Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

NAGDEFI wrote: »

It doesn't make it right though Audrey. It was acceptable to call homosexuals queer and fag*ot not so long ago.. times change.

I didn’t say it was right. But it’s not a crime either and they don’t deserve to have their lives ruined over it.

Like I said they are neither the first nor the last to send those types of messages.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What slang word for a promiscuous woman is acceptable?
Do you want the concept of a promiscuous woman or man ended?

No I don't want it ended. I don't want people to call a woman slut just because she sleeps with someone. You are going on so much about RC morality but it's you who judges women who have sex and thinks it's acceptable to label them with degrading terms.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

It doesn't make it right though Audrey. It was acceptable to call homosexuals queer and fag*ot not so long ago.. times change.

So if he had texted 'Love Belfast Promiscuous Young Women' with the pic that would be fine?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn’t say it was right. But it’s not a crime either and they don’t deserve to have their lives ruined over it.

Why are their lives ruined? In ten years time or so they won't be playing rugby anyway, is their life going to be ruined then?

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

You really don't understand how language works. Slut is defined as degrading word. Rape or mysogny are not. For example labelling someone who raped rapist is factual and slur only when used against someone who didn't rape. Mysogny is the same although people might not exactly agree what hatred of women is.

Yes that’s precisely the point. That term has been used as a slur throughout this thread

Same for the other term

jm08

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Correct. I am a kiwi. Smith's problem was she wasn't his long term girlfriend and he was actually in his All Blacks uniform. The team was flying out. So he was at work. The team decided to suspend him for 2 games I think and he was sent home. Obviously he had to try to salvage his relationship (which he did) and his head wouldn't have been in the right place to play Argentina and South Africa.

He served his suspension and was back with ABs on the end of year tour and all last year. Sex scandal forgotten. It was done and dusted pretty quickly. As for the PM commenting, I think a journalist asked him to comment so he did. He didn't call for him to be fired or organise a protest outside Eden Park about it.

It was consensual sex. If kiwis are so liberated, surely his partner would not have minded? Why would the ABs worry about whether he had sex in a disabled toilet if it was consensual (and private)?

The New Zealand Prime Minister had rather a lot to say including comments about the ABs being role models. Why do you refer to it as a sex scandal. It was between two consenting adults. What is scandalous about that? Surely in a liberated country like you claim NZ is, that wouldn't be an issue?

“He’ll have to reflect on that and I’m sure the New Zealand Rugby Football Union will have to reflect on that. All that I would say as a general rule in defence of the All Blacks, they have been for the most part very good role models for the last 10 or 20 years, under both Richie McCaw’s leadership and now more recently under Kieran Read.
“They do a lot to try and prove to young New Zealanders that they’re the sort of people to look up to, but that’s why I think Aaron will feel pretty disappointed in himself.
“I think the rugby union, coming off the back of a couple of other pretty poor PR issues in recent times, will want to make sure they send a strong message to the All Blacks that they have a high level of expectation in their behaviour. And Aaron clearly didn’t meet it.
“I suspect he’ll be sitting back, reflecting on the fact he’s let himself down, he’s let the team down. He’s an integral part of the All Blacks so he won’t want to be sitting on the sidelines, and frankly, he’s embarrassed himself a bit. So I’d say he’d be [a] pretty disappointed young man.”

[Deleted User]

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Not sure how old you are Venjur but I consider myself lucky to have grown up in a time before social media and everyone owning a camera phone. The conversation like what the Ulster lads had on Whatsap had be done face to face at training, on your lunch break or in the pub. No evidence for anyone to get fired over.

I reckon the female versions of these sort of conversations tend to be more graphic than the male ones. In my experience, women go into detail! Size, texture, taste, smell, technique, everything gets discussed.

I reckon I'm probably similar age to yourself. I was never reckless so I think if smart phones had been around back in my day I'd have been more cautious but for sure I left myself WIDE open to embarrassment on plenty of occasions with my antics.

If McIlroy is guilty of exposure then I'm lucky not to have a criminal record to be honest. Nudity albeit of a humorous and non sexual nature was fairly common at the end of nights out and it certainly wasn't restricted to just the blokes in my company.

I agree with your comments about conservatism. I don't think were a conservative country at all and my experience within my age bracket would lead me to believe that people are extremely open minded about sex. But as you rightly pointed out, we aren't great at talking about it.

Audrey Hepburn had it right above though, the outrage and indignation about the comments is way over the top. Men and women up and down the country engage in similar without for one second being misogynist or misandrist in their common interactions.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if he had texted 'Love Belfast Promiscuous Young Women' with the pic that would be fine?

Why not just love Belfast women. Did they even sleep with him? So why is their sexual activity relevant?

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't want it ended. I don't want people to call a woman slut just because she sleeps with someone. You are going on so much about RC morality but it's you who judges women who have sex and thinks it's acceptable to label them with degrading terms.

