Accusations of sexual assault on "reality" tv show, double standards?

jimgoose · 19-01-2017 10:10PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

That's a paddlin.

I should ruddy-well think so, squire - at least!

Goya · 19-01-2017 10:12PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Not on boards.ie anyway hahaha the mods would disappear it so fast your head would spin.

Ah hardly. Look at the Gentlemen's Club. And it's perfectly right that there be a space for men to discuss men's issues.

PucaMama · 19-01-2017 10:15PM

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly, in the last few months it seems, some feminists have adjusted their detest of men to just straight white men. Not all but some of them. Not sure why, trump?

It's been around a lot longer than the last few months

Special Circumstances · 19-01-2017 10:15PM

Goya wrote: »

Ah hardly. Look at the Gentlemen's Club. And it's perfectly right that there be a space for men to discuss men's issues.

As long as it's not after hours right?

Goya · 19-01-2017 10:16PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

As long as it's not after hours right?

Men aren't permitted to discuss issues that affect men, here on After Hours? Well that's not true. They're doing it on this thread for one.

Special Circumstances · 19-01-2017 10:19PM

Goya wrote: »

Men aren't permitted to discuss issues that affect men, here on After Hours? Well that's not true.

There's all sorts of things and viewpoints that are verboten on after hours.
I honestly can't see a "what's the fuss about this guy rubbing himself off yer wan, it's only bantz like" thread lasting too long?

Special Circumstances · 19-01-2017 10:20PM

Does "mens rights" not fall under the "alt-right" umbrella these days? It's kinda the opposite of what boards is about isn't it?

Goya · 19-01-2017 10:29PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

There's all sorts of things and viewpoints that are verboten on after hours.

There are, but not men's rights.

I honestly can't see a "what's the fuss about this guy rubbing himself off yer wan, it's only bantz like" thread lasting too long?

Such threads have lasted the course - I remember (from a previous life obv.) one about a girl who wrote some social media thing about her skirt being pulled up and being sick of such behaviour on nights out, and there was non stop dismissal of her.

I agree the woman in this case was being a horrible bint and that there is a double standard but my point to that person is that some are only interested in saying "It's silence from feminists" and "If you reversed the genders..." which is true, but it's not exactly constructive and getting to the root of the problem to focus on that alone.

jimgoose · 19-01-2017 10:30PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does "mens rights" not fall under the "alt-right" umbrella these days? It's kinda the opposite of what boards is about isn't it?

We don't need no steenkin' "Rights" - we see something we like, we take it. Meat, arses, Zimbabwe, whatever - Hurraawh!!

jimgoose · 19-01-2017 10:32PM

Goya wrote: »

There are, but not men's rights.

Such threads have lasted the course - I remember (from a previous life obv.) one about a girl who wrote some social media thing about her skirt being pulled up and being sick of such behaviour on nights out, and there was non stop dismissal of her.

I agree the woman in this case was being a horrible bint and that there is a double standard but my point to that person is that some are only interested in saying "It's silence from feminists" and "If you reversed the genders..." which is true, but it's not exactly constructive and getting to the root of the problem to focus on that alone.

Pulling up the girl's clothes like that is outrageous behaviour and COMPLETELY off the reservation, so to speak.

Elemonator · 19-01-2017 10:33PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Chloe is a ****ing liberty. She's hilarious, but is extremely vulgar with no self respect for herself or other people. I love her on Geordie shore and follow her snapchat but she's not at all embarrassed about her boobs falling out of her dress, or walking around with no/very little underwear on. She's gone down on a girl she's randomly sharing a bed with on live tv, she's regularly kissing and sharing vibrators with another girl on GS who was in a relationship and Chloe's actions were causing problems so while I don't think she meant to sexually assault him, she has no boundaries and less respect.

It is completely unacceptable. If a man did that to me, I'd be very upset and rightly so. It shouldn't have happened, and I'm surprised she wasn't called to the diary room for it because if roles were reversed your man would have been reprimanded

In other words, Chloe is an attention seeker?

jimgoose · 19-01-2017 10:36PM

Elemonator wrote: »

In other words, Chloe is an attention seeker?

