Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You have presumed to know about me. You said I have no coherent idea of consent. With double standards like that, it's fairly obvious you are a true disciple of LON.

Specific question about consent vs non-consent: if you are an active participant and don't convey 'no' that is consent. If you say 'no' and/or resist then that is not consent. Is that clear enough?

This is kinda the point. Just going along with it is consent but non consent has to be clearly verbalised or gestured. That’s the assumed consent route PJ took and it didn’t work out great for any of the 5 people involved. 4 of whom were men.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have some questions for you. Have you ever done anal? Tried anal? Rimming? Bum play? Had someone try it on you? What happened? How did you respond? How did they respond?

In the interest of fairness, I have. Some partners weren't into it so we didn't do it. Others were willing to try it but didn't really like it so we stopped or didn't do it again. Others loved it so it was part of our sex life. It's called two-way communication. You and LON should try it.

Legend

I’ve no intention of discussing details of the most intimate part of my relationship in public. Naturally, you can do what you like.

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Elaborate.

I took it as a yes or no question.

The answer is obviously no.

Ok. Elaborate if you can.

soiseztomabel

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I have a fiver bet on half the lads on this thread being the same boring, humourless, obsessive MRA weirdo.

Lads?

Surely you mean straight white males

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I have asked a couple of questions repeatedly and all I’ve got back is ridicule or ridiculous sarcastic answers.

Getting what you deserve so.

My "little skit" was just a joke FFS. I was having a laugh.

A skit it a joke, no? And it was done the day before got lots of thanks then too. Look, if you can’t discuss it through anything except parody then that’s probably something you should think about.

I asked some fairly basic questions and I’ve had this little skit done back to me twice but no detailed honest answers to the question. Even though the implication is that it’s so simple it doesn’t need to be discussed.

Maybe you haven’t got non satirical answers, maybe you don’t know what you want to say. But LON knows what she wants to say. She’s the subject of ridicule but she’s out there communicating with people in mass media. She’s part of shifting the conversation forward and you’re in this thread doing little skits.

She’s winning. Not bad for such an eejit.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A skit it a joke, no? And it was done the day before got lots of thanks then too. Look, if you can’t discuss it through anything except parody then that’s probably something you should think about.

I asked some fairly basic questions and I’ve had this little skit done back to me twice but no detailed honest answers to the question. Even though the implication is that it’s so simple it doesn’t need to be discussed.

Maybe you haven’t got non satirical answers, maybe you don’t know what you want to say. But LON knows what she wants to say. She’s the subject of ridicule but she’s out there communicating with people in mass media. She’s part of shifting the conversation forward and you’re in this thread doing little skits.

She’s winning. Not bad for such an eejit.

She's winning?! Winning what?! I suppose similar bull**** artists such as Katie Hopkins are winning too?!

The Crowman

DickSwiveller wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ColetteKelleher/status/1007531010404298752

Who is this clown?

the purple tin

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I have a fiver bet on half the lads on this thread being the same boring, humourless, obsessive MRA weirdo.

That really touched a nerve!
I put a fiver on Hapax Legomenon being Rosemary McCabe. Oh to hell with it, make it ten!

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Legend

I’ve no intention of discussing details of the most intimate part of my relationship in public. Naturally, you can do what you like.

Haha. Brilliant. You hound me for specifics and when I give them you run away. LON would be proud of your double standards.

I think the key word in your last sentence is relationship. Singular. Maybe if you had a bit more experience with relationships you would have a better understanding of consent during intimate moments.

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Tell me how these consent classes would go. I've asked El Dude but he/she won't explain.

IMO, consent class = if someone tells you no or stop or anything like that, then you stop. If you don't stop then they have every right to get violent and/or go to the police. End of class.

What more is needed? Role playing? I wallet sized card with various phrases that mean no? A certification in consent awareness? A phone app?

I hadn’t realised you asked me what would be in those classes.

I see you save a very simplistic idea of what’s involved. This dialogue is the same as the little skit you did the other day. At the time you said it wasn’t realistic, now you’re back to saying it’s what should be in the class.

Anyway. The whole idea would be to chat about expectations of sex and relationships. For example in the Richy Sadler course given to transition years, he asked for the terms relating to sex, sexual positions and techniques. The list was pages long and involved terms such as Alabama hot pocket, angry pirate, Cleveland steamroller. The i treating thing is that people and lads in particular, are learning about sex and relationships from porn. There’s no chance their parents are telling them about having a **** on a woman and then having sex. So expectations of ‘normal’ are a great place to start the discussion.

So 2people agree to have sex. To one of them, ‘sex’ means vanilla vaginal sex. To the other ‘sex’ means oral, vaginal, cloaking, slapping, spitting, restraining, because that’s what they watch in porn. So they both consent to a completely different set of things.