So I cant be descriptive of a group of women or a single woman?
That is the logic here, 'you cannot say anything derogatory about anyone lest their entire gender take offence'.

That sounds ridiculous because it is.

[Deleted User]

jm08 wrote: »

It was consensual sex. If kiwis are so liberated, surely his partner would not have minded? Why would the ABs worry about whether he had sex in a disabled toilet if it was consensual (and private)?

The New Zealand Prime Minister had rather a lot to say including comments about the ABs being role models. Why do you refer to it as a sex scandal. It was between two consenting adults. What is scandalous about that? Surely in a liberated country like you claim NZ is, that wouldn't be an issue?

Honestly, this is a really poorly thought out post.

The guy cheated on his partner, while on all black duty, in a toilet. I am as open minded as they come and I think that's awful behaviour. Being open minded about sex and being liberal doesn't mean that suddenly a guy cheating on his partner is fine?

If he had sex with his partner in a toilet whilst on all black duty I wouldn't care nearly as much, though I can appreciate why he maybe should have been a bit less public about it.

Either way, getting ready to play a big game is not the time to be messing your headspace by destroying your relationship.

tritium wrote: »

Yes that’s precisely the point. That term has been used as a slur throughout this thread

Same for the other term

Well you will have to provide context. You don't need to provide context for feminazi or slut to know how it was used.

meeeeh wrote: »

Why not just love Belfast women. Did they even sleep with him? So why is their sexual activity relevant?

He was making a distinction. It is a common thing to do.
He loves women who want to do the same thing as him.
Which is a distinctive type of person, ie promiscuous.

meeeeh wrote: »

Why are their lives ruined? In ten years time or so they won't be playing rugby anyway, is their life going to be ruined then?

They have most likely lost their careers and will be vilified as rapists for the rat of their lives despite being found innocent.

How is that fair when they’ done nothing wrong?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn’t say it was right. But it’s not a crime either and they don’t deserve to have their lives ruined over it.

Like I said they are neither the first nor the last to send those types of messages.

Of course it's not a crime. But you need standards. If this is accepted publicly it sends out the wrong message, in my opinion.

The world has moved on and tries to eradicate those who bully or belittle, be it on grounds of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation. And while somethings have become overly 'PC' a lot of aspects of the new thinking is good as it cuts out types of bullying which have gone on in the past. So many of my female work colleagues in their 50s and early 60s have said when they started work they had to accept their male bosses smacking them across the backside.

Anything which brings about equality and stops such BS is welcome to me. Accepting lads talking about spit roasts, merry go rounds, sluts and top shaggers is a retrograde step.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So I cant be descriptive of a group of women or a single woman?
That is the logic here, 'you cannot say anything derogatory about anyone lest their entire gender take offence'.

That sounds ridiculous because it is.

It's not descriptive it's degrading as the word is defined. You could ask: did you sleep with anyone lately? Why do you have to label them a slut? Is that how you describe women who sleep with you? You don't sleep with a girlfriend, if you have one, you sleep with a slut?

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Of course it's not a crime. But you need standards. If this is accepted publicly it sends out the wrong message, in my opinion.

The world has moved on and tries to eradicate those who bully or belittle, be it on grounds of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation. And while somethings have become overly 'PC' a lot of aspects of the new thinking is good as it cuts out types of bullying which have gone on in the past. So many of my female work colleagues in their 50s and early 60s have said when they started work they had to accept their male bosses smacking them across the backside.

Anything which brings about equality and stops such BS is welcome to me. Accepting lads talking about spit roasts, merry go rounds, sluts and top shaggers is a retrograde step.

Woah woah, men AND women have consensual sex. Are you saying that they shouldn't talk about it? Or just the in the terms you object to?

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Of course it's not a crime. But you need standards. If this is accepted publicly it sends out the wrong message, in my opinion.

The world has moved on and tries to eradicate those who bully or belittle, be it on grounds of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation. And while somethings have become overly 'PC' a lot of aspects of the new thinking is good as it cuts out types of bullying which have gone on in the past. So many of my female work colleagues in their 50s and early 60s have said when they started work they had to accept their male bosses smacking them across the backside.

Anything which brings about equality and stops such BS is welcome to me. Accepting lads talking about spit roasts, merry go rounds, sluts and top shaggers is a retrograde step.

So we shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the consensual sex we’ve had privately with friends?

Like I said it’s not a crime and you cannot and should not try to police private conversations.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They have most likely lost their careers and will be vilified as rapists for the rat of their lives despite being found innocent.

How is that fair when they’ done nothing wrong?

I don't think anyone is looking for them to be vilified as rapists. I never claimed that. People just don't want them to play for Ireland. They are not entitled to that.

givyjoe wrote: »

Woah woah, men AND women have consensual sex. Are you saying that they shouldn't talk about it? Or just the in the terms you object to?

Obviously the terms. Neanderthal mentality if this is the accepted norm.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So we shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the consensual sex we’ve had privately with friends?

