nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Ralf and Florian

She presented a documentary on rape culture during the week on RTE which focused on the issue of sexual assault against females. It's interesting to note her response to a (male) follower would tweeted that it would be hilarious to see a remake of Deliverance featuring "pissed up dickheads on a drunken stag". For anyone who's not seen the movie Deliverance its about three city dwellers who go for a weekend fishing to what could be described as a backwoods community. Central to the storyline is when they are held captive and one of them raped by a bunch of rednecks.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/794195404145442816

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

osmiumartist

Arevaci wrote: »

Sex is instinctively feared by women because human babies have big heads (i.e., pregnancy can easily kill a woman) and require intensive care for a much longer time than primates.

Go on, this is just made up on the spot, isn't it?
Pregnancy and birth is just so amazing for other animals that they all love it but in homo sapiens women are "afraid" of sex because of how lethal childbirth is?
Er, yeah.

Wibbs

osmiumartist wrote: »

Go on, this is just made up on the spot, isn't it?
Pregnancy and birth is just so amazing for other animals that they all love it but in homo sapiens women are "afraid" of sex because of how lethal childbirth is?
Er, yeah.

There might be something to it. Or at least at certain times and certain cultures. In most cultures the superstition and appeals to deities regarding childbirth is one of the biggest trends within religious beliefs. Basically because so many women died in childbirth. Women outliving men as a general trend is much more a trend of western medicine of the last century. At a very basic and obvious level pregnancy and childbirth carries more risk and resource requirements.

Magmas

"And its NOTHING to do with religion."

Nothing overtly to do with religion, but from a deeper view the Abrahamic religions did artificially convert the natural emotional association human beings feel in relation to sex of shame into guilt, by basing it's restriction on an arbitrary rule i.e. God's supposed commandment. Once Christianity was no longer deemed legitimate, a completely new "rationally based" morality had to be introduced. When it came to sex this meant "individuals can have sex with whoever they want as long as there is consent". However, male and female sexuality is utterly different, so this has resulted in a massive breakdown in communication between the sexes. Males are the more eager for sex while also being the instigators of it, there is just no scenario where such an ethic can turn out well - sexual distribution in a society being determined by the whims of women - and not cause chaos as is occuring.

In Europe anciently, human beings naturally feared death but were unable to form a sophisticated spiritual philosophy wherein the actual, transcendental position of consciousness was recognised, and spirit and the material world recognised as not separate or distinct from each other, so they formed dualistic notions about the mind being pure and eternal and separate from the evil, mortal flesh. This caused sexuality to be repressed for practically eons, naturally leading to an eventual rebellion against such confused notions where now the complete opposite is the case and sex is conceived as something trivial and casual, but is being used as a channel for a lot of shadow forces within the human being, sex now being a sadistic affair on the male side (a kind of narcissistic gleaming about ****ing and hence soiling another man's wife/child bearer) and masochism on the female side.

Having an idea of dualism, or good/evil, at the heart of western civilization's perception of the world is what caused the repression of femininity. Because yin and yang are the two elemental forces of reality, and yang or masculine naturally from this confused view becomes conflated with good and yin/female evil. This is the root of why western women in general have such a strong trip about their femininity, so they impose ideas about gender neutrality on children, which make them confused and unable to polarise themselves sexually which is a natural part of the developmental process. Now the next generation is messed up because of it. Such ideologies as feminism can be dangerous in this way, because they are utterly divorced from reality yet are being given credence in the public sphere.

Connacht2KXX

osmiumartist wrote: »

Go on, this is just made up on the spot, isn't it?
Pregnancy and birth is just so amazing for other animals that they all love it but in homo sapiens women are "afraid" of sex because of how lethal childbirth is?
Er, yeah.

Eh, women have to be cautious about their mating habits as childbirth is extremely dangerous. Coupled with that, they need to ensure their mate is a good match for them as they only produce one egg per month (vs ~600 spermatozoa for men) which leads women to having a much less sex drive than men. Men are programmed to fúck anything, women are not. That's one of the reasons why a woman going out having sex with a large number of partners over a short period of time instinctively/subconsciously makes people feel weird/uneasy about it.

Widdershins

Magmas wrote: »

"And its NOTHING to do with religion."

