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

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah this is getting silly now. She’s winning in so far as she gets her message out on national and international, multi media platforms. The similarities I see between trump Hopkins and LON is that they get their message out in spite of lots of disagreement with them.

She has inspired over 300 pages of discussion on this thread. She’s getting her message out and men aren’t. They’re busy telling each other LON is a big eejit.

It’s funny that some posters tell me I’m wrong and LON is s big problem with their tell me im wrong and LON is irrelevant.

I know, it's funny how people how differing opinions on the same topic. I assume you think the men you have so much disdain for, are just one group of homogeneous lads incapable of individual thought.

You're right, it is getting silly. You keep bizarrely 'making a point' about some battle (apparently LON is winning) that nobody even knew existed. What is your point, that we're all somehow losers? That we can only win if we start getting published?

Silly me on th similarities, i thought we agreed that all 3 were full of poisonous crap.

FingerDeKat

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Tells you what a whitewashed version of Islam we're being sold when Feminists and gays, 2 groups that should be opposed to them are demanding their entry and takeover of our Countries.

Well maybe the Feminists and gays realise it's ar$eholes that belong or idenitify with Isalm that are the problem and not the whole religion.


A point you've missed:rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Well seeing as how I quoted your post #5020 and commented on it, I think it's fairly obvious that I've seen it, read it and thought about it. In it you talked about how one person might have a certain view or expectation on sex from watching porn and how their partner may only be into "vanilla " sex. This was something I addressed in an earlier post when I talked about my experience with anal sex, rimming and bum play. You freaked out, refused to comment on that and admitted you lack experience in having sex with various people. Yet you see fit to talk down to me and tell me I'm clueless about what consent is.

Instead asking about anal sex, I will try to be less specific and graphic for you. Has anyone you have ever dated/been in a relationship with/hooked up with ever tried to get you to do something that you weren't comfortable with? Or have you wanted to do something your partner wasn't comfortable with? What happened? How was it approached? What was said? What was the re-action?

Ok. I didn’t see your reply. What post no. is it?

Like I said earlier, I don’t intend to go into any detail on the most intimate aspect of my relationship. What do you want to know? Do you want to know how I discuss consent in my relationship? I talk about it. Verbally. Using my words. Simples.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

I know, it's funny how people how differing opinions on the same topic. I assume you think the men you have so much disdain for, are just one group of homogeneous lads incapable of individual thought.

You're right, it is getting silly. You keep bizarrely 'making a point' about some battle (apparently LON is winning) that nobody even knew existed. What is your point, that we're all somehow losers? That we can only win if we start getting published?

Silly me on th similarities, i thought we agreed that all 3 were full of poisonous crap.

No, the funny part is that they disagree with each other but instead of discussing their opinions with each other they both tell me their opinions.

If you can’t see the difference in societal impact between posting on boards and publishing books, a play, and national and international written, radio and tv appearances, then I’ve no idea what to tell you.

She’s getting her message out there, you’re not by comparison. It’s amusing that she’s considered such a subject of ridicule when she’s going so successfully, something that none of her ridiculers are doing.

You don’t have to agree with anything she says to acknowledge that she gets her message out there to a large audience.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No, the funny part is that they disagree with each other but instead of discussing their opinions with each other they both tell me their opinions.

If you can’t see the difference in societal impact between posting on boards and publishing books, a play, and national and international written, radio and tv appearances, then I’ve no idea what to tell you.

She’s getting her message out there, you’re not by comparison. It’s amusing that she’s considered such a subject of ridicule when she’s going so successfully, something that none of her ridiculers are doing.

You don’t have to agree with anything she says to acknowledge that she gets her message out there to a large audience.

How any of the above equates to winning is absolutely baffling. Societal impact?! Give me a break. Fyi, you're also not 'getting your message out there'. Anyway, back to Ignoring you. Engaging with you is utterly pointless.

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. I didn’t see your reply. What post no. is it?

Like I said earlier, I don’t intend to go into any detail on the most intimate aspect of my relationship. What do you want to know? Do you want to know how I discuss consent in my relationship? I talk about it. Verbally. Using my words. Simples.

