FrancieBrady wrote: » Who carries out 'slutty' behaviour?
givyjoe wrote: » Since when are you concerned with that being unfair? Of course what the poster means is that you cant possibly know which men, of the incredibly small proportion of men who rape, from the ones who do. They tend not to wear signs. But you knew that before twisting the posters words.
meeeeh wrote: » I don't know you tell me.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'slut' carries out 'slutty' behaviour.
tretorn wrote: » Sardonicat wrote: » Why don't you address it so? Tell me what my responsibility is in staying safe? Dare I be so bold as to advise you not get drunk and not to leave night clubs with strange men if you are plastered. Dont follow them up to their bedrooms because this might have them conclude that you are going somewhere private with them to do something that requires privacy. You will lose your inhibitions but thats the alcohols affect, you may then do something you regret but you cant call that rape. Thats taking personal responsibility for your safety, you cant do anything about other peoples behaviour but you can change your own.
Sardonicat wrote: » Why don't you address it so? Tell me what my responsibility is in staying safe?
meeeeh wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'slut' carries out 'slutty' behaviour. There is no need calling tretorn a moron.
Faugheen wrote: » This was brilliantly delivered
B0jangles wrote: » Why do you think I am not concerned with fairness? I admit that I find it a little depressing that if a poster with known feminist tendencies were to say that women should assume all men are potential rapists, there would be mass outrage, but when its one of your own, it's just common sense to assume that all men are potential rapists. It's not exactly unexpected, but depressing all the same.
meeeeh wrote: » There is no need calling tretorn a moron.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, I think you will find it was you who called him a moron and then applied my logic to your own insult and tried to pin it on me.
B0jangles wrote: » You are saying that if women don't want to get raped they shouldn't be alone with strange men - ergo they should assume that all men are rapists. I would have thought the lads around here would be a bit more bullish about defending the good name of Irish men, unless they agree that women should assume all men are rapists? Seems a bit extreme to me, but hey.
tretorn wrote: » Dare I be so bold as to advise you not get drunk and not to leave night clubs with strange men if you are plastered. Dont follow them up to their bedrooms because this might have them conclude that you are going somewhere private with them to do something that requires privacy. You will lose your inhibitions but thats the alcohols affect, you may then do something you regret but you cant call that rape. Thats taking personal responsibility for your safety, you cant do anything about other peoples behaviour but you can change your own.
NAGDEFI wrote: » The question of slutty behaviour as opposed to a slut. People who suffer from bioplar, of both sexes, can be promiscuous during a manic phase. Somebody may act a certain way to impress others if immature or for a number of psychological reasons. Not a black and white line with sluts and non sluts. Also the mores of the day. People engaging in sex before marriage between 1850-1950 may have been seen as sluts. Whereas in the 1700s , medieval times and today, to name a few eras, they wouldn't be.
FrancieBrady wrote: » meeeeh wrote: » There is no need calling tretorn a moron. No, I think you will find it was you who called him a moron and then applied my logic to your own insult and tried to pin it on me.
facehugger99 wrote: » So, can I ask you George, do you you ever think you'll get your drivetime slot back on Newstalk?
Faugheen wrote: » Except she doesn't agree with the logic so how is she calling him a moron?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Ssssccch with any of that personal responsibility malarkey you rape apologist. Looking at the subsequent replies to this, isnt this exactly what we tell our daughters what not to do when they're heading out. Be responsible, dont drink too much, be aware of your conpany, dont leave your friends. Its not asuming all men are rapists, its a common sense approach to lessen the chances of something untoward happening, one of which is rape. Not all adults are paedos. We still tell our kids dont go off with strangers. Dont accept things from strangers, dont have secrets with grownups. Same fcukin thing FFS. Common sense.
