# London SlutWalk - now *11th*June, 1pm Trafalgar Square



## editor (May 10, 2011)

I'm right with the ladies with the cause but I'm not sure that the name (which relates to an incident in Canada) is the most effective way to frame the protest. But I'm probably wrong.



> Make it known that those who experience sexual assault are never the ones at fault, and show the world we're proud of who we are. Meet 1pm Saturday 4th June, Trafalgar Square, London - let's make our voices heard


http://slutwalklondon.tumblr.com/
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=197363420301422


----------



## where to (May 10, 2011)

protesting about an off-the-cuff comment made by a copper in Canada who has already apologised and says he is embarressed by the remarks, which don't appear to have gained any traction or struck a chord in Canada or here.

bigger fish to fry.


----------



## tufty79 (May 10, 2011)

cheers for posting - i was going to, but didn't want to start the bunfight 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/10/slutwalk-hollaback-sexual-assault


> These are exciting and inspiring times: after the blossoming of the Hollaback! movement – an initiative to fight street harassment via crowd-sourcing, we have now entered the mighty age of the SlutWalk. The inaugural SW took place in Toronto last month. Some 3,000 marchers were motivated by the controversial comments made by a police officer in a lecture to law school students on the subject of personal safety.* "Women," *he told them,  *"should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised." * The effect has been incendiary: in cities across North America, from Arizona to Wisconsin, Oregon to Illinois, they have marched, and now the world follows suit: Sweden, Argentina, Australia, with SlutWalks scheduled for London, Los Angeles and Amsterdam on 4 June.  *The message is simple: sexual assault is an act of violence by the perpetrator, and not ever something inspired, occasioned or asked for by the victim – no matter what she or he is wearing, or how she behaves *



i'm there. on rollerskates


----------



## TruXta (May 10, 2011)




----------



## tufty79 (May 10, 2011)

(EQUAL genderopps protest, btw )


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 10, 2011)

where to said:


> protesting about an off-the-cuff comment made by a copper in Canada who has already apologised and says he is embarressed by the remarks, which don't appear to have gained any traction or struck a chord in Canada or here.
> 
> bigger fish to fry.


 
Maybe but the larger issues about how sexual abuse and rape victims are viewed and treated deserves to be looked at and constantly reviewed.


----------



## stethoscope (May 10, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> cheers for posting - i was going to, but didn't want to start the bunfight


 
Innit - I was waiting for TopCat to come and jump up and down about it.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2011)

I'm not sure how Mr _it would take it. I may go anyway. I will more than likely be far to busy though.


----------



## pengaleng (May 10, 2011)

I might go on this, y'know, in solidarity with real victims rather than ones who make shit up.


----------



## London_Calling (May 10, 2011)

I've got nothing in the wardrobe; I might have to buy something . .


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 10, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm right with the ladies with the cause but I'm not sure that the name (which relates to an incident in Canada) is the most effective way to frame the protest. But I'm probably wrong.


 
The framing has to do with reclaiming shaming words and turning them back around on the people who use them.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2011)

tribal_princess said:


> I might go on this, y'know, in solidarity with real victims rather than ones who make shit up.


 
You know that's exactly what my family said when they found out I'd been attacked - that I shouldn't make things up and take attention away from real victims 

Probably why I'm slightly worried about telling Mr _it (also there isn't really an easy way to drop that unless the opportunity presents itself.....it's not exactly 1st date material, but then when *do* you bring it up? Not really any need to unless it becomes relevant for one reason or another)


----------



## tufty79 (May 10, 2011)

always a tricky one, stuff_it, and i ain't really got any advice on that - different times for different people, innit? x


----------



## wtfftw (May 10, 2011)

Or you could have a massive argument (while drunk) about the slutwalk, this covering the whole 'ever been attacked?' subject, and work out actually your points of view aren't so different.
ahem.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2011)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> The framing has to do with reclaiming shaming words and turning them back around on the people who use them.


I'm fully aware of the reason they've chosen the name of the event. I'm just not convinced that it's going to help them reach the widest possible audience. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 10, 2011)

so basically reclaim the streets in another guise?
dunno how it went in England, but it ended up pretty divided with internal spats over here...


----------



## pengaleng (May 10, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> You know that's exactly what my family said when they found out I'd been attacked - that I shouldn't make things up and take attention away from real victims


 
well then they are cunts, I'm talking about those other type of cunts what go telling people that their accusation was malicious etc. poor form.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2011)

wtfftw said:


> Or you could have a massive argument (while drunk) about the slutwalk, this covering the whole 'ever been attacked?' subject, and work out actually your points of view aren't so different.
> ahem.



With all the other stress I am under atm I wouldn't do that, even for the make-up sex.



AKA pseudonym said:


> so basically reclaim the streets in another guise?
> dunno how it went in England, but it ended up pretty divided with internal spats over here...


 
Reclaim the sheets...


----------



## stethoscope (May 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> so basically reclaim the streets in another guise?
> dunno how it went in England, but it ended up pretty divided with internal spats over here...


 
Do you mean Reclaim The Night and/or Million Women Rise?

Reclaim The Streets is the anti-car/eco direct action one.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 10, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm fully aware of the reason they've chosen the name of the event. I'm just not convinced that it's going to help them reach the widest possible audience. But that's just my opinion.


 
I think there is a danger of that, another website I frequent has a thread which is basically full of "oh I better get out my white stilletos and boob tube...ha, ha ,ha " posts without anyone saying what the march was about...until muggins pointed it out and posted a link to the slutwalk website

However you are never going to convince or reach all of the people all of the time. And I suppose it may get a few more column inches because of the name and some people who may not have known it was on will read about it and support it, hopefully.


----------



## tufty79 (May 10, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Reclaim the sheets...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 10, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm fully aware of the reason they've chosen the name of the event. I'm just not convinced that it's going to help them reach the widest possible audience. But that's just my opinion.


 
I think challenging ingrained notions of gender are worthwhile.  

And quite frankly, fuck 'em if they don't get the point.


----------



## wtfftw (May 10, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> With all the other stress I am under atm I wouldn't do that, even for the make-up sex.


 No, sorry. that post was more about me than you. and not particularly sensitive.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2011)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I think challenging ingrained notions of gender are worthwhile.
> 
> And quite frankly, fuck 'em if they don't get the point.


But a poorly attended protest does no one any favours.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (May 10, 2011)

stephj said:


> Do you mean Reclaim The Night and/or Million Women Rise?
> 
> Reclaim The Streets is the anti-car/eco direct action one.



oops reclaim the night....


----------



## tufty79 (May 10, 2011)

Ok, so the circles i mix in might be biased, but i've not come across a single one of my friends yet who's been put off attending by the name...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (May 10, 2011)

I shall be there naked


----------



## tufty79 (May 10, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I shall be there naked


 
SUPERB *hands over the "nudest (wo?)man alive' crown*    please, if you're serious and need a nakedbuddy, let me know? Elbow pads don't count as clothing, right?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 10, 2011)

stephj said:


> Do you mean Reclaim The Night and/or Million Women Rise?
> 
> Reclaim The Streets is the anti-car/eco direct action one.



But originally in the mid 1980s "Reclaim the Streets" referred to anti drugs and prostitution protests in Kings Cross. So its been used for different purposes at different times.


----------



## stethoscope (May 10, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> But originally in the mid 1980s "Reclaim the Streets" referred to anti drugs and prostitution protests in Kings Cross. So its been used for different purposes at different times.


 
So?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 10, 2011)

stephj said:


> So?



I thought you of all people might be interested!


----------



## editor (May 10, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> But originally in the mid 1980s "Reclaim the Streets" referred to anti drugs and prostitution protests in Kings Cross. So its been used for different purposes at different times.


That was Reclaim the Night.



> The Reclaim The Night marches started in the UK on the 12th November 1977, when torchlit marches were held across England in Leeds, York, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle, Brighton and London. They were called by the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group, who were inspired by news of co-ordinated women-only ‘Take Back The Night’ marches against sexual harassment, held across towns and cities in West Germany on the 30th April 1977


http://www.reclaimthenight.org/why.html


----------



## stethoscope (May 10, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> I thought you of all people might be interested!


 
Sorry, wrong end of the stick.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2011)

Rosamund Urwin was banging in the Standard yesterday about the name being iffy. On that basis I think it's a great name.


Shall I throw the first bun?

The copper was saying that women shouldn't dress like sluts* if they wish to avoid unwanted attention. It has been mentioned that women should be able to walk down the street naked and not be raped. And of course they should. Likewise I should be able to leave my front door open and not be burgled. In the real world perhaps some precautions are in order?


*bloke's obviously an arse using a term like that.


----------



## kenny g (May 10, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The copper was saying that women shouldn't dress like sluts* if they wish to avoid unwanted attention. It has been mentioned that women should be able to walk down the street naked and not be raped. And of course they should. Likewise I should be able to leave my front door open and not be burgled. In the real world perhaps some precautions are in order?



I think the point is that a lot of sexual assault is down to power perverts getting off on controlling women. If women are having to choose their clothing based on the threat of assault then that is a further extension of men's power. By women stating that they will dress as sluts they are rejecting that attempt at control. Personally, I have no objection to that approach being taken either.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2011)

kenny g said:


> I think the point is that a lot of sexual assault is down to power perverts getting off on controlling women. If women are having to choose their clothing based on the threat of assault then that is a further extension of men's power. By women stating that they will dress as sluts they are rejecting that attempt at control. Personally, I have no objection to that approach being taken either.


 
You're taking a camera aren't you...


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2011)

cue, lots of dodgy men/tabloids taking pictures, backfires or what...


----------



## consumer135 (May 11, 2011)

*Seriously?*

if the Guardian is to be believed this is all to do with comments made by a police officer in a lecture to law school students on the subject of personal safety. "_Women,"_ he told them, _"should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."_

Notice that this is not a legal principle. Aside from the stupid choice of the word _'slut'_  this seems like sound advice.  This is not the same as the judge which Attila the Stockbroker satirized with his poem Rather the protesters are  *trying to create a world where it is not seen as reasonable to give advice like walking through pecknam flashing an ipad it is probably a good way to get mugged*.  Sure you should be able to do it and it is *not your fault  in that ultimate moral responsibility lies with the perpetrator* ... but if  _it can be reasonably be predicted_ that flashing a high value item increases your chances of being mugged then it can also be reasonably predicted that dressing sexily _increases your chances of sexual assault_. And saying so isn't a crime or an act of patriarchy.

Ok I get that there may be a broader principle at stake ... so it's about rejecting an attempt at control but its an inconsistant self interested objection. I can't help contrasting it with the reaction Terry Jones Qur'an burning. - does anyone remember anyone saying _"Lets have a huge protest to support this guy because religious offence is never an excuse for murder_"?  Rather it seems like people tried to make him culpable in some way for the deaths of UN staff at the hands of religious nutters. Similarly I see that people in general including some feminist friends I have who I'm sure will be on the march who would not activity defend the right of people they are opposed to to do and say what they want without fear of any unlawful consequences. Rather they would protest about some silly police officer who phrased his well meaning advice badly.


----------



## scifisam (May 11, 2011)

I might be going. 

That 'don't dress slutty' stuff always betrays a really low opinion of men - as if men rape because the sight of a boob instantly turns them into sex-crazed monsters.


----------



## binka (May 11, 2011)

louise bagshawe on newsnight now about this. obviously shes not in favour because it promotes promiscuity apparently. which in itself is harmful apparently. she seems to be on everything these days and she also seems to be a bit of an idiot


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2011)

ah, i wondered what the fb hate for her tonight was about...


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (May 12, 2011)

> it can also be reasonably predicted that dressing sexily increases your chances of sexual assault.



Really?  Thats a reasonable prediction is it, lets examine the premises for such a prediction...

1. There are rapists out there and they will pick on the most sexily dressed woman they can find?
Corrollary - All women dress in burkas and pick the most unattractive burka they can find so that they dont become the victims of these rapists

2.  Men have so little self control that the sight of a sexily dressed woman turns them into rapists?
Corrollary - Women dress conservatively in the hope that men will not turn into rapists

3.  Men think that if a woman is sexily dressed then they are available and consenting, despite any words and actions to the contrary.
Corrollary - Women dress how the fuck they want and give a clear and unambiguous message to society that consent isnt given by the action of wearing heels.

So which is it?
A.  Dress like a slut and you are likely to become the victim of a rapist
B.  Dress like a slut and you are likely to turn someone into a rapist
C   Dress like a slut and you are asking for it, and it wasnt really rape anyway.


----------



## kenny g (May 12, 2011)

Looking at some of the contributions to this thread it does look like there is a need for some kind of feminist march.

There is more to rape than taking an i-pod . If that was the case then once women turned a certain age they would no longer have to be concerned of the danger of rape- which is not the case.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 12, 2011)

kenny g said:


> Looking at some of the contributions to this thread it does look like there is a need for some kind of feminist march.


Agreed


----------



## consumer135 (May 12, 2011)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Really?  Thats a reasonable prediction is it, lets examine the premises for such a prediction...


 
And are any of these premises (when toned down and stated in terms of probability and increased tendencies within situations rather than as absolutes) _untrue_? See Tim Beneke's "Men On Rape"


----------



## stethoscope (May 12, 2011)

Dressing 'provocatively' a misnomer. Those who commit rape/sexual assault don't do it usually because the victim is giving the 'turn on' through their clothes (lack of), ffs.


----------



## girasol (May 12, 2011)

I think everyone knows that if you dress 'provocatively' you will get attention (if you are a man or a woman), some of it unwanted.  

But to extrapolate that into 'you are more likely to get raped' just goes to show we still live in a very unequal world, especially as when a man dresses 'provocatively' he doesn't need to consider this as much as us women do.  There's a massive difference between getting attention and being attacked for what you wear..

Having said that, people who wear clothes that are 'unusual' also get attacked, but usually beaten up, rather than raped, just for what they wear, and this happens to all genders...


----------



## xes (May 12, 2011)

binka said:


> louise bagshawe on newsnight now about this. obviously shes not in favour because it promotes promiscuity apparently. which in itself is harmful apparently. she seems to be on everything these days and she also seems to be a bit of an idiot


 Good fucking god i saw that, she came across as a right cuntoid. I was half expecting the other lady to reach over and slap the fuck out of her, to be honest. Made me wantt o go on this marhc in a pair of hotpants and a sexy bikini top with a sign saying "I really am asking for it"


----------



## stethoscope (May 12, 2011)

girasol said:


> I think everyone knows that if you dress 'provocatively' you will get attention (if you are a man or a woman), some of it unwanted.
> 
> But to extrapolate that into 'you are more likely to get raped' just goes to show we still live in a very unequal world, especially as when a man dresses 'provocatively' he doesn't need to consider this as much as us women do.  There's a massive difference between getting attention and being attacked for what you wear..
> 
> Having said that, people who wear clothes that are 'unusual' also get attacked, but usually beaten up, rather than raped, just for what they wear, and this happens to all genders...



Yep. 

Most situations I know of still where women are sexually assaulted/raped is when they are out having a quiet daytime walk in the local woods, or taking a shortcut via a quiet lane on the way home from work/a drink, etc. in as least 'provocative' clothes as - but regardless, clothes 'provocative' or otherwise should never become an apologist/blaming tool.

Must admit I haven't got much patience when it comes to this stuff. As per usual, it mostly becomes about blaming the woman/making her (partly) responsible for what is someone else's (usually men's misogynistic) actions.


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

Fwiw, i was wearing two-weeks-not-laundered work trousers (obviously teh sex), workboots (not the delicate kind), two chunky vest tops and a proper coverup jumper. For me, this march isn't just about clothes x will have a look at idiot louise later when i feel like raising my blood pressure


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 12, 2011)

binka said:


> louise bagshawe on newsnight now about this. obviously shes not in favour because it promotes promiscuity apparently. which in itself is harmful apparently. she seems to be on everything these days and she also seems to be a bit of an idiot



I saw the tail end of this and it had me shouting at the TV



xes said:


> Good fucking god i saw that, she came across as a right cuntoid. I was half expecting the other lady to reach over and slap the fuck out of her, to be honest. *Made me wantt o go on this marhc in a pair of hotpants and a sexy bikini top with a sign saying "I really am asking for it*"


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rosamund Urwin was banging in the Standard yesterday about the name being iffy. On that basis I think it's a great name.
> 
> 
> Shall I throw the first bun?
> ...


 
my ex wanted power without responsibility.
dressed in a way that left nothing to the imagination, she would go out by herself with no money, knowing that she would get different blokes to pay for her drinks, drugs, club entrance and give her a lift home (if she didn't shag them).
 she was manipulative and would often cause fights, getting off on the idea that blokes were fighting over her.
when i was first getting to know her she told me of the time she was raped by two blokes at the same time. my reaction was to want to get hold of the men in question and do harm to them. this made her very happy
however, after being with her for a few years my attitude changed.
firstly, having sex with two guys was something she fantasised about and wanted to do. this struck me as odd, since she had supposedly been the victim of a serious sexual assault along those lines.
secondly, she was the sort who could have a complete change of personality / attitude during sex. i mean get halfway through and then change her mind about doing it, midway through the act. i've never come across someone else like that.
 i don't believe those blokes sexually assaulted her at all. i think she orchestrated the whole thing, but changed her mind halfway through and then concocted a version where she was not responsible

i believe that women should be able to dress how they like. but sometimes they dress to provoke a reaction and that reaction cannot be guaranteed to be one that they like.
personally i would never go out with another girl who dresses or acts like a slut- too much grief from other men. i don't want to have to bloody my knuckles just to go to a builder's merchant on a saturday morning, or worry about where she was going anytime we had a row

actually the whole experience was so traumatic i've remained single since. that's about 9 years now


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

wow gav. just wow.


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> when i was first getting to know her she told me of the time she was raped by two blokes at the same time. my reaction was to want to get hold of the men in question and do harm to them. this made her very happy
> however, after being with her for a few years my attitude changed.
> firstly, having sex with two guys was something she fantasised about and wanted to do. this struck me as odd, since she had supposedly been the victim of a serious sexual assault along those lines.


 
you fucking muppet.


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

go on

how easy do you think it would be for two blokes to do a dp without the girl's consent?

the alleged perps were still in the local area, but she wouldn't let me confront them

this was not the only sexual assault she alleged


----------



## TruXta (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> go on
> 
> how easy do you think it would be for two blokes to do a dp without the girl's consent?


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

about as easy as SP. or fisting. or double fisting.


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> you fucking muppet.


 
why?


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> about as easy as SP. or fisting. or double fisting.


 
bollocks. utter bollocks


----------



## TruXta (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> bollocks. utter bollocks


 
Your extensive experience with rape is it, that leads you to such a firm verdict?


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> you fucking muppet.


 
save your outrage for where it is merited


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Your extensive experience with rape is it, that leads you to such a firm verdict?


 
yes of course i am a rapist. just the reaction i'd expected


----------



## TruXta (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> yes of course i am a rapist. just the reaction i'd expected


 
 Point was you have no fucking leg to stand on as regards what is and isn't possible as regards rape, as presumable you haven't raped anyone nor been raped yourself. Bit thick today?


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (May 12, 2011)

Wow indeed, I understand your reaction, but from what you've put there, I have a totally different reading.



> my ex wanted power without responsibility.
> dressed in a way that left nothing to the imagination, she would go out by herself with no money, knowing that she would get different blokes to pay for her drinks, drugs, club entrance and give her a lift home (if she didn't shag them).
> she was manipulative and would often cause fights, getting off on the idea that blokes were fighting over her.


Sounds like she was quite fucked up over her relationships with men, and was trying to use the sexual power that she had to use/manipulate them as she felt that was her only power. 



> when i was first getting to know her she told me of the time she was raped by two blokes at the same time.


Yup. That would fuck up your relationships with men right enough



> my reaction was to want to get hold of the men in question and do harm to them.this made her very happy


Why was your first reaction revenge?  Her revenge reaction reaction is quite understandable, and I can see why it may make her happy to have someone share it, but yours IMHO comes from a basis where women are considered commodities, and that "your" commodity has been previously spoilt.  I'm not getting at you for your reaction, its common and socially encouraged, but a more helpful reaction would have been to see what could be done to help her heal.



> however, after being with her for a few years my attitude changed.
> firstly, having sex with two guys was something she fantasised about and wanted to do. this struck me as odd, since she had supposedly been the victim of a serious sexual assault along those lines.


Ever considered that having been in a powerless position in those circumstances she wanted to relive the trauma but with control?



> secondly, she was the sort who could have a complete change of personality / attitude during sex. i mean get halfway through and then change her mind about doing it, midway through the act. i've never come across someone else like that.


Again thats evidence of a fucked up sexuality, and being gang raped is probably going to do that to you.



> *i don't believe those blokes sexually assaulted her at all. i think she orchestrated the whole thing, but changed her mind halfway through and then concocted a version where she was not responsible*


*

Are you sure?*


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

and fwiw, re the partwaythroughchangingmindthing... 'no' means 'no, please get out NOW', even if you're about to come in her.
people who've experienced sexual abuse/assault may well be 'up for it' and then have to stop part way through if the trauma comes up in the middle of things.  been there, done that.


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

although since you've brought up my experience of rape, let me flesh it out.

when i was at sixth form college i had the briefest if flings with another student. we were getting mildly jiggy with each other in one of the common rooms, and i suggested we go into the boys toilets together for more privacy. we did and were in there for about half an hour, didn't have sex but were snogging etc. we came out together and went back into the same common room where we remained draped over each other, her with her hands between my legs.
day over, went home, thought nothing of it.
the following day i was in college and went into the smoking room, she was there deep in conflab with two friends, but got up and left when i went in, accompanied by her friends. i thought this was strange and didn't understand why. went off to lessons.
halfway through my first lecture i was pulled out and taken to the vice chancellor's office. he said
'we've had an allegation of attempted rape against you'
my stomach did a somersault and i began to shake
what?

'apparently you forced ***** into the men's toilet and tried to rape her. i just want to hear your reaction before i inform the police'

i told him exactly what had happened, down to the names of all the people who had seen us in the common room, before and after. i told him that she had consented, been keen, and had been touching me sexually, in public, afterwards

he then got her in (privately, after talking to the others who were there) and put my version to her.
she accepted this was the truth.

it turned out that a friend of a friend had seen us coming out of the toilets together and was telling other girls that she was easy, a slut, whatever
she got together with her two friends and came up with the attempted rape
we both got letters sent home to our parents

so, my extensive personal experience of rape is two false accusations. if that makes me a potential rapist / misogynist, blame them


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Point was you have no fucking leg to stand on as regards what is and isn't possible as regards rape, as presumable you haven't raped anyone nor been raped yourself. Bit thick today?


 
see post 66. i was typing while you were hyperventilating


----------



## ddraig (May 12, 2011)

serious issues there gav 

e2a - you, if it wasn't obvious


----------



## past caring (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> actually the whole experience was so traumatic i've remained single since. that's about 9 years now



Keep telling yourself that, I'm sure it helps.


----------



## TruXta (May 12, 2011)

What has that got anything to do with whether or not it's possible for two blokes to rape a woman at the same time?


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> that makes me a potential rapist / misogynist, blame them


 
blame yourself. and then either educate yourself or crawl back into the primordial soup you came from.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2011)

Being a bit harsh on gav there, no? I can well imagine going out with someone like that to be a complete headfuck even if you did have some understanding and sympathy for why she was like that.

That said, gav, don't blame other people for how you are. No good can come from that.


----------



## TruXta (May 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Being a bit harsh on gav there, no? I can well imagine going out with someone like that to be a complete headfuck even if you did have some understanding and sympathy for why she was like that.


 
To the extent of not believing she was raped because it's not possible to dp-rape someone, and on top of that insinuating that woman who dress a certain way get what's coming to them?


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

sorry for the overthetopness - hotheaded typing. i don't think i've been quite as angry in a fairly long time. but really gav - i do think you need a fair bit of edumacating.

and as for the 'raped by two blokes and then having twoblokefantasies so it can't possibly have been raped' - going by that logic, should people who've been raped by one person never ever be able to have any kind of sexual fantasy??


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> sorry for the overthetopness - hotheaded typing. i don't think i've been quite as angry in a fairly long time. but really gav - i do think you need a fair bit of edumacating.


 
Pretty mild, really, if that's your worst. 

Rereading what gav wrote, I think querty, tufty and others are right - he needs to think about why her sexuality was so clearly fucked up. That kind of fuck up always has a story behind it, I think. Without wishing to sound too schmaltzy, it might do gav some good to forgive her so that he can move on.


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Wow indeed, I understand your reaction, but from what you've put there, I have a totally different reading.
> 
> 
> Sounds like she was quite fucked up over her relationships with men, and was trying to use the sexual power that she had to use/manipulate them as she felt that was her only power.
> ...



thank you for your considered response. i will try to do likewise.

firstly it wasn't a 'gang rape'. she met up with them for sex.

my 'revenge' response, well that goes quite deep for me.
i have never felt such an overwhelming desire to protect someone as i did with her. but equally i have never known someone as capable of looking after themselves, but who refused to do so.
all i can say is that on my first day at school as a nippper i was overcome with the desire to protect the girls from the boys who were chasing them. i don't know if there is some freudian stuff going on there but the desire to protect girls from men has never gone away; i once intervened in a drunken date rape scenario on a beach in australia. the girl's friends all took the piss out of me and called me 'dad', but we became friends afterwards

as to why i am so certain she was lying....you would need the benefits (?) of my experience to understand that, and i'm sure nothing i will say here will be enough to persuade people. it was an incredibly destructive relationship; as a recovering crack user she was unpredictable and incredibly violent. as an ex-public school type i believed that if a girl attacked you you just stood there and let her hit you until she calmed down. but she didn't calm down, and would regularly stick one on me mid-conversation. this does begin to grind you down....but not as much as her telling my friends and fellow collective members that i was the violent one.
this was the point that i started to feel like i was losing my mind.
this girl that i wanted to cherish love and protect, was not only abusing me physically but was now denying the deepest part of me, that i would never hurt her. it wasn't until she was witnessed punching me in the face by others that the tide began to turn.
my only logical explanation for all this was that she wanted to 'ride me into the manor'. we got together at just the time i was moving into haz manor, home of the exodus collective, with whom i had been involved for several years. she wanted to move in as well, but wasn't welcome.
so her strategy, having seen some of the domestic violence that took place and the collective's reaction to it, was to claim domestic abuse and distance herself from me. when this got short shrift she came back to me again. it was my weakness to take her back


going to the issue of sex and control, this girl was always in control. if she got you aroused, before you knew it she had you mounted and inside her with professional expertise. when she did her psycho bitch from hell routine halfway through sex she'd spit you out before you even knew something was up. before we got together she would be with a different man _most days_ and claimed to have several stalkers. she was also the most dishonest person i have ever met.

thing is, i know where her abberrant sexual behaviour came from, and it wasn't about a lack of control. i knew her family. she was an incredibly spoilt jewish girl who had a her parents / granparents wrapped around her little finger, and her sexual behaviour was in order to manipulate them. as far as i could tell, she couldn't really tell the difference between a parental relationship and that between lovers. she loved to publicly tell stories about dangerous situation she got herself into, just to manipulate your feelings for her. there was no attendant trauma; these were her experiences that made her the cool, street smart cat she was


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

what is behind the sexual manipulation? my theory
she was a premature baby, not expected to survive. throughout childhood she had bad asthma, still does...but smokes 20 fags / day
her parents used to sleep in shifts in case she had an attack. i believe that she only felt important when she was at the centre of some massive trauma or cause for concern- in fact i think that was the only way she knew how to live


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> what is behind the sexual manipulation? my theory
> she was a premature baby, not expected to survive. throughout childhood she had bad asthma, still does...but smokes 20 fags / day
> her parents used to sleep in shifts in case she had an attack. i believe that she only felt important when she was at the centre of some massive trauma or cause for concern- in fact i think that was the only way she knew how to live


 
ooh! i was one of those babies too! only managed to develop asthma a couple of years ago though.

there's a whole attachment theory thing, which includes how much contact/love you had even in the first few months of your life. i was in an incubator for the first three/four months of mine... still picking stuff apart about me, let alone other people


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pretty mild, really, if that's your worst.


 
i was also making repeated growling/roaring noises. and had to run out of work to have a shower


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> she couldn't really tell the difference between a parental relationship and that between lovers


 
http://manchesterpsychotherapy.net/transactional-analysis-theory/

gav, i'm going to step away from a bit and read your posts properly again later. thank you for being open, btw.


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

i appreciate that.
 'til then, then


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

(and before i fuck off to do my laundry, can i just say that 'lucky' by alice sebold is very, very, very,very recommended reading)


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

wanted to say, regarding the specific sex act, the thing i don't believe is that 
the people involved could do the thing involved to the person involved on this occasion, without the person involved consenting

(at least initially. i acccept that consent can be withdrawn at any stage, technically that may be rape, but it's not the same to me as someone being attacked out of the blue and wouldn't have made me want to find the people involved and act the avenger. i don't see it as a sex attack,  just things getting out of hand, probably brought to a head as a result of the up / down coke / crack buzz the three of them were on) 

 i'm not going to demean this thread (or myself) any further with the specific reasons for my point of view regarding what happened.
 you wouldn't think but i'm quite private about some things, enough to live with people thinking the worst of me 
anyway, i wanted to apologise for threadjacking. gav out


----------



## MikeMcc (May 12, 2011)

It may not be ideal terminology (based around the incident in Canada), but it does highlight the hypocracy.  A promiscous woman gets described as a slut, but an equally promiscous bloke is 'one of the lads'.


----------



## miss minnie (May 12, 2011)

Well well well, I have a lot of male gay friends who go blank at the mention of anything to do with women's rights, marches, feminism blah blah, but guess what....  _THEY _have just invited me to Slutwalk on Facebook. 

Maybe this might be the one to break the barrier.  It was over 30 years ago that I first joined a gay rights march in Sydney, long before the days of Mardi Gras or Gay Pride. Only a couple of hundred of us but we chased the cops and barricaded them into their station. I've always been disappointed that gay males are rarely seen to reciprocate the support they get from women.  

Hmm, the only problem is my feet, walking or standing for a long time can be very painful.  Perhaps I need to organise some palanquin bearers.


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

i don't respect promiscuous men. i think it would be a terrible shame for women to emulate the behaviour of the worst men, in the name of equality.
occasionally you do come across them, telling tales of how they've bedded women with the help of coke, but i think 'shallow tw@' and move quickly on. i don't think it's ok for men anymore than for women

e2a @mikemcc


----------



## miss minnie (May 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> i don't respect promiscuous men. i think it would be a terrible shame for women to emulate the behaviour of the worst men, in the name of equality.


Yeah, we're all going to fuck the brains out of the male population in the name of feminism.  Oh wait...


----------



## gavman (May 12, 2011)

isn't that the plot of sex and the city?

(only with more shopping)


----------



## tufty79 (May 12, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Well well well, I have a lot of male gay friends who go blank at the mention of anything to do with women's rights, marches, feminism blah blah, but guess what....  _THEY _have just invited me to Slutwalk on Facebook.
> 
> Maybe this might be the one to break the barrier.  It was over 30 years ago that I first joined a gay rights march in Sydney, long before the days of Mardi Gras or Gay Pride. Only a couple of hundred of us but we chased the cops and barricaded them into their station. I've always been disappointed that gay males are rarely seen to reciprocate the support they get from women.
> 
> Hmm, the only problem is my feet, walking or standing for a long time can be very painful.  Perhaps I need to organise some palanquin bearers.


 

EXCELLENT stuff  
worst case scenario: plot a march with breaks - join it, leave it, rejoin it at any point... (and employ carriers  too)


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (May 13, 2011)

Date changed to 11th June, Glasgow and Edinburgh slutwalks on the 4th


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm in two minds about this whole thing. Just read another article about it on the beeb.

Whilst I accept that calling people sluts or saying they dress like sluts is wrong and whilst I accept that people should be able to dress however they like...

We have to acknowledge that dressing a certain way does currently (and most likely will always) create a certain impression in minority of bad eggs.

No one is immune from the possibility of getting cancer.
Smoking makes you more vulnerable to the likihood of getting cancer.

Seeking a cure to cancer makes sense. Giving up smoking also makes sense though despite the fact people enjoy it and should have the right to smoke if they want to.

However despite saying that... is there a definate link to the way women dress and their likihood of assault?
Statistical studies prove the smoking link to cancer. Is there in fact any statistical evidence regarding assaults? Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could point out whther there is or isn't or whether its just an assumption on the part of some.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'm in two minds about this whole thing. Just read another article about it on the beeb.
> 
> Whilst I accept that calling people sluts or saying they dress like sluts is wrong and whilst I accept that people should be able to dress however they like...
> 
> ...


 
woah!

Can you not see the huge flaw in you argument???

cancer is not sentient, it is random, it is an uncontrollable fact of life.

Rapists are individual people choosing to do something dreadful to another person. They are not an uncontrollable fact of life. We don't have to throw up our hands and accept that some people will be raped. Doing so is really, horribly wrongheaded.

Ugh.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Ugh.



Quite.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> woah!
> 
> Can you not see the huge flaw in you argument???
> 
> ...


 
I'm saying that people are trying to cure a cancer of society. Attempting to change an minority aspect of culture (at least i hope its a minority). A task just as difficult as finding a cure for cancer. It wouldn't hurt to give up smoking in until thats achieved or at least recognise that there is an increased risk if you do not (not be surprised by the fact).

Rapist are not an uncontrolable fact of life?

Until society genetical alters embroyos to eliminate crime or some such dubious practice then rapists will continue to exist. So unfortunately yes they are a fact of life. Not that you don't fight against facts of life.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 3, 2011)

If only I had been wearing something sexay when I was sexually assaulted... it must have been the jeans and hoody that did it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'm saying that people are trying to cure a cancer of society. Attempting to change an minority aspect of culture (at least i hope its a minority). A task just as difficult as finding a cure for cancer. It wouldn't hurt to give up smoking in until thats achieved or at least recognise that there is an increased risk if you do not (not be surprised by the fact).


 
You really need to go away and  think though what you're posting right now.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 3, 2011)

but they're only poor men, with like urges and stuff!
poor men


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> woah!
> 
> Can you not see the huge flaw in you argument???
> 
> ...


 
Whilist I agree its not a great comparison and this is a slight derail but as someone who lives with a person who is dedicating her life to 'defeating' cancer I feel I can say cancer is not random, it can be controlled, it will be controlled.  My girlfriend is most certainly not going to throw her hands up and acccept that some people just get cancer.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

stephj said:


> If only I had been wearing something sexay when I was sexually assaulted... it must have been the jeans and hoody that did it.


 
Well that was the other part of what i posted. Is there any evidence that dress does affect likihood?
I've never seen any but its assumed that it does. I'd be curious to know if any such evidence exists.

Its a bit like when people claim violent video games create violence. But do they?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

ddraig said:


> but they're only poor men, with like urges and stuff!
> poor men


 
I'm not saying that.

I'm saying the the world is full of evil shit. People seem to shoot people down those who say you should protect yourself from that evil shit. Instead the evil shit is supposed to obey your wishes and just go away ant not affect your lifestyle. That would be nice but a wise person might wish for that but takes precautions anyway.

I used to see it all the time in health and safety. I don't like wearing a hard hat so shouldn't have to. Employers should make it impossible for falling objects to occur so that I don't have to. Employers should indeed try their best but they will never ever be 100% successful due to the nature of a building site.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Have you had a lunchtime drink?


----------



## ddraig (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'm not saying that.
> 
> I'm saying the the world is full of evil shit. People seem to shoot people down those who say you should protect yourself from that evil shit. Instead the evil shit is supposed to obey your wishes and just go away ant not affect your lifestyle. That would be nice but a wise person might wish for that but takes precautions anyway.
> 
> I used to see it all the time in health and safety. I don't like wearing a hard hat so shouldn't have to. Employers should make it impossible for falling objects to occur so that I don't have to. Employers should indeed try their best but they will never ever be 100% successful due to the nature of a building site.


 
are you pissed?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

A couple of ciders on a hot sunny day. Am I really making no sense then?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> A couple of ciders on a hot sunny day. Am I really making no sense then?


 
No sense at all, mate.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 3, 2011)

it doesn't make much sense no
unless you really are saying "shit happens, like stuff falls from high up and can hurt you so you have to wear a helmet, it would be nice if stuff didn't fall and hurt people but they do so" = "shit happens, there are evil men out there who think women who don't dress like victorians are fair game for rape, so you have to dress carefully and cover up, it would be nice if evil men didn't exist and want to rape women but they do so"

is that what you are saying?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

I guess what i was asking was..

Is the outrage primarily against the suggestion that a women could reduce her chances of attack by dressing more conservatively.

Or cause the copper said it along the lines of "Well you shouldn't have dressed like a slut then should you?"

And I was saying that whilst the later is obviously well out of order we shouldn't nessesarily dismiss that there could be some merit to the former (cause we want to wear what the hell we like) if there is evidence to support that this is the case.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 3, 2011)

to imagine that society and culture play no part in how much rape is committed is massively wrongheaded too.  In some other countries (such as south africa), rape is frighteningly commonplace in the last 20 yrs or so. Why not here? 

among youth gangs gangrape is being used commonly as a gang initiation. why hasn't that always been the case?

there isn't just a certain amount of rape that happens among human beings. it varies depending on the type of society and attitudes people are living in.  if we can change attitudes, we can cut rapes (and sexual assaults). Slutwalk is all about trying to proactively change attitudes. attitudes like yours, in fact.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I guess what i was asking was..
> 
> Is the outrage primarily against the suggestion that a women could reduce her chances of attack by dressing more conservatively.
> 
> ...


 
what do YOU think? 
and how can you evidence such things? where would you draw the line?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> to imagine that society and culture play no part in how much rape is committed is massively wrongheaded too.  In some other countries (such as south africa), rape is frighteningly commonplace in the last 20 yrs or so. Why not here?
> 
> among youth gangs gangrape is being used commonly as a gang initiation. why hasn't that always been the case?
> 
> there isn't just a certain amount of rape that happens among human beings. it varies depending on the type of society and attitudes people are living in.  if we can change attitudes, we can cut rapes (and sexual assaults). Slutwalk is all about trying to proactively change attitudes. attitudes like yours, in fact.


 
Not like mine and I support the changing of attitudes. But its not going to happen overnight and people need to recognise that the dangers of which you speak exist and that campaigning against them doesn't magically make you immune to them. Protect yourself too.

Which led me to ask is covering up a legitmate form of protection or just a bullshit assumption.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

ddraig said:


> what do YOU think?
> and how can you evidence such things? where would you draw the line?


 
I think that for some its former and for others later. I wanted to know what people here thought.

I don't know how you evidence such things which was why i was asking on here if people knew of any evidence as urbanites often seem clued up on such things.

Obviously you draw the line at Burkas and such things and long before then but where exactly ain't easy to say.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Not like mine and I support the changing of attitudes. But its not going to happen overnight and people need to recognise that the dangers of which you speak exist and that campaigning against them doesn't magically make you immune to them. Protect yourself too.
> 
> Which led me to ask is covering up a legitmate form of protection or just a bullshit assumption.


 
Yes like yours. living in a society where the prevailing attitude is that a woman should modify her dress so she's less likely to be sexually attacked makes the perception of women weaker. it enforces patriarchal attitudes. take away the patriarchal attitudes and the attacks will decline.

there's a reason whey everyone's shooting you down, you know.


----------



## shaman75 (Jun 3, 2011)

confusingly, the tumblr link says this is on the 11th June... ?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 3, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> confusingly, the tumblr link says this is on the 11th June... ?


 
I think the date has been recently changed.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 3, 2011)

think it may have been moved
see previous page


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> living in a society where the prevailing attitude is that a woman should modify her dress so she's less likely to be sexually attacked makes the perception of women weaker. it enforces patriarchal attitudes.



Thats a fair point, well argued which i accept.

(Please note I'm not married to the idea that women should change their clothing. Don't assume I am, this is a discussion board. I want to hear debate and so far this is the best point that has been made)



spanglechick said:


> take away the patriarchal attitudes and the attacks will decline.



Not so sure if this bit is true though. Do places highly patrialchal places like afganistan have a high record of rape? Has a direct correlation between the two been made?


----------



## shaman75 (Jun 3, 2011)

ddraig said:


> think it may have been moved
> see previous page


 
ah.  i see.  cheers.  i just saw the title and thought it was tomorrow.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Thats a fair point, well argued which i accept.
> 
> (Please note I'm not married to the idea that women should change their clothing. Don't assume I am, this is a discussion board. I want to hear debate and so far this is the best point that has been made)
> 
> ...


 
you can't compare like with like - reporting rates, for a start, are likely to be lower. but certainly there is documented and horrific physical abuse against women in countries such as afghanistan which wouldn't happen here.

if you look at cultures where rapes are high, there's a lot going on. contributory factors. the men there aren't just more evil. 

but to commit that kind of violence on a person you need to view them as being lesser than yourself (see also attacks on the elderly / children / the disabled) of less value and importance. a patriarchal attitude to women and their autonomous right to dress however they like is essentially diminishing the status of women. making them lesser.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 3, 2011)

Absolutely spangles.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 3, 2011)

As a kind of, what is the word, supplementary comment to spangles excellent post above this made for interesting, and sobering, reading in the Guardian yesterday

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/02/egypt-next-revolution-virginity-tests


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> you can't compare like with like - reporting rates, for a start, are likely to be lower.



A fair point.

Out of interest this link provides stats (per capita and by total reported):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

The scandiavian countries (which many consider the hotest when it comes to equality) don't do quite as well as expected (No stats for Sweden unfortunately).

To be honest there are quite a few surprises there imo.

I would have thought Canada and Italy would have been the other way around. Whats Australia doing so high up the table.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 3, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> As a kind of, what is the word, supplementary comment to spangles excellent post above this made for interesting, and sobering, reading in the Guardian yesterday
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/02/egypt-next-revolution-virginity-tests


 
Thats certainly opened my eyes. I thought the situation was entirely about the economy and corruption.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'm saying that people are trying to cure a cancer of society. Attempting to change an minority aspect of culture (at least i hope its a minority). A task just as difficult as finding a cure for cancer. It wouldn't hurt to give up smoking in until thats achieved or at least recognise that there is an increased risk if you do not (not be surprised by the fact).
> 
> Rapist are not an uncontrolable fact of life?
> 
> Until society genetical alters embroyos to eliminate crime or some such dubious practice then rapists will continue to exist. So unfortunately yes they are a fact of life. Not that you don't fight against facts of life.


all this ignores one crucial point; we are ALL - criminals included - responsible for our actions.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'm not saying that.
> 
> I'm saying the the world is full of evil shit. People seem to shoot people down those who say you should protect yourself from that evil shit. Instead the evil shit is supposed to obey your wishes and just go away ant not affect your lifestyle. That would be nice but a wise person might wish for that but takes precautions anyway.
> 
> I used to see it all the time in health and safety. I don't like wearing a hard hat so shouldn't have to. Employers should make it impossible for falling objects to occur so that I don't have to. Employers should indeed try their best but they will never ever be 100% successful due to the nature of a building site.


jesus fucking christ. It is a woman's RIGHT to dress how she wants, and the idea that skimpy clothing is an extenuating circumstance for a rape is utter bullshit. there are NO get-out clauses for that.


----------



## skitr (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> jesus fucking christ. It is a woman's RIGHT to dress how she wants, and the idea that skimpy clothing is an extenuating circumstance for a rape is utter bullshit. there are NO get-out clauses for that.


 
Agreed. I know it's been said before in this thread, but excuses can't be made for rapists, especially not that anyway.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 3, 2011)

For probably the umpteenth (and it probably won't be the last time either) time on Urban:

Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.


----------



## skitr (Jun 3, 2011)

Greebo said:


> For probably the umpteenth (and it probably won't be the last time either) time on Urban:
> 
> Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.



Was that in reply to me?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 3, 2011)

More a comment about the entire thread.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

They're pretty useless at organising this.

It's now _next week_ (11th) despite all the publicity saying it was today.

http://slutwalklondon.tumblr.com/about

I'll change the thread title.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 4, 2011)

Tbf they did announce the change of the London date a while ago.

The Cardiff one was happening today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-13646593


----------



## sunny jim (Jun 4, 2011)

Greebo said:


> For probably the umpteenth (and it probably won't be the last time either) time on Urban:
> 
> Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.


 
^^^^ This


----------



## thriller (Jun 4, 2011)

will be there with my camera. wonder if there will be any hostility if a lot of men turn up with DSLR cameras???


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

stephj said:


> Tbf they did announce the change of the London date a while ago.


They could have emailed an update or posted here. Loads of websites are still reporting the wrong date now.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2011)

thriller said:


> will be there with my camera. wonder if there will be any hostility if a lot of men turn up with DSLR cameras???


Go for some upskirt shots while shouting "Phwooooar!" and see if they warm to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Go for some upskirt shots while shouting "Phwooooar!" and see if they warm to you.


 
Make for an interesting news article: "And at today's 'Slutwalk' protest, a photographer was torn to little piece for sticking his DSLR up marchers' skirts and yelling 'phwoar'!".


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 4, 2011)

Just as well. My bollocks were sweating like no ones business in these fish nets.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 4, 2011)

...


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 4, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Just as well. My bollocks were sweating like no ones business in these fish nets.


 
Crotchless ones is what you require.

HTH.


----------



## Dooby (Jun 4, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Just as well. My bollocks were sweating like no ones business in these fish nets.


 
you dont sweat in fishnets, silly


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 4, 2011)

ok, it might be the leather pants then.


----------



## thriller (Jun 4, 2011)

stephj said:


> ...


 
I do street photography, occasionally. So this will be interesting. Will turn up anyway and see what happens.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 5, 2011)

(((gavman))) you should had sued them! ...


----------



## Bakunin (Jun 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Go for some upskirt shots while shouting "Phwooooar!" and see if they warm to you.


 
Perhaps while blasting 'Baby Got Back' by Sir Mixalot from a portable soundsystem, maybe?


----------



## emma goldman (Jun 6, 2011)

SlutWalk Discussion Group and Banner Making Thursday,
June 9 · 6:30pm - 9:30pm
The Feminist Library
5a Westminster Bridge Road,
London
SE1 7XW

This is designed as a follow on discussion to the meeting facilitated by
Feminist Fightback at Bishopsgate Institute on Wednesday 1st June.
Everyone is welcome, even if you’re new to the discussion.

SlutWalk London will take place on 11 June 2011. The London march occurs
just months after the first SlutWalk took place in Toronto in response to
a local police officer’s claim that ‘women should avoid dressing like
sluts’ if they want to minimise the chance of being raped.

SlutWalk has attracted a rare degree of mainstream press coverage and
provoked much debate among feminists. Do we want to use the word slut? Has
SlutWalk been co-opted by the media, just as riot grrl was commodified as
‘girl power’? Does SlutWalk reflect white privilege? Is it just another
example of feminism as consumerism? Or do these questions forget the most
important thing: that an energetic wave of activism against victim blaming
is happening? The Feminist Library has no collective position on SlutWalk.
This meeting is designed to facilitate debate.

We will begin with a general debate, and then we’ll split into smaller
discussion groups. After the discussion, the evening will develop into a
banner making workshop for those wishing to march on Saturday 11th. Please
bring your own materials if you want to make a banner. If you make up your
mind during the event, we’re sure we can fit you in and find you things.

If you have any questions, please contact us at
admin@feministlibrary.co.uk or 020 7261 0879.
Unfortunately, we have restricted disabled access, so please also contact
us to see how we can help.


----------



## pk (Jun 7, 2011)

Actually I like where this is heading...


----------



## Gromit (Jun 7, 2011)

Poor slut costumes tbh. The only who looks slutty to me is the tall one with the fringe and the grey top.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

Can someone explain the rape being about power not sex thing. Seems to me that a lot of sex is about power and rape is just a non consensual version. But still also about sex. Maybe I'm being stupid asking this. It just always leaves me feeling like I don't understand it that statement.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> Can someone explain the rape being about power not sex thing. Seems to me that a lot of sex is about power and rape is just a non consensual version. But still also about sex. Maybe I'm being stupid asking this. It just always leaves me feeling like I don't understand it that statement.



Have a peruse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

Fwiw, in my own experience the over-simplistic power idea traces to 70s Feminism, which of course had its own agenda. But, as a man, what would I know.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

Well the quick answer is because rape is about dominating that person = power.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> Well the quick answer is because rape is about dominating that person = power.


 
So is a lot of sex though I thought that is a part of which gets you off


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 7, 2011)

IC3D said:


> So is a lot of sex though I thought that is a part of which gets you off


 
In consensual sex, yes it can be. But this is non-consensual sex where the sexual act is being used as subjugation.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Have a peruse:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape
> 
> Fwiw, in my own experience the over-simplistic power idea traces to 70s Feminism, which of course had its own agenda. But, as a man, what would I know.


That's really interesting, cheers. Also gives a number of other reasons for rape, other than power. Like anger, sadism and sexual gratification. I think that places the whole 'power' argument in context for me. Rape isn't always just about power, but it sometimes is.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

IC3D said:


> So is a lot of sex though I thought that is a part of which gets you off


 
Not when you don't want sex with that person. FFS.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> Not when you don't want sex with that person. FFS.


 
I kind of think that was implied. I was referring to Edie's point that I didn't get either this rape is about power you hear a lot being its the primary motive rather than the method of acquiring sex.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

I seem to recall that the sexual gratification theory of rape ('raping' as a method to acquire sex) as being not only controversial at the time, but that it still regarded domination as a key factor in the motive.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 7, 2011)

It would be interesting and rather horrifying I expect to find out what percentage of the female population has been raped/attempted raped. Certainly amongst my friends the ones who have not are in the minority.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> I seem to recall that the sexual gratification theory of rape ('raping' as a method to acquire sex) as being not only controversial at the time, but that it still regarded domination as a key factor in the motive.


Seems unlikely, but apparently not: 





> Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power. Most rapists do not have a preference for rape over consensual sex


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> It would be interesting and rather horrifying I expect to find out what percentage of the female population has been raped/attempted raped. Certainly amongst my friends the ones who have not are in the minority.


Really? Fucking hell. I know very few women who have unless you count forced bareback.


----------



## Biddlybee (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> Seems unlikely, but apparently not:


One book, how many studies?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> I seem to recall that the sexual gratification theory of rape ('raping' as a method to acquire sex) as being not only controversial at the time, but that it still regarded domination as a key factor in the motive.


 But it would have to be qualified 'domination' as in 'domination of women under 30 and over 18' as that seems to  account for around 80% of proven rapes - last time I looked anyhoo.

That is also an age range, of course, when most women are at their most attractive, and fertile.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

diddlybiddly said:


> One book, how many studies?


I'm not saying I _believe _it. I'm just saying that it is a theory, that may (or may not) explain some rapes. Just to be clear.

Like I said, it seems unlikely to me.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> Seems unlikely, but apparently not:


 
I'm pretty sure Felson remains rather in a minority with that theory - amongst other criminologists and psychologists.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> But it would have to be qualified 'domination' as in 'domination of women under 30 and over 18' as that seems to  account for around 80% of proven rapes - last time I looked anyhoo.
> 
> That is also an age range, of course, when most women are at their most attractive, and fertile.


 
Can you explain the relevance of 'women are at their most attractive and fertile'?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 7, 2011)

Read the link above.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

Maybe the power bit could be incidental. Like if you just really can't get any sex, and your desperate for it. You might rape someone just to get sex, but not be gratified or enjoy the power or enjoy the violence.

Christ, that sounds well suspect


----------



## IC3D (Jun 7, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> It would be interesting and rather horrifying I expect to find out what percentage of the female population has been raped/attempted raped. Certainly amongst my friends the ones who have not are in the minority.


 
I was chatting to a couple of girls who had been spiked at the weekend, and so have I except I was pinching drinks.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

It kinda comes across like you're trying to convince yourself that power isn't a major motive, Edie? 

Besides, 'if you really can't get any sex, and desperate for it' - I'm not sure that's true at all?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Read the link above.


 
Ok I have... I don't find it particularly convincing tbh.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> It kinda comes across like you're trying to convince yourself that power isn't a major motive, Edie?
> 
> Besides, 'if you really can't get any sex, and desperate for it' - I'm not sure that's true at all?


No, sorry, it was more thinking out loud. I don't think that, although maybe it's true for a very small number of cases. You do get a lot of people who never have ANY oppertunity for sex or intimacy. It's fucking sad really, the depth of human loneliness. And it does tend to be men, cos women can pull a million times more easy (although I dunno why really). It's like the myth of the male escort.

Just to be totally clear: I do not think rape is EVER ok, no matter how lonely or frustrated you are.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> Ok I have... I don't find it particularly convincing tbh.


Neither do I.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 7, 2011)

I think the power bit could be misguided obviously there is power involved in rape, but domination and submission play an important role in sexual enjoyment.


----------



## Biddlybee (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> Maybe the power bit could be incidental. Like if you just really can't get any sex, and your desperate for it. You might rape someone just to get sex, but not be gratified or enjoy the power or enjoy the violence.
> 
> Christ, that sounds well suspect


Have you been drinking?


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

diddlybiddly said:


> Have you been drinking?


No  I'm not making this clear, am I. It's not _what I think_. It's about trying to understand that argument. From reading the wiki.

Shall I just... stop now?


----------



## Biddlybee (Jun 7, 2011)

Yes


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> It would be interesting and rather horrifying I expect to find out what percentage of the female population has been raped/attempted raped. Certainly amongst my friends the ones who have not are in the minority.


my god. That is truly the most devastating and awful thing I have ever read here.


----------



## gavman (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> Maybe the power bit could be incidental. Like if you just really can't get any sex, and your desperate for it. You might rape someone just to get sex, but not be gratified or enjoy the power or enjoy the violence.
> 
> Christ, that sounds well suspect


 
any description of rape motives is going to sound suspect. but i agree with you, the whole power and domination aspect is overplayed.

 i feel this is because that endorses the feminist narrative of rape being about the oppression of women for power's own sake, rather than that domination being the inevitable part of forced sex, where the sex is the only motive.
 when viewed this way the question of provocative dress can never arise. do i think women are to blame for sexual assaults because of what they wear?
of course not. it's 100% the fault of the man
would i let my daughter go out dressed just in her underwear?
 not on your life

 at the dance it would regularly kick off after sexual assaults, where a girl got groped on the dancefloor. it was our number one source of trouble after dealing, and would tend to happen in the daylight hours after we'd been running all night. now did that mean that the longer they were there, the more men wanted to oppress the women present to feel powerful?
or did it mean that after eight hours of being on drugs and dancing with scantily dressed girls they were so visually stimulated that they couldn't keep their hands to themselves?
we all know that male sexuality is different to female, and that men are much more aroused by visual stimulus, whereas for women other factors such as touch will heighten their arousal. speaking as someone who has suffered great periods of loneliness and sexual frustration, the urge to reach out and touch can be pretty overwhelming. i've never groped anyone, but i'm pretty well tied down, more so than any other bloke i know. my dad calls me a monk
 so, knowing what can be going through a bloke's mind, understanding the level of stimulation a man can feel being surrounded by something he's supposed to admire but not touch, i tend to see scantily clad girls in the dance as being irresponsible troublemakers, and there's a 50:50 chance i'm going to have to intervene in a fight as a result of their desire to proclaim their sexuality.
 and the next dance they tend to dress a bit less provocatively.

 some of the people i've seen on the news representing slutwalk talk as though they are living in a vacumn, as though the undeniable absolute freedom to wear whatever you want is without any attendant responsibility for the reaction it causes. to me this is completely wrong headed.
 in effect, girls showing loads of flesh like to provoke a response, but my argument is you can neither guarantee or control the response you will get.
 i believe it is my basic human right to walk down the road smoking a big fat doobie, but prudence dictates otherwise

 anyway, i know i will get roasted, but i speak as someone who has been on the front line in this one, taken and given digs just to be part of someone else's learning the truth about the big bad world.
 to me, the basic feminist agenda can seem anti-male. yet why is it that they are so blind to how bad men really are? if you go out wearing skimpy clothes then you either have a naive view of the world, live in a security bubble or are a cage fighter in drag


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

IC3D said:


> So is a lot of sex though I thought that is a part of which gets you off


 
Consensual domination is an entirely different thing, surely? Rape by it's nature is non-consensual, and domination is imposed through violence or threat of violence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Poor slut costumes tbh. The only who looks slutty to me is the tall one with the fringe and the grey top.


 
He does look a bit of a goer, to be fair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> In consensual sex, yes it can be. But this is non-consensual sex where the sexual act is being used as subjugation.


 
Yup. Most domination in consensual sex also has "cut-offs" to prevent harm (unless harm has been requested). Rape-domination has no such safeguard(s) against harm.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> That's really interesting, cheers. Also gives a number of other reasons for rape, other than power. Like anger, sadism and sexual gratification. I think that places the whole 'power' argument in context for me. Rape isn't always just about power, but it sometimes is.