The young one probably has psychological problems beyond the wildest dreams of most analysts. If I were young Grimes in that situation, I'd be cringing for her, the poor thing. Not "Offended".

wakka12 · 19-01-2017 10:38PM

Its true that the double standards are ridiculous but the reality is that most men wouldnt really care that much if she did that to them. Im not even attracted to women and it might have put me off her a bit as a person but I wouldnt think she was a sex offender or had sexually assaulted me. I would mind if a man did the same though, I don't know why this is but its just how I feel about it and clearly a lot of others feel the same way !

Special Circumstances · 19-01-2017 10:41PM

Goya wrote: »

There are, but not men's rights.

Such threads have lasted the course - I remember (from a previous life obv.) one about a girl who wrote some social media thing about her skirt being pulled up and being sick of such behaviour on nights out, and there was non stop dismissal of her.

I agree the woman in this case was being a horrible bint and that there is a double standard but my point to that person is that some are only interested in saying "It's silence from feminists" and "If you reversed the genders..." which is true, but it's not exactly constructive and getting to the root of the problem to focus on that alone.

Holy moly. Are you criticising Louise o Neill? Welcome to life outside the boards anointed ones club. You were doing so well there. You could have been bumped up to "mod warnings for anyone who disagrees with you" status in no time.

Threw it all away. Never will you reach the "make an absolute homes of an argument but don't worry mods will selectively delete posts to make you look good" level.

Peregrine · 19-01-2017 10:52PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Not on boards.ie anyway hahaha the mods would disappear it so fast your head would spin.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

That's a paddlin.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

As long as it's not after hours right?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

There's all sorts of things and viewpoints that are verboten on after hours.
I honestly can't see a "what's the fuss about this guy rubbing himself off yer wan, it's only bantz like" thread lasting too long?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does "mens rights" not fall under the "alt-right" umbrella these days? It's kinda the opposite of what boards is about isn't it?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Holy moly. Are you criticising Louise o Neill? Welcome to life outside the boards anointed ones club. You were doing so well there. You could have been bumped up to "mod warnings for anyone who disagrees with you" status in no time.

Threw it all away. Never will you reach the "make an absolute homes of an argument but don't worry mods will selectively delete posts to make you look good" level.

Ruin a thread.

Then blame it on the mods and talk about censorship when there isn't any.

Job done.

Classic.

PucaMama · 19-01-2017 10:55PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does "mens rights" not fall under the "alt-right" umbrella these days? It's kinda the opposite of what boards is about isn't it?

No. you can be concerned with men's rights and not be "alt" right.

"Alt" right are a mess of issues and there's no real direction.

Goya · 19-01-2017 10:56PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Holy moly. Are you criticising Louise o Neill? Welcome to life outside the boards anointed ones club. You were doing so well there. You could have been bumped up to "mod warnings for anyone who disagrees with you" status in no time.

Threw it all away. Never will you reach the "make an absolute homes of an argument but don't worry mods will selectively delete posts to make you look good" level.

What in the name of holy hell are you on about?

And the thread criticising Louise O'Neill has been kept open for how long now? Edit: two and a half months and over 2,500 posts.

mzungu · 19-01-2017 11:20PM

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly, in the last few months it seems, some feminists have adjusted their detest of men to just straight white men. Not all but some of them. Not sure why, trump?

I believe this worldview stems from the altar of intersectionality. The basic idea rates people in terms of their societal oppression both in the past and present. So, the straight white male has come bottom of the pile on account of stuff like colonialism, slavery etc. So, when you see people on the net come out with stuff like "I am a Asian cis gendered trans gender fluid (wo)man with bipolar....etc" , what they are doing is placing themselves upon the oppression leaderboard of intersectionality.

It is also worth noting that since Trump, the straight white woman (especially "uneducated") has come under fire for voting for him in high numbers. So, while the movement might come under the umbrella of feminism, in reality it is anything but, and certainly a million miles away from the likes of the suffragettes et al. In short, intersectionality is a regression back to a time where people were judged on stereotypes and no form of individual thought that strays from the dogma is allowed.

Special Circumstances · 20-01-2017 12:06AM

Peregrine wrote: »

Ruin a thread.

Then blame it on the mods and talk about censorship when there isn't any.

Job done.

Classic.

Oh boohoo.
Would a fella have got away with this incident roles reversed.

Is it "grand grand what's the problem" for either sex?

Is it "a completely different thing" when a male does it to a female?

Was it just banter? Was he pretty much asking for it?

Special Circumstances · 20-01-2017 12:08AM

Goya wrote: »

What in the name of holy hell are you on about?

