The cult of Ronaldo + misogyny x Daily Mail =
Rape Discussion
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
What the feck is wrong with me saying people should hold off on the white knighting, exoneration and accusation till at least there's more information. People are already talking about how she must have withdrawn consent during the act and he didn't stop or that the girl is a gold digging slut without any details about the incident. Thing is you lot do this nonsense where everyone who doesn't join the outrage train of 'if you think the accuser is lying or think the alleged rapist is innocent you're a rape apologist' and are so caught up in it you can't even handle a person being neutral anymore. Its pathetic. As for the bolded that's just plain stupidity right there. I doubt I've ever used the word libtard ever or white knight on here before today. And I usually don't comment on these type of threads. But of course you know what I'm like, know I'm a stubborn fecker and already know my opinion on this topic because I didn't share your opinion on one particular thread. That's just being a generalising and judgemental asshole in order to prove internet moral righteousness. So since you know what I'm like tell me what you think I think on this topic then?
Yeah that reddit post makes it seem very much like a grey area and looks lost in translation. According to that, they started doing anal and it could well be that they she said no and they stopped a few times to take breaks (makes sense, anal is painful at the start for a lot of women..). Could be that he was trying to be too rough/kinky with it. It's also a bit hard to read the context, considering there's a lot of different ways to say "no" in the bedroom. If they're being kinkier (keep in mind they were doing anal), then it's really hard to tell. Wouldn't be so quick to label him a rapist based on this, especially as it's on his possible quotes and he would never straight out admit to being a rapist like that basically.
I'll leave it to the courts to decide one way or another basically and form my opinion from that. Saying "disgusting from Ronaldo" or stuff like that is way too soon at this stage when we really can't know how much truth there is to this, and what the context was like.
Edit: Read the longer report from the belgian paper in the reddit post where the girl gives her story... Sounds pretty clear cut in that case. Thought it was more a situation where they started mutually and then they stop/started over a few times cause they were doing anal. fecked if true though!
I'll leave it to the courts to decide one way or another basically and form my opinion from that. Saying "disgusting from Ronaldo" or stuff like that is way too soon at this stage when we really can't know how much truth there is to this, and what the context was like.
Edit: Read the longer report from the belgian paper in the reddit post where the girl gives her story... Sounds pretty clear cut in that case. Thought it was more a situation where they started mutually and then they stop/started over a few times cause they were doing anal. fecked if true though!
Last edited:
The conversation had changed from 'Ronaldo has raped a girl' to 'if this scenario happened, it was rape'. It had changed from Ronaldo to an actual discussion about consent and trying to get people to understand why and how consent had been removed and what should happen when that occurs. You jumped in with the white knighting comments as if we're supposed to just allow posts highlighting the attitudes that are completely wrong to just stand and not talk about them.
Given the facts we had at the time, it was fine to talk about the scenario we'd been given. Those saying Ronaldo had raped her were responding to that scenario obviously aware that we didn't have many details and more would follow. You charging in and decrying white knighters had been a feature of your postings in the past and you wouldn't use the term 'white knight' if you didn't still have that chip on your shoulder.
The cult of Ronaldo + misogyny x Daily Mail =
Out of interest, what do you view as wrong with that. It’s a reasonable opinion to have, that it’s for guilty men to go free than innocent men be jailed.
Do you have any examples of this or are you just talking out of your arse? Or you'd feel better if I charged in with 'ewww the posts in here disgust me, I'm gonna throw up, I feel sick reading you rape apologists posts' etc
Last edited:
Not in the awesome court of public opinion
You're advocating men that attempt rape escape justice as they're not as bad as other sex offenders?
The Transgender doctor thread and the 'has PC gone mad' thread.
Sorry I don't quite follow the post. Conscious I've got a viral infection that is really screwing with me and causing hellish fatigue too.
I called people white knights and libtards in those threads? And you know what I'm like and therefore deduced my opinion on this topic based on my opinion in the 'transgender doctor' thread I guess because I don't think I have not up to 5 posts in the PC gone mad thread which was all in 1 day I decided to go in there
Last edited:
The cult of Ronaldo + misogyny x Daily Mail =
Victim of a traumatic brain injury, I presume.
I'm advocating the fact that some people think it is better "for guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent man being punished" isn't an outrageous opinion
It's a famous aphorism of a long dead English judge called Blackstone that basically means one should err on the side of innocence and not convict without some measure of surety: "Better that ten guilty men escape than that one innocent suffer"
I guess the principle itself is as old as time.