 
Power is always implicated though, it always has *something* to do with rape, so of course it's not *just* about power. It's about someone else exerting power (the means) to express their "anger", "sadism" or requirement for "sexual gratification".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> Seems unlikely, but apparently not:


 
Controversial theory that wasn't borne out by much research in the following decade and a half. Most current forensic/criminal psychology as taught in the unis still holds to the power/domination theory, because it's got 40+ years of research evidence substantiating it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> But it would have to be qualified 'domination' as in 'domination of women under 30 and over 18' as that seems to  account for around 80% of proven rapes - last time I looked anyhoo.
> 
> That is also an age range, of course, when most women are at their most attractive, and fertile.



So it hasn't occurred to you, even glancingly, that age groups older and younger than the one you mention might under-report?


----------



## gavman (Jun 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Power is always implicated though, it always has *something* to do with rape, so of course it's not *just* about power. It's about someone else exerting power (the means) to express their "anger", "sadism" or requirement for "sexual gratification".


 
so that's like saying 'armed robbery is all about power', whereas power is just what is required to commit the crime


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> I'm pretty sure Felson remains rather in a minority with that theory - amongst other criminologists and psychologists.


 
Yup. I Can't think of any of the basic texts, stuff like Clive Hollin's intro to criminal psychology, where new eds get printed every two - three years, that give it any credence, because there's not enough literature out there to support it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> so that's like saying 'armed robbery is all about power', whereas power is just what is required to commit the crime


 
What's the aim of an armed robbery compared to the aim of rape? Are they the same?

Does the power exerted fulfill the same needs/requirements of the perpetrator?

If the answer to both the above is "yes", then your first point makes sense. If your answer to either or both is "no", then very obviously it's nothing like saying "armed robbery is all about power".


----------



## gavman (Jun 7, 2011)

the aim of the armed robbery is to commit an armed robbery. the aim of the rapist is to commit rape.

they both exert power to commit their crimes; it fulfils the same requirement. they cannot commit the crime without gaining power over the victim. this is incidental to the crime. not it's objective. the objective is to steal money or have sex with someone unwilling. i stand by my point


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

I kinda get where your coming from gav. Cos I mean one of the reason you go out dressed looking sexy is to play with men. Flirt. It's excersising your power as a woman, to attract men. You don't put on a small skirt and heels cos it's comfortable, you put it on to work a room. So it's kinda like an agreement innit, men can look and admire. You can even touch within reason, I think most girls aren't gonna go mad if the odd bloke grabs there arse on the way to the loo in a crowded club, or dances in a way that means your legs are touching. And men love it as much as the girls, it's a game.

But it's pretty clear when that oversteps the mark. When a bloke just wont leave you alone, even if you've asked him to, for example. Or keeps touching you. Or follows you. I've had men just blatently reach out and grab my tits (in Leeds, natch ), that's over the line. The men who are behaving like twats at the end of the night need to go and have a wank and a cold shower. 

And rape is ever so clearly across any line you wanna put down.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 7, 2011)

i think grabbing someones arse is way over the line tbh!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> the aim of the armed robbery is to commit an armed robbery. the aim of the rapist is to commit rape.
> 
> they both exert power to commit their crimes; it fulfils the same requirement. they cannot commit the crime without gaining power over the victim. this is incidental to the crime. not it's objective. the objective is to steal money or have sex with someone unwilling. i stand by my point


 
So an aim isn't an objective in Gavworld?


----------



## gavman (Jun 8, 2011)

how do you know about gavworld?    i never mention it on here.
 first rule of gavworld etc etc


----------



## gavman (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So an aim isn't an objective in Gavworld?


 
interchangeable, really. bless my diction


----------



## ymu (Jun 8, 2011)

gavman said:


> thank you for your considered response. i will try to do likewise.
> 
> firstly it wasn't a 'gang rape'. she met up with them for sex.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds extraordinarily like a friend's ex.

London-based - 6 letters, starts with M?

If it is, you're wrong. She fucked him up too, but he doesn't share your analysis of why.

If it isn't, you're still wrong.

The fact that she hurt you does not mean she was, and is, not hurting. You weren't able to 'save' her. Neither was he. Tough shit. You don't get to decide she's just evil instead.

Abuse does weird stuff to people. If you can't comprehend it, rescue women who don't need rescuing cos otherwise you're a fucking liability.




gavman said:


> i don't respect promiscuous men. i think it would be a terrible shame for women to emulate the behaviour of the worst men, in the name of equality.
> occasionally you do come across them, telling tales of how they've bedded women with the help of coke, but i think 'shallow tw@' and move quickly on. i don't think it's ok for men anymore than for women
> 
> e2a @mikemcc


 
What gives you the right to tell other people what they can and can't do in private?

Why the fuck do you think promiscuous women are aping men, as opposed to exercising a freedom denied them by control-freaks like you?

Fuck's sake. You can choose who you sleep with, but you need to respect every human being gav, not just those who are exactly like you. You never know, you might even learn something.


----------



## ymu (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> That's really interesting, cheers. Also gives a number of other reasons for rape, other than power. Like anger, sadism and sexual gratification. I think that places the whole 'power' argument in context for me. Rape isn't always just about power, but it sometimes is.


 
I have equally muddled thoughts, and I'm supposed to be sleeping, so obviously, I'm going to try and outline them.

Firstly, 'rape is about power' has to be a generalisation because there are too many circumstances in which rape occurs to have one model. But I think you can put power in most models somewhere. 

Women and children are more vulnerable to rape because they are physically weaker. The power differential makes it possible.

Stranger rape is rare. It's a sexual deviance. It may be about sexual gratification for some (not all), but they're getting off in a particular situation - where they have all the power. Street girls just aren't expensive enough, nor stranger rapes common enough, for it to be plausible that it is just about getting sex.

Rape by family members, friends, partners ... now you get into very complex territory.

It can be purely about sexual gratification. Non-withdrawal is one obvious example. I raped a man in this way: coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak. It was rape - I just didn't realise it at the time. I think this is likely to be the case for most non-withdrawals. Lack of self-control and/or confuddlement about the situation. Worth noting that the only reason I could rape him was that he was powerless to stop me. Had he been on top, I'd have had no such opportunity.

Partners and dates? Twenty years ago. men had the right to rape their wives. 1991 the law changed. That's serious power. And three whole living generations of men who had that right. Some may be rather bitter about giving it up, and if they have wives who are used to it, they can and will abuse that power. I've had some deeply unpleasant exchanges with some of these older men. Extreme culture shock.

I just keep coming back to the stranger rapist here. It's hard for a man not to know he is forcing a woman to have sex. A man who forces a date or a partner must, surely, be getting off on something more than just sex. I can allow some cases where it is lack of self control and/or a terrible misunderstanding of the 'banter' that so many men seem to think is harmless, but not all.

And, again, it comes down to power.

Because they can.

So, power in a very literal way - physically being able to force someone - and power as a means of achieving sexual gratification.

But there's also powerlessness as a motive to do something powerful. We live in a society that demands all men be alpha-males, but only allows a minority to achieve that. Of course there are some men who feel inadequate and powerless, and they may find the opportunity to be powerful quite irresistible. There's probably a bit of that in some stranger rapes and in some date rapes.

The criminal justice system hands the rapist another powerful weapon, of course. A very difficult ordeal in court. 

And casual sexism means they'll probably be under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that their mates will approve. Peer approval is likely to be the main driver of gang-rape, especially amongst teenagers. And gaining peer approval is all about power, if you're in a gang.

So yeah. Dunno if that makes any sense.


----------



## ymu (Jun 8, 2011)

Gromit said:


> A fair point.
> 
> Out of interest this link provides stats (per capita and by total reported):
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
> ...


 
The Scandinavian countries have much more stringent laws, AFAIK. Like with like. If women are more or less likely to report, then it will make a difference.

You should also, arguably include all misogynistic hate crimes. All sexual assaults, acid attacks, scarring, 'honour' killings, all the other things that twisted men do to take it out on the women who don't make them feel powerful enough. Cultural factors might influence the nature of the crime.

I'd love to see a proper comparative study across all categories. Based on British Crime Survey methods to avoid reporting bias.


----------



## gavman (Jun 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Sounds extraordinarily like a friend's ex.
> 
> London-based - 6 letters, starts with M?
> 
> ...


 
first off, no, this isn't the same person. and i don't believe she is evil- just sociopath who manipulated and used me. you're in danger of transferring your prejudices about that situation to mine. i don't know the person you refer to, but i do know that no two people are alike

i didn't set out to rescue her- she persued me, wanted to use me as a safe haven to get a break from the insanity she created in the rest of her life. perhaps i did then want to help / save her, guilty as charged 

 when first i met this person i couldn't believe the horrendous things that had happened to her, or why she had so many bad experiences of horrible people. then i met some of the people she told horrible stories about, and i couldn't believe they were true- i couldn't match these people with the things she had said they had done. her life was compartmentalised so that none of her friends / family could ever speak and find out the truth- that she was surrounded by people who cared for her, that she was relentlessly manipulating. then, later, i heard from others that now she was telling dreadful, untrue stories about me, and it all became clear. she made this stuff up to avoid any feelings of guilt or responsibility to that person for her own actions. you say she was feeling bad? i'm sorry, that just proves how little you know of this type of behaviour; she was shallow enough to believe her own lies and that would outweigh any positive aspects of a relationship, so she could characterise it as an abusive relationship and treat the person accordingly (with contempt, 'til she needed something)

 for example
we were introduced by a mutual friend, who is no longer with us. she was an old friend of her family, and also a member of the collective, who used to mother her, and then both of us once we were together. it round to her's that we went for a decent meal once a week, or for advice on the (frequent) occasions things broke down. she had always looked after ****, feeding her up and generally being loving. this had gone on for the whole of her life, she had been a link when her life was going off the rails
 whenever **** and i got into difficulty, she was there with some straight talking, some of which didn't go down well with my ex, as a result of which they fell out.
 when our friend's cancer came back, she wouldn't speak to or go and see her. she was ill for the best part of a year, and the whole time she refused to see or talk to this friend, right up to her death. slagged her off and derided her, this person who had done nothing but care for her, just because she would no longer accept ****'s lies about me, her family, the collective...and so on

 so, to your angrier 'points'. i have no interest in telling other people what to do in private. blokes can use cocaine to bed women- that's up to the two of them. i just feel absolute contempt for those who do, and wouldn't be friends with them. we all exercise moral judgements about what sort of behaviours we consider acceptable and would like to be surrounded by. shallow people who use cocaine for sexual conquests, i have every fucking right to despise. i'm not trying to control them; i just feel contempt for their actions, and wouldn't behave that way myself.
 is this permissable to you? or should i hate myself for having my own moral framework?

 i understand from some of your posts (ymu) that you have a happy sex life, and have enjoyed being promiscuous at times. good for you. i couldn't be happier for you, and it's none of my business to ask whether people have been hurt by your actions. it's just peronally, i'm not like that, and personally, i'd prefer to be with someone else who isn't either

 finally, the control freak. i've spent some time thinking about it since my earlier post, and i think it's to do with having a younger sister who was born with a heart condition, my desire to protect girls. as a toddler i probably played too rough or something, and then had it drilled into me that i was to protect my little sister. that's my best guess from what my parents say- apparently i was always very protective towards her

 now your final gift- you have to respect everyone.
bollocks do you

 a year after the death of our friend, ****' s father died in an rta. at the time they hadn't spoke for several months, even though she was living back in her parent's home- she was punishing him for something or other. and i realised something, that if i stayed with her i was guaranteed the lonely, miserable death that those closest to her had suffered,more than likely preceded by misery and insanity.

so, do i have to respect someone who behaves like this?


----------



## ymu (Jun 8, 2011)

Fair enough gav. Great post, and my apologies for being harsh. Sociopath might well be correct, from those details. Sociopaths are chaotic, disorganised versions of psychopaths. We just realised a 'friend' of ours is probably a psychopath and used this article to help us extricate ourselves: http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

There's also lots of forums for those who have fallen for one of these predators, and some for the predators themselves. You might find it useful for finding closure: http://www.google.com/m?hl=en&gl=us&client=ms-null&source=android-browser-goto&q=psychopath+forum

On respect for other people's lifestyle choices, I think it goes hand in hand with not being a bigot. You can criticise people for hurting others without transferring that criticism to an entire demographic. I happen to have written about how I conducted myself when I was free to sleep with anyone who wanted to sleep with me, so I need not explain it again: http://fidelitypornletters.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-fidelity-and-sexual-responsibility.html

Finally, I know about trying to rescue people. You can't. Not unless they are able to give you something back to replace the emotional energy you expend on them. You can be a carer or a lover, but not both. I lost a year of my life to a manipulative abuser, and he is the reason I stayed single for 16 years.I do understand the harm these people can cause.

I don't understand how you are coping with being single for so long if you don't have casual sex though.  Not prying nor condemning, but casual sex for me was an alternative to wasting time on meaningless relationships just to get sex. Being celibate just isn't an option for me. I'd be going insane within weeks.


----------



## gavman (Jun 8, 2011)

sorry for the grumpiness. thank you and believe me, i will explore the links. i think the fact that it's a bit of a theme in my current postings means i'm trying to work stuff out, now i have some time elapsed since it all happened, so i really appreciate that

 the bigotry is probably rooted in the white hot pain i still feel when discussing promiscuity. it was used as a knife to wound me on so many occasions, and regularly done for no other reason. and then described in terms of 'i was thinking of you the whole time'. coached in the argument of 'this is the life i fall back into when not with you'
headfuck city

edited to add
the word that haunts from this time me is 'relentless'. there was never any respite, softening or awareness of the damage she was doing to everyone who cared for her. caring was a currency she would spend spend spend


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't understand how you are coping with being single for so long if you don't have casual sex though.  Not prying nor condemning, but casual sex for me was an alternative to wasting time on meaningless relationships just to get sex. Being celibate just isn't an option for me. I'd be going insane within weeks.


 
fuck...now there's a can of worms. supper first, then see how i feel


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

You had every right to be grumpy. I was to tired when I wrote that and should have been gentler.

Working it out takes a lifetime. There's always more shit to deal with. Trick is to work out how to immunise yourself from the stuff that knocks you sideways. 

Casual sex only is how I learnt to stop myself trying to rescue people who couldn't rescue me. Going self-employed means I get paid for taking on too much work instead of being taken for a mug by an organisation that can't even reign in the bureaucrats and jealous 9-5ers whilst expecting, and getting, the output of two people (this has been measured, because jealous 9-5ers used to force workload audits to try and get at me).

That's my stuff. Your stuff will need different solutions. You can't change the world, only how you relate to it and it to you. We're all fucking weird one way or another. Find a way to be you without getting punished for it.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> fuck...now there's a can of worms. supper first, then see how i feel


 
i think i'll leave it til i'm among friends to answer that one. been burned like that on here before, and your response to me seems to change every time you post. so thanks but no thanks


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

I said I wasn't prying. I do not want to know. I was trying to make you understand something, as it happens.

I respond to the posts, not the people. I don't know anyone who is always right, nor anyone who is akways wrong. Heroes and villains, suckups and enemies … we're not in the playground, and sometimes truth matters.

The world doesn't care if you go off in a huff. People relate to you as you relate to them. You don't get to be treated better than you treat others, because how you treat others largely determines how they treat you.

I don't care. You probably should.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

not sharing my intimate sexual details is hardly going off in a huff.

and i have responded to people exactly as they have responded to me. i'm nice until people are horrible. blagsta has been turning up on threads where i post fairly consistently and having a pop. i just got sick of it.
as for trashpony, well that's someone who has wished a lonely miserable death upon me so yes, now the gloves come off. when people seek me out or say things that are unjustified and hurtful i fight back.
 you've only seen half the story, i'm afraid, and gone off half cocked. but think what you like- i was in danger of trusting you, so a salutory lesson for me


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

Llike I said, could not give a flying fuck. Not dealing with huffy children today, thanks.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

very wise. better to deal with your own moodswings


----------



## Edie (Jun 9, 2011)

gav you are a little strange. And your attitudes to women are quite fucked up. Not sure if you realise that.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

i do


----------



## Edie (Jun 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> i do


Fair enough


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

But he ain't gunna change unless you stay nice to him however mild the criticism.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

criticism fine, laying the boot in not. i'd already apologised for what you were attacking me for, so what was the point?
just looked like ganging up to me


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

I apologise if I missed your apology.

You were being obstinately wrong long after the thread nailed it because you couldn't even be arsed to read anyone else's posts, bar pantomiming with blagsta. It ruins important threads like that for everyone else.

I know I shit on threads too sometimes. But I hold my hands up and apologise if I realise it,. Like grown-ups do.

It's OK to be wrong. If you never are, you can never learn anything. Ruining a thread because you can't back down, over beef from a different thread … You might do better to wonder if people are having a go for an actual reason, not just because they're nasty bullies.

blagsta can be bad on pantomime shit, but he's often correct. It does make a difference, on issues where truth matters.

Nice includes considerate as well as anodyne, yeah? So play nicer, and maybe people will be nicer.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 9, 2011)

Who needs soap operas?


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

bah. double post


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know I shit on threads too sometimes. But I hold my hands up and apologise,. Like grown-ups do.


 
like i did.
 why are you being selectively blind?
i am so happy to get out of this pointless exchange, as long as you stop trying to paint me into corners. much like blagsta was trying to do.
 i'm happy to admit when i'm wrong, and i must've said half a dozen times that my mistake stemmed from my misreading of the op


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's OK to be wrong. If you never are, you can never learn anything. Ruining a thread because you can't back down, over beef from a different thread … You might do better to wonder if people are having a go for an actual reason, not just because they're nasty bullies.
> 
> blagsta can be bad on pantomime shit, but he's often correct. It does make a difference, on issues where truth matters.


 
 he was wrong on law and linked to the section that proved he was wrong. post #46


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

Yeah, sorry. But you had been asked several times. As you'd know if you had been reading the thread.

You're playing the victim. Which is quite a good way to become one when combined with some pretty aggressive and nasty attitudes.

Do you think I'm happy wity your opinion of me, based on the fact that I like casual sex?

 Have you even apologised for repeatedly insulting me and everyone else with different ideas about personal freedom? Who are rather offended that you still view all women as in need of protection from men and their naughty penises?

Ever occur to you that taking criticism seriously before rejecting it as hounding for no good reason might help you work out how to upset people less? Cos you seem to do it a lot.  Perhaps it really is you?

We're just words on a screen. How do you treat people in real life?


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

you had no idea of my opinion of you until today, and that opinion has sweet fa to do with your attitudes towards sex, or how you conduct yourself. instead it's based 100% on how you treat me.
funnily enough i respect those who are open and forthright. it's just the whole ganging up that gets my back up
so i have never insulted you or anyone else who shares your ideas of personal freedom. but if you go out dressed in your underwear then there's a very good chance you will need protection at some point. if you choose to be insulted by that, so be it. i'm not apologising for stating the bleeding obvious


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ever occur to you that taking criticism seriously before rejecting it as hounding for no good reason might help you work out how to upset people less? Cos you seem to do it a lot.  Perhaps it really is you?


 
i suggest you re-read this thread. there you see a lot of criticism, all of which i would like to think, i respond to thoughtfully. i can tell the difference, you know


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Llike I said, could not give a flying fuck. Not dealing with huffy children today, thanks.


 
.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

like i said



gavman said:


> very wise. better to deal with your own moodswings


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

My fault I'm offended by this, apparently.



gavman said:


> i don't respect promiscuous men. i think it would be a terrible shame for women to emulate the behaviour of the worst men, in the name of equality.
> occasionally you do come across them, telling tales of how they've bedded women with the help of coke, but i think 'shallow tw@' and move quickly on. i don't think it's ok for men anymore than for women
> 
> e2a @mikemcc



In gavman world, women should not be promiscuous.

 Which is what men have been enforcing on us for centuries.

But now that some of us have a choice, we're only promiscuous because we want to please men.

Because women don't enjoy sex in gavman world.

We 're just silly little things who don't know how to act unless men lead the way.

I don't think I want anything to do with a man who can repeatedly state these opinions and then refuse to apologise after the offence his remarks have caused has been repeatedly explained by many women.

Good luck shaping the world in your own image gav. Ambitious approach to avoiding admitting an error.

Fragile ego is fragile.


----------



## Edie (Jun 9, 2011)

yuk I just did a little puke about the going out in your underwear thing. Yer, us women, fucking whores walking about in our undies and all needing protection 

You wanna come out in Leeds wi me gav. Girls round here dress like they fuckin want and can take care of themselves n all.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> My fault I'm offended by this, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
straw man, straw men. i know you're gunning for me now, but you're getting further onto shaky ground.

it should be obvious to anyone reading what i wrote that i think there is equivalence between the sexes regarding promiscuous behaviour. 
so i don't like it much- but that applies to both sexes

women don't enjoy sex...now you really are putting words into my mouth. i chose not to emphasise the sexual aspect because i wasn't writing porn, but the truth is my ex loved sex and so did everyone in her family. her mum and dad were always all over each other and good for them. her sisters were both sexually active, the whole family were very sexualised.
 i see that as perfectly natural.
furthermore, that one disastrous relationship wasn't my only long term experience, so i am used to the fact girls that like sex, usually more than me

apart from the fragile ego bit, your talking out of your arse.
you happen to be right about that, though


----------



## thriller (Jun 9, 2011)

is this happening tomorrow, then? would like to go with my camera, but a bit hesitant.


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

Edie said:


> yuk I just did a little puke about the going out in your underwear thing. Yer, us women, fucking whores walking about in our undies and all needing protection
> 
> You wanna come out in Leeds wi me gav. Girls round here dress like they fuckin want and can take care of themselves n all.


 
see here is where i get confused. how is that so different to the post you agreed with earlier?

e2a
obv not the whore thing. your words, not mine


----------



## Edie (Jun 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> see here is where i get confused. how is that so different to the post you agreed with earlier?


Your attitude grates tbh


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

It should be obvious to me that gavman wasn't being offensive even though I was offended. I and everyone else commenting on this have simply misunderstood him. If only we were perfect too, he would want to be our friend. 

Apparently, it's OK for people to tell women what they may and may not do with their own bodies, as long as men are equally oppressed.

Two wrongs make a right in gavman world.

 If only we were all exactly like him, we could be happy. ;(


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ok


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

Edie said:


> Your attitude grates tbh


 
ok


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

.slow connection tonight. triple post


----------



## gavman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> It should be obvious to me that gavman wasn't being offensive even though I was offended. I and everyone else commenting on this have simply misunderstood him. If only we were perfect too, he would want to be our friend.
> 
> Apparently, it's OK for people to tell women what they may and may not do with their own bodies, as long as men are equally oppressed.
> 
> ...


 
you're failing to nail this. i have no interest in telling what women can do with their own bodies. or men

but

I THINK PEOPLE WHO HAVE REGULAR CASUAL SEX WITH STRANGERS ARE SHALLOW

thats all


----------



## ymu (Jun 10, 2011)

And you expect no one to be insulted by you saying that?

Or,more accurately, to dismiss you as a self-deluding, arrogant, willfully ignorant and deeply stupid, little shit.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> you're failing to nail this. i have no interest in telling what women can do with their own bodies. or men
> 
> but
> 
> ...


 
i think my previous assessment of 'cuntnugget' still stands. x


----------



## thriller (Jun 11, 2011)

SHUT UP, the lot of you. 

This thread is about the walk itself. Start a new thread about women and casual sex.


----------



## treelover (Jun 11, 2011)

remember, anything goes on oh so libertarian Urban75


----------



## TruXta (Jun 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> remember, anything goes on oh so libertarian Urban75


 
Never seemed very libertarian to me? Where's this hidden libertardian sub-forum you obviously refer to?


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> remember, anything goes on oh so libertarian Urban75


You're very confused today.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 11, 2011)

Aaaaanyway, this is today  And I have some sympathy for the seemingly chaotic organisation, given that the organiser is apparently 17. Gives me hope for the next generation


----------



## trashpony (Jun 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> *as for trashpony, well that's someone who has wished a lonely miserable death upon me so yes, now the gloves come off. when people seek me out or say things that are unjustified and hurtful i fight back.*


 
What the fuck are you going on about? I haven't even posted on this thread until that post above  so it's a bit _peculiar_ to accuse posters of hounding you across threads when I've done nothing of the sort. 

And people having the same opinion which happens to differ to yours is not ganging up. It just feels like that on a message board


----------



## TruXta (Jun 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> I THINK PEOPLE WHO HAVE REGULAR CASUAL SEX WITH STRANGERS ARE SHALLOW


 
Honestly, gav, who gives a shit?


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 11, 2011)

trashpony said:


> And I have some sympathy for the seemingly chaotic organisation, given that the organiser is apparently 17. Gives me hope for the next generation


 
really? bloody hell, good on 'em 
right, i'm off inna bit.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 11, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> really? bloody hell, good on 'em
> right, i'm off inna bit.


 
Enjoy - hope it goes well


----------



## teahead (Jun 11, 2011)

But won't somebody think about the kids? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/rowanpelling/8562331/I-want-to-take-this-candy-out-of-the-mouths-of-children.html

Even if it's the Torygraph. But aren't these connected: focusing on your identity as a sexual being can be funky and delish, but there's other things that are attractive too. Something babyish, simplistic and rebellious about "Yeah I have the power to direct other peeps feelings about me" does seem sort of 17-year-old when it gets turned into a political protest...


----------



## editor (Jun 11, 2011)

Slutwalk and the Naked bike ride? All in one day? Phwwoooarrr!

*rubs trousers


----------



## IC3D (Jun 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Slutwalk and the Naked bike ride? All in one day? Phwwoooarrr!
> 
> *rubs trousers


 
Totally what I was thinking I'm going down on my bike with a camera and wearing my dirty mac the one with the hole cut in the pocket, its also trouping the colour with prince william it could be so awesome!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> remember, anything goes on oh so libertarian Urban75


 
Well, Urban75 tolerates your continuous whining about "the left" (whoever the fuck *that* is), so pretty much anything *must* go.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 11, 2011)

Oh, you'll all get to see the flypast!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 11, 2011)

trashpony said:


> What the fuck are you going on about? I haven't even posted on this thread until that post above  so it's a bit _peculiar_ to accuse posters of hounding you across threads when I've done nothing of the sort.
> 
> And people having the same opinion which happens to differ to yours is not ganging up. It just feels like that on a message board


 
Of course it feels like that, given the number of people gavman narks with his "gav knows best" attitude!


----------



## ymu (Jun 11, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Aaaaanyway, this is today  And I have some sympathy for the seemingly chaotic organisation, given that the organiser is apparently 17. Gives me hope for the next generation


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> What gives you the right to tell other people what they can and can't do in private?
> 
> Why the fuck do you think promiscuous women are aping men, as opposed to exercising a freedom denied them by control-freaks like you?
> 
> Fuck's sake. You can choose who you sleep with, but you need to respect every human being gav, not just those who are exactly like you. You never know, you might even learn something.


 
With respect

I don't think he's telling anyone what to do, just stating that he has less respect for promiscuous people then for other people.  You may not agree but he's entitled to his opinion. 

Personally I wouldn't dream of telling anyone how they should live their sex life but I find that I just can't relate well to people who have lots of casual sex as I can't relate to the motivation to do that.  Not so much a moral thing as an inability to compute.  Listening to someone boast about their sexual adventures with this and that person doesn't inspire me, it just bores me.  So, actually maybe I don't care about how much casual; / promiscuous sex people have providing they don't want to tell me all about it.  

What on earth happened to a bit of old fashioned romance then eh?
*gets slippers*


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 11, 2011)

As for slutwalk it seems to be a manifestation of one extreme of the virgin / whore continuum.

Like reclaim the night only with corsets and high heels instead of dungarees and bad haircuts.


----------



## ymu (Jun 11, 2011)

I am a romantic. A true one. Serial monogamy is a lie. For me, anyway. People that special just don't come along very often.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> I am a romantic. A true one. Serial monogamy is a lie. For me, anyway. People that special just don't come along very often.



Aye

I think that many people are a lot more romantic at heart than they admit.  Most people would love to find "the one".  For some people having lots of casual sex is a way of pretending not to care about how empty and lonely their life is.  Not that there's anything wrong with that if it gets them through the day.


----------



## ymu (Jun 11, 2011)

It's partly about that. It's mainly about not shacking up with any old cunt just to get sex.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's partly about that. It's mainly about not shacking up with any old cunt just to get sex.


 
But in doing so then that person just ends up fucking "any old cunt" just to have sex. 

Which seems a bit sad / pointless / risky to me. 

I mean, do these people have paralysed fingers and no access to sex toys?  Or something.


----------



## JHE (Jun 12, 2011)

> Like reclaim the night only with corsets and high heels instead of dungarees and bad haircuts.



Yeah, that's it in a nutshell.  The fundamental point made by the two groups is exactly the same.  IIRC (after about 30 years), one of the slogans of Reclaim the Night around 1980 was "Yes means yes and no means no, whatever we wear, wherever we go!"  The demonstrating 'sluts' today are emphasising the bit about 'whatever we wear'.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 12, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> But in doing so then that person just ends up fucking "any old cunt" just to have sex.
> 
> Which seems a bit sad / pointless / risky to me.
> 
> I mean, do these people have paralysed fingers and no access to sex toys?  Or something.



sex toys don't look at you with lust in their eyes while they rip your clothes off and shag you into next week.

casual sex - if you enjoy it as a leisuretime activity, which i appreciate not everyone can do - is generally tremendously life-affirming. sex toys are just wanking. it's like comparing a fantastic, frantic tennis knockabout with a session of swingball.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 12, 2011)

Sure, good sex with a partner is better than masturbation, but masturbation is way better than sex where you don't feel much for the other person IMO.  

The other problem for me is that sex makes me feel closer to my partner and if he's a wrongun, as has happened in my youth, then I end up being in love with a wrongun, which is bad news and not a situation I'd want to be in again.  


I don't begrudge other people recreational sex, it's just not my thing.


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> But in doing so then that person just ends up fucking "any old cunt" just to have sex.
> 
> Which seems a bit sad / pointless / risky to me.
> 
> I mean, do these people have paralysed fingers and no access to sex toys?  Or something.


 
Toys don't do it for me.

I write about this a lot:


> Perhaps I will solve this by being so unattractive you don't even want to see my ankles
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm banking on it .
> ...


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 12, 2011)

I'm not keen on toys either

I have magic fingers and a filthy imagination though


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)

I have great fingers and a great imagination (see blog).

But two months without someone else's fingers and penetration I'm not controlling, and I am climbing the fucking walls. What the fuck is wrong with finding someone else who wants the same thing?

Silly not to, quite frankly.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2011)

Anyway, I went on the walk and it was fun. Photos tomorrow!


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jun 12, 2011)

I went on it too, excellent atmosphere, and very good turnout I thought.


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2011)

Yesterday was one action packed day in London!







I'll post up a full report soon.,

http://www.urban75.org/blog/sluts-flypasts-naked-bike-rides-and-penny-farthings/


----------



## XR75 (Jun 12, 2011)

Will we be seeing a colin hunt walk soon?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 12, 2011)

XR75 said:


> Will we be seeing a colin hunt walk soon?


 
Aspire to be like him?


----------



## gavman (Jun 12, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> With respect
> 
> I don't think he's telling anyone what to do, just stating that he has less respect for promiscuous people then for other people.  You may not agree but he's entitled to his opinion.
> 
> ...


 
thank you for saying it better than i could.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 12, 2011)

What does any of this stuff about casual sex have to do with a woman's right to not be treated like shit because of what they wear?


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)

A woman's right to choose without some Victorian moralists carping from the sidelines? The choice of title for the event? Anti-woman bigotry?

That sort of thing.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 12, 2011)

Why can't people just keep their opinions about morality to themselves on a thread about the rights of women to not be harassed when they appear in public?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

Can see Ymu's point entirely. However I do think there is a precarious link being made about women  in public, dressing as they please and casual sex. Which kinda goes against the point of the march IMO.

Those talking about casual sex seem to be speaking from the perspective that a women has the right and reason to engage in casual sex without being called x, y, or z..which is true of course.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 12, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Why can't people just keep their opinions about morality to themselves on a thread about the rights of women to not be harassed when they appear in public?


 
Because its tha internetz and people talk about whatever they want to?

Where are these peopele talking about morality anyway? 

I think I missed that bit.


----------



## JHE (Jun 12, 2011)

editor said:


> Yesterday was one action packed day in London!


 
Not quite what I would have expected.  The women in that picture are not dressed as 'sluts' as far as I can see.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 12, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Because its tha internetz and people talk about whatever they want to?
> 
> Where are these peopele talking about morality anyway?
> 
> I think I missed that bit.


Oh sorry, yeah, its not a moral judgement it just *bores you*.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

JHE said:
			
		

> Not quite what I would have expected. The women in that picture are not dressed as 'sluts' as far as I can see.



 What does a *slut* dress like?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What does a *slut* dress like?


 
Quite.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

JHE's comment is a great example actually...just...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What does a *slut* dress like?


 
What those who bang on about it wished they're missus wore*

* but only when they could see them


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> What those who bang on about it wished they're missus wore*
> 
> * but only when they could see them


 
Some people wish their GF's/wife/partner wore certain clothing and if they did they would enjoy it but at the same time call them sluts if by some strange and outrageously emasculating twist of fate and irony another man saw them? 

How _*very*_ bizarre!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 12, 2011)

consumer135 said:


> if the Guardian is to be believed this is all to do with comments made by a police officer in a lecture to law school students on the subject of personal safety. "_Women,"_ he told them, _"should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."_
> 
> Notice that this is not a legal principle. Aside from the stupid choice of the word _'slut'_  this seems like sound advice.  This is not the same as the judge which Attila the Stockbroker satirized with his poem Rather the protesters are  *trying to create a world where it is not seen as reasonable to give advice like walking through pecknam flashing an ipad it is probably a good way to get mugged*.  Sure you should be able to do it and it is *not your fault  in that ultimate moral responsibility lies with the perpetrator* ... but if  _it can be reasonably be predicted_ that flashing a high value item increases your chances of being mugged then it can also be reasonably predicted that dressing sexily _increases your chances of sexual assault_. And saying so isn't a crime or an act of patriarchy.
> 
> Ok I get that there may be a broader principle at stake ... so it's about rejecting an attempt at control but its an inconsistant self interested objection. I can't help contrasting it with the reaction Terry Jones Qur'an burning. - does anyone remember anyone saying _"Lets have a huge protest to support this guy because religious offence is never an excuse for murder_"?  Rather it seems like people tried to make him culpable in some way for the deaths of UN staff at the hands of religious nutters. Similarly I see that people in general including some feminist friends I have who I'm sure will be on the march who would not activity defend the right of people they are opposed to to do and say what they want without fear of any unlawful consequences. Rather they would protest about some silly police officer who phrased his well meaning advice badly.


what a lot of bollocks. victims are "asking" for it and should know better should they, whether its an ipod or a rape? "well meaning" my fucking arse, more like well-loaded. 





gavman said:


> what is behind the sexual manipulation? my theory
> she was a premature baby, not expected to survive. throughout childhood she had bad asthma, still does...but smokes 20 fags / day
> her parents used to sleep in shifts in case she had an attack. i believe that she only felt important when she was at the centre of some massive trauma or cause for concern- in fact i think that was the only way she knew how to live


wtf that has to do with the drivel you posted previously is beyond me. i've been in some quite abusive relationships - thankfully, i think i have managed to move on and retain an objective view of the world i hope, something i would heartily recommend. your honour, i give you:

_"i believe that women should be able to dress how they like. but sometimes they dress to provoke a reaction and that reaction cannot be guaranteed to be one that they like.
personally i would never go out with another girl who dresses or acts like a slut- too much grief from other men."_


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 12, 2011)

Liberate the term


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Can see Ymu's point entirely. However I do think there is a precarious link being made about women  in public, dressing as they please and casual sex. Which kinda goes against the point of the march IMO.
> 
> Those talking about casual sex seem to be speaking from the perspective that a women has the right and reason to engage in casual sex without being called x, y, or z..which is true of course.



I'm reacting to people tutting about the name and thinking they can pass judgement on what _anyone_ chooses to do in private with consenting adults.

And no, it doesn't go against the point. I was 22 when it became illegal for a man to rape his wife, and past sexual history is considered relevant in court if a woman reports being raped. We're not so very far from assuming that yes once means yes always and I'm sick to the back teeth of moralists who endanger women with their fucked up attitudes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What does a *slut* dress like?



I'm sure it's subjective. From a male POV I mean and what the word means to that person and the image that goes with it.

Normal men see women as women.

Don't make me define normal lol.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm reacting to people tutting about the name and thinking they can pass judgement on what _anyone_ chooses to do in private with consenting adults.
> 
> And no, it doesn't go against the point. I was 22 when it became illegal for a man to rape his wife, and past sexual history is considered relevant in court if a woman reports being raped. We're not so very far from assuming that yes once means yes always and I'm sick to the back teeth of moralists who endanger women with their fucked up attitudes.


 

I don't disagree with you ymu...I can see where Minnies question came from though too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Don't make me define normal lol.


 
Oh I think you should...just for old times sake a least...we haven't butted heads in ages...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh I think you should...just for old times sake a least...we haven't butted heads in ages...



Well............. My hairstyle is more normal than yours.....................


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Well............. My hairstyle is more normal than yours.....................


 
Oh really?  

Do you still have the Rutita klaxon?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Do you still have the Rutita klaxon?



I would define 'normal' by anyone's standards as what any one person sees and identifies with; with regularity.

I see my hair more than anyone else's therefore, ergo thus...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 12, 2011)

Do you still have much hair then? On your head I mean.


----------



## XR75 (Jun 12, 2011)

stephj said:


> Aspire to be like him?



Where is the protest for people wearing wacky clothes do they not care about the violence towards those indulging in kerrrrazy antics.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 12, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Oh sorry, yeah, its not a moral judgement it just *bores you*.


 

So being bored is a moral judgement?



I don't have to listen to / read about other people's sex lives if I don't want to and I find it tedious to do so.  There's other things I would rather do. 

Do you inhabit some weird universe where people are obliged to get excited about other people's sex lives, and if they don't they are being judgemental?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 12, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> What those who bang on about it wished they're missus wore*
> 
> * but only when they could see them


 
Jodhpurs, riding boots and a hacking jacket?


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 12, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> So being bored is a moral judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why is your opinion about anyone's sex life even on this thread?  It has nothing to do with anything.  If the sex lives of others bores you so much why go to the trouble of posting about it?


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 12, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Why is your opinion about anyone's sex life even on this thread?  It has nothing to do with anything.  If the sex lives of others bores you so much why go to the trouble of posting about it?


 
Because I'm entitled to my opinion and posting opinions is what people do on the internet.

As I said before I wouldn't dream of telling people what they should or shouldn't do, but FFS spare me the details of going on and on about it. 

I find people going on and on about what drugs they took incredibly tedious too.  

People attempting to police threads is another thing I find incredibly boring. 

See - wonders of the internet - posting opinions is allowed.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 12, 2011)

For anyone who can't figure it out...

2 subjects:

a) Women dressing any way they want
b) Casual sex

Thread is about a)

a) is not related to b)

Bringing up b) in discussion about a) does tend to imply some intended relation between the two, even if not intentional, this in turn can suggest some moral judgement.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 12, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> For anyone who can't figure it out...
> 
> 2 subjects:
> 
> ...


it's like pulling teeth sometimes eh?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 13, 2011)

I'm sure someone's mentioned this, but if a man gets raped, is it down to his clothing?


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 13, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> For anyone who can't figure it out...
> 
> 2 subjects:
> 
> ...


 

Of course women can dress any way they want.

However if anyone here is suggesting that walking down the street in your underwear will not result in unwanted attention they are living in cloud cuckoo land. 

I have a right to leave my front door open all day long if I want and it doesn't mean that people are entitled to come inside and help themselves to my stuff.  However, the world being what it is, and people being what they are, if I do leave my front door open all day long and go out all day I should not be too surprised if I return to a home stripped of valuables. 

A young woman who is a neighbour of mine enjoys strolling around in a basque, stockings and suspenders and high heels.  

I got talking to her in Tescos after, dressed in the above manner, she went shopping and attracted unwanted attention.  I walked half way back to her home just to make sure she didn't get raped or attacked.  

Since then I have gotten to know her a little bit and we often chat if we see each other in the street.  She is a very sweet and innocent young woman who has no idea of the reaction she causes in others.  She likes alternative music and rubber / plastic clothing and while I agree that she is entitled to wear what she wants I worry about her safety as she occasionally strolls around on her own in high heels and lingerie.  She has no martial arts skills and even if she did these would be compromised by wearing 6" stilettos that she can hardly walk in let alone fight in.  

I am not suggesting that women who wear very little clothing in public are asking to be raped, obviously, but I think there is a collective denial here about the fact that some young women do make themselves vulnerable to harassment simply by how they dress.  

FWIW I identify with this young woman to some extent as when I was a teenager I wore incredibly sexy clothes (although I didn't realise it at the time - I just wanted to look attractive) and I experienced continual harassment from men. 

The fact is that young women who were sexually abused as children, as I was, do sometimes dress in an overtly sexual way and do not really comprehend that they are doing this.  Young women whose mothers did not honour their feminine gender identity also IME have a tendency to dress in an overtly sexualised way, simply because they struggle with not knowing how to express themselves and their femininity. 

Of course none of this means that these young women are "asking for it".   On the contrary sexual harassment is the last thing they need.  Obviously. 

I just don't really think that marching for the right to dress in underwear in public is the most constructive use of my time.  I also don't really buy the idea of "reclaiming" the word slut.  

I don't begrudge others having fun by going on marches like this one if they want to, I just sense that there is a manic subtext to the discourse of "slutwalk" in which important issues relating sexual abuse and gender identity are denied.

I have to honestly say that I do not understand why miss minnie is so excited about wanting to separate the issues of slutwalk and sexual behaviour.  

If they have to be kept separate in threads (a bizarre concept IMO) then why does ymu keep spamming her blog here?  I only read the short except that she posted here but it seems to be all about her own sex life and sexual behaviour.  

Is it that people can talk about women's clothing and slutwalk (which by its very name has associations of sexual behaviour, whether it's reclaiming the word or whatever) providing that they are promoting a blog about their sex life but not if they want to comment on the blog or on sex generally?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 13, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> I am not suggesting that women who wear very little clothing in public are asking to be raped, obviously, but I think there is a collective denial here about the fact that some young women do make themselves vulnerable to harassment simply by how they dress.



that's exactly what you're suggesting




> I don't begrudge others having fun by going on marches like this one if they want to, I just sense that there is a manic subtext to the discourse of "slutwalk" in which important issues relating sexual abuse and gender identity are denied.



im not sure someone who advocates genital groping to stop evil transsexuals going into lesbian clubs and raping women is particularly well qualified to talk about issues relating to sexual abuse and gender identity


----------



## IC3D (Jun 13, 2011)

I went along to check out all the hawt sluts on Saturday and was pretty impressed by the main organiser, who is 17 it must be said. her speech focused on the role blame and guilt play in sexual politics and personally I feel that our broader culture is interwoven and restricted by it. Then there was a sex workers group calling for legalisation and I could only hear one feminist tutting, all said it felt like young people doing what they do best in putting fresh energy into the slightly hackneyed feminism of older generations.


----------



## past caring (Jun 13, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Of course women can dress any way they want.
> 
> However if anyone here is suggesting that walking down the street in your underwear will not result in unwanted attention they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
> 
> *I have a right to leave my front door open all day long if I want and it doesn't mean that people are entitled to come inside and help themselves to my stuff.  However, the world being what it is, and people being what they are, if I do leave my front door open all day long and go out all day I should not be too surprised if I return to a home stripped of valuables. *



I've recently had a fortnight's holiday in a part of the UK where leaving the front - and back/side - door open all the time is the norm. Even when you're not there. People living there made a point of it, in fact. Took a day or two for it to sink in/get used to it, of course, but it did bring home to me quite sharply how much we have lost/how things could be.

Were a community where it is not currently possible to live in this way to suddenly ask "Well why not?" and to begin organising to change things, would you dismiss their efforts as hopelessly naive and doomed to failure?

Why should communities accept burglary as a fact of life?

Why should women accept sexual harassment as a natural fact?


----------



## han (Jun 13, 2011)

past caring said:


> Why should communities accept burglary as a fact of life?
> 
> Why should women accept sexual harassment as a natural fact?



Hear hear!
(were you in Cornwall, perchance?)


----------



## IC3D (Jun 13, 2011)

NO WOMEN, NO PEACE. SPEECH AT SLUTWALK


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2011)

Photos from the march here:
http://www.urban75.org/blog/london-slutwalk-2011-full-photo-report/


----------



## Balbi (Jun 13, 2011)

Liz Jones was there and apparently it's all about class.

Daily Heil: The mouth that roared.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 13, 2011)

past caring said:


> Why should communities accept burglary as a fact of life?
> 
> Why should women accept sexual harassment as a natural fact?



Burglaries are a fact of life if you live in London.  To avoid being burgled you have to either lock your doors and windows or move to an area where you can leave your door open all day long. 

You can join neighbourhood watch, you can get involved in all sort of local community crime prevention activities, but you can't prevent burglaries in London by leaving your door open all day and just refusing to accept burglaries,    It will not work as a crime prevention strategy. 

Of course women should not accept harassment as a natural fact.  However just having a mental state of not accepting harassment while dressed in lingerie and high heels in public will not work as a harassment prevention strategy.

I personally do not think that women should be harassed and sexually assaulted just because they dress in a sexually provocative manner.  However I am painfully aware that no everyone in the world shares my opinion and that there are men out there who will harass women if they are dressed provocatively.  Pretending that this is not so is not helpful to anyone. 

If it was true that women could walk around in their underwear freely without fear of harassment then the world would be a better place, but it just simply isn't like that.  

And before anyone gets all excited I'm well aware that rapists rape women who are wearing all kinds of clothes, not just women who wear skimpy little dresses.  

It is a matter of thinking about the best strategy for avoiding trouble.  Not dressing provocatively and wearing shoes you can run / kick in makes for a good strategy IMO.  if you really, really want to wear provocative clothing then learn to fight so that you can deal with trouble as and when it arises.  

Walking around in a tiny dress whilst teetering on high heels is leaving yourself extremely vulnerable to assault.  Denying the reality that we live in a dangerous city (well I do) and that there are plenty of rapists, perverts and drunk gropers around is also unhelpful.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 13, 2011)




----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 13, 2011)

smokedout said:


> that's exactly what you're suggesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's not what I'm suggesting at all. 

At no point have I ever advocated genital groping of anyone.  I stopped taking part in that thread because of lots of hysterical people were making incorrect assumptions about all kinds of things I was supposed to have said / endorsed but had in fact not said / endorsed.   It is actually pretty tedious that you keep dredging it up and following me around misquoting me.  

I'm putting you on ignore because life's too short


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

The issue isn't about women deliberately dressing in a sexually provocative manner.  It isn't about a woman's right to walk down the street in lingerie.

Its about the judgements made in the minds of observers who apply their own rules to the attire of the woman they are observing and then attach moral judgements about what the wearer 'deserves'.

A tight t-shirt.
A plunging neckline.
A bare midriff.
Tight jeans.
Hem above the knees.
High heels.
A uniform.

All of the above can be construed as being 'sexually provocative' by an observer depending on his or her particular set of values.

Of course we all know that danger exists.  Harassment and violent assault doesn't even need provocation in the form of behaviour or attire.

The main issue is that if harassment or assault occurs, the default attitude should be that the attire of the victim is not an issue.  She is not to blame.  She did not force the perpetrator to assault or harass her.  She may have been naive, foolish or indeed very stupid in her choice of attire but the default reaction to naivety, foolishness or stupidity should not be harassment and/or violence and the default attitude from observers should not be "she deserved it".


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 13, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> The issue isn't about women deliberately dressing in a sexually provocative manner.  It isn't about a woman's right to walk down the street in lingerie.
> 
> Its about the judgements made in the minds of observers who apply their own rules to the attire of the woman they are observing and then attach moral judgements about what the wearer 'deserves'.
> 
> ...



agreed

I have been harassed while wearing tight, clingy clothing, even though I am very much covered up in it. Different things mean "provocative" to different people, granted. 

Just for example here is a photo that looks a little bit like the way that my neighbour often dresses.  She would only wear black red and purple and never platforms, but the level of provocativeness is fairly similar. 






Now clearly this young woman does not deserve to be raped or harassed because of what she chooses to wear, but it is inevitable that sooner or later, going about dressed like this, she is going to get harassed and possibly molested. 




miss minnie said:


> The main issue is that if harassment or assault occurs, the default attitude should be that the attire of the victim is not an issue.  She is not to blame.  She did not force the perpetrator to assault or harass her.  She may have been naive, foolish or indeed very stupid in her choice of attire but the default reaction to naivety, foolishness or stupidity should not be harassment and/or violence and the default attitude from observers should not be "she deserved it".



This is where it gets complex because of course while only a rampant misogynist would claim that she was "asking for it" if she did get harassed, one would expect any good friends of this girl who cared about her to invite her to consider her safety before going out alone dressed in such a way. 

By all means go on as many protests as you like and denounce rapists and gropers but I think that it should be possible to invite women to consider their personal safety when deciding what to wear without being accused of blaming the victim. 

If I had my way all young women would be trained in martial arts from a young age and would be able to give a good account of themselves should any passing pervert decide to assault or harass them.  

Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen any time soon, so for now women and girls and actually men and boys too, need to think and take care of themselves.  Taking responsible actions to prevent harassment and sexual assault is not victim blaming it is empowering.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

If I had my way there would be much, much more education of both sexes in respect of the laws regarding harassment and violence.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 13, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> If I had my way there would be much, much more education of both sexes in respect of the laws regarding harassment and violence.


 
Do you think education about the law would make a difference... Lots of things are illegal, but people still do them. It's about attitudes which must change, which sadly is harder.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> Do you think education about the law would make a difference... Lots of things are illegal, but people still do them. It's about attitudes which must change, which sadly is harder.


It would be a start.  Describing the boundaries between 'flirting', 'having a laugh', 'harassment' and 'assault' for instance.  Discussions about attitudes can be spun off during and after.


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

I grew up somewhere we left the back door unlocked and the keys in the car, for convenience. Anyone who needed the car or was welcome in the house, knew it.

It's how I'd like to be able to conduct my sex life, and mostly do. Any reason I can't ask that everyone can do so safely?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> agreed
> 
> I have been harassed while wearing tight, clingy clothing, even though I am very much covered up in it. Different things mean "provocative" to different people, granted.
> 
> ...


 
why is it 'inevitable'? that word accepts that some men can't control themselves. which is pretty insulting to all of us - not just men.

it's the same kind of thinking that says if you let a blokes sleep in your bed at the end of a date, it's 'inevitable' that one of them will rape you.  It bloody isn't, you know.

girls who dress provokatively so it to feel sexually powerful and attractive. they do it so people will look at them and admire them. that's all. no one then has any right to cross that boundary and touch them. a woman wearing those clothes may invite someone to dance close, or kiss them, or do whatever... but no one has any right to take it further than is being invited.  

this is basic stuff.  and it starts with saying - "no matter how i dress everyone who sees me has a responsibility not to do anything to me that i don't want". and then it continues, critically, by recognising that rapists aren't some homogenous mass  force of nature... but individual people making choices. and further, that rates of rape and sexual assault vary around the world. and the reason they vary is because of the cultural attitudes to women and rape. Not because of what people wear. If you want to make fewer rapes happen, you do it by changing men's attitudes. Not by changing what women are wearing.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Now clearly this young woman does not deserve to be raped or harassed because of what she chooses to wear, but it is inevitable that sooner or later, going about dressed like this, she is going to get harassed and possibly molested.


Not by me, it's not.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I grew up somewhere we left the back door unlocked and the keys in the car, for convenience. Anyone who needed the car or was welcome in the house, knew it.
> 
> It's how I'd like to be able to conduct my sex life, and mostly do. Any reason I can't ask that everyone can do so safely?


Yes, two in fact.

Its condescending.
Its completely beside the point and has nothing to do with the issue that Slutwalk is based on.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Photos from the march here:
> http://www.urban75.org/blog/london-slutwalk-2011-full-photo-report/


 

Isn't there anything the trots won't leave alone?


----------



## trashpony (Jun 13, 2011)

FFS loulou I thought better of you


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

Well said, Spangles!

I realise I've pissed off loads of people splurging my sex life all over the boards, but I've also had some support from surprising quarters. I have personal reasons for writing publicly about it, but spamming it here is not pure exhibitionism. A lot of people struggle with the issues I'm trying to explore. People with very different sex lives to me, an' all.

Fed up with sex being such a fucking battleground.


----------



## petee (Jun 13, 2011)

men have feelings too, y'know, and it's not clear to me why anyone should claim a right to create a situation where "they" "must" "control themselves". what is the corollary for women?  



> girls who dress provokatively so it to feel sexually powerful and attractive. they do it so people will look at them and admire them.



so it's a power assertion and control attempt. is this open to guys too? can men also attempt to assert their power and control in a way of their choosing? 

the goal of course should be a situation where no-one, of either sex and in any way, is in a position to assert power and/or control. a long way off perhaps, and maybe not 100% obtainable as people are neither robots nor (in general) hermits, and what that canadian cop said was pretty superficial, but it's getting a pretty superficial response.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> why is it 'inevitable'? that word accepts that some men can't control themselves. which is pretty insulting to all of us - not just men.


 
Sadly, some men just cant. Some men cant stop drinking beer, Some men cant stop ogling women and making comments, Some men cant stop fucking kids. Some men cant stop fighting. Some men cant stop stealing. Some men are just horrible *horrible* cunts.

The fact that other people have to adjust their lifestyle to compensate for these people is the saddest thing. I totally understand what LouLouBelle is saying. As a bloke myself, and a father of a 3 year old girl, I would like to think that I am a well adjusted, sensible, mature(ish) man. But if someone walked down the road dressed in their underwear (or actually, to be completely shallow, if they walked down the road with a fantastic pair of tits, nice arse, slim waist, pretty face etc) then I will have a sneaky look. Its what men do. Any man who denies it is a liar. It doesnt make me a potential rapist, it just means that I can spot a pretty woman, a sexy walk or a great pair of tits. its hard wired into me, and to apologise for it is just a worthless excercise.

The difference is though, is that real men can appreciate the beauty of the person (and after all thats what fashion etc is about - making yourself look good for yourself and for others), and the cunts just look at the person as a partially wrapped portion of meat that can be used as they wish.

People, all people. have a scum element to them. Even all of us. The difference is that most of the time we can control it. It annoys me that people cant wear what they like without being judged (which is the wider issue - look at how Bizarre magazine does their 'Dare To Be Different' campaign), but sadly its a characteristic that has been with us for 2000 year of culture. It will only change via peoples attitudes to other people changing, and not necessarily men; women tend to be much more vitriolic about how other women dress.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

petee said:


> so it's a power assertion and control attempt. is this open to guys too? can men also attempt to assert their power and control in a way of their choosing?


As long as mens' choosing doesn't hurt anyone else, of course they can primp, preen, strut and flirt as much as they like.  As long as everyone respects boundaries all should be safe and well.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

petee said:


> men have feelings too, y'know, and it's not clear to me why anyone should claim a right to create a situation where "they" "must" "control themselves". what is the corollary for women?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
eh?

it's perfectly possible to ignore a woman dressed provocatively. it doesn't effect control in anyone other than those who willingly buy into it.  and men do it too.  different men do it in different ways (just like women) - perhaps the male version of dressing skimpily is to flash the cash,  brag about the car, offer to buy drinks etc. and it would be ridiculous to maintain that in doing so women are being controlled - because they can choose not to have a drink bought for them... not to play the game. but it's these men trying to feel sexually powerful and attractive, just the same.


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

Women ogle men, and sexually harrass them too. It's not an either or.

It's just that the average physical power difference means that women are more easily and more often overpowered, the asymmetry of sex allows a woman to be raped when not physically ready for it, and patriarchy encourages men to think of us as property.

And men like petee seem to think sexual violence is a reasonable response to provocative dress. Which is pretty fucked up. I see a peachy arse or incredible torso every other day, and manage to keep my hands, and cunt, to myself. Go figure.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> Sadly, some men just cant. Some men cant stop drinking beer, Some men cant stop ogling women and making comments, Some men cant stop fucking kids. Some men cant stop fighting. Some men cant stop stealing. Some men are just horrible *horrible* cunts.
> 
> The fact that other people have to adjust their lifestyle to compensate for these people is the saddest thing. I totally understand what LouLouBelle is saying. As a bloke myself, and a father of a 3 year old girl, I would like to think that I am a well adjusted, sensible, mature(ish) man. But if someone walked down the road dressed in their underwear (or actually, to be completely shallow, if they walked down the road with a fantastic pair of tits, nice arse, slim waist, pretty face etc) then I will have a sneaky look. Its what men do. Any man who denies it is a liar. It doesnt make me a potential rapist, it just means that I can spot a pretty woman, a sexy walk or a great pair of tits. its hard wired into me, and to apologise for it is just a worthless excercise.
> 
> ...


 
why do you think the prevalence of rape changes in different parts of the world? are south african men, for example, biologically less capable of controlling themselves?


