Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Mrsmum

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, I have called girls sluts in my life and probably will do again. I say it in jest. But I am a passionate believer, not only in basic gender equality, but also in female sexual liberation. I strongly believe that women have had their sense of sexuality unfairly suppressed for centuries, and have been made to feel more ashamed of their sense of sexuality than men have.

Is this hypocrisy on my part? I don't think it is. Because there is a massive difference between someone who calls a girl a 'slut' because he thinks that female sexuality or sexual promiscuity is something to be suppressed, and those who care so little about what a girl does in her sex life that the term 'slut' becomes so meaningless that they use it as a joke. Think of the term 'queer' and how it can be used as a nasty insult, but yet is also adopted as a term of pride now by many in the homosexual community and indeed is used as an edgy jibe in banter between friends, both heterosexual and homosexual.

There are girls I know, even close friends, who I call a slut for a laugh. They call me all kinds of stuff. We laugh. It's a bit of fun. Sure, these things are always context-sensitive and I don't just go around hurling insults at people who I don't think will understand that it's meant in jest.

So -- I put this to you -- from reading the above and my admission that I use the term 'slut' and will use it again, and will probably brag to my mates about some future sexual encounters (however infrequent they may be), do you honestly believe that I am a misogynist?[/Q


First off from your posts I think you put yourself across as someone who in your mind is fairminded but in every post you give every bit of doubt benefit to the male of the species which in fairness is because you are a man and you see things from a man's pov. Believe me you know nothing about how it is to be a woman so leave off with the mansplaning to me what I should see and feel as opposed to what I do see from a woman's pov.
What I do see is that imo those guys have a serious lack of respect for women. From their conversations a good night is when 'sluts get f****d'. The girl is an object, there not as a human being at all but as a body with orifices to f**k. Her enjoyment is immaterial because she is meaningless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if sex to them is another game with winners and losers.
Now on the "queer" example and context. It's all very well calling someone a queer perhaps if you are laughing with them and they are laughing back. It's good to be able to laugh and make fun of oneself and that's what they would be doing there. But if they heard that you and others laughed,joked and made fun of them as a 'queer', I'd say they wouldn't be your friend long. As if they were off and committed suicide and it was shown that your texts had contributed to their distress, I think saying but I was only messing with me mates wouldn't hold much weight. Tell that to the queers mother at his funeral.
Here's a little experiment for you. When you wake up tomorrow tell yourself you are a slut in it's most offensive meaning. Really really feel it. Keep telling yourself that night and day until it is in your pores, your skin, your bones and your flesh and really feel the insult of it every time. And after that let me tell you you would want to be very friendly with another person before you would laugh when they called you that. That's context for you. When I hear another woman being called a slut I feel it like a slap. More context for you.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't. People can have whatever conversations they want but if someone turns to be a dick when those conversations become public, then you can't force me to cheer them, to buy their sponsor products or similar.

Who is 'forcing' you to do anything?

There is a protest tomoro to 'force' the IRFU to make a decision though.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So had he captioned the pic 'Love Belfast Promiscuous women' there would be no problem?

With one exception, he wouldn't know if they are promiscuous because I doubt he knew how sexually active they are and I am not sure any of them had sex with him. So technically the statement isn't necessarily accurate if he was referring to girls on the photo. But in general there is nothing wrong with stating that you love promiscuous women.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You're some sad case
You're not allowed abuse posters on boards like this.

We had a light interlude when you left the debate last night.

Staying up until after 1 in the morning posting on boards. Sorry I had to go to bed because I have work today.

You work, aren't you marvellous. Look, people work different hours in different jobs. Also some people get by on less sleep than others.

Yes it seems you can't handle debate, you're in a tissy anytime you're challenged.

Name dropping solicitor relatives you just conversed with, asking people were they at AIL matches recently as 'the grass roots' are the only people who count. Your posts are what we have to represent you, and they're an anachronism from another age.

Good lad....the first ever person I've put on my ignore list.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is 'forcing' you to do anything?

There is a protest tomoro to 'force' the IRFU to make a decision though.