I guess it depends on how you read the comment. It could sound simply like that principle, which is fair enough, or as I read it the first time it sounded like the person would prefer rape wasn't punished at all given there's always a chance of a wrongful conviction. Which I'd say is going too far.
Why is it better for innocent victims to be raped and forced to live with the consequences, than innocent victims to be slandered and be forced to live with the consequences?
Indeed.
Shows your ignorance and nothing else. He could be guilty or be could be innocent. But a women has the right to not be forced to have sex just because she's made out or done some other intimate/sexual acts. Being forced to do so would constitute as rape.
In theory that's correct but in practice it's not, that's why a large amount of countries use pretrial detention.
I know this isn’t the most pertinent issue, but it seems convenient that this alleged incident took place in 2009 and is only making headlines now Ronaldo is no longer at Real Madrid.
Or maybe many women just feel more empowered now that they know they're less likely to be shamed for speaking out about being abused.
The answer is simply provided by the process that can lead to a trial. The existence of an accused and an accuser isn't what actually matters but the credibility of the claims made by each sides, that credibility will determine whether the prosecutor pursue investigations and prosecutions but also determines the degree of potential culpability of the accused, that potential culpability, the past and the character of the accused will determine how he is going to be processed. Now everyone can understand what that means, it means that there is an arbitration before trial and that the concept of "innocent or guilty until proven" is only true from the point of view of the final decision.
Glad so many of you can conduct yourselves in a becoming manner when stories like this emerge.
Pardon my crudeness here, but a Juventus supporting friend who's read a lot more into this than what I have said it was regarding anal sex, so perhaps the "making herself available" part was just bending over? & once he tried that, that's when she said stop/no/don't, and that's when it became an act of rape.
Whatever the case, it's... Interesting. First & foremost, I hope the woman is alright. After that, I hope the truth comes out, whatever it may be.
Yeah that's a very plausible explanation actually, imo. Though, I am staying out of this thread until tomorrow. I'm so busted from last my frame of mind is not made for a topic like this today.
I don't think the law is as clear cut on this as you are making it out to be, at least in England.
I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure either, but if a girl (or guy) says stop, you stop.
That's true as a matter of ethics, but that doesn't necessarily make it rape.
I think the law is actually fairly clear on that. If she says stop, and he doesn't, it's rape.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22281457
I've had some experience with handling cases of accused rape and I can tell you this definitely is not the case. A lot of things are very situational.
I wasn't a fan of criminal justice so didn't look at too much jurisprudence but if I'm not mistaken in general they will look at the character of each party, the type of relationship that they had together or the state in which they had the specified encounter(any drug or alcohol intake). In general my advice would be for men to always stop and communicate clearly.
Yeah that's right. Just seems like people are making proclamations in this thread too confidently - there's a reason lawyers always qualify anything they say after all.
Something that is rape in one particular set of circumstances might not be in another.
I'm not discussing it from the perspective of actually being involved in a case, I'm talking about what the law says. You're looking at this from the viewpoint of how a case lines up with the law, and I'm discussing purely what the law says.
From what I've read on the CPS website, I think the case I've linked to there is actually one of the cases they've used in updating consent law. Obviously the actual situations to which the law may be applied will have a great deal more complexity than a clear cut "she said yes, then she said no, but I carried on, and here's a wealth of evidence to get the prosecution through".
Yeah, it's really hard for prosecutors actually - they have to make a lot of awkward decisions. I've only ever seen it from the defense side to be honest.
Fair enough, I get you.
That is an invalid question. This shouldn't be about choosing between one and the other. And I'm not making that choice.
There is plenty of room for people who've been raped to be given the utmost support (legal support, physical and mental health), and people accused of rape to undergo a fair, unbiased and rational process.
Thanks, that clears it up. But christ is it really better that 10 guilty get off rather than one innocent being nailed? Guess it depends which camp you're in.
Yeah I think it's like you say- it sounds shocking, but I don't think tbe underlying message is. Saying that, our rape conviction rate is genuinely appalling.
So if a man suddenly changes his mind, mid-penetration, is he a victim of rape too?
If both man and woman change their minds at the same time, are both considered rapists?
How intriguing.
Not as intriguing as your stupidity.
Not entirely sure why you would say that is stupid. We have to make sure the law isn't unfair to men. As long as everyone gets the same treatment, it's all good.
Considering your earlier post, I'm not really surprised by that.
A verbal withdrawal of consent means you stop fecking. It's really simple.
It is, as long as the law applies to men as well.