NAGDEFI wrote: » For one so opinionated you really need to keep abreast of current affairs. Opinions with no knowledge behind them, like your quotation, and mathematical deductions above are useless. And again one doesn't have to be asked personally with regards to opinion polls. You have heard of political opinion polls being used for over a century haven't you? Apart from knowing who Joe Schmidt is there's a whole world of knowledge out there.
Mrsmum wrote: » Considering how getting really drunk and engaging in sexual activity with a stranger has impacted on the lives of these men, I'm wondering why no advice for men on how to stay safe. Drink, strangers, sex - recipe for trouble. The more you engage in this risky business the more possibilities for 'misunderstanding' or as you say yourself "something untoward happening" . I would put getting raped in the worst category but being called a rapist is a very close second. So thanks for all the advice to us females on how not to get raped but maybe you could give a think about your son's safety too and have a word with him as well as your daughter heading out the door. The girl isn't the only one whose life could change utterly in one night. Again as you said yourself Common Sense.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Its not advice. Its sharing common sense. Seems lacking. I give the same advice to Padawan, but with even more advice, as he may end up with a "duty of care" for someone, that he has to look out for their welfare. However, while Roger jnr may be assaulted and be left with life changing injuries or even dead from a lapse in judgement, or indeed through absolutely no fault of his own, theres a very low probability he will actually be raped. I dont really have a worry he will be raped by some fcuker. My girls on the other hand, there is a probability of them raped ( in addition to that what might befall Roger jnr.). So if theres anything they can do to mitigate this risk, i advice them to take such actions. "Hey kids. Dont run accross the road without looking, you might get knocked down" Do all cars knock down kids? Do all kids get knocked down crossing the road? Should kids take sensible precautiobs to avoid being knocked down? Is it the kids fault if they get knocked down? Did i just victim blame a kud for getting knocked down? Its worrying this stuff has to be spelled out to people
mfceiling wrote: » Wow....a proper genius on boards. I have indeed heard of opinion polls. Fierce accurate. Brexit? Trump? Sinn Fein in every government? Less of the bad manners there chap. I'm aware of who Joe Schmidt is as well. I do watch rugby. Just as an aside....what was the last AIL game you went to? That's the grass roots game of rugby and not latching on to the coat tails of the national team.
mfceiling wrote: » Lads you are wasting your time trying to defend the lads. The mob had their minds made up before the trial. They had their opinions formed without all the information. They jumped on a #notmycaptain bandwagon without any knowledge of why Rory Best was called to court. They drew their own conclusions from the snippets of information they got from the press. They heard that the lads were acquitted but refused to accept the juries decision...one idiot on twitter has tried to get the hash tag "retrial needed" trending. They couldn't take the juries decision so jumped on private whatsapp messages to form judgement. It wouldn't matter now if the complainant came out tomorrow and said she drank way too much and admitted she was consenting in all acts. The lads are guilty in their eyes and that's all that matters. The legal system is undermined by so many fools who seem to know more than any solicitor, barrister or judge. My brother in law is a solicitor and we were talking about the case on Sunday. My wife is adamant that they are guilty. Unfortunately for her, every argument she gave was swiftly countered by him (he doesn't even live in ireland any more and has next to zero knowledge of the case)....it's interesting to see how someone with a legal background can tear to shreds someone who has nothing more than an opinion on this.
NAGDEFI wrote: » The little bad mannered 'chap' who gave me a smart reply about not knowing who Joe Schmidt was a few days back can't take his own medicine:D I'm a very polite poster except when i come across rude posts from ill informed posters. My last rugby match attendance was Carlow U18s v Newbridge. When was your last involvement old chap? So you're suggesting only people involved in grass roots rugby or soccer can comment on who represents them nationally. Oh how elitist! As regards opinion polls they are a snapshot in time. People change their minds McFeckling. As of now the majority don't want those two splendid chaps Jacko and Olding playing on the Irish rugby team. You really should question every poster here on their rugby bona fides as without attending AIL games they really shouldn't be allowed comment. Only superiors like yourself should comment.
