The damage I would do to her/I would smash it...

racso1975 · 17-12-2015 09:21AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am allowed a little sarcasm in responding to posts of the

calibre?

I would have thought "pissy" would kinda involve getting stuck in in a similar manner?

Either way, we can disagree about me...but about the topic?

Twice you have end posts with that question. So as subtle as I can NOBODY FUKIN AGREES WITH YOU!!!

Only a fuking psycho would genuinely want to do the stuff said!!!

kneemos · 17-12-2015 09:24AM

Used to have a phrase when we were kids "she'd blow you out in bubbles".Think it meant she'd be well able for you.

17-12-2015 09:25AM

kneemos wrote: »

Used to have a phrase when we were kids "she'd blow you out in bubbles".Think it meant she'd be well able for you.

That's a deadly phrase!

sonny.knowles · 17-12-2015 09:27AM

OP, would you eat a mile of her sh1te to get near her?

Medusa22 · 17-12-2015 09:27AM

I'm definitely not a prude (as we all know)

but something about those phrases make me cringe a little too, it's the violence of the imagery. I wouldn't be offended if someone said it to me or anything but just when I see it written down there's something harsh about it, though I know it isn't intended.

Rikand · 17-12-2015 09:30AM

MarkR wrote: »

The agony of bliss. Victorian term for orgasm. La petite mort. The little death, more orgasm talk.

Unga bunga. Possibly Neanderthal for sweet sweet love.

I'd totally unga bunga her magumbos.

PARlance · 17-12-2015 09:31AM

I regularly hear things like "I'd smash her" and I have no problem challenging (not physically Conor) the person saying it by letting them know it's "I would" rather than "I'd".

Ash.J.Williams · 17-12-2015 09:31AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You say men and women have been using such phrases forever? Really? I didn't know that.

Could you tell me some phrase women used to describe sex with men and specifically the violence they would inflict from, say, the 1800s?

And who was "outraged"? To say something might be objectionable is not the same as saying one is outraged.

A woman told me last month that she was looking forward to her holidays and getting rode til she has a sore hole....you did ask

T-K-O · 17-12-2015 09:31AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't even know what this means?

ISIS? American gladiators?

I wouldn't expect you to , head and arse come to mind.

Triangla · 17-12-2015 09:33AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You say men and women have been using such phrases forever? Really? I didn't know that.

Could you tell me some phrase women used to describe sex with men and specifically the violence they would inflict from, say, the 1800s?

And who was "outraged"? To say something might be objectionable is not the same as saying one is outraged.

Girl I lived with a few years ago said she fancied Bono. I asked her would she shag him and she said she would break his dick off.

It's a phrase such as when you're angry with a friend over something silly and say 'I could kill them'. It's not to be taken literally, context is the key here.

The damage I would do to her means the person would ride them so hard their vagina would break. It's an exaggeration of course, something story tellers do for dramatic effect.

It does not suggest violence in anyway.

Hemerodrome · 17-12-2015 09:34AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a deadly phrase!

That cold shower didn't work then?

17-12-2015 09:39AM

As a woman I think it's a nasty phrase and I do find it quite offensive. However as soon as I saw this thread I knew the kind of responses you'd get OP.

There seems to be a really defensive attitude prevaling whenever anyone highlights a type of male behaviour that can be offensive or downright harmful to a woman. On another site I recently saw an article about a video made in Norway to raise awareness about violence against women and the kind of behaviour and terminology that is seen as acceptable but which actually objectifies women. The article stated that one in three women will suffer abuse from a man over the course of their lifetime. The comments basically said "So what?", "Get over it", "damn feminazis", etc. One comment, which got a lot of support, said that the figure wasn't really that high so basically it's not a problem. So abuse is fine as long as it's "only" happening to one in five or one in ten.

