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

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Accidental rape WTF?!?

"Sorry officer, it was an accident. I didn't intend to rape her. My penis has a mind of its own."

I can only assume they're referring to a situation where the rapist isn't aware the other party doesn't consent, similar to the Paddy Jackson case.

