Jump to content
2Timeless

Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A man was acquitted of raping a 17 year old girl in Ireland because of the undergarments she was wearing. Apparently, what she was wearing meant that she consented. I was going to link an article on it, but it contained images of said undergarment, and wasn't sure if that broke any rules. If anyone wants to read more about it, you can just Google it. 

Thoughts? Should a woman's clothing immediately imply her consent? Was this case decided correctly from a social standpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is ridiculous. 

this is so ridiculous

this is really ridiculous.

I have lost hope in humanity.

3 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Should a woman's clothing immediately imply her consent

no way! Unless she says YES, then no, it doesn't imply sugar honey iced tea!. These rape stories make me So mad. 

6 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Was this case decided correctly from a social standpoint?

no, noo, nooo, noooo, nooooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boohoo,.

A: no article as been presented.

B : An article is not what was presented inside a court, this implies we are not told the true nature of the evidence. Articles are sensationalism so that you can go :mod: and the owner can twiddle their thumbs because you made them rich..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, monad said:

boohoo,.

A: no article as been presented.

B : An article is not what was presented inside a court, this implies we are not told the true nature of the evidence. Articles are sensationalism so that you can go :mod: and the owner can twiddle their thumbs because you made them rich..

Are you serious? Your response to a rape case is "boohoo"???

And as I said, i did not present an article because they all contained images of the undergarments and I was aware that some members will either find it offensive or against the rules. 

If you took some time to actually research the case, you'd understand the gravity of the things you're saying. Its not just one article. This case has sparked worldwide outrage. The defence stated that the undergarments worn signified consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 7:01 AM, alidu78 said:

No woman merits to be raped however even if the man must be punished for what he did she was also stupid to think she could wear such dress and dont be harassing.

I partially agree. Firstly, I don't know what the poor girl was wearing over her undergarments. But, the court acquitted the man because her undergarments were said to be too provocative, and indicated consent. Secondly, yes, if a person wears something that's provocative or attention-seeking, then attention will be the response given. However, that never ever justifies harassment. By that logic, the harassment hijabis and niqabis get in the West is justified because it provokes non-Muslims' attention. That is wrong. 

Found this, could help others understand the case better:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of lawyer would even think of using a pair of underwear to defend the rapist, this is beyond ridiculous. 

Put this case aside, some men have this mentality where they feel the need to use a woman who dresses in an inappropriate way. A woman who dresses a certain way is seen to appear 'easy' or someone who has no respect. What do you think happens in nightclubs and bars? It gives perverts a platform to bring this mentality to life, although it's a less extreme version obviously. This culture needs to stop. Islam obviously tells women to dress appropriately, but it should never mean that we view women as sexual objects or a pieces of meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this in Marie Claire:

"Using a rape victim’s underwear as evidence in court is a heinous act of victim blaming. The only person responsible for rape is a rapist. Not the victim’s underwear."

I couldn't have put it better myself. 

Edited by Aflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

 Should a woman's clothing immediately imply her consent? 

In countries like Pakistan and India (some) men hoot, jeer, wolf-whistle and make women the object of their catcalls, even when these women are fully clad in clothes from head to toe. Sadly, vile perpetrators will continue with their wrongdoings irrespective of what a woman is wearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 7:53 AM, 2Timeless said:

I partially agree. Firstly, I don't know what the poor girl was wearing over her undergarments. But, the court acquitted the man because her undergarments were said to be too provocative, and indicated consent. Secondly, yes, if a person wears something that's provocative or attention-seeking, then attention will be the response given. However, that never ever justifies harassment. By that logic, the harassment hijabis and niqabis get in the West is justified because it provokes non-Muslims' attention. That is wrong. 

Found this, could help others understand the case better:

[Mod Note: Video was removed. See the video in the post above.]

There is a big difference between having clothes provoking attention by their look and having revealing clothes which are "sexy" and arise sexual desires of men in general. I know what I say is not politically correct but this is just a fact. 

Edited by Hameedeh
Mod Note in the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, monad said:

A: no article as been presented

OP @2Timeless had already explained in her introductory post why she chose not to include the article.  A simple Google search will reveal umpteen articles pertaining to this issue. 