It's just expressing an opinion, a conversation, IRFU can do whatever they want.

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Obviously the terms. Neanderthal mentality if this is the accepted norm.

Fair enough from yourself. But there have been a number of people taking a rather 'Father Ted-ish/down with that sort of thing', attitude to the thought of such activities.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

With one exception, he wouldn't know if they are promiscuous because I doubt he knew how sexually active they are and I am not sure any of them had sex with him. So technically the statement isn't necessarily accurate if he was referring to girls on the photo. But in general there is nothing wrong with stating that you love promiscuous women.

So what is the acceptable slang term for a promiscuous woman?
If you say you 'love' something you are by definition not being derogatory.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what is the acceptable slang term for a promiscuous woman?

I don't know, English is not my first language. B7t people are perfectly able to use non slang words in their conversations. Who said you have to express yourself in slang?

As for the other part of your reply, I take it you never heard of sarcasm or double meaning?

AudreyHepburn

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't. People can have whatever conversations they want but if someone turns to be a dick when those conversations become public, then you can't force me to cheer them, to buy their sponsor products or similar.

Who’s forcing you?

If you don’t want to do those things then don’t, it’s as simple as that.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

It's just expressing an opinion, a conversation, IRFU can do whatever they want.

yeh ok. :rolleyes:

meeeeh

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Who’s forcing you?

If you don’t want to do those things then don’t, it’s as simple as that.

Right so. There is no problem then if decision is made that it would be more beneficial if they don't play for Ireland. You take into consideration their actions, people's opinions and then you make informed decision.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know, English is not my first language. B7t people are perfectly able to use non slang words in their conversations. Who said you have to express yourself in slang?

As for the other part of your reply, I take it you never heard of sarcasm or double meaning?

Fairly typical response - cop out when the dodgy logic of the argument catches up with you.

So 'slang' is verboten in the Brave New World.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fairly typical response - cop out when the dodgy logic of the argument catches up with you.

So 'slang' is verboten in the Brave New World.

I'm afraid you wouldn't understand logic if it kicked you in the arse.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm afraid you wouldn't understand logic if it kicked you in the arse.

Like I said. You dont have any answers just plenty of indignation. Here's hoping neither you nor yours ever uses a word somebody finds objectionable for some vague arbitary reason. Good luck

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like I said. You dont have any answers just plenty of indignation. Here's hoping neither you nor yours ever uses a word somebody finds objectionable for some vague arbitary reason. Good luck

I have answers but you can't debate with someone who doesn't understand how language works. It's also unfortunate I don't know exact terms for different types of words in english but for example you are claiming that I love **** is exactly the same same to I love black (colored)people. It's just a slang and used word 'love' so my statement can't be negative. Language doesn't work like that.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

First off from your posts I think you put yourself across as someone who in your mind is fairminded but in every post you give every bit of doubt benefit to the male of the species which in fairness is because you are a man and you see things from a man's pov. Believe me you know nothing about how it is to be a woman so leave off with the mansplaning to me what I should see and feel as opposed to what I do see from a woman's pov.
What I do see is that imo those guys have a serious lack of respect for women. From their conversations a good night is when 'sluts get f****d'. The girl is an object, there not as a human being at all but as a body with orifices to f**k. Her enjoyment is immaterial because she is meaningless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if sex to them is another game with winners and losers.
Now on the "queer" example and context. It's all very well calling someone a queer perhaps if you are laughing with them and they are laughing back. It's good to be able to laugh and make fun of oneself and that's what they would be doing there. But if they heard that you and others laughed,joked and made fun of them as a 'queer', I'd say they wouldn't be your friend long. As if they were off and committed suicide and it was shown that your texts had contributed to their distress, I think saying but I was only messing with me mates wouldn't hold much weight. Tell that to the queers mother at his funeral.
Here's a little experiment for you. When you wake up tomorrow tell yourself you are a slut in it's most offensive meaning. Really really feel it. Keep telling yourself that night and day until it is in your pores, your skin, your bones and your flesh and really feel the insult of it every time. And after that let me tell you you would want to be very friendly with another person before you would laugh when they called you that. That's context for you. When I hear another woman being called a slut I feel it like a slap. More context for you.

