Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Another inane comment.

It's simply really, can you please explain how or why seem to think you know what your son's friends are getting up to sexually?

Your belief perfectly demonstrates your naivety on the matter.

Where do you think all of the underage pregnancies come from? Immaculate conception?!

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.

The double standards are on both sides then. I maintain that age is not the rigid barrier reflecting maturity in many, many cases. Dare I say my 14 year old son acts more maturely than my 41 year old Brother!

If you reckon that most 16 year olds haven't had sex, you are in quite a bubble. Your son may be of the sort who is not in a rush to have sex and I commend teens with such a mentality because the peer pressure to lose ones virginity is always present. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the majority of 16 year olds are virgins. Some have sex younger and some have sex older, but most will have had sex before they hit 17.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.

Why is that his problem? That comment is nonsense.

Mrsmum wrote: »

So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?

Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.

If you don't know if I've used those words, then please don't quote me making reference to the above.

facehugger99

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think the guys did nothing wrong.

Thankfully, it's not a view shared by the vast majority.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Age is fact. Maturity less so. In general a 24 year old man or woman you would imagine hope would have grown up a bit in terms of maturity from when they were 19. Clearly not in all cases.

Fixed that bit. There's also the fact that alcohol in general makes most people a bit less mature than they might otherwise be perceived.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Thankfully, it's not a view shared by the vast majority.

By moral standards, they definitely got a lot wrong. By legal standards, no.

Mrsmum

"Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.[/QUOTE]

Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying abou

Rambling Rape culture accusations
Misogynist
Rape apologist
One poster being called a rapist
MenRTrash posters being condoned
Crude words by one gender being ignored
The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread


If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?

I don't agree with most of them but they were not used in every second post, I haven't even seen most of them but it's hard to miss all the feminazi nonsense. As for msyoginist it's a technical term and very good description of some attitudes. You are telling me using slut is ok but using completely neutral descriptive word is not?!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

upandcumming

Mrsmum wrote: »

So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?

Precious secrets.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

"Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.

Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.[/QUOTE]

I believe the term currently is fc.uk boy. It's a term I see used on many dating profiles, e.g. no fc.uk boys need apply. I wonder, does that = misandry if slut = misogyny?

Grayson

tritium wrote: »

Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying about


Rambling Rape culture accusations
Misogynist
Rape apologist
One poster being called a rapist
MenRTrash posters being condoned
Crude words by one gender being ignored
The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread


If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?

The poster who who was called a rapist did say some pretty rapey ideas. Unless you agree thgat yiu can penetrate someone whilst they're asleep and it's not rape unti they wake up.

Show me one post where someone said men are trash. One single post.

You're complaining because one poster tlked about the mens ooks. How many thousands of posts are ther. Grow up. You're grasping for straws if that's something you're complaining about.

Rambling rape culture accusations? Post out where that is. Or is that just some buzz word you're using.

Personally I think misogynist can be used in a thread like this. It's a thread about rape and there have been some things said that are anti women Like for example penetrating them in their sleep isn't rape. In the court case there was all that talk about middle class girls. The simple use of the word misogynist doesn't mean anything, it's all in context. Unless the word itself is verboten now.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

If you don't know if I've used those words, then please don't quote me making reference to the above.

I quoted you because I disagreed with your point I never implied you said that. Unless you are looking to be offended it's pretty easily to understand it's a general point about attitudes.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

[/B]I believe the term currently is fc.uk boy. It's a term I see used on many dating profiles, e.g. no fc.uk boys need apply. I wonder, does that = misandry if slut = misogyny?

a fcuk boy is a guy who fcuks around with a girls emotions.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/****boy/

In mainstream culture, a ****boy is a guy who doesn’t respect women, yet relies on them heavily. He’s a guy who’s distant, doesn’t care about other people’s time, and won’t commit. He’s self-absorbed and is never looking for anything serious relationship-wise. A ****boy could also refer to a guy who is always doing stupid things and getting into trouble.

You'll notice it's about how they treat women, not how many they sleep with.

Mrsmum

Yeah right will have to answer for himself because the real point is everytime a man calls the girl he had sex with a slut, why does he never turn the finger on himself and say if she is a slut for sleeping with me, what am I for sleeping with her. Only we have an answer for this. They call themselves top shaggers and legends. On one side you have an offensive putdown and on the other a celebratory big up.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

a fcuk boy is a guy who fcuks around with a girls emotions.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/****boy/



You'll notice it's about how they treat women, not how many they sleep with.