So there’s already been a miscommunication. Now one person thinks they have consent to do things the other person doesn’t consider themselves to have consented to.

Now one of them is being choked and slapped and thinks they’re being assaulted, the other one is having a great time oblivious to the harm they’re causing. Next day an assault is lodged with the police and both people’s lives are turned upside down as happened with the PJ trial in NI.

So I’d want a course to cover sex and sexual behaviour both ‘vanilla ‘ and more advanced stuff. If they know about it, then don’t allow porn to be the only source of information. So I’d want everything to be valid topic of discussion.

Another good topic would be how do you give consent. How do you know if you’ve given consent and to what have you consented. Role model the type and of behaviour so they know what to expect how to give consent and how to know when you’ve got someone else’s consent.

Those would be some of the topics I’d like to have covered in the class. It’s a bit more in depth than your little skit above. But I think it’s a worthwhile discussion because I think it’s an important topic for men and women.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

She's winning?! Winning what?! I suppose similar bull**** artists such as Katie Hopkins are winning too?!

Winning the argument. For example the biggest single issue I see with consent is the fact that the law only allows for a man to rape. That’s the first thing I’d like to see changed. But the men are t even discussing that because LON isn’t discussing it. She chooses the battlefield because the men aren’t interest d in men’s rights, they’re interested in the fight withLON and her peers. One of the basic tenants in battle is to not allow your opponent to choose when to fight -Sun Tsu etc.

She picks the battlefield she can only win or break even because she’s getting her message out there and she’s controlling the discussion. A man interested in men’s rights would see the battles they want to fight and they’d ignore LON. But the ones who think they’re so clever are just moths to LON’s flame. Pawns in LONs game. Fighting her and giving her the publicity she needs to advance her agenda.

Now these same clowns think consent is a bullsh1t feminist issue. Where I see consent as an important issue for men and women.

Omackeral

the purple tin wrote: »

That really touched a nerve!
I put a fiver on Hapax Legomenon being Rosemary McCabe. Oh to hell with it, make it ten!

Hapax is actually Alison Spittle.

soiseztomabel

The Crowman wrote: »

Who is this clown?

The majority of these people have "goosebumps and tears" on a fairly consistent basis, that term has lost all meaning.

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Legend

I’ve no intention of discussing details of the most intimate part of my relationship in public. Naturally, you can do what you like.

Haha. Brilliant. You hound me for specifics and when I give them you run away. LON would be proud of your double standards.

I think the key word in your last sentence is relationship. Singular. Maybe if you had a bit more experience with relationships you would have a better understanding of consent during intimate moments.

Ive given a detailed description and rationale for done of the topics I’d like to see covered in the course.

I’ve no intention of discussing my relationship. I suppose its hard to have a lot of perspective. I know some of the posters here discussed their experience of relationships and dating with varying degrees of success. I haven’t had experience of loads of dates with different people so I can only discuss it in general terms.

the purple tin

Omackeral wrote: »

Hapax is actually Alison Spittle.

So who is Una Mullally then? Please God don't let it be me!

DickSwiveller

The Crowman wrote: »

Who is this clown?

Some Senator

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Winning the argument. For example the biggest single issue I see with consent is the fact that the law only allows for a man to rape. That’s the first thing I’d like to see changed. But the men are t even discussing that because LON isn’t discussing it. She chooses the battlefield because the men aren’t interest d in men’s rights, they’re interested in the fight withLON and her peers. One of the basic tenants in battle is to not allow your opponent to choose when to fight -Sun Tsu etc.

She picks the battlefield she can only win or break even because she’s getting her message out there and she’s controlling the discussion. A man interested in men’s rights would see the battles they want to fight and they’d ignore LON. But the ones who think they’re so clever are just moths to LON’s flame. Pawns in LONs game. Fighting her and giving her the publicity she needs to advance her agenda.

Now these same clowns think consent is a bullsh1t feminist issue. Where I see consent as an important issue for men and women.

What on earth are you on about? There is no argument, there is no battle. Most right minded people don't take lon seriously.

The problem that most have here have, is that she's given a platform to spout her nonsense unchallenged. She wouldn't even dream of doing what you're doing, i.e. have an actual argument and defend her 'ideas'.

I and others on this thread, have specifically spoke about the hypocrisy in the law on other threads (Belfast trial). And before you say well what have you done about it, about the same as LON does about anything. Put it into words.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ive given a detailed description and rationale for done of the topics I’d like to see covered in the course.

I’ve no intention of discussing my relationship. I suppose its hard to have a lot of perspective. I know some of the posters here discussed their experience of relationships and dating with varying degrees of success. I haven’t had experience of loads of dates with different people so I can only discuss it in general terms.