The only thing more impressive than your politician-like refusal to answer my question with a Yes or No is how oblivious you are to your own blatant hypocrisy. You delve into theatrics about feeling sexist insults in your flesh and pores etc and then you engage in blatant sexism by saying that I am 'mansplaining' -- inferring that the value of my opinions is lessened in your perspective by the mere fact that I am a man?

We may disagree on matters, and I don't believe myself to be any fairer-minded than anyone else (we are all the biased products of our personal circumstances, myself included) but I have been nothing but sincere with you. Yet, your response to my sincerity is to say that I am mansplaining to you?! That is an infuriating cop-out, both because you are devaluing my view purely because I am male and also that you are being astoundingly hypocritical.

Having said that, I don't believe you deserve to lose your job over your sexist remarks towards me there. You didn't mean to be sexist right? You saying that I'm mansplaining doesn't encapsulate your view on men I'm sure.

I do not think you are sexist purely because you made a remark that in writing may appear sexist. Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to all those men you criticise for making sexist remarks that weren't meant with malice or hurtful intent?

tritium

NAGDEFI wrote: »

In 2 independent opinion polls a silent majority feel as i do and believe, at this time, they should not represent Ireland. So obviously a huge swathe of opinion aren't happy with these 'private' conversations.

Thing is ‘at this time’ there’s no chance they’ll represent Ireland. With two years out of competitive action they’ll be well off the pace. If I was the irfu I’d put something out like they won’t be considered for 6 months knowing that they wouldn’t be ready anyway. Then again I’m of the view that what they’ve gone through to get to a not guilty verdict is more than enough if punishments required for the WhatsApp stuff in terms of time served

joe40

Just on the topic of the word "slut"
A wee experiment to do. On another thread in boards call a poster a "slut" 
would it be acceptable by the mods i.e meet with the standards of the forum we are all using.
I'm genuinely not sure how it would go?

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

Just on the topic of the word "slut"
A wee experiment to do. On another thread in boards call a poster a "slut" 
would it be acceptable by the mods i.e meet with the standards of the forum we are all using.
I'm genuinely not sure how it would go?

You can use most descriptive words in a negative way. The problems usually arise when a third party with a different sensibility takes offence.
I.E. The C word.
I could say ' you are some c***' and mean it affectionately and call a woman 'a ****' and be arrested.

Yeah_Right

jm08 wrote: »

It was consensual sex. If kiwis are so liberated, surely his partner would not have minded? Why would the ABs worry about whether he had sex in a disabled toilet if it was consensual (and private)?

The New Zealand Prime Minister had rather a lot to say including comments about the ABs being role models. Why do you refer to it as a sex scandal. It was between two consenting adults. What is scandalous about that? Surely in a liberated country like you claim NZ is, that wouldn't be an issue?

Mate, I'm not claiming that NZ is some super-liberal, swinger fest. Just that in my experience having lived there for nearly 30 years and having lived in Ireland for over a decade, I believe NZ to be more liberal when it comes sex. Especially talking about it and especially discussing it in front of members of the opposite sex. In my experience.

NZ Rugby know that they are selling a product and the All Blacks are their flagship brand. Getting caught cheating on your partner in public while in uniform is a big no-no. I think most companies would frown on that. So he was suspended and the issue was quickly put to bed Most of the country aren't into partner swapping (unfortunately) so they had to punish him or the whole thing would have dragged on due to moral crusaders.

This is what the IRFU and Ulster Rugby needed to do. Within days of the not guilty verdict there should have been a statement suspending the players and sending them on some sort of "stop being dirty little pricks" course. If they had done this, the sponsors would be happy and the fuss would have died down.

The reason that the Smith incident was a big deal was because he is one of the best players in the world and New Zealanders were worried we couldn't win without him. Rugby trumps morals in NZ No one really cared about Jerome Kaino doing similar last year.

Faugheen

NAGDEFI wrote: »

tritium wrote: »

Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best?

I thought he was the devil incarnate still?

Clearly I didn’t get the memo......