I don't know what post number it is. It's obviously somewhere after your post #5020 so go to the one after it and start reading. You'll find my response.

You don't intend to go into any detail. Yet you demand specifics of others. You discuss consent. Verbally. Using your words. Did you do learn that in a class? Do you ask consent at every stage? Do you ensure continuous consent during the act? Does he/she ever say "no I don't want to do that"? Do you?

py2006

Silence is often the loudest response folks...

JohnMc1

FingerDeKat wrote: »

Well maybe the Feminists and gays realise it's ar$eholes that belong or idenitify with Isalm that are the problem and not the whole religion.


A point you've missed:rolleyes:

The whole Religion is anti-Woman and anti-Gay. No wonder its the fastest growing religion in Ireland. Naive people like you defending them.

AllForIt

Wink Wink
Up for it smile
What's the craic
Giggles Giggles
Would you like to come back to mine
Sure
Bedroom is upstairs
I'll follow you
Sorry bout the state of my bedroom
That's ok
Smoochy smoocky
Smoochy smoochy back
Your georgous
I know
Smoochy smoochy some more
Smoochy smoocky some more back
Excuse me, would you mind if I fk you, I can't tell from the signals your sending out if you wanted to take this further although the fact your naked in my bed would indicate you might be so inclined given that women do like that sort of think just like men do...so is that a yes or a no...I'm getting limp now.. you better make your mind up soon before I go off the idea.

To be continued....

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Well seeing as how I quoted your post #5020 and commented on it, I think it's fairly obvious that I've seen it, read it and thought about it. In it you talked about how one person might have a certain view or expectation on sex from watching porn and how their partner may only be into "vanilla " sex. This was something I addressed in an earlier post when I talked about my experience with anal sex, rimming and bum play. You freaked out, refused to comment on that and admitted you lack experience in having sex with various people. Yet you see fit to talk down to me and tell me I'm clueless about what consent is.

Instead asking about anal sex, I will try to be less specific and graphic for you. Has anyone you have ever dated/been in a relationship with/hooked up with ever tried to get you to do something that you weren't comfortable with? Or have you wanted to do something your partner wasn't comfortable with? What happened? How was it approached? What was said? What was the re-action?

I find it interesting that the people who are so sure of what consent entails in a dating environment are those people not active in a dating environment, or need to blow the dust off their experience(s). Just as the people who will teach these consent classes are likely going to be people who have fond distant memories of what dating entails, or met their sweetheart pretty early in life.

It seems that limited experience on a subject doesn't stop them from being an expert. :rolleyes:

MikeyTaylor

How is the new TV station coming along?

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No, the funny part is that they disagree with each other but instead of discussing their opinions with each other they both tell me their opinions.

If you can’t see the difference in societal impact between posting on boards and publishing books, a play, and national and international written, radio and tv appearances, then I’ve no idea what to tell you.

She’s getting her message out there, you’re not by comparison. It’s amusing that she’s considered such a subject of ridicule when she’s going so successfully, something that none of her ridiculers are doing.

You don’t have to agree with anything she says to acknowledge that she gets her message out there to a large audience.

How any of the above equates to winning is absolutely baffling. Societal impact?! Give me a break. Fyi, you're also not 'getting your message out there'. Anyway, back to Ignoring you. Engaging with you is utterly pointless.

Of course not I’m not ‘ getting my message out there’ compared to LON. She has international multimedia. I have Boards. Obviously she reaches more people than I do.

The idea that she isn’t influential is completely undermined by each one of the 300+ pages of this thread. It’s f you don’t think she’s getting her message out there, why is there such a huge response to her output? She can hardly be both irrelevant and the subject of 300+ pages of this thread.

It’s amusing that she can be viewed as both. It’s both a shame and it’s amusing to view as an observer.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Well seeing as how I quoted your post #5020 and commented on it, I think it's fairly obvious that I've seen it, read it and thought about it. In it you talked about how one person might have a certain view or expectation on sex from watching porn and how their partner may only be into "vanilla " sex. This was something I addressed in an earlier post when I talked about my experience with anal sex, rimming and bum play. You freaked out, refused to comment on that and admitted you lack experience in having sex with various people. Yet you see fit to talk down to me and tell me I'm clueless about what consent is.