Nothing overtly to do with religion, but from a deeper view the Abrahamic religions did artificially convert the natural emotional association human beings feel in relation to sex of shame into guilt, by basing it's restriction on an arbitrary rule i.e. God's supposed commandment. Once Christianity was no longer deemed legitimate, a completely new "rationally based" morality had to be introduced. When it came to sex this meant "individuals can have sex with whoever they want as long as there is consent". However, male and female sexuality is utterly different, so this has resulted in a massive breakdown in communication between the sexes. Males are the more eager for sex while also being the instigators of it, there is just no scenario where such an ethic can turn out well - sexual distribution in a society being determined by the whims of women - and not cause chaos as is occuring.

In Europe anciently, human beings naturally feared death but were unable to form a sophisticated spiritual philosophy wherein the actual, transcendental position of consciousness was recognised, and spirit and the material world recognised as not separate or distinct from each other, so they formed dualistic notions about the mind being pure and eternal and separate from the evil, mortal flesh. This caused sexuality to be repressed for practically eons, naturally leading to an eventual rebellion against such confused notions where now the complete opposite is the case and sex is conceived as something trivial and casual, but is being used as a channel for a lot of shadow forces within the human being, sex now being a sadistic affair on the male side (a kind of narcissistic gleaming about ****ing and hence soiling another man's wife/child bearer) and masochism on the female side.

Having an idea of dualism, or good/evil, at the heart of western civilization's perception of the world is what caused the repression of femininity. Because yin and yang are the two elemental forces of reality, and yang or masculine naturally from this confused view becomes conflated with good and yin/female evil. This is the root of why western women in general have such a strong trip about their femininity, so they impose ideas about gender neutrality on children, which make them confused and unable to polarise themselves sexually which is a natural part of the developmental process. Now the next generation is messed up because of it. Such ideologies as feminism can be dangerous in this way, because they are utterly divorced from reality yet are being given credence in the public sphere.

Dualism is also at the root of historical attitudes to left handed people. And witch burnings!

Say it baby_say it

Magmas wrote: »

Primates weren't concerned about whose child was whose, nor did they need monogamy to maintain order in larger groups. Humans did, and hence sex has become intimately bound up with these things in our unconscious. Sex can indeed become functionally "casual" to more highly evolved human beings, but we are certainly not at that level yet collectively and for the most part when it is treated as such by people it always results in total chaos.

Neither were humans, have a read of sex at dawn. Group sex and sex as a means of bonding the tribe is normal to us.

Magmas

Human societies have developed through and hence integrated many more phases than merely the tribal. However, evolutionary psychology rules today's frankly myopic intellectual culture, wherein all human behavior can be reductively explained by the past low level stages because these are the simpler ones and are therefore more easily graspable and reducible into a comprehensive and cohesive theory.

me_right_one

Magmas wrote: »

Human societies have developed through and hence integrated many more phases than merely the tribal. However, evolutionary psychology rules today's frankly myopic intellectual culture, wherein all human behavior can be reductively explained by the past low level stages because these are the simpler ones and are therefore more easily graspable and reducible into a comprehensive and cohesive theory.

So what is there to explain Louise O'Neills hatred of men? And the fact that loads of people agree with her?

LLMMLL

me_right_one wrote: »

So what is there to explain Louise O'Neills hatred of men? And the fact that loads of people agree with her?

Most likely through internet arguments. People become more and more invested in their opinions when they constantly defend them. Then someone will say something like "but surely you don't believe all men are rapists" and the person defending their ideas will feel that conceding any point will weaken their position and will end up defending the idea that most men are potential rapists, even of they didn't originally believe that.

Magmas

"So what is there to explain Louise O'Neills hatred of men? And the fact that loads of people agree with her?"

So you're asking what the cause of feminism (the anti-femininity edition, not the push for equal rights) is. I could give you many theories, but none of them would be absolutely true. When speaking of causality, there are such an immense variety of forces behind any given event that it cannot possibly be reduced to a single causal explanation. Our culture does have a bias towards assuming that every event does in fact have a single reducible cause however because of our inherited theory of western science. In reality the true nature of causal explanations can be thought of using an analogy of a spider's web. Some threads of the web (symbolic of explanations for things) are closer to the center (the truth) and some are much further away from the center (such as the idea of an explicit rape culture in ireland) but any thread cannot be regarded as absolutely true because it has an opposite on the other side of the web (nor can any be regarded as absolutely false). Evolutionary psychology purports to explain all of human behavior with reference to a single (rather periphery) thread.