Precisely the point others have made that is abundantly clear in your posts. You don't have experience and are offering up points which don't make sense in the real world.

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...the biggest single issue I see with consent is the fact that the law only allows for a man to rape. That’s the first thing I’d like to see changed. But the men are t even discussing that because LON isn’t discussing it.

What do you mean 'men aren't discussing it because LON isn't'? Sure the topic around women not legally being capable of rape has been raised many times on Boards and long before LON was on the scene too.

She chooses the battlefield because the men aren’t interest d in men’s rights, they’re interested in the fight with LON and her peers. One of the basic tenants in battle is to not allow your opponent to choose when to fight -Sun Tsu etc.

She picks the battlefield she can only win or break even because she’s getting her message out there and she’s controlling the discussion. A man interested in men’s rights would see the battles they want to fight and they’d ignore LON. But the ones who think they’re so clever are just moths to LON’s flame. Pawns in LONs game. Fighting her and giving her the publicity she needs to advance her agenda.

Again, what you're saying is illogical. Go to tGC and search the threads there and you'll see many issues raised over the years before anyone had ever heard tell of the woman. You're making some quite bizarre statements.

Now these same clowns think consent is a bullsh1t feminist issue. Where I see consent as an important issue for men and women.

No, that's yet another strawman from you. They don't think consent is a "bullsh1t feminist issue" they just think that the narrative which feminists like to create around consent is largely bullsh1t. There's a distinct difference there and it's only natural that you are going to see a lot of rebuttal of things such as affirmative consent discussion because they tend to lead to legislation when not challenged.

Cody montana

givyjoe wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? There is no argument, there is no battle. Most right minded people don't take lon seriously.

The problem that most have here have, is that she's given a platform to spout her nonsense unchallenged. She wouldn't even dream of doing what you're doing, i.e. have an actual argument and defend her 'ideas'.

I and others on this thread, have specifically spoke about the hypocrisy in the law on other threads (Belfast trial). And before you say well what have you done about it, about the same as LON does about anything. Put it into words.

Are you speaking for the majority of people now?
I think she makes some valid points.

givyjoe

Cody montana wrote: »

Are you speaking for the majority of people now?
I think she makes some valid points.

The views expressed by most on this thread regarding LON clearly don't agree with her views. Have you missed the last couple of hundred pages?

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

I and others on this thread, have specifically spoke about the hypocrisy in the law on other threads (Belfast trial). And before you say well what have you done about it, about the same as LON does about anything. Put it into words.

You and she are putting it into words, your publishing on boards, she’s publishing in national papers, national and international radio, theatre production and books.

I know you’re eager to downplay her achievements, but you don’t both have the same influence.

Don’t you think there’s a contradiction in saying that she’s both a national media figure with an unchallenged national multi media platform AND she’s not winning the battle.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You and she are putting it into words, your publishing on boards, she’s publishing in national papers, national and international radio, theatre production and books.

I know you’re eager to downplay her achievements, but you don’t both have the same influence.

Don’t you think there’s a contradiction in saying that she’s both a national media figure with an unchallenged national multi media platform AND she’s not winning the battle.

As I mentioned, there are plenty of non noteworthy published authors and columnists who produce absolute dross.

You're in the vast minority here if you believe that her work is something to be lauded, folks from both 'sides of the argument' have agreed on that.

Again, Katie Hopkins has a platform, she's also full of click bait bile that appeals to certain mob, is she 'winning her argument'?

As her profile rises she'll find it increasingly difficult to hide the bonkers beliefs that underpins it and mainstream will eventually back away slowly.

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I hadn’t realised you asked me what would be in those classes.

I see you save a very simplistic idea of what’s involved. This dialogue is the same as the little skit you did the other day. At the time you said it wasn’t realistic, now you’re back to saying it’s what should be in the class.

Anyway. The whole idea would be to chat about expectations of sex and relationships. For example in the Richy Sadler course given to transition years, he asked for the terms relating to sex, sexual positions and techniques. The list was pages long and involved terms such as Alabama hot pocket, angry pirate, Cleveland steamroller. The i treating thing is that people and lads in particular, are learning about sex and relationships from porn. There’s no chance their parents are telling them about having a **** on a woman and then having sex. So expectations of ‘normal’ are a great place to start the discussion.

So 2people agree to have sex. To one of them, ‘sex’ means vanilla vaginal sex. To the other ‘sex’ means oral, vaginal, cloaking, slapping, spitting, restraining, because that’s what they watch in porn. So they both consent to a completely different set of things.

So there’s already been a miscommunication. Now one person thinks they have consent to do things the other person doesn’t consider themselves to have consented to.

Now one of them is being choked and slapped and thinks they’re being assaulted, the other one is having a great time oblivious to the harm they’re causing. Next day an assault is lodged with the police and both people’s lives are turned upside down as happened with the PJ trial in NI.