Instead asking about anal sex, I will try to be less specific and graphic for you. Has anyone you have ever dated/been in a relationship with/hooked up with ever tried to get you to do something that you weren't comfortable with? Or have you wanted to do something your partner wasn't comfortable with? What happened? How was it approached? What was said? What was the re-action?

I find it interesting that the people who are so sure of what consent entails in a dating environment are those people not active in a dating environment, or need to blow the dust off their experience(s). Just as the people who will teach these consent classes are likely going to be people who have fond distant memories of what dating entails, or met their sweetheart pretty early in life.

It seems that limited experience on a subject doesn't stop them from being an expert. :rolleyes:

Should we rely on those who can’t secure a relationship to teach us about relationships? Lol.

I’m perfectly sure they’re willing to pontificate til the proverbial cows come home. But I’m not sure you want to take their opinions as anything but comedy.

They can be amusing if nothing else.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Should we rely on those who can’t secure a relationship to teach us about relationships? Lol.

Except, that the vast majority of the issues being raised about consent are not related to those in actual relationships. The issues are being raised regarding casual dating, casual sex/ons, etc.

And while I'm a Bachelor at 41... I'm not in a relationship by choice. Since I've had them previously and found I wasn't terribly interested in enduring the experience long-term. Your belief that people all want to be in relationships, or else they're incapable of doing so, is extremely naive.

I’m perfectly sure they’re willing to pontificate til the proverbial cows come home. But I’m not sure you want to take their opinions as anything but comedy.

They can be amusing if nothing else.

And yet, Consent classes will be brought in. That's pretty much assured, considering the amount of debate and the lack of any "other" effective measures being brought into play to tackle this wave of female vulnerability towards men.

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. You publish your thoughts on boards, she published her thoughts on national multimedia. One of you is winning that little battle.

You said that "men are't even discussing that because LON isn’t discussing it" and my reply was to point out that they very much are and indeed have been long before Louise O'Neill was on the scene... and your response to that is the above remark?

Ah no. TGC is littered with anti feminism. The conflation of anti feminism with men’s rights is on display in TGC. There’s very little men’s issues compared to rebutting feminists.

One of the main obstacles in the way of what you call 'Men's rights' is third wave feminist rhetoric / professional lobbying, given that it has led to quite sexist legislation being drafted. There are many examples also of feminists standing in the way of legislation being implemented that would have rectified such imbalances. Complaining about anti-third-wave-feminism on a forum where guys are discussing a wide variety of issues they contend with today is a bit like complaining about an anti-KKK sentiment at an American civil rights meeting in the 1920's. Oh and that's an analogy now before you fall over yourself suggesting I'm equating the two.

Allowing the feminists to pick the battlefield.

Out of one side of your mouth your whinge about men complaining about today's feminists and then out of the other you're soapboxing about how feminists are winning "the battle". I don't think I've ever seen someone say contradictory things as much as you do.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet, Consent classes will be brought in. That's pretty much assured, considering the amount of debate and the lack of any "other" effective measures being brought into play to tackle this wave of female vulnerability towards men.

Now that is true. This is what I’ve been saying all along and I’m delighted you agree. This discussion is happening and things are changing. LON and her peers are moving that conversation forward and helping shape it by pushing their issues. It’s a shame there aren’t more men’s groups out there pushing their issues like the rape law re men being the one not ones who can rape.

That law is a national disgrace and would be ripe for campaigning, awareness raising and eventually legal change. But we’ll have to wait for LON and her peers to bring it up because they’re aren’t any men’s issues campaigners who have a platform and readership of LON.

She’s such an eejit with her awareness raising and social influence and her multimedia platforms. I wish there were some men’s issues campaigners who were as big an eejit as her.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You said that "men are't even discussing that because LON isn’t discussing it" and my reply was to point out that they very much are and indeed have been long before Louise O'Neill was on the scene... and your response to that is the above remark?