So what you're saying is, it's a derogatory term used to describe certain men?

*Disclaimer, I did say I believe (i.e. not sure) and there is no way I'm sticking that into google in work!:pac:

Edit: Quick mobile search for the Urban Dictionary and the first line of the definition is "@sshole who is looking for a strictly sexual relationship". I wonder what term or word might be used to describe a woman with similar intentions?!

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

I quoted you because I disagreed with your point I never implied you said that. Unless you are looking to be offended it's pretty easily to understand it's a general point about attitudes.

Well it really wasn't clear at all from your post that you were not implying that I had used those words, as you went off a rant. Even perhaps using some paragraphs would help make it clear that it wasn't directed at me, quoting me and then ranting really doesn't clear anything up.

Not offended at all, merely made a simple request. Too much to ask?

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.

You're twisting what was said to suit your argument. He was explaining that the lads were calling a ONS a slut...which by the way, I think is derogatory and unacceptable. He was further explaining that they wouldn't have been calling women they know, sluts.

Nowhere did the poster say that he calls women sluts or mention his mom...unless I am mis-remembering the post.

I think it's also fair to say that people don't always say what they really think and sometimes things are said because it comes across as cool, or funny, when in fact...it's just disgusting and if seen outside of the intended group, or out of context would be damning.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

So what you're saying is, it's a derogatory term used to describe certain men?

*Disclaimer, I did say I believe (i.e. not sure) and there is no way I'm sticking that into google in work!:pac:

Yes but it's used to describe them because of their actions which are bad. Just because a word is gender specific doesn't mean it's bad.

The word slut is used specifically to describe women who are sexually active and have had more than one sexual partner. And it's used in a negative way.

Fcukboy is used to describe guys who fcuk around with peoples emotions. It's used to describe guys who hurt people feelings and don't care. A fcukboy is a selfish individual.

They are not equivalent. The word fcukboy is not sexist.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

Not offended at all, merely made a simple request. Too much to ask?

Yes.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah right will have to answer for himself because the real point is everytime a man calls the girl he had sex with a slut, why does he never turn the finger on himself and say if she is a slut for sleeping with me, what am I for sleeping with her. Only we have an answer for this. They call themselves top shaggers and legends. On one side you have an offensive putdown and on the other a celebratory big up.

You appear to think that many women don't behave the same way.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Yes but it's used to describe them because of their actions which are bad. Just because a word is gender specific doesn't mean it's bad.

The word slut is used specifically to describe women who are sexually active and have had more than one sexual partner. And it's used in a negative way.

Fcukboy is used to describe guys who fcuk around with peoples emotions. It's used to describe guys who hurt people feelings and don't care. A fcukboy is a selfish individual.

They are not equivalent. The word fcukboy is not sexist.

I think you need to have a look for more complete definitions of what the term means, it's most definitely sexist AND derogatory. Or do think it's a term of endearment?:rolleyes:

Here's a definition of sexism for you... "..relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of gender"

BTW, do you have any further comments on the 'ridiculous' decision by the jury not to convict on the basis of reasonable doubt?

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't agree with most of them but they were not used in every second post, I haven't even seen most of them but it's hard to miss all the feminazi nonsense. As for msyoginist it's a technical term and very good description of some attitudes. You are telling me using slut is ok but using completely neutral descriptive word is not?!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

I guarantee you the term misogyny is used more often than feminazi here

Misogyny/ misogynist is not a “technical term “. It’s a specific concept the generally meant hatred of women. It was co-opted by some women to take a broader meaning of any sexism or prejudice they felt existed

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1979009

Like all easy wins however it’s begun to somewhat backfire as the term misandry has no also begun to be co-opted to casual speech. Both of the current usages are political terms. When these harsher terms are used directly against an opponent (instead of a more general charge of sexism) they are often intended to demonize them or shame them into compliance. Frankly it’s a nasty term, intended to be hateful, a much nastier direct insult in its origin than the term “slut” that seems to vex so many people.

By the way, I’m pretty sure I never claimed using the term slut was ok- for either party. Show me my post if you disagree.

ArthurDayne

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this opinion but here goes.

I think the guys did nothing wrong. They went out got drunk, picked up some girls, had a one night stand (that escalated into a threesome) and then bragged and talked **** about it the next day with their mates. I have been involved in similar situations 100s of times through my teens, my twenties and into my thirties. Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! It's not about disrespecting women or hating women. It's making light of the whole incident. They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the mentality that well.