I said for me. He was asked to attend court. For me an admirable man. I'm not part of any of these online # campaigns.

With regards to Best. I don't think he went out to intimidate the witness as was claimed by some extremists.

However I do think he was badly advised as a way to get him into the courtroom.

He was asked by the defence to attend. He was under no obligation to attend as the only person who can do that is the judge.

For the captain of the international rugby team to turn up to a trial of two of his team-mates on the day a woman who says they raped her began her evidence was very inappropriate.

What made it worse for him was the fact we already heard in the opening statements that the complainant said 'Ulster would rally around them' or words to that effect.

For anyone to say Best went there as an intimidation tactic is way OTT, but I feel the defence counsel intentionally got him in to cause a stir and he was made a fool of.

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't. People can have whatever conversations they want but if someone turns to be a dick when those conversations become public, then you can't force me to cheer them, to buy their sponsor products or similar.

You see this is all very true but in terms of sport we don’t pick a team based on likeability. Someone went on about “the honor of representing your country” - the team is there to win games, it’s there on talent. They bring honour to their country by their achievements on the field. By extension once the team is winning sponsors will miraculously ignore an awful lot once the optics are managed.

It actually doesn’t really matter if you want to cheer them or not. Sport is tribal, and players are well used to abuse when they play. I doubt a little more will matter, I doubt anything will be said that they haven’t had to listen to in the last two years.

Someone mentioned Aaron Smith earlier- Aaron Smith behaves badly while at work, wearing an All Black uniform. He did the equivalent of pissing in the customers soup and after a token suspension and a bit of token hand wringing and contrition by a few parties he was back in the jersey. Why? Because the all blacks know they have someone special in terms of talent wearing the jersey who can win them games. That’s his job I’m afraid. Jackson isn’t at that level and may well be hung out to dry- hell after what he’s endured he’d be entitled to give two fingers to representing the national side. However ulster may not find him so dispensable. Either way he has enough talent that he’ll be in demand for other teams.

The reality is some pretty obnoxious people have been successful sportsmen and sportswomen. That’s actually ok since they don’t sign up anywhere to be role models. We just assume that for them. The only thing I’d advise any child of mine to learn from a sportsperson is winning technique and possibly dedication to their craft. I’ll point them to role models elsewhere and in a very different basis thanks very much.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

With regards to Best. I don't think he went out to intimidate the witness as was claimed by some extremists.

However I do think he was badly advised as a way to get him into the courtroom.

He was asked by the defence to attend. He was under no obligation to attend as the only person who can do that is the judge.

For the captain of the international rugby team to turn up to a trial of two of his team-mates on the day a woman who says they raped her began her evidence was very inappropriate.

What made it worse for him was the fact we already heard in the opening statements that the complainant said 'Ulster would rally around them' or words to that effect.

For anyone to say Best went there as an intimidation tactic is way OTT, but I feel the defence counsel intentionally got him in to cause a stir and he was made a fool of.

So he was there to affect the witness but he wasnt either. :rolleyes:

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Just on the topic of the word "slut"
A wee experiment to do. On another thread in boards call a poster a "slut" 
would it be acceptable by the mods i.e meet with the standards of the forum we are all using.
I'm genuinely not sure how it would go?

You can use most descriptive words in a negative way. The problems usually arise when a third party with a different sensibility takes offence.
I.E.  The C word.
I could say ' you are some c***' and mean it affectionately and call a woman 'a  ****' and be arrested.

Exactly context and words are important. You are constantly trying to make out the word slut is just a descriptive term. It can be used in a jokey way between friends but normally it is a demeaning derogatory term.
I'm not claiming to be anything great, I've done plenty of things I'm not proud of but I would never refer to someone as a "slut"
Take these two sentences:
"Johnny is overweight, and doesn't work as hard as he should"
"Johnny is a fat lazy slob"
Have I said the same thing in both sentences, expressed the same meaning.

By the way I don't want to live in a society where people aren't allowed to say words just recognise they are offensive, if you still want to go ahead go for it.
If I met a person for the first time and during a conversation they referred to someone as a "slut" I wouldn't rate them as much of a man.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

With regards to Best. I don't think he went out to intimidate the witness as was claimed by some extremists.