Ah no. TGC is littered with anti feminism. The conflation of anti feminism with men’s rights is on display in TGC. There’s very little men’s issues compared to rebutting feminists.

One of the main obstacles in the way of what you call 'Men's rights' is third wave feminist rhetoric / professional lobbying, given that it has led to quite sexist legislation being drafted. There are many examples also of feminists standing in the way of legislation being implemented that would have rectified such imbalances. Complaining about anti-third-wave-feminism on a forum where guys are discussing a wide variety of issues they contend with today is a bit like complaining about an anti-KKK sentiment at an American civil rights meeting in the 1920's for me. That's an analogy now before you fall over yourself suggesting I equated the two.

Allowing the feminists to pick the battlefield.

Out of one side of your mouth your whinge about men complaining about today's feminists and then out of the other you're soapboxing about how feminists are winning "the battle". I don't think I've ever seen someone say contradictory things as much as you do.

Yeah. LON is having these discussions on national newspapers, Tv, radio, books and stage productions. Of course she has social influence. Posting on boards is good, but it’s not the same as LON’s platform. She’s in a position to really impact the public debate and contribute her ideas to it. Posting on boards is good but it’s hardly comparable to LON’s platform.

Look, LON and the feminists get things done. They lobby successfully you acknowledged that in your post above. Arguing against them is grand but it isn’t the same as actually agitating FOR changes you want.

As I said above the biggest problem and the first issue id like to see addressed is the law that only recognises men as capable of rape. But instead we’re discussing consent and how to revamp the sex education. That’s directly because of the work LON and her peers are doing to push for consent education. We’re discussing what should/should t be in a sexual ed class. Parliament is taking evidence from groups who want to contribute to the sex Ed course. The feminists picked that battlefield, and they are achieving their victory. It’s impossible to deny. It’s actually happening right now.

If you can’t see the difference between rebutting LON on whatever she wants to talk about and actively pushing for things like changing the laws around rape, then I don’t know what to tell you.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it interesting that the people who are so sure of what consent entails in a dating environment are those people not active in a dating environment, or need to blow the dust off their experience(s). Just as the people who will teach these consent classes are likely going to be people who have fond distant memories of what dating entails, or met their sweetheart pretty early in life.

It seems that limited experience on a subject doesn't stop them from being an expert. :rolleyes:

Likewise, being single doesn’t stop posters from giving their opinion on women and relationships. Nor should it stop them. They’re perfectly entitled to give their opinions. Readers are free to take their opinions seriously or smugly read them for entertainment.

The ones who shape and deliver the course are going to be the ones who most actively agitate. In this environment that will almost certainly be feminists because they’re successfully agitating and campaigning.

It’s amusing that I’m wrong for saying LON and her peers have influence, but then people also acknowledge the success of LON and her peers in campaigning for change. The current sex ed revamp is a prime example of their success.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now that is true. This is what I’ve been saying all along and I’m delighted you agree. This discussion is happening and things are changing. LON and her peers are moving that conversation forward and helping shape it by pushing their issues. It’s a shame there aren’t more men’s groups out there pushing their issues like the rape law re men being the one not ones who can rape.

Oh, it is possible for us to agree on certain things. However, whenever you expand on your point, you tend to lose my agreement.

Consent classes will happen because government agencies tend to follow the feminist mandate. Our Academia/universities are following the same way as the US where we're seeing quotas to put in more women than men in the name of "equality".

LON is just an expression of this movement. An extreme expression by Irish standards. If we were in the US, her equivalent would be one of those foaming in the mouth man haters who live in a trailer park.

That law is a national disgrace and would be ripe for campaigning, awareness raising and eventually legal change. But we’ll have to wait for LON and her peers to bring it up because they’re aren’t any men’s issues campaigners who have a platform and readership of LON.

She’s such an eejit with her awareness raising and social influence and her multimedia platforms. I wish there were some men’s issues campaigners who were as big an eejit as her.

