone force them into performing them. That's completely abhorrent to me.
To make it even more basic, writing down thoughts seems to create consent. It's unfair. No matter what thoughts this woman had of group sex, it doesn't prove she consented in a specific situation. How do we know that her fantasies were even real and not fabrications used for arousing the person she was talking too?
Seriously... the message is don't get drunk, don't dress provocatively, don't have an interesting sexual history and don't tell anyone your sexual fantasies. What will be added to the list next so that women can prove they weren't 'asking' for it?
-
I have to say, can we think about the woman's state of mind here? Assuming I was just gang raped, when I got to the police for help, I'm not going to be thinking about telling my lawyer about my sexual fantasies.
And this is what I want to know, suppose I write down a violent sexual fantasy, does that mean I've just torpedoed any future defence if I become a victim of violent sexual crime?
I'm genuinely concerned about this. Think how many people discuss their sexuality online or in txt. It used to be phone calls which weren't recorded, now these recorded written conversations just became future evidence. The thought that expressing a specific sexual fantasy destroyed this woman's credibility (assuming the articles are correct) is terrifying.
I mean she was expressing a fantasy, yes? It wasn't as though she was detailing what was actually going to happen that day, she wasn't _planning_ groups sex, and even if she was planning it, she still has the right to change her mind and say no.
-
What concerns me about this case is what it means for people in the future. This woman was detailing a fantasy and because of that her credibility was destroyed, that's terribly worrying to me. I would say that most people have fantasies that we would never want in actuality, is it safe to tell people these now? It seems not.
What's more with modern forms of communication there's a record of conversation, txt and the internet live forever. This points to me to be a literal 'get out of jail free' card provided someone said that the other person fantasised about a sexual situation.
Even if there is a lot more to this case than what we are told, the reporting still puts out the lesson that if you tell someone you want a certain sexual act, then you are consenting to any future sex, even if in reality you don't want to do it. :(
-
Musichall is not advocating a fantasy, either, but something that happens in real Jamaican life with depressing regularity.
For me, this is the real issue. Beenie Man comes from and feeds into a culture where killing people is celebrated and that's evil.
-
I think there's an inherent difference between a play showing the consequences of bad human behaviour (and you have to admit it didn't work out well for the Capulets and the Montagues) and singing a song that directly incites violence.
Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy that shows what horror a feud can bring about. You only have to read the prologue to see the point it's making. Line 6 specifically details the ending of the play, "A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life".
But still, I think that Beenie Man can sing his vile songs provided he isn't directly inciting violence (and I'm honestly not sure if he is or not, as you say we aren't generally psychotic) and also I'm glad the BDO decided not to have him in their line up.
-
The free speech/muzzling/ban calls go well beyond what's happening here.
Agreed. I think the BDO made a commercial decision that Beenie Man would not be an asset to their line up of artists and decided to drop him.
-
Campbell quotes from the intervew where Beenie Man denies having signed the Reggae Compassiontate Act and says that no, he doesn't promise not to play those songs again, but never mentions it in the column and writes as though he doesn't know about it.
I noticed that as well and it annoyed me. I was in two minds about Beenie Man until I read a bit more about him and read his actual lyrics about killing people. Had he really turned away from his former position whereby people should be murdered, then fine, but then he denied signing the RCA which seemed to be a promoters' PR action anyway.
Free speech isn't a right to call for murdering people.