If it helps, try these two words in Google search: Underwear Rape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

There is a big difference between having clothes provoking attention by their look and having revealing clothes which are "sexy" and arise sexual desires of men in general. I know what I say is not politically correct but this is just a fact. 

Still. Men's desires can be aroused even in places like Iraq. I've heard disgusting looks and comments even to women wearing the big black abayahs. Men need to control themselves. Most can. It doesn't matter what a woman does or wears. It is never an invitation for such a violation or abuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alidu78 said:

There is a big difference between having clothes provoking attention by their look and having revealing clothes which are "sexy" and arise sexual desires of men in general. I know what I say is not politically correct but this is just a fact. 

Yes, there are women who dress provocatively and revealingly with the intent of attracting men, but that doesn't mean men are supposed to give in to your base desires and rape her. I don't care if a woman is walking naked on the street, you're not supposed to rape her. End of. It's important to recognise that besides being a sexual act, rape is also a violent act; if a woman walks around naked with the explicit purpose of arousing men, does that give men the right to murder her or beat her? If not, then it doesn't give men the right to rape her since it's an equally violent act. Even if one could argue that revealing clothes are for the purpose of arousing sexual desires and therefore men's subsequent arousal is justified, revealing clothes are not for the purpose of arousal of violence and therefore any subsequent violence is not justified.

Secondly, this story is quite absurd. For one, the woman was probably wearing something above her underwear. So, how does an article of clothing that is hidden even signify consent? And if revealing underwear is somehow consent for sex, then all the beaches in the world must be just filled with justified rapes because women on beaches wear just as revealing, if not more revealing, clothing at beaches, without wearing anything on top of the bikini. So, unless this judge thinks raping any woman with a bikini is fine, I can't understand what the logic of this ruling was, unless there's more evidence pertaining to the case that has been omitted by the media coverage in favour of sensationalism.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Still. Men's desires can be aroused even in places like Iraq. I've heard disgusting looks and comments even to women wearing the big black abayahs. Men need to control themselves. Most can. It doesn't matter what a woman does or wears. It is never an invitation for such a violation or abuse. 

Again I don't invite at all to abuse and rape women who wear short clothes but this is a fact that men will be attracted by women who wear revealing clothes and you maybe saw men did such things toward women in Abaya THEY ARE A LITTLE MINORITY DESPITE WHAT YOU WILL CLAIM. And yes this is true that men should control themselves but women must also be responsible and wear correct clothes because even men who will never rape a woman will have disgusting thought toward a woman who wear revealing clothes and accept it or not but what I said is a fact. 

Khadim uz zahra I never said rape could be justified so read again my interventions thanks. 

Edited by alidu78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

Again I don't invite at all to abuse and rape women who wear short clothes but this is a fact that men will be attracted by women who wear revealing clothes and you maybe saw men did such things toward women in Abaya THEY ARE A LITTLE MINORITY DESPITE WHAT YOU WILL CLAIM. And yes this is true that men should control themselves but women must also be responsible and wear correct clothes because even men who will never rape a woman will have disgusting thought toward a woman who wear revealing clothes and accept it or not but what I said is a fact. 

No one denied that some men have disgusting and vile thoughts towards women who wear revealing and provocative clothing. A woman may arouse and feul those thoughts, but ultimately, it is upto the man to control his thoughts and behaviour. You think in the time of the Prophet there were no prostitutes who's sole responsibility was to arouse men? You think the Prophet would've not been able to master the craft of controlling one's thoughts and behaviour? 

As for the "minority" of men in Iraq and Iran who have such disgusting thoughts and behaviour, that is false. That is not my personal experience, as well as the experience of other women I know online or in real life. Women get comments when wearing a full black abayah, 2 minutes away from the hadhra. Women get such disgusting looks that you can practically hear what the man is thinking. Many, many women agree with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, alidu78 said:

Khadim uz zahra I never said rape could be justified so read again my interventions thanks.