The law isn't a criminal disgrace. Most of it anyway. Sentencing is a disgrace, and that's an issue across the board. Although I also do find the attitude to sentencing for false rape claims to be a disgrace.....

And you could drop the sarcasm... you're not very good at it. (Neither am I, btw.)

Will I Am Not

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Likewise, being single doesn’t stop posters from giving their opinion on women and relationships. Nor should it stop them. They’re perfectly entitled to give their opinions. Readers are free to take their opinions seriously or smugly read them for entertainment.

The difference is when we go beyond voicing opinions, and their opinions become policy.

The ones who shape and deliver the course are going to be the ones who most actively agitate. In this environment that will almost certainly be feminists because they’re successfully agitating and campaigning.

Yup. I notice though you're skipping past the other points I made.

It’s amusing that I’m wrong for saying LON and her peers have influence, but then people also acknowledge the success of LON and her peers in campaigning for change. The current sex ed revamp is a prime example of their success.

Of course, they have influence. You're chasing the obvious point. Our local drunk who shouts at the corner of Library square on all of his life issues has influence. Some people do stop, listen, and agree with him. Most don't. Thankfully.

Love how you're attributing the sex ed revamp to LON. Just because she's a feminist, she shares all the victories of the overall movement... but when it comes to the more toxic side of things, we're told that feminism is a varied movement with different parts. Funny. :rolleyes:

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

I just got invited to see this play at the weekend. My friend is involved in the production. May even get to meet the lovely lady herself :pac:
I’m thinking of excuses as we speak.

Didn’t end up going to this because, well because I’d rather cheesegrate my eyeballs than sit through this crap.
I wished my friend luck and went to the cinema instead. Saw Deadpool 2. Very good. Would recommend.

LLMMLL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you can’t see the difference between rebutting LON on whatever she wants to talk about and actively pushing for things like changing the laws around rape, then I don’t know what to tell you.

The guys on this thread don’t care about changing laws around rape or any other men’s issue. All they want to do is nitpick LON.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Love how you're attributing the sex ed revamp to LON. Just because she's a feminist, she shares all the victories of the overall movement... but when it comes to the more toxic side of things, we're told that feminism is a varied movement with different parts. Funny. :rolleyes:

Usually it’s because the individual being discussed has contributed in some way or has attempted to contribute (someone’s contribution is hard to measure in these things).

For example, if I went door to door campaigning for repeal the 8th, it wouldn’t be odd to say that there was an element of victory for me in the referendum result.

It would be odd however to link me to some crazy who thinks we should be able to kill children up to 1 year after birth.

One is linking a person to something they believe (and campaign for). The other is linking them to something they disagree with.

MikeyTaylor

Wonder will the play be airing on LON & LW's TV station?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

One is linking a person to something they believe (and campaign for). The other is linking them to something they disagree with.

It's cherry picking depending on the current argument. That's all.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

The guys on this thread don’t care about changing laws around rape or any other men’s issue. All they want to do is nitpick LON.

Pretty sweeping statement there, considering you know very little about the posters here. Many of us could actually be active in the area of Men's rights, or have genuine interest in rape laws. After all, they're issues that could affect us directly.. But then that's not the point of your statement. It's continuing the dismissal of male opinions on subjects that feminists feel they should have total say over.

AfterLife

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many of us could actually be active in the area of Men's rights

No surprise there. What's the story withe the mens rights lads hating women?

givyjoe

AfterLife wrote: »

No surprise there. What's the story withe the mens rights lads hating women?

Who?

AfterLife

AfterLife wrote: »

No surprise there. What's the story withe the mens rights lads hating women?

That would be the MGTOW guys then (although MGTOW isn't a mens rights movement as such)? Or the more extreme Mens rights movements that came from bad marriage divorces, and child settlement cases?

Men's rights groups tend to focus on certain issues that relate to their own particular groups. So, those groups that are campaigning for divorce or child custody reform tend to attract those men who are probably bitter for how they were treated.

On the flip side, there are plenty of groups who don't hate women and are actually seeking equal rights for both genders as opposed to superior rights.