Like I said it’s not a crime and you cannot and should not try to police private conversations.

Didn't mean to hit the thank button there!!

Privacy when you use a phone or pc doesn't exist anymore. Once they're in the public domain.. A bit like getting caught saying something wholly inappropriate when you thought the mic was turned off.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, this is a really poorly thought out post.

The guy cheated on his partner, while on all black duty, in a toilet. I am as open minded as they come and I think that's awful behaviour. Being open minded about sex and being liberal doesn't mean that suddenly a guy cheating on his partner is fine?

If he had sex with his partner in a toilet whilst on all black duty I wouldn't care nearly as much, though I can appreciate why he maybe should have been a bit less public about it.

Either way, getting ready to play a big game is not the time to be messing your headspace by destroying your relationship.

So, are you trying to say if he was single, there would not be a problem?

As far as I know, he had played a game the previous day, so would not have been playing for at least a week.

He was dropped from the tests because it was not acceptable behaviour for an All Blacks (thats whats they said anyway).

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not descriptive it's degrading as the word is defined. You could ask: did you sleep with anyone lately? Why do you have to label them a slut? Is that how you describe women who sleep with you? You don't sleep with a girlfriend, if you have one, you sleep with a slut?

Do you understand what 'promisicuous' means?
Some people are. It is a fact of life some seem to think doesn't exist.

Can I refer to a man or woman as 'promiscuous' or not?
If I can, why is the slang version of the word 'derogatory'.
These lads were delighted to meet promiscuous women. Why would calling them sluts be 'derogatory' if you take that fact on board.
Why are you getting offended on behalf of 'womankind'

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Like I said it’s not a crime and you cannot and should not try to police private conversations.

They were not told not to do it and their private conversations were not policed. Why are you trying to police how fans or sponsors should react? If they don't feel comfortable with people like that playing for Ireland they can express that too. That is freedom of expression And we shouldn't police it

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So we shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the consensual sex we’ve had privately with friends?

Like I said it’s not a crime and you cannot and should not try to police private conversations.

In 2 independent opinion polls a silent majority feel as i do and believe, at this time, they should not represent Ireland. So obviously a huge swathe of opinion aren't happy with these 'private' conversations.

goz83

meeeeh wrote: »

Why are their lives ruined? In ten years time or so they won't be playing rugby anyway, is their life going to be ruined then?

Because a certain strand of society are outraged that:

1) There was a trial where a female complainant was questioned, rather than her word being taken as gospel.

2) The same strand of society are hateful and can't accept that innocent men were not jailed.

3) The same strand are angrily calling for their careers to come to an end.

If a sports person is taken out of the sport in their prime, they lose the opportunity to be set up financially for the rest of their lives. I for one would consider that to be a ruining of ones life....and that's before anything else is considered.

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't think anyone is looking for them to be vilified as rapists. I never claimed that. People just don't want them to play for Ireland. They are not entitled to that.

WHAT?

No. Just...No.

image?u=%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F12%2F11%2F6361709123275193801447881008_giphy.gif&ho=https%3A%2F%2Faz616578.vo.msecnd.net&s=711&h=4db4f5fe4ed640e786185ff6cbe5c7bbc89fba9542e2cd9df113d6100f7f88a4&size=980x&c=3011584742

image?u=%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F12%2F11%2F6361709123275193801447881008_giphy.gif&ho=https%3A%2F%2Faz616578.vo.msecnd.net&s=711&h=4db4f5fe4ed640e786185ff6cbe5c7bbc89fba9542e2cd9df113d6100f7f88a4&size=980x&c=3011584742

meeeeh wrote: »

They were not told not to do it and their private conversations were not policed. Why are you trying to police how fans or sponsors should react? If they don't feel comfortable with people like that playing for Ireland they can express that too. That is freedom of expression And we shouldn't police it

Yet you and others seem to want to police peoples private conversations about nights out and sexual activities.

You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you understand what 'promisicuous' means?
Some people are. It is a fact of life some seem to think doesn't exist.

Can I refer to a man or woman as 'promiscuous' or not?
If I can, why is the slang version of the word 'derogatory'.
These lads were delighted to meet promiscuous women. Why would calling them sluts be 'derogatory' if you take that fact on board.
Why are you getting offended on behalf of 'womankind'

Of course you can refer to man or woman promiscuous, it's neutral term. Slut is not. Go to a dictionary and you will see one has qualifiers like derogatory the other one is defined as adjective.

[Deleted User]

thread is now no longer anything to do with the trial and is totally about the desire among a vocal few to police private conversation.

the status or career of those involved is irrelevant.

'let' them play. what a choice of words. telling.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yet you and others seem to want to police peoples private conversations about nights out and sexual activities.

No I don't. People can have whatever conversations they want but if someone turns to be a dick when those conversations become public, then you can't force me to cheer them, to buy their sponsor products or similar.