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

Widdershins

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think some people also confuse profound insight with utter bollocks…

Ok..people are just prudes who don't want to talk about ''the dirty ting'', the beast with two backs. if you insist.

It's my belief actually. Not trying to be profound.

kunst nugget

Widdershins wrote: »

Ok..people are just prudes who don't want to talk about ''the dirty ting'', the beast with two backs. if you insist.

It's my belief actually. Not trying to be profound.

Not targeting your post, more the inane drivel that's been written on here over the last couple of days.

me_right_one

ivytwine wrote: »

If you mean Panti Bliss, please point me to when Rory O'Neill has advocated for either paedophilia or incest. Are you sure this wasn't a LGBT meeting and you've conflated this with incest somehow?

Attachment not found.

Thats a good point. They're all related.

ivytwine wrote: »

I agree with Seamus, everything is so focused on consent now (and rightly so) that these acts won't be legalised. Stuff like the scandals emerging in the U.K. regarding football will re-energise public disgust at paedophilia at least.

I disagree. I didnt realise this until now, but they are also advertising "shift week" in that poster. No wonder consent is in the state its in.

Wibbs

RonFan wrote: »

The GUILT stuff came from them. It is perfectly natural to feel shame about your sex organs, it's the reason we wear clothes.

You really have a bargain basement understanding of basic anthropology. There are societies were they appear "naked" to western eyes, genitals flapping about in the wind. Their "shame" set is very different to the western minds. Shame is extremely culturally based. A conservative woman in a past knee length skirt in Paris would be seen as "shameful" to a Pakistani hill farmer.

People in countries outside of those based on the Abrahamic faiths even today tend to act quite conservatively generally speaking in regards sex. The west made a balls of religion because it based it on overt dualism, seperating the eternal "mind" from the wicked "flesh". This and many other complex factors.

Hmmmmm I'm beginning to sniff an orientalist in theological terms. Meh, eastern faiths are just as chock full of BS and magical thinking as western ones, buddhism included.

Western society is getting better from the standard view that economic growth as well as "individual rights" = stability, well-being and happiness for people, which is a total delusion. The obvious truth is that culture is rapidly degrading and disintegrating. All the good is being demoted and the bad promoted. Low quality of relationships between man and woman fundamentally, and by extension people in general. There is a highly distorted view of the past people possess which obscures these facts. ahh the old days… *stares wistfully into a past that never existed*

ivytwine

me_right_one wrote: »

Attachment not found.

Thats a good point. They're all related.

I disagree. I didnt realise this until now, but they are also advertising "shift week" in that poster. No wonder consent is in the state its in.

How are they related?

That poster looks like a joke to me.

kunst nugget

(Double Post)

kunst nugget

ivytwine wrote: »

That poster looks like a joke to me.

Aye, that looks like a joke to me too.

What does 'TWH' mean?

neonsofa

me_right_one wrote: »

Attachment not found.

Thats a good point. They're all related.

I disagree. I didnt realise this until now, but they are also advertising "shift week" in that poster. No wonder consent is in the state its in.

Shift week teaches students about consent and general sexual health so I'm not sure how that contributes to the "state" of consent.

ivytwine

neonsofa wrote: »

Shift week teaches students about consent and general sexual health so I'm not sure how that contributes to the "state" of consent.

Yeah in UL we had SHAG week. Can't remember what the AG stood for but the SH stood for Sexual Health.

kunst nugget

ivytwine wrote: »

Yeah in UL we had SHAG week. Can't remember what the AG stood for but the SH stood for Sexual Health.

Student Unions are the worst for shít, punny acronyms…

neonsofa

ivytwine wrote: »

Yeah in UL we had SHAG week. Can't remember what the AG stood for but the SH stood for Sexual Health.

Shift week is sexual health in first term or something like that. My university days are long behind me. They are a positive thing despite the name!

osarusan

me_right_one wrote: »

Just the other day, I saw a poster calling for the legalisation of incest in Maynooth University.

It was advertising an upcoming debate from the Literature and Debate society.

mzungu

ivytwine wrote: »

Yeah in UL we had SHAG week. Can't remember what the AG stood for but the SH stood for Sexual Health.

AFAIK it's Sexual Health Awareness And Guidance.

[Deleted User]

mzungu wrote: »

AFAIK it's Sexual Health Awareness And Guidance.