So I’d want a course to cover sex and sexual behaviour both ‘vanilla ‘ and more advanced stuff. If they know about it, then don’t allow porn to be the only source of information. So I’d want everything to be valid topic of discussion.

Another good topic would be how do you give consent. How do you know if you’ve given consent and to what have you consented. Role model the type and of behaviour so they know what to expect how to give consent and how to know when you’ve got someone else’s consent.

Those would be some of the topics I’d like to have covered in the class. It’s a bit more in depth than your little skit above. But I think it’s a worthwhile discussion because I think it’s an important topic for men and women.

My "skit" as you call it, is simply summing up what consent is when you break it down. If you don't want to do something then say it. If we all start from that point, there's a lot less confusion.

What you describe above would be great to be discussed in a sex ed class for school kids. Males and females. Getting kids to talk openly and honestly about sex and have them ask questions is a great thing. As long as the person running the class isn't a priest or a nun

The consent classes that I am ridiculing are the ones your mate LON called for. The ones for males at university. That's stupid.

I had no idea a woman can not be legally prosecuted for rape

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, that's yet another strawman from you.

Hardly surprising considering the source.



Followed by...




Common enough "debate" tactic, particularly on matters where whatever side someone takes has more holes than a tennis racket. QV current third wave "feminism" and its acolytes. Certain posters I rarely engage with because of it. Pointless exercise, the lady's not for turning.

Deleted User wrote: »

I had no idea a woman can not be legally prosecuted for rape

Women can be prosecuted for sexual assault alright, but not rape. I would suspect it goes back to the old notion that rape requires penetration of a penis, so if you're not packing one then there's no rape. IIRC that applies even if you're packing a penis, that everything else but penetration by a penis are varying degrees of sexual assault?

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

I had no idea a woman can not be legally prosecuted for rape

Only some countries, of which we're one, but would sure make you wonder what they would charge a woman with if they did commit a violent rape on a guy, as has happened elsewhere. One example would be the Romanian case a few years ago where I woman there raped a cabbie at knife point after he brought her home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxWiBp321mM

Can't find an serious report of the case in English. The following about as good as it gets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hwH8PfCwVU

Another example from the states and also a cab driver strangely enough.

Cody montana

givyjoe wrote: »

The views expressed by most on this thread regarding LON clearly don't agree with her views. Have you missed the last couple of hundred pages?

Sounds like you lot are jealous at her success, sorry.

Ken.

Mod-Earlier today I banned LLMMLL cause s/he was thread banned. I forgot I had lifted the ban some time ago also. Sorry. LLMMLL is free to post here.

LLMMLL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I hadn’t realised you asked me what would be in those classes.

I see you save a very simplistic idea of what’s involved. This dialogue is the same as the little skit you did the other day. At the time you said it wasn’t realistic, now you’re back to saying it’s what should be in the class.

Anyway. The whole idea would be to chat about expectations of sex and relationships. For example in the Richy Sadler course given to transition years, he asked for the terms relating to sex, sexual positions and techniques. The list was pages long and involved terms such as Alabama hot pocket, angry pirate, Cleveland steamroller. The i treating thing is that people and lads in particular, are learning about sex and relationships from porn. There’s no chance their parents are telling them about having a **** on a woman and then having sex. So expectations of ‘normal’ are a great place to start the discussion.

So 2people agree to have sex. To one of them, ‘sex’ means vanilla vaginal sex. To the other ‘sex’ means oral, vaginal, cloaking, slapping, spitting, restraining, because that’s what they watch in porn. So they both consent to a completely different set of things.

So there’s already been a miscommunication. Now one person thinks they have consent to do things the other person doesn’t consider themselves to have consented to.

Now one of them is being choked and slapped and thinks they’re being assaulted, the other one is having a great time oblivious to the harm they’re causing. Next day an assault is lodged with the police and both people’s lives are turned upside down as happened with the PJ trial in NI.

So I’d want a course to cover sex and sexual behaviour both ‘vanilla ‘ and more advanced stuff. If they know about it, then don’t allow porn to be the only source of information. So I’d want everything to be valid topic of discussion.

Another good topic would be how do you give consent. How do you know if you’ve given consent and to what have you consented. Role model the type and of behaviour so they know what to expect how to give consent and how to know when you’ve got someone else’s consent.

Those would be some of the topics I’d like to have covered in the class. It’s a bit more in depth than your little skit above. But I think it’s a worthwhile discussion because I think it’s an important topic for men and women.

It’d also be a good idea to cover non verbal cues. Such as if she’s lying there frozen not making eye contact then there’s probably an issue there.

givyjoe

Cody montana wrote: »

Sounds like you lot are jealous at her success, sorry.

Totes.