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 13, 2011)

I dont know spangles. I'm not an expert. Was just giving my opinion


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 13, 2011)

There is a massive difference between noticing someone is attractive ad going damn he/she is hot and thinking that gives you the right to grope them without permission. It is just as distasteful when women do it to men because it shows lack of respect for that person and their physical boundaries.


----------



## petee (Jun 13, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> As long as mens' choosing doesn't hurt anyone else, of course they can primp, preen, strut and flirt as much as they like.  As long as everyone respects boundaries all should be safe and well.


the attempt to create desire as a means of power expression/behavior control is a form of hurt. and, it's not up to you to dictate to men the terrain on which they choose their expression, any more than it's up to men to dictate to women etc. "of course they can ..." is pure sexism.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> I dont know spangles. I'm not an expert. Was just giving my opinion


 
i assume you don't *know* nor do i... but why do you *think*?

because it seems fairly obvious, that if men in different cultures are more or less likely to rape, then if we can change the culture that surrounds men, we can reduce the numbers of rapes. there may well be psychopaths frothing at the mouth grunting 'rape-stab-mummy' and lurching dickwards at the nearest miniskirt with no control over their actions - but most people allowed out on the streets are capable of making choices about things. 

by far the majority of convicted rapists are not criminally insane. which means they could have controlled themselves but they chose not to. if a person can make choices, then surely society can have an effect on them?  that would seem to be borne out by the south africa thing.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 13, 2011)

We all need to be educated, not just men. I find it sad that some women accept men groping them on nights out, even giggle like it was a compliment.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> We all need to be educated, not just men. I find it sad that some women accept men groping them on nights out, even giggle like it was a compliment.


 
true - although if you want a specific man (or even a group of men) to grope you, there's fuck all wrong with that. but if a bloke comes up behind you and out of the blue stick his hand up your skirt, and you just giggle and call him cheeky... it sends a very damaging message to men. you can't approve behaviour on behalf of other women.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> i assume you don't *know* nor do i... but why do you *think*?
> 
> because it seems fairly obvious, that if men in different cultures are more or less likely to rape, then if we can change the culture that surrounds men, we can reduce the numbers of rapes. there may well be psychopaths frothing at the mouth grunting 'rape-stab-mummy' and lurching dickwards at the nearest miniskirt with no control over their actions - but most people allowed out on the streets are capable of making choices about things.
> 
> by far the majority of convicted rapists are not criminally insane. which means they could have controlled themselves but they chose not to. if a person can make choices, then surely society can have an effect on them?  that would seem to be borne out by the south africa thing.


 
I wouldnt like to suggest that anyone of a paticular ethnic group or culture was more inclined to rape, or even verbally abuse, someone of the opposite sex. In the same way that there are minorities in all aspects of life (football, sports, politics, bar culture etc) there are those that everyone pays attention to because of their inability to control themselves - even though everyone else seems to be able to manage too. The upshot of what we are talking about on this thread is much more psychologically (and possibly physically) damaging.

I'll say it again. There are some proper cunts in this world who spoil everything for everyone. But there are many more nice people. I prefer to concentrate on them (whilst keeping a watchful eye out )


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> true - although if you want a specific man (or even a group of men) to grope you, there's fuck all wrong with that. but if a bloke comes up behind you and out of the blue stick his hand up your skirt, and you just giggle and call him cheeky... it sends a very damaging message to men. you can't approve behaviour on behalf of other women.


 
Yeah I didn't explain myself very well. What I mean is that when one woman accepts it it can make the man think it is ok. Personally I would slap them and verbally reprimand them and have done plenty of times. I probably sound really judgmental but I think the women who act like it's ok do the rest of us no favours.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> I wouldnt like to suggest that anyone of a paticular ethnic group or culture was more inclined to rape, or even verbally abuse, someone of the opposite sex. In the same way that there are minorities in all aspects of life (football, sports, politics, bar culture etc) there are those that everyone pays attention to because of their inability to control themselves - even though everyone else seems to be able to manage too. The upshot of what we are talking about on this thread is much more psychologically (and possibly physically) damaging.
> 
> I'll say it again. There are some proper cunts in this world who spoil everything for everyone. But there are many more nice people. I prefer to concentrate on them (whilst keeping a watchful eye out )


 
but the cunts are cunts because (in the overwhelming majority of cases) they choose to be. most rapists are sane and in control of themselves. they just choose to put their own wants over the rights of another person.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> by far the majority of convicted rapists are not criminally insane. which means they could have controlled themselves but they chose not to. if a person can make choices, then surely society can have an effect on them?  that would seem to be borne out by the south africa thing.


 
Just to pick up on this part, I totally agree. However, how many times have you normally been able to control yourself, but on that one occassion been unale to? I'm not just talking about abuse blah blah, but anything - buying something in a shop when you went in previously and didnt buy buy it? Having that extra drink? That last piece of cake? 

We are all guilty of the capability of having control, and we are all capable of losing that control, even momentarily. What disturbs me is that so many people look all presentable on the outside, but then let themselves down once because of weakness. And then we find out what they go up to behind closed doors. People are by nature, just fucking wierd. So many foibles and weaknesses and fantasies and ideals and dreams. All of us different. Nearly all of us manage to contain it when we are out in public, but when we are at home and can be ourselves, then its a different matter. And its when the "real" person - the person who is the person they are at home, seeps into the public persona of themselves, thats when the problem arises. 

I know what I am trying to say, but I dont think i have explained it properly. its like - none of us live our public lives in the same way that we live our private lives. And if you get them mixed up, then there's a problem. And quite often a court case too


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> but the cunts are cunts because (in the overwhelming majority of cases) they choose to be. most rapists are sane and in control of themselves. they just choose to put their own wants over the rights of another person.


 
Sorry spangles, I'm aware that suddenly its a conversation between you and me! 

I dont think these people have the capability to even realise that they have the choice. Its just a pavlovian reaction, developed via their parents and peers. I find it hard to think that there are people who would deliberately be a cunt, just cos they could. That would mean they have a massive moral void. Although....jeez, this is an impossible subject to talk about online. We need a montly Urban debating society or something!


----------



## pk (Jun 13, 2011)

Kind of split on this issue. Women should be wearing what the fuck they like, but they will be judged on their choices. That's life. They'll be judged more harshly by the females than the males too.

Dressing like this is asking for trouble: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Main reason is - the girl looks like a porn star, and it's the permissive style of dressing that makes the connection in many mens (and womens) minds that the wearer is blatantly inviting sexual attention. Whether this is to do with porn itself, in that women dressing this way usually precludes hardcore sexual acts in the minds of porn users, or whether it's the exposing of upper thigh that makes it a suggestive thing I don't know.

But unless the girl had extensive martial arts training I would worry for her safety if she were out alone dressed like this.

And changing attitudes is all but impossible on the whole, made harder because of even more sexist attitudes being imported in the last couple of decades from ethnic communities.

I applaud the reasoning behind the Slutwalks, though I don't like the idea that very young women identify with the word "slut" as something to be celebrated, and I do like the notion that police officers are being ridiculed for saying stupid shit whilst in uniform (that other slutty dress-up kit!) but we as a society should be very careful about what we choose to uphold in the name of freedom. IMO.


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

In the more conservative parts of Palestine, the closest cultural equivalent to a youth hostel is a brothel. Middle-Eastern men tend to assume Western women are available because they have no other framework for understanding promiscuity.

It's about communication and mutual respect, innit.


----------



## pk (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Middle-Eastern men tend to assume Western women are available because they have no other framework for understanding promiscuity.


 
They see Madonna and Rihanna on the TV and assume all Western women are like this - and such attitudes are reinforced by the imams.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> Just to pick up on this part, I totally agree. However, how many times have you normally been able to control yourself, but on that one occassion been unale to? I'm not just talking about abuse blah blah, but anything - buying something in a shop when you went in previously and didnt buy buy it? Having that extra drink? That last piece of cake?
> 
> We are all guilty of the capability of having control, and we are all capable of losing that control, even momentarily. What disturbs me is that so many people look all presentable on the outside, but then let themselves down once because of weakness. And then we find out what they go up to behind closed doors. People are by nature, just fucking wierd. So many foibles and weaknesses and fantasies and ideals and dreams. All of us different. Nearly all of us manage to contain it when we are out in public, but when we are at home and can be ourselves, then its a different matter. And its when the "real" person - the person who is the person they are at home, seeps into the public persona of themselves, thats when the problem arises.
> 
> I know what I am trying to say, but I dont think i have explained it properly. its like - none of us live our public lives in the same way that we live our private lives. And if you get them mixed up, then there's a problem. And quite often a court case too


 
there is a massive difference between having another biscuit or three, and raping someone... and that's why it's ok to condemn one and not the other.  we find it hard to contol our mostly harmless impulses, but people are much better at controlling their worst ones.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 13, 2011)

The idea that raping someone is the result of some sort of loss of self-control is an extremely worrying one in terms of what it assumes - that basically, rape is great and you'd do it if there were no consequences (you know, like eating biscuits) but normally you tell yourself it's a bad idea and don't. But you know, sometimes, you might forget yourself and have a little rape. We're all human eh.


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

pk said:


> They see Madonna and Rihanna on the TV and assume all Western women are like this - and such attitudes are reinforced by the imams.


 
It's not OK to grope Maddonna or Rhianna either.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The idea that raping someone is the result of some sort of loss of self-control is an extremely worrying one in terms of what it assumes - that basically, rape is great and you'd do it if there were no consequences (you know, like eating biscuits) but normally you tell yourself it's a bad idea and don't. But you know, sometimes, *you might forget yourself and have a little rape*. We're all human eh.


 
Sorry but


----------



## pk (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not OK to grope Maddonna or Rhianna either.


 
I wouldn't want to grope Madonna in a million years.


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The idea that raping someone is the result of some sort of loss of self-control is an extremely worrying one in terms of what it assumes - that basically, rape is great and you'd do it if there were no consequences (you know, like eating biscuits) but normally you tell yourself it's a bad idea and don't. But you know, sometimes, you might forget yourself and have a little rape. We're all human eh.


 
That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)

It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The idea that raping someone is the result of some sort of loss of self-control is an extremely worrying one in terms of what it assumes - that basically, rape is great and you'd do it if there were no consequences (you know, like eating biscuits) but normally you tell yourself it's a bad idea and don't. But you know, sometimes, you might forget yourself and have a little rape. We're all human eh.


 
really good point. i get so blinkered addressing specific points and analogies, and i forget to ask myself if the whole direction of the thing holds water.


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

pk said:


> I wouldn't want to grope Madonna in a million years.


Oh, well. That's OK then. As long as we all know she's not good enough for you.

No groping Rhianna just because you consider her worthy of you, now.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The idea that raping someone is the result of some sort of loss of self-control is an extremely worrying one in terms of what it assumes - that basically, rape is great and you'd do it if there were no consequences *(you know, like eating biscuits)* but normally you tell yourself it's a bad idea and don't. But you know, sometimes, you might forget yourself and have a little rape. We're all human eh.


 
Fridge you bad, bad man


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> there is a massive difference between having another biscuit or three, and raping someone... and that's why it's ok to condemn one and not the other.  we find it hard to contol our mostly harmless impulses, but people are much better at controlling their worst ones.


 
There is for you, and for me, and for most people. but not for everyone. Look at that 20 year old who last week was arrested for 47 counts of paedophlic related charges. And he worked in a nursery.

FWIW - I think that we are 2 or 3 generations away from finding an equilibrium. Its a little bit like racial equality/awareness. Anything like this is essentially educated through the family. Say, 5 generations ago, mixed race relationships started, and were met with a massive amount of hostility. Over time, families within these relationships started to realise that it wasnt a big deal, and so educated their own families in the same way. Now, 4 generations down the line we have mixed primary schools where the kids dont really notice the colour of their friends. We are still another couple of generations away from full acceptance (until the grandparents or older members of families pass on and take their prejudices with them).

The difference  is that these days racial integration is on the whole (and I know that small towns and suburbs etc are the exception) encouraged, and this will expedite the integration.

With what we are talking about, the values are only 3 generations old, maybe less. My nan was brought up to believe that she was the homemaker and that my grandad was the breadwinner. She would do the cleaning and cooking etc. He would bring in the money. She taught my mum her values. My mums values were diluted by my fathers values when they met and married. They bought me up under their values. My values consequently were diluted by mixing with my wifes values, and more importantly, a cultural shift in society as to womens roles. I will bring my kids up with my values, and they will be diluted by whoever they marry. I cant stop that, but I can obviously bring my kids up to treat everyone with respect. Except for ginger people of course.

If my values were to be a man about town in public, but then shout at my wife in front of my little boy at home, to watch him grow up and describe woman as tarts and sluts, to congratulate him for banging a brass, to demean women as thick, to point of fat birds in front of him etc (and lets face it - it does happen) then that boy will grow up thinking the same.

As such, we are at least three generations away from proper equality due to historic values and education from within the family unit. But people like you and I can help to change this, just by being proper, normal decent people. Sadly people like this are in the minority, especially at the moment with all the economic pressures etc on our shoulders - being a good person and citizen goes out the window when the priority is to pay the bills; we'll do what we have to do to make suer we get by, and *then* we'll start being good people again.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

petee said:


> the attempt to create desire as a means of power expression/behavior control is a form of hurt. and, it's not up to you to dictate to men the terrain on which they choose their expression, any more than it's up to men to dictate to women etc. "of course they can ..." is pure sexism.


The attempt to create desire is as old as our genes.  My dictation amounts to no more than saying 'don't hurt anyone' to both sexes.


----------



## pk (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, well. That's OK then. As long as we all know she's not good enough for you.



It's not that she's "not good enough", it's because the act of groping her would somehow justify her existence.

And her bingo-wings would make me feel a little ill. And she's a twat, basically, not a nice lady at all.



> No groping Rhianna just because you consider her worthy of you, now.


 
I'm not sure I consider her worthy of me, I don't much like her nasal voice and crappy pop songs. But she's good looking.

Unfortunately for her I'm not into groping women, even if invited to do so, unless said woman is the one I elected to spend my life with on a monogamous basis ten years ago.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

pk said:


> ... the girl looks like a porn star, and it's the permissive style of dressing that makes the connection in many mens (and womens) minds that the wearer is blatantly inviting sexual attention. Whether this is to do with porn itself, in that women dressing this way usually precludes hardcore sexual acts in the minds of porn users...


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Of course women can dress any way they want.
> 
> However if anyone here is suggesting that walking down the street in your underwear will not result in unwanted attention they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
> 
> ...


 
very brave post, considering the climate.
i'm not going to undermine your position by saying i agree with you


----------



## pk (Jun 13, 2011)

miss minnie said:


>


 
It's the red bra exposed that does it - like a red rag to a bull. Blink182 hardly being the protectors of the essence of women's rights, her make up and especially red lipstick is at odds with the more practical application from the lady on the right.


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

smokedout said:


> that's exactly what you're suggesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
good grief.
 this is how far we are from being able to discuss this subject sensibly


----------



## pk (Jun 13, 2011)

Can we have a "Skankwalk" next - where participants are expected to strut in a manner comparable to Suggs and his chums from popular beat combo Madness? 

Knickers and bras optional.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 13, 2011)

pk said:


> It's the red bra exposed that does it - like a red rag to a bull. Blink182 hardly being the protectors of the essence of women's rights, her make up and especially red lipstick is at odds with the more practical application from the lady on the right.


Ah yes, the lady on the right is perfectly safe from perverts.



(hint: the sexualisation of uniforms.)


Ever read Kalooki Nights by Howard Jacobson?


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> eh?
> 
> it's perfectly possible to ignore a woman dressed provocatively. it doesn't effect control in anyone other than those who willingly buy into it.  and men do it too.  different men do it in different ways (just like women) - perhaps the male version of dressing skimpily is to flash the cash,  brag about the car, offer to buy drinks etc. and it would be ridiculous to maintain that in doing so women are being controlled - because they can choose not to have a drink bought for them... not to play the game. but it's these men trying to feel sexually powerful and attractive, just the same.


 
so buying someone a drink is exercising power, whereas getting a man to buy you a drink because you are dressed in a way that will excite him isn't?

you also show a fundamental lack of understanding of what excites men and women. male masturbatory aids are almost exclusively visual; porn.
whereas for women it is physical aids such as vibrators or the rabbit. so when women dress provocatively they genuinely don't understand the response they are causing, other than the enjoying free drinks they get bought
 does flashing the cash or bragging about a car actually turn women on? is it a prelude to masturbation when women are by themselves, to imagine flash blokes with lots of money?
 or does this analogy show you haven't understood the power manipulation that is actually taking place?


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Women ogle men, and sexually harrass them too. It's not an either or.
> 
> It's just that the average physical power difference means that women are more easily and more often overpowered, the asymmetry of sex allows a woman to be raped when not physically ready for it, and patriarchy encourages men to think of us as property.
> 
> And men like petee seem to think sexual violence is a reasonable response to provocative dress. Which is pretty fucked up. I see a peachy arse or incredible torso every other day, and manage to keep my hands, and cunt, to myself. Go figure.


 
what is fucked up is all the negative shit you project onto any bloke who disagrees with you


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

Thing is, I mght be straddling some guy's cock in public, and it wouldn't mean every other guy was free to have a poke.

I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to go round havng sex in public, only that my choices do not translate into blanket permissions and I get offended when people assume they do, whether pervy blokes or Victorian moralists.


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

petee said:


> the attempt to create desire as a means of power expression/behavior control is a form of hurt. and, it's not up to you to dictate to men the terrain on which they choose their expression, any more than it's up to men to dictate to women etc. "of course they can ..." is pure sexism.


 
well said. when i'm lonely a gorgeous girl dressed in skimpy clothing is actually painful to behold. it's like twisting a knife and saying 'look, see what you can't have'


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2011)

gavman said:


> well said. when i'm lonely a gorgeous girl dressed in skimpy clothing is actually painful to behold. it's like twisting a knife and saying 'look, see what you can't have'


If you experience pain akin to someone "twisting the knife" every time you see an attractive girl pass by, I'd suggest you may some rather troubling psychological problems to sort out, to be honest.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 13, 2011)

Has anyone pointed out that Petee is a woman, yet?


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)


 
imagine the response this post would get if you were a man


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

Poor little gav and his twisted mind.

Agreed, ed.


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

so of the two of us, one is a rapist trying to impose their way of thinking on everyone else, the other is a confused hermit

i know which i feel happier being


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

Ooh, labels!


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 13, 2011)

I think gavman and ymu should hate fuck.


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

no chance


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

gavman said:


> so buying someone a drink is exercising power, whereas getting a man to buy you a drink because you are dressed in a way that will excite him isn't?
> 
> you also show a fundamental lack of understanding of what excites men and women. male masturbatory aids are almost exclusively visual; porn.
> whereas for women it is physical aids such as vibrators or the rabbit. so when women dress provocatively they genuinely don't understand the response they are causing, other than the enjoying free drinks they get bought
> ...


 
both things are exercising power - but they're only powerful (i believe the word used was 'control[ing]') if you're an interested recipient. If someone doesn't want to be flirted with, they won't find themselves chatting up the skimpily-dressed woman. Or letting the bloke buy them drinks. and yes, some women find blokes who flash cash very much the turn-on. I also know that some blokes don't find women showing lots of flesh attractive. I'm very familiar with the traditional male = visual / female = narrative sexual triggers - there is a huge amount of written pornography which is generally consumed by women. But not all men respond to the same visual triggers, just like not all men prefer glossy american porn (or even enjoy porn at all).

yes some (straight) women fantasise over the kind of bloke they want. and for some that will be money. the whole footballer's wife wannabee type will openly admit that they actively go for rich blokes. others are into creative, tortured muso types... and blokes who are that type often put on their own show - self-consciously playing with power and attraction by gettinga  guitar out at a party, or cornering a girl they think will be interested and spouting philosophy at them. it's all part of the same thing. some people of both genders enjoy putting themselves out their and seeing what power their particular brand of attractiveness will have. and it's entirely harmless. no one is being controlled. if you weren't interested you'd walk away.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

gavman said:


> well said. when i'm lonely a gorgeous girl dressed in skimpy clothing is actually painful to behold. it's like twisting a knife and saying 'look, see what you can't have'


 
jesus, really? you want to make peace with yourself. the world is fuller every day with gorgeous people who are never going to sleep with you. (not just you, obv. it's a universal thing).


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 13, 2011)

gavman said:


> imagine the response this post would get if you were a man


 
yeah. but i don't know where to start, really.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 13, 2011)

A slut well something like this? http://poorlydressed.failblog.org/2011/06/08/fashion-fail-made-from-the-flesh-of-a-thousand-flamingos/


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

It's not something I'm proud of, and Ii wouldn't put it it out there if I wasn't prepared to discuss it. I've been raped in odd circumstances too. I'm trying to frame a discussion that doesn't descend into tribalism, that's all.


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

and that doesn't sound the least bit ironic to you?


----------



## petee (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Poor little gav and his twisted mind.


he's twisted because he notices the calm with which you recount your rape of someone?


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

You're a fucking moron, tbf.


----------



## gavman (Jun 13, 2011)

you know, like the way i was trying to explore the flaws in my own reasoning, caused by my own experiences, before i was accused of everything under the sun


----------



## petee (Jun 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> You're a fucking moron, tbf.


 
i'm a moron because you raped someone?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 13, 2011)

Oh Jesus, it's feeding time at the zoo.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 13, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Oh Jesus, it's feeding time at the zoo.


 
It's not quite that entertaining


----------



## ymu (Jun 14, 2011)

petee said:


> i'm a moron because you raped someone?


You're a moron cos you think provocative dress provides mitigating circumstances for rape. Indeed, you see it as a power-balancing necessity.

I just got a bit carried away cumming whilst fucking my first love, and later fiance.


----------



## gavman (Jun 14, 2011)

i'll try that one in court, then.
'i just got carried away, m'lud'
i'm sure that will satisfy everyone concerned


----------



## gavman (Jun 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> I just got a bit carried away cumming whilst fucking my first love, and later fiance.


 
forgive me, i'm being silly. this is obviously one of those less serious rapes us misogynists like to talk about


----------



## petee (Jun 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> You're a moron cos you think provocative dress provides mitigating circumstances for rape. Indeed, you see it as a power-balancing necessity.


that's a lie and a libel, though its interesting that you feel comfortable doing that too. another poster claimed that dressing 'provokatively' was a power/control act, i pointed out that i wished there was no such opportunity, by anyone against anyone. in fact i explicitly degraded the canadian cop's comments.

otoh getting 'carried away' is sufficient justification for what you yourself called a rape. but really, he probably "wanted it."


----------



## ymu (Jun 14, 2011)

gavman said:


> forgive me, i'm being silly. this is obviously one of those less serious rapes us misogynists like to talk about


 
Where have I not acknowledged responsibility for my own actions, or their seriousness?

You think all rapes are equally upsetting?

When I was raped, he physically tore off my clothes and was inside me before I knew what was happening. But he was doing it in his sleep and I fancied him rotten, so it was a lot more traumatic for him than me as it turned out.

You have a simpliistic, as well as nasty, little mind.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2011)

pk said:


> And her bingo-wings would make me feel a little ill.
> 
> 
> .


 What bingo wings?  Or maybe to you that is an appropriate put down for a woman you don't fancy who actually doesn't have flabby arms but is a little too old for your taste?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 14, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> both things are exercising power - but they're only powerful (i believe the word used was 'control[ing]') if you're an interested recipient. If someone doesn't want to be flirted with, they won't find themselves chatting up the skimpily-dressed woman. Or letting the bloke buy them drinks. and yes, some women find blokes who flash cash very much the turn-on. I also know that some blokes don't find women showing lots of flesh attractive. I'm very familiar with the traditional male = visual / female = narrative sexual triggers - there is a huge amount of written pornography which is generally consumed by women. But not all men respond to the same visual triggers, just like not all men prefer glossy american porn (or even enjoy porn at all).
> 
> yes some (straight) women fantasise over the kind of bloke they want. and for some that will be money. the whole footballer's wife wannabee type will openly admit that they actively go for rich blokes. others are into creative, tortured muso types... and blokes who are that type often put on their own show - self-consciously playing with power and attraction by gettinga  guitar out at a party, or cornering a girl they think will be interested and spouting philosophy at them. it's all part of the same thing. some people of both genders enjoy putting themselves out their and seeing what power their particular brand of attractiveness will have. and it's entirely harmless. no one is being controlled. if you weren't interested you'd walk away.


 
When i was young and used to drink in Cardiff town centre, I've saw many girls skimpied up, getting blokes to buy them drinks and legging it to the next pub to find the next mug. They never had any interest in the blokes other than using them as a free bar. 

They full well knew their power and were abusing it for self interest. 

And no this isn't bitterness at it being done to me. I was never that daft to think solely with my cock and get conned / manipulated, despite the fact we all used to wear suits and got approached a lot as likely well off targets.


----------



## gavman (Jun 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What bingo wings?  Or maybe to you that is an appropriate put down for a woman you don't fancy who actually doesn't have flabby arms but is a little too old for your taste?


 
i'd only previously heard women using the term, and then for comic effect. is it like the n-word, some people can and some people can't?


----------



## gavman (Jun 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Where have I not acknowledged responsibility for my own actions, or their seriousness?
> 
> You think all rapes are equally upsetting?
> 
> ...


 
no, i'm just pointing out that no man could get away with saying what you've said. ken clarke went through the wringer for daring to suggest what you've just said.
and you've accused me of trying to control women's bodies because i wouldn't want to go out with another promiscuous girl, after my previous hideous experience. it just seems there's some shocking doublethink going on, where the same thing matters more depending on the gender of who said it.

 anyway, i have no interest in inhibiting you from working through your demons. i can relate to it, because i was trying to do the same. i will now fuck off from this thread


----------



## ymu (Jun 14, 2011)

Bollocks. I'm saying nothing like what Clarke said. You only think it's the same because you're a simple-minded moron.


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

gavman said:


> forgive me, i'm being silly. this is obviously one of those less serious rapes us misogynists like to talk about


 
Come off it - what ymu is talking about can hardly be classed as "rape" in the conventional sense.


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What bingo wings?  Or maybe to you that is an appropriate put down for a woman you don't fancy who actually doesn't have flabby arms but is a little too old for your taste?



Nope. It's the fact that her bingo wings would make me feel a little ill.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Where have I not acknowledged responsibility for my own actions, or their seriousness?
> 
> You think all rapes are equally upsetting?
> 
> ...


 you were raped and he told you he done it in his sleep? Hun, that sounds like bullshit to me.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 14, 2011)

The SlutWalk has created debate. 
I care little myself but am enjoying reading this so crack on peeps


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2011)

gavman said:


> i'd only previously heard women using the term, and then for comic effect. is it like the n-word, some people can and some people can't?


 
Ask someone who uses either of those words/terms, I don't.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2011)

Gromit said:


> When i was young and used to drink in Cardiff town centre, I've saw many girls skimpied up, getting blokes to buy them drinks and legging it to the next pub to find the next mug. They never had any interest in the blokes other than using them as a free bar.
> 
> They full well knew their power and were abusing it for self interest.
> 
> And no this isn't bitterness at it being done to me. I was never that daft to think solely with my cock and get conned / manipulated, despite the fact we all used to wear suits and got approached a lot as likely well off targets.


 
I totally used to do this  You don't even need to move bars to change the sucker, least I never did. If men want to be stupid enough to buy me a drink so they can chat drunken shit at me in the (little) time it took me to drink it then that's their lookout *shrugs*


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 14, 2011)

Edie said:


> I totally used to do this  You don't even need to move bars to change the sucker, least I never did. If men want to be stupid enough to buy me a drink so they can chat drunken shit at me in the (little) time it took me to drink it then that's their lookout *shrugs*


 
I had two friends that used to ask lads for 20p to get home because they'd missed their bus and needed a cab. They always got tons of cash at the end of the night. One time a lad gave them the entire cab fare £15. I never joined in tho, I was too ashamed.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2011)

That's more like grafting angel 

How old were you when you realised the effect you had on men? I remember being 11 and these two men stopping talking when I walked past in proper late 80s stonewashed tight jeans and a crop top  Think I looked older than I was. One made a comment to his mate and my dad punched him. I thought hold up


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 14, 2011)

I didn't have much effect because I lived in baggy t shirts until I was about 16 when I bought myself a frock from Chelsea Girl. That seemed to do the trick. I didn't really want it tho.


----------



## past caring (Jun 14, 2011)

Edie said:


> I totally used to do this  You don't even need to move bars to change the sucker, least I never did. If men want to be stupid enough to buy me a drink so they can chat drunken shit at me in the (little) time it took me to drink it then that's their lookout *shrugs*



One time, I got a woman who I'd flirted with on holiday to send me a bullseye for the train fare to Manchester so I could go up and see her for the weekend. Spent it down the pub, of course - fucking mug.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I didn't have much effect because I lived in baggy t shirts until I was about 16 when I bought myself a frock from Chelsea Girl. That seemed to do the trick. I didn't really want it tho.


Chelsea girl


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 14, 2011)

That makes you a bit of a cunt tbf


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 14, 2011)

Gromit said:


> When i was young and used to drink in Cardiff town centre, I've saw many girls skimpied up, getting blokes to buy them drinks and legging it to the next pub to find the next mug. They never had any interest in the blokes other than using them as a free bar.



What an absolute disgrace, the impudent hussies.  Probably they spent the money they saved on drink to buy even more "skimpied up" clothing wear.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 14, 2011)

How exactly are blokes 'conned' out of free drinks anyway?  I'm pretty sure they are the ones who are offering and if they see it as some sort of agreement to sleep with them then more fool them.

Saying that I never accept free drinks these days.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 14, 2011)

It's not as if blokes dont get anything out of it. Might go further, might just have a drink with a pretty girl; its win-win.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 14, 2011)

Gromit said:


> When i was young and used to drink in Cardiff town centre, I've saw many girls skimpied up, getting blokes to buy them drinks and legging it to the next pub to find the next mug. They never had any interest in the blokes other than using them as a free bar.
> 
> They full well knew their power and were abusing it for self interest.
> 
> And no this isn't bitterness at it being done to me. I was never that daft to think solely with my cock and get conned / manipulated, despite the fact we all used to wear suits and got approached a lot as likely well off targets.


 
_Skimpied up trollop:_ Hiya handsome, want to buy me a drink?

_Gromit:_ Ha!  You don't fool me with your skimpied-up ways.  If you think I'd spend a penny on your umbrella-stick girlie drink you are sadly mistaken.  How do you think I can afford this suit?  Off to the next pub with you before I summon the slut police.


----------



## ymu (Jun 14, 2011)

Edie said:


> you were raped and he told you he done it in his sleep? Hun, that sounds like bullshit to me.


 
Neither of us knew the diagnosis at the time, it didn't officially exist back then. It terrified him.

It is genuine. My consultant treats it. Sexsomnia - the only valid defence apart from frontal lobe damage, I think. Truly rape, but with no control or intent from the rapist.


----------



## past caring (Jun 14, 2011)

Belushi said:


> It's not as if blokes dont get anything out of it. Might go further, might just have a drink with a pretty girl; its win-win.



Tbh, I am starting to get sick of women coming up to me in boozers and asking - _without offering to buy me a drink first_ - whether I want to go outside/come back to theirs for a quick bunk up.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 14, 2011)

Gromit said:


> When i was young and used to drink in Cardiff town centre, I've saw many girls skimpied up, getting blokes to buy them drinks and legging it to the next pub to find the next mug. They never had any interest in the blokes other than using them as a free bar.
> 
> They full well knew their power and were abusing it for self interest.
> 
> And no this isn't bitterness at it being done to me. I was never that daft to think solely with my cock and get conned / manipulated, despite the fact we all used to wear suits and got approached a lot as likely well off targets.


 
When I was young and used to eat fish and chips, I noticed a lot of scampied-up girls getting blokes in suits to buy them cod in batter, then moving on to the next chip shop.

They had no interest in the men and were just abusing their power.

It made me cry.


----------



## past caring (Jun 14, 2011)

You were just a prawn in their game.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2011)

past caring said:


> You were just a prawn in their game.


----------



## ymu (Jun 14, 2011)

I was a fat teenager, so not only did men never buy me drinks, some of them felt the need to visibly recoil if I was standing anywhere near them. Thankfully, I had a geography teacher who explained that he was with his wife cos she was the fat chick at the party and he knew she'd be easy, so I knew my place from a very young…

I learnt by accident how to get very nice men into bed with humour. Thankfully. Meant I never had to settle for desperate arseholes who need to buy arm candy to boost their egos.

Ooh, look. People use what they have to get what they want. Fancy that.

But, you know. Carry on with the stereotyping. It's shedding much light …


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

past caring said:


> Tbh, I am starting to get sick of women coming up to me in boozers and asking - _without offering to buy me a drink first_ - whether I want to go outside/come back to theirs for a quick bunk up.


 
Rohypnol will sort that.


----------



## past caring (Jun 14, 2011)

There speaks the voice of experience.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 14, 2011)

pk said:


> Rohypnol will sort that.



from saturday's march 

(still uploading the rest to http://www.flickr.com/photos/49586737@N04/sets/72157626838425709/ - mainly banners   )


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> from saturday's march
> 
> (still uploading the rest to http://www.flickr.com/photos/49586737@N04/sets/72157626838425709/ - mainly banners   )


 
She shots, she scores!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 14, 2011)

past caring said:


> One time, I got a woman who I'd flirted with on holiday to send me a bullseye for the train fare to Manchester so I could go up and see her for the weekend. Spent it down the pub, of course - fucking mug.



That was her pension and she needed it to buy a weeks food for her guide dog you bastard.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 14, 2011)

All goes to show that there are as many truths as people.


----------



## past caring (Jun 14, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That was her pension and she needed it to buy a weeks food for her guide dog you bastard.


 
But that one brief flicker of hope - thinking she wasn't yet past it - made the sacrifice worthwhile. 

Or so yer mum tells me.


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

past caring said:


> There speaks the voice of experience.


 
Sorry to bust your bubble, but the only time I ever encountered roofies was when I was spiked in Israel, I drank the missus' drink as well as mine, double dose, and was helped home by her as she was lucky to have refused it.

Nasty business, didn't wake up for over 24 hours and was paralysed for several hours after that.

I caught up with the cunt though, which is why I had to leave the country.

Anyone spiking drinks deserves what they get when caught.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 14, 2011)

so, you "_caught up with the cunt_" did you, and "_had to leave the country_"?

firebomb his gaff or broken bottle in the kisser was it?

surprised your life story hasn't been made into a film tbh with you....


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so, you "_caught up with the cunt_" did you, and "_had to leave the country_"?
> 
> firebomb his gaff or broken bottle in the kisser was it?
> 
> surprised your life story hasn't been made into a film tbh with you....



I fucked his life up. Turned out he had a habit of spiking drinks. If he'd carried out his plan of raping the missus I'd have tortured and killed him and would probably be in a Hebrew jail even now. Rohypnol & me = touchy subject. And yes, I'm a cunt that over reacts. I was pretty traumatised.

Believe what the fuck you want, we've never met so whatever...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> surprised your life story hasn't been made into a film tbh with you....


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

Yeah and that's all you got little Picky... for now...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2011)

pk said:


> Yeah and that's all you got little Picky... for now...


 
yeh you'll be along shortly with another episode from the epsom arsonist fantasy memoirs.

i'm still waiting for you to post my number up btw, or had you forgotten your claim to have it.


----------



## pk (Jun 14, 2011)

True to form, stir up old shit because you have no life. Not derailing the thread for a eunuch like you, ask BA for your number I sent it to him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 14, 2011)




----------



## tufty79 (Jun 14, 2011)

so narrow a title, so wide a thread derailment variety...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2011)

pk said:


> True to form, stir up old shit because you have no life. Not derailing the thread for a eunuch like you, ask BA for your number I sent it to him.


i don't believe you. you don't have a life. if you did you wouldn't have to make such extravagant claims about the interesting things that have happened to you and about fucking people's lives up - evidence or stfu. oh - and if you do have my number, why are you pm'ing it to people the other side of the country from me?


----------



## ymu (Jun 14, 2011)

Well done boys. This thread was somewhat lacking in testosterone, you're right.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well done boys. This thread was somewhat lacking in testosterone, you're right.


 
 Clearly too much _slut walking_ for their liking.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well done boys. This thread was somewhat lacking in testosterone, you're right.


hth


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Can't be letting us think we have any worth beyond their immediate sexual or financial needs, eh? That would be too much for the more fragile male ego to handle.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well done boys. This thread was somewhat lacking in testosterone, you're right.



And said without a hint of irony, too.

Quality.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Care to expand, cos I have had a shit day and I am well up for kicking your sorry little, but no doubt still peachy, arse?


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 15, 2011)

I can't make up my mind properly about what i think of this (Slutwalk).....i totally understand the idea but still find it a bit............dunno......like somewhere in there is the point but it's being obscured with all the talk about clothes etc............



saddens me greatly that here we are in 2011 and STILL talking about what women wear,  how they should/shouldn't behave, look like ffs................


also the irony of using the word slut..............what the fuck does a 'slut' look like and dress like then ? are we seriously accepting that it's still an acceptable term to use against women ??????????? 

it's all a lot of fucking shite


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Slut is pretty unisex these days.

And, as the title suggests, it is not about dress. It refers both to the habitual practice of presenting and treating women as sex objects, regardless of their other role(s), and to the idea that was enshrined in law until 20 years ago and still persists in the legal system to this day, that a woman who has said yes once will necessarily mean yes every time. That when we admit to liking sex, we automatically want any old cock inside us. But really we're only stealing free drinks, so frankly we deserve it. See.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 15, 2011)

> The SlutWalk protests were sparked after a policeman told a group of women students in Toronto, Canada, that they could avoid rape by not dressing like sluts.



20 years ago I took a complaint to the student advisor at my college about a couple of blokes who had started harassing me on a regular basis, specifically making loud and lewd comments about my tits every time they saw me.  The advisor told me that I should take it as a compliment.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Care to expand, cos I have had a shit day and I am well up for kicking your sorry little, but no doubt still peachy, arse?


 
I'd have thought it was plain as day - on a thread where attitudes towards gender, sex and stereotyping were hardly tangential, you saw no irony in explaining behaviour of which you dissaprove as caused by one factor - maleness.

Glad you had a shit day, btw.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> I'd have thought it was plain as day - on a thread where attitudes towards gender, sex and stereotyping were hardly tangential, you saw no irony in explaining behaviour of which you dissaprove as caused by one factor - maleness.
> 
> Glad you had a shit day, btw.


 I've challenged a few inadequates who happen to be male. Care to show where I've objectified or disrespected men simply because they are men? In context now, cos I have plenty of context to chuck back if you wanna fuck with me.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> I've challenged a few inadequates who happen to be male.



And you explained the behaviour of which you dissaproved as being caused by one factor - maleness. What else can "boys" and "testosterone" mean, in context? 



> Care to show where I've objectified or disrespected men simply because they are men? In context now, cos I have plenty of context to chuck back if you wanna fuck with me.



I said nothing about objectifying. The disrespect is obvious though.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

You took a reference to testosterone to mean all men, and presumably all women too seeing as we have it as well, and not to the rather aggressive display of male inadequacy being splurged so utterly inappropriately all over this thread?

That's your best shot at an offensive comment from me, is it?

Given your own comments, just how twisted do you have to be to even pretend to take offence you fucking unreconstructed limp-dicked pathetic little worm.

Cunt off, you fucking child.


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

Woah steady on. He's got a point! For better or worse I do think men are more aggressive cos of testosterone. But actually it IS a bit shit to chuck that in their faces in a derogatory way.

I don't think slut is unisex in Leeds. Slut means prostitute up here. It means EVEN if a nice, normal woman dresses like a prostitute she STILL don't deserve to get raped.

pk I am literally pissing myself laughing at you. What the FUCK?


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> You took a reference to testosterone to mean all men, and presumably all women too seeing as we have it as well, and not to the rather aggressive display of male inadequacy being splurged so utterly inappropriately all over this thread?



Wriggle fucking wriggle. Taken in its context, there's only one reasonable interpretation of your post - not that the behaviour which you were objecting to happened to be coming from men, but that its cause was biology. The exact same linguistic mechanism/shorthand that occurs when men attribute (perceived) irrational behaviour in women to the time of the month, or some other such nonsense. 



> That's your best shot at an offensive comment from me, is it?
> 
> Given your own comments, just how twisted do you have to be to even pretend to take offence you fucking unreconstructed limp-dicked pathetic little worm.
> 
> Cunt off, you fucking child.



Come on then - let's deal with my comments. Because again, within context, I'm confident of being able to defend all of them.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> When i was young and used to drink in Cardiff town centre, I've saw many girls skimpied up, getting blokes to buy them drinks and legging it to the next pub to find the next mug. They never had any interest in the blokes other than using them as a free bar.
> 
> They full well knew their power and were abusing it for self interest.
> 
> And no this isn't bitterness at it being done to me. I was never that daft to think solely with my cock and get conned / manipulated, despite the fact we all used to wear suits and got approached a lot as likely well off targets.


 
_Skimpily-clas trollop:_ Hiya Handsome, want to buy me a drink?

_Gromit:_ Hmmm... alright then, but a half of lager will cost you a blow-job.  I wasn't born yesterday you know.

_S-C T:_ Actually I drink rum and black.

_Gromit:_ Bloody hell, you think every bloke in a suit is made of money.  That'll be at least fifteen minutes of doggie style.

_S-C T:_ And a pack of salt 'n' vinegar.

_Gromit:_ Jesus.  Alright, but you're sleeping in the wet patch. Hey, where are you going...?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> _Skimpily-clas trollop:_ Hiya Handsome, want to buy me a drink?
> 
> _Gromit:_ Hmmm... alright then, but a half of lager will cost you a blow-job.  I wasn't born yesterday you know.
> 
> ...


 
_Skimpily-clas trollop:_  Hiya Handsome, want to buy me a drink?
_Gromit:_ Nah
_Skimpily-clas trollop:_ How about if I push my breasts out a bit more?
_Gromit:_ Nah
_Skimpily-clas trollop:_ What if i rub against you a bit, that never fails.
_Gromit:_ Nah
_Skimpily-clas trollop:_ You must be gay, i'll try that ugly bloke over there, he'll be desperate and so easy to blag.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> _Skimpily-clas trollop:_ Hiya Handsome, want to buy me a drink?
> 
> _Gromit:_ Hmmm... alright then, but a half of lager will cost you a blow-job.  I wasn't born yesterday you know.
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jun 15, 2011)

This is going well  

We need to organise a 'dour blokes in pubs' march, ideally in Soho


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

Badgers said:


> This is going well
> 
> We need to organise a 'dour blokes in pubs' march, ideally in Soho


----------



## Badgers (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


>


 
Don't mock our movement you slut


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Slut is pretty unisex these days.



maybe where you live/socialise but it certainly isn't in the world i inhabit...........never ever heard it used when referring to a man for instance



ymu said:


> And, as the title suggests, it is not about dress. It refers both to the habitual practice of presenting and treating women as sex objects, regardless of their other role(s), and to the idea that was enshrined in law until 20 years ago and still persists in the legal system to this day, that a woman who has said yes once will necessarily mean yes every time. That when we admit to liking sex, we automatically want any old cock inside us. But really we're only stealing free drinks, so frankly we deserve it. See.



yup


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Badgers said:


> This is going well
> 
> We need to organise a 'dour blokes in pubs' march, ideally in Soho


 
So now its dour to want social interaction to take on a platform of genuine mutual respect.

Its not alright to think slut, shes gagging for it, just get a few more drinks down her neck and she's mine.
It is alright to think walking wallet, take him for everything i can whether he is a sleeze or not. 

Is that what you are saying?

Equality when it suits you and not when it doesn't.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> So now its dour to want social interaction to take on a platform of genuine mutual respect.
> 
> Its not alright to think slut, shes gagging for it, just get a few more drinks down her neck and she's mine.
> It is alright to think walking wallet, take him for everything i can whether he is a sleeze or not.
> ...


 
Men have the option of not buying drinks.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Men have the option of not buying drinks.


 
And the option of apparrently being mocked for it on here when they exercise that right.

Are you implying that women don't have the option of not acting slutty to blag drinks?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> And the option of apparrently being mocked for it on here when they exercise that right.
> 
> Are you implying that women don't have the option of not acting slutty to blag drinks?



Grow up you cry baby loser


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2011)

"acting slutty"


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

editor said:


> If you experience pain akin to someone "twisting the knife" every time you see an attractive girl pass by, I'd suggest you may some rather troubling psychological problems to sort out, to be honest.


 
the threshold is rather higher than you are saying here. it hasn't actually happened for several years. i'm not the potential sex attacker your post suggests


----------



## ddraig (Jun 15, 2011)

jesus gromit! 
stop digging man


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> "acting slutty"


 
I haven't even mentioned the classic Thesbian approach (Thespian crossed with lesbian).

Two straight girls snogging each other where as many men as possible can see them. Thats a pure drinks all night move that one.

e.t.a. I'd like to underline the fact I said 'acting' slutty and not 'being' slutty. Putting on an act for the sake of drinks. Often the girls are in full relationships.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2011)

You got some issues.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> the threshold is rather higher than you are saying here. it hasn't actually happened for several years. i'm not the potential sex attacker your post suggests


I'm only commenting on the very words you posted up.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You got some issues.


 
I like people to be and act genuine and not try and take advantage of one another.

If thats issues I'll take it and happily.

Perhaps its considered acceptable in London because of the culture up there. City bouys and WAG wannabes.

I've never liked it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2011)

Way to miss the point.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 15, 2011)

I live in London and I dont think I've ever been asked by a girl to buy her a drink or seen any 'thesbians' although tbf I dont go to that many bars.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I haven't even mentioned the classic Thesbian approach (Thespian crossed with lesbian).
> 
> Two straight girls snogging each other where as many men as possible can see them. Thats a pure drinks all night move that one.
> 
> e.t.a. I'd like to underline the fact I said 'acting' slutty and not 'being' slutty. Putting on an act for the sake of drinks. Often the girls are in full relationships.



Yep. I _hate_ that one I do.  Then there's the old "oral sex on a donkey" trick.  Do it in front of a load of blokes and expect free drinks for a year.

Often the donkeys are in full relationships.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

Belushi said:


> I live in London and I dont think I've ever been asked by a girl to buy her a drink or seen any 'thesbians' although tbf I dont go to that many bars.


 
i recall you buying me a cuppa at some point. remind me i owe you a shag. or at least a hand shandy.

(it was a very nice cuppa, tbf, i might up the recompense offer)


----------



## Belushi (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> i recall you buying me a cuppa at some point. remind me i owe you a shag.


 
IIRC You were wearing about sixteen layers at the time, I was powerless to resist.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I like people to be and act genuine and not try and take advantage of one another.
> 
> If thats issues I'll take it and happily.
> 
> ...


Flirting tends to be insincere, playful, deceptive, it has been around since year dot, it evolves and has apparently been useful as a tool for keeping the human species thriving.

There there (((Gromit))), I'm crap at it also.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> i recall you buying me a cuppa at some point. remind me i owe you a shag. or at least a hand shandy.
> 
> (it was a very nice cuppa, tbf, i might up the recompense offer)


 
Now you seem to be missing the point.

No one is saying or implying that anyone is obligated to have sex with you if you buy them 1 drink or many drinks.

What I am stating is that pretending interest in someone and using your looks solely for the purposes of blagging a drinks off people is.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Flirting tends to be insincere, playful, deceptive, it has been around since year dot, it evolves and has apparently been useful as a tool for keeping the human species thriving.
> 
> There there (((Gromit))), I'm crap at it also.


 
Well thats certainly true. I am crap at flirting or spotting flirting.

Its more than possible that a girl has asked me to by her a drink as genuine opener to conversation and I've dissed her as a chancer. The unfortunately side effect off seeing too many chancers.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm only commenting on the very words you posted up.


 
you did twist them a bit. i said 'when i see a gorgeous girl dressed in skimpy clothing' and you changed that to 'every time an attractive girl passes by'. quite a big difference, in that one happens often and the other hasn't for as long as i can remember.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I haven't even mentioned the classic Thesbian approach (Thespian crossed with lesbian).
> 
> Two straight girls snogging each other where as many men as possible can see them. Thats a pure drinks all night move that one.
> 
> e.t.a. I'd like to underline the fact I said 'acting' slutty and not 'being' slutty. Putting on an act for the sake of drinks. Often the girls are in full relationships.


are you posting this nonsense for a bet or something?


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> you did twist them a bit. i said 'when i see a gorgeous girl dressed in skimpy clothing' and you changed that to 'every time an attractive girl passes by'. quite a big difference, in that one happens often and the other hasn't for as long as i can remember.


Straws. Clutched at. Desperately.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Well thats certainly true. I am crap at flirting or spotting flirting.
> 
> Its more than possible that a girl has asked me to by her a drink as genuine opener to conversation and I've dissed her as a chancer. The unfortunately side effect off seeing too many chancers.



Absolutely.  

But you know what I _really_ hate?  When they don't even bother with the old "buy me a drink" routine, but try some even more sneaky move.  Telling you they like your shoes, or that you've got nice eyes, that kind of malarky.  

Those kinds of chancers get pretty short shrift from me I can tell you.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

editor said:


> Straws. Clutched at. Desperately.


 
if you say so. there's no pretence at being fair minded at all, is there?
 i'm not having you portray me as something i'm not.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> are you posting this nonsense for a bet or something?


 
I was trolling (i prefer the phrase stimulating extra discussion) earlier in the thread I'll admit.

But when it comes to women exploiting their looks and for the sake of a couple of drinks, I'm serious in my distaste.

What amazes me is the number of people on here supporting it instead of critising it for hindering feminist progress and helping to perpetuate patriacal attitudes or such like.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I was trolling (i prefer the phrase stimulating extra discussion) earlier in the thread I'll admit.
> 
> But when it comes to women exploiting their looks and for the sake of a couple of drinks, I'm serious in my distaste.
> 
> What amazes me is the number of people on here supporting it instead of critising it for hindering feminist progress and helping to perpetuate patriacal attitudes or such like.


 
what about us poor ones that don't have the looks? how're we meant to get our free drinks?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> _Skimpily-clas trollop:_  Hiya Handsome, want to buy me a drink?
> _Gromit:_ Nah
> _Skimpily-clas trollop:_ How about if I push my breasts out a bit more?
> _Gromit:_ Nah
> ...


 
There is a grain of truth in that.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I was trolling (i prefer the phrase stimulating extra discussion) earlier in the thread I'll admit.
> 
> But when it comes to women exploiting their looks and for the sake of a couple of drinks, I'm serious in my distaste.
> 
> What amazes me is the number of people on here supporting it instead of critising it for hindering feminist progress and helping to perpetuate patriacal attitudes or such like.



I couldn't agree more.  In fact I think you should organize a "Tightwads for Feminism" march.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Or "Misers Against Patriarchy."

I'll start making the banners.  "Buy Your Own Drinks, Sluts."  "Do You Think I'm Made of Money?"  "Snog Your Mate All You Want: You Won't Get A Penny From Me."


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Or "Misers Against Patriarchy."
> 
> I'll start making the banners.  "Buy Your Own Drinks, Sluts."  "Do You Think I'm Made of Money?"  "Snog Your Mate All You Want: You Won't Get A Penny From Me."


 i'll do a solidarity march
*yes, i do want ice in that*


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> if you say so. there's no pretence at being fair minded at all, is there?
> i'm not having you portray me as something i'm not.


I can't be any more fair minded than posting up your exact and rather troubling words:


gavman said:


> when i'm lonely a gorgeous girl dressed in skimpy clothing is actually painful to behold. it's like twisting a knife and saying 'look, see what you can't have'


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> what about us poor ones that don't have the looks? how're we meant to get our free drinks?



us fat, old and less attractive ones might as well stay in............


----------



## Geri (Jun 15, 2011)

How come men never offer to buy me drinks?


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

we know our place


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 15, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> we know our place


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 15, 2011)

my mate bought me a pint on saturday cos i looked like this.
i'm worried now that i'm expected to sleep with her


----------



## Badgers (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Equality when it suits you and not when it doesn't.


 
Pretty much been my mantra all my life Gromit ^


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

editor said:


> I can't be any more fair minded than posting up your exact and rather troubling words:


 
as you say, troubling enough. no need to twist them


----------



## Dooby (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't accept drinks offered from strangers in bars, or accept a bottle if bar staff bring it over from 'that bloke over there' because that's some fucking loser's way in to think they can come over and my experience /understanding is you've got to put up with them talking to you for at least the duration of the drink. I see it generally as a very rough bartering system and I don't want to feel beholden (not sayign I WOULD be, but the idea is I should feel it), free drinks or not. 

I'm feeling utterly vindicated in this by seeing some of the posts here, and I resolve there's no way in future I'm tolerating anything beyond 'can I buy you a drink luvverly lady' 'no you can fuck right off, you're one of those right weirdo blokes off Urban aren't you'


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I couldn't agree more.  In fact I think you should organize a "Tightwads for Feminism" march.



Tightwad and miser is it?

It's got nothing to do with money.  Everything to do with not wanting the Insult of being taken for a  mug.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

tbh, this is another fucking world to me. Can't say I've ever offered to buy a woman a drink* that I hadn't spent some time chatting to already, that at least seemed to want to continue the conversation and at a point where I'd be going up to the jump anyway. And I can't say I've ever experienced a situation where, if the conversation then continued and we were going to continue drinking/chatting, she'd not buy the next drink.

Can't say I've ever used the offer of a drink as an opening gambit or as a "way in". Can't think I've got any mates who would think of operating that way, either. Maybe I'm just weird, or maybe it's just the world has turned.....

(*I mean within the context of there being at least some potential for getting off with one another, clearly. Buying drinks for friends - or for people who you don't know/have just met but they are in the round 'cos they're mates of people you do know and you're all out together - is different.)


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

mentalchik said:


> us fat, old and less attractive ones might as well stay in............


 
Or campaign for equal pay so that everyone can buy their own drinks. 


Wait I'm being naive. Even then certain types will still think looks entitle them to free rides in life. 

I have no answers.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> as you say, troubling enough. no need to twist them


There has been no twisting. In fact, I've been rather kind seeing as how fucking dodgy your remarks sound, with you blaming "gorgeous girls in skimpy clothing" for your personal discomfort.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Or campaign for equal pay so that everyone can buy their own drinks.
> 
> 
> Wait I'm being naive. *Even then certain types will still think looks entitle them to free rides in life.*
> ...


 
Possibly. But in my experience such types are as likely to be male as they are female.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

you're being deliberately pejorative. again


----------



## Badgers (Jun 15, 2011)

editor said:


> you blaming "gorgeous girls in skimpy clothing" for your personal discomfort.



Got to hold my hand up and say that on _Tight Trousers Tuesday_ during the summer months I have experienced some of the 'personal discomfort' we are discussing. Luckily I put this down to millions of years of evolution and defer the 'personal discomfort' until my wife (who I love as an equal) comes home.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> And I can't say I've ever experienced a situation where, if the conversation then continued and we were going to continue drinking/chatting, she'd not buy the next drink.


 
Thats what it comes down to really, not getting your round in, is the cardinal sin.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> you're being deliberately pejorative. again



I don't think he is, tbh. Assuming you weren't simply guilty of hyperbole, feeling actual "pain" at the sight of an attractive woman (even if you are lonely/haven't had a shag in fucking ages) and comparing that to being like "twisting the knife", saying it's "look what you can't have" is proper fucked up. Sorry, but there it is.


ETA: In that situation, any normal bloke simply goes home and bashes one out.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I have no answers.



Don't worry. What you lack in answers, you more than make up for in self-knowledge.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Got to hold my hand up and say that on _Tight Trousers Tuesday_ during the summer months I have experienced some of the 'personal discomfort' we are discussing. Luckily I put this down to millions of years of evolution and defer the 'personal discomfort' until my wife (who I love as an equal) comes home.


 
mine lasts until i have a wank


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> tbh, this is another fucking world to me. Can't say I've ever offered to buy a woman a drink* that I hadn't spent some time chatting to already, that at least seemed to want to continue the conversation and at a point where I'd be going up to the jump anyway. And I can't say I've ever experienced a situation where, if the conversation then continued and we were going to continue drinking/chatting, she'd not buy the next drink.
> 
> Can't say I've ever used the offer of a drink as an opening gambit or as a "way in". Can't think I've got any mates who would think of operating that way, either. Maybe I'm just weird, or maybe it's just the world has turned.....
> 
> (*I mean within the context of there being at least some potential for getting off with one another, clearly. Buying drinks for friends - or for people who you don't know/have just met but they are in the round 'cos they're mates of people you do know and you're all out together - is different.)


 
Good post and how the world should be imo. 

I think the world has turned for the better tbh and its not as common as it was outside of venues catering to wealthy patrons. 