Moreover, we are like spiders sitting in a relativistic position on the web but believing we are at the center and can therefore see it as it actually is. Imagine you took a highly asymmetrical object and placed it on a table in the middle of a room, and had multiple people sitting on chairs at every angle in the room all of whom had a tendency to assume their view was the correct one. Naturally they would all become engaged in a livid debate as to what was the true nature of the object they were seeing as they all natively/naively assume it can be accurately discerned from their position. The ensuing chaos might naturally lead to a practical solution: one person's view could be regarded as supreme, and everyone would agree with their definition of the object.* However, after a lengthy time period people might become tired of having to listen to that one person dictate to them what they're seeing but know they couldn't go back to trying to insist that their relative view was right as it differed so much from everyone else's, so an alternative compromise might emerge wherein everyone pretends the object is a square.** A square is a very agreeable object for everyone to imagine, but it's also extremely bland and limited.

*Advent of Christianity (we'll call this idea 1)
**Advent of western materialist science (idea 2)

The people in the room had been looking at the object as dictated by that one person for so long, that person's image of the object had burned into their retinas (so to speak) to the point where in the new agreement to imagine a square, that square now contained a strong trace of the old dictated object without them realising it. That "trace" is (in effect) the presumption of (the absolute explanatory status of linear) cause and effect. God came first, and spawned the world (first assumed to be static). So you have the idea of God (single cause) and world (single effect) (summarising idea 1). Once God was removed from the picture, idea 2 emerged. Only this time the world was fluid yet causality was still given God (or ultimate) status, so an infinite regress emerged where every cause had another cause behind it. Ultimate explanatory power was given to the past. This is in fact a very neat way of looking at things, but there is an immense problem or puzzle to it, how can on earth (and indeed in any world imaginable) could an old cause produce a new effect? How can there be progress or development in this model? The evidence of Evolution wasn't first noticed by Darwin, what he innovated was not the justification of it's existence via the solution of the puzzle (it cannot be solved because it's founded on false premises) but rather - by formulating the theory of natural selection - he merely covered it up so efficiently that people completely forgot about the puzzle altogether. The result of this has been evolutionary theory being given such a religious or absolute status that completely irrelevant fields (that are puzzling) such as psychology are being completely reduced to it.

OldNotWIse

Arevaci wrote: »

Something interesting I’ve noticed when talking about this topic is that women are really enthusiastic about talking about their personal groping incidences. They’ll describe it as horrible and disgusting yet this is in contrast to the enthusiasm with which they talk about it. My theory to explain this incongruence of emotion is that these stories allow women to portray themselves in a positive light – i.e., I’m so physically attractive that men can’t keep their hands off me. Now these groping incidences obviously do happen, some very serious and seedy, but if every grouping story corresponded with reality, groping would be ubiquitous, you’d see it on every Luas journey, night out, walk down the street. Maybe I’ve lived a sheltered life but I’ve never once encountered a significant groping incident, yet when this topic comes up almost every girl will describe a groping incident.

So here’s what I think happens sometimes. A drunk guy accidentally grazes against a girl. That girl goes back to her friends and is like “Do you see that creep he touched me”. She gets sympathy from her friends and gets to express her physical desirability to them. The next time she tells the story the details get more sordid in order to make it a better story. If this happens enough times you could see how a rape culture could be perceived in Ireland despite Irish men being far more timid than men from most other cultures (a bigger problem I hear from my friends is that the guys they like are too dopey to talk to them).

A more real life example is Dr. Ciara Kelly on the telly one of the nights. She described a story of how an Italian guy went up to her, licked her on the neck and walked on by. I’m guessing something happened but the base rate of random neck licking in a public place is so low that I highly doubt this story – more realistic that he whispered something suggestive in her ear, sniffed her etc. But the neck licking story presents her as this desirable goddess and confirms her feminist viewpoint that the majority of men are creeps.

When it comes to rape, that’s a completely different story, the level of shame and guilt is so high that the person generally doesn’t want to tell it to anyone.