I think the issue is Ireland (and I'm including NI in this instance) is very conservative and prudish when it comes to sex. My view is obviously coloured by the fact that I am from a country with a far more liberal view on sex and talking about sex. Irish people get embarrassed or shocked quite easily over conversations about sex in mixed company. Other nationalities don't. (This is my experience and no I haven't done a study to back it up)

Some people might argue that these guys are role models. Yes they're sporting role models. Parents need to make sure their kids have a variety of role models to inspire them and not just blindly follow one or two. Speaking of role models, could Una Mullaly (sp?), Louise O'Neill and Ruth Coppinger be considered role models for girls and young women in Ireland? Look at what they have been saying recently. Would you want your daughters talking/behaving like that?

I think BBDBB said it well. They've been punished enough. Unfortunately I think they will end up having to move overseas. Probably to France but I would love to see them head to NZ or Australia.

My final point in this rambling post. The most disgusting thing to come out of this is that Jackson doesn't appear to wash his bedding that often. He's regularly bringing women (and his mates) into his bed, he needs to change his sheets more often. Gross.

I wouldn't agree that they did nothing wrong in a murky moral sense. In my own humble opinion, they were being a*seholes. I maintain however that such behaviour in one's private life should not in-and-of-itself be considered indicative of a person's character, probity to continue with their job, or their general world view.

I think it's fair to say that -- as no criminal wrongdoing has been found after trial and testimony -- they have paid for their behaviour in the court of the public eye. There are lots of Irish men (and women --- and anyone who thinks that many women don't often talk in visceral, graphic, objectifying and dirty ways about sex, men, penises etc are utterly deluded) who have spoken and will continue to speak in the same way as those guys did and will never be made to answer for it to anyone -- let alone the entire country.

Mrsmum

goz83 wrote: »

You're twisting what was said to suit your argument. He was explaining that the lads were calling a ONS a slut...which by the way, I think is derogatory and unacceptable. He was further explaining that they wouldn't have been calling women they know, sluts.

Nowhere did the poster say that he calls women sluts or mention his mom...unless I am mis-remembering the post.

I think it's also fair to say that people don't always say what they really think and sometimes things are said because it comes across as cool, or funny, when in fact...it's just disgusting and if seen outside of the intended group, or out of context would be damning.

"They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS"
.
I twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.

Yeah_Right

Augeo wrote: »

Has something come into the public domain about this?

Not sure what you're asking.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

"They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS"
.
I twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.

I never said he calls all women sluts. I know well he doesn't. It's a derogatory term for his ons partner. But what is he in his own mind after a ons.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Thankfully, it's not a view shared by the vast majority.

The sooner we have the debate about the residue of shame about sex and the body on this country the sooner we will mature.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

"They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS"
.
I twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.

So it's you who is misreading the post. The poster (like I already said) was not talking about himself calling women sluts and made no reference to his own mother. He was talking about the men who sent the messages (PJ & Co).

Do you think women don't talk smack about men and other women? Are all women angels? Here's an interesting site where women post interesting stories. Would make PJ & Co look like boy scouts.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I never said he calls all women sluts. I know well he doesn't. It's a derogatory term for his ons partner. But what is he in his own mind after a ons.

It sort of reads that way from how you posted it tbf.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

I think you need to have a look for more complete definitions of what the term means, it's most definitely sexist AND derogatory. Or do think it's a term of endearment?:rolleyes:

Here's a definition of sexism for you... "..relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of gender"

BTW, do you have any further comments on the 'ridiculous' decision by the jury not to convict on the basis of reasonable doubt?

I think it's ridiculous that to prove rape you have to prove intent to rape. You have to prove that the guy did not realise that he wasn't allowed penetrate. It means that technically, as someone here said, you can penetrate someone when they're sleeping and it's a reasonable defense to say "I thought they'd be ok with it". It's really only rape if they say no and keep going.
That's messed up.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The sooner we have the debate about the residue of shame about sex and the body on this country the sooner we will mature.

Shame - Could it be I wonder that deep in the back of men's minds they think free sex is shameful. (Free sex being sex without commitment,) So they have to place that shame on the woman by labelling her a slut and degrading her as much as they possible can with their friends. A scapegoat type of thing for their own feelings of shame. What do you think Francie.