More women prefer to exhibit independence. A woman tried to buy a mint off me on the weekend after watching me hand some out to others. Another tried to buy a glowstick.  I appreciated the gesture both times (though the mint thing was a bit weird) and gave them for free... Along with packets of cig papers to three guys, another glowstick to a girl (who had lost her mau5ears) and drinks to one barman and one barman.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> I don't think he is, tbh. Assuming you weren't simply guilty of hyperbole, feeling actual "pain" at the sight of an attractive woman (even if you are lonely/haven't had a shag in fucking ages) and comparing that to being like "twisting the knife", saying it's "look what you can't have" is proper fucked up. Sorry, but there it is.


 
of course it's hyperbole. i'm trying to describe an unpleasant twisting, sick feeling in my stomach. it's not actual pain of the type you would take painkillers for


----------



## Dooby (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Good post and how the world should be imo.
> 
> I think the world has turned for the better tbh and its not as common as it was outside of venues catering to wealthy patrons.
> 
> More women prefer to exhibit independence. A woman tried to buy a mint off me on the weekend after watching me hand some out to others. Another tried to buy a glowstick.  I appreciated the gesture both times (though the mint thing was a bit weird) and gave them for free... Along with packets of cig papers to three guys, another glowstick to a girl (who had lost her mau5ears) and drinks to one barman and one barman.


 
GENERALLY people offering to 'buy' tiny thing - one mint, one fag etc are going through the motions and expecting to get it for free. hth


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> of course it's hyperbole. i'm trying to describe an unpleasant twisting, sick feeling in my stomach. it's not actual pain of the type you would take painkillers for



Well your choice of words was unfortunate then, particularly within the context of this thread. I'm sure most have us have felt similar emotions to the ones that I now think you are actually trying to describe - pain at being on your own (particularly if being on your own is a recent thing or the sense of loss is still there) and not seeing where the next/any future relationship might be coming from. And yes, that can be prompted by seeing someone you find physically attractive and being so wrapped up in your own misery that you can feel that you're never going to appear attractive to anyone else ever again.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Dooby said:


> GENERALLY people offering to 'buy' tiny thing - one mint, one fag etc are going through the motions and expecting to get it for free. hth


 
Exactly, its just a polite way to ask. Society has so many of these little norms that we use to get what we want.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> You took a reference to testosterone to mean all men, and presumably all women too seeing as we have it as well, and not to the rather aggressive display of male inadequacy being splurged so utterly inappropriately all over this thread?
> 
> That's your best shot at an offensive comment from me, is it?
> 
> ...


so that's what an oxford education does for you.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so that's what an oxford education does for you.


 
In ymu's case I think its actually genetic.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 15, 2011)

It can be deeply unpleasant reading her posts at times.  Just arrogant, shouty, foul-mouthed abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2011)

Geri said:


> How come men never offer to buy me drinks?


 
i'm sure i offered to buy you a pint at the bookfair some years back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> In ymu's case I think its actually genetic.


 
i'm more of a nurture man than a nature man.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Dooby said:


> GENERALLY people offering to 'buy' tiny thing - one mint, one fag etc are going through the motions and expecting to get it for free. hth


 
Some do. Some genuinely don't like the idea of owing someone, no matter how small the favour and non-requirement of the kindness being repaid. 

She did seem very genuine in wanting to give me 20p towards 5p worth of M&S mint.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

Life makes some people really bitter eh? a lot of it on this thread.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> It can be deeply unpleasant reading her posts at times.  Just arrogant, shouty, foul-mouthed abuse.


 
not very nice being on the end of them, either


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Some do. Some genuinely don't like the idea of owing someone, no matter how small the favour and non-requirement of the kindness being repaid.
> 
> She did seem very genuine in wanting to give me 20p towards 5p worth of M&S mint.


 
20p? that's nothing. i once got 50p for one refresher.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> It can be deeply unpleasant reading her posts at times.  Just arrogant, shouty, foul-mouthed abuse.


 
I always just think of her as kabbes with tits.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> I always just think of her as kabbes with tits.


 
more like a sweary boris johnson with tits.


----------



## gavman (Jun 15, 2011)

[video]http://youtu.be/xHWtXSKSQSY[/video]


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> more like a sweary boris johnson with tits.


 
Whats the difference?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> [video]http://youtu.be/xHWtXSKSQSY[/video]


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> 20p? that's nothing. i once got 50p for one refresher.


 
I got £3 for a half used 40p glowstick (bought in bulk off the net) in the Ministry of Sound on Saturday. 

Tbh I only accepted it to shut him up after his repeated requests for one and I'd already given out all my spares. 

Then afterwards I wished is turned him down as one glowstick on its own just ain't the same as two. 

Still the overpriced £3 bottle of water I bought with his coin went down a treat.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 15, 2011)

gromit said:


> then afterwards i wished is turned him down as one glowstick on its own just ain't the same as two.


 
w   t   f


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 15, 2011)

One glowstick is pretty shit tbf.



How did we get on to buying drinks?   Anyway - I've accepted drinks off blokes after letting them know that it doesn't even mean we're going to have a conversation and they've been fine with it.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)




----------



## Streathamite (Jun 15, 2011)

those pix have me totally baffled, PC....


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

I was wondering how wtfftw had managed to communicate her acceptance of the proffered drink whilst simultaneously declining to have a conversation without, you know, actually having a conversation. I was thinking it must have all been managed by sign language. The last one might be a little obscure unless you're of a certain age, I'll grant you.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> Woah steady on. He's got a point! For better or worse I do think men are more aggressive cos of testosterone. But actually it IS a bit shit to chuck that in their faces in a derogatory way.
> 
> I don't think slut is unisex in Leeds. Slut means prostitute up here. It means EVEN if a nice, normal woman dresses like a prostitute she STILL don't deserve to get raped.
> 
> pk I am literally pissing myself laughing at you. What the FUCK?


 
Excess testosterone makes people more aggressive yes. The word hysterical refers to the womb and PMT, but its still a unisex descriptor. Testerical, or complaints about excess testosterone, refer to inappropriately aggressive wankery spilling out because socialisation sometimes fails to curb some of these apish instincts.

I find it really fucking offensive to suggest that all women sleaze drinks off men or that all men are sleazy enough to play such stupid shallow games. And fucking frightening that some raise it as justification for sexual aggressiin towards women.

I covered up completely until I was 35 and happily married, because some men think it's OK to publicly insult women for not being good enough to be seen with and other men see fit to let them behave like that. It didn't stop me taking some very nice men to bed. But it did make me despise men who are so fucking insecure they have to act like that, and too fucking stupid to know that people fuck with their brains, not their bodies.

Which is why they'll always be a huge disappointment in bed. And they know it. Hence the unwarranted aggression.


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

Sleazing drinks off men ain't offensive. It's just a game. They know the rules, buy enough drinks and you may get a shag off one. If girls work it enough, they can get free drinks all night, and a shag if they're desperate or stupid 

Past caring you probably not drinking down Yates or whatever other town bar. It's certain venues and shit clubs where everyone knows the score. 

Just so it's clear I'm not cheap enough to do this now , this was when I first started drinking.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Dooby said:


> I don't accept drinks offered from strangers in bars, or accept a bottle if bar staff bring it over from 'that bloke over there' because that's some fucking loser's way in to think they can come over and my experience /understanding is you've got to put up with them talking to you for at least the duration of the drink. I see it generally as a very rough bartering system and I don't want to feel beholden (not sayign I WOULD be, but the idea is I should feel it), free drinks or not.
> 
> I'm feeling utterly vindicated in this by seeing some of the posts here, and I resolve there's no way in future I'm tolerating anything beyond 'can I buy you a drink luvverly lady' 'no you can fuck right off, you're one of those right weirdo blokes off Urban aren't you'


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> Sleazing drinks off men ain't offensive. It's just a game. They know the rules, buy enough drinks and you may get a shag off one. If girls work it enough, they can get free drinks all night, and a shag if they're desperate or stupid
> 
> Past caring you probably not drinking down Yates or whatever other town bar. It's certain venues and shit clubs where everyone knows the score.
> 
> Just so it's clear I'm not cheap enough to do this now , this was when I first started drinking.



It's not offensive, just a bit cheap. 

I'm just jealous really cos I couldn't do it and had to do with finishing abanded ones.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Excess testosterone makes people more aggressive yes. The word hysterical refers to the womb and PMT, but its still a unisex descriptor. Testerical, or complaints about excess testosterone, refer to inappropriately aggressive wankery spilling out because socialisation sometimes fails to curb some of these apish instincts.


 
So that's your excuse?


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> So that's your excuse?


 I wouldn't use it as an excuse, no. But it probably is the reason I'm quite unnecessarily aggressive sometimes, yes. I usually apologise when I've caused inappropriate offence though. I think, anyway. I try to. Being an adult, and all.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> Sleazing drinks off men ain't offensive. It's just a game. They know the rules, buy enough drinks and you may get a shag off one. If girls work it enough, they can get free drinks all night, and a shag if they're desperate or stupid
> 
> Past caring you probably not drinking down Yates or whatever other town bar. It's certain venues and shit clubs where everyone knows the score.
> 
> Just so it's clear I'm not cheap enough to do this now , this was when I first started drinking.


 
I don't thinnk the sleazing drinks is offensive. If they're mug enough, why not?

It's the stereotyping of all women as doing this (and therefore any and all of us court and deserve the violent backlash) that I find offensive. It's not something I even recognise from my shagging days. No one sleazed for or bought drinks for random strangers, that I remember, and we went out a lot.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't thinnk the sleazing drinks is offensive. If they're mug enough, why not?


 
It's only offensive on those very rare occasions when the "lady" in question will react with aggressive bafflement upon me declining her request.


----------



## Geri (Jun 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure i offered to buy you a pint at the bookfair some years back.


 
Really? I was probably too drunk to remember by then. I don't count mates offering anyway, as that is usually reciprocal.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's only offensive on those very rare occasions when the "lady" in question will react with aggressive bafflement upon me declining her request.


 
Sorry, but I _really_ wanted you that night.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Sorry, but I _really_ wanted you that night.


 
Should of dressed more slutty then


----------



## TruXta (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Should of dressed more slutty then


 
Un-possible. 

Also _should have_, failing that _should've_. It's not rocket science.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Also _should have_, failing that _should've_. It's not rocket science.



It was a style decision, the spelling suited the level of the comment.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

buying drinks is a fools errand, I just get the bitches hooked on smack, far greater rate of return.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It was a style decision, the spelling suited the level of the comment.


 
Nice try, retard.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Oh, stop it.

_flashes tits_


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Nice try, retard.


 
Fuck off you foregin bastard


----------



## kabbes (Jun 15, 2011)

Apparently you're what I would be with tits so I suppose it makes sense to see 'em.

Huh.  Fancy that.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fuck off you foregin bastard


 
Need I say it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fuck off you foregin bastard


 
What does foregin mean? Four gins and he is anyone's? 

Hang on, who is paying for the drinks?


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Apparently you're what I would be with tits so I suppose it makes sense to see 'em.
> 
> Huh.  Fancy that.


You're my wiser, older brother.

But 10 years younger than me. 

And with great tits.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Hang on, who is paying for the drinks?



Gromit


----------



## Voley (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What does foregin mean? Four gins and he is anyone's?


 
I think he means 'fore' as in 'fore and aft'. Perhaps a reference to a tipple one would have as an aperitif at the beginning of the evening. An 'aft gin' would therefore be at the end of the evening as a nightcap.

Or it's possibly a quick livener one has before golf.

Imo.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Gromit


 
Okay, now we have that cleared up; why do you think that calling someone _foreign_ is an insult?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Okay, now we have that cleared up; why do you think that calling someone _foreign_ is an insult?



It's no more offensive than calling someone a retard in my book.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

He doesn't.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

Surely, some men can't be trusted at some times.  It does pay to be smart, I personally wouldn't dispute that some types of behaviour leave a woman less able to keep herself safe.  But I'm not sure that I'd put clothing in that category.  Sexual politics eh.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> He doesn't.


 
ssh...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> Surely, some men can't be trusted at some times.  It does pay to be smart, I personally wouldn't dispute that some types of behaviour leave a woman less able to keep herself safe.  But I'm not sure that I'd put clothing in that category.  Sexual politics eh.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> Surely, some men can't be trusted at some times.  It does pay to be smart, I personally wouldn't dispute that some types of behaviour leave a woman less able to keep herself safe.  But I'm not sure that I'd put clothing in that category.  Sexual politics eh.





Spanky Longhorn said:


>





And off we go again....


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2011)

((this thread))  Christ the level of self pity of here is pathetic


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> Surely, some men can't be trusted at some times.  It does pay to be smart, I personally wouldn't dispute that some types of behaviour leave a woman less able to keep herself safe.  But I'm not sure that I'd put clothing in that category.  Sexual politics eh.


 
The problem is putting the onus on all women to keep themselves safe, and the implied blame on those who are attacked, rather than simply demanding zero tolerance for shitty attitudes amongst men, including whether they personally indulge in that kind of abuse or not. Tolerance of casual sexism ultimately causes a lot of sexual violence and abuse.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's no more offensive than calling someone a retard in my book.


 
That's not what I asked. Someone calls you a _'retard'_, and you think it's comparabe to calling them _foreign_. Bizarre!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

trashpony said:


> ((this thread))  Christ the level of self pity of here is pathetic


 
and that's just Gromit!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> That's not what I asked. Someone calls you a _'retard'_, and you think it's comparabe to calling them _foreign_. Bizarre!


 
Shut it you.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> The problem is putting the onus on all women to keep themselves safe, and the implied blame on those who are attacked, rather than simply demanding zero tolerance for shitty attitudes amongst men, including whether they personally indulge in that kind of abuse or not. Tolerance of casual sexism ultimately causes a lot of sexual violence and abuse.


 
Acknowledging that women can help to keep safe and having zero tolerance of shitty attitudes and behaviour by men are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> That's not what I asked. Someone calls you a _'retard'_, and you think it's comparabe to calling them _foreign_. Bizarre!


 
I find them equally offensive.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> Acknowledging that women can help to keep safe and having zero tolerance of shitty attitudes and behaviour by men are not mutually exclusive.


 
Try reading the thread for gods sake!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> I find them equally offensive.



Presumably you'll never get a job in a French special needs school then?


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> Acknowledging that women can help to keep safe and having zero tolerance of shitty attitudes and behaviour by men are not mutually exclusive.


 
No. But I'll judge people by their actions, not what they say they believe. Give me more column inches attacking casual misogyny, and I'll believe your sincerity on dress and being out alone at night. Oherwise, cock off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Shut it you.


 
Er, no.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Er, no.


 
I'm only going to tell you one more time


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm only going to tell you one more time


 
Only once more? What joy.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Only once more? What joy.


 
I said shut it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I said shut it.


 
Shut it yourself and get the drinks in.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> No. But I'll judge people by their actions, not what they say they believe. Give me more column inches attacking casual misogyny, and I'll believe your sincerity on dress and being out alone at night. Oherwise, cock off.


 
Give me whatever helps to stop people getting raped.  One of the best things the feminist movement ever did was to remind people that it's never ever a woman's fault if she gets raped but I don't necessarily think that putting all the onus on men is helpful.  I don't know what I think to be honest, maybe I'm just tying myself in knots here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Shut it yourself and get the drinks in.


 
a pint for me and a half for the little lady please barman


----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> No. But I'll judge people by their actions, not what they say they believe. Give me more column inches attacking casual misogyny, and I'll believe your sincerity on dress and being out alone at night. Oherwise, cock off.


 
You really don't know me very well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> I don't necessarily think that putting all the onus on men is helpful.



 



> I don't know what I think to be honest, maybe I'm just tying myself in knots here.



Yes.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Why would I need to know you?

How can you possibly say that some of the onus should be on women? Any onus? How in holy crap do you reach such a twisted conclusion?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> How can you possibly say that some of the onus should be on women? Any onus? How in holy crap do you reach such a twisted conclusion?



You should stop tempting us to rape! It's all your fault  hussies!


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> a pint for me and a half for the little lady please barman














Sorry, didn't catch that - thought you asked for your usual.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

Ladyboy


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> Sorry, didn't catch that - thought you asked for your usual.



Wouldn't touch Baccardi.

Havana Club only for me.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)




----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why would I need to know you?
> 
> How can you possibly say that some of the onus should be on women? Any onus? How in holy crap do you reach such a twisted conclusion?


 
Onus was a stupid word to use, sorry.  But, do you object to the advice to keep to well lit streets walking home after dark?  I really don't think that's a twisted conclusion.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why would I need to know you?
> 
> How can you possibly say that some of the onus should be on women? Any onus? How in holy crap do you reach such a twisted conclusion?


 
Not rocket science is it? I don't go flashing my rolex* in town and at the same time lasses who were next to nothing will get more hassle. I don't believe this leads to more rapes, cos has been explored rape is more then that,  but hassle factor -for sure. It's the neadathol twats which is the problem. Women should be able to wear want when they want, but that doesn't mean that how they dress won't cause them problems and sadly sometimes that has to be acknowledged. 

For that reason fair play to the people who organised this march. 

* i don't own a rolex


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

I do object to it, yes. When sexists have to be as careful as most racists are when they check who's in earshot, then I'll take advice from the police on how to stay safer from the few remaining psychopaths. Until then, don't expect me to bbe impressed by men who earnestly repeat this advice whilst calmly ignoring blatantly hateful cuntery.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> Not rocket science is it? I don't go flashing my rolex* in town and at the same time lasses who were next to nothing will get more hassle.


Fuck off


----------



## 8115 (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm a woman for what it's worth.  Probably a self-hating one though which would explain a lot.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> * i don't own a rolex


 
It got nicked by those lasses in Yate's who roofied you.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> I'm a woman for what it's worth.  Probably a self-hating one though which would explain a lot.


 
What the fuck difference does that make and where the fuck do you get that from?

Fuck's sake, this wounded ego thing is pathetic.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> What the fuck difference does that make and where the fuck do you get that from?



Surely it would make a difference though ymu, 8115 is admiting to have internalised sexist (misogynistic) values, hence her calling it 'self-hate'. Let's face it, if we all dig deep enough, we'd all uncover it at some level.


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

Jesus ymu just fuckin back off. She's just trying to join in the debate, give her some air!


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely it would make a difference though Ymu if 8115 is admiting to have internalised sexist (misogynistic) values, hence her calling it 'self-hate'.


 
Women on juries are traditionally a lot tougher than men on rape victims. I suspect a lot of that is down to self-protection rather than self-loathing ie You were dressed in a smutty way/walked across a park/invited a man into your home so that's why you were raped. I would NEVER do any of those things so a) that makes me safe from rape and b) it's your fucking fault. It might be about loathing fir be female but it has pretty fucking harsh consequences for other women. No empathy here


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2011)

Sorry for typos. Am on phone


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> What the fuck difference does that make and where the fuck do you get that from?
> 
> Fuck's sake, this wounded ego thing is pathetic.


 
You are a real piece of work 

You are way more agro than most blokes I know.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't thinnk the sleazing drinks is offensive. If they're mug enough, why not?
> 
> It's the stereotyping of all women as doing this (and therefore any and all of us court and deserve the violent backlash) that I find offensive. It's not something I even recognise from my shagging days. No one sleazed for or bought drinks for random strangers, that I remember, and we went out a lot.


 
Please point out where anyone (presumably meant to be me) stereotyped ALL women as doing this. 

You can't as no one fucking did. (sorry but it bloody annoys me when people exaggerate things into stuff you never said or implied. Trying to change the argument into one you can easily win instead of the actual discussion at hand?)

I did however express distaste at the ones that do do it.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> I do object to it, yes. When sexists have to be as careful as most racists are when they check who's in earshot, then I'll take advice from the police on how to stay safer from the few remaining psychopaths. Until then, don't expect me to bbe impressed by men who earnestly repeat this advice whilst calmly ignoring blatantly hateful cuntery.


 
this is just bollocks tbf, saying that it might be smart for lone young women to avoid darkened streets or dodgy streets is inherently sexist or excusing rapists and the like is bollocks. As a catholic in my home town I didn't get offended at someone suggesting I might want to avoid certain bars and go off on a rant at them about how there shouldn't be bars catholics should avoid.

likewise if someone told me some advice as to avoid a shitty employer I wouldn't go on a fucking rant about how there should be no employers.

fighting sexism and capitalism doesn't mean one shouldn't be aware of how to manoeuvre within it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> a pint for me and a half for the little lady please barman


 
Nah half pint of this please_ big _man.








Spanky Longhorn said:


> Wouldn't touch Baccardi.
> 
> Havana Club only for me.



Lightweight!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

revol68 said:


> likewise if someone told me some advice as to avoid a shitty employer I wouldn't go on a fucking rant about how there should be no employers.



Liar!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Nah half pint of this please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first time I had Wray and Nephew I burnt my lip


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Women on juries are traditionally a lot tougher than men on rape victims. I suspect a lot of that is down to self-protection rather than self-loathing ie You were dressed in a smutty way/walked across a park/invited a man into your home so that's why you were raped. I would NEVER do any of those things so a) that makes me safe from rape and b) it's your fucking fault. It might be about loathing fir be female but it has pretty fucking harsh consequences for other women. No empathy here


 
Not saying much more than it's a valid point for 8115 to make, as you pointed out some women do hold rather 'subjective' attitudes towards other women. The self-loathing vs self-protection thing is an interesting point because IME when we unpick the self-protection thing we are likely to find _fear _and levels to which women can undervalue themselves and their right not to be looked down on/seen as easy/raped.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The first time I had Wray and Nephew I burnt my lip


 
Heh, that'll learn ya!


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I did however express distaste at the ones that do do it.


Yer well you can shove your distaste up your arse. The men fuckin love it, or they wouldn't be out offering.


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Nah half pint of this please_ big _man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh and you two, get a fuckin room


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

Yes I have to say ymu, the aggression you are showing here is making having a reasonable discussion impossible. If you scream in peoples faces they will either scream back or refuse to engage with you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> Yer well you can shove your distaste up your arse. The men fuckin love it, or they wouldn't be out offering.



Yep. 

I must admit I always thought Gromit was a bit of a div but this thread proves it.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The first time I had Wray and Nephew I burnt my lip


 
Probably thought it was poppers.


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

Gotta say pk's post has made this thread worth it for the lols


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> Probably thought it was poppers.



It did widen my passages


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> Gotta say pk's post has made this thread worth it for the lols


 


> Sorry to bust your bubble, but the only time I ever encountered roofies was when I was spiked in Israel, I drank the missus' drink as well as mine, double dose, and was helped home by her as she was lucky to have refused it.
> 
> Nasty business, didn't wake up for over 24 hours and was paralysed for several hours after that.
> 
> ...





> I fucked his life up. Turned out he had a habit of spiking drinks. If he'd carried out his plan of raping the missus I'd have tortured and killed him and would probably be in a Hebrew jail even now. Rohypnol & me = touchy subject. And yes, I'm a cunt that over reacts. I was pretty traumatised.
> 
> Believe what the fuck you want, we've never met so whatever...


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

revol68 said:


> this is just bollocks tbf, saying that it might be smart for lone young women to avoid darkened streets or dodgy streets is inherently sexist or excusing rapists and the like is bollocks. As a catholic in my home town I didn't get offended at someone suggesting I might want to avoid certain bars and go off on a rant at them about how there shouldn't be bars catholics should avoid.
> 
> likewise if someone told me some advice as to avoid a shitty employer I wouldn't go on a fucking rant about how there should be no employers.
> 
> fighting sexism and capitalism doesn't mean one shouldn't be aware of how to manoeuvre within it.


 
So, where's the sexual Good Friday agreement? Why is it OK for men to continue promoting war on women and somehow it's a crime for me to be aggro if I dare express my disgust at these inadequates? Limit your freedoms whilst we encourage boys to become the vilest of men. Is that the deal?

Get a fucking grip.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, where's the sexual Good Friday agreement? Why is it OK for men to continue promoting war on women and somehow it's a crime for me to be aggro if I dare express my disgust at these inadequates? Limit your freedoms whilst we encourage boys to become the vilest of men. Is that the deal?
> 
> Get a fucking grip.


 
shut up you hysterical muppet, the good friday agreement doesn't stop there being sectarian bars, likewise even with the best will in the world the police aren't going to be able to wipe out sexual violence, or indeed assualt because it's structural. 

I mean i'm a marxist but I don't crack up at police adverts warning me against leaving values out of sight in a parked car or not leaving my windows open. I mean afterall they uphold the very system of capitalism which is organised theft writ large.

foaming like a lunatic because the police or any other body give advice to young women to avoid dimly lit streets or dodgy areas when walking home by themselves at night just makes you look like a caricature of feminist, urbans own Millie Tant.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Ooh, hysterical, wimmin stereotypes. Keep it coming boys. You know it'll be me getting told off for being aggressive, cos us girlies are only here to make boys look good, so it's a fucking crime to get annoyed by routine disrespectful commentary.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 15, 2011)

Look at me being oppressed. Look at me, look at me. 

Lots of blokes are agreeing with you ffs!


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ooh, hysterical, wimmin stereotypes. Keep it coming boys. You know it'll be me getting told off for being aggressive, cos us girlies are only here to make boys look good, so it's a fucking crime to get annoyed by routine disrespectful commentary.



Dont you have a husband or something to keep you in line?

Silly cow.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> You are a real piece of work
> 
> You are way more agro than most blokes I know.


 
Gosh!  Not more than _blokes_?!!??!11  Well!


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Gosh!  Not more than _blokes_?!!??!11  Well!


 
Ah the resident aspie returns!


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Dont you have a husband or something to keep you in line?
> 
> Silly cow.


Off you fuck.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Dont you have a husband or something to keep you in line?
> 
> Silly cow.


 
Grits been on the piss


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> Grits been on the piss


 
Sober as a judge I'm afraid, behaving myself mon to friday these days


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Sober as a judge I'm afraid, behaving myself mon to friday these days


Then sort yourself out you wanker.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> Off you fuck.


 
Right back at ya, love


----------



## kabbes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Ah the resident aspie returns!


 
Says the one who can't cope with the idea of complex relationships.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Says the one who can't cope with the idea of complex relationships.


 
Aye old school all the way here


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Right back at ya, love


I wipe pieces of shit like you off my heel everyday of the week.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Edie said:


> I wipe pieces of shit like you off my heel everyday of the week.


 
Should really watch where you are walking then!

It does explain the smell I suppose


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

_*leaves the sane people to finish the worms off and wanders off whistling, with a quick wink at Edie_​


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> _*leaves the sane people to finish the worms off and wanders off whistling, with a quick wink at Edie_​


 
Cool calm and collected, thats you!


----------



## Edie (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Should really watch where you are walking then!
> 
> It does explain the smell I suppose


Yer well mister painfully middle class, can't say I've ever really clocked you on here, but I have now. Tosser.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

I have to admit that I like ymu


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

I like her too  Doubt I could live with her mind


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 15, 2011)

same.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Right back atcha.



Is it that hard to admit though?



Don't answer that.


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

Says nothing


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Heh.



Clair De Lune said:


> I like her too  Doubt I could live with her mind


 
The boy says, yeah it's tough going.

He could do with a shoulder to cry on, tbf.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, where's the sexual Good Friday agreement?


 Good question 






revol68 said:


> shut up you hysterical muppet,


 Twat!



grit said:


> Dont you have a husband or something to keep you in line?
> 
> Silly cow.


 Another twat!


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 15, 2011)

WADDAWEWANT!
More sluts
WHENDOWEWANEM?
Well, now you mention it . . .


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> He could do with a shoulder to cry on, tbf.


 Let's start a Men's Group


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Should really watch where you are walking then!
> 
> It does explain the smell I suppose



That smell...is coming from your mouth, bouncing off your top lip, it's the undeniable scent of SHIT, the stuff that continues to leave your gob.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> That smell...is coming from your mouth, bouncing off your top lip, it's the undeniable scent of SHIT, the stuff that continues to leave your gob.


 
Ah I was wondering! I could never grow a tash and couldnt figure out what it was, cheers big ears!


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Worm.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Worm.


 
That must make you the early bird then?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Worm.


 
Now ymu, you know I read your posts and often agree...BUT don't cross the line, don't go insulting the worms...WHATDIDTHEYEVERDOTOYOUHUHHUH? 





I repeat:

WHATDIDTHEYEVERDOTOYOUHUHHUH?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 15, 2011)

The best bits of this thread were when online warriors mid-battle got a bit carried away and made unwarranted assumptions about other posters' genders, and over-reached themselves as a result. Very good stuff, keep it up. 
Oh and an extra gold star to Gromit for his services to boring-office-afternoon entertainment.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Ru, I apologise. I went too far.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ru, I apologise. I went too far.


 
I accept your apology on behalf of da wormz, gonna transmit/relate/sing/sliver it(howthefuckdoIcommunicatewithwormzanyway?)  when they all surface after the rain ...but let THIS be a lesson to you!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ooh, hysterical, wimmin stereotypes. Keep it coming boys. You know it'll be me getting told off for being aggressive, cos us girlies are only here to make boys look good, so it's a fucking crime to get annoyed by routine disrespectful commentary.


 
i'm well aware of the origins of hysteria but I'm afraid it is perfectly apt for your responses to this, it has nothing to do with you having a wandering womb and everything with you being an overreacting muppet.

no one gives a fuck about your gender, it's your argument that is mental and ridiculously aggressive as a response to some basic common sense advice (and yes don't pull a Gramsci on "common sense").


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

My partner is as offended by the disgusting stereotyping of men on this thread as I am. It's not me portraying them as slavering halfwits who need to buy or avenge themselves on women.

I only do quality men. Good there's plenty out there, despite the irritatingly loud wailing of the impotent emotional cripples.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> My partner is as offended by the disgusting stereotyping of men on this thread as I am. It's not me portraying them as slavering halfwits who need to buy or avenge themselves on women.


 
wtf are you on about you raving lunatic?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Ah I'll leave it, I've pushed your buttons enough for one day. Hope you enjoyed it as much as me


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

revol68 said:


> wtf are you on about you raving lunatic?


 
Seriously, FUCK OFF...you may have taken offence by ymu's approach on this thread calling her _hysterical _and now a _lunatic_?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Seriously, FUCK OFF...you may have taken offence by ymu's approach on this thread calling her _hysterical _and now a _lunatic_?


 
You are running a close second to her.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Ah I'll leave it, I've pushed your buttons enough for one day. Hope you enjoyed it as much as me


 
Yeah, that's right, the only men who allow their women to have opinions are those that are emasculated and _allow_ their women folk pickle their dicks.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> You are running a close second to her.


 
Close second? OMFG I am so insulted...I shall now scratch ymu's eyes out for daring to beat me...Ya know how competative us females are.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, that's right, the only men who allow their women to have opinions are those that are emasculated and _allow_ their women folk pickle their dicks.


 
Yay for ninja edits


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Close second? OMFG I am so insulted...I shall now scratch ymu's eyes out for daring to beat me...Ya know how competative us females are.


 
Sounds sexy, can I watch?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Sounds sexy, can I watch?


 
Which about sums you and your attitude and interests up. Good woek,


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Which about sums you and your interests up. Good work


 
As I said, old school


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> As I said, old school


 
Old school= sexist/misogynist?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Old school= sexist/misogynist?


 
Nah just a simple man with simple pleasures


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Nah just a simple man with simple pleasures


 
Please define _man_, because it seems we seriously are lacking in common associations and meaning.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Allegedly the neanderthals were a cultured species, so I shall just note directly that grit is a small-cocked inadequate impotently limp-dicked arsehole of a pathetic excuse for a man and embarrassment to all men that want to be treated with respect and not just as a free drinks machine funded by ugly-minded  men who are too stupid to know why women need paying to be seen with them, let alone shag them.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Please define _man_, because it seems we seriously are lacking in common associations and meaning.


 
Having balls, seems like a good start.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Allegedly the neanderthals were a cultured species, so I shall just note directly that grit is a small-cocked inadequate impotently limp-dicked arsehole of a pathetic excuse for a man and embarrassment to all men that want to be treated with respect and not just as a free drinks machine funded by ugly-minded  men who are too stupid to know why women need paying to be seen with them, let alone shag them.


 
I'm so proud of you learning to control your emotions and not over reacting, good girl.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Seriously, FUCK OFF...you may have taken offence by ymu's approach on this thread calling her _hysterical _and now a _lunatic_?


 
woah i know such strong words from myself...

jesus 

her argument is a hysterical overreaction for reasons i've explained through a series of analogies, none of which she has sought to retort or reply to instead taking oh soo predictable offence at the term hysterical cos of it's roots rather than it's actual in use meaning.

as for calling her a lunatic, what other response can there be to the claim that people disagreeing with ymu on this thread are portraying men as slavering halfwits who need to buy or avenge themselves on women? it's up there with claiming feminists need a good dicking ffs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Having balls, seems like a good start.


 
Good job for you _having balls_ is not just a phrase that refers to physical attributes because you don't seem to _have _any. Your retorts are standard pub-amongst-the-lads. Which is fine for the pub lads but...


*yawn*


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> I'm so proud of you learning to control your emotions and not over reacting, good girl.


 fucking lay off it.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Good job for you _having balls_ is not just a phrase that refers to physical attributes because you don't seem to _have _any. Your retorts are standard pub-amongst-the-lads. Which is fine for the pub lads but...
> 
> 
> *yawn*



And yet still seems to push all the right buttons here, funny that.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

wtfftw said:


> fucking lay off it.


 
Just giving as good as I get


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> And yet still seems to push all the _*right*_ buttons here, funny that.



Err...depends on your definition of _*right*_ and intention obviously.....


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Just giving as good as I get


 
You think?

Ah, bless.


----------



## past caring (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Allegedly the neanderthals were a cultured species, so I shall just note directly that grit is a small-cocked inadequate impotently limp-dicked arsehole of a pathetic excuse for a man and embarrassment to all men that want to be treated with respect and not just as a free drinks machine funded by ugly-minded  men who are too stupid to know why women need paying to be seen with them, let alone shag them.



This sexual inadequacy shtick is all pretty much your stock in trade for any man who has the temerity to disagree with you, though.

(Grit is a bit of a cunt, mind).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Amazing that this thread has reached a poxy one line stale  gender expectation-mate...I mean, no, no it isn't amazing.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

I can''t see any other explanatio for the mindless charges of these wounded male egos. Can you?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> You think?
> 
> Ah, bless.


 
Yeah I do, you have proven it with every response. In fact I'd put good money on it that your husband is sitting there trying to calm you down 

Cute change of tact trying to be all calm btw, but i think your cover is blown.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> (Grit is a bit of a cunt, mind).


 
Guilty as charged your honor.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Not getting any then Grit. What a surprise.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Not getting any then Grit. What a surprise.


 
Yes 

my fiancee just went to bed, ah I'm such a cunt I'll go and wake her for a ride, its what she secretly wants.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

She have low self-esteem, by any chance? Or do you cover up your contempt for women when there's sex on offer?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> She have low self-esteem, by any chance? Or do you cover up your contempt for women when there's sex on offer?


 
Nah I love her and admire her because she is one of the few women that has no problem in putting me in my place. She is nearly as feisty as you


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

Feisty, eh. You truly do hold us in contempt. Hope she realises before it is too late. Christ, I'd be puking if I realised my partner despised me that much.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Feisty, eh. Yu truly do hold us in contempt. Hope she realises before it is too late. Christ, I'd be puking if I realised my partner despised me that much.


 
He does, he is just too scared to show it as you obviously scare the fuck out of him with your rants 

Has he made you a cup of tea yet this evening? Perhaps a glass of vino?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Feisty = a lady that knows her own mind = an energetic/good/ shag....

Doing really well here grit.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Feisty = a lady that knows her own mind = an energetic/good/ shag....
> 
> Doing really well here grit.


 
All the credit goes to you two, you just make it so easy, I'm grateful really 

Oh and that word doesn't mean what you think it means! The root is actually from german "fist", I believe which apparently roughly translates to  a small aggressive/lively dog.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> All the credit goes to you two, you just make it so easy, I'm grateful really


 
Yeah, my fault, my skirt is clearly too short and I dare to have an opinion. I am cleary at your mercy, try as I might, I make it so easy for you.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, my fault, my skirt is clearly too short and I dare to have an opinion.


 
Surprised it hasnt been beaten out of you yet.


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

I know my partner a tad better than you do. He was ranting at the TV earlier for that insulting mens mag ''blow your load' crap on the Apprentice. He finds men like you even more contemptible than I do. Which is saying summat.

Like I said, I only do quality men, Plenty of them to keep me happy, along with all the other women with too much self respect to sleep with contemptible inadequates like you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

grit said:


> Surprised it hasnt been beaten out of you yet.



Nah, us girls love a bit of rough....obviously!

Night, night...wanker!


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know my partner a tad better than you do. He was ranting at the TV earlier for that insulting mens mag ''blow your load' crap on the Apprentice. He finds men like you even more contemptible than I do. Which is saying summat.
> 
> Like I said, I only do quality men, Plenty of them to keep me happy, along with all the other women with too much self respect to sleep with contemptible inadequates like you.


 
He is entitled to his opinion as we all are 

You "do" quality men, I hope thats a turn of phrase for something enjoyable, seems like you are objectifying them


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Nah, us girls love a bit of rough....
> 
> Night, night...wanker!


 
Night darling, sweet dreams.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

Girls you are being played like the demo on and old casio.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Girls you are being played like the demo on and old casio.


 
Quiet you  dont spoil the only joy in my miserable life.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Girls you are being played like the demo on and old casio.


 
Thank you Clair. I had no idea.

See that....it's his head expanding.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Thank you Clair. I had no idea.


 
Why bother then? you having fun?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Why bother then? you having fun?


 
Could ask you the same thing lovely?


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Why bother then? you having fun?


 
It appears so 

Nothing wrong with a bit of verbal jousting!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Could ask you the same thing lovely?


 
well tbf, I'm not the one arguing with him.
So are you?


----------



## ymu (Jun 15, 2011)

How can it not be fun, insulting someone as dim-witted as grit?



The other cunts have shut up 'n all. He's an embarrassment to cunts everywhere.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> How can it not be fun, insulting someone as dim-witted as grit?
> 
> 
> 
> The other cunts have shut up 'n all. He's an embarrassment to cunts everywhere.


 
you're obviously having a ball hun, I have that effect with the fairer sex 

I resent that, I try my best to be a higher grade of cunt.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 15, 2011)

If you are going to do misogyny role play you should all wear cloaks


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> If you are going to do misogyny role play you should all wear cloaks


 
whooosh right over my head


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 15, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> well tbf, I'm not the one arguing with him.
> So are you?


 
Arguing? Fux sake, he doesn't have an argument ...he is just being a dick and getting _excited_ about the prospect of upseting  random _women_ on the net (me/ymu).....nothing to be proud of IMO but hey...whatever turns him on eh? After all us little women are doing no more than being _played_.  We _really_ are that dim-witted.

Night.


----------



## grit (Jun 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Arguing? Fux sake, he doesn't have an argument ...he is just being a dick and getting _excited_ about the prospect of upseting  random _women_ on the net (me/ymu).....nothing to be proud of IMO but hey...whatever turns him on eh? After all us little women are doing no more than being _played_.  We _really_ are that dim-witted.
> 
> Night.


 
I'm *sure* you have some redeeming qualities, love. Shite I think I'm running out of steam have a few bits and bobs to sort before a meeting tomorrow. I'll try to check back in later.

Clair, thanks for being such a spoil sport


----------



## Random (Jun 15, 2011)

Is it wrong of me that I can't now tell grit and gromit apart?


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

I've long had trouble, tbf. Am starting to think it's unfair on gromit, though.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 16, 2011)

blimey this thread went to shit then


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Arguing? Fux sake, he doesn't have an argument ...he is just being a dick and getting _excited_ about the prospect of upseting  random _women_ on the net (me/ymu).....nothing to be proud of IMO but hey...whatever turns him on eh? After all us little women are doing no more than being _played_.  We _really_ are that dim-witted.
> 
> Night.


 
 If you are enjoying conversing with someone who you know is trolling then I see it as a sort of two way role play. It's fine if you are into it  Which is why I asked if you were having fun, seems pointless otherwise.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Lots of men have these attitudes. I want them to out themselves, and for the rest to decide which side they're on.

Huge invisible audience out there. Some of them get why it matters, and how attitudes like grit's cause male violence to women, and each other 'n all.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> shut up you hysterical muppet, the good friday agreement doesn't stop there being sectarian bars, likewise even with the best will in the world the police aren't going to be able to wipe out sexual violence, or indeed assualt because it's structural.
> 
> I mean i'm a marxist but I don't crack up at police adverts warning me against leaving values out of sight in a parked car or not leaving my windows open. I mean afterall they uphold the very system of capitalism which is organised theft writ large.
> 
> foaming like a lunatic because the police or any other body give advice to young women to avoid dimly lit streets or dodgy areas when walking home by themselves at night just makes you look like a caricature of feminist, urbans own Millie Tant.


sorry, Ymu, I have a large amount of respect for you, but revol68 actually has a fair point here


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> If you are enjoying conversing with someone who you know is trolling then I see it as a sort of two way role play. It's fine if you are into it  Which is why I asked if you were having fun, seems pointless otherwise.


 
If you really thought it was a two-way thing, but suspected he is trolling..I personally think it's interesting that you came in and patted him on the back.

Sure, I haven't been taking him entirely seriously, wasting time before bed and that however given the tripe he has been posting I don't quite get you coming in, telling us we are being played (like we had no idea) and doing the equivalent of telling him 'g'wan my son'.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> If you really thought it was a two-way thing, but suspected he is trolling..I personally think it's interesting that you came in and patted him on the back.


 
She didnt pat me on the back she copped the obvious fact that its a complete fucking wind up and you two have been feeding me gold for the past hour or two 

In addition if you knew I was trolling why the fuck would you continue, I'm going to get bored once I cant get a rise out of you any more, but you knew that right?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> If you really thought it was a two-way thing, but suspected he is trolling..I personally think it's interesting that you came in and patted him on the back.


 
wtf? it's_ interesting_ that you would read it that way tbh rutita. Why won't you answer my question btw?

Personally I don't get anything from online spats so I was wondering why you put the effort in yourself. Please don't use the fact I asked you a question as a way to try to include me in your row.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 16, 2011)

grit said:


> She didnt pat me on the back she copped the obvious fact that its a complete fucking wind up and you two have been feeding me gold for the past hour or two


 
Yeah, putty in your hands we are. Well done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

I don't really want to get involved, but when people do this kind of wind-up, the subjects they choose are revealing somewhat of their real attitudes. They may not believe what they're saying, but they must on some level believe that the attitudes of those they're winding up make them fair game for some reason.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, putty in your hands we are. Well done.


 
Thanks I do feel I reached a new level of trolling but it wouldnt have been possible without your inspired contributions, for this I applaud you.

*begins slow clap*


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> wtf? it's_ interesting_ that you would read it that way tbh rutita. Why won't you answer my question btw?
> 
> Personally I don't get anything from online spats so I was wondering why you put the effort in yourself. Please don't use the fact I asked you a question as a way to try to include me in your row.


 
I am not including you in anything clair...I am responding to your comment which implied we/I had no idea *git* (how apt ) is being a wanker/provocative and playing us/me. Whilst I see why you would think that, I am inclined to wonder why people like grit get a kick out of using a thread like this to assert his humour/perceived power etc.

I have edited my previous post btw, I think it covers your question. If not, hasta manana, sleep time, things to do tomorrow.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't really want to get involved, but when people do this kind of wind-up, the subjects they choose are revealing somewhat of their real attitudes.


 
Exactly.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I am not including you in anything clair...I am responding to your comment which implied we/I had no idea *git* (how apt ) is being a wanker/provocative and playing us/me. Whilst I see why you would think that, I am inclined to wonder why people like grit get a kick out of using a thread like this to assert his humour/perceived power etc.
> 
> I have edited my previous post btw, I think it covers your question. If not, hasta manana, sleep time, things to do tomorrow.


 
Simple, watching the appalling aggressive behavior of ymu and co on this thread. I felt you deserved to be wound up, when you bit without hesitation it just became very entertaining, ms grit thinks I'm a horrible piss artist now (not that its any news to her!  )

I did find it a bit distasteful that ymu started attacking my future wife, but I'm mature enough not to let it bother me. You could do worse than to examine and contemplate your own reactions on this thread. However I understand if your complete hypocrisy may be difficult to internalize.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

btw, I am NOT in the same camp as grit and Gromit on this one! grit is on one massive windup, and you're buying it hook, line and sinker. gromit simply needs re-education


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> btw, I am NOT in the same camp as grit and Gromit on this one! grit is on one m,assive windup, and you're buying it hook, line and sinker. gromit simply needs re-education



FFS first Clair, now you, christ can I not have some fun in peace?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> If you really thought it was a two-way thing, but suspected he is trolling..I personally think it's interesting that you came in and patted him on the back.
> 
> Sure, I haven't been taking him entirely seriously, wasting time before bed and that however given the tripe he has been posting I don't quite get you coming in, telling us we are being played (like we had no idea) and doing the equivalent of telling him 'g'wan my son'.


 
We will have to agree to disagree on your perception that I was patting him on the back. Sorry if my casio keyboard comment was offensive, it was meant as a little light humour. I didn't suspect him of trolling, it was obvious. You and ymu seemed to be getting offended by him is all so I interjected.



Night folks


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> btw, I am NOT in the same camp as grit and Gromit on this one! grit is on one massive windup, and you're buying it hook, line and sinker. gromit simply needs re-education



We'd all be in the same camp if ymu had her way.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Jun 16, 2011)

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiit! if ever a thread needed some cheesy electro-pop its this one.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Arguing? Fux sake, he doesn't have an argument ...he is just being a dick and getting _excited_ about the prospect of upseting  random _women_ on the net (me/ymu).....nothing to be proud of IMO but hey...whatever turns him on eh? After all us little women are doing no more than being _played_.  We _really_ are that dim-witted.
> 
> Night.


 
Interesting. Does it really matter if Grit is 'playing' men or women?

It's a big grown up world and you ain't delicate precious objects anymore. Everyone is fair game when it comes to tolling. If he only trolls women its worth raising eyebrows (got issues?). If he only trolls men the same (indicates a lack of respect as equals imo).

I try to troll both but tbh tolling females is where you get the noticeable memorable  giant threads for some reason. Man beef bores people I guess.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> btw, I am NOT in the same camp as grit and Gromit on this one! grit is on one massive windup, and you're buying it hook, line and sinker. gromit simply needs re-education


 
So you want to reeducate my to believe that good looking women using their charms to tap men for drinks is a good thing. In the same vein good looking men getting off parking tickets the same way whilst other have to pay is also good etc.

You must obviously be a looker and don't want to stop getting away with free stuff or using money to feel liked even if its just an illusion.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> *You must obviously be a looker *and don't want to stop getting away with free stuff or using money to feel liked even if its just an illusion.



Quoted for posterity. I've heard him called many things, but that's a first....


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Interesting. Does it really matter if Grit is 'playing' men or women?
> 
> It's a big grown up world and you ain't delicate precious objects anymore. Everyone is fair game when it comes to tolling. If he only trolls women its worth raising eyebrows (got issues?). If he only trolls men the same (indicates a lack of respect as equals imo).
> 
> I try to troll both but tbh tolling females is where you get the noticeable memorable  giant threads for some reason. Man beef bores people I guess.


 
FWIW, the gender is actually irrelevant, its an exercise in demonstrating the hypocrisy in public. Right I'm really going to bed now.

*bows to the audience and goes to snuggle ms grit*


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> So you want to reeducate my to believe that good looking women using their charms to tap men for drinks is a good thing. In the same vein good looking men getting off parking tickets the same way whilst other have to pay is also good etc.
> 
> You must obviously be a looker and don't want to stop getting away with free stuff or using money to feel liked even if its just an illusion.


As any of the (fairly large) number of U75ers who know me in IRL will all-too-willingly, all-too-happily testify, the *very* last thing I am is a "looker"!
The key points are
a) that's part of the game, you can always say "get lost" if you belive a drink is that high a price for the company of an attractive member of the opposite sex for a drink - get real, in other words
and
b) this thread is fundamentally about the fact that a woman has the right to wear what she wants, do what she wants subject to the same Ts & Cs as everyone is, without it being seen as legitimisation of rape. Put in thread-context, such posts as yours misread the sitch rather badly, IME.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Quoted for posterity. I've heard him called many things, but that's a first....


#
yeah, see my subsequent post...
(you fucker, you beat me to it!)


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> We'd all be in the same camp if ymu had her way.


 
Once more, show me where I have demonstrated disrespect or dislike for all men, as opposed to just the bitter twisted variety who are so inadequate they have to rely on stereotypical dog whistles to call the other inadequates to their corner.

You are pathetic, but thankfully very much in a minority.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> As any of the (fairly large) number of U75ers who know me in IRL will all-too-willingly, all-too-happily testify, the *very* last thing I am is a "looker"!
> The key points are
> a) that's part of the game, you can always say "get lost" if you belive a drink is that high a price for the company of an attractive member of the opposite sex for a drink - get real, in other words
> and
> b) this thread is fundamentally about the fact that a woman has the right to wear what she wants, do what she wants subject to the same Ts & Cs as everyone is, without it being seen as legitimisation of rape. Put in thread-context, such posts as yours misread the sitch rather badly, IME.


 
a. It may be the game. Doesn't make the game right. Tired excuse as to why we don't change so many of society's system. Oh but thats just the system so we have to live with it. However we seem to be arguing strenuously that other parts of the so called game have to change. When personally i think we have to look at it holistically and all inappropriate parts need to change (even the small seemingly harmless parts) if you want the big picture to change. 

By that i mean that i don't think the 'He's the man, he buys her drinks and all she has to do is act the sex object' attitudes being acceptable is going to help dispell the she's dressed like a slut so should be treated like one attitudes.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, Ymu, I have a large amount of respect for you, but revol68 actually has a fair point here


 
You are moved to second revo's puerile crap, but not to interject when a bunch of apes are splurging their hatred of women all over this thread?

Actions, not words, is how I judge people.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You are moved to second revo's puerile crap, but not to interject when a bunch of apes are splurging their hatred of women all over this thread?
> 
> Actions, not words, is how I judge people.


he made a fair point, and I equally abhor some of the utterly depressing posts by posters on this thread, whom I assume are male as well.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

What fair point? That I have no grounds to demaand men are routinely expected to treat women with respect, because he has to feel scared in Catholic areas?

And his patronising shit is OK cos I'm only a woman, but my aggression is well out of order for the same reason?

And that's the only and most important point you could find to make on the last few pages of this thread?

I rest my fucking case, your honour.

Cock off.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You are moved to second revo's puerile crap, but not to interject when a bunch of apes are splurging their hatred of women all over this thread?
> 
> Actions, not words, is how I judge people.


 
This is a bulletin board. So its all words and none of it actions.

The only ones who know how I act around women in real life is myself and the women I know. You can only guess and I'm pretty damn sure that your guesses would be way off the mark.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

Would I be a limp-cocked, sexually inadequate and ineducable 'ape' to talk of a possible problem with slut walks, here in the UK or elsewhere, as either actively or unintentionally de-contextualising the problems of patriarchal relationships into an illusory fest of 'me me me' personal preference, without seeing or caring that this kind of individualism is one of the primary contradictions women face. In reality, women’s disempowerment is _ institutional_, and no amount of seeing the world as one of doing whatever the fuck you want takes away the self-doubt women are taught from an early age and the limits placed on them by a society that still constrains them.  What's the wider class content/power dynamics of this stuff, though?  What feminism*s *are involved here?

I see no problem in itself, of expressing disagreement with how female sexuality is a commodity (as is the male) from women themselves, but which women, what experience, which class perspective are they coming from? Then there's the  libertarianism, already said above - the idea that people have a damn right to define their own happiness as the ultimate objective in the current social order, and this is politically ideal under capitalism.  It's shitty-safe identity politics,  and we’ve *all* been sold this idea of freedom for a long time.  People seem to be rejecting what they merely support - a set of values already in existence.   Someone’s damn fucking right (so, ner), to do a a few particular things in the way they fucking well want to, is still done in a society which is at its base against women, and hasn't been changed.  That's the contradiction, whether a relatively privileged middle class woman is prodding and poking me with a sharp finger and calling me (inaccurate) names, or not.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

So, women can be free if they achieve an appropriate level of cllass consciousness and don't have the temerity to be well-educated?

Cheers for that. These rules always confuse me.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

Yes, that's exactly what I said.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, women can be free if they achieve an appropriate level of cllass consciousness and don't have the temerity to be well-educated?
> 
> Cheers for that. These rules always confuse me.


 
that's your response to someone raising an important point about contradictions and limitations in such protests, to try and peg them as bossing women around. You're pathetic, you'd rather spend the effort engaging with an obvious troll because it allows you avoid having to think through your own politics beyond whining about what bastards men are. It's certainly easier than engaging with those posters making serious points about the protest or responses to you. The fact you can't even get my analogy right says it all, I was talking about being a catholic in larne and avoiding certain bars, not being afraid of catholic areas you ignorant muppet.

you're an embarrassment to feminism, the feminist equivalent to some posh wee spotty SWP paper seller.

now maybe i'm being harsh here and you've just lost the plot because you've been played by an obvious troll for so long but either way you are coming across mental.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I said.


 
don't you know the role of men is to cheer lead any woman anywhere doing anything ever as a woman, critical engagement isn't evidence of an actual real and honest interest in such matters rather it's just you waving your big cock about and oppressing the sisterhood.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

I'm sure in amongst the stir these walks have caused on the internet, that there are class-based critical views (or even from a perspective of race and class) from women in response to these slut walks.  Say, in blogs written by women (not the cringe-worthy spam porn ones, like).  You know, have the temerity to challenge and dare criticise them, with not being middle class or had the chance of access to high education, due to structural limits placed on them because of not only their sex but also class.  That perhaps attack the unquestioned, shouty class privilege of it all, on who is 'reclaiming' what, and for which purpose.  Or maybe they've joined up and become tokens or mascots for the leaders.  It's all inclusive, like.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Sorry, revol. I could have sworn he was just having a crude pop at me whilst spouting some abstract snobbery about demographics who may and may not express an opinion.

If you think I was just engaging a troll, them that would explain your sneery pretension, and that oh so wounded ego. You actually think it's OK for men to speak about women like the apes that descended on this thread, and my challenging it seems to offend you beyond reason. Interesting, that.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

Crude pops are your stock in trade.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Really? Do I ooze mindless hatred as transparently as you do?

How unpleasant. I must address that.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

I think grit really has those attitudes and it feels pretty good to say it out. It's like me on a Tory rant, you gotta believe it to some degree (which I do). Smug and all so ironic and taking the piss, but I bet it feels good to say that shit eh?

Most men don't really believe women are their equal at work and running the world. A lot of women don't either.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Really? Do I ooze mindless hatred as transparently as you do?
> 
> How unpleasant. I must address that.



Yes, yes.  I'm brim full of hate et cetera.  And it's quite clear you like to shout and drown others out, tell them all about YOU, or try and intimidate people or put them down with slurs and abusive language.  Or put words into their mouths.  It's not just been on here, but other threads too (screaming at love detective a while ago).  But if you're itching to deploy your usual braying tactics any further, and use your sleep condition as an excuse to act like a nasty brat, you're fucking not going to be doing that with me, sunshine.

It's been suggested before.  Get some self-awareness and grow up, potty mouth.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Some interestingly ruffled feathers around here.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

Yep.  Keep it coming.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2011)

What would Andy Capp think of all this


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

His wife wore the pants anyway.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> His wife wore the pants anyway.


 
Held the rolling pin


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 16, 2011)

over his head.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

I find it iluustrative of how deeply embedded misogyny is and how far we still have to go that so many people are indulgent of sexist "trolls" on a thread about the very real gender imbalances and implied violence against women that persists in society.  "Ah, he's justa a troll and he's played you," they say.  Would they take the same approach on an analogous thread about racism and racist violence, I wonder?  If the troll was spraying parallel hate about black people?  Would the troll themself think it acceptable, just to amuse themself?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Next point: context is everything.  It may be pragmatic under other circumstances to warn an individual woman that she is taking risk by wearing a particular outfit to a particular location, shameful though such pragmatic advice is to admit.  But if you are offering it as situation-free generic advice then you have crossed a line from pragmatism to control.  If you want to use a catholic analogy then it's more akin to telling catholics to keep out of *every* town centre after 10pm.  It becomes about the institutionalisation and acceptance of intimidation and fear and their use as a control mechanism.

Besides which, on a thread which is about why it *shouldn't* be the norm that women are routinely afraid to wear certain things to certain places, it is tactless at best and possibly even highly counterproductive to say that this fear is better circumvented by the women themselves modifying what should be harmless behaviour.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Third issue: I thought Captain Hurrah's introduction of *another* underlying problem was spot on, notwithstanding my above post.  Libertariansim, the atomisation of society and the insistance that so-called "free choice" exists at all, let alone is king, is not only at the heart of this debate but is actually part of the very problem the march is trying to address.  Once you start insisting anything is all about the individual and that individual's wants, the consequence is the internalisation of the idea that personal gratification outweighs other considerations.  I don't think that's healthy.

That said, I think that's a much wider issue and this march exists within the society it finds itself, trying to do something in the here and now.  Let's address the violence first and we can worry about the underlying trends later.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> I think grit really has those attitudes and it feels pretty good to say it out. It's like me on a Tory rant, you gotta believe it to some degree (which I do). Smug and all so ironic and taking the piss, but I bet it feels good to say that shit eh?
> 
> Most men don't really believe women are their equal at work and running the world. A lot of women don't either.