Where did I lose you? Implying the mods don't act even handedly or my surprise at you calling Louise o Neill a bint?

Peregrine · 20-01-2017 12:12AM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Oh boohoo.
Would a fella have got away with this incident roles reversed.

No.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is it "grand grand what's the problem" for either sex?

No.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is it "a completely different thing" when a male does it to a female?

No.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Was it just banter? Was he pretty much asking for it?

No.

Like, I agree with you dude. Chill out and drop the faux persecution.

Goya · 20-01-2017 12:17AM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Where did I lose you? Implying the mods don't act even handedly or my surprise at you calling Louise o Neill a bint?

I didn't mention Louise O'Neill (although I dislike her strongly) but why would you be surprised at that? If you're going to build up a profile of a member, take a look at more of their previous posts on various threads instead of the last two or three on one thread. Actually no, you don't even need to look at other threads - on this thread I have criticised the Geordie Shore bint numerous times.

The mods don't always act evenhandedly tbh but the censorship and double standards you're talking about... well you're making it up. Men can talk about men's rights anywhere on Boards, threads with dismissal of claims of sexual harassment from women are kept open.

You lost me at "Welcome to life outside the boards anointed ones club. You were doing so well there. You could have been bumped up to "mod warnings for anyone who disagrees with you" status in no time.

Threw it all away. Never will you reach the "make an absolute homes of an argument but don't worry mods will selectively delete posts to make you look good" level."

No idea where that came from. Especially when criticism of Louise O'Neill has been permitted since November when the thread about her started.

Bambi985 · 20-01-2017 12:21AM

Throw a Geordie Shore cast member into the house and this sort of thing is inevitable. All they do on that show is throw their naked selves around and p1ss and sh1t themselves and chat about each other's genitalia and feel up randomers in clubs etc etc ad nauseum. They are lowest common denominator types incapable of appropriate human interaction. Chloe's behaviour towards the Jedward twin was pretty tame in comparison.

Robineen · 20-01-2017 02:54AM

Candie wrote: »

Please people, we're talking pudenda/vulva, not vagina.

Unless she turned herself inside out, which would be a completely different discussion.

Pedantry. This isn't a biology class. Vagina is the common everyday term for the area you can see, understood by all.

Irish Guitarist · 20-01-2017 03:20AM

People only watch that shite in the hope that someone will be a victim of bullying or racism so they'll have something to whine about. If all the people who claimed to be offended about this nonsense stopped watching it would be taken off the air.

El_Duderino 09 · 20-01-2017 02:06PM

anna080 wrote:

So feminists want equal rights for men and for women right? Funny how it's radio silence from them when it comes to issues like this.

I'm not happy about it. I do think think many people who would self describe as feminist would be happy about it.

There is an element of potential to walk away vs potential to overpower the victim. Average man could overpower an average woman so there is a slight difference in danger between an average man vs averages woman as the perpetrator in principle.

In the actual case it would depend on whether or not consent is involved. Consent wasn't involved with the jedward and to remove confusion he didn't play along as if he was enjoying it and she didn't stop.

It's a clear cut case as far as I'm concerned.

py2006 · 20-01-2017 02:15PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

People only watch that shite in the hope that someone will be a victim of bullying or racism so they'll have something to whine about. If all the people who claimed to be offended about this nonsense stopped watching it would be taken off the air.

Again, another missing the point. I doubt many are offended. Its the double standard that people are highlighting.

Irish Guitarist · 20-01-2017 05:40PM

py2006 wrote: »

Again, another missing the point. I doubt many are offended. Its the double standard that people are highlighting.

I'm not missing the point at all. They put a bunch of talentless morons in a house together in the hope that they'll do something outrageous. Any 'celebrity' who appears on that crap knows exactly what they're doing.

It's not like he was actually sexually assaulted. Some tart briefly rubbed her arse cheek against him and in return there will briefly be a renewed interest in Jedward among idiots.

Galwayguy35 · 20-01-2017 07:24PM

Must be a big shock to the two manboys with all that nasty talk about sex and penis size, they probably thought they would go in and act like 12 year olds and everyone would love them and they would win it.

Yeah it's true if the sexes were reversed the radfems would be up in arms about it but from what I saw it looked harmless enough and she was only messing around.

AckwelFoley · 20-01-2017 10:26PM

Clearly she thought he was a tampon

Accusations of sexual assault on "reality" tv show, double standards?

Comments