Bunch of people goofing around with dildos like they were the funniest thing ever certainly raised my awareness that I wanted nothing to do with them.

me_right_one

osarusan wrote: »

It was advertising an upcoming debate from the Literature and Debate society.

... about legalisation of incest.

osarusan

me_right_one wrote: »

... about legalisation of incest.

Breaking news: Ireland calling for famine reparations from UK.

Because Maynooth Lit&Deb society had a debate about it, this makes it so.

The poster didn't mean what you thought it meant. It wasn't advertising a meeting calling for the legalisation of incest. Is that so hard to admit?

seamus

A debate about the legislation of incest is not the same as a call for the legalisation of incest.

Debating a topic does not mean you're promoting or endorsing it.

College debating societies typically organise debates on controversial but relatively simple topics. Things on which people can form concrete ideas and speak at length, but without getting particularly upset about it. So incest is one, or cannabis. They propose it in the form of, "This house would...." and then have a debate about whether the house indeed "would".

In the case you're talking about the topic is probably, "This house would legalise incest". They then have a friendly debate, decide whether the house "would" and then go and get pissed and have some ill-advised sex.

Since the primary aim of these societies is to form social bonds and get drunk, debating serious topics that make people angry isn't a great idea.

me_right_one

osarusan wrote: »

Breaking news: Ireland calling for famine reparations from UK.

Because Maynooth Lit&Deb society had a debate about it, this makes it so.

The poster didn't mean what you thought it meant. It wasn't advertising a meeting calling for the legalisation of incest. Is that so hard to admit?

I'm not saying it was, I'm saying there are enough fools out there to "discuss its merits", thereby legitimizing and normalising the idea among other fools.

osarusan

me_right_one wrote: »

I'm not saying it was

But you were saying it was, until I pointed out it wasn't.

It was all part of a vague process that will have pedophilia legalised in 50 years, you said.

me_right_one wrote: »

thereby legitimizing and normalising the idea among other fools.

I think you are embarrassing yourself on this one.

The main conclusion drawn by this serious and influential debate, by the way, was that incest had nothing on 'mincest' because somebody there was eating a mince pie. Groundbreaking stuff.

But hey, you want to believe this is part of something that will see paedophelia legal in 50 years and the government apologising to paedophiles for past treatment, then good luck with that doomsday fantasy.

givyjoe

seamus wrote: »

A debate about the legislation of incest is not the same as a call for the legalisation of incest.

Debating a topic does not mean you're promoting or endorsing it.

College debating societies typically organise debates on controversial but relatively simple topics. Things on which people can form concrete ideas and speak at length, but without getting particularly upset about it. So incest is one, or cannabis. They propose it in the form of, "This house would...." and then have a debate about whether the house indeed "would".

In the case you're talking about the topic is probably, "This house would legalise incest". They then have a friendly debate, decide whether the house "would" and then go and get pissed and have some ill-advised sex.

Since the primary aim of these societies is to form social bonds and get drunk, debating serious topics that make people angry isn't a great idea.

It shouldn't even be debated, its absolutely fcuking ludicrous and ILLEGAL for good reasons.

It's also utterly futile debating something, which won't nor should it be legalised/legitimised.. whatever way you want to put it. Some things really are black and white.

The ability to speak at length and at ease, about utter horsesh!te is not in any way useful. Also needing to debate in a 'safe space' about said horse****e also isn't useful. It's just shielding you from the real world, where people do get annoyed and in heated debates.. societies helping students navigate these 'heated debates' and relevant topics would be far more useful than bonkers nonsense.

kunst nugget

givyjoe wrote: »

It shouldn't even be debated, its absolutely fcuking ludicrous and ILLEGAL for good reasons.

It's also utterly futile debating something, which won't nor should it be legalised/legitimised.. whatever way you want to put it. Some things really are black and white.

The ability to speak at length and at ease, about utter horsesh!te is not in any way useful. Also needing to debate in a 'safe space' about said horse****e also isn't useful. It's just shielding you from the real world, where people do get annoyed and in heated debates.. societies helping students navigate these 'heated debates' and relevant topics would be far more useful than bonkers nonsense.

Ffs, it's a society dedicated to debating, it's not a bloody safe space. Debating something like Incest is a much more abstract topic that can be discussed more dispassionately than possibly more inflammatory issues such as abortion.