Hope this account is not too animated for you. I was groped in the laneway at the side of the George one night. I wasn't drunk and I wasn't alone. There was a group of men who were clearly drunk walking towards us and one of them broke away from the group, ran at me and gropped me. Did it feel like a ringing endorsement of my sexual desire and attractiveness? It did in it's fúcking hole. I felt angry at him for assaulting (yes assaulting) me. I felt angry at myself for being rooted to the spot in fear and shock instead of giving him a dig, and I felt dirty because it triggered memories of a past that was tainted by childhood and adolescent sexual abuse. But sure, it was only "the bants" - it wasn't "real" sexual assault. I must be a man hater or a snowflake for daring to react to (and tell others) about my experience, and of course now I am really confident because I realize how bleedin gorgeous I must be that he couldn't keep his hands to himself....

Widdershins

Being assaulted isn't remotely flattering. The rapist doesn't 'see' you, they don't 'appreciate' you as a physically beautiful person let alone care about your personality. To put it bluntly and I hope this doesn't upset anyone, you are just a hole to them. It doesn't boost the self esteem to tell people about it when it made you feel like nothing in the first place.

Wibbs

Say it baby_say it wrote: »

Neither were humans, have a read of sex at dawn. Group sex and sex as a means of bonding the tribe is normal to us.

That book and many if not most of the conclusions presented within has been roundly dismissed by most actual scholars as - and I think the scientific term is - a load of bollocks.

It and similar largely sprang from the "we're more like the sex loving matriarchal Bonobos, rather than those nasty warlike patriarchal Chimps, so let's use that as a human analogy, cos it's the swinging sixties maaan" nonsense. The plain fact is we're like neither in reproductive habits.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

That's President Trump to you...

:eek:

Sometimes I wish I wasn't psychic...

py2006

I notice her bio has gone from misandrist to I love men.

py2006

coby_jones wrote: »

LON appears to have gone full ret*rd on twitter today

she is throwing herself on the fire with LGBT , muslims , mexicans , CIS ( something or other )

oh and one legged lesbian washington interns i think

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796304934161547264

py2006

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796305438547574784

Widdershins

py2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796304934161547264

In her case, it's hardly a secret

The Rape of Lucretia

Just for context, is she lesbian, bisexual, or transexual ?

py2006

Just looking through her reaction tweets and she really has an issue with 'white' men as opposed to men in general

The Rape of Lucretia

py2006 wrote: »

Just looking through her reaction tweets and she really has an issue with 'white' men as opposed to men in general

Thats a disgrace. She should have an issue with men of all colours equally.

learn_more

oops

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796304934161547264

This is only more grist to her Professional Victimhood "we're all hurt together" peddling angst porn mill. Trump is a major bonus for such a business. I suspect as many self described "liberals" are jumping for joy at his election as slack jawed hillbillies are. Now they can scream "look look!! It is a [insert culture/ism here]". More greasy till ringing for them.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

This is only more grist to her Professional Victimhood "we're all hurt together" peddling angst porn mill. Trump is a major bonus for such a business. I suspect as many self described "liberals" are jumping for joy at his election as slack jawed hillbillies are. Now they can scream "look look!! It is a [insert culture/ism here]". More greasy till ringing for them.

Quote from Ms. O'Neill: "You are a real piece of shit. Good luck" in response to a ham-fisted but reasonably harmless criticism.

ligerdub

It's people like her that make today that bit more satisfying.

There's another one, Sinead Desmond on TV3. She signed off the show yesterday with a rather smug "I'm With Her, Go Hillary Clinton" message. She was positively seething this morning, it was glorious.

jimgoose

ligerdub wrote: »

...Sinead Desmond on TV3...

Oh she is so grabbed. :cool:

Widdershins

jimgoose wrote: »

Quote from Ms. O'Neill: "You are a real piece of shit. Good luck" in response to a ham-fisted but reasonably harmless criticism.

It just came out of the blue. She's vicious.

jimgoose

Widdershins wrote: »

It just came out of the blue. She's vicious.

She's typical. Any attempt to disagree and/or criticise their view results in them turning like a Rottweiler over your "Hate speech"! :pac:

Widdershins

py2006 wrote: »

I notice her bio has gone from misandrist to I love men.

I love men 'TM' ?

Connacht2KXX

She said in a recent video that criticising women for being interested in makeup is misogynistic.

So many people get frustrated, angry etc when they read her trash. Personally, I read it to relax and have a laugh at someone who is so out of touch with reality yet is so ignorant of this fact. Great comedy.