Mrsmum wrote: » Another inane comment.
Mrsmum wrote: » Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.
Mrsmum wrote: » I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.
Mrsmum wrote: » So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?
meeeeh wrote: » Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.
Yeah_Right wrote: » I think the guys did nothing wrong.
Mrsmum wrote: » Age is fact. Maturity less so. In general a 24 year old man or woman you would imagine hope would have grown up a bit in terms of maturity from when they were 19. Clearly not in all cases.
facehugger99 wrote: » Thankfully, it's not a view shared by the vast majority.
tritium wrote: » Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying abou Rambling Rape culture accusations Misogynist Rape apologist One poster being called a rapist MenRTrash posters being condoned Crude words by one gender being ignored The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?
Mrsmum wrote: » "Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.
tritium wrote: » Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying about Rambling Rape culture accusations Misogynist Rape apologist One poster being called a rapist MenRTrash posters being condoned Crude words by one gender being ignored The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?
givyjoe wrote: » If you don't know if I've used those words, then please don't quote me making reference to the above.
givyjoe wrote: » [/B]I believe the term currently is fc.uk boy. It's a term I see used on many dating profiles, e.g. no fc.uk boys need apply. I wonder, does that = misandry if slut = misogyny?
In mainstream culture, a ****boy is a guy who doesn’t respect women, yet relies on them heavily. He’s a guy who’s distant, doesn’t care about other people’s time, and won’t commit. He’s self-absorbed and is never looking for anything serious relationship-wise. A ****boy could also refer to a guy who is always doing stupid things and getting into trouble.
Grayson wrote: » a fcuk boy is a guy who fcuks around with a girls emotions.http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/****boy/ You'll notice it's about how they treat women, not how many they sleep with.
meeeeh wrote: » I quoted you because I disagreed with your point I never implied you said that. Unless you are looking to be offended it's pretty easily to understand it's a general point about attitudes.
Mrsmum wrote: » Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.
givyjoe wrote: » So what you're saying is, it's a derogatory term used to describe certain men? *Disclaimer, I did say I believe (i.e. not sure) and there is no way I'm sticking that into google in work!:pac:
givyjoe wrote: » Not offended at all, merely made a simple request. Too much to ask?
Mrsmum wrote: » Yeah right will have to answer for himself because the real point is everytime a man calls the girl he had sex with a slut, why does he never turn the finger on himself and say if she is a slut for sleeping with me, what am I for sleeping with her. Only we have an answer for this. They call themselves top shaggers and legends. On one side you have an offensive putdown and on the other a celebratory big up.
Grayson wrote: » Yes but it's used to describe them because of their actions which are bad. Just because a word is gender specific doesn't mean it's bad. The word slut is used specifically to describe women who are sexually active and have had more than one sexual partner. And it's used in a negative way. Fcukboy is used to describe guys who fcuk around with peoples emotions. It's used to describe guys who hurt people feelings and don't care. A fcukboy is a selfish individual. They are not equivalent. The word fcukboy is not sexist.
meeeeh wrote: » I don't agree with most of them but they were not used in every second post, I haven't even seen most of them but it's hard to miss all the feminazi nonsense. As for msyoginist it's a technical term and very good description of some attitudes. You are telling me using slut is ok but using completely neutral descriptive word is not?!https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny
Yeah_Right wrote: » I'm probably going to get lambasted for this opinion but here goes. I think the guys did nothing wrong. They went out got drunk, picked up some girls, had a one night stand (that escalated into a threesome) and then bragged and talked **** about it the next day with their mates. I have been involved in similar situations 100s of times through my teens, my twenties and into my thirties. Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! It's not about disrespecting women or hating women. It's making light of the whole incident. They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the mentality that well. I think the issue is Ireland (and I'm including NI in this instance) is very conservative and prudish when it comes to sex. My view is obviously coloured by the fact that I am from a country with a far more liberal view on sex and talking about sex. Irish people get embarrassed or shocked quite easily over conversations about sex in mixed company. Other nationalities don't. (This is my experience and no I haven't done a study to back it up) Some people might argue that these guys are role models. Yes they're sporting role models. Parents need to make sure their kids have a variety of role models to inspire them and not just blindly follow one or two. Speaking of role models, could Una Mullaly (sp?), Louise O'Neill and Ruth Coppinger be considered role models for girls and young women in Ireland? Look at what they have been saying recently. Would you want your daughters talking/behaving like that? I think BBDBB said it well. They've been punished enough. Unfortunately I think they will end up having to move overseas. Probably to France but I would love to see them head to NZ or Australia. My final point in this rambling post. The most disgusting thing to come out of this is that Jackson doesn't appear to wash his bedding that often. He's regularly bringing women (and his mates) into his bed, he needs to change his sheets more often. Gross.
goz83 wrote: » You're twisting what was said to suit your argument. He was explaining that the lads were calling a ONS a slut...which by the way, I think is derogatory and unacceptable. He was further explaining that they wouldn't have been calling women they know, sluts.Nowhere did the poster say that he calls women sluts or mention his mom...unless I am mis-remembering the post. I think it's also fair to say that people don't always say what they really think and sometimes things are said because it comes across as cool, or funny, when in fact...it's just disgusting and if seen outside of the intended group, or out of context would be damning.
Augeo wrote: » Has something come into the public domain about this?
Mrsmum wrote: » "They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS" . I twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.
Mrsmum wrote: » So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.
Mrsmum wrote: » I never said he calls all women sluts. I know well he doesn't. It's a derogatory term for his ons partner. But what is he in his own mind after a ons.
givyjoe wrote: » I think you need to have a look for more complete definitions of what the term means, it's most definitely sexist AND derogatory. Or do think it's a term of endearment?:rolleyes: Here's a definition of sexism for you... "..relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of gender" BTW, do you have any further comments on the 'ridiculous' decision by the jury not to convict on the basis of reasonable doubt?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The sooner we have the debate about the residue of shame about sex and the body on this country the sooner we will mature.