It's highly, highly unlikely that anyone supporting incest in the debate actually supports it in real life but the point of the exercise is to develop your debating skills irrespective of the topic - something you're generally not going to be able to do in the real world without causing constant arguments.

ohnonotgmail

givyjoe wrote: »

It shouldn't even be debated, its absolutely fcuking ludicrous and ILLEGAL for good reasons.

It's also utterly futile debating something, which won't nor should it be legalised/legitimised.. whatever way you want to put it. Some things really are black and white.

The ability to speak at length and at ease, about utter horsesh!te is not in any way useful. Also needing to debate in a 'safe space' about said horse****e also isn't useful. It's just shielding you from the real world, where people do get annoyed and in heated debates.. societies helping students navigate these 'heated debates' and relevant topics would be far more useful than bonkers nonsense.

you dont understand the purpose of a university debating society. If they were debating it in the Dail then you would have a point. but they weren't.

mzungu

givyjoe wrote: »

It shouldn't even be debated, its absolutely fcuking ludicrous and ILLEGAL for good reasons.

It's also utterly futile debating something, which won't nor should it be legalised/legitimised.. whatever way you want to put it. Some things really are black and white.

The ability to speak at length and at ease, about utter horsesh!te is not in any way useful. Also needing to debate in a 'safe space' about said horse****e also isn't useful. It's just shielding you from the real world, where people do get annoyed and in heated debates.. societies helping students navigate these 'heated debates' and relevant topics would be far more useful than bonkers nonsense.

You are essentially calling for a ban on ideas that you do not agree with.

It was a debate among students, which aims to help them develop their skills at making a argument. Nobody is suggesting that pedophilia will be tolerated, or even decriminalised at all, that is just hyperbole.

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ffs, it's a society dedicated to debating, it's not a bloody safe space. Debating something like Incest is a much more abstract topic that can be discussed more dispassionately than possibly more inflammatory issues such as abortion.

It's highly, highly unlikely that anyone supporting incest in the debate actually supports it in real life but the point of the exercise is to develop your debating skills irrespective of the topic - something you're generally not going to be able to do in the real world without causing constant arguments.

FFS my arse, get a grip. Debating sh1te like that serves absolutely no purpose. By all means debate soft and fluffy all you like, that sort of stuff has no place anywhere.

givyjoe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dont understand the purpose of a university debating society. If they were debating it in the Dail then you would have a point. but they weren't.

I perfectly understand the point, thanks for your condoscending reply all the same. I'm perfectly entitle to pass my judgement on it thanks. Debating utter sh1te is nothing short of a complete waste of time.

ohnonotgmail

givyjoe wrote: »

I perfectly understand the point, thanks for your condoscending reply all the same. I'm perfectly entitle to pass my judgement on it thanks. Debating utter sh1te is nothing short of a complete waste of time.

why are you so upset about what other people choose to spend their time on?

givyjoe

mzungu wrote: »

You are essentially calling for a ban on ideas that you do not agree with.

It was a debate among students, which aims to help them develop their skills at making a argument. Nobody is suggesting that pedophilia will be tolerated, or even decriminalised at all, that is just hyperbole.

Good job on completely distorting my words, not even remotely what i said. No where did i say 'ban' anything I dont agree with it. I said incest isn't legal, nor should it be and that debating it is a complete waste of time.

I perfectly understand the point of debating societies, which is why debating nonsense such as this (in my view) is a complete waste of time. There's a million and 1 other topics (soft and fluffy or relevant to students) that they could/should use their time to debate.

givyjoe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why are you so upset about what other people choose to spend their time on?

I'm not

kunst nugget

givyjoe wrote: »

I perfectly understand the point, thanks for your condoscending reply all the same. I'm perfectly entitle to pass my judgement on it thanks. Debating utter sh1te is nothing short of a complete waste of time.

Watching TV, reading books or having a hobby can all be considered complete wastes of time as well. If people enjoy being in the debating society and discussing various topics, that's their prerogative. They're not trying to actually legalize incest or forcing you to shag your sister.

jimgoose

givyjoe wrote: »

...I perfectly understand the point of debating societies, which is why debating nonsense such as this (in my view) is a complete waste of time. There's a million and 1 other topics (soft and fluffy or relevant to students) that they could/should use their time to debate.

It is traditional within the walls of Academia to use controversial, even outrageous, debate topics such as "Should Bestiality Be Legalised". This is quite deliberate, and goes back about 200 years with the Oxford Union.