However I do think he was badly advised as a way to get him into the courtroom.

He was asked by the defence to attend. He was under no obligation to attend as the only person who can do that is the judge.

For the captain of the international rugby team to turn up to a trial of two of his team-mates on the day a woman who says they raped her began her evidence was very inappropriate.

What made it worse for him was the fact we already heard in the opening statements that the complainant said 'Ulster would rally around them' or words to that effect.

For anyone to say Best went there as an intimidation tactic is way OTT, but I feel the defence counsel intentionally got him in to cause a stir and he was made a fool of.

So he was there to affect the witness but he wasnt either. :rolleyes:

Did you read my post?

I said I believe he was tricked, but that it wasn't his intention.

Honestly. You literally take a line and you choose what you want to read.

He said he was advised by counsel to attend to get both sides of the story.

If you're a character witness, you're there to speak for their character as you know them, not for what they're accused of doing.

Look at the Tom Humphries case when David Walsh and Donal Og gave character witness statements. This was after he was found guilty.

In my opinion, he was duped into attending to cause a stir. He didn't maliciously do this.

That explain it a bit better for you?

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

Exactly context and words are important. You are constantly trying to make out the word slut is just a descriptive term. It can be used in a jokey way between friends but normally it is a demeaning derogatory term.
I'm not claiming to be anything great, I've done plenty of things I'm not proud of but I would never refer to someone as a "slut"
Take these two sentences:
"Johnny is overweight, and doesn't work as hard as he should"
"Johnny is a fat lazy slob"
Have I said the same thing in both sentences, expressed the same meaning.

By the way I don't want to live in a society where people aren't allowed to say words just recognise they are offensive, if you still want to go ahead go for it.
If I met a person for the first time and during a conversation they referred to someone as a "slut" I wouldn't rate them as much of a man.

None of these men ever intended the words to be heard or seen by a woman.
They were actively looking for non commital sex.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...............
They were actively looking for non commital sex.

How do you know?

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Did you read my post?

I said I believe he was tricked, but that it wasn't his intention.

Honestly. You literally take a line and you choose what you want to read.

He said he was advised by counsel to attend to get both sides of the story.

If you're a character witness, you're there to speak for their character as you know them, not for what they're accused of doing.

Look at the Tom Humphries case when David Walsh and Donal Og gave character witness statements. This was after he was found guilty.

In my opinion, he was duped into attending to cause a stir. He didn't maliciously do this.

That explain it a bit better for you?

How would he even begin to defend himself when you insist on guessing.
You previously with Grayson sensationalized parts of the evidence.

Completely bogus opinion.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Did you read my post?

I said I believe he was tricked, but that it wasn't his intention.

Honestly. You literally take a line and you choose what you want to read.

He said he was advised by counsel to attend to get both sides of the story.

If you're a character witness, you're there to speak for their character as you know them, not for what they're accused of doing.

Look at the Tom Humphries case when David Walsh and Donal Og gave character witness statements. This was after he was found guilty.

In my opinion, he was duped into attending to cause a stir. He didn't maliciously do this.

That explain it a bit better for you?

How would he even begin to defend himself when you insist on guessing.
You previously with Grayson sensationalized parts of the evidence.

Completely bogus opinion.

That's the key word. Opinion.

Look at his reaction. He looked like a man who was embarrassed.

Judging by what he said, he might not have gone unless he was asked to. So it's not a completely 'bogus' opinion.

Again, you've not given me any type of rebuttal. You've just got offended and dismissed my opinion.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

That's the key word. Opinion.

Look at his reaction. He looked like a man who was embarrassed.

Judging by what he said, he might not have gone unless he was asked to. So it's not a completely 'bogus' opinion.

Again, you've not given me any type of rebuttal. You've just got offended and dismissed my opinion.

I don't have any interest in rebutting because it was then and is now a non-issue.

What is interesting is your clingy need to under mine everything on the defendant's side of the events. By bogus guesswork and sensationalising.