This ^^^



kabbes said:


> I find it iluustrative of how deeply embedded misogyny is and how far we still have to go that so many people are indulgent of sexist "trolls" on a thread about the very real gender imbalances and implied violence against women that persists in society.  "Ah, he's justa a troll and he's played you," they say.



...and this ^^^


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 16, 2011)

Fucking hell, some really dissapointing shit on this thread the last few days.



kabbes said:


> I find it iluustrative of how deeply embedded misogyny is and how far we still have to go that so many people are indulgent of sexist "trolls" on a thread about the very real gender imbalances and implied violence against women that persists in society.  "Ah, he's justa a troll and he's played you," they say.  Would they take the same approach on an analogous thread about racism and racist violence, I wonder?  If the troll was spraying parallel hate about black people?  Would the troll themself think it acceptable, just to amuse themself?


 
Yep.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> That said, I think that's a much wider issue and this march exists within the society it finds itself, trying to do something in the here and now.  Let's address the violence first and we can worry about the underlying trends later.


 
I could not be arsed to read them but I heartily endorse some and reject some of your points for no logical reason.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Once more, show me where I have demonstrated disrespect or dislike for all men, as opposed to just the bitter twisted variety who are so inadequate they have to rely on stereotypical dog whistles to call the other inadequates to their corner.
> 
> You are pathetic, but thankfully very much in a minority.



Already done - and you bowed out of the argument.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Huge invisible audience out there. Some of them get why it matters, and how attitudes like grit's cause male violence to women, and each other 'n all.


 

Just my 2p worth but having read some of your posts here  I feel that you often come across as very coarse, aggressive and actually not very respectful of women or yourself.  

I appreciate that you want to promote your blog to this "huge invisible audience" and I also appreciate that there is a huge audience who like to fuel their fantasies by reading erotic stories that were (in reality of fantasy) written by a woman.  


But when I read something like this for example 



ymu said:


> Thing is, I mght be straddling some guy's cock in public, and it wouldn't mean every other guy was free to have a poke.



and I wonder how you really feel about yourself and your body. 

I think it likely that even the most committed enthusiast of recreational sex with strangers would find terms such as "having a poke" to be fairly grim, especially when used by a woman in reference to her own body.

You talk of others spouting misogynist opinions but seem unconscious of the self hatred that is evident in some of your own posts.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> What fair point? That I have no grounds to demaand men are routinely expected to treat women with respect, because he has to feel scared in Catholic areas?


revol isn't saying that _at all_.


> And his patronising shit is OK cos I'm only a woman, but my aggression is well out of order for the same reason?


NO-ONE is saying that


> > And that's the only and most important point you could find to make on the last few pages of this thread?


nope - the others have been covered well enough to make additions from me superfluous - obviously, I would have thought


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I find it iluustrative of how deeply embedded misogyny is and how far we still have to go that so many people are indulgent of sexist "trolls" on a thread about the very real gender imbalances and implied violence against women that persists in society.  "Ah, he's justa a troll and he's played you," they say.  Would they take the same approach on an analogous thread about racism and racist violence, I wonder?  If the troll was spraying parallel hate about black people?  Would the troll themself think it acceptable, just to amuse themself?


fair point


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

I actually find it fairly offensive that just because I pointed out grit was an obvious troll that somehow I am indulging or giving him an approving slap on the back. I was not the one engaging with him and _seemingly_ getting quite wound up by what was basically a Bernard Manning esque parody.
I think that the point that rutita and ymu were making is that talk like that should never go unchallenged, no matter if they believe they not genuine beliefs of the poster..and that's fair enough. Personally I thought engaging with him in the manner they did was counter productive.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> I actually find it fairly offensive that just because I pointed out grit was an obvious troll that somehow I am indulging or giving him an approving slap on the back. I was not the one engaging with him and _seemingly_ getting quite wound up by what was basically a Bernard Manning esque parody.
> I think that the point that rutita and ymu were making is that talk like that should never go unchallenged, no matter if they believe they not genuine beliefs of the poster..and that's fair enough. Personally I thought engaging with him in the manner they did was counter productive.


 
I think if this were on a thread about racism and all the comments were in exact parallel, you would have approached those objecting to the grit-equivalent in a different way, or not at all.  At least, I hope you would.  Your tone would have been different and, quite probably, your attitude would have been different.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> I actually find it fairly offensive that just because I pointed out grit was an obvious troll that somehow I am indulging or giving him an approving slap on the back. I was not the one engaging with him and _seemingly_ getting quite wound up by what was basically a Bernard Manning esque parody.
> I think that the point that rutita and ymu were making is that talk like that should never go unchallenged, no matter if they believe they not genuine beliefs of the poster..and that's fair enough. Personally I thought engaging with him in the manner they did was counter productive.


Obvious trolls say what they wanna say deep down but just do it with a wink.



> It may be pragmatic under other circumstances to warn an individual woman that she is taking risk by wearing a particular outfit to a particular location, shameful though such pragmatic advice is to admit. But if you are offering it as situation-free generic advice then you have crossed a line from pragmatism to control.


nicely said kabbes.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I think if this were on a thread about racism and all the comments were in exact parallel, you would have approached those objecting to the grit-equivalent in a different way, or not at all.  At least, I hope you would.  Your tone would have been different and, quite probably, your attitude would have been different.


 
I'm not  sure about that to be honest, I think if it had been about race it would have been more apparent to everyone it was a troll. Check out the first thread in the dustbin for an example of people refusing to engage with it.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Obvious trolls say what they wanna say deep down but just do it with a wink.


 
Bit of a generalisation there. We have all met overt sexists, they are easy to parody.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Personally I think you need people to play devil's advocate to have any serious discussion on forums.

Otherwise it would be a case of:

I think obviously wrong thing is wrong.
I obviously agree.
So do i.
...
...
...
End of thread.

By posting a load of nonsense earlier on I was challenged and that produced gems like this:



spanglechick said:


> living in a society where the prevailing attitude is that a woman should modify her dress so she's less likely to be sexually attacked makes the perception of women weaker. it enforces patriarchal attitudes. take away the patriarchal attitudes and the attacks will decline.



A reasoned explanation of why something is wrong rather than just emotive rantings and name calling.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Obvious trolls say what they wanna say deep down but just do it with a wink.



Got some scientific evidence to back that up or are you just making assumptions?


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Got some scientific evidence to back that up or are you just making assumptions?


What do you want, a link to a scientific study that says you and grit are dickheads?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> What do you want, a link to a scientific study that says you and grit are dickheads?


 
To be fair, there aren't many people on this thread who haven't ended up looking like dickheads, one way or another.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 16, 2011)

Some how I doubt grit is really a secret misogynist.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> What do you want, a link to a scientific study that says you and grit are dickheads?


 
Or some evidence of your mind reading superpower that enables you to know what people REALLY think.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2011)

Is it cat time yet?


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Or some evidence of your mind reading superpower that enables you to know what people REALLY think.


Well you've told us what you really think about women who dress up and get drinks brought by men haven't you. And I think that makes you a bit of a dick.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Well you've told us what you really think about women who dress up and get drinks brought by men haven't you. And I think that makes you a bit of a dick.


 
I think women who look for men to buy them drinks in clubs are wankers, does that make me a sexist or something, or just someone who thinks such behaviour reproduces the most pathetic ideas about relations between the sexes.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

also it's worth pointing out a distinction between sexism and hatred of women, they aren't the same, infact sexism can come from a misguided paternalistic concern for women, a certain infantilisation of them, it's patronising and backward but it doesn't put them on the same level as misogynists who actively hate and seek to hurt women.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I think women who look for men to buy them drinks in clubs are wankers, does that make me a sexist or something, or just someone who thinks such behaviour reproduces the most pathetic ideas about relations between the sexes.


Probably just means you should mind your own business tbh.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Probably just means you should mind your own business tbh.


 
or those women should get some self respect.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> or those women should get some self respect.


I don't think it has anything to do with self respect  Blokes fancy you, you can take advantage of that. Genuinely, I don't think self respect is the issue there.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

For those that are interested, I'll clarify where I am on this - and quite why I've ended up locking horns with ymu....

My attitude to the slutwalk - and to sexual violence and harassment of women - I made clear in this post - no 299.

The "debate" subsequently moved on with Gromit's rather ridiculous railing against women who supposedly con men out of drinks with the promise of sex. I said nothing, but did comment on Edie's (post 396)



Edie said:


> I totally used to do this  You don't even need to move bars to change the sucker, least I never did. If men want to be stupid enough to buy me a drink so they can chat drunken shit at me in the (little) time it took me to drink it then that's their lookout *shrugs*



with (post 400)



past caring said:


> One time, I got a woman who I'd flirted with on holiday to send me a bullseye for the train fare to Manchester so I could go up and see her for the weekend. Spent it down the pub, of course - fucking mug.



Entirely sarcastic - I did no such thing, clearly. I was simply parodying what appeared to be Edie's approval of mercenary behaviour. But that (also clearly) was in no way agreeing with any suggestion that women who _might_ flirt with/talk to men with the intention of drinking for free then bring sexual harassment/unwanted touching upon themselves. 

Next post was a self-deprecating piss-take;



past caring said:


> Tbh, I am starting to get sick of women coming up to me in boozers and asking - _without offering to buy me a drink first_ - whether I want to go outside/come back to theirs for a quick bunk up.



which (probably rightly) went ignored until pk stuck his oar in;



pk said:


> Rohypnol will sort that.



to which I replied;



past caring said:


> There speaks the voice of experience.



Old animosities did, unfortunately, flare in consequence - posts 420 - 429. And ymu interjected;



ymu said:


> Well done boys. This thread was somewhat lacking in testosterone, you're right.



That post was clearly directed to the posts from me, pk, paulie and pickman's - and _not_ to anything that might have been posted earlier by Gromit or gavman. So I took her up on it;



past caring said:


> And said without a hint of irony, too.
> 
> Quality.



And in what followed, I made clear why (posts 434 - 444) but I'll expand. I have no issue with objecting to the derail, no issue with a "take it elsewhere" response and no issue with objecting to the _behaviour_ - it was the clear attribution of such behaviour to maleness, to biology that I was pulling her on. 

And I did that for a reason - the whole fucking point of this thread is, surely, that it is neither inevitable nor excusable that men will behave in a particular way (sexual harassment/rape) if women behave in a certain way (dress "slutishly" or accept drinks from men in bars). That behaviour is _learned_ and it can be changed - in my view, that change can happen to some degree on an individual level, but will largely require a different sort of socialisation and the way that society thinks of what it is to be a man or a woman. Of course, that's perhaps another debate, though I've no doubt that such change is possible.

In the particular context of this kind of debate, I do think that the clear implication that I was objecting to in that post of ymu's  - that objectionable behaviour in men is explained by maleness, by biology, needed addressing. Her response?



ymu said:


> You took a reference to testosterone to mean all men, and presumably all women too seeing as we have it as well, and not to the rather aggressive display of male inadequacy being splurged so utterly inappropriately all over this thread?
> 
> That's your best shot at an offensive comment from me, is it?
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  But equally - fuck her.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with self respect  Blokes fancy you, you can take advantage of that. Genuinely, I don't think self respect is the issue there.


 
there is no problem accepting a drink from some loser trying his luck, it's another thing to actively seek it, none of the girls in my group of friends would do something like that cos it's cheap and tacky, they will however sit outside a bar necking buckfast though .


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with self respect  *Blokes fancy you, you can take advantage of that*. Genuinely, I don't think self respect is the issue there.


 
Should I take advantage of girls that fancy me?


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Just my 2p worth but having read some of your posts here  I feel that you often come across as very coarse, aggressive and actually not very respectful of women or yourself.
> 
> I appreciate that you want to promote your blog to this "huge invisible audience" and I also appreciate that there is a huge audience who like to fuel their fantasies by reading erotic stories that were (in reality of fantasy) written by a woman.
> 
> ...


That is an extraordinarily self-serving interpretation of my words. I use an extreme example and you immediately dismiss the point on the basis of your twisted Victorian morals and ludicrous assumptions and make up some bollocks about a blog you haven't read.

I'm not having fucking control freaks telling me how I or anyone else conducts themselves sexually. And you can't even get to grips with the fucking point, you're so busy with the childish angst over a bit of unladylike language. Nice that you dished the same abuse to everyone else deploying insults. At least I assume so. You do care equally about bad behaviour from men, yeah? Or are you just too gutless to take the inevitable mindless abuse that always follows?

Grow the fuck up, and quit stamping your feet because the world isn't exactly how you'd like it to be. And if you judge me by what I do in private or the demographic I happen to belong to, your opinion is worthless and despicable. I'll judge you by what you choose to speak out about.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> That is an extraordinarily self-serving interpretation of my words. I use an extreme example and you immediately dismiss the point on the basis of your twisted Victorian morals and ludicrous assumptions and make up some bollocks about a blog you haven't read.
> 
> I'm not having fucking control freaks telling me how I or anyone else conducts themselves sexually. And you can't even get to grips with the fucking point, you're so busy with the childish angst over a bit of unladylike language. Nice that you dished the same abuse to everyone else deploying insults. At least I assume so. You do care equally about bad behaviour from men, yeah? Or are you just too gutless to take the inevitable mindless abuse that always follows?
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and quit stamping your feet because the world isn't exactly how you'd like it to be. And if you judge me by what I do in private or the demographic I happen to belong to, your opinion is worthless and despicable. I'll judge you by what you choose to speak out about.


 
oh fuck have you got a bolg, that should be a laugh riot, link?

any chance of you getting back to my actual points ymu?


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Should I take advantage of girls that fancy me?


 Well, yes. It's really fucking difficult to pick up blokes if they refuse to take advantage when you fancy them. If I had to beg, I probably would, but I'd probably try for someone a bit less like hard work first.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Do you have a point revol? If so, make it. And lay off the wimmin schtick if you can possibly stop the contempt oozing out of you.

past caring. once more, quote my generalised misandry. Show me where I fit the stereotypical paper bag you're fighting your way out of.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

I think the solution to all this is that people need to go to fewer bars and more actuarial seminars instead.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Ymu, it's worth bearing in mind that revol's own personal preference is for women that appear to be ultra-vulnerable 14 year-olds.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well, yes. It's really fucking difficult to pick up blokes if they refuse to take advantage when you fancy them. If I had to beg, I probably would, but I'd probably try for someone a bit less like hard work first.


 
something consensual that both people want isn't "taking advantage of someone" as I understand it. "Taking advantage of someone" would be getting them to do something they wouldn't normally want to do, or that's against their best interest by manipulating them or deceiving them...


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Ymu, it's worth bearing in mind that revol's own personal preference is for women that appear to be ultra-vulnerable 14 year-olds.


 I am aware of why he finds a large aggressive woman so offensive, yes. It's my fault for not being submissive arm candy tasked with massaging his fragile ego by pretending to need protection from all those nasty men he's too cowardly to stand up to.

Sad little fuck, ain't he?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Ymu, it's worth bearing in mind that revol's own personal preference is for women that appear to be ultra-vulnerable 14 year-olds.


 
i wouldn't buy them a drink, got morals like ffs.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I am aware of why he finds a large aggressive woman so offensive, yes. It's my fault for not being submissive arm candy tasked with massaging his fragile ego by pretending to need protection from all those nasty men he's too cowardly to stand up to.
> 
> Sad little fuck, ain't he?


 
eh what, I don't fancy large women cos they aren't attractive to me, I don't like people who give off an air of aggressiveness IRL cos well why would you. Intellectual assertiveness and combativeness is a whole different thing and despite what you reckon you don't have that, you're just a gobby wanker with as much depth as a puddle.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> something consensual that both people want isn't "taking advantage of someone" as I understand it. "Taking advantage of someone" would be getting them to do something they wouldn't normally want to do, or that's against their best interest by manipulating them or deceiving them...


 
Precisely my point.  

And why I'm still waiting for past caring to back up his accusations. I don't disrespect men, I fucking love most of them. I despise the minority who give the rest a bad press and encourage violence with their pathetic banter. 

I want to know if he's making a point he can back up, or just scrabbling around for a way to justify himself whilst pretending he actually came in to ramp down the testerical ego polishing.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Ymu, it's worth bearing in mind that revol's own personal preference is for women that appear to be ultra-vulnerable 14 year-olds.


Nice.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

christ i just saw your tagline, we are all egyptian, sums up the depth of your politics really well.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Nice.


 
my girlfriend is actually 29 but don't let that get in the way of kabbes wee wank fantasy, dirt old brute he is.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> my girlfriend is actually 29 but don't let that get in the way of kabbes wee wank fantasy, dirt old brute he is.


Where does your paedo rep come from?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

"Appear to be", revol.  "Appear to be".


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> past caring. once more, quote my generalised misandry. Show me where I fit the stereotypical paper bag you're fighting your way out of.



I'll happily do that when you show me the post in which I accused you of "generalised misandry". I picked you up on what was the clear implication of what you'd posted. We sometimes post things where we fail to express our meaning satisfactorily (viz gavman's posts on this thread re "twisting the knife") but I very much doubt you'll find anyone here that will agree my interpretation of your post was an unreasonable one.


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Where does your paedo rep come from?


 
all those kids he nonced.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Where does your paedo rep come from?


 
me fancying wee girls who look like 13 year old wee boys who look like wee girls


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> all those kids he nonced.


 
aye and that.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> me fancying wee girls who look like 13 year old wee boys who look like wee girls


Children and watersports? You sick fuck. kabbes got you down right.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Hey, we all of us have issues.  Ask any of the Freuds.  Particularly Emma.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Hey, we all of us have issues.  Ask any of the Freuds.  Particularly Emma.


 
aye you fancy Tolstoy or was it Dostoyevsky, anyway it was some ugly old russian fuck.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> aye you fancy Tolstoy or was it Dostoyevsky, anyway it was some ugly old russian fuck.


 
Wrong person.  I was the one who had the hots for Samuel Pepys.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Wrong person.  I was the one who had the hots for Samuel Pepys.


 
what is wrong with you?


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

I bet he'd buy me a drink


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Pepys was the coolest person ever to walk this earth, bar none.  But we went through all this last time round.  If people want more, they should look him up.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> For those that are interested, I'll clarify where I am on this - and quite why I've ended up locking horns with ymu....
> 
> My attitude to the slutwalk - and to sexual violence and harassment of women - I made clear in this post - no 299.
> 
> ...


 
Top post.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

You have a remarkably short memory, past caring.



past caring said:


> We'd all be in the same camp if ymu had her way.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Btw I'd like to support Ymu is stating that accepting drinks has nothing to do with a lack of self respect. 

It does however display a lack of respect for men and ideals of the sexes treating each other as equals. Reinforcing the little woman who needs to be looked after by the man. 

Funny how I'm a sexist for not supporting this sexist behaviour.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2011)

The gloves are really off here. 
It is like foxy-boxing or hot oil wrestling!!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Btw I'd like to support Ymu is stating that accepting drinks has nothing to do with a lack of self respect.
> 
> It does however display a lack of respect for men and ideals of the sexes treating each other as equals. Reinforcing the little woman who needs to be looked after by the man.
> 
> Funny how I'm a sexist for not supporting this sexist behaviour.


You're not a sexist for that, Gromit.

You're a sexist for all the _other_ things you say.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> That is an extraordinarily self-serving interpretation of my words. I use an extreme example and you immediately dismiss the point on the basis of your twisted Victorian morals and ludicrous assumptions and make up some bollocks about a blog you haven't read.
> 
> I'm not having fucking control freaks telling me how I or anyone else conducts themselves sexually. And you can't even get to grips with the fucking point, you're so busy with the childish angst over a bit of unladylike language. Nice that you dished the same abuse to everyone else deploying insults. At least I assume so. You do care equally about bad behaviour from men, yeah? Or are you just too gutless to take the inevitable mindless abuse that always follows?
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and quit stamping your feet because the world isn't exactly how you'd like it to be. And if you judge me by what I do in private or the demographic I happen to belong to, your opinion is worthless and despicable. I'll judge you by what you choose to speak out about.


 

ymu

It's not the point you were trying to make that I disagree with. 

Obviously I agree that if a woman has sex with a man in a public place that this does not mean that other men can just turn up and rape her. 

It was the language that you used that I feel disrespected you and other women. 

Why on earth would you describe the act of rape as "having a poke"?

It seems a misogynist, primitive and insufficiently weighty a terms to describe rape IMO.

The very sad fact is that many group rapes actually start when a young woman has consensual sex in a public place (often because she and her partner are very young and don't have their own place) and then as the young man leaves his friends arrive and the girls is expected to service them also.  Some young girls do not even appreciate that this is rape and simply comply out of fear or out of a wish to be accepted.   Referring to such activity as "having a poke" is fairly disgusting and misogynist IMO.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> I bet he'd buy me a drink


 
Providing you didn't want the vote too.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

You don't think I chose those words for a reason, louloubelle?

Get over yourself.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You don't think I chose those words for a reason, louloubelle?
> 
> Get over yourself.


 
Yes

Everyone chooses words for a reason 

The words mean something


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You don't think I chose those words for a reason, louloubelle?
> 
> Get over yourself.


 
yeah to be fair I think it's probably cause you're a shit writer with limited ability.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

And why do you think I chose such harshly casual words?

And why are you still avoiding the point? What are you disagreeing with, bar literary style?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You're not a sexist for that, Gromit.
> 
> You're a sexist for all the _other_ things you say.


 
Stick to the argument in hand please.  Not what you think I'm saying based on other threads where I may or may not have been playing devil's advocate.

As someone else said earlier actions speak louder than words. 

There is a board poster you can speak to if you want evidence of how I acted in the real world when she was tramatised by rape and going to court over it (not mentioning names as its not my place, despite her having talked about her situation here on Urban). 

She was appreciative of my support and still friends so I'm assuming I wasn't the mysoginistic pig you think I am.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

I'm not talking about other threads.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> And why do you think I chose such harshly casual words?


 
Because you don't respect yourself of other women?


Seems fairly obvious really

To me it looks like you are using very misogynist language in an attempt to make some point or other about how people should respect you regardless of how many people you have sex with and in what ways.  However your choice of words and terminology result in you conveying an impression of being very angry and damaged.  I don't think that your posts here are having the effect of securing the respect that you seem to want.  You may wish to reconsider your strategy re terminology as right now you iz doin it wrong.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You have a remarkably short memory, past caring.



Aye, well, you're right on that one (both the memory and the meaning).

That said - and even though I wasn't being entirely (or even slightly) serious - I make no apology. Because sometimes, I'm afraid, it's a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. See, after your,



ymu said:


> *Given your own comments, just how twisted do you have to be to even pretend to take offence* you fucking unreconstructed limp-dicked pathetic little worm.
> 
> Cunt off, you fucking child.



(I've added the bold to make it precisely clear what I objected to - which wasn't the name-calling) and your continued failure - despite my invitation - to explain or justify that post, I'll happily put my hands up to taking a cheap (and perhaps ill-considered) shot out of frustration. Were you actually in my presence when coming out with this kind of shit, I'd gob in your face, tbf.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Because you don't respect yourself of other women?
> 
> 
> Seems fairly obvious really
> ...


 
You seem determined to make this about my moral choices, and your right to comment on them, than you are concerned about routine violence and disrespect directed at women.

I used extreme language to make the point that those diverting this onto clothing or cadging drinks are missing the point. Even if some hypothetical woman was straddling some guys cock in public … that gives no one else the right to molest her, uninvited. 

Twenty years ago, rape within marriage was not possible, "I do" meant becoming a sexual chattel. And you choose to focus on my angry words?

You can tell me what you believe all you like. I'll judge you by the thoughts you choose to express, repeatedly, and by those you prefer to ignore.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Were you actually in my presence when coming out with this kind of shit, I'd gob in your face, tbf.


Think that's going a little far Mr caring.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Think that's going a little far Mr caring.


 
If it was bloke, they'd get a right hander. 

There you go, I've outed myself as a sexist at last.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Yes, violence is certainly the right response to hearing something you don't like.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

It is a rather alarmingly violent response. Still, he's not a woman. Aggression is to be expected and tolerated in men. Apparently.

Dead impressed with all you brave warriors who don't mind telling me off for being out of order, but have so little respect for men they think these sad inadequates ain't even worth challenging.

Gutless hypocrites.


----------



## Random (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is a rather alarmingly violent response. Still, he's not a woman. Aggression is to be expected and tolerated in men. Apparently.


 Isn't that the exact opposite of what PC has been saying?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You seem determined to make this about my moral choices, and your right to comment on them, than you are concerned about routine violence and disrespect directed at women.
> 
> I used extreme language to make the point that those diverting this onto clothing or cadging drinks are missing the point. Even if some hypothetical woman was straddling some guys cock in public … that gives no one else the right to molest her, uninvited.
> 
> ...


 
Seems to me that the original topic has long since had any real bearing on the discussion and is now just an excuse for a Willy waving shouting contest (where no one is really listening to anyone else). Of which I'm guilty of participating in along with others I admit. At least I recognise that and am honest about it but with that realisation I also realise that I've had enough. I'm bailing from the thread. Bye bye.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is a rather alarmingly violent response. Still, he's not a woman. Aggression is to be expected and tolerated in men. Apparently.
> 
> .


How on earth did you come to the conclusion that PC - or *anyone* - was implying that?
That's truly baffling.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Random said:


> Isn't that the exact opposite of what PC has been saying?


 
He seems to change his mind all the time, keeps claiming his posts mean the opposite of what they appear to say.

Not sure what that has to do with his desire to gob in my face, or other aggressive language from him and others that I have been repeatedly challenged for challenging.

Pretty fucked up. In my world, anyway. Like the bloke who hit me for stopping him hitting a bloke for hitting a woman. 

Nowt more pathetic than a macho and/or moralising hypocrite. Do they think no one notices their actions belie their words?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> How on earth did you come to the conclusion that PC - or *anyone* - was implying that?
> That's truly baffling.


 
Lots of people have accused ymu of aggression in this thread.  Meanwhile, PC has spoken here about actual violence -- it's a valid question to ask why the same accusers aren't taking issue with this categorical step-up in aggression.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Lots of people have accused ymu of aggression in this thread.  Meanwhile, PC has spoken here about actual violence -- it's a valid question to ask why the same accusers aren't taking issue with this categorical step-up in aggression.


 
it's not aggression that is ymu's problem on this thread it's the hysterical all over the shop nature of it, which is why she has pissed off so many people from so many positions. Well that and she's a simpleton.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> it's not aggression that is ymu's problem on this thread it's the hysterical all over the shop nature of it, which is why she has pissed off so many people from so many positions. Well that and she's a simpleton.


 
I think it's been neither hysterical nor simplistic.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Like the bloke who hit me for stopping him hitting a bloke for hitting a woman.


That was well hard to get my head around! What a twat! Never, ever get in the way of that kind of fight eh, almost always ends up with the 'breaker upper' getting a slap.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> How on earth did you come to the conclusion that PC - or *anyone* - was implying that?
> That's truly baffling.


 
Are you claiming that I haven't been repeatedly insulted for showing my anger, by people who have not mentioned the aggression towards women I am challenging?

Or that he did not say he'd like to gob in my face, or hit me if I were a bloke (ie get away with it with his self-image intact).

Again, interesting to see what moves you to actually post your thoughts. Dead impressed by your priorities.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> it's not aggression that is ymu's problem on this thread it's the hysterical all over the shop nature of it, which is why she has pissed off so many people from so many positions. Well that and she's a simpleton.


Just stop using the word hysterical, it's so _fuckin_ patronising!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I think it's been neither hysterical nor simplistic.


 
her responses to my points have been, her response to captain hurrah were equally so.

do you have anything to actually add, cos your white knight act is seriously flimsy.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yes, violence is certainly the right response to hearing something you don't like.



Actually, no you fucking clown - not something you "don't like". And there was no offer of violence, either.

It's a response to a pretty offensive accusation that a person refuses to back up:-



> Given your own comments, just how twisted do you have to be to even pretend to take offence



the meaning of which, in the context of the posts in question, was entirely clear - that I had justified the sexual harassment of/sexual violence against women, or had in some way suggested that some sorts of behaviour by women were responsible for provoking that in men. I am sorry for feeling fucking outraged at that, but there you go. I invited ymu to justify that accusation (she could, alternatively, have explained that wasn't her meaning) more than once - and she's continually failed to respond.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Just stop using the word hysterical, it's so _fuckin_ patronising!


 
I know exactly what I'm doing when I'm using it, it might be patronising but it's also the correct term for such behaviour, the fact that it makes her even more hysterical just makes it all the funnier for me.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> her responses to my points have been, her response to captain hurrah were equally so.
> 
> do you have anything to actually add, cos your white knight act is seriously flimsy.


 
Of course it's flimsy, because it isn't any intention of mine.

I think I've added quite a lot, to be honest.  I made three substantial consecutive posts at the start of the day, which quite a few people seem to have found worth reading.  You, on the other hand, don't seem to want to respond to them at all, despite the fact that one of them is a direct response to what you were saying.  Until you engage with that, I don't see much point saying much to you other than snippy one-liners.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Thanks for the sanity check, kabbes. 



Edie said:


> That was well hard to get my head around! What a twat! Never, ever get in the way of that kind of fight eh, almost always ends up with the 'breaker upper' getting a slap.


 
Sometimes, you have to. I always step in if someone's gonna get a beating. Usually a bloke.

Walkig down the street once, girl walking towards us, head down, followed by five gorillas heckling her. Told my male mate to keep walking and not to look back, stepped in front of them and bawled them out until she was safe and there were people spilling out of the pubs to see what was happening.

They're less likely to hit a woman, and less likely to get away with it if they do. Which is why I wanted my mate well out of it.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Actually, no you fucking clown - not something you "don't like". And there was no offer of violence, either.
> 
> It's a response to a pretty offensive accusation that a person refuses to back up:-
> 
> ...


 
Don't look now, dude, but you have just indicated you would use _non-_sexual violence as a result of a woman's provocation.  It's not a great start.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Are you claiming that I haven't been repeatedly insulted for showing my anger, by people who have not mentioned the aggression towards women I am challenging?
> 
> Or that he did not say he'd like to gob in my face, or hit me if I were a bloke (ie get away with it with his self-image intact).
> 
> Again, interesting to see what moves you to actually post your thoughts. Dead impressed by your priorities.



right your angry well fucking done, that makes you the best feminist in the world and everyone else who isn't as angry as you is a woman hating fucker or at best an apologist for them.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I know exactly what I'm doing when I'm using it, it might be patronising but it's also the correct term for such behaviour, the fact that it makes her even more hysterical just makes it all the funnier for me.


 
What has her uterus got to do with anything?


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Don't look now, dude, but you have just indicated you would use _non-_sexual violence as a result of a woman's provocation.  It's not a great start.


 
Really? What a sheltered life you appear to have led.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What has her uterus got to do with anything?


 
woah well done for pointing that little known gem about the origins of the term hysteria...

dear fucking christ.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> woah well done for pointing that little known gem about the origins of the term hysteria...
> 
> dear fucking christ.


 
And do you have anything useful to add?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Really? What a sheltered life you appear to have led.


 
You say that like it's a bad thing.

So what are you saying?  That gobbing on somebody because of something they said is _not_ violence?


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> right your angry well fucking done, that makes you the best feminist in the world and everyone else who isn't as angry as you is a woman hating fucker or at best an apologist for them.


 
Fuck off, you petulant, oh so right-on, little child.

I don't care what you say. When your actions are equivalent to my friend joining the inadequates heckling a woman, you show yourself up for the desperately insecure little cunt that you are.

And that goes for you an' all PC, you whiny, precious, little thug.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> woah well done for pointing that little known gem about the origins of the term hysteria...
> 
> dear fucking christ.


 
Well fuck you too.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thanks for the sanity check, kabbes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 kinell. I am an ABSOLUTE coward when it comes to real violence. Something inside me freezes like a stuck rabbit when someone is gonna clip me  So fair play.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> And that goes for you an' all PC, you whiny, precious, little thug.



And even were it true - far better that than the thoroughly dishonest moral bankrupt you've shown yourself to be.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> kinell. I am an ABSOLUTE coward when it comes to real violence. Something inside me freezes like a stuck rabbit when someone is gonna clip me  So fair play.


 
you've obviously never met ymu


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> kinell. I am an ABSOLUTE coward when it comes to real violence. Something inside me freezes like a stuck rabbit when someone is gonna clip me  So fair play.


 
Can't stand fucking bullies. Something just snaps inside me.

They usually run away. Or pretend that they're not thuggish enough to hit a woman so they can back down without admitting they're terrified of me.

I can be quite scary. Sorry frogster.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

No worries


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Actually, no you fucking clown - not something you "don't like". And there was no offer of violence, either.
> 
> It's a response to a pretty offensive accusation that a person refuses to back up:-
> 
> ...


 I made a generalised comment about the unpleasant whiff of excess testosterone polluting the thread. You chose to respond to that by attacking me, despite your claimed motives for participating in that bunfight.

I suggest you look a little closer to home for the source of this accusation, because I have only responded to your attacks on me, nothing else. I can only go on what you choose to post. You decided the cap fitted, not me.

That's one hell of a sensitivity you have there. You could do with working on that.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I can be quite scary. Sorry frogster.


 
Better to die on your feet etc


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Well, I can't afford a pension.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I made a generalised comment about the unpleasant whiff of excess testosterone polluting the thread. You chose to respond to that by attacking me, despite your claimed motives for participating in that bunfight.
> 
> I suggest you look a little closer to home for the source of this accusation, because I have only responded to your attacks on me, nothing else. I can only go on what you choose to post. You decided the cap fitted, not me.
> 
> That's one hell of a sensitivity you have there. You could do with working on that.



Utterly disingenuous.

Some of it was quite funny, though.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Clasy.

Care to prove it, you whiny little cunt?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Better to die on your feet etc


 
I'd rather live on my knees, cast scathing comments when they can't hear me and at least be around to find out who wins the Apprentice this year.

He who runs away lives to fight another day.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'd rather live on my knees, cast scathing comments when they can't hear me and at least be around to find out who wins the Apprentice this year.
> 
> He who runs away lives to fight another day.


 
That's one way of looking at it i guess ... not a very good one though


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Clasy.
> 
> Care to prove it, you whiny little cunt?


 
Fuck off you pox-ridden old cunt.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 16, 2011)

............so anyhoo, slutwalk, yes or no?????


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Fuck off you pox-ridden old cunt.


 
Even classier. Touched a nerve, eh? Not hard to guess which one.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> That's one way of looking at it i guess ... not a very good one though


 
Actually my biggest fear is dying half way through football season and not knowing how we finished after all the time I'd spent supporting my club that season.

Its bound to happen out of spite the one year we win promotion to the prem after many years of waiting.
My mates would reminise about how I would have loved to have been there on promotion day but am just a lightweight fan for not staying alive for it, if I'd been hardcore City I wouldn't have died.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Even classier. Touched a nerve, eh? Not hard to guess which one.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> ............so anyhoo, slutwalk, yes or no?????


 
In all seriousness, regardless of whether or not I think they have captured every nuance of the problem and understood all the underlying power relations and class-based issues, it's just nice to see people being politically engaged.  If they can get a grass roots movement off the ground and encourage those who otherwise might not be involved to come and march then good luck to them.  And if that means some of the participants go on to investigate these issues in more depth than they otherwise would have done then so much the better.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> In all seriousness, regardless of whether or not I think they have captured every nuance of the problem and understood all the underlying power relations and class-based issues, it's just nice to see people being politically engaged.  If they can get a grass roots movement off the ground and encourage those who otherwise might not be involved to come and march then good luck to them.  And if that means some of the participants go on to investigate these issues in more depth than they otherwise would have done then so much the better.


 
that tends to be my feeling as well tbh.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> In all seriousness, regardless of whether or not I think they have captured every nuance of the problem and understood all the underlying power relations and class-based issues, it's just nice to see people being politically engaged.  If they can get a grass roots movement off the ground and encourage those who otherwise might not be involved to come and march then good luck to them.  And if that means some of the participants go on to investigate these issues in more depth than they otherwise would have done then so much the better.


 
I'll agree with that.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Can't think any deeper than stereotypes, past caring? Common bonehead problem that. You should work on it. Or just hit me, if it makes you feel better. Take care not to let the fists fly on just any convenient punchbag though, yeah?


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Can't think any deeper than stereotypes, past caring?



Dabbler in cod-psychology appears surprised the image of a well-known snake-oil merchant is used to to take the piss out of her wibbling? You really are one thick cunt. 

Here, have another.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

Maybe you two could just accept now that neither of you are going to get anything further out of this?


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2011)

no, you are.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## kabbes (Jun 16, 2011)

I know you are but what am I?


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Maybe you two could just accept now that neither of you are going to get anything further out of this?


 
Its just like the 80s show Moonlighting. Eventually they'll bone and then we'll lose all interest in their interactions.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Because women are only ood for one thing, right gromit? 

Cock off, you disgusting litle shit.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Because women are only ood for one thing, right gromit?
> 
> Cock off, you disgusting litle shit.


 
No because it was a 80s TV series that flogged to the death a 'he hates her and she hates him, but really they love each other plot'... and eventually they boned... and then everyone lost interest.

Cybil Shephard was considerably less sweary than you though cause she was a proper lady. They don't make em like that anymore


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Just fuck off, you dimwitted cunt.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Just fuck off, you dimwitted cunt.


 
Me thinks she doth protest too much. Past Caring is soo going to get it on a tube train somewhere but Grit isn't going to be allowed to join in uninvited. (((Grit))) 







Help someone stoip me, I can't stop flame baiting her.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

Stop being a dick, posts like yours just prove ymu's point.


----------



## xenon (Jun 16, 2011)

Superb thread. For probably all the wrong reasons mind.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Oh, for fuck's sake. You think you're clever enough to get to me. You really are dim. Andg tedious. Go away.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Me thinks she doth protest too much. Past Caring is soo going to get it on a tube train somewhere but Grit isn't going to be allowed to join in uninvited. (((Grit)))


 


I'd sooner chuck myself under the train, tbh.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


 
I don't get it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

I do - he's a fucking wrong 'un.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


 that's fantastic.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> I do - he's a fucking wrong 'un.


 
 Oh!

Oh dear I get it now.

Agreed. He's a wrongun


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 16, 2011)

Does ANYONE understand this thread??


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

I don't ange


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

nor do i.


----------



## Voley (Jun 16, 2011)

I've learned a lot from it.


----------



## Voley (Jun 16, 2011)

You _can _use two forklift trucks together to lift an object higher, for example.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

Learning outcome achieved!


----------



## Voley (Jun 16, 2011)

It's been a journey.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

But we got there in the end


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 16, 2011)

Sometimes when I post on U75 the responses I get make me feel slightly unpopular with the regular crowd here, but then every now and again a thread like this pops up and I realise that everyone just hates each other as much as the next person! That makes me feel slightly better about myself altho I do question why (for the majority, annonymous) people allow themselves to get so worked up about what some random wrote on the interweb?!

Anyway, on topic, I was once at a club and asked a girl (very pretty) if she wanted a drink, to my surprise she actually said yes, to which I replied "I'll get the barman to serve you after me then." Always wondered what would have happened had I actually bought her a drink, but I really am too much of a funny twat to have passed up the opportunity to crack that joke and am also too much of a Yorkshireman to have paid for someone else to have a drink...


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

I used to drive a forklift......

And one of these....


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Sometimes when I post on U75 the responses I get make me feel slightly unpopular with the regular crowd here, but then every now and again a thread like this pops up and I realise that everyone just hates each other as much as the next person! That makes me feel slightly better about myself altho I do question why (for the majority, annonymous) people allow themselves to get so worked up about what some random wrote on the interweb?!
> 
> Anyway, on topic, I was once at a club and asked a girl (very pretty) if she wanted a drink, to my surprise she actually said yes, to which I replied "I'll get the barman to serve you after me then." Always wondered what would have happened had I actually bought her a drink, but I really am too much of a funny twat to have passed up the opportunity to crack that joke and am also too much of a Yorkshireman to have paid for someone else to have a drink...


Your a man!


----------



## Voley (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


>


 
They're pretty cool. I doubt you could do the double forklift trick with one of em mind.


----------



## Voley (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Your a man!


 
There you go. This thread is both educational and informative.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

No, but I did the double reel trick and tipped it over a couple of times.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Your a man!


_You're_ a man

Actually back on topic I know cos of the (stupid) name I choose that a lot of people assume I'm a she, I always wonder if some peoples' replies would be different if they knew I was a guy and not a girl? Maybe they'd be more or less nasty?!


----------



## Voley (Jun 16, 2011)

Can I buy you a drink?


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

NVP said:


> Can I buy you a drink?



Just as long as you don't expect to get one in return.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Just as long as you don't expect to get one in return.


No I always buy one back that was bought for me, but my Yorkshire genes mean I'll be pretty pissed off if I end up down...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 16, 2011)

Thread of the year.
now, who hasn't Ymu called a cunt yet? Form an orderly queue, please, this can easily run to 50 pages if we all pitch in.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Thread of the year.
> now, who hasn't Ymu called a cunt yet? Form an orderly queue, please, this can easily run to 50 pages if we all pitch in.


ymu is feirce, I loves her


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Thread of the year.
> now, who hasn't Ymu called a cunt yet? Form an orderly queue, please, this can easily run to 50 pages if we all pitch in.


 
Oh go on then, once more with feeling


----------



## pk (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Gotta say pk's post has made this thread worth it for the lols


 
I'm genuinely glad that some sort of enjoyment can be taken from what I think you are referring to.

I know I didn't enjoy anything about it at all, and was more shocked at my own response than anything else.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

I'm just loving the fact that I'm still the punchbag for the gutless cunts on this thread.

Do you lot actively approve of male violence towards uppity women, or are you just fucking cowards?

I don't need anyone to stick up for me, but having a go at me whilst remaining silent about the disgusting behaviour on this tbread? Shame on all of you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

edited to add, I'm laughing at pk not ymu!


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

I'm laughing at both of them, tbf.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm just loving the fact that I'm still the punchbag for the gutless cunts on this thread.
> 
> Do you lot actively approve of male violence towards uppity women, or are you just fucking cowards?
> 
> I don't need anyone to stick up for me, but having a go at me whilst remaining silent about the disgusting behaviour on this tbread? Shame on all of you.


 
The gift that just keeps giving...


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> The gift that just keeps giving...


 
It is some stamina for hurling abuse at people, I was most impressed this evening at the rate of ymu responses to the thread starting at about 7am after finishing at 3:30am! I wondering if its a sponsored posting marathon for doctors without borders or something?

We need some graphs and charts to plot the rate of insults per hour to really appreciate the effort that she goes to.


----------



## pk (Jun 16, 2011)

Laugh away, really. It's quite a relief knowing I'm not as psychotic as I thought I was. Always been fiercely protective of women and always will be, I guess that's why I'm 18 years into a solid partnership with one.

I might type stupid things sometimes but I have very little regret and much joy in my life, so I guess I must have done something right, but it was not always so. Life is a laugh until you face losing your own or taking another.

What this hatefest of a thread has to do with slutwalk is anyone's guess. I like the idea of slutwalk, I just wish they'd called it something more befitting the elegance of its purpose.

Not even read this thread anyway so I'm not sure who to call a cunt, a few are here for sure. I can think of better things to read TBF. I'll pop back when the gloom and self-destructive shit here becomes attractive again. Maybe after summer. Nice summer ahead. Be exellent to each other.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

offski?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

Yeah I have to say this thread really is the gaping anus of U75 as it stands. Good to know what it looks like eh?


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Still more sociallly acceptable to dish out sexist abuse than challenge it. I see. I should know my place, obv.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yeah I have to say this thread really is the gaping anus of U75 as it stands. Good to know what it looks like eh?


 
The similarities are remarkable http://www.goatse.bz/


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2011)

Is any of this worth reading?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yeah I have to say this thread really is the gaping anus of U75 as it stands. Good to know what it looks like eh?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Thread of the year.
> now, who hasn't Ymu called a cunt yet? Form an orderly queue, please, this can easily run to 50 pages if we all pitch in.


 
bloody hell, im surprised at you.


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Is any of this worth reading?


 
it was pretty good this morning, but got boring by the afternoon.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

grit said:


> It is some stamina for hurling abuse at people, I was most impressed this evening at the rate of ymu responses to the thread starting at about 7am after finishing at 3:30am! I wondering if its a sponsored posting marathon for doctors without borders or something?
> 
> We need some graphs and charts to plot the rate of insults per hour to really appreciate the effort that she goes to.


 
You're a fucking prick.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> it was pretty good this morning, but got boring by the afternoon.


 
The highlights were from 10pm last night if I do say so myself


----------



## Belushi (Jun 16, 2011)

Sadly predictable that the thread would end up like this.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2011)

Oh ffs, this isn't starting up with the trolls again is it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> it was pretty good this morning, but got boring by the afternoon.



It's had it's ups and downs to be fair, not sure it's got legs any more though.


----------



## pk (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's had it's ups and downs to be fair, not sure it's got legs any more though.


 
All good things.....


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2011)

grit said:


> The highlights were from 10pm last night if I do say so myself


 
yeah, you do seem to have a high opinion of yourself. 

amateur tbh.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> yeah, you do seem to have a high opinion of yourself.
> 
> amateur tbh.


 
I'd like to thank the academy.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

grit said:


> The highlights were from 10pm last night if I do say so myself



You aren't exactly the best poster in the world either. Nice to see that you're having fun laughing at someone rather than actually saying anything though


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> You aren't exactly the best poster in the world either. Nice to see that you're having fun laughing at someone rather than actually saying anything though


 
What constatues a good poster?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2011)

Get off the thread, grit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

pk said:


>



Right then, I'll be offski! Take care, folks!
Believe it or not - it's nearly time for me to be off...

And yes, there will be much rejoicing from the haterz, and much weeping from the females, but the time has come (again) for me to bid you all a fond and affectionate farewell.

I made a promise to myself a while back that at 20,000 posts I would leave this website, and I intend to stick to that promise.

There will be no more pk on this site after the next post I make, for that will be my 20,000th post here (and the rest, if you consider the post cull of '04!) but I really, really must be off now.

No really.

No, I must.

Ladies, please, calm yourselves. Things change. It's not you it's me, etc.

I could mention all the reasons why, none particularly related to this site nor am I detailing them herein, it would just be pointless dragging up old shit, been there done that, laughed out loud, no regrets. Had more fun than not.

But I'm busier now than I have ever been, chasing my kids around, running three jobs, and this has all sadly become a distraction I don't need right now.
I don't have the time to make swift responses I used to, nor the ability to figure out who the cunts are from the diamonds, nor do I even care who's calling me silly names these days.
It's different when you work for someone else - but when you work for yourself, spending hours here is just ripping yourself off!

No need to offend everyone just for the sake of it anymore either, even the cunts... it's been fun, I'm happy, you're happy, everyone is happy.
And I apologise to nobody for anything, basically.
Nobody got it that didn't deserve it, nobody dished it out that couldn't take it.

I've another new venture and a new start, workwise, and it will take all my time, 24/7 to balance it with my homelife - unfortunately urban75 has to go... for now. I have to work in Sweden and Africa for the next couple of months, and make it back for festival season here. Scary schedules.

My deepest gratitude and best wishes go firstly to the editor, mind how you go matey, call me on the phone if you need anything, I've still got that 5k PA system locked up locally, brand new amps...you know the score.
Thanks for putting up with my bullshit for the past fuck knows how long - seven years??? - had lots of fun here one way or another and of course I'll see you in meatspace - always a pleasure doing business and always a good time at the Offline so I hope to see you there soon enough.

Best of luck to all the others putting on proper parties, you know it's good - we love it more than they ever could.
These are the memories we take with us.
All those smiles and afterwhiles. There is nothing better in life.

Sincerely...

Best of luck to LD and his good lady on the move back to NZ - let me know if you want to offload any of the gear I sold you, I'll happily buy it back if you need it shifted, I kinda miss that big desk, especially as it once belonged to Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd fame! You still have my number, or can get hold of it..
I think I can say here as a farewell that I hope the fruits you seek will not be to hard to find - you know what I mean by that.

All the very best to Blagsta and his impending dad-ness!
Great news, get some sleep whilst you can!

Best of luck to Dub and Pieface on their impending nuptials, be excellent to each other, and even now long after the event I will never forget the best ever name for a party anywhere in the history of the world "Now Is The Winter Of Our Disco Tent" ... I wish I'd though of that, it's fucking brilliant and you should keep it for an annual event at least.

Can't name everyone, but dropping a few more names... Ruby - keep going with that special sound, it's your key... Aqua and Bees - see you in Brum soon... unless I hotwire the hotel telly again, keep on keeping on, and invite me to one of your bar wench mediaeval parties for fucks sake, the family is keen!... pembrokesteve - not forgotten your refills, cheers for posting what I used to be bothered to, time marches on, check your mailbox next week... Boogie Boy - educate these fuckers!... Foo and the Cambs crew, big snogs, you're all that and a bag of chips, see you in the hedge maybe - Jessiedog - woof... Mysteryguest - been too long, hope you're well, fucking ace DJ and ace guy... Sonicdancer - still in Notting Hill? Get in touch dude... Sus and Robbi, maybe Italy, if not then soon I hope - Ringolevio, frowns for hurting C but I hope you're well, hope to see you bopping in some warehouse soon... - Well Red, been too long, I guess I should phone eh? - Donna Ferentes, you weren't as big a cunt as I thought, stay lucky eh? - Han and Jan, always a pleasure - Mrs M, sorry for making you sick, goes with the job I guess, thanks for the links - hunnychild, if you're still out there, hope all is well with you and the beeb machine! - WoW, don't fucking rise to it ya hippy, see you at a festy soon - Loud1, you da man, keep up the good work - Atomic Suplex, all the best, still owe you a drink or two for the kit, best of luck in Nippon, you rock - Kid Eternity for sticking up for ol' pk and for being creative, never stop - Longdog for being one of the old skool favourite posters here - Tony1798, we'll have that Guinness when I'm not playing records! - Maggot for the help and loyalty, cheers mate - Tarranau and Lizardqueen, hope to see you around sometime - Eastender for the mad sessions way back - Tanky and Milesey for being a lovely couple even though they didn't invite me to their wedding - Cloo for being you - Haylz for being in Wales - Jazzz for being a spazz, just keep the pianism up yes? - Griff for the red shoes, dude, when next in Essex... - Yossarian for making me laugh daily at 3am for years, nice one mate! - JC2 for being a good Canuck, never met a bad one (except once in Israel) look after yourself dude - Sheof for never showing her face, respect and blessings - Relahni and Rollem for the Bermondsey massive - Skim (keep the 808 break) nice DJ work BTW and good luck with the baby - Pinkmonkey, I'll be here all day if I keep this up... but you know I hope to see you again, plus the dozens of peeps I missed, always better in the flesh than on the net... sorry for anyone I have missed - probably because I know I'll see you in real life soon enough.

Be lucky, everybody!
I have one more post left before my self-imposed exile, so I'd better make it a good one I suppose.

In the meantime - here's a pretty cool picture of yours truly, taken last Wednesday in London.
Though you can't really see my face, you know I'm smiling.

I'm the one with the beige jumper and size 12 Timberland boots, just to the right of the frame, staring down into a big TV camera, wearing a black wooly hat to conceal the baldness, or should that be boldness? If Travolta can get away with it, I fucking can...

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4...remierecg5.gif

I'm a right lucky fucker right now, and by quitting this site now, whilst I'm ahead, I'm hoping to keep it that way.
Those few people here who actually know me will probably understand.
The majority who don't know me will doubtless invent outlandish reasons as to why I quit now, which I will read in due course, and laugh even louder. Just make sure it's funny for the rest of the readers, eh?

I'll see some of you at the Big Chill, I'll be larging it (of course!) and DJ'ing on the only yacht on the lake (if you go, you'll know), if not... elsewhere perhaps... you never quite know with me, eh...?

pk


You fucking love it.

Bye!

(hey! I've one more post left - so don't delete my account just yet!!)


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Get off the thread, grit.


 
hmmmmmm, nah I'll stick around for a bit longer thanks.

3....2....1


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2011)

There's been some pretty shameful behaviour on this thread.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2011)

grit said:


> hmmmmmm, nah I'll stick around for a bit longer thanks.


Have you read the FAQ section applying to trolling?
Perhaps you should.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2011)

grit said:


> hmmmmmm, nah I'll stick around for a bit longer thanks.
> 
> 3....2....1


 
I think I'll just pop in a temp ban then.


----------



## pk (Jun 16, 2011)

Yeah what Spanky said.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Still more sociallly acceptable to dish out sexist abuse than challenge it. I see. I should know my place, obv.


 
In case that was directed even partly to me, it's the complete opposite of why I said what I said.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

pk that's a massive flounce  Dickhead.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> In case that was directed even partly to me, it's the complete opposite of why I said what I said.


 
It wasn't even one tenth of one percent directed at you. You just happened to post while I was. Sorry, there was no post to insert as a quote to make that clear.

Sorry for offending that lovely hairy arse.


----------



## xenon (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm just loving the fact that I'm still the punchbag for the gutless cunts on this thread.
> 
> Do you lot actively approve of male violence towards uppity women, or are you just fucking cowards?
> 
> I don't need anyone to stick up for me, but having a go at me whilst remaining silent about the disgusting behaviour on this tbread? Shame on all of you.


 


You talking about PastCaring's comment? I dont' recall anyone other mentioning violence in your direction. Yeah that was out of order. Looked like it came from exasperation, rather than hatred. Peple say a lot of shit online in the heat of an argument. You've done so yourself.

I hope there's no one on this thread who would actually resort to violence over an argument such as this were it being held in meatspace. NB, I'm I'n not saying you've threatened anyone. Talking generally.


----------



## Deareg (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm just loving the fact that I'm still the punchbag for the gutless cunts on this thread.
> 
> Do you lot actively approve of male violence towards uppity women, or are you just fucking cowards?
> 
> I don't need anyone to stick up for me, but having a go at me whilst remaining silent about the disgusting behaviour on this tbread? Shame on all of you.



I didn't think that you needed any help, I didn't agree with everything that you posted but you fought your corner brilliantly.


----------



## xenon (Jun 16, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Is any of this worth reading?


 

Not on your own time TBF.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> It wasn't even one tenth of one percent directed at you. You just happened to post while I was. Sorry, there was no post to insert as a quote to make that clear.
> 
> Sorry for offending that lovely hairy arse.


 
Yeah, thought as much. Not to worry. Arse you say? hmmmm where's the nekkid thread...


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Thanks Deareg, but letting them think that that kind of behaviour is socially acceptable is part of my issue here. I'm under no illusions that these thick cunts are capable of getting it, but tolerating it leads to some men expressing that violence because they can. It's nt socially acceptable, and I don't want my nephews absorbing it or my nieces internalising it.



xenon said:


> You talking about PastCaring's comment? I dont' recall anyone other mentioning violence in your direction. Yeah that was out of order. Looked like it came from exasperation, rather than hatred. Peple say a lot of shit online in the heat of an argument. You've done so yourself.
> 
> I hope there's no one on this thread who would actually resort to violence over an argument such as this were it being held in meatspace. NB, I'm I'n not saying you've threatened anyone. Talking generally.


 It was directed at everyone who saw fit to sling shit at me but not at the sexist apes I was challenging.

It is rather telling, how people prioritise the posts they make and the posts they don't. I was wondering why I faced a chorus of disapproval for using aggressive coarse language, but so few seem bothered by the derogatory language and violent responses to me. Some even decided to defend the mindless abuse as part of telling me how inappropriate it is for me, a mere woman, to get offended by offensive attitudes to women.

There's more than one dipshit getting an easy ride on this thread. Shouldn't surprise me any more, but it always does.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I didn't think that you needed any help, I didn't agree with everything that you posted but you fought your corner brilliantly.


 
sorta this yeah. You are a strong woman ymu, I wouldn't want to patronise you by defending you 
I will say when I think people are wrong and agree when they are right


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

And you singled me out. I know. Therefore, the sexist apes weren't wrong for being pigs, but I was for challenging them. I get it. Well, I don't. But message received and understood.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

Your capacity for self-delusion continues unabated, I see.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> And you singled me out. I know. Therefore, the sexist apes weren't wrong for being pigs, but I was for challenging them. I get it. Well, I don't. But message received and understood.


 
Or perhaps it's because I haven't spent the last few days on this thread mrs eh? I post where the thread is at when I get there.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Still want to gob in my face, macho man? 'It's OK. You can say it. No one will say anything. It's socially acceptable around here.


----------



## pk (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> pk that's a massive flounce  Dickhead.


 
You love it ya dirty slut!


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

pk said:


> You love it ya dirty slut!


Oi watch it defender of women


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Or perhaps it's because I haven't spent the last few days on this thread mrs eh? I post where the thread is at when I get there.


 
You either knew why I was responding aggressively, and chose to criticise me and not the sexist pigs. Or you saw fit to pile in on me without knowing why everyone else was piling in, you just thought it looked like fun.

Which one is it?

And this time, did you catch up with the whole thread and, once more, see no one worth having a pop at except me?