I never suggested that you did. I made my comment because your comments detracted from the man's culpability and focused on the woman's mistakes. No one is denying that immodest clothing is bad, and should be avoided. But timing is crucial for anything; when we have an incident like this take place, we can choose to focus on the woman's mistakes or the man's. At the end of the day, the man who raped someone is more responsible than the woman so by highlighting her mistakes, it serves to lessen his crime. To many of the people who are reading the forum, it may subconsciously imply that 'she was asking for it' or that 'she deserved it'. That kind of thinking is wrong. There's a time and place for everything, and I felt like your comments weren't right for this time. We can always discuss the need for more modest clothing at another time; the forum is full of such threads anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

No one denied that some men have disgusting and vile thoughts towards women who wear revealing and provocative clothing. A woman may arouse and feul those thoughts, but ultimately, it is upto the man to control his thoughts and behaviour. You think in the time of the Prophet there were no prostitutes who's sole responsibility was to arouse men? You think the Prophet would've not been able to master the craft of controlling one's thoughts and behaviour? 

As for the "minority" of men in Iraq and Iran who have such disgusting thoughts and behaviour, that is false. That is not my personal experience, as well as the experience of other women I know online or in real life. Women get comments when wearing a full black abayah, 2 minutes away from the hadhra. Women get such disgusting looks that you can practically hear what the man is thinking. Many, many women agree with me. 

I would actually say "some men" but "most men" have such thoughts when they see women wearing short clothes so here men and women must take their responsibilities this is not for nothing there is such dress code in Islam and I don't know for Iraq but I didn't see such things toward women wearing full veil in Iran despite your claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alidu78 said:

I don't know for Iraq but I didn't see such things toward women wearing full veil in Iran despite your claims. 

You don't see such things, just maybe because you're a man and not a woman?? Just maybe, could be a factor. 

Neither country is paradise. Women get harassed in both countries. End of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

I never suggested that you did. I made my comment because your comments detracted from the man's culpability and focused on the woman's mistakes. No one is denying that immodest clothing is bad, and should be avoided. But timing is crucial for anything; when we have an incident like this take place, we can choose to focus on the woman's mistakes or the man's. At the end of the day, the man who raped someone is more responsible than the woman so by highlighting her mistakes, it serves to lessen his crime. To many of the people who are reading the forum, it may subconsciously imply that 'she was asking for it' or that 'she deserved it'. That kind of thinking is wrong. There's a time and place for everything, and I felt like your comments weren't right for this time. We can always discuss the need for more modest clothing at another time; the forum is full of such threads anyway.

No I never said that. At the end of the day the men who raped are disgusting and must be put to death. What I said is that men and women must take their responsibilities and wear correct clothes. That is what I tried to say since the beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2Timeless said:

You don't see such things, just maybe because you're a man and not a woman?? Just maybe, could be a factor. 

Neither country is paradise. Women get harassed in both countries. End of. 

So a man who see a woman in bikini and a woman in chador will be attracted in the same way I guess? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

So a man who see a woman in bikini and a woman in chador will be attracted in the same way I guess? 

I don't know how men think. But I am 100% sure that women in chadors do get disgusting looks from perverted men, as well as disgusting comments. Obviously, not as much as if a woman in a bikini would in that same area. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

I don't know how men think. But I am 100% sure that women in chadors do get disgusting looks from perverted men, as well as disgusting comments. Obviously, not as much as if a woman in a bikini would in that same area. 

Exactly every women could face disgusting comportement from men. But some would face more than others because of their comportement and clothes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This really highlights the control and influence of the Catholic Church in archaic ways in Ireland.  This is not super unique.  Women are blamed and shamed for many kinds of perceived sexual interaction and pretty much had (and still have) their lives ruined if they did not have the ability to move away.  
 
I don’t know why what is worn as underwear can be used as provocative unless she was not wearing anything else.  But the question should have been, why was he in a position to even see her underwear.  Why is a 27 year old man looking at the underwear of a 17 year old girl? If she was one year younger it would have been statutory rape. It is hard to tell the difference between a girl that is 16 or 17 so he must have researched this first to make sure she was of age.  Sounds premeditated and predatory to me.
 
It is hard to know how this man was acquitted but there must have been more than just the undies.  But then again maybe my sense of justice keeps me stubbornly naive despite some of the most bizarre scenarios I have read about.  
 