I'm sick of being told I'm too PC or too sensitive because I recognise that there is a problem in the attitudes of some men (and yes it's a minority I believe), and that I believe there's a cultural aspect to it that needs to be addressed. A minority of people are racist, yet the rest of us don't get defensive when a person complains about racial abuse. Why is abuse against women different?

17-12-2015 09:43AM

We are going to end up with the most boring conversations the way things are going as people want to get offended at every little turn of phrase etc. It would melt your brain!!'

As for these phrases being new, we have been using them since we first started talking about our desires to get with different women at 13 or 14 so that would be 16 or 17 years ago. It's absolutely nothing new.

valoren · 17-12-2015 09:44AM

Voulzez vous smashay avec moi ce soir?

Pac1Man · 17-12-2015 09:45AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

As a woman I think it's a nasty phrase and I do find it quite offensive. However as soon as I saw this thread I knew the kind of responses you'd get OP.

There seems to be a really defensive attitude prevaling whenever anyone highlights a type of male behaviour that can be offensive or downright harmful to a woman. On another site I recently saw an article about a video made in Norway to raise awareness about violence against women and the kind of behaviour and terminology that is seen as acceptable but which actually objectifies women. The article stated that one in three women will suffer abuse from a man over the course of their lifetime. The comments basically said "So what?", "Get over it", "damn feminazis", etc. One comment, which got a lot of support, said that the figure wasn't really that high so basically it's not a problem. So abuse is fine as long as it's "only" happening to one in five or one in ten.

I'm sick of being told I'm too PC or too sensitive because I recognise that there is a problem in the attitudes of some men (and yes it's a minority I believe), and that I believe there's a cultural aspect to it that needs to be addressed. A minority of people are racist, yet the rest of us don't get defensive when a person complains about racial abuse. Why is abuse against women different?

This type of language transcends both genders though. It's not only men saying it about women.

kneemos · 17-12-2015 09:45AM

It's durty is all.

Tarzana2 · 17-12-2015 09:45AM

PARlance wrote: »

I regularly hear things like "I'd smash her" and I have no problem challenging (not physically Conor) the person saying it by letting them know it's "I would" rather than "I'd".

'I'd' is a perfectly acceptable contraction of 'I would'. You wannabe grammarians. :P

Hemerodrome · 17-12-2015 09:45AM

As it happens, the OP has a point, there is evidence from the field of psycho-sexual therapy that the increased use of such language and the imagery of hardcore pornography is normalizing aggressive sexual behavior among those entering sexual relationships in the last 10 years or so. Most people recognise that stuff for what it is and have a framework to deal with it, but not all do.

worded · 17-12-2015 09:46AM

There are gay Jehovah witnesses around ireland at the moment .....

Knocking on people's back doors

MarkR · 17-12-2015 09:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I love that old "no I can't think of one example so I'll say there are loads and you can find them yourself".

First used on day 2 of the internet.

I've already given you two examples, chock full of death and pain. Your argument is invalid. Quite daft really, saying that in all of human history, no one, up until the current age, has ever used violent adjectives to describe carnal activities?

I say good day.

*tips hat*

Just to clarify, I do think that type of language is inappropriate, just saying that it's nothing new. Everything that humans can do to each other has already been done (given available tools, I don't want to hear that no cave man got unfriended on facebook or something)

Alf Veedersane · 17-12-2015 09:54AM

Hemerodrome wrote: »

As it happens, the OP has a point, there is evidence from the field of psycho-sexual therapy that the increased use of such language and the imagery of hardcore pornography is normalizing aggressive sexual behavior among those entering sexual relationships in the last 10 years or so. Most people recognise that stuff for what it is and have a framework to deal with it, but not all do.

I'd have thought that the hardcore pornography played a much, much, much bigger role in it though.

Rather than some empty phrases.

bodice ripper · 17-12-2015 09:55AM

I'd hit it like the fist of an angry god.

Alf Veedersane · 17-12-2015 09:55AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I'd hit it like the fist of an angry god.