I know I'm being unfair here, but whatever your disagreement with me, letting that shit pass is not on in my book. Joining in with a small gang of aggressive macho wankers hurling abuse at me looks a bit shit from where I'm sitting.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

There was nothing macho or sexist in my response to you but I got a barrage of incoherent bile sent my way.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

P.s. eat a dick you hysterical old bat.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

You came out with the fucking wimmin schtick, you inadequate moron.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> pk that's a massive flounce  Dickhead.


 
It was tl;dr but note that flounce was posted under spanky's ID.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> P.s. eat a dick you hysterical old bat.


  you're really unpleasant.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> There was nothing macho or sexist in my response to you


 
Yes there was. And whoa there is now too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

It was pk's original flounce from a couple of years ago. I'm disappointed by this latest one, tbh. Second album syndrome, I suppose.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You either knew why I was responding aggressively, and chose to criticise me and not the sexist pigs. Or you saw fit to pile in on me without knowing why everyone else was piling in, you just thought it looked like fun.
> 
> Which one is it?
> 
> ...


 
Do you know what I think, I think that since you made reference to raping that dude (I don't really class it as rape btw) that you got called up on it and since then have been extremely defensive...to everyone. Someone disagreeing with you is not always having a pop. I certainly didn't have a pop at you, I just thought that the row with grit was a waste of your time seen as he was trolling and doesn't even think that way. 

I do think that getting overly agressive is unhelpful and if you read what I wrote way back when I picked you up on it I was extremely polite in the way I spoke to you, it wasn't a dig, just an attempt to get a discussion going without it getting out of hand.

Be nice if you could respond without ripping my head off cos I am not against you. I am a woman who would like to be able to talk about this stuff right now tbh, it's an issue that is very much affecting me right now.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> It was tl;dr but note that flounce was posted under spanky's ID.


 
It's an urban-famous pk flounce post. From before he unflounced.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's an urban-famous pk flounce post. From before he unflounced.


 
ah.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You came out with the fucking wimmin schtick, you inadequate moron.


 
What wimmin schtick. Also what am I inadequate at, what do I fail to live up to, being a man, a patriarchal produced archetype? 

You're an embarrassment to feminism, a vapid arsehole who imagines aggression and gobbiness alone are enough, they're not infact in the absence of humour or intelligence they are just cringe inducing. Go read some proper feminism you boarish third wave twat.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> you're really unpleasant.


 
Unsurprising. Revol has quite a bit of form for internet aggression towards women.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yes there was. And whoa there is now too.


 
Macho my arse its demure in comparison to the shit she's been throwing about.

Also the last one was deliberately provocative.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Unsurprising. Revol has quite a bit of form for internet aggression towards women.


 
Just too women or do I not give shit to morons of all sexes and genders?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> Macho my arse its demure in comparison to the shit she's been throwing about.
> 
> Also the last one was deliberately provocative.


 
Yes, that makes it a okay then.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes, that makes it a okay then.


 
When your interlocker is throwing out shit about limp dick and inadequacies I think its fair enough.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Do you know what I think, I think that since you made reference to raping that dude (I don't really class it as rape btw) that you got called up on it and since then have been extremely defensive...to everyone. Someone disagreeing with you is not always having a pop. I certainly didn't have a pop at you, I just thought that the row with grit was a waste of your time seen as he was trolling and doesn't even think that way.
> 
> I do think that getting overly agressive is unhelpful and if you read what I wrote way back when I picked you up on it I was extremely polite in the way I spoke to you, it wasn't a dig, just an attempt to get a discussion going without it getting out of hand.
> 
> Be nice if you could respond without ripping my head off cos I am not against you. I am a woman who would like to be able to talk about this stuff right now tbh, it's an issue that is very much affecting me right now.


 
I know that Clair.

Where was I defensive about that rape? Which was rape, and I introduced it in an attempt to remove the emotiveness of the topic for the men on the thread, in a vain attempt to make them get to grips with what rape actually is. When they're complainiing about women cadging drinks to excuse make sexual violence, I think its kinda important to challenge it.

Predictably, they just used it to hurl more abuse at me.

I have been surprised at how many people have seen fit to criticise me repeatedly,  whilst letting some really offensive shit pass. It is socially acceptable to express these attitudes. I'd feel a lot safer if it wasn't. Which is why I speak out. Not agreeing with me is quite different from actively encouraging the wankers to pile in on me, by making out that I am the only one in the wrong.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Still want to gob in my face, macho man? 'It's OK. You can say it. No one will say anything. It's socially acceptable around here.



Aye, entirely unprovoked that was, wasn't it? You get to throw your weight around, get to make entirely unjustified (and pretty unpleasant) accusations and when called upon to either substantiate or withdraw, then either wriggle or throw more shit around - and the person who eventually retaliates is the cunt in all of this?

Like I say, you're fucking deluded.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> When your interlocker is throwing out shit about limp dick and inadequacies I think its fair enough.


 
She probably saw that photo of your cock that you posted 'anonymously' on the Naked thread!

And I think you meant 'interlocutor'.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know that Clair.
> 
> Where was I defensive about that rape? Which was rape, and I inroduced it in an attempt to remove the emotiveness of the topic for the men on the thread, in a vain attempt to make them get to grips with what rape actually is. When they're complainiing about women cadging drinks to excuse make sexual violence, I think its kinda important to challenge it.
> 
> ...


 
so wait a minute you've raped a man and yet you feel comfortable to throw out terms like inadequacies and limp dicked...

i'd imagine any man who'd raped someone and talked in the equivalent manner about woman would be rightfully shot down as a cunt of the highest order.

being lectured on gender politics by a rapist is a first one...


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> She probably saw that photo of your cock that you posted 'anonymously' on the Naked thread!


 
jesus you're obsessed you creepy cunt.

anyway that is one place i have no worries about inadequacies.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu's a mate of mine and some of the shit that's been posted on this thread has been fucking out of order. i don't always agree with her but some of the stuff i've seen on this thread goes beyond simply having a pop, some of it is borderline sexist and well out of order tbh.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

past caring said:


> Aye, entirely unprovoked that was, wasn't it? You get to throw your weight around, get to make entirely unjustified (and pretty unpleasant) accusations and when called upon to either substantiate or withdraw, then either wriggle or throw more shit around - and the person who eventually retaliates is the cunt in all of this?
> 
> Like I say, you're fucking deluded.


 
You placed yourself in the frame by responding aggressively when I requested that some boys take their frustrated machismo off the thread. You have claimed you were being ironic up to that point, so I have no idea why you assumed I was talking to you, nor why you experienced such an intensively defensive emotional reaction.

 Your problem, not mine.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know that Clair.
> 
> Where was I defensive about that rape? Which was rape, and I inroduced it in an attempt to remove the emotiveness of the topic for the men on the thread, in a vain attempt to make them get to grips with what rape actually is. When they're complainiing about women cadging drinks to excuse make sexual violence, I think its kinda important to challenge it.
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough, I cann see why it would seem like that actually. I was reasoning with you at first because you were the most reasonable (if aggressive ) person posting. Gromit was spouting bullshit that turned my stomach and I should have picked him up if all was fair. But like I said I join in with where the thread is at. Will take on board what you have said, it's something I hadn't considered about message boards...how you can come accross like you don't care about one thing cos you didn't reply to it. 

Anyway I'm off, had a week full of sexist pricks in my own personal life...horrible horrible time.

All the best...and breathe ffs...have a cuppa


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> .... some of it is borderline sexist and well out of order tbh.


 
Nothing "borderline" about it.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> ymu's a mate of mine and some of the shit that's been posted on this thread has been fucking out of order. i don't always agree with her but some of the stuff i've seen on this thread goes beyond simply having a pop, some of it is borderline sexist and well out of order tbh.


 
well considering i made a reasoned post disagreeing with her over the top reaction to safety advice given to women walking home by themselves and got nothing but bile and the implication that I was some sort of apologist for rapists I think my responses have been justified.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

Fucking hell, either revol is the best troll of the whole thread or he really really doesn't see what he's saying. Anyway, I'm glad you feel you're adequate. Everyone should feel adequate or better.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> pk that's a massive flounce  Dickhead.


nah, that's just testosterone apparently...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> anyway that is one place i have no worries about inadequacies.


 
Not what I've heard from one of your interlockers.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

the other day i was alone. in a room. with a man  if i'd have been safer and more responsible, that would never have happened of course.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> so wait a minute you've raped a man and yet you feel comfortable to throw out terms like inadequacies and limp dicked...
> 
> i'd imagine any man who'd raped someone and talked in the equivalent manner about woman would be rightfully shot down as a cunt of the highest order.
> 
> being lectured on gender politics by a rapist is a first one...


 
^^See what I mean, Clair?

Inadequate types like cheap ammunition. Like the wimmin schtick this worm also came out with, and now denies. Because all he has is an aggressive response, no argument or interest in the topic. Just naked aggression.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fucking hell, either revol is the best troll of the whole thread or he really really doesn't see what he's saying. Anyway, I'm glad you feel you're adequate. Everyone should feel adequate or better.


 
oh don't get me wrong after trying to have a actual discussion about her ranting about safety advice and how it isn't OMGZ TEH SEX0ST!!!!111!! I simply moved into wind up mode punctuate by half arsed appealls to reasonableness meant to further wind the hysterical cow up.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well considering i made a reasoned post disagreeing with her over the top reaction to safety advice given to women walking home by themselves and got nothing but bile and the implication that I was some sort of apologist for rapists I think my responses have been justified.


 
I wasn't necessarily talking about you. i have no idea what you did or didn't say. but about people like grit who haven't read the thread and saw someone to gang up on, fucking vultures


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> ^^See what I mean, Clair?
> 
> Inadequate types like cheap ammunition. Like the wimmin schtick this worm also came out with, and now denies. Because all he has is an aggressive response, no argument or interest in the topic. Just naked aggression.


 
for the love of god please expand on this woman schtick point, is it in reference to me having an interest in gender politics and for criticising you're embarrassing idea of feminism?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

> oh don't get me wrong after trying to have a actual discussion about her ranting about safety advice and how it isn't OMGZ TEH SEX0ST!!!!111!! I simply moved into wind up mode punctuate by half arsed appealls to reasonableness meant to further wind the hysterical cow up.



Still makes you a twat. But we've been there, done that.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I wasn't necessarily talking about you. i have no idea what you did or didn't say. but about people like grit who haven't read the thread and saw someone to gang up on, fucking vultures


 
well i joined late but going by how ymu responded to non trolls like me, past caring and captain hurrah who all posted out of interest in the actual topic it's hardly surprising it looks like people are ganging up on her, because she's been rabidly ranting at absolutely everyone who disagrees with her in the slightest regardless of from which angle pro feminist or not, obvious wind up troll or not.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Still makes you a twat. But we've been there, done that.


 
stick to the theory threads where your lack of personality is less grating.


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You placed yourself in the frame by *responding aggressively* when I requested that some boys take their frustrated machismo off the thread. You have claimed you were being ironic up to that point, so I have no idea why you assumed I was talking to you, nor why you experienced such an intensively defensive emotional reaction.
> 
> Your problem, not mine.



Really?



ymu said:


> Well done boys. This thread was somewhat lacking in testosterone, you're right.





past caring said:


> And said without a hint of irony, too.
> 
> Quality.





ymu said:


> Care to expand, cos I have had a shit day and *I am well up for kicking your sorry little, but no doubt still peachy, arse?*





past caring said:


> I'd have thought it was plain as day - on a thread where attitudes towards gender, sex and stereotyping were hardly tangential, you saw no irony in explaining behaviour of which you dissaprove as caused by one factor - maleness.
> 
> Glad you had a shit day, btw.





ymu said:


> You took a reference to testosterone to mean all men, and presumably all women too seeing as we have it as well, and not to the rather aggressive display of male inadequacy being splurged so utterly inappropriately all over this thread?
> 
> That's your best shot at an offensive comment from me, is it?
> 
> ...





past caring said:


> Wriggle fucking wriggle. Taken in its context, there's only one reasonable interpretation of your post - not that the behaviour which you were objecting to happened to be coming from men, but that its cause was biology. The exact same linguistic mechanism/shorthand that occurs when men attribute (perceived) irrational behaviour in women to the time of the month, or some other such nonsense.



and in response to the "limp-dicked pathetic worm" stuff? 



past caring said:


> Come on then - let's deal with my comments. Because again, within context, I'm confident of being able to defend all of them.



Deluded or thoroughly dishonest - take your pick.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> ^^See what I mean, Clair?
> 
> Inadequate types like cheap ammunition. Like the wimmin schtick this worm also came out with, and now denies. Because all he has is an aggressive response, no argument or interest in the topic. Just naked aggression.


i must admit to be slightly confused now ymu.

you did post to state that you thought you had raped a bloke. i don't remember the context exactly of that post but the fact that it is raised as one aspect of a post doesn't, in and of itself, mean its cheap ammunition. imo. 

it does mean having to explain why you use that particular act as any justification or reason for your over-riding argument about the context of the thread. again, imo. i wouldn't say revol was being aggressive, more blunt-edged.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

I've given up trying to engage with urban's proudest sex offender, best to just wind her up now, more entertaining.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 16, 2011)

editor said:


> There's been some pretty shameful behaviour on this thread.


 
This means I'm gunna have to read the whole thing now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

I agree with Pauli. I'm pretty confused by all this now too.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

x


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with Pauli. I'm pretty confused by all this now too.


 
it never made any sense, it was just sound and fury signifying nothing.

i don't know everyone's beef but i got labelled an apologist for rapists cos I disagreed that safety advice for young women walking home at night was a terrible tool of patriarchy.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Does the actual post I made before being dismissed as a rapist with no right to comment help, paulie?



ymu said:


> That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)
> 
> It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

Ah shit.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

Damn Clair, that sounds horrible. Hope you've unfriended said "friend"...


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with Pauli. I'm pretty confused by all this now too.


 
me too tbh.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Does the actual post I made before being dismissed as a rapist with no right to comment help, paulie?


 
speak for yourself, i've more potential for playing in the FA Cup final than rape.

this "all are potential rapist" schtick has long outlived it's usefulness, it might once have signified some sort of political point but now it's just a lazy piece of jargon thrown around.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

Yes, I will never see him willingly again...but like most women I won't report him because the law is on his side.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Does the actual post I made before being dismissed as a rapist with no right to comment help, paulie?


Well, I don't understand where the "no right to comment" comes from, because you certainly have taken that opportunity.

Is your point then, that we need to understand why people commit the crime of rape? If so, where does that get us in terms of a slut walk? Is the explicit expression of sexuality any/ever kind of excuse for pushing some sexual activity? Can women reclaim some of the unequal power by playing up to, rather than avoiding, mens' stereotypes. 

Not this "you're a cunt", "no, you're a cunt" kind of debate. imo. again


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> speak for yourself, i've more potential for playing in the FA Cup final than rape.
> 
> this "all are potential rapist" schtick has long outlived it's usefulness, it might once have signified some sort of political point but now it's just a lazy piece of jargon thrown around.



I have to agree with this. I am not a potential rapist. It makes no sense to talk about everyone being a potential rapist. I'm no more a potential rapist than I am a potential kiddy fiddler or a potential Tory. It just ain't going to happen. 

I do accept that brain damage can change things - but then I would no longer be the same me in any meaningful sense.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

You're engaging with some half forgotten textbook, not with what I'm saying, revol. You need to learn to apply all that book learning properly.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> You're engaging with some half forgotten textbook, not with what I'm saying, revol. You need to learn to apply all that book learning properly.


 
i'd suggest the person claiming that everyone is a potential rapist is the one dealing with some half forgotten textbook, it's such a hackneyed and worn out cliché it's meaningless.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Well, I don't understand where the "no right to comment" comes from, because you certainly have taken that opportunity.
> 
> Is your point then, that we need to understand why people commit the crime of rape? If so, where does that get us in terms of a slut walk? Is the explicit expression of sexuality any/ever kind of excuse for pushing some sexual activity? Can women reclaim some of the unequal power by playing up to, rather than avoiding, mens' stereotypes.
> 
> Not this "you're a cunt", "no, you're a cunt" kind of debate. imo. again


 I am, fairly obviously I think, referring to the hysterical reactions from the resident apes, as repeated by revol on this very page, because he apparently couldn't even be arsed to read the thread before wading in, so arrogantly confident is he that he knows it all already.

I was responding to a point made by fridgemagnet. You can track back as easily as I can.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

oh claire  So sorry to hear this , probably better off on another thread tho tbh. I hope your ok x


----------



## TruXta (Jun 16, 2011)

Did you miss the no-quote request, froggy?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I am, fairly obviously I think, referring to the hysterical reactions from the resident apes, as repeated by revol on this very page, because he apparently couldn't even be arsed to read the thread before wading in, so arrogantly confident is he that he knows it all already.
> 
> I was responding to a point made by fridgemagnet. You can track back as easily as I can.


 
I had no desire to read all the previous pages, the only thing I saw worth engaging with was your claim about advice to young women avoiding dimly lit streets and dodgy areas when walking home at night was disgustingly sexist and acted to apologise and legitimise male sexual violence towards women. I decided to engage with that point because whilst I could see a certain logic to it, it was one I felt was deeply flawed.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Did you miss the no-quote request, froggy?


 
have edited


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> oh claire  So sorry to hear this , probably better off on another thread tho tbh. I hope your ok x


 
Yeah I'm fine really. Just dissapointed. Not gonna make a thread but guess wanted to write it down. Meh. x


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I had no desire to read all the previous pages, the only thing I saw worth engaging with was your claim about advice to young women avoiding dimly lit streets and dodgy areas when walking home at night was disgustingly sexist and acted to apologise and legitimise male sexual violence towards women. I decided to engage with that point because whilst I could see a certain logic to it, it was one I felt was deeply flawed.


 
And you chose to be abusive. I know. The many women explaining why your attitude is offensive to them is irrelevant, because they're only women. Sorry, wimmin.

I can only judge you by your words and priorities. Your words and priorities mark you out as a cunt.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> And you chose to be abusive. I know.


 
i said your argument was hysterical and made you look mental because frankly it does, like I said it would be like me cracking up about the police telling me not to leave my downstairs windows or front door open when out of the house, it doesn't mean the peelers are apologists for house breakers even if they ultimately uphold an economic system based on the universal theft of capitalism.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I had no desire to read all the previous pages, the only thing I saw worth engaging with was your claim about advice to young women avoiding dimly lit streets and dodgy areas when walking home at night was disgustingly sexist and acted to apologise and legitimise male sexual violence towards women. I decided to engage with that point because whilst I could see a certain logic to it, it was one I felt was deeply flawed.


so what about Gromit's point then?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so what about Gromit's point then?


 
i didn't read anything by him cos he was on an obvious troll, though I think i was in agreement with someone's point about women who deliberately look to solicit drinks from losers in bars needing to get some class.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)
> 
> It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,



Hang on.... I'm wading through this madness and I find this?! You are admitting to rape/sexual assault/ whatever you wanna call it? Is this fucking real?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> i didn't read anything by him cos he was on an obvious troll, though I think i was in agreement with someone's point about women who deliberately look to solicit drinks from losers in bars needing to get some class.


 
That seems an odd thing to judge, tbh. Why judge women who do that?


----------



## past caring (Jun 16, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Yeah I'm fine really. Just dissapointed.



Probably worth nothing 'cos we haven't engaged on here at all, but fucking horrible thing to have happened and glad your ok.

(dunno if that's saying too much, but will edit if required, obviously)


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have to agree with this. I am not a potential rapist. It makes no sense to talk about everyone being a potential rapist. I'm no more a potential rapist than I am a potential kiddy fiddler or a potential Tory. It just ain't going to happen.
> 
> I do accept that brain damage can change things - but then I would no longer be the same me in any meaningful sense.


 
And where did I make that claim? Why am I instantly stereotyped as some school of feminist, rather than my actual words read and understood? I regard 'feminism' as essentially a failure, and have said so repeatedly. But suddenly I'm Andrea Dworki because I explain that I onc raped a man simply hecause I hadn't thoufht about what it meant.

Why do you take revol's insulting parody of my argument as correct?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 16, 2011)

revol68 said:


> i didn't read anything by him cos he was on an obvious troll, though I think i was in agreement with someone's point about women who deliberately look to solicit drinks from losers in bars needing to get some class.


really, class 
_
women bring this stuff upon themselves....._

get a fecking grip


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> And where did I make that claim? Why am I instantly stereotyped as some school of feminist, rather than my actual words read and understood? I regard 'feminism' as essentially a failure, and have said so repeatedly. But suddenly I'm Andrea Dworki because I explain that I onc raped a man simply hecause I hadn't thoufht about what it meant.
> 
> Why do you take revol's insulting parody of my argument as correct?



So you didn't say that everyone is a potential rapist? If not, I happily take it back.


----------



## ymu (Jun 16, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Hang on.... I'm wading through this madness and I find this?! You are admitting to rape/sexual assault/ whatever you wanna call it? Is this fucking real?!


 
Yes.

Do you honestly think that is an appropriate response?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That seems an odd thing to judge, tbh. Why judge women who do that?


 
I just saw people posting about it and I said I thought it was pretty cheap and tacky and not something any girls i'm friends with would get up to, I also think it's the kind of behaviour that reproduces outdated notions of male and female roles, or prey and hunted etc

Not exactly an issue I concern myself with, especially as the idea of offering some girl in a club a drink in a bid to get a shag makes me shudder with cringe.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes.
> 
> Do you honestly think that is an appropriate response?


 
You're admitting that and criticising my response?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you didn't say that everyone is a potential rapist? If not, I happily take it back.


 
no, she did say it. i saw it in black and white not five minutes ago.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Why is being _a troll_ a valid excuse for being a twat/behaving like one? It's the equivalent of saying _'I was only joking'_ and holds no weight with me.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you didn't say that everyone is a potential rapist? If not, I happily take it back.


 
Why do you think I did?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That seems an odd thing to judge, tbh. Why judge women who do that?


because they are bad!!!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> really, class
> _
> women bring this stuff upon themselves....._
> 
> get a fecking grip


 
excuse me??

have i said anything close to that?

or agreed with such a sentiment?

fuck me, way to just make shit up.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why is being _a troll_ a valid excuse for being a twat/behaving like one? It's the equivalent of saying _'I was only joking'_ and holds no weight with me.


oh shut up and buy me a drink babes...


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> When they're complainiing about women cadging drinks to excuse make sexual violence, I think its kinda important to challenge it.



Before you get away with putting words in MY mouth....

I never said that.

My contribution re drink was not in response to the OP about rape but the side discussion between spanglechick and Gavman about exercising sexual power and money. Namely this post:



spanglechick said:


> both things are exercising power - but they're only powerful (i believe the word used was 'control[ing]') if you're an interested recipient. If someone doesn't want to be flirted with, they won't find themselves chatting up the skimpily-dressed woman. Or letting the bloke buy them drinks. and yes, some women find blokes who flash cash very much the turn-on. I also know that some blokes don't find women showing lots of flesh attractive. I'm very familiar with the traditional male = visual / female = narrative sexual triggers - there is a huge amount of written pornography which is generally consumed by women. But not all men respond to the same visual triggers, just like not all men prefer glossy american porn (or even enjoy porn at all).
> 
> yes some (straight) women fantasise over the kind of bloke they want. and for some that will be money. the whole footballer's wife wannabee type will openly admit that they actively go for rich blokes. others are into creative, tortured muso types... and blokes who are that type often put on their own show - self-consciously playing with power and attraction by gettinga  guitar out at a party, or cornering a girl they think will be interested and spouting philosophy at them. it's all part of the same thing. some people of both genders enjoy putting themselves out their and seeing what power their particular brand of attractiveness will have. and it's entirely harmless. no one is being controlled. if you weren't interested you'd walk away.


 
Please learn to read threads properly. Or can't you cope with two discussions taken place on one thread? Seemingly not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> the idea of offering some girl in a club a drink in a bid to get a shag makes me shudder with cringe.


 
no, the idea was girls going round bars (not clubs) trying to get drinks off losers (not wait to be offered them).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> excuse me??
> 
> have i said anything close to that?
> 
> ...


 you post on libcom, you should be used to it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> oh shut up and buy me a drink babes...


 
I'll piss you one paulie, how about that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I'll piss you one paulie, how about that?


 cheapskate


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> You're admitting that and criticising my response?


 
I thought you were better than that, is all. You can see the post in context, and I have explained why I introduced it.

If you think that your response is appropriate, well, fine. I'm just surprised at you. But go ahead, scream rapist at me so you need not engage with the point. It seems to be the accepted approach to women who want a serious discussion about sexual violence.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, the idea was girls going round bars (not clubs) trying to get drinks off losers (not wait to be offered them).


 
and saying that is tacky and classless is somehow being a judgemental sexist?

wtf is going on in the world, back in my day the feminists I know would have been the first to roll their eyes and cringe at such behaviour.

or are we now dealing with this inane third wave feminism where anyhting a woman does ever has to be applauded as somehow empowering, from baking a cake, to burlesque or even selling their body?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I thought you were better than that, is all. You can see the post in context, and I have explained why I introduced it.
> 
> If you think that your response is appropriate, well, fine. I'm just surprised at you. But go ahead, scream rapist at me so you need not engage with the point. It seems to be the accepted approach to women who want a serious discussion about sexual violence.


can't be rape as rape involves penetration. it'd be some sort of sexual assault, if that salves your conscience on that front.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

OMG...being a woman can mean DIFFERENT THINGS! 

*shock*

*horror*


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I thought you were better than that, is all. You can see the post in context, and I have explained why I introduced it.
> 
> If you think that your response is appropriate, well, fine. I'm just surprised at you. But go ahead, scream rapist at me so you need not engage with the point. It seems to be the accepted approach to women who want a serious discussion about sexual violence.


 
i think he's finding it a bit shocking that you brazenly admit to having sexually assualted someone and yet rather than being a bit shamefaced about it you have turned it into some sort of club to bash those who take issue with you.

it's all a bit fucking mental even in relation to the bizarro world of this thread.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> excuse me??
> 
> have i said anything close to that?
> 
> ...


that's not a sub-text to the argument?

_slutty_ women who allow themselves to be bought drinks for by looser guys who they don't want to shag are somehow responsible for the fact that girls who look like _sluts_ kind of let themselves get raped because of what they look like, because that's more or less the same thing?

bit long-winded, but that strikes to the heart of a lot of the shit that's been posted on here. imo. which is utter fucking bollocks.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> and saying that is tacky and classless is somehow being a judgemental sexist?
> 
> wtf is going on in the world, back in my day the feminists I know would have been the first to roll their eyes and cringe at such behaviour.
> 
> or are we now dealing with this inane third wave feminism where anyhting a woman does ever has to be applauded as somehow empowering, from baking a cake, to burlesque or even selling their body?


 
Hear Hear!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> OMG...being a woman can mean DIFFERENT THINGS!
> 
> *shock*
> 
> *horror*


 
deep shit


----------



## innit (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm increasingly in love with revol.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Before you get away with putting words in MY mouth....
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> ...


 
Get over yourself. There's been several flavours of apologist for sexism having a pop at me on this thread, It's not all about you, child.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> that's not a sub-text to the argument?


 
NO!!!!!

FFS people realise that there are two separate arguments going on here but people keep insist on trying to make them into one.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> can't be rape as rape involves penetration. it'd be some sort of sexual assault, if that salves your conscience on that front.


 I don't base my moral code on semantics, no.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I thought you were better than that, is all. You can see the post in context, and I have explained why I introduced it.
> 
> If you think that your response is appropriate, well, fine. I'm just surprised at you. But go ahead, scream rapist at me so you need not engage with the point. It seems to be the accepted approach to women who want a serious discussion about sexual violence.


 
This is fucking bizarre, you admit to a sexual assault and you think the issue is my fucking response? Now....

1 Where have ai screamed anything at you?
2 What past of you thinks the issue is my response rather than what you actually did?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> that's not a sub-text to the argument?
> 
> _slutty_ women who allow themselves to be bought drinks for by looser guys who they don't want to shag are somehow responsible for the fact that girls who look like _sluts_ kind of let themselves get raped because of what they look like, because that's more or less the same thing?
> 
> bit long-winded, but that strikes to the heart of a lot of the shit that's been posted on here. imo. which is utter fucking bollocks.



it's not a subtext to anything i've been arguing, being a tacky classless twat who seeks to solicit free drinks from losers is not justification for being sexually assaulted or anything other than being laughed at really.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> i think he's finding it a bit shocking that you brazenly admit to having sexually assualted someone and yet rather than being a bit shamefaced about it you have turned it into some sort of club to bash those who take issue with you.
> 
> it's all a bit fucking mental even in relation to the bizarro world of this thread.


I bragged about it, did I. 

Lying pathetic little shit.


----------



## pk (Jun 17, 2011)

pay attention to me! Look at me! I'm flouncing!!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

Where's the post about Ymu raping someone?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> i said your argument was hysterical and made you look mental because frankly it does, like I said it would be like me cracking up about the police telling me not to leave my downstairs windows or front door open when out of the house, it doesn't mean the peelers are apologists for house breakers even if they ultimately uphold an economic system based on the universal theft of capitalism.


 
They still exist in a co-dependent relationship.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

pk said:


> pay attention to me! Look at me! I'm flouncing!!


 
go on then. this dilly-dallying's a bit shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't base my moral code on semantics, no.


 
good for you. i was basing my point on the law.

but judging by what you've posted the value of your moral code's definitely debatable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)
> 
> It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> This is fucking bizarre, you admit to a sexual assault and you think the issue is my fucking response? Now....
> 
> 1 Where have ai screamed anything at you?
> 2 What past of you thinks the issue is my response rather than what you actually did?


 
My admitting to having done something that could have been a serious crime had my partner not found it hilarious, disqualifies me from talking about some aspects of sexual assault, especially in response to someone saying it has nothing to do with self-control?

You'd respect me more for being a lying hypicrite and not mentioning it. That figures …

Several people screamed at me. I've no idea why you all seem to think you're the only one lining up to have a pop. Is anyone actually reading this thread?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> They still exist in a co-dependent relationship.


 
my point precisely, and yet I don't react with OMGZ THOSE CAPITALIST PIGDOGS when they or anyone else advices me to be careful of my possessions in certain places etc

I mean if someone gave me advice on how to avoid getting fucked over by temp agencies I wouldn't start ranting at them about how it shouldn't be my responsibility to try and look out for myself against exploitation and there should be no wage labour at all, and how by givng me this advice they are upholding capitalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> My admitting to having done something that could have been a serious crime had my partner not found it hilarious, disqualifies me from talking about some aspects of sexual assault, especially in response to someone saying it has nothing to do with self-control?
> 
> You'd respect me more for being a lying hypicrite and not mentioning it. That figures …
> 
> Several people screamed at me. I've no idea why you all seem to think you're the only one lining up to gave a pop. Is anyone actually reading this thread?


 yes. it's reduced my belief in oxford's ability to provide a good education.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

There wasn't any bragging... 




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)
> 
> It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> There wasn't any bragging..


 good 

it's all alright then


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> My admitting to having done something that could have been a serious crime *had my partner not found it hilarious*,


 
This would suggest it wasn't rape/assault, no?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> it's not a subtext to anything i've been arguing, being a tacky classless twat who seeks to solicit free drinks from losers is not justification for being sexually assaulted or anything other than being laughed at really.


so the bloke doesn't have a choice, the women _lures_ him into buying her drinks....

that is still, essentially, a construct that you accept and think within. it's all effect and little thought on cause, in that respect.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. it's reduced my belief in oxford's ability to provide a good education.


 
Did ymu go to oxford?

fucking hell, I never had much illusions in the intellectual abilities of the oxbridge crowd but this has shattered the residual belief that you need some intellectual capacity to go there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> Did ymu go to oxford?
> 
> fucking hell, I never had much illusions in the intellectual abilities of the oxbridge crowd but this has shattered the residual belief that you need some intellectual capacity to go there.


 it's appalling, isn't it?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Someone else has to make the point before it is taken. Nice gang mentality.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

you've never been to old trafford either son so i wouldn't worry....


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2011)

This has become one, long unpleasant act of bullying.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> My admitting to having done something that could have been a serious crime had my partner not found it hilarious, disqualifies me from talking about some aspects of sexual assault, especially in response to someone saying it has nothing to do with self-control?
> 
> You'd respect me more for being a lying hypicrite and not mentioning it. That figures …
> 
> Several people screamed at me. I've no idea why you all seem to think you're the only one lining up to gave a pop. Is anyone actually reading this thread?



I suggest you read what I wrote, as i'm not screaming at anyone. I am however, perhaps i'm sheltered, not exactly a regular reader of peoples confessions of sexual assault... 

So, being shocked someone admits to doing what you did means i'm lining up to have a pop? 

I would suggest you don't go putting words in my mouth frasnkly. And perhaps think about what you've admitted here and stop with the fucking outrage at someones reaction to your possible sexual assaulting someone....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> This has become one, long unpleasant act of bullying.


how?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

No she wasn't bragging, it was brave to admit I thought. Not really on to use it as a stick to beat her with, it was in context and brought up for a reason.

There will be no valuable discussion here though it seems so fuck it. 

Don't be dicks kids


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Someone else has to make the point before it is taken. Nice gang mentality.


 
what gang's that then? detective-boy's famous 'collective'?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

> ymu
> My admitting to having done something that could have been a serious crime had my partner not found it hilarious, disqualifies me from talking about some aspects of sexual assault, especially in response to someone saying it has nothing to do with self-control?



No it doesn't, it adds a level of personal reflection and responsibility/honesty to this discussion, however despite the context of this thread, and that 'trolling' is acceptable and used as an excuse to be a twat I doubt you will get the debate you want.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> This has become one, long unpleasant act of bullying.



Who is doing the bullying?

Who is seemingly outraged at peoples response to their admission of a possible serious sexual assault?


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> that's not a sub-text to the argument?
> 
> _slutty_ women who allow themselves to be bought drinks for by looser guys who they don't want to shag are somehow responsible for the fact that girls who look like _sluts_ kind of let themselves get raped because of what they look like, because that's more or less the same thing?
> 
> bit long-winded, but that strikes to the heart of a lot of the shit that's been posted on here. imo. which is utter fucking bollocks.


 

Ah, I see now what Ymu was referring to. Apes etc. As he's pointed out just few posts back, Grommet weren't talking about the drink cadging thing in relation to sexual violence. That's why most peple didn't pick it up and challenge him in those terms. It was a spun off discussion about using sexual alure to get something.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so the bloke doesn't have a choice, the women _lures_ him into buying her drinks....
> 
> that is still, essentially, a construct that you accept and think within. it's all effect and little thought on cause, in that respect.


 
of course the loser has a choice, but surely the whole point of seeking to get free drinks of said losers is the fact you are playing them to a certain extent. 

if you think there aren't women out there who use their bodies/looks to lure men into getting them free drinks you are blinkered, how any of this relates to women asking to be sexually assaulted is beyond me, all they have asked for is a drink and the worst they should be met with is a laugh, a wry smile or possibly pity for being classless.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> of course the loser has a choice, but surely the whole point of seeking to get free drinks of said losers is the fact you are playing them to a certain extent.
> 
> if you think there aren't women out there who use their bodies/looks to lure men into getting them free drinks you are blinkered, how any of this relates to women asking to be sexually assaulted is beyond me, all they have asked for is a drink and the worst they should be met with is a laugh, a wry smile or possibly pity for being classless.


power.


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> This has become one, long unpleasant act of bullying.


 
Someone else who's taken the trouble to read the thread, I see.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> No she wasn't bragging, it was brave to admit I thought. Not really on to use it as a stick to beat her with, it was in context and brought up for a reason.
> 
> There will be no valuable discussion here though it seems so fuck it.
> 
> Don't be dicks kids


 


Rutita1 said:


> There wasn't any bragging...


 


Rutita1 said:


> No it doesn't, it adds a level of personal reflection and responsibility/honesty to this discussion, however despite the context of this thread, and that 'trolling' is acceptable and used as an excuse to be a twat I doubt you will get the debate you want.


 
Hang on a minute, just let me get this straight. Someone on here admits to what she believes was an act of sexual assault and it is deemed as brave, a bit of honesty and personal reflection and to criticise her for that possible act is unfair?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> power.


 
well fuck me it's Foucault.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Hang on a minute, just let me get this straight. Someone on here admits to what she believes was an act of sexual assault and it is deemed as brave, a bit of honesty and personal reflection and to criticise her for that possible act is unfair?


 
yep, because by admitting it she then uses it as evidence of some sort of special insight into the dynamics of sexual assault that makes her arguments superior to all of us who've never sexually assaulted anyone or attempted to.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Hang on a minute, just let me get this straight. Someone on here admits to what she believes was an act of sexual assault and it is deemed as brave, a bit of honesty and personal reflection and to criticise her for that possible act is unfair?


 
Nah, you just didn't read it in context. I disagree it was rape, she thinks it was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well fuck me it's Foucault.


 
more weber, considering power broken down as authority, influence, status.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Hang on a minute, just let me get this straight. Someone on here admits to what she believes was an act of sexual assault and it is deemed as brave, a bit of honesty and personal reflection and to criticise her for that possible act is unfair?


 
Admitting and sharing an experience that before she really understood what 'rape' means is _honest_ yes. The reflection was this bit....



> It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I suggest you read what I wrote, as i'm not screaming at anyone. I am however, perhaps i'm sheltered, not exactly a regular reader of peoples confessions of sexual assault...
> 
> So, being shocked someone admits to doing what you did means i'm lining up to have a pop?
> 
> I would suggest you don't go putting words in my mouth frasnkly. And perhaps think about what you've admitted here and stop with the fucking outrage at someones reaction to your possible sexual assaulting someone....


 
I suggest you read posts in context. And don't take it so personally when there's half a dozen people lining up to hurl abuse at me. You missed the point just as spectacularly as they did, no matter your tone.

If a black guy admitted beating up a white guy as a teen, would that disqualify him from expressing an opinion on a thread about racism? Cos I was 18 at the time, he was my first love and fiance, and I'd never cum like that before. The fact that I describe it as rape means I've thought about it in the last 23 years. And I introduced it because I think people need to spend more time thinking what it means than finding excuses for men to hate women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

hmm...


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2011)

past caring said:


> Someone else who's taken the trouble to read the thread, I see.


A rolleyes isn't going to cover up some of the thoroughly nasty behaviour that's been going on here.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> well fuck me it's Foucault.


 

this time with words. how does one deal with the basic power imbalance that presents itself in a scenario that you present as pretty common? pretty boys and girls all out on the town, having fun. when does buying drinks move into buying more, when does catty clothes mean that you're ready for a cuddle? or more? who decides? and why?

and where's my fucking pendulum......


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the post about Ymu raping someone?


 

Was this. (Sorry can't work out that linking to single post thing.

" Originally Posted by ymu  
That's the thing though. I raped a man once for precisely those reasons. That and not having proper thought about what rape was. (Coitus interruptus, me on top, simultaneous orgasm, I was weak.)

It's one reason why I hate discussions getting derailed by excuses to blame the victim. It's the potential rapists who need to know what's what, and that actually means all of us,
"

Now, maybe I'm being thick. Maybe my morality is fucked up. But I don't quite understand that being rape. Didn't particularly want to ask for more detail when first saw the post. Yes, I know what the latin phrase means.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> pretty boys and girls all out on the town, having fun.


 and then revol turns up


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> yep, because by admitting it she then uses it as evidence of some sort of special insight into the dynamics of sexual assault that makes her arguments superior to all of us who've never sexually assaulted anyone or attempted to.


oh shut up.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> more weber, considering power broken down as authority, influence, status.


 
Weber is shite, Foucault is much better, anyway am I going to have to construct his point for him? Was it about the power imbalance between the sexes and how this explains such behaviour from some woman, marginalised as they are from socio economic power and so reduced to trading on their looks or bodies as assets?

Yes very good, it still doesn't mean it isn't tacky and classless behaviour to go around asking losers to buy you a drinks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

xenon said:


> Yes, I know what the latin phrase means.


it's good to see some culture here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> If a black guy admitted beating up a white guy as a teen, would that disqualify him from expressing an opinion on a thread about racism? Cos I was 18 at the time, he was my first love and fiance, and I'd never cum like that before. The fact that I describe it as rape means I've thought about it in the last 23 years. And I introduced it because I think people need to spend more time thinking what it means than finding excuses for men to hate women.


 It was a brave thing to post. Perhaps you needed to spend more time explaining why you now think it was rape, though. From what you're saying, I agree with Clair that it doesn't sound like rape to me.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> A rolleyes isn't going to cover up some of the thoroughly nasty behaviour that's been going on here.


 
from whom towards whom, you might also want to consider that someone has just admitted to sexual assault on here, a first for urban I assume.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> Weber is shite, Foucault is much betterr


that'll be why weber remains core to sociology while foucault's reputation goes down the toilet.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I suggest you read posts in context. And don't take it so personally when there's half a dozen people lining up to hurl abuse at me. You missed the point just as spectacularly as they did, no matter your tone.
> 
> If a black guy admitted beating up a white guy as a teen, would that disqualify him from expressing an opinion on a thread about racism? Cos I was 18 at the time, he was my first love and fiance, and I'd never cum like that before. The fact that I describe it as rape means I've thought about it in the last 23 years. And I introduced it because I think people need to spend more time thinking what it means than finding excuses for men to hate women.


 
You can say what you like, you can have an opinion on every issue you want, your view is as valid as anyone elses imho, I have never said, thought or intimated anything different. But hey crack on and insinuate that I have. But it's the fact that you seem to be openly admitting sexually assaulting someone, that's what I am shocked at. And yet the response of yourself is not any kind of humility or seeming to be contrite at your behaviour but to criticise the less than theoretically perfect and politically spot on response of others....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> You can say what you like, you can have an opinion on every issue you want, your view is as valid as anyone elses imho, I have never said, thought or intimated anything different. But hey crack on and insinuate that I have. But it's the fact that you seem to be openly admitting sexually assaulting someone, that's what I am shocked at. And yet the response of yourself is not any kind of humility or seeming to be contrite at your behaviour but to criticise the shocked response of others....


 
yeh, it's not the sort of behaviour i'd expect from someone who was - or had been - contrite.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

Anyone can step away from this thread any time they want. Is bullying possible?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> from whom towards whom, you might also want to consider that someone has just admitted to sexual assault on here, a first for urban I assume.


 
I think it is brave to be honest about stuff on here. Even though I think he has problems, Gavman's been disarmingly honest on this thread too. 

It's all too easy to keep your own counsel about the questionable things you've done in the past and cast judgement on what others admit to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Anyone can step away from this thread any time they want. Is bullying possible?


 
anything's possible on urban.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I suggest you read posts in context. And don't take it so personally when there's half a dozen people lining up to hurl abuse at me. You missed the point just as spectacularly as they did, no matter your tone.
> 
> If a black guy admitted beating up a white guy as a teen, would that disqualify him from expressing an opinion on a thread about racism? Cos I was 18 at the time, he was my first love and fiance, and I'd never cum like that before. The fact that I describe it as rape means I've thought about it in the last 23 years. And I introduced it because I think people need to spend more time thinking what it means than finding excuses for men to hate women.


 
Its becoming apparent to me that you over-escalate things. Turning a moment with your boyfriend into rape. He could have said no couldn't he? He could have pushed you off couldn't he. Did you have a gun to his head? Was he distressed and upset afterwards?

I say I dislike women cadging drinks.
You turn that into me hating the woman herself rather than the practice and then turn that into a hatred of all women and then turn that into condoning rape cause all women are sluts.

I'm starting to hope that you've played the trolls at their own game and are the one trolling and I mean that seriously.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that'll be why weber remains core to sociology while foucault's reputation goes down the toilet.



Sociology is a fucking sham, a pseudo science mash up of politics and philosophy with a sprinkling of positivist shit.


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's good to see some culture here.


 

Franky Howard has a lot to answer for.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Nah, you just didn't read it in context. I disagree it was rape, she thinks it was.


 
If he'd been on top and had the power to refuse to withdraw, it would have been rape. I don't see how there is any meaningful difference.

I wrote a massively long post about different forms of rape and motives for rape earlier in this thread. The apes derailed it. Happens on every rape/feminism thread on urban. I'd not bother if it wasn't precisely this refusal to engage which makes these apes think it is socially acceptable to carry on. It isn't.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it is brave to be honest about stuff on here. Even though I think he has problems, Gavman's been disarmingly honest on this thread too.
> 
> It's all too easy to keep your own counsel about the questionable things you've done in the past and cast judgement on what others admit to.


i'm honestly gwan to bed, laters.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> If a black guy admitted beating up a white guy as a teen, would that disqualify him from expressing an opinion on a thread about racism?


 
No, but it may affect the weight given to those opinions by others.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

xenon said:


> Franky Howard has a lot to answer for.


 
so does frankie howerd, who was rather more amusing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i'm honestly gwan to bed, laters.


 
Night night. Me too.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it is brave to be honest about stuff on here. Even though I think he has problems, Gavman's been disarmingly honest on this thread too.
> 
> It's all too easy to keep your own counsel about the questionable things you've done in the past and cast judgement on what others admit to.


 
It's even easier when you've not raped anyone.

Fuck me are we actually applauding someone for admitting to this, are we all meant to sit round and pat them on the back for their honesty and then have them berate us about how this sexual assault gives them insight into the dynamics of sexual violence that the rest of us lack and hence we should stfu and agree with her otherwise we are sexist fucks and apologists for rapists and the culture that nurtures it.

right....

this place is fucking mental


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm not applauding her for admitting it. I just don't see the value in laying into her for it. 

And the rest of your post is exactly the same crap you just accused pauli of. I didn't say any of that. 


And if you look back right to the start of this thread, you'll see that I defended gavman a bit too. I'm an even-handed lilly-arsed liberal.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

and ofcourse the whole point is that the silly fucker never raped fucking anyone, it's just an another example of her ridiculously hysterical mindset.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> You can say what you like, you can have an opinion on every issue you want, your view is as valid as anyone elses imho, I have never said, thought or intimated anything different. But hey crack on and insinuate that I have. But it's the fact that you seem to be openly admitting sexually assaulting someone, that's what I am shocked at. And yet the response of yourself is not any kind of humility or seeming to be contrite at your behaviour but to criticise the less than theoretically perfect and politically spot on response of others....


 
It is precisely your fucked up claims about my attitude that made me suggest you read the thread.

Why is revol's rading of my posts considered credible enough to base your opinion on. Why are you repeatedly lying about my attitude even when others have pointed out your error?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> The apes derailed it. [...] these apes.


i wonder whether, while you were at oxford, you were equally dismissive of the plebs living in blackbird leys while you swanned round the sheldonian theatre and that. your decision to dehumanise people whose posts took the thread in a different direction to that you desired does you no credit.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not applauding her for admitting it. I just don't see the value in laying into her for it.
> 
> And the rest of your post is exactly the same crap you just accused pauli of. I didn't say any of that.


 
the rest of it was directed towards ymu's behaviour and implicit argument, not you.

you're not fucking mental.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> your decision to dehumanise people whose posts took the thread in a different direction to that you desired does you no credit.


 
Hold on...when they are called 'trolls' it is okay to dehumanise them, even salute them for _playing_ a good game.

Call them 'apes' and it's not on? _Trolling_ and _apeing_ is the same shit IMO.


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> A rolleyes isn't going to cover up some of the thoroughly nasty behaviour that's been going on here.



Nor was it intended to. Are you trying to suggest there's something I'd wish to cover up?


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is precisely your fucked up claims about my attitude that made me suggest you read the thread.
> 
> Why is revol's rading of my posts considered credible enough to base your opinion on. Why are you lying about my attitude? What gives?


 
I think your attitude, which consists of you criticising my response to your claim because you deem that response not the be the type of reply you demand and the answers you deem acceptable says plenty.

I don't take my cue from revol ta, but hey thanks for yet more patronising guff....
Lying about your attitude? Nope, I am basing it on what i'm reading. Your first reply to my rather understandable shock at your claim/admission/admission, wasn't anything other than a criticism of my reaction, as if that was the issue rather than the possible admission of sexual assault.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> It's even easier when you've not raped anyone.
> 
> Fuck me are we actually applauding someone for admitting to this, are we all meant to sit round and pat them on the back for their honesty and then have them berate us about how this sexual assault gives them insight into the dynamics of sexual violence that the rest of us lack and hence we should stfu and agree with her otherwise we are sexist fucks and apologists for rapists and the culture that nurtures it.
> 
> ...


 
Now you are just making shit up 

I meant she was brave for posting something that would no doubt get her laid into for. Not throwing her a congratulations you raped someone party! But no, it doesn't give her any more insight.

A good friend of mine is a trans woman. Even though all her life she wanted/needed to be seen as a woman and become one physically. Nothing prepared her for the way she would be treated by men once she transitioned fully. She was shocked by how much casual sexism we face day to day. She realised the fear of getting seperated from friends on a night out, getting groped in public, shouted at in the street...etc etc. I do think that it is hard for men to appreciate what it is like to be made to feel so small just cos of our sex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Hold on...when they are called 'trolls' it is okay to dehumanise them, even salute them for _playing_ a good game.
> 
> Call them 'apes' and it's not on? _Trolling_ and _apeing_ is the same shit IMO.


yeh whatever. you pull people up on calling others trolls and i'll take care of people calling other posters apes. ok?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder whether, while you were at oxford, you were equally dismissive of the plebs living in blackbird leys while you swanned round the sheldonian theatre and that. your decision to dehumanise people whose posts took the thread in a different direction to that you desired does you no credit.


 
Bit like calling people chavs isn't now you come to mention it. A way to dismiss others as inferior.

Called her bitch or equivalent and you'll be accused letting your women hate show. Yet her calling men apes isn't letting her man hate slip?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder whether, while you were at oxford, you were equally dismissive of the plebs living in blackbird leys while you swanned round the sheldonian theatre and that. your decision to dehumanise people whose posts took the thread in a different direction to that you desired does you no credit.


 You are curiously obsessed with this. If you really want to know, Stewart Lee nailed the non-toff experience of Oxfrd last week. May still be on iPlayer. Now, do cock off you ignorant little dimwit,


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Hold on...when they are called 'trolls' it is okay to dehumanise them, even salute them for _playing_ a good game.
> 
> Call them 'apes' and it's not on?


 
yes you are quite right, there is a long  long history of social elites dehumanising lower classes and races by presenting them as mythical creatures that live under bridges.

finding out ymu went to oxford makes it all make some sort of sense, she's just a spoilt, self important prick with a hysterical need for attention, hence her perverse claim to have raped someone and her subsequent attempt to use such an experience for a monopoly of knowledge which serves to strengthen her argument and make those who disagree active apologists for rapists and pimps of rape myths and culture.

there is almost a mad kind of genius in it, I take back what I said about oxford.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Hold on...when they are called 'trolls' it is okay to dehumanise them, even salute them for _playing_ a good game.
> 
> Call them 'apes' and it's not on? _Trolling_ and _apeing_ is the same shit IMO.


 
Nobody congratulated grit so please stop insinuating anyone did. I don't like people trolling about subjects like this. You got me wrong last night.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> You are curiously obsessed with this. If you really want to know, Stewart Lee nailed the non-toff experience of Oxfrd last week. May still be on iPlayer. Now, do cock off you ignorant little dimwit,


got your gander up, i see.

is 'cock off' oxbridge speak for 'fuck off'?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Hold on...when they are called 'trolls' it is okay to dehumanise them, even salute them for _playing_ a good game.
> 
> Call them 'apes' and it's not on? _Trolling_ and _apeing_ is the same shit IMO.



*Troll*
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2]

*Ape*
In Internet slang, Oh wait there ain't any wiki entry... and aping is to imitate.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Now you are just making shit up
> 
> I meant she was brave for posting something that would no doubt get her laid into for. Not throwing her a congratulations you raped someone party! But no, it doesn't give her any more insight.
> 
> A good friend of mine is a trans woman. Even though all her life she wanted/needed to be seen as a woman and become one physically. Nothing prepared her for the way she would be treated by men once she transitioned fully. She was shocked by how much casual sexism we face day to day. She realised the fear of getting seperated from friends on a night out, getting groped in public, shouted at in the street...etc etc. I do think that it is hard for men to appreciate what it is like to be made to feel so small just cos of our sex.


 
the first part and the seocn part of your post are total non sequitors. how has ymu's "rape" of man related to your point about men often not realising the vulnerability women feel to sexual violence.

Anyway like I've said the daft muppet hasn't raped anyone, it was just her typically hysterical approach to the world crossed with a bid for attention and a rather novel attempt to build a platform from a monopoly of experience, afterall the chances of anyone underming such a monopoly by also announcing their first hand insights into raping aren't exactly high.

all in all, it's fucking batshit.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

They were unrealated yes sorry. Relevant to the thread though I thought


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Nobody congratulated grit so please stop insinuating anyone did. I don't like people trolling about subjects like this. *You got me wrong last night.*



Fair enough.

I do think though Clair there is a difference between saying, for example:

'He's a troll, don't feed him'

and

'You girls are getting played like a casio whatevers'


One of the above gives credit to the troll IMO, which is why I made the point I did to you last night.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

I call some individuals apes, and suddenly I'm insulting an entire demographic?

You poor, oppressed little things. My blatant and virtually unchallenged misandry must be just overwhelmingly difficult to bear. I'm not surprised so many of you think it's not even worth mentioning the misogyny, when there is a woman daring to speak out in such damagingly abusive terms.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> a woman daring to speak out in such damagingly abusive terms.






			
				ymu said:
			
		

> cock off you ignorant little dimwit


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I do think though Clair there is a difference between saying, for example:
> 
> ...


 
you've got a pint to be fair it wasn't even like grit was being very funny or shocking, he was a pretty banal troll, the hilarity arouse from ymu's mentalness and subsequent lashing out at anyone who slightly disagreed with her, regardless of whether they came from a pro feminist position or otherwise.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I do think though Clair there is a difference between saying, for example:
> 
> ...


 
Yeah my attempt at being lighthearted *was* ill thought out in terms of words used. I just liked the keyboard analogy


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I call some individuals apes, and suddenly I'm insulting an entire demographic?
> 
> You poor, oppressed little things. My blatant and virtually unchallenged misandry must be just overwhelmingly difficult to bear. I'm not surprised so many of you think it's not even worth mentioning the misogyny, when there is a woman daring to speak out in such damagingly abusive terms.


 
poor little rich girl, would daddy not buy you a pony, what a bastard!

smash patriarchy!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Gromit said:


> *Ape*
> In Internet slang, Oh wait there ain't any wiki entry... and aping is to imitate.



So to ape is to imitate, which curiously means the same as _someone who posts inflammatory comments with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response _= behaving like/imitating a sexist twat (in the context of this thread).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I call some individuals apes, and suddenly I'm insulting an entire demographic?
> 
> You poor, oppressed little things. My blatant and virtually unchallenged misandry must be just overwhelmingly difficult to bear. I'm not surprised so many of you think it's not even worth mentioning the misogyny, when there is a woman daring to speak out in such damagingly abusive terms.


 fwiw i don't think you're insulting an entire demographic, unless it's 'people who disagree with ymu on urban'. i don't think you've got the wit, frankly. it's not so much your misandry but your petty and vindictive dehumanising of anyone fortunate enough to disagree with you which gets my goat.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Really quite concerned at the number of people who think refusing to withdraw and using physical power to prevent withdrawal isn't rape. 

Bit fucked up. If I change my mind or need a break, I expect that to be respected. There''s a continuum here, and not recognising where it starts is a part of the problem, IMO.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So to ape is to imitate, which curiously means the same as _someone who posts inflammatory comments with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response _= behaving like/imitating a sexist twat (in the context of this thread).


 
yes but you can't be an ape of that type.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So to ape is to imitate, which curiously means the same as _someone who posts inflammatory comments with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response _= behaving like/imitating a sexist twat (in the context of this thread).


 
Thats not how she is using it and don't pretend that she is.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Really quite concerned at the number of people who think refusing to withdraw and using physical power to prevent withdrawal isn't rape.
> 
> Bit fucked up. If I change my mind or need a break, I expect that to be respected. There''s a continuum here, and not recognising where it starts is a part of the problem, IMO.


 
amazing, see how the self proclaimed rapist uses it to lecture everyone else on sexual consent and violence...

fucking twilight zone shit.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Really quite concerned at the number of people who think refusing to withdraw and using physical power to prevent withdrawal isn't rape.
> 
> Bit fucked up. If I change my mind or need a break, I expect that to be respected. There''s a continuum here, and not recognising where it starts is a part of the problem, IMO.


 
With hindsight (for you) it was rape but it's not like you set out to rape him, you were in love and having sex and got carried away I would say. Selfish and foolish yes, rape? no.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Thats not how she is using it and don't pretend that she is.


 
That is not how you are choosing to read her Gromit, please don't tell me how to read her or accuse me of pretending either. I am not.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> That is not how you are choosing to read her Gromit, please don't tell me how to read her or accuse me of pretending either. I am not.


 
There is a simple way to clarify.

Ymu please explain how you were using the term?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> With hindsight (for you) it was rape but it's not like you set out to rape him, you were in love and having sex and got carried away I would say. Selfish and foolish yes, rape? no.