Lawyers will do anything to get their clients off.  A lovely lot they are...
 
Hilary Clinton, the Democratic Party touted supporter of all women, defended rapists. 
 
Clinton was able to get a 41 year old man off for raping a 12 year old girl with methods that have been exposed but that have been hushed by MSM due to political deference.  Clinton stated, "“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.” Clinton offered no source for the claims. 
 
In a recorded interview with a reporter," Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him. For instance, Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”  
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc - Audio recording of Clinton discussing the case while laughing at the absurdity of it. 
Edited by Maryaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

No one denied that some men have disgusting and vile thoughts towards women who wear revealing and provocative clothing. A woman may arouse and feul those thoughts, but ultimately, it is upto the man to control his thoughts and behaviour. You think in the time of the Prophet there were no prostitutes who's sole responsibility was to arouse men? You think the Prophet would've not been able to master the craft of controlling one's thoughts and behaviour? 

As for the "minority" of men in Iraq and Iran who have such disgusting thoughts and behaviour, that is false. That is not my personal experience, as well as the experience of other women I know online or in real life. Women get comments when wearing a full black abayah, 2 minutes away from the hadhra. Women get such disgusting looks that you can practically hear what the man is thinking. Many, many women agree with me. 

Yes, it existed during that time, but there is a biiiiiig difference between that time and today. 

At that time, and even up until the last 100 years or so (before things like tv, radio, internet were widespread), if you wanted to see a women who was scantily dressed or be with a prostitute, you had to go to a certain area. Most people knew where those areas were and people with good morals stayed away from those areas. Women who were not prostitutes didn't dress like prostitutes and it was very clear who was and wasn't a prostitute and men who didn't go to those areas probably never even saw a women who was dressed in anything other than normal conservative dress. There were variations in 'normal conservative dress', for example some women didn't cover their hair or the upper part of their breasts, even in those days, but this was within very clear and defined limits. 

Compare this to now. I was watching a kids show a few days ago with one of my children, and all of a sudden, an add came on with a women in a skimpy bikini. I never asked to see this, was not looking for it, nor did I consent to it. Yet it happened. I'm sure every single man here (unless he lives in a cave with no electricity) has many similar stories, I have many more, but I don't want to bore people, you get the point. 

So times are very different nowdays. We are living in an world which is altogether different, where certain groups feel that they have an absolute right to pollute the world with this sort of imagery (which has biological effects which can be measured). Most muslims also support this and think it's ok. Most muslim women, including most here, feel that they have an absolute right to dress any way they please, regardless of the effects it has on those around them. They are empowered by secularism, social media, etc. If the whole world tells you something is 'ok and fine to do', but with Allah(s.w.a) it is still not 'fine and ok to do', then is it 'fine and ok to do'. No. There is a reality that is above public opinion. 

I'm not trying to justify what this guy did in this particular case, obviously it is completely wrong and he had no right to do it, no matter what they women was wearing. One violation of Haqq does not justify another violation of Haqq. 

But we cannot say that we are living in the same world as Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Imams(a.s) were with regards to this issue. We are not, at all. For most men, even religious ones, this is a very difficult issue to deal with. You either have to go live in a cave, which is not an option for most people, or just figure that you will be exposed to this at some point. It is the greater part of Jihad An Nafs, these days. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My eleven year old son discussed the morality element of this case for a whole hour on Friday during his PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) lesson at school. 

As @Khadim uz Zahra pointed out, it is impossible that an entire jury would have come to a conclusion based on one piece of 'evidence,' if you can even call it that. There were obviously many other elements and factors that were considered. I actually wrote something along these lines earlier, and subsequently deleted it, because I was concerned that I may have to face a barrage of criticism.

On a slightly different note, I've noticed that it's not what is said, or how it's said, that attracts positive/negative, or even some attention. It's actually who says it. I've come to realise that some of my posts have been paraphrased by certain individuals and they have been acknowledged. Yet mine have gone unnoticed when I've said the same things. Guess this comes down to the cliques. C'est la vie. 

Edited by Aflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×