Jack the Bodice Ripper, wha'

Akrasia · 17-12-2015 09:58AM

Ride me sideways, that's another one

Hemerodrome · 17-12-2015 09:58AM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd have thought that the hardcore pornography played a much, much, much bigger role in it though.

Rather than some empty phrases.

Perhaps in the origin of the issue, but the language is part of the mechanism of taking it into the relationship.

mfceiling · 17-12-2015 09:58AM

Barrett Noisy Pantsuit wrote: »

We are going to end up with the most boring conversations the way things are going as people want to get offended at every little turn of phrase etc. It would melt your brain!!'

As for these phrases being new, we have been using them since we first started talking about our desires to get with different women at 13 or 14 so that would be 16 or 17 years ago. It's absolutely nothing new.

Please don't use the phrase "melt your brain"...that's offensive to people with melted brains.

tritium · 17-12-2015 09:59AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

As a woman I think it's a nasty phrase and I do find it quite offensive. However as soon as I saw this thread I knew the kind of responses you'd get OP.

There seems to be a really defensive attitude prevaling whenever anyone highlights a type of male behaviour that can be offensive or downright harmful to a woman. On another site I recently saw an article about a video made in Norway to raise awareness about violence against women and the kind of behaviour and terminology that is seen as acceptable but which actually objectifies women. The article stated that one in three women will suffer abuse from a man over the course of their lifetime. The comments basically said "So what?", "Get over it", "damn feminazis", etc. One comment, which got a lot of support, said that the figure wasn't really that high so basically it's not a problem. So abuse is fine as long as it's "only" happening to one in five or one in ten.

I'm sick of being told I'm too PC or too sensitive because I recognise that there is a problem in the attitudes of some men (and yes it's a minority I believe), and that I believe there's a cultural aspect to it that needs to be addressed. A minority of people are racist, yet the rest of us don't get defensive when a person complains about racial abuse. Why is abuse against women different?

Do you also find it offensive that so many women on this thread have admitted to making similarly lewd and crude comments about men?

Should we have a Norwegian style video aimed at women too-dear mummy, don't teach your daughters to objectify men? Would that be OK or evidence of misogyny?

hairyslug · 17-12-2015 10:01AM

Ride me sideways is another one

beks101 · 17-12-2015 10:04AM

It's just a bit teenagery and pathetic really. If it comes from a grown man then I'm more inclined to think he's an immature muppet than any kind of misogynist.

And that contrary to 'destroying' anybody, if he did get his hands on that smoking hot female celebrity/whoever, he wouldn't know what to do with her.

T-K-O · 17-12-2015 10:08AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

As a woman I think it's a nasty phrase and I do find it quite offensive. However as soon as I saw this thread I knew the kind of responses you'd get OP.

There seems to be a really defensive attitude prevaling whenever anyone highlights a type of male behaviour that can be offensive or downright harmful to a woman. On another site I recently saw an article about a video made in Norway to raise awareness about violence against women and the kind of behaviour and terminology that is seen as acceptable but which actually objectifies women. The article stated that one in three women will suffer abuse from a man over the course of their lifetime. The comments basically said "So what?", "Get over it", "damn feminazis", etc. One comment, which got a lot of support, said that the figure wasn't really that high so basically it's not a problem. So abuse is fine as long as it's "only" happening to one in five or one in ten.

I'm sick of being told I'm too PC or too sensitive because I recognise that there is a problem in the attitudes of some men (and yes it's a minority I believe), and that I believe there's a cultural aspect to it that needs to be addressed. A minority of people are racist, yet the rest of us don't get defensive when a person complains about racial abuse. Why is abuse against women different?

The prevailing attitude in modern society is that, men should be ashamed of being men. The average man does not abuse women, in my experience it's the opposite but don't you dare hold a door open for woman.

also and don't take this personally, What offends you and other people is none of my business. It's very clear that far too many people are sitting, waiting for any opportunity to be offended

The damage I would do to her/I would smash it...

Comments