 
Yep. I agree. I would rather keep the word rape for acts that are a clear violation. Refusing to stop when you're right at the point of coming is not a clear violation.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

this is surely the craziest monopoly of experience argument ever attempted on urban, it used to be all about appeals to how oppressed you were, how much of a victim you've been, how you grew up as a one legged mixed race trans lesbian in a welsh coal mine that had emigrated from ireland during the famine, but now with this whole post modern irony shit it's all about boasting of sexual assault and the monopoly of knowledge bestowed from being the oppressor.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> this is surely the craziest monopoly of experience argument ever attempted on urban, it used to be all about appeals to how oppressed you were, how much of a victim you've been, how you grew up as a one legged mixed race trans lesbian in a welsh coal mine that had emigrated from ireland during the famine, but now with this whole post modern irony shit it's all about boasting of sexual assault and the monopoly of knowledge bestowed from being the oppressor.


 
It does seem rather odd.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

We are post pity


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> With hindsight (for you) it was rape but it's not like you set out to rape him, you were in love and having sex and got carried away I would say. Selfish and foolish yes, rape? no.


 
Precisely. I doubt many date rapists set out to rape either. Which is why I thought it might be helpful to introduce a non-emotive example, with no man at fault, as a discussion point. Making rapists into 'the other' just allows people to avoid thinking about what causes it, including the sorts of attitudes so freely expressed in this thread, to apparent approval.

But apparently, I was bragging about how badly I treat men, and this is why it's been acceptable to hurl abuse at me whilst ignoring deliberately offensive commentary from men. I should just learn to know my place, I realise.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Precisely. I doubt many date rapists set out to rape either. Which is why I thought it might be helpful to introduce a non-emotive example, with no man at fault, as a discussion point. Making rapists into 'the other' just allows people to avoid thinking about what causes it, including the sorts of attitudes so freely expressed in this thread, to apparent approval.
> 
> But apparently, I was bragging about how badly I treat men, and this is why it's been acceptable to hurl abuse at me whilst ignoring deliberately offensive commentary from men. I should just learn to know my place, I realise.


 
shut up Rose West!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

I also had an ex boyfriend who would initiate sex in his sleep and when I was asleep. I thought he was a weird fucker (no pun intended ) untill I was awake next to him a few times and realised he _was_ in fact asleep. I grew to like his sleep sex...that's prob well wrong.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Gromit said:


> There is a simple way to clarify.
> 
> Ymu please explain how you were using the term?


 
I was referring to the unreconstructed males who have been freely throwing sexist abuse around on the thread. Much as, if I referred to 'boneheads' on a BNP thread, I would be referring to racists, not all white people. But, that point is so obvious, it only needs making to those so desperate to rescue some credibility they are clutching at the flimsiest of straws.

Someone will be posting up another picture of a prison camp next, to portray my attitude to men as pure misandry. Because some people seem incapable of formulating an argument which does not rely on offensive stereotypes.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I was referring to the unreconstructed males who have been freely throwing sexist abuse around on the thread. Much as, if I referred to 'boneheads' on a BNP thread, I would be referring to racists, not all white people. But, that point is so obvious, it only needs making to those so desperate to rescue some credibility they are clutching at the flimsiest of straws.
> 
> Someone will be posting up another picture of a prison camp next, to portray my attitude to men as pure misandry. Because some people seem incapable of formulating an argument which does not rely on offensive stereotypes.


 
I don't think it's the use of the term ape alone that is the problem, it's more to do with the whole being a big massive rapist thing.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2011)

This thread needs closing. I've taken some shit on U75 before but this bullying takes the biscuit. I'm actually embarrassed for all these people ganging up on one person because there's obviously something wrong/missing in their lives outside of U75 that they have to make it up this way. Sort yourselves out for fuck's sake...


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> I also had an ex boyfriend who would initiate sex in his sleep and when I was asleep. I thought he was a weird fucker (no pun intended ) untill I was awake next to him a few times and realised he _was_ in fact asleep. I grew to like his sleep sex...that's prob well wrong.


 
It's calle sexsomnia. Genuine condition and defence.

I was raped like that once. But I was fantasising about him seducing me at the time, so he was a lot more upset than I was. That is something I do feel uncomfortable describing as rape, even though it was quite violent before he woke up.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> This thread needs closing. I've taken some shit on U75 before but this bullying takes the biscuit. I'm actually embarrassed for all these people ganging up on one person because there's obviously something wrong/missing in their lives outside of U75 that they have to make it up this way. Sort yourselves out for fuck's sake...


 
have you read this thread?

way to side with a rapist you sick fuck!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> This thread needs closing. I've taken some shit on U75 before but this bullying takes the biscuit. I'm actually embarrassed for all these people ganging up on one person because there's obviously something wrong/missing in their lives outside of U75 that they have to make it up this way. Sort yourselves out for fuck's sake...


 
ymu, do you think you are being bullied here?


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> have you read this thread?
> 
> way to side with a rapist you sick fuck!


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> This thread needs closing. I've taken some shit on U75 before but this bullying takes the biscuit. I'm actually embarrassed for all these people ganging up on one person because there's obviously something wrong/missing in their lives outside of U75 that they have to make it up this way. Sort yourselves out for fuck's sake...


 
I'd prefer they continue to show themselves up. It is not socially acceptable to behave like this in public, and eventually enough people might decide to say so that it stops happening. Until then, the frustrated toddlers can take it out on me all they like. It doesn't exactly hurt!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

CyberRose said:


>


 
It was all Tevez's fault.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'd prefer they continue to show themselves up. It is not socially acceptable to behave like this in public, and eventually enough people might decide to say so that it stops happening. Until then, the frustrated toddlers can take it out on me all they like.* It doesn't exactly hurt!*


 
unlike you bearing down on right angled cock.

away and get chemically castrated.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> It was all Tevez's fault.


Not Tevez's fault, those who diliberately concealed the nature of his contract (which is proven by the way)


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> ymu, do you think you are being bullied here?


 
I'm unbullyable these days, but yes, it's bullying behaviour in my view, particularly the latecomers who decided to pile in wth the original apes. Doesn't matter how much of a prat I'm being, the decision to dive in with the deeply unpleasant majority is usually a sign of a gutless coward, which is what all bullies are.

It is the norm on threads like this. Check any of them. Bunch of men telling women they have no right to an opinion, every fucking time. It's barely any better on racism threads, but there are lines that people don't get away with crossing on them. They're still crossed though, however subtly. Something deeply difficult for people who want to think they're free of prejudice in confronting the fact that it still happens, I think. Some deny it happens, some trivialise it, some think it's a joke. It's weird.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm unbullyable these days, but yes, it's bullying behaviour in my view, particularly the latecomers who decided to pile in wth the original apes. Doesn't matter how much of a prat I'm being, the decision to dive in with the deeply unpleasant majority is usually a sign of a gutless coward, which is what all bullies are.
> 
> It is the norm on threads like this. Check any of them. Bunch of men telling women they have no right to an opinion, every fucking time. It's barely any better on racism threads, but there are lines that people don't get away with crossing on them. They're still crossed though, however subtly. Something deeply difficult for people who want to think they're free of prejudice in confronting the fact that it still happens, I think. Some deny it happens, some trivialise it, some think it's a joke. It's weird.


 
No people don't listen to rapists.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

or spoilt little rich girls whose daddy sent their pony to the glue factory when they went to Oxford.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Ooh, cheap shots!

Convinces me you have an actual point to make. Really. Impressive stuff there,


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ooh, cheap shots!
> 
> Convinces me you have an actual point to make. Really. Impressive stuff there,


 
EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, I RAPED A POODLE!!!!!

Good enough?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

*sprays febreeze

Cut it out now rev, it's not fair game if ymu is feeling ganged up on eh. Have a heart.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> *sprays febreeze
> 
> Cut it out now rev, it's not fair game if ymu is feeling ganged up on eh. Have a heart.


 
But it's only me and I'm bored waiting for Soprano's to download...


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

Do you know I have never watched that...it's like lord of the rings, people put me off it by raving about it too much.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Do you know I have never watched that...it's like lord of the rings, people put me off it by raving about it too much.


They're both fucking awesome, you really really need to watch both of them they're that fucking good!!!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> Do you know I have never watched that...it's like lord of the rings, people put me off it by raving about it too much.


 
lord of the rings is shite, nothing but battles that get boring after 5 mins and a lot of walking about asking various dickheads to "stand for middle earth", utter boredom.

sopranos is great though, i was put off it by everyone wanking on about it cos i'm a contrary self defeating dickhead but it's worth watching.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> lord of the rings is shite, nothing but battles that get boring after 5 mins and a lot of walking about asking various dickheads to "stand for middle earth", utter boredom.
> 
> sopranos is great though, i was put off it by everyone wanking on about it cos i'm a *contrary self defeating dickhead *but it's worth watching.



 

gotta hold my hands up to that, fuck.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> *sprays febreeze
> 
> Cut it out now rev, it's not fair game if ymu is feeling ganged up on eh. Have a heart.


 
I'm not feeling ganged up on. 

He's floundering. Let him. I didn't waste all this time to let him off lightly. He thinks attempting to use sexist bullying and screaming rapist at me is making him look good. I'm quite happy to indulge that fantasy until he realises what a childish cunt it makes him look, and proves him to be. And if anyone wants to out themselves as a feeble-minded tribalist, they're very welcome to do so. 

I've been triple-teamed by three government bureaucracies for the last seven years, and they ended up losing out rather badly. I can handle resetful inadequates and their gang mentalities.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not feeling ganged up on.
> 
> He's floundering. Let him. I didn't waste all this time to let him off lightly. He thinks attempting to use sexist bullying and screaming rapist at me is making him look good. I'm quite happy to indulge that fantasy until he realises what a childish cunt it makes him look, and proves him to be. And if anyone wants to out themselves as a feeble-minded tribalist, they're very welcome to do so.
> 
> *I've been triple-teamed by three government bureaucracies for the last seven years, and they ended up losing out rather badly. *I can handle resetful inadequates and their gang mentalities.


 
considering your admission on this thread...

snigger


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

Tomorrow is another day, plenty of time for Battle Royale II then 

I can't bloody sleep but prob shouldn't take any more painkillers...might watch a film.

Night ymu x

*also childish sniggered arghhh...what are we 12? ha


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Childish yes. But he's actually trying to use it to insult me. Blimey. He goes out with 14 year olds for a bit of mature company, clearly. 

What admissions, revol? That I'm a woman who likes sex? I know it's a bit unacceptable.

Or did you mean my admission that I'm an evil rapist who preys on poor innocent men and magic their flaccid cocks into cooperating with my vile abuse. Just because I can, obv.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

There is a bit of a stereotype of women being easy to wind up, that's what I meant by counter productive last night. A little humour can go a long way I reckon. Hope you get some sleep tonight! (me too grr)


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Childish yes. But he's actually trying to use it to insult me. Blimey. He goes out with 14 year olds for a bit of mature company, clearly.
> 
> What admissions, revol? That I'm a woman who likes sex? I know it's a bit unacceptable.
> 
> Or did you mean my admission that I'm an evil rapist who preys on poor innocent men and magic their flaccid cocks into cooperating with my vile abuse. Just because I can, obv.


 
I promised clair i'd give you a break but I'd just like to raise the point that erection is involuntary and as such no magic would necessarily be needed for rape to happen, likewise regarding female genitalia.

Just some tips there.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

So now you know how trivially easy it is for women to rape men, eh? Glad we have you to tell us how it is. Presumably, you just think we're genetically less inclined to sexual violence and that some men just can't help themselves. Explains a lot.

You can't even attempt to extricate yourself gracefully, you utter child. Because Clair asked you to. How despicably pathetic.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> So now you know how trivially easy it is for women to rape men, eh? Glad we have you to tell us how it is. Presumably, you just think we're genetically less inclined to sexual violence and that some men just can't help themselves. Explains a lot.
> 
> You can't even attempt to extricate yourself gracefully, you utter child. Because Clair asked you to. How despicably pathetic.


 
meh i'm but a man and clairs cute, sue me

actually you presume wrong and by quite some distance, i've consistently argued against retarded essentialist/socio biological explanations of sexual violence and sexism in general, essentialist and other attempts to naturalise the inequalities and injustices of the status quo are something of a bug bear of mine, being interested in post structuralist theory.

i could argue your clown shoes substance less third wave pseudo feminism into the ground you oxbridge muppet.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Still battling a stereotype, eh? Deep stuff.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> meh i'm but a man and clairs cute, sue me


 
ok I have the no sleeping bug...way to dismiss me as a person fucko!


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

But Clair, if we're not sex objects, we're worthless. Did you not get the memo?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> ok I have the no sleeping bug...way to dismiss me as a person fucko!


 
cute and person are not mutually exclusive.

i was also playing up to ymu's stereotype.

but you still are cute, dork.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> There is a bit of a stereotype of women being easy to wind up, that's what I meant by counter productive last night. A little humour can go a long way I reckon. Hope you get some sleep tonight! (me too grr)


 
Out of interest, do you think that stereotype is justified?

Cos racists say that kind of thing when we make a public fuss about the whispered:"Coon!" or the monkey-chanting they took care to do in his sight only. "He's paranoid!" they say.  Gutless bigots do that. It's a pattern of behaviour. It's part of the manipulation.

Bit like the kind of men that claim not to be sexist, but collapse straight into sexist abuse when they decide some uppity feisty woman needs putting in her place. If she dares complain, another sexist stereotype just gets chucked out - we're over-sensitive, you see. It's hilarious sport. And so socially acceptable, they don't even need to bother to check who's listening. But woe betide any woman that doesn't see the funny side. Blokes for miles around will turn up to stick the boot in for that.

I was in my twenties when it became illegal for a man to rape his wife in the UK (1991). Three currently living generations of men had the legal right to rape their wives. Shocked me to the core when the law changed -  finding out it had ever been legal. Sexual history is still considered relevant to a rape defence. Two recent serial rapists were free for years because the police just decided that the women were lying and didn't bother to check out the suspects properly. Tribal sexist banter eh. So very harmless. Get a sense of humour. 

I'm not going to ignore it when some cunt tells me how to dress and not to go out alone, just because they're too gutless to challenge sexism directly. Some might try to claim that that characterisation is unfair, but when they follow that up with exactly the kind of sexist abuse that facilitates the violence they claim to want to prevent, I'm pretty sure no reasonable person would believe them. Would they?

I'm not going to be put off my some sneering comment about needing to have a sense of humour about men who think it's OK to demean women. Why the fuck would I?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

Shame about this rain, women will be wearing more


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

So will blokes.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Though possibility of some nice nipple showings


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

And some blokes thinking it's OK to grab them in the street. Thanks, I'd forgotten that joy of summer.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

And women who grope your arse in busy hot bars. The filthy sexpests. 

We're all victims, we're all rapists and we're all cunts.

Can we get the fuck over it now please?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> And some blokes thinking it's OK to grab them in the street. Thanks, I'd forgotten that joy of summer.


 
What % of blokes?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 17, 2011)

Still going, I see. Nice work. That 50-page prediction of mine is looking very achievable.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

You want me to get over it so that men can get on with enjoying dehumanising women for a laugh?

Nah.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> And some blokes thinking it's OK to grab them in the street. Thanks, I'd forgotten that joy of summer.


Yep that's certainly antisocial. Can men decry that kind of behaviour too, or is every man accountable for the behaviours of all people who share their gender?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> What % of blokes?


 
I have no idea, why do you ask? Would it be OK to promote these attitudes if it was less than 1% but not if it was more than 5%?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I have no idea, why do you ask? Would it be OK to promote these attitudes if it was less than 1% but not if it was more than 5%?


 
No, I just like statistics.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> You want me to get over it so that men can get on with enjoying dehumanising women for a laugh?


 
Anyone told you that you are cute when you get mad? 

x


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Yep that's certainly antisocial. Can men decry that kind of behaviour too, or is every man accountable for the behaviours of all people who share their gender?



Maybe the people attacking me on this thread also argue that "gay" is an acceptable term of abuse, and call black people nigger for a laugh, but it's the kind of thing I speak out about.

If people who don't indulge in these behaviours are nevertheless happy to tolerate or ignore them, they are helping give the impression that it is socialy acceptable. I would say that applies equally to men and women, as would be pretty bloody obvious to anyone reading this thread and not just looking for an excuse to take a shot.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

The only thing which is obvious to anyone reading the thread, is that you hate men. You enjoy demonizing them, and playing the innocent victim whilst giving out just as much stick as you're getting. You're quite happy to lay the blame on anyone who you think is sticking up for lecherous behaviour, when they're just playing up to the stereotypes which YOU are laying out before them.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Anyone told you that you are cute when you get mad?
> 
> x


 
The boy wuld say scary. But the make-up sex _is_ good.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> The boy wuld say scary. But the *make-up* sex _is_ good.


 
And happens very, very, very often I would wager?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> The only thing which is obvious to anyone reading the thread, is that you hate men. You enjoy demonizing them, and playing the innocent victim whilst giving out just as much stick as you're getting. You're quite happy to lay the blame on anyone who you think is sticking up for lecherous behaviour, when they're just playing up to the stereotypes which YOU are laying out before them.


 
Then you haven't read the thread. 

And I'd appreciate it if you could research your facts a litle more carefully before coming out with such unwarranted and unfounded abuse. Because that is pretty disgusting, coming from you, to me.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> The only thing which is obvious to anyone reading the thread, is that you hate men.


 
Really ? don't think that's obvious at all


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> The only thing which is obvious to anyone reading the thread, is that you hate men. .



While I disagree with much of ymu's argument in this thread that's a daft thing to say.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> The boy wuld say scary. But the make-up sex _is_ good.


 
For a minute there I thought you meant you made him wear make-up during the act.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Then you haven't read the thread.
> 
> And I'd appreciate it if you could research your facts a litle more carefully before coming out with such unwarranted and unfounded abuse. Because that is pretty disgusting, coming from you, to me.


 
I've read a page or 10 here and there, to be honest I've got better things to do with my time than read yet another fucking bunfight on here. It's embarrasing, and you think that I'm giving you unwarrented and disgusting abuse? I'm just saying what I'm seeing. It's a shame too, becasue this thread started off well. It was highlighting the problems which many women face from arsehole men who think they have a right to make sexual advances on women based on what they're dressed in. But all of that has been lost.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Maybe the people attacking me on this thread also argue that "gay" is an acceptable term of abuse, and call black people nigger for a laugh, but it's the kind of thing I speak out about.
> 
> If people who don't indulge in these behaviours are nevertheless happy to tolerate or ignore them, they are helping give the impression that it is socialy acceptable. I would say that applies equally to men and women, as would be pretty bloody obvious to anyone reading this thread and not just looking for an excuse to take a shot.


It's a long thread... In principle I agree with you - making use of prejudice as an attempt at being witty is pretty pathetic. And of course just turning a blind eye has its own (prejudiced) phrase - the 'good german' just trying to fit in so not raising a fuss about the Nazis (...60 years ago).

On the other hand it's not so simple is it. Gay seems to bear some reference to defunct meanings - carefree, feckless etc. Intergroup prejudice is rife too - to point a finger at men, or at people with white skins, or at wealthy people, is to take up a prejudiced position and to contribute to the kind of oppositional dynamics that do the actual damange. Name calling can be dismissed (unless there a gang after you - sounds like that's what you're experiencing here, and maybe you've got plenty of evidence for it) but the problem is the intent isn't it?

A simple way of checking intent is maybe asking whether someone is intending to make you feel bad by what they're saying? If they're prepared to acknowledge that, or at least to acknowledge that you're hurt by what's said, then you can get down to establishing whether someone actually means you harm (and maybe why they mean you harm) or whether they've got issues of their own that encourage them to lash out in a way that's causing problems. 

Hiding in the chanting crowd though is of course just bullshit.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> ...you think that I'm giving you unwarrented and disgusting abuse?


Well if that's the meaning being taken from it, what are you prepared to do about it? 





> I'm just saying what I'm seeing.


 OK but what's stopping you from acknowledging that for others, what they're seeing might seem different, or carry different meanings for them? 


> But all of that has been lost.


 What's been lost? Step back, take a deep breath and maybe acknowledge that feelings have taken control of the way that some people are thinking. The thing about communicating is you need to maintain some common ground in terms of sentiment - if you're precipitating confrontation, that's all you're going to get unless you dominate someone so completely they fall into silence.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> And happens very, very, very often I would wager?


 
Why would you wager that, Badgers? 

This is yet another weak attempt from you, isn't it? I'm being stereotyped as a ball-breaking harridan again. Oh, yay. 

He gets more upset about misogyny than I do. Told you, I only do quality men.

My disability is innate. His was caused by violent racists, and the crowds that passed by without intervening.  I get a lot more upset about any and every form of casual bigotry these days, and especially upset when people who should know better trivialise it.

But you know, don't let a chance for a cheap one-liner pass you by.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> And happens very, very, very often I would wager?


Instead of wagering rolleyes why not just ask? Seems you want to make a point but you're looking stupid in making assumptions about someone else's life when you don't have all the information required to make an informed statement. That's known as... prejudice. And there seems to be some malice in your perspective too.

How come you're so pissied off you come out making accusations that way. You could always just make a mental note of your view. You know: do you have to say _everything_ you think?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> You could always just *make a mental note* of your view. You know: do you have to say _everything_ you think?



If I did that I would not use the medium of an internet discussion forum.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> This is yet another weak attempt from you, isn't it? I'm being stereotyped as a ball-breaking harridan again. Oh, yay.



I know this shit is nasty ymu. 
Perhaps I am being too casual about it? Perhaps you are on a soapbox you can't get off and everyone is out to get you? 

Maybe we should both count to ten


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> It's a long thread... In principle I agree with you - making use of prejudice as an attempt at being witty is pretty pathetic. And of course just turning a blind eye has its own (prejudiced) phrase - the 'good german' just trying to fit in so not raising a fuss about the Nazis (...60 years ago).
> 
> On the other hand it's not so simple is it. Gay seems to bear some reference to defunct meanings - carefree, feckless etc. Intergroup prejudice is rife too - to point a finger at men, or at people with white skins, or at wealthy people, is to take up a prejudiced position and to contribute to the kind of oppositional dynamics that do the actual damange. Name calling can be dismissed (unless there a gang after you - sounds like that's what you're experiencing here, and maybe you've got plenty of evidence for it) but the problem is the intent isn't it?
> 
> ...


 
Appreciate the thoughtful post, but revol, past caring and grit have all said they were being deliberately offensive. I don't need to wonder if I'm imagining it.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> If I did that I would not use the medium of an internet discussion forum.


Yeah but what's the point of posting prejudice? Better to get yourself more informed than just spout bollox (i.e. making assumptions based on how you feel instead of what's actually relevant).


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Appreciate the thoughtful post, but revol, past caring and grit have all said they were being deliberately offensive. I don't need to wonder if I'm imagining it.



But deliberately offensive _to you_ - because you're one horrible cunt - _not_ because you're a woman. 

And once more, I stand by everything I've said here. I directly challenged you with your assertions of "aggressiveness" some pages back - once more, you simply ignored the post. Disingenuous, moral pigmy, liar, solipsistic buffoon - what else will you show yourself to be before this thread is finished?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Appreciate the thoughtful post, but revol, past caring and grit have all said they were being deliberately offensive. I don't need to wonder if I'm imagining it.


Well, maybe they're not getting what they need one way or another. Generous of you to oblige them, seems to me.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

past caring said:


> But deliberately offensive _to you_ - because you're one horrible cunt - _not_ because you're a woman.


Heh. You do seem pretty upset innit. What's ymu been saying that's bothered you so much?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I know this shit is nasty ymu.
> Perhaps I am being too casual about it? Perhaps you are on a soapbox you can't get off and everyone is out to get you?
> 
> Maybe we should both count to ten


 
I've been ignoring your pathetic snipes out of respect for your wife and a desire to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I suggest you shut the fuck up, tbh. Insulting my relationship when it is the reason I bother challenging this crap is about as low is it gets, and you were already aiming very low indeed.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 17, 2011)

past caring said:


> But deliberately offensive _to you_ - because you're one horrible cunt - _not_ because you're a woman.
> 
> And once more, I stand by everything I've said here. I directly challenged you with your assertions of "aggressiveness" some pages back - once more, you simply ignored the post. Disingenuous, moral pigmy, liar, solipsistic buffoon - what else will you show yourself to be before this thread is finished?



Yep.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Ah but you know...





ymu said:


> ignoring your pathetic snipes


 Not the kind of talk that's going to achieve anything but more war. 


> out of respect for your wife


 is adopting a bit of moral highground - do you know much about Badgers' relationship with his wife?


> and a desire to give you the benefit of the doubt.


 well sure that's generous but could also be seen as adopting a position of power where badgers is the recipient of your generosity, so therefore owes you something in return...



> I suggest you shut the fuck up


Is that really going to resolve the issue in the OP? 


> Insulting my relationship


Yep well that's fair enough, obv.


> when it is the reason I bother challenging this crap


 Yep your commitment has been denigrated


> is about as low is it gets


 That's a value judgement. Maybe he has reasons from his own life and experience that are motivating him to hang a couple on your chin (or your nips?) There seems to have been a lot of fighting both sides innit.



> and you were already aiming very low indeed.


 and you're finishing with a final swipe.

Hmm. Ding ding ding Round 78342!


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I've been ignoring your pathetic snipes out of respect for your wife and a desire to give you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> I suggest you shut the fuck up, tbh. Insulting my relationship when it is the reason I bother challenging this crap is about as low is it gets, and you were already aiming very low indeed.


 
Might as well shut up, you are doing fine by yourself


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Well, maybe they're not getting what they need one way or another. Generous of you to oblige them, seems to me.


 
I requested some blokes take their twattery off a serious thread 25 pages ago. I don't see why it should be me that has to walk away when they get nasty about it. Unless you think it's just harmless banter. I don't. I think it is harmful, which is why I challenge it.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I requested some blokes take their twattery off a serious thread 25 pages ago. I don't see why it should be me that has to walk away when they get nasty about it. Unless you think it's just harmless banter. I don't. I think it is harmful, which is why I challenge it.


Sure, it doesn't look harmless from where I'm sitting. All the same, it seems to me that when people resort of verbal or other violence as a way of asserting their point of view, you're already dealing with limited capacity and should shape your expectations of outcome accordingly. 

Boards is tricky innit - on the one hand it's existing and interesting to express views on behalf of whole sectors of the population. Air your grievances about the world and how it seems to have shaped things in your life or whatever. Maybe get a slap on the back for saying something someone you don't really know appreciates. No chance of one of those tasty make-up sessions I gather you and Mr ymu both enjoy . But we're necessarily coming from limited perspectives on what other peeps are going on about. A few months ago things were so desperate I just came on Urban and started flaming. Peeps were good about it and seemed to understand I was just going a bit fucked in the head at the time.

But when peeps seem to be being awful around here I just walk away, unless I'm in the mood for a bit of scrapping. I love the way you can kick open the doors here, behave like a complete cunt and generally get an apology accepted. But that's the Boards. I've never been victimised here. I _have_ experienced what I think of as anti-male, anti-'white', anti-class prejudice. And know that for all the fuss I could kick up about it, people tend to hold extreme views because it serves a need for them. And I'm unlikely to be the person to cater to that need. 

What I find really amazing is that people manage to agree on anything really. I mean, I could be typing into a total fantasy that there's peeps on the other side of this keyboard. The evidence is there in the behaviours of other writers online, that they're motivated by something similar to what motivates me, or what I know is motivating in other peeps. But actually, what the hell do we know about _anybody_. Or even ourselves. I take it on trust that I've got organs and an inside to my body where they're located, but really it's just custom and trust in medical experts that makes such a thought possible.

Ideas are easier though, maybe. But they're just patterns and assemblages of 'reality' (itself a bit of a concept) innit. I get passionate about things but tbh its more for pleasure than for any useful purpose. To me, feelings are really just another form of sensing what's going on. But they need to be handled carefully because they have a sort of total function on the way a mind and a being behaves. Unlike what you see or hear.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 17, 2011)

We're all just in teaheads mind


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

You wouldn't want to go in there. Strong acids and heavy bile, passionate frenzies and hopeless abyss loomings...
The outside is much better. But not the best by a long way.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

I did meet another Urban though. And have evidence that a few others do exist irl. Heh heh.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Sure, it doesn't look harmless from where I'm sitting. All the same, it seems to me that when people resort of verbal or other violence as a way of asserting their point of view, you're already dealing with limited capacity and should shape your expectations of outcome accordingly.


 I find it ironic that you've posted this in reponse to ymu. As she has been one of the most violently verbally abusive people on this thread.  But your statement is very true.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm only sorry I seem to have stopped the fighting. 

You're all tossers for getting so excited anyway. Why not round the whole thing off with a fuckfest?


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

Darn you with your rationality!!


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

How dare you call me rational, you slut.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Sure, it doesn't look harmless from where I'm sitting. All the same, it seems to me that when people resort of verbal or other violence as a way of asserting their point of view, you're already dealing with limited capacity and should shape your expectations of outcome accordingly.
> 
> Boards is tricky innit - on the one hand it's existing and interesting to express views on behalf of whole sectors of the population. Air your grievances about the world and how it seems to have shaped things in your life or whatever. Maybe get a slap on the back for saying something someone you don't really know appreciates. No chance of one of those tasty make-up sessions I gather you and Mr ymu both enjoy . But we're necessarily coming from limited perspectives on what other peeps are going on about. A few months ago things were so desperate I just came on Urban and started flaming. Peeps were good about it and seemed to understand I was just going a bit fucked in the head at the time.
> 
> ...


You still seem to think I'm on this thread for fun.

I don't choose to hang out with bigots. I do choose to challenge them for being bigots, and publicly, because I don't see why bigots should get a free ride.

People don't usually indulge in bigoted crap as a joke. If my partner has been randomly shoved or challenged for no reason, I might joke about it, "well, you are black", but it is clear that I am demeaning the racists with that comment. Amazingly, I don't direct racist abuse at him when we argue. Probably because I am not a racist.

We have boys claiming not to be sexist, but amusing themselves with sexist abuse, and lots of cheap shots from the hangers on who sense safety in numbers. I don't care how much flak I cop for challenging that. I'm not a fucking coward.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:
			
		

> How dare you call me rational, you slut.


How dare you call me a.....oh hold on, naah that's ok......


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

This whole thread is totally mental. I dunno whether to say this cos I suspect it aint gonna go down that well  but ymu you don't _seriously_ consider what happened during that shag to be rape do you? If you are having consensual sex with someone, your both enjoying it and it goes a bit too far and you don't withdraw/climb off, but you both have a laugh about it after... that's not rape. That seems to trivialise it.

I mean if you have agreed to have sex, but not bareback and the guy takes the condom off and still carries on fucking you, then I think that is rape even if you agreed in the first place. But unless the guy was telling you no, please get off me, I just don't think it can be 

If you don't want to talk about it further here I totally understand. I just think you are being far too hard on yourself, and I don't think it's healthy to put yourself in the same category as a rapist, espeically not if you've been raped yourself (which you have). And you kinda excused that rape by saying he wasn't responsible too. It all seems dead confusing.

I had sex when I was very underage with men who paid. It has been suggested to me that was rape, but I don't think so because I consented at the time and to me using the word rape just implies a victimness that I don't want or need. Do you really think the fella you shagged and think of as raping was a victim?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

Can we have more about the skimpied-up drink blaggers soon?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 17, 2011)

Almost as epic as a drug legal/illegal debate thread.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't care how much flak I cop for challenging that. I'm not a fucking coward.


Edie's post seems wise to me. When you say you don't care how much flak you cop though, I wonder what's driving that. You're worth more than any one fight on any one day, no? It sounds like the way you're feeling is out of step with what chatting like this has to offer. Of course people air views that seem bigotted here. But imho people write more as a way of expressing their own identity in online writing, than in actually producing change. I mean I'd _like_ to think that sometimes when someone says something good has gone on out of the threads and babble, that it's true. But the ups and downs of experience, and the persistent emergence of bigots, wars, poverty etc is a given.

If you work in any kind of frontline service - education, health, law, other services - you get to be aware that life has patterns and your own two pence aren't worth much more than that unless you take the risks involved in actually occupying a position with something to loose. Here, the opinions don't have much in the way of consequences most of the time. So I'm not sure how much you can really expect to achieve by taking a very strong position on anything here, except for the pleasure of batting ideas back and forth, getting some intelligent or stupid response, maybe get to see things from a different angle (useful or otherwise).

But like Edie says you sound distressed in a way that's worrying. _Why_ don't you care how much flak you cop? Impaling yourself for the sake of an idea is a representative act, a communication in itself. Why throw yourself into the dog fray if this is something as critical to you as it seems to be?

(((((((ymu))))))))


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

If a bloke refuses to withdraw, it is rape. How the fuck is it any different just cos I'm on top and get to do the deciding? I went into atrial fibrillation when we were in bed once. I'd have been most unimpressed if he'd refused to get off when I asked him to.

The fact that it wasn't a serious consequence is neither here nor there. There was a reason we agreed that his sperm was not going inside me, and I had no more right to override that decision than he did.

Of course it's rape. And this confusion is precisely why I brought it up. Making out that rape is some totally 'other' crime and nothing to do with sexual desire doesn't help boys, or girls, work out what it is in advance of gpbeing faced with a situation where they experience a loss of control, or coercion.

I'm finding it fucking bizarre to have half the thread repeatedly screaming 'rapist' at me when thet have nothing to say, whilst the other half try and tell me I did nothing wrong.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 17, 2011)

> A simple way of checking intent is maybe asking whether someone is intending to make you feel bad by what they're saying? If they're prepared to acknowledge that, or at least to acknowledge that you're hurt by what's said, then you can get down to establishing whether someone actually means you harm (and maybe why they mean you harm) or whether they've got issues of their own that encourage them to lash out in a way that's causing problems.



In theory maybe, in reality this approach is overly simplistic IMO/E and gives folk 'places' to hide and not take responsibility for themselves.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> If a bloke refuses to withdraw, it is rape.


Yep. But was there a reconciliation after the incident? Did you both laugh about it? Or were you laughing to keep yourself safe after having been raped?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> But unless the guy was telling you no, please get off me, I just don't think it can be


There's more ways of saying "No" than using words though. And sometimes it can feel unsafe to be saying "No". And there are conventions some people feel might suggest that they have 'already agreed' so that they're not now free to change their mind. That's oppression, no? Or they may think it'd be dangerous to put their own thoughts/feelings about the situation ahead of the person they're engaged in sexual activity with at that moment. Which would be a more overtly violent rape situation.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Edie's post seems wise to me. When you say you don't care how much flak you cop though, I wonder what's driving that. You're worth more than any one fight on any one day, no? It sounds like the way you're feeling is out of step with what chatting like this has to offer. Of course people air views that seem bigotted here. But imho people write more as a way of expressing their own identity in online writing, than in actually producing change. I mean I'd _like_ to think that sometimes when someone says something good has gone on out of the threads and babble, that it's true. But the ups and downs of experience, and the persistent emergence of bigots, wars, poverty etc is a given.
> 
> If you work in any kind of frontline service - education, health, law, other services - you get to be aware that life has patterns and your own two pence aren't worth much more than that unless you take the risks involved in actually occupying a position with something to loose. Here, the opinions don't have much in the way of consequences most of the time. So I'm not sure how much you can really expect to achieve by taking a very strong position on anything here, except for the pleasure of batting ideas back and forth, getting some intelligent or stupid response, maybe get to see things from a different angle (useful or otherwise).
> 
> ...


 
Show me the threads where racism or homophobia have been tolerated and encouraged like this, please.

And once more, don't tell me to turn a blind eye to prejudice. That is my call. I am here for a reason. I have no idea why you think I'm such a delicate flower.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Yep. But was there a reconciliation after the incident? Did you both laugh about it? Or were you laughing to keep yourself safe after having been raped?


 
I did the raping. 

I'm pretty sure that "I thought they wouldn't mind" is not a valid defence to rape. What happens after the fact is hardly relevant, if you don't stop to ask permission.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Show me the threads where racism or homophobia have been tolerated and encouraged like this, please.
> 
> And once more, don't tell me to turn a blind eye to prejudice. That is my call. I am here for a reason. I have no idea why you think I'm such a delicate flower.


Heh. Delicate flower you're not. But getting all big shouldered about things doesn't work! Sounds like you're on some kind of moral crime fighting spree. And I'm still wondering what's pushing your feelings so strongly in the direction of Sorting Things Out. Particularly on a pretty anonymous internet message board.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I did the raping.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that "I thought they wouldn't mind" is not a valid defence to rape. What happens after the fact is hardly relevant, if you don't stop to ask permission.


Why do you believe what happened after the fact is hardly relevant? Any sentence imposed by the Court is after the fact. It sounds as though you believe there's something significant in the action of Law that is different from what people do with intent to one another.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

There's a big difference between saying "I thought they wouldn't mind" and "I thought they _didn't_ mind." Like Edie was saying, I think, rape seems to have a connotation that's about becoming detached from awareness of the other person's wants, desires... needs really, getting wrapped up in your own, and  - the essential crime itself - intentionally exploiting the other person's body for your own gratification while deliberately ignoring and denigrating the un-gratification and damage that you're doing to the other person.


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

If a woman is riding a bloke. They've agreed he won't cum in her, she'll get off just before. Then she doesn't, and stays in situe as it were.  That isn't rape to my mind. It's something else. Out of order, an abuce of trust but I wouldn't call it rape.

Flame away.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Still going, I see. Nice work. That 50-page prediction of mine is looking very achievable.


 
pm's


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Heh. Delicate flower you're not. But getting all big shouldered about things doesn't work! Sounds like you're on some kind of moral crime fighting spree. And I'm still wondering what's pushing your feelings so strongly in the direction of Sorting Things Out. Particularly on a pretty anonymous internet message board.



You want me to walk away because some people went all aggro when I challenged them for being sexist shitheads on a thread about violence against women?

I'm here because they went all aggro, and because some more blokes then piled in for a laugh. It's disturbing behavour, and it needs challenging. I want them to explain themselves, if they can. If they want to dish abuse instead, it's every bit as informative.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Why do you believe what happened after the fact is hardly relevant? Any sentence imposed by the Court is after the fact. It sounds as though you believe there's something significant in the action of Law that is different from what people do with intent to one another.


 
Why?

Cos if a bloke bought me a drink and then raped me outside, his thinking that I wouldn't mind is not much fucking comfort.

How is this difficult to grasp?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

But how connected is that to the rape issue?
Obviously there are some connections in terms of deliberate oppression.
But the social 'contract' here is different from what's happening between 2 people in a bedroom. Or to me it is. 

Context counts.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 17, 2011)

Any particular reason why it's only ymu you're trying to persuade to walk away and requesting  motivations from for posting? 

Genuine question.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why?
> 
> Cos if a bloke bought me a drink and then raped me outside, his thinking that I wouldn't mind is not much fucking comfort.
> 
> How is this difficult to grasp?


That's not difficult to grasp. What is, though, is whether you're saying there has been a transition from when you were drinking together and when s/he was doing the raping. At some point the victim becomes a person in need of "much fucking comfort" whereas at the beginning, that's not the situation. It's when the detachment happens that the rape begins, no?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

xenon said:


> If a woman is riding a bloke. They've agreed he won't cum in her, she'll get off just before. Then she doesn't, and stays in situe as it were.  That isn't rape to my mind. It's something else. Out of order, an abuce of trust but I wouldn't call it rape.
> 
> Flame away.


 
It is a simple fact of law that a bloke refusing to withdraw is rape.

Legally, I did not rape, but it's a technical, semantic, distinction. There's no moral difference.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Any particular reason why it's only ymu you're trying to persuade to walk away and requesting  motivations from for posting?
> 
> Genuine question.


I see what you're saying. I'm not meaning to be abusive in any way, but it sort of feels like I'm being positioned that way. These are difficult things to talk about where accountability depends on trust and intention. ymu seems to be both talking about a breach of trust, and feeling very dubious about whether trust is really possible. If you think it'd be better for me to step back, then perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here. But of course I'm happy to step back. 

The trouble with talk about this kind of thing, where feelings are so much a part of the thinking, is that even by becoming involved you run the risk of producing hurt and harm.


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is a simple fact of law that a bloke refusing to withdraw is rape.
> 
> Legally, I did not rape, but it's a technical, semantic, distinction. There's no moral difference.


 

Of course, to your first point. Your second is your subjective interpretation and it's one I don't share. I suppose that's all that can be said on that really.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Of course to the first point? 

You're just about to come and the woman says no, no, get out. And you don't - you come first before getting out. 

That's rape? 

Not in my book. There comes a point when you're having sex beyond which you can't call it rape, imo. It cheapens the term to call that rape.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> I see what you're saying. I'm not meaning to be abusive in any way, but it sort of feels like I'm being positioned that way. These are difficult things to talk about where accountability depends on trust and intention. ymu seems to be both talking about a breach of trust, and feeling very dubious about whether trust is really possible. If you think it'd be better for me to step back, then perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here. But of course I'm happy to step back.
> 
> The trouble with talk about this kind of thing, where feelings are so much a part of the thinking, is that even by becoming involved you run the risk of producing hurt and harm.


 
I wasn't accusing you of being abusive.  I don't think you are being.  I don't understand how my question came across that I did.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> That's not difficult to grasp. What is, though, is whether you're saying there has been a transition from when you were drinking together and when s/he was doing the raping. At some point the victim becomes a person in need of "much fucking comfort" whereas at the beginning, that's not the situation. It's when the detachment happens that the rape begins, no?



How is any of this relevant?

We came simultaneously, I was on top, I was weak, he was trapped. It could have been devastating for him to experience that powerlessness with someone he loved. 

You seem to be suggesting that rapists can legitimately weigh the odds of causing harm, and that it might be excusable. Which is pretty fucked up.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course to the first point?
> 
> You're just about to come and the woman says no, no, get out. And you don't - you come first before getting out.
> 
> ...


 
It's not your book that matters. It's the statute book. Be careful not to act on your instincts there. Seriously.


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> How is any of this relevant?
> 
> We came simultaneously, I was on top, I was weak, he was trapped. It could have been devastating for him to experience that powerlessness with someone he loved.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that rapists can legitimately weigh the odds of causing harm, and that it might be excusable. Which is pretty fucked up.


You came at the same time? He was fuckin loving it. This aint right ymu, it's not even like you carried on whilst he was led there totally still or blanked out giving you the negatives cos he was scared or powerless. There've been times for a lot of people when they've carried on just cos it's far too late to say no or cos they've said yes, but this aint one of them. I dunno why you feel so guilty  You fucked, it didn't work out how you both expected it to originally, but it AINT YOUR FAULT anymore than it's his.


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course to the first point?
> 
> You're just about to come and the woman says no, no, get out. And you don't - you come first before getting out.
> 
> ...


 

It's legally rape is it not? That doesn't mean it's qualitatevly the same as any other given example of rape.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

I do not believe that what ymu described is rape 

Mostly rape is about hatred, power and the need to control.   It is about a more powerful, person penetrating a disempowered person.  There is usually a sense of entitlement on the part of the perpetrator.  Often the rapist takes pleasure in the suffering of the victim.  The motivation to spoil and to defile can be a significant element.  

The event described by ymu, in which 2 people who care about each other maintain an affectionate relationship throughout the act, is not rape.  It is not anywhere near rape.  

This brings me to wonder about the way that the development of the discussion on this thread runs parallel to the issues inherent in slutwalk. 

It seems to me that ymu has posted some extremely provocative posts on this thread, in a way that  really does her no favours.  Some of the posts feel like a kind of verbal self harming.   Referring to yourself as a rapist is extremely provocative and will definitely invoke a hostile response.  To expect otherwise is incredibly naive IMO.

Some of the language and terminology used by ymu has, IMO, also been very provocative and also likely to invoke a hostile response. 

In some ways this is not a million miles away from a situation where a woman wears an outrageously revealing dress, or dresses in an extremely sexually provocative way and then accuses men of being sexist if they stare at her. 

In principle, of course, women should be bale to walk down the high street naked and be completely safe from molestation or harassment, however in the real world it doesn't work like that. 

Any reasonable, mature person would support women's rights to express themselves through clothes without fear of harassment and abuse, however any rational person takes measures to protect themselves from harm, whether male or female, and this includes  stuff like avoiding dangerous areas, not flashing your expensive phone, and not dressing in a way likely to attract problems.

Ymu is free to write whatever she wants and to use whatever terminology she wants to, but anyone saying some of the stuff she has posted here would get a very hard time (much harder on most most other message boards IMO) and to be extremely provocative and then scream that everyone posting critically is sexist is very similar to the woman who goes out in a tiny dress showing everything and then screams that everyone is staring at her. 

If you post / dress provocatively then you will provoke responses in people and maybe that is something to be learned from this?

I say this as someone who is very far from perfect myself and as someone who has provoked negative responses in others, fairly or unfairly, at various times in my life.  Threads like this are always an opportunity to learn about the effect you have on others, and I'm not just talking about ymu, as many people seem to be provoking each other here and the thread is bringing out some ugly sides of many people. 

Just my 2p worth


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> You came at the same time? He was fuckin loving it. This aint right ymu, it's not even like you carried on whilst he was led there totally still or blanked out giving you the negatives cos he was scared or powerless. There've been times for a lot of people when they've carried on just cos it's far too late to say no or cos they've said yes, but this aint one of them. I dunno why you feel so guilty  You fucked, it didn't work out how you both expected it to originally, but it AINT YOUR FAULT anymore than it's his.



And to describe it as rape trivialises rape imo


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

I agree with lbj, there does come a point if the bloke is in you when it's not reasonable to turn round and call no unless they are hurting you pretty badly. They aren't machines.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

xenon said:


> It's legally rape is it not? That doesn't mean it's qualitatevly the same as any other given example of rape.


 
I've just been having a look at the law in the UK. It doesn't seem clear to me whether it is legally rape or not, tbh. Rape is penetration without consent. Refusal to withdraw immediately upon request doesn't seem to be covered. I may have missed something there. Totally impossible to enforce as a law, though, I would have thought.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> I see what you're saying. I'm not meaning to be abusive in any way, but it sort of feels like I'm being positioned that way. These are difficult things to talk about where accountability depends on trust and intention. ymu seems to be both talking about a breach of trust, and feeling very dubious about whether trust is really possible. If you think it'd be better for me to step back, then perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here. But of course I'm happy to step back.
> 
> The trouble with talk about this kind of thing, where feelings are so much a part of the thinking, is that even by becoming involved you run the risk of producing hurt and harm.


 
You don't sem to have grasped what is going on.

1. I'm not beating myself up for being a rapist. What happened, happened - I learnt something. 

2. I'm not upset by the abuse, I'm interested in why it is occurring and being so widely tolerated. I am startled at the strength of the emotional reaction from so many men, but not upset so much as alarmed.


What's happening now is that half the thread haa added 'rapist' to the mindless abuse, and the other half is insisting that it wasn't rape if it turns out the other party didn't mind. A kind of rape roulette approach to sex crime.

So, it turns out maybe it would have been a useful discussion to have after all. But apparently, I should leave the thread because you say so …


----------



## LiamO (Jun 17, 2011)

I think this thread is now an excellent example of the 'good' that can come from a hugely unpleasant experience and nasty bunfight.

I don't want to get into this one - at all - but it is now an interesting, 3-dimensional discussion - which _possibly_ would not have happened without the row.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Some of us don't agree that what you describe was a sex crime, ymu. That's the point. But you seem to be continuing to dismiss that fact. Nobody at all appears to have agreed with you that it was rape, btw. That ought to tell you something.


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> I agree with lbj, there does come a point if the bloke is in you when it's not reasonable to turn round and call no unless they are hurting you pretty badly. They aren't machines.



I don't think that is _quite_ what lbj was saying. What I think he was saying is that, assuming the sex to have been consensual and mutually pleasurable to that point, there is then a point when plain biology takes over - where if you're a bloke (it may be different - the biology, that is - for a woman, I don't know) you're going to come whatever, unless you're Sting or something and being asked to withdraw at that biological point of no return isn't really going to work. I don't think that is rape in any reasonable moral sense and (assuming there was no dispute about the facts) I can't see someone being in breach of statute in that situation, either. I'm not too sure that what statute says is something I'd want to rely on too heavily in this debate, anyway; it wasn't that long ago that statute said you couldn't rape your wife - and there's still some way to go in terms of how the law might be improved.

Of course, it's entirely different if the agreement at the outset was that you'd withdraw before orgasm. I think it's also entirely different if a woman asks a bloke to stop (for whatever reason, doesn't have to be hurting her) at any time up to that point - it's not the case that saying "yes" at the outset robs you of the right to say "no" later.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some of us don't agree that what you describe was a sex crime, ymu. That's the point. But you seem to be continuing to dismiss that fact. Nobody at all appears to have agreed with you that it was rape, btw. That ought to tell you something.


 
And if he'd been really upset about it? Would that have been a crime? Or do we just help ourselves without permission any time we think it's reasonable?

If my partner had refused to get off me when my heart went into arrhythmia because he wanted to cum, would that have been OK too?

How are you going to decide what is too trivial to upset anyone? Where do you draw the line? Or can we all just make up our own line and hope we don't upset anyone?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

There is a gap between 'perfectly ok behaviour' and 'rape'. Within that gap there is selfish behaviour such as coming inside someone when you've agreed before you started that you wouldn't. That isn't rape, imo. That it isn't rape doesn't make it ok. But not everything that isn't ok ought to be criminal.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

I think the law is secondary to whether or not someone feels violated.

I wrote a long post about thus near the beginning.  I'll go find it, there might be something sensible in it.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Pre-bunfight post. 



ymu said:


> I have equally muddled thoughts, and I'm supposed to be sleeping, so obviously, I'm going to try and outline them.
> 
> Firstly, 'rape is about power' has to be a generalisation because there are too many circumstances in which rape occurs to have one model. But I think you can put power in most models somewhere.
> 
> ...


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've just been having a look at the law in the UK. It doesn't seem clear to me whether it is legally rape or not, tbh. Rape is penetration without consent. Refusal to withdraw immediately upon request doesn't seem to be covered. I may have missed something there. Totally impossible to enforce as a law, though, I would have thought.


 

WellI wouldn't have thought there would be a legal cut off point. Totaly impracticle as that would be. But if someone refuses to withdrawer before climax, for what ever reason, after initial consent, that would sem to be classed rape. Whether it's a few seconds into the act or few from it's conclusion. You couldn't really have a line drawn in legislation. Not that I think soemone refusing to withdrawer right at the point of orgasm, after everything being concentual til that point, would or should get to court. Caviets, baring some highly specific circumstances. Before anyone says. Yeah but what if blah, blah.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm really surprised at people not thinking it is rape. It's a pretty standard, if not universal, view. Withdrawal of consent is in all the literature I recall, not that I read much of it. 

This is a useful discussion, of why Californian law agrees, these days at least.



> Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of California confronted an important issue about how rape should be defined under the law.
> 
> In People v. John Z., the court held that a woman who initially consents to sexual intercourse does not thereby give up her right to end the encounter at whatever point she chooses. In other words, when a woman tells her partner to stop, and he forces her to continue, he is guilty of rape.
> 
> ...



But you know, carry on telling me I'm hysterical/trivialising rape/making it up for no reason. It's what I'm here for. Apparently.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

I might be interpreting this wrongly, but as far as I can tell, once consensual penetration has begun, UK law says that it is not rape. 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2011)

Legally (in this country anyway) a woman cannot rape. Rape is the penetration with the penis of vagina, anus or mouth (and the law even refers to "he" as the offender)

So whatever it was ymu did it's technically not rape (whether it would be any other kind of sexual assault I don't know) according to law, morally tho, I have no idea!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> But you know, carry on telling me I'm hysterical/trivialising rape/making it up for no reason. It's what I'm here for. Apparently.


 
That's not on, ymu. Honest disagreement with your point of view is not laying into you.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?

I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> You seem to be suggesting that rapists can legitimately weigh the odds of causing harm, and that it might be excusable. Which is pretty fucked up.


I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that rape is the crime. 

I'm for a start differentiating between the crime and the person. There's no weighing involved - either your intention is to rape or it isn't. As long as relations are consensual, rape isn't happening. Remaining aware of whether consent is being withdrawn or not is as basic a part of human sexual activity as I can imagine. 

The problems seem to lie in whether communication is possible for the victim, and whether there's a deliberate intention not to understand the communication on the part of the perp. Deliberate intention to ignore a communication is straightforward rape. 

So the difficulties really seem to lie in communications made by the victim at the time of the rape. 'After the fact' is significant because in practice human relations don't stop and start. There's no personal restitution a rapist can make that will change the fact of the rape itself. So society looks to seek retribution instead, and perhaps treatment to avoid the situation recurring.

When you identify a person as 'a rapist' you immediately cut away all the contributing factors. This suggests a punitive and dominating perspective based on your own needs in respect of retribution. This is also pretty fucked up. Though I certainly agree that it would be fucked up to imagine that a person intent on rape can involve themselves in weighing up the extent of the harm they're committing or about to commit. The damage is a health issue. The intent is a legal and social one.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?

I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?
> 
> I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.




Two separate things - you're the one who brought up the statute book. I was just trying to clear up what the statute book actually says. 

I don't work out what is right and wrong by what the law says. And I explicitly stated that there are all kinds of behaviour that are not criminal - and probably shouldn't be criminal - but are not therefore ok.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I might be interpreting this wrongly, but as far as I can tell, once consensual penetration has begun, UK law says that it is not rape.
> 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1


 


> (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—.
> (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,.
> (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and.
> (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents..



In context, _penetration _reads to me as the whole process, so it could be that ymu is right. Any lawyers in the house? Shame that we don't have detective-boy on tap for questions like these.

Edit - also worth noting that the text speaks of a "he", and "a penis". So is it really the case that female on male rape is not legislated for at all in the UK? Bizarre if so.


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> UK law a beacon for your moral compass now, lbj? You'll violate someone sexually if you think it's OK and the law can't touch you?
> 
> I don't believe you believe that, funnily enough.



Then why fucking say it?

He was clearly disagreeing with you about _what the law_ defines as rape, and not suggesting that anything permitted in law is ok. Why the continued need to wilfully distort?


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> In context, _penetration _reads to me as the whole process, so it could be that ymu is right. Any lawyers in the house? Shame that we don't have detective-boy on tap for questions like these.
> 
> Edit - also worth noting that the text speaks of a "he", and "a penis". So is it really the case that female on male rape is not legislated for at all in the UK? Bizarre if so.



UK statute always refers to a person as a "he" - shouldn't read anything in to the word in this context - it's the word penis that provides only men can commit rape.

It is s.2 of the Act that provides for "assault by penetration" which _can_ be committed by a woman (regardless of the word "he" being used) and which carries the same maximum term of imprisonment.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

past caring said:


> UK statute always refers to a person as a "he" - shouldn't read anything in to the word in this context - it's the word penis that provides only men can commit rape.
> 
> It is s.2 of the Act that provides for "assault by penetration" which can be committed by a woman (regardless of the word "he" being used) and which carries the same maximum term of imprisonment.


 
Cheers for clearing that up, pc.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Two separate things - you're the one who brought up the statute book. I was just trying to clear up what the statute book actually says.
> 
> I don't work out what is right and wrong by what the law says. And I explicitly stated that there are all kinds of behaviour that are not criminal - and probably shouldn't be criminal - but are not therefore ok.


 
You're right. I should have referred to the other person's feelings on the matter, not the statute book.

Where would you draw the line on what it is reasonable to do to someone else's body without their consent?

At what point does consent to sex become binding, and for how long?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

As ever, people banging on about the law, and retribution. The CJS and the law do nothing to limit or mitigate harm.
Shit, looking for 'justice' around rape is ridiculous anyway. 

Personal intent to damage someone else is what's significant in terms of considering how to go about improving quality of life, no?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> You're right. I should have referred to the other person's feelings on the matter, not the statute book.
> 
> Where would you draw the line on what it is reasonable to do to someone else's body without their consent?
> 
> At what point does consent to sex become binding, and for how long?


 
There's no formula that can answer those questions, is there?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> At what point does consent to sex become binding, and for how long?


Consent is never binding in a sexual context. Blimey. I'm sure we've all got our personal styles in these things but I sort of get the impression that with you, it'd be like getting it on with a truck!


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not on, ymu. Honest disagreement with your point of view is not laying into you.


 
It's not the disagreeing with me I take issue with. It's the constant implications that I'm making it up, exaggerating, devaluing rape … when it is a totally fucking standard viewpoint which you would be hard pressed not to find covered in any serious discussion of rape. Fuck's sake.

But you know, refuse to acknowledge the literature and call me a nutter. It's easy cos I am.

And no, not just you. But this is fucking bizarre. Urban arguing that it's not necessary to withdraw when told to. Wut?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> There's no formula that can answer those questions, is there?


 
Yes, there is. If you're told to stop, you stop. Easy peasy. 

Not so easy if you want to start nit-picking about being able to violate someone a little bit if you're close to cumming and don't want to stop. But otherwise, pretty fucking easy, no?

I posted an article which discusses this. Would save lots of time if people read it ibstead of demanding I spoonfeed it to them. It's very basic stuff.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes, there is. If you're told to stop, you stop. Easy peasy.
> 
> Not so easy if you want to start nit-picking about being able to violate someone a little bit if you're close to cumming and don't want to stop. But otherwise, pretty fucking easy, no?
> 
> I posted an article which discusses this. Would save lots of time if people read it ibstead of demanding I spoonfeed it to them. It's very basic stuff.


 
Sure, but that really only addresses your second question, and like it or not I don't know that everyone has a clear a picture of what consent is or means or how it's expressed as you do. Not everyone says it out loud IYSWIM. Your first q I find a bit strange.. are you speaking in a sexual context or more widely?



> Where would you draw the line on what it is reasonable to do to someone else's body without their consent?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

My only point is that if someone tells you to get out/off of them, they have decided and you do not get to second guess whether or not they really mean it.

Like I said, I posted an article on this. It does cover this in detail. You could just read it before expecting me to type it all out for you.


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 17, 2011)

Fuck me over 1000 posts since I last checked this thread, WTF happened and is it worth reading?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> My only point is that if someone tells you to get out/off of them, they have decided and you do not get to second guess whether or not they really mean it.
> 
> Like I said, I posted an article on this. It does cover this in detail. You could just read it before expecting me to type it all out for you.


 
Hm. I see what you're saying and I would agree had I not known that many people do not see consent in sexual relations as clearly or binary as you do. Playing with/manipulating what is on and what isn't is, for a good deal of people, what makes sex exciting. And that isn't always something that is easily expressed in clear words and tones.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Fuck me over 1000 posts since I last checked this thread, WTF happened and is it worth reading?


 
If you like your bunfights, sure.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Not so easy if you want to start nit-picking about being able to violate someone a little bit if you're close to cumming and don't want to stop.


But isn't that about a lack of _capacity_ to stop. Sure that's leaving lots of ethical issues aside in some contexts, and depends on a shared acceptance that all human beings to some extent loose their faculties for control when the're nearing that kind of peak, but all the same lack of capacity represents a very different situation - to do with judgement - than one in which you deliberately ignore the other person's situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not the disagreeing with me I take issue with. It's the constant implications that I'm making it up, exaggerating, devaluing rape … when it is a totally fucking standard viewpoint which you would be hard pressed not to find covered in any serious discussion of rape. Fuck's sake.
> 
> But you know, refuse to acknowledge the literature and call me a nutter. It's easy cos I am.
> 
> And no, not just you. But this is fucking bizarre. Urban arguing that it's not necessary to withdraw when told to. Wut?


 
Right. I'll leave you there. You might want to consider that you are being extremely patronising in your attitude here. You are talking to adults, not children.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

So, no one's bothered to read the article then.

Well done guys. Truly impressive.


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

Was it an active decision not to stop then ymu, did you think what you were doing was wrong in that moment? Did you get off on the power you had? Was what you done intentional or an accident? Did you really think he'd want you to carry on cos he was about to cum? Were you scared he'd be angry in the moment if you didn't carry on (even though it's what you'd agreed before?).

I think what happened was just really naive. Pulling out just before you cum is hard, I'd never in a million years believe a man who said he'd do that before he fucked me. Blatently he's not going to!


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

I'll read it!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

I'll read it to if anyone can repost the link.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Fuck me over 1000 posts since I last checked this thread, WTF happened and is it worth reading?


 
Only if you haven't got some paint to watch dry. Louloubelle and LBJ are the only ones making any sense really. 

Ymu's being weird and others are berating her for it. 

Standard U75 50 pager. It'll run out of steam soon.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> Was it an active decision not to stop then ymu, did you think what you were doing was wrong in that moment? Did you get off on the power you had? Was what you done intentional or an accident? Did you really think he'd want you to carry on cos he was about to cum? Were you scared he'd be angry in the moment if you didn't carry on (even though it's what you'd agreed before?).
> 
> I think what happened was just really naive. Pulling out just before you cum is hard, I'd never in a million years believe a man who said he'd do that before he fucked me. Blatently he's not going to!


 
He was a lot more scared of pregnancy than I was, primarily because I knew there was no chance cos I hadn't had a period in years (turns out it was sleep deprivation, they came back once I quit 9-5 work). And yes, he was making increasingly urgent noises.  And I didn't get off cos I was a selfish little shit who had not at that point, considered what rape actually is.

The fact that we coukd laugh about it is irrelevant. I'm not looking for exoneration. I'm quite alarmed that people are actually arguing that there's some point at which it is too late to withdraw consent. If they really believe it, that is a big problem.  Particularly if they think they can draw their own line without consulting the other person.


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> If you like your bunfights, sure.



*considers position*

*yep, plenty of beer in, pissing down outside, fuck all else on this afternoon, I may give it a go*



Spymaster said:


> Only if you haven't got some paint to watch dry. Louloubelle and LBJ are the only ones making any sense really.
> 
> Ymu's being weird and others are berating her for it.
> 
> Standard U75 50 pager. It'll run out of steam soon.



You should have put that in spoiler tags.


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

Oi you cheeky fucker spy, I've made total sense and been very reserved in the bunfight


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

The link from a few posts back …

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20030115.html


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> Oi you cheeky fucker spy, I've made total sense and been very reserved in the bunfight


 
I think I should be the judge of that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> Oi you cheeky fucker spy, I've made total sense and been very reserved in the bunfight


 
You always make sense darling, certainly more than most birds.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> I think what happened was just really naive. Pulling out just before you cum is hard, I'd never in a million years believe a man who said he'd do that before he fucked me. Blatently he's not going to!



It's plenty easy... Most porn is a tribute to this.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> The link from a few posts back …
> 
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20030115.html


 
Cheers, I'll have a look now.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Ok so I've read it and most of it is eminently sensible. However it does breezily dismiss just the issues I raised about consent not always being a straigthforward yes or no.



> One could imagine difficult factual variations, in which the woman's communication is ambiguous or her partner's compliance almost, but not quite, immediate.


And then? Nothing.



> Freedom thus requires that consent not be presumed or irrevocable - but actual and true.



And that is ascertained how exactly? Again in most cases it's likely to be pretty obvious, but what about those cases where it's not?

This all adds up to me saying that I agree with the main point, but that point is made at the expense of a more realistic assesment of what consent is and how it is communicated, processed and acted on. Is that an acceptable trade-off in the interest of clarifying what rape is and isn't? Possibly.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Don't know where that Edie quote is from, but naive? We fucked coitus interruptus the entire time we were together, and I was the only one who ever let us down. Once. Please quit the nasty assumptions about the men in my life. I see no need to denigrate him when I did wrong.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

No one ever said rape was easy to prosecute, TruxTa. I'm still on personal responsibility here.

And this is precisely why it needs discussion. Cos I'm saying that if someone tells you to get off them, you just do it. Others seem to be saying there's wriggle room. Which I think is worrying. Who is getting to define when no means no, here? How far into the act does consent become binding, and for how long?  How is that acceptable in any way?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

For me consent is never binding. Anyone is free to withdraw consent at any time, and the other(s) involved must respect that. BUT, that assumes that consent has been clearly withdrawn. How clear must clear be? Say I have sex with someone. Say this someone consents to sex before the act, and does not withdraw consent during the act. Then consider that this someone on reflection didn't want to consent to sex with me, and in hindsight feels that s/he consented under duress. Then what? I could construct a million scenarios like this.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> Oi you cheeky fucker spy, I've made total sense and been very reserved in the bunfight


Ditto Spy, yer bunfighter


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> For me consent is never binding. Anyone is free to withdraw consent at any time, and the other(s) involved must respect that. BUT, that assumes that consent has been clearly withdrawn. How clear must clear be? Say I have sex with someone. Say this someone consents to sex before the act, and does not withdraw consent during the act. Then consider that this someone on reflection didn't want to consent to sex with me, and in hindsight feels that s/he consented under duress. Then what? I could construct a million scenarios like this.


Exactly. Which is why the crime of intent is the specific issue. And often so hard to prove. It's a dark area for the law to be in. I'm glad I work on the Health side.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2011)

yep . 

What is consent? 

i'm sure there've been times when i've felt pressured into sex tbh (or where i pressured someone else). that doesn't mean it was rape.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

Ymu, I find your demeanour on this thread a bit strange. It's like you're getting some kind of titillation out of graphically describing your sex acts and your repeated insistence that you raped this fellow (you didn't). I began with some sympathy for your position but i'm not so sure now. 

To be honest I think you may be trolling now, in which case, good show!


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> For me consent is never binding. Anyone is free to withdraw consent at any time, and the other(s) involved must respect that. BUT, that assumes that consent has been clearly withdrawn. How clear must clear be? Say I have sex with someone. Say this someone consents to sex before the act, and does not withdraw consent during the act. Then consider that this someone on reflection didn't want to consent to sex with me, and in hindsight feels that s/he consented under duress. Then what? I could construct a million scenarios like this.



Indeed.  This discussion reminds me of the recent news report about an Arab man who was jailed for rape in Israel when he pretended that he was Jewish in order to seduce a Jewish woman.  She found out he was not Jewish and he was then tried and imprisoned for rape.  

In ymu's case the issue relates to reproductive control and family planning.  How about a scenario where a woman wants a baby and thus sticks pins through the bf's condoms or "forgets" to take the pill?  Is the woman in that situation guilty of rape?  I don't think so.  She may be guilty of a pretty serious and nasty deception, but not rape.    

How about a case where a man wants a baby and his wife / gf does not?  He secretly sticks pins through his condoms.  Is he guilty of rape?  How about if the issue is protection from STIs and the sex takes place with the agreement that a condom is used but he sneakily removes it.  is that rape?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> For me consent is never binding. Anyone is free to withdraw consent at any time, and the other(s) involved must respect that. BUT, that assumes that consent has been clearly withdrawn. How clear must clear be? Say I have sex with someone. Say this someone consents to sex before the act, and does not withdraw consent during the act. Then consider that this someone on reflection didn't want to consent to sex with me, and in hindsight feels that s/he consented under duress. Then what? I could construct a million scenarios like this.


 
Yes, I'm sure you can. 

How is it relevant? 

Because I am 100% sure you don't really mean that the general rule boys should absorb is "no means no, but only if she's being reasonable about it."

I know lots of them have, in fact, absorbed this message. And that is my point in using this example. Do boys ever get made to think about this, without being drowned out with 'jokey'banter and moaning about women cadging drinks and dressing like sluts? Or does it always derail direct to insulting stereotypes?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> No one ever said rape was easy to prosecute, TruxTa. I'm still on personal responsibility here.
> 
> And this is precisely why it needs discussion. Cos I'm saying that if someone tells you to get off them, you just do it. Others seem to be saying there's wriggle room. Which I think is worrying. Who is getting to define when no means no, here? How far into the act does consent become binding, and for how long?  How is that acceptable in any way?


 
I propose that 'Safe words' (as used by the kinky community) should be made compulsory for all sexual encounters. Failure to proceed to intercourse before agreement of phrase to be punishable by fine and or imprisonment. 

Who wants to lead the 'Ymu's law' campaign? This tragedy must never happen again. Won't someone think of the children?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm not sure to whom or what you're addressing that post, ymu. Care to clarify?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I propose that 'Safe words' (as used by the kinky community) should be made compulsory for all sexual encounters. Failure to proceed to intercourse before agreement to be punishable by fine and or imprisonment.
> 
> Who wants to lead the 'Ymu's law' campaign? This tragedy must never happen again. Won't someone think of the children?


 
Fuck off Gromit, you've had your hate-fest, let the grownups get on with it.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fuck off Gromit, you've had your hate-fest, let the grownups get on with it.


 
Okay but when are they arriving?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Okay but when are they arriving?


 
They're already here. Seriously, leave it fucking be unless you've got something of substance to offer.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

So, the urban consensus is apparently that it is not necessary to withdraw when asked to.

Can we have more detail now please? Cos I need to know what I'm consenting to, and I know this bloke who just loved to batter my cervix and he'd have been delighted to know he need not have stopped when I told him to.

Permissible circumstances for rape:
- I'm nearly cumming
- don't think she really means it
- don't think she's being reasonable

??

Come on, some of you must have a full list. You seem to know all about it Louloubelle, perhaps you could explain when no stops meaning no?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, the urban consensus is apparently that it is not necessary to withdraw when asked to.
> 
> Can we have more detail now please? Cos I need to know what I'm consenting to, and I know this bloke who just loved to batter my cervix and he'd have been delighted to know he need not have stopped when I told him to.
> 
> ...


 
I really hope you're not including me in this so-called urban consensus. And you've yet to address any of the points I raised about the murkiness of the consent concept and how it might work in practice. 

I think I'll bow out of this thread, and with all due respect ymu (really, not being sarcy) - how about you take a break from this, cast your mind to more pleasant things for a while and then see if there's still anything you'd like to discuss?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, the urban consensus is apparently that it is not necessary to withdraw when asked to.


Well if that's the case I'm against the consensus. My impression is that several people here believe its critical to remain aware of a sexual partner's communications throughout the interaction of sexual activity. 

I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion about the consensus. Would a poll D) be useful? Seriously though, I'm against that consensus if it's there.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Ditto Spy, yer bunfighter


 
Ah sorry, didn't see you there, Teahead. Are you a bird too?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Ah sorry, didn't see you there, Teahead. Are you a bird too?


 
What, don't tell me you're a bird?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

this whole pulling out before cumming shite wouldn't be an issue if youse would all remember the old school yard mantra.

"One in the fanny, you're ma's a granny

One up the bum, no harm done"


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes, I'm sure you can.
> 
> How is it relevant?
> 
> ...


 
This post made me think about how difficult it is for people to actually _think _clearly about this sensitive issue.

It seems to me that often people cannot handle the complexity and the fuzziness of the edges, the fact that it is complex, and instead attempt to retreat into a world of certainty and black and white where no ambiguity exists.  In this concrete world everything is split into good and bad, black and while, victim and perpetrator.  You have to be on one side or the other.

While there are obviously many cases where their are clearly allocated roles of victim and perpetrator, there is some space for thinking about the cases where things are less clear cut. However even starting to think about and question such scenarios can cause great anxiety and a wish to stop thinking and retreat to a perceived safer place of splits and concrete certainties. 

The fact that we only have Reclaim the Night (dungarees and wimmin) and slutwalk (sex workers and "sluts") each with their own respective protest movements says something about the difficulties in engaging with complex and sensitive issues relating to gender, abuse and personal responsibility.  IMO


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Ah sorry, didn't see you there, Teahead. Are you a bird too?


wtf? Are you wondering if I'm a 'bird' because of... Well what _are_ you basing that assumption on?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What, don't tell me you're a bird?


 
I'll be whatever you like, Truxta. I like a bit of Scandi!


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

Sorry Spy. I didn't cotton the . 
What's Truxta on about?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm being attacked by multiple people, and every single one of you goes off in a huff as if it's only you making the point I object to.

For fuck's sake! 

I just want to know where the clear unambiguous dividing line is for people deciding how to act in the heat of the moment. Nothing else. How does thecdebatecabout the undoubted problems give a clear message to people about what is, and is not, acceptable?

Do we have to guess?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

I subconsciouly had Spy down as a bloke. Fuck knows why - stupid defaulting on gender-neutral poster names I guess.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

He is a bloke. Just not much of a man.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm being attacked by multiple people, and every single one of you goes off in a huff as if it's only you making the point I object to.
> 
> For fuck's sake!
> 
> ...


 
I can't see where you've been attacked in the last few pages ymu, honestly. Like lbj said honest disagreement is not having a go. That clear line you're asking for doesn't exist in any kind of abstract sense, and certainly cannot be codified or enshrined in law. That's okay, all/most laws are poor like that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I subconsciouly had Spy down as a bloke.


 
A lot of people seem to. Perhaps I should change to Spymistress?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Do we have to guess?


It's hard or practically impossible to know what's going on in someone else's mind. 

So no.

You either have to speak out and say what's happening during sex if you need to (and make judgements based on how they respond), or if it feels unsafe then look after youself until you reckon you're safer, then take any necessary action.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 17, 2011)

Who are the people attacking you? 



Spy is a bloke.



good post, louloubelle.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

By the way, I finally got that post of yours I wasn't sure about, ymu. How is it relevant? It's relevant in all those scenarios that don't fit your binaries.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> Well if that's the case I'm against the consensus. My impression is that several people here believe its critical to remain aware of a sexual partner's communications throughout the interaction of sexual activity.
> 
> I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion about the consensus. Would a poll D) be useful? Seriously though, I'm against that consensus if it's there.


 Well, the only other viewpoint being expressed is that refusing to withdraw is not rape. If you don't agree, speak up. I'm addressing the people who have commented. I want to know what the fuck they're on.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu

You just seem to want a definitive rule that will be applicable in any one of a number of diverse scenarios. 

The fact is that, much as though it would be lovely to have 100% certainty about all possibly permutations of sexual experience; people are individuals, context is everything and there is no one rule that applies rigidly to all scenarios.  

Sometimes you just have to struggle with thinking about something rather than proclaiming that you know The Truth with absolute certainty.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> A lot of people seem to. Perhaps I should change to Spymistress?


 
Whatever floats your boat, Spy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm being attacked by multiple people,


 
There is a difference between attacking and disagreeing. You don't appear to be seeing that difference at the moment.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> He is a bloke. Just not much of a man.


 
What is it with you? 

Are you not going to settle down until you've started a fight with_ everyone_ on the boards?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I subconsciouly had Spy down as a bloke. Fuck knows why - stupid defaulting on gender-neutral poster names I guess.


 
"Spymaster" is not a gender-neutral name, fool.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well, the only other viewpoint being expressed is that refusing to withdraw is not rape. If you don't agree, speak up. I'm addressing the people who have commented. I want to know what the fuck they're on.


 
OK, so how many seconds between request and compliance before it's rape?


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm being attacked by multiple people, and every single one of you goes off in a huff as if it's only you making the point I object to.
> 
> For fuck's sake!
> 
> ...



Perhaps people would be more ready to engage/would stick around longer if you didn't keep making shit up?



ymu said:


> So, the urban consensus is apparently that it is not necessary to withdraw when asked to.


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, the urban consensus is apparently that it is not necessary to withdraw when asked to.



Just how the fuck have you come up with that conclusion?

You seem to have turned this whole thread into a 'you against everyone else' job, despite only 2 or 3 other posters making vile & totally unacceptable comments towards you. 

I've still not read the whole thread, but what I have so far, it seems you have jumped on almost everyone posting, totally misreading what the majority have posted, it's almost like you are responding to a totally different thread on a different site, most odd.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Fuck off dwyer. Seriously, not the time and place.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> . You seem to know all about it Louloubelle, perhaps you could explain when no stops meaning no?



My point is that I don't know it all and neither do you or anyone else. 

Some situations are very clear to all, some are more complex


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> "Spymaster" is not a gender-neutral name, fool.


 
English is not Truxta's first language, to be fair. 

She's Norwegian. I've been trying to get her to post on the naked thread.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Who are the people attacking you?
> 
> .


 
On this point? Several people are claiming that refusing to withdraw is not rape, and they're giving wildly different reasons. 

From memory, spanky, louloubelle, TruxTa, revol, past caring, lbj.

I justvwant to know when no really means no, cos I xan't see this grey area being anything but abused. And dangerously confusing for some people too.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> English is not Truxta's first language, to be fair.



I know.  He's illiterate in seven languages.


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> He is a bloke. Just not much of a man.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> On this point? Several people are claiming that refusing to withdraw is not rape, and they're giving wildly different reasons.
> 
> From memory, spanky, louloubelle, TruxTa, revol, past caring, lbj.
> 
> I justvwant to know when no really means no, cos I xan't see this grey area being anything but abused. And dangerously confusing for some people too.


 
  lbj isn't, loulou isn't, truxta isn't.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> English is not Truxta's first language, to be fair.
> 
> She's Norwegian. I've been trying to get her to post on the naked thread.


 
I have posted on the nekkid thread! Keep up, babes! FWIW plenty of previously masculine titles are now gender-neutral. Or do you lot say aviatrix and directrix?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> If you don't agree, speak up.


I think I have been! It seems so difficult to get your trust ymu. Several people seem, to me anyway, to be trying really hard to do this here. You certainly seem very passionate in your need to be heard on this. I'm absolutely respecting that, but I'm feeling that I've sort of run out of useful words. Which makes me feel a bit glum. Louloubelle seems to be on the money at the moment... But then is that looking like an attack to you?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> On this point? Several people are claiming that refusing to withdraw is not rape, and they're giving wildly different reasons.
> 
> From memory, spanky, louloubelle, TruxTa, revol, past caring, lbj.
> 
> I justvwant to know when no really means no, cos I xan't see this grey area being anything but abused. And dangerously confusing for some people too.


 
I never said such things at all, prick.

and ofcourse a grey area is open to abuse, that's the fucking trouble with all grey areas, it doesn't mean that you can just wish them away.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> On this point? Several people are claiming that refusing to withdraw is not rape, and they're giving wildly different reasons.
> 
> From memory, spanky, louloubelle, TruxTa, revol, past caring, lbj.
> 
> I justvwant to know when no really means no, cos I xan't see this grey area being anything but abused. And dangerously confusing for some people too.


 
You better have a quote where I use those words or very very similar. Honestly, you're not reading very well at the moment. Take a break, is my advice.

But sure, you answer it then - how long between request to withdraw and compliance before it's rape? Seeing as you're keen to pin these things down, what do you reckon?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I have posted on the nekkid thread! Keep up, babes! FWIW plenty of previously masculine titles are now gender-neutral. Or do you lot say aviatrix and directrix?



Wankerix.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu

I don't really understand what is going on in your mind but you seem to be alternating between victim and perpetrator with mercurial rapidity.  

Something like ; I'm a rapist / you're all against me / (insert various potty mouthed insults here)

it is disturbing to witness and I'm just wondering if you are acting out some past trauma by participating in this thread in the way that you are.  I appreciate that this might sounds like cod psychology to you but I'm really struggling to make sense of your posts and your interaction with others.  

Seriously girl, I think you are better than this.  Step away for a while and have a rest and a think about what is going on for you.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> ymu
> 
> You just seem to want a definitive rule that will be applicable in any one of a number of diverse scenarios.
> 
> ...


 
You have expressed the opinion that refusing to withdraw is not rape. I don't know why the other stuff is relevant. It's a complex crime to prosecute, yes. Has nothing to do with the question of whether you should withdraw when asked to or not.

So, when is it permissible to carry on fucking someone when you know they want you to stop?

Because I am gobsmacked at anyone claiming this isn't rape, I thought it was standard. But you were one of those that did. So explain.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 17, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> I'm really struggling to make sense of your posts and your interaction with others.
> 
> Seriously girl, I think you are better than this.  Step away for a while and have a rest and a think about what is going on for you.


 

Hear hear, well said, Louloubelle.

Edit: Having said that, I predict another 10 pages by midnight


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Honestly phil, do you think this is a good place for your infantile paroxysms?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu: 





> how long between request to withdraw and compliance before it's rape?



At this point you live by the sword or you die by the sword. Nail it down or keep quiet.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> My point is that I don't know it all and neither do you or anyone else.
> 
> Some situations are very clear to all, some are more complex


 You were rather categorical when you accused me of trivialising rape. Now, you aren't so sure.

Cheers for that.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> So explain.



Look at it this way.  Imagine if your lover had reported this "rape" to the cops.  How do you think they'd have reacted?


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, when is it permissible to carry on fucking someone when you know they want you to stop?


Never. I'm not sure anyone here or anywhere else would seriously disagree with that.


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> English is not Truxta's first language, to be fair.



I'm beginning to wonder if it's ymu's.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Honestly phil, do you think this is a good place for your infantile paroxysms?



Twatrix.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> You have expressed the opinion that refusing to withdraw is not rape. I don't know why the other stuff is relevant. It's a complex crime to prosecute, yes. Has nothing to do with the question of whether you should withdraw when asked to or not.
> 
> So, when is it permissible to carry on fucking someone when you know they want you to stop?
> 
> Because I am gobsmacked at anyone claiming this isn't rape, I thought it was standard. But you were one of those that did. So explain.


 

Not playing

You are relating to people in a very distorted way and to continue with this feels like bear baiting or something

Seriously girl, take a break, get a hug / cuddle, have think about what feelings are being triggered in you and why

I have a feeling (could be wrong) that you need a big hug and a long cry about some other thing.  

This isn't helping


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)




----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)




----------



## gavman (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not having fucking control freaks telling me how I or anyone else conducts themselves sexually.


 
this is your whole problem on this thread. you dishonestly characterise perfectly reasonable statements or views from those with whom you disagree 

 the closest i or anyone else on this thread have come to your statement, is to say that we might not choose to go out with, or have relationships with excessively promiscuous partners. 

something that would be perfectly acceptable for a female to say about men, but not vice versa, apparently.

 so nothing about controlling you, or women's bodies, or any of that shit, just saying that to some people, myself included, promiscuous behaviour is a big turn off. i'm not telling you how to behave, it's up to you how you live your life. i'm just turning my back on you, is all. that's my fucking prerogative


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Right, what's going on?

A bunch of people tell me what I did wasn't rape, but they're not saying that refusal to withdraw isn't rape.

Wut?

Rape is an act. The intent and aftermath are irrelevant. I don't get why you're talking about the prosecution side. I'm interested in how a kid like me could have been better prepared for that situation and not become an accidental rapist. That is all.


----------



## gavman (Jun 17, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yes, violence is certainly the right response to hearing something you don't like.


 
but it is a common response to endless vile insults. if you call someone a cunt and get smacked in the mouth, you can hardly claim it was out of the blue or even unprovoked


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> ymu:
> 
> At this point you live by the sword or you die by the sword. Nail it down or keep quiet.


 
How long does it take you to get your cock out?

I'm interested in what the other person experiences. not what their lawyer says.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

And now, shifting goalposts. I'm done with this conversation for the time being.


----------



## Edie (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu listen to Loulou, she's genuinely kind and wise x


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Just how the fuck have you come up with that conclusion?
> 
> You seem to have turned this whole thread into a 'you against everyone else' job, despite only 2 or 3 other posters making vile & totally unacceptable comments towards you.
> 
> I've still not read the whole thread, but what I have so far, it seems you have jumped on almost everyone posting, totally misreading what the majority have posted, it's almost like you are responding to a totally different thread on a different site, most odd.


 
I can only go by what people post. Pages of people saying it's not rape and no dissenters ...


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Right, what's going on?
> 
> A bunch of people tell me what I did wasn't rape, but they're not saying that refusal to withdraw isn't rape.
> 
> ...


Rape is an act. Yes.
It is committed by a person. Yes?
The person is prosecuted, _because_ of the act.

So.

1. Is it the act that's under discussion i.e. what act constitutes rape? Or 
2. Is it the person that's under discussion i.e. when is a person's sexual activity subject to criminal sanction?

You may say 2 because of 1 - that's logic.
But it's not the act that's prosecuted. It's the perpetrator of the act.

My guess is that you're trying to establish what constitutes 1 and you're less interested in 2?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Edie said:


> ymu listen to Loulou, she's genuinely kind and wise x


I know she can be. But I don't do heroes and villains, and on this thread she's criticised me for coarse language whilst ignoring some really shitty stuff. Which doesn't fill me with confidence here.

And she's told me refusal to withdraw isn't rape, but now she doesn't know.

Kinda annoying. I didn't move any goalposts, as far as I can tell.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead, we have a 6% conviction rate for rape in this country. Discussing it in terms of enforceable lawn is a bit of a non-starter. I would like fewer accidental rapists out there, that's all. I find the discussion about uncertainties and legal problems here offensive. It's offering excuses before it's even been agreed what the boundaries are. Can we not start with some unambiguous boundaries? Like "get out of me" means "get out of me NOW"?


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

jesus fuck this thread took a turn for the fucking messed up. 

Consensual sex is consensual sex. If you agree that a sexual encounter is on the cards, and have sex, then it isn't rape. If you decide at the vinager strokes, that you don't want to have sex, then it's it's a bit late, and you're nothing but a prick teaser. If you don't want to get spunk in you, use protection. And yes, someone should pull out of asked. (but it still makes you prick teaser) What the fuck is thread about?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> lbj isn't, loulou isn't, truxta isn't.


Why do you say that quim? All of them have told me I didn't rape by refusing to withdraw. They can't now decide that it is rape if anyone but me does it.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

You are shifting goal-posts ymu - you wanted a clear, b/w separation between yes and no. I challenged you to do just that using an example you'd previously referred to, but you wouldn't, instead shifting onto what the putative victim thinks/feels.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu

As I said before (maybe you didn't see it?) this thread has brought out the ugly side of lots of people.  In some people just a little bit, in some people a lot. 

Please, please take a break.  Have think about what's going on for you and if you want to then post again later once you are more clear headed. 

Can people please stop provoking her?

I sense that many people on here have been raped or violated in some way, others have been hurt and traumatised in other ways and the thread is triggering people's hurts and traumas and has largely just become people twisting knives in each others wounds.  

I don't think it will get much better unless ymu and everyone else steps away for a while. 

Pretty please?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why do you say that quim? All of them have told me I didn't rape by refusing to withdraw. They can't now decide that it is rape if anyone but me does it.


 
To the best of my knowledge I haven't said anything either way, ymu. If you think I do, please post a quote, and we'll take it from there.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> I don't think it will get much better unless ymu and everyone else steps away for a while.
> 
> Pretty please?


 
So, let me get this straight...we're now all exited, and you want us to pull out?......


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Look at it this way.  Imagine if your lover had reported this "rape" to the cops.  How do you think they'd have reacted?


More pertinently, imagine if he'd been really upset about it?

Imagine if it was a bloke refusing not to impregnate a woman.

Imagine that it's not possible to tell in advance what someone's reaction will be, and that you don't get to make a bad guess cos it suits you.

What the fuck is this obsession with the cops taking it seriously? It's only a crime if it gets reported? You know the rape stats, yeah?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> To the best of my knowledge I haven't said anything either way, ymu. If you think I do, please post a quote, and we'll take it from there.


 
If I misread you, I apologise. But you seemed to be saying that getting out when told to wasn't an adequate guideline? What did you mean with all those posts about why it might be a tough call, if you agreed that it was rape?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> If I misread you, I apologise. But you seemed to be saying that getting out when told to wasn't an adequate guideline? What did you mean with all those posts about why it might be a tough call, if you agreed that it was rape?


 
I said a request to withdraw can be made at any stage, and failing to act on that is ipso facto rape. That still leaves a great many situations where things aren't so clear cut. Can a person withdraw consent after the fact - like in the example with the jewish bird and the arab bloke? You want consent to be binary - it ain't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

What a lot of people are saying - and I said pages ago, but you refused to engage with it - is that there is a grey area between 'totally fine' and 'rape'. In that grey area falls selfish, perhaps even manipulative, and certainly far from totally fine behaviour that, IMO and in the opinion of a lot of others by the looks of it, IS NOT RAPE EVEN IF IT FALLS WELL BELOW THE STANDARD OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR. 

I would reserve the term rape for something else, something that is quite clearly horrible, cunty, inexcusable behaviour, not merely the behaviour of a less-than-perfect human being.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I said a request to withdraw can be made at any stage, and failing to act on that is ipso facto rape. That still leaves a great many situations where things aren't so clear cut. Can a person withdraw consent after the fact - like in the example with the jewish bird and the arab bloke? You want consent to be binary - it ain't.


Why are the other situations relevant?

I was talking about one single situation, which people repeatedly told me was not rape, and accused me of trivialising rape by calling it rape.

Now they're saying it is rape, but I'm the nutter?

Why are you all talking about everything except the point I am making? Had I thought about what rape really was, I wouldn't have done it. Is it too much to ask that people in general think seriously about that on its own, without muddying the waters first?


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> lbj isn't, loulou isn't, truxta isn't.



I'm rather hoping your failure to include me in this list is due to a failure to look hard enough, rather than because you think I am? If the latter, I'd be grateful if you could point me to the post where I said that refusing to withdraw is not rape?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What a lot of people are saying - and I said pages ago, but you refused to engage with it - is that there is a grey area between 'totally fine' and 'rape'. In that grey area falls selfish, perhaps even manipulative, and certainly far from totally fine behaviour that, IMO and in the opinion of a lot of others by the looks of it, IS NOT RAPE EVEN IF IT FALLS WELL BELOW THE STANDARD OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR.
> 
> I would reserve the term rape for something else, something that is quite clearly horrible, cunty, inexcusable behaviour, not merely the behaviour of a less-than-perfect human being.


I disagree that there is a grey area here. In reality, yes. But not in boundary setting. Never.


----------



## past caring (Jun 17, 2011)

Just seen loulou's post - aye, fuck it.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why are the other situations relevant?



because we're not just talking about your experience.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> I disagree that there is a grey area here. In reality, yes. But not in boundary setting. Never.


 
What use are boundaries if they aren't real?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Holding a man's cock inside you because you're coming and you want to continue coming, even when you know that he's coming too and you'd agreed that he would not come inside you is not rape in my book. Not even close to it. 

I am not attacking you by saying that. I am disagreeing with you.

It is a selfish thing to do. It is not a totally fine thing to do. But that doesn't make it rape.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> because we're not just talking about your experience.


Except that we were. The whole conversation happened because a few people decided that what I did wasn't rape.

When did you start talking about something else? And why did you think I was talking about it too?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Except that we were. The whole conversation happened because a few people decided that what I did wasn't rape.
> 
> When did you start talking about something else? And why did you think I was talking about it too?


 
No, the way I read the thread was that your experience was the jumping off point for a tangent about the meanings of consent.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What use are boundaries if they aren't real?


 
It's a very real boundary. That is precisely my point. Leave the grey areas to the law, not for horny drunk people to work out on the fly. If you're told to get out, you don't ask how quickly, you just get out.


----------



## teahead (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Discussing it in terms of enforceable lawn is a bit of a non-starter.


I agree with you (though that's not going to achieve much) completely. And of course deterrents don't work. That statistic looks very grim. My understanding is that perhaps a contributing factor to the statistic is the difficulty there is in the legal issue of proof.

Like you've been saying, its the intentions and the attitudes that are probably a better way in and forward. In my experience with DV (and I recently wrote a paper looking at research into perpetrator programmes) one of the biggest problems is the culture in which rape and dv are institutionally addressed. Money and collaborative work between agencies is short and poor. People fear to be associated with anything except punitive positions in respect of perpetrators. The training is hopelessly under-resourced too. 

Obviously there's a great deal of shame around this issue. There are similar problems associated with some aspects of mental health and other criminal acts e.g. abuse of children, particularly sexual abuse. Whole system change (and, for me, that's what's required to address these problems more effectively) is very tricky, not least because of ways in which one can feel accountable as part of the problem simply by approaching it without showing how disgusted you are with what's gone on. 

By comparison surgeons with their knives going into bodies have it an awful lot easier. No one would dream of suggesting they could comment on this expertise. When it comes to changing attitudes and behaviours in the general population it's another matter entirely. People _expect_ (and are expected) to have a view. It seems to me that for the majority of people, their understanding about rape, psychopathology, child sex abuse and the rest are only peripheral. But on the other hand they represent significant issues which as moral beings we're all supposed to be able to talk about in a rational and even coherent way.

Put a person next to an opened patient in theatre and they'll (hopefully) shrug, puke and holler for the professional.
Put them next to a rapist etc and they'll take a much more assertive stance, while knowing precisely as little about the actuality of the situation as they would if they were asked to remove an appendix.

I'm not meaning to say "leave it to the experts" but fwiw I'd say there needs to be some recognition that actually _doing_ something about improving the situation around rape is very different from having an opinion, however personally and urgently that's felt, and how carefully its considered. 

I guess I might get a bit of a kicking for saying this. But there's a difference, I think, between being concerned and actually being able to come up with a solution. The reality - again just for me, but born out when you look at the data, research paradigms (sorry VP) and barriers to progress in social ills and issues - is that while people say they want change, they're not prepared to make the journey because it would involve a huge effort and make the world a very different place indeed. Ignorance and bigotry are part of a larger tapestry that's daily life. People happily accept and live with all sorts of abuses by convention. Though not any as damaging as rape, predation on vulnerable people etc. More than anything else, I'm amazed at the way people use their genuine horror and indignation, or alteratively their defensive jokiness, to present what's to pass for some kind of expert opinion. 

Psychology, and especially social psychology, are very young disciplines only just starting to develop even the beginnings of a knowledge base. And issues of power and domination have, until very recently (of that) been regarded as essentially beneficial to the progress of the species. Monarchies, mercantile expansion and marketing, industrialisation, 'survival of the fittest', wars for territory and cultural ascendence, the free market... What they all share in common is the idea of victory 'for the greater good'. Until there's an end ot that kind of oppositional dialectic, imho there's still going to be a prevalence of unhalted abuse and exploitation of vulnerable people by those who are intent on exploitation. 

Hell, that's properly depressing innit. I'm off to get drunk with a bunch of people. What a thread!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's a very real boundary. That is precisely my point. Leave the grey areas to the law, not for horny drunk people to work out on the fly. If you're told to get out, you don't ask how quickly, you just get out.


 
No it isn't. It really really isn't. 



Diminishing returns are diminishing, ejecting in 3-2-1-0. Srsly ymu, take a break. You're wearing yourself down.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No, the way I read the thread was that your experience was the jumping off point for a tangent about the meanings of consent.


 
OK. Well I was still being gobsmacked at people saying that refusal to withdraw isn't rape, and then quite pissed off that they then started saying it was, but only after they'd told me I'd trivialised rape by claiming it was.

So, there you go. It never occurred to me that people wouldn't be aware that refusal to withdraw is rape, and I didn't see anyone withdraw their comments saying it wasn't when they changed their minds. Hence, the confusion.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No it isn't. It really really isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Diminishing returns are diminishing, ejecting in 3-2-1-0. Srsly ymu, take a break. You're wearing yourself down.


 
How isn't it? Explain how "get out of me" needs any further discussion?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Boundaries shift from moment to moment. Right, we're going to practise the worst possible kind of contraception - the withdrawal method - because we're young and naive and we don't realise what kinds of things can happen when two people have sex. One of the kinds of things that can happen - that you're hoping is going to happen - is that both of you will experience an orgasm, and in your case it sounds like you experienced your first proper vaginal orgasm. You cannot predecide about everything because you'd never had that feeling before. 

This is stuff that gets messy. Wiser heads would have decided that the best way to avoid pregnancy was to use a condom. But you were 18. You were not wise. That doesn't turn one of you into a rapist.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

teahead said:


> I agree with you (though that's not going to achieve much) completely. And of course deterrents don't work. That statistic looks very grim. My understanding is that perhaps a contributing factor to the statistic is the difficulty there is in the legal issue of proof.
> 
> Like you've been saying, its the intentions and the attitudes that are probably a better way in and forward. In my experience with DV (and I recently wrote a paper looking at research into perpetrator programmes) one of the biggest problems is the culture in which rape and dv are institutionally addressed. Money and collaborative work between agencies is short and poor. People fear to be associated with anything except punitive positions in respect of perpetrators. The training is hopelessly under-resourced too.
> 
> ...


Cheers teahead, that gets to the heart of a lot of this. Demonisatiojn of the 'other' versus getting to grips with what causes people to rape.

I'm not looking to solve the whole lot, but I do think that unpleasant sexist behaviour has to become socially unacceptable as part of any solution. 

My partner gets a lot of racial abuse, but it's nothing compared to what his folks went through in the 1970s. Because attitudes have changed so much that racists now have to hide or have numbers. I'd like to see sexists have to hide or have numbers to get away with it too.

Long way off, that.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

Ymu, if you are SO adamant that you are a rapist, (and everybody else in the whole entire world is wrong) then go and hand yourserlf in. infact fuck it, PM me your adress and I'll fucking call them.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Boundaries shift from moment to moment. Right, we're going to practise the worst possible kind of contraception - the withdrawal method - because we're young and naive and we don't realise what kinds of things can happen when two people have sex. One of the kinds of things that can happen - that you're hoping is going to happen - is that both of you will experience an orgasm, and in your case it sounds like you experienced your first proper vaginal orgasm. You cannot predecide about everything because you'd never had that feeling before.
> 
> This is stuff that gets messy. Wiser heads would have decided that the best way to avoid pregnancy was to use a condom. But you were 18. You were not wise. That doesn't turn one of you into a rapist.



Had I been forced to think seriously about what rape was, I would not have done it. That is my point. You can't work this shit out in the heat of the moment. You have to have thought about it.

I've no idea why you're still trying to exonerate me. It's missing the point. But FWIW the choice was because he was allergic to condoms and I needed a period to start on the pill, and I had very few periods age 14-35 because I was sleep deprived for more or less all of that time. He was 38. But thanks for the patronising assumptions. Great stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

You weren't wise, though, were you? What about a cap, or was he allergic to them too?

I'm not 'trying to exonerate you'. I'm telling you what I think about what happened going on the information you gave.

Patronising? Really, fuck off with that. You _were_ naive in thinking that the withdrawal method was a good idea. It never fucking is.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

*am now searching for somewhere online to report this rape* I'll get you locked up, don't you worry.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> Ymu, if you are SO adamant that you are a rapist, (and everybody else in the whole entire world is wrong) then go and hand yourserlf in. infact fuck it, PM me your adress and I'll fucking call them.


He's dead. Too late. Sorry.

Love how you assume all rapes get reported though, Well clued up, eh?


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

Where did i say, in that post or any fucking other, that all rapes get reported? You fucking clueless cunt. And you wonder why you get so much stick? fuck me.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> He's dead. Too late. Sorry.
> 
> Love how you assume all rapes get reported though, Well clued up, eh?


 
where on earth does he assume all rapes get reported?

you are either one poor deluded fuck up or one of the least subtle most transparently dishonest and manipulative poster I've come across (consensually, of course) on urban.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You weren't wise, though, were you? What about a cap, or was he allergic to them too?
> 
> I'm not 'trying to exonerate you'. I'm telling you what I think about what happened going on the information you gave.
> 
> Patronising? Really, fuck off with that. You _were_ naive in thinking that the withdrawal method was a good idea.


Why do you think you know more about my life and decisions than I do?


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm also pretty sur that just becasue he's dead. you can still get convicted. You have admitted to rape, openly on a public forum. And I think i've found the perfect place to report it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why do you think you know more about my life and decisions than I do?


 
That's a laughable thing to say. 

You, aged 18, had sex with your boyfriend during which you had an orgasm of a kind you had never had before, so you held him inside you while you were coming, during which time he also came, and that went against your previous decision that he would withdraw before coming. 

You were both naive to think that the withdrawal method was a good idea. It never fucking is precisely because this kind of thing can happen. Your story is the perfect illustration of why it is naive and foolish to practise the withdrawal method.

Where am I saying 'I know more about your life and decisions than you'? Come on.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> Where did i say, in that post or any fucking other, that all rapes get reported? You fucking clueless cunt. And you wonder why you get so much stick? fuck me.


It did rather follow from your insistence that I should be reported despite the victim not being at all bothered by it.

I apologise for misreading your mindless abuse as having some basis in reason.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2011)

xes said:


> I'm also pretty sur that just becasue he's dead. you can still get convicted. You have admitted to rape, openly on a public forum. And I think i've found the perfect place to report it.


Good grief. I think some people need to step back from this thread.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 17, 2011)

Nothing good will come out of this thread.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

i was raped in my early 20's, I agreed to go for just a drink with an ex and we ended up having sex, despite the fact I'd clearly indicated I was only meeting up for a drink as friends.

or maybe the boundaries and consent were fluid and moved with events.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 17, 2011)

Even rape demands intent.

By her account, ymu clearly had no *intent* to rape.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Good grief. I think some people need to step back from this thread.


 
Please, let's do.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Good grief. I think some people need to step back from this thread.


 
not trying to start but you have continually came on this thread and highlighted and berated peoples post arguing with ymu and yet haven't once highlighted any of her ridiculous posts were she just makes up things other posters have said.

she just claimed xes said all rapes are reported a few posts back, which might explain his increasingly short tone with her.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a laughable thing to say.
> 
> You, aged 18, had sex with your boyfriend during which you had an orgasm of a kind you had never had before, so you held him inside you while you were coming, during which time he also came, and that went against your previous decision that he would withdraw before coming.
> 
> ...


 
You don't know that I was in a foreign country, nor that I was sexually assaulted by the only doctor I had access to when he prescribed me the pill, nor that it was largely irrelevant because I hadn't had a period in over a year, nor that an allergy to spermicide fucks you over for a coil anyway.

And you've ignored the fact that he was thirty eight. Quit the patronising irrelevant bullshit, please. Banning coitus interruptus isn't going to do much to prevent rape. Srsly.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It did rather follow from your insistence that I should be reported despite the victim not being at all bothered by it.
> 
> I apologise for misreading your mindless abuse as having some basis in reason.


 
how does it.

xes saying you should report yourself if you seriously think you carried out a rape in no way implies that all rapes are reported.

you went to oxford? fuck me pink.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

Right, so it _was_ a good idea, then?

Don't post up personal experiences on here if you don't want anybody else to comment on them. Despite all your provisos I still say that you were foolish and naive to do what you did. Self-evidently so given what subsequently happened.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 17, 2011)

revol68 said:


> fuck me pink.



There's consent if I ever did hear it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 17, 2011)

Surely it's time for this depressing shite to be binned?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Jonti said:


> Even rape demands intent.
> 
> By her account, ymu clearly had no *intent* to rape.


That simply isn't true. Someone who has been raped by a sexsomniac has been raped. It doesn't make any difference that the rapist was asleep at the time, except that he will have a valid defence.

If you do not know that failure to withdraw is rape, then you can very easily rape without intent. Just like I did. Because I only ever got told about rapists as scary strangers, when it's almost always someone you know, and no one had a sensible discussion within earshot.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 17, 2011)

As a point of fact, you are wrong. Almost all crimes demand *intent*, and rape is no exception.

IF there is a valid defence then the charge will not be upheld -- a not guilty verdict will be returned.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, so it _was_ a good idea, then?
> 
> Don't post up personal experiences on here if you don't want anybody else to comment on them. Despite all your provisos I still say that you were foolish and naive to do what you did. Self-evidently so given what subsequently happened.


 
It wouldn't occur to me that someone might take a three line post and weave me such an elaborate life history, and then contradict me when I say it's wrong.

Did you need all that detail to get to a relevant point, because I am completely failing to see why it mattered so much to you. What is your point?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Jun 17, 2011)

Mens Rea


----------



## gavman (Jun 17, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> Indeed.  This discussion reminds me of the recent news report about an Arab man who was jailed for rape in Israel when he pretended that he was Jewish in order to seduce a Jewish woman.  She found out he was not Jewish and he was then tried and imprisoned for rape.
> 
> In ymu's case the issue relates to reproductive control and family planning.  How about a scenario where a woman wants a baby and thus sticks pins through the bf's condoms or "forgets" to take the pill?  Is the woman in that situation guilty of rape?  I don't think so.  She may be guilty of a pretty serious and nasty deception, but not rape.
> 
> How about a case where a man wants a baby and his wife / gf does not?  He secretly sticks pins through his condoms.  Is he guilty of rape?  How about if the issue is protection from STIs and the sex takes place with the agreement that a condom is used but he sneakily removes it.  is that rape?


 
in some countries, yes.
sweden has a more nuanced legal response to rape. i only know of this from the coverage of julian assange's legal troubles. he is alleged to have committed an offence similar to what you describe, that is classed as a form of rape in sweden, but isn't an offence here


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Jonti said:


> As a point of fact, you are wrong. Almost all crimes demand *intent*, and rape is no exception.
> 
> IF there is a valid defence then the charge will not be upheld -- a not guilty verdict will be returned.


 
Yeah, once more, I am talking about the impact on the victim, not the criminal justice system. 

It is entirely possible to be devastated by a rape where the rapist was legally wholly innocent. It doesn't mean someone didn't experience rape.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 17, 2011)

spawnofsatan said:


> Mens Rea


Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It wouldn't occur to me that someone might take a three line post and weave me such an elaborate life history, and then contradict me when I say it's wrong.
> 
> Did you need all that detail to get to a relevant point, because I am completely failing to see why it mattered so much to you. What is your point?


 
right so despite the fact the situation led to your (self proclaimed) raping of a man you take issue with the fact someone points out it wasn't the wisest course of action.

it's almost like you want to have the monopoly of experience that being a self proclaimed rapist will grant you on a board full off rape noobs whilst at the same time you get offended if anyone criticises you for the actions that led to this "rape".

you're a very weird woman.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It wouldn't occur to me that someone might take a three line post and weave me such an elaborate life history, and then contradict me when I say it's wrong.


 
I didn't weave you a life history. I repeated back to you the facts of the story as you had told them, along with a judgement that the two of you were naive. I stand by that judgement based on the simple fact that I think _anyone_ relying on withdrawal as their method of contraception is being naive. Not saying it isn't an understandable thing to decide to do. Not at all. But it is naive. Your story is the perfect example of why.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 17, 2011)

The principle of "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" means you are not a rapist.  And, come to that, it seems your partner at the time did not experience the event as any kind of rape either.


----------



## xes (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Good grief. I think some people need to step back from this thread.


 
If this was a bloke admitting to raping someone, would you rather that it was reported?


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't weave you a life history. I repeated back to you the facts of the story as you had told them, along with a judgement that the two of you were naive. I stand by that judgement based on the simple fact that I think _anyone_ relying on withdrawal as their method of contraception is being naive. Not saying it isn't an understandable thing to decide to do. Not at all. But it is naive. Your story is the perfect example of why.


 
Why did you need to pass judgement? 

What difference does it make? 

Why did you have to fill in gaps in the story? 

Did it help you conclude anything useful or relevant? 

Why do you do this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

I am trying to explain to you why I do not think what you did that day was rape. You brought this up, ffs.

You judge yourself to be a rapist. I judge you to be someone who acted naively.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why did you need to pass judgement?
> 
> What difference does it make?
> 
> ...


 
you have serious mental problems, please find help.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I am trying to explain to you why I do not think what you did that day was rape. You brought this up, ffs.
> 
> You judge yourself to be a rapist. I judge you to be someone who acted naively.


 
And I never asked you or anyone else for judgement. I've said so repeatedly. But you know better anyway.

Is refusing to withdraw rape? Yes or no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> And I never asked you or anyone else for judgement.


 
So you provided your own judgement  - 'I raped this man' - and expected everyone else to simply accept that as the right judgement?


----------



## Jonti (Jun 17, 2011)

> Is refusing to withdraw rape? Yes or no?


Even if it is, that doesn't make you a rapist.

Mens rea and all that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Is refusing to withdraw rape? Yes or no?


 
I've already answered that. 'Sometimes yes, sometimes no' would be the messy answer that allows for the grey areas that apply to all human interactions. Even the link you provided conceded that.

You want things to be binary - black or white. I don't think they are.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you provided your own judgement  - 'I raped this man' - and expected everyone else to simply accept that as the right judgement?


 
No. I was responding to FM saying rape had nothing to do with self-control. The apes started screaming rapist and no discussion was had. A few days later, one of the apes started screaming about it again.

Then a few people decided to tell me it wasn't rape and that I was trivialising the topic. Now most of them have changed their minds, but apparently I'm still wrong. And I have no idea what planet you're on at all because you seem more interested in inventing me a biography to prove yourself right than the thread topic.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu

You were 18 years old, having consensual sex with a man 20 years older than you

You didn't climb off him when you were both cumming and you define that as you raping him?

This does not really make any sense to me.

You added the detail about him being 38 late in the thread

Then later on you added some contextual information about being sexually assaulted by a doctor at about the same time or just before. 

It seems to me as though you have some trauma related to the sexual assault with the doctor and possibly / probably in relation to other things also.  

You are doing a strange dance here in which you alternate between accusing yourself of a crime you did not commit and accusing others of crimes they did not commit and things that they didn't say. 

None of it makes a lot of sense other than to try to understand it as some kind of unconscious re-enactment of a traumatic event.  Then at least it seems to make some sense, to me at least. 

I worry that you are simply re-traumatising yourself posting here.

I think this thread is a powerful example of how sexual trauma can be unconsciously re-enacted if the victim does not have the necessary support at the time.  It is also an example of how being violated can leave you with an internal rapist / violator whose abusive behaviour can be acted out by the victim, usually completely unconsciously. 

ymu

I'll say it again

You are worth more than this

You are not doing yourself any favour here 

Please, please stop and take a break.  

Something powerful is happening in your mind and if you can get the support you need to deal with it and understand it it might be very valuable for you but this thread has become very abusive and nasty and you really need to step away.


----------



## gavman (Jun 17, 2011)

she's right, hun


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> Then a few people decided to tell me it wasn't rape and that I was trivialising the topic. Now most of them have changed their minds, but apparently I'm still wrong. And I have no idea what planet you're on at all because you seem more interested in inventing me a biography to prove yourself right than the thread topic.


 I was exploring an avenue that you had opened up - what is rape? Nothing to do with proving myself right. 

But loulou is right. I am going to back off now.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've already answered that. 'Sometimes yes, sometimes no' would be the messy answer that allows for the grey areas that apply to all human interactions. Even the link you provided conceded that.
> 
> You want things to be binary - black or white. I don't think they are.


 
There is a difference between simple rules (no means no) and complex judgements (did he know she was saying no?).

My rule (if you're told to get out, you get out) may well be wrong. I just want to know what your rule is. Cos we're not talking a situation where there is time or brain capacity for complex moral judgement here.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> ymu
> 
> You were 18 years old, having consensual sex with a man 20 years older than you
> 
> ...


 
It was 23 years ago. I am not looking for counselling.

I just want people to discuss what rape is without derailing it into a series of excuses to hate women or a series of excuses for not being sure if she's saying yes or not.

Yes, those problems and uncertainties exist. But I want to start with what people understand rape to be. And the reason for that is because I think that the kind of misogyny being spouted yesterday is a massive contributory factor, and I don't think men will face up to that until and unless they are made to. 

That is all.

We are talking about something I posted days ago, to little comment. I have no idea why people are forcing a context on it that was never there.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

A (awful) song for ymu.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

This is the post I was responding to, a week ago.



FridgeMagnet said:


> The idea that raping someone is the result of some sort of loss of self-control is an extremely worrying one in terms of what it assumes - that basically, rape is great and you'd do it if there were no consequences (you know, like eating biscuits) but normally you tell yourself it's a bad idea and don't. But you know, sometimes, you might forget yourself and have a little rape. We're all human eh.



I think this is wrong, and it serves to distance 'normal' people from 'rapists', and allows people to avoid thinking about what it is and why it happens. Very few rapes are committed by strangers, and rape is very common. It is about power, but that doesn't mean it is something entirely separate from sex. It's too complex to pigeon-hole that easily.

I think the distancing is what allows some men to indulge in really vile sexist abuse whilst kidding themselves that they're not doing anything harmful, cos rapists are rapists innit. I think the pervasiveness and social acceptability of these attitudes leads some men to really just not getting it, with horrific consequences.

Which is why I was not letting them get away with it yesterday. And was really fucking dismayed to see so many people letting it go.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2011)

Does anyone object if I close this thread?


----------



## revol68 (Jun 17, 2011)

nope, it's just boring now.


----------



## Voley (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Does anyone object if I close this thread?


 
Please do. It's really grim now.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

I think you should close it TBH


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Yes, I do object.

I promise to sleep before I post on it again.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

Or sweep the sexist abuse under the carpet. You could do that too.


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Does anyone object if I close this thread?


 
no.

At least for 24hrs

ETA: That was a quick sleep there, ymu.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Does anyone object if I close this thread?


 
At least till Monday


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 17, 2011)

It feels like whatever anyone says or does is going to feel abusive and violating to ymu 



I'm not saying that some people here haven't been really aggressive and rude, granted some people have been, but something very dark is being acted out here and this seems to me to be all about not _thinking _and instead just acting out as a defence against thinking / remembering.

Now we're in a situation where if the thread is locked it will feel abusive and if it is allowed to continue it will feel abusive in a different way.

Just thinking aloud. 

I really think that the thread should be locked, at least for a while so that everyone can take a break and lick their wounds and recover.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 17, 2011)

No objections from me. 

The thread has been like the negative energy slime from Ghostbusters 2.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

I haven't had enough sleep to deal with this well, but I'm fine Loulou, thanks. Please stop trying to find some weird psychological reason why I don't just ignore sexist abuse any more than I ignore racist or homophobic abuse.

It's not my fault the apes were just allowed to get on with it whilst I was attacked for bothering to challenge them. Nor is it my fault that they dug up a week old post and started screaming 'rapist' at me, whilst the rest of you decided to tell me I was trivialising rape by using that word.

We have been talking at cross purposes. I am not a delicate little flower who needs protecting. I am not acting out some horrific trauma, except possibly the racist attack on my partner that caused his PTSD and crippling headaches, because that is the reason I don't let any fucking bigot get away with it no matter which demographic they're insulting.

Sorry, I posted again. But this patronising bullshit is really pissing me off. Is it really so hard to believe that some people don't just ignore hate speech when they hear it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Does anyone object if I close this thread?


 
Up to ymu. 

I'm not going to post on it any more, I don't think. I have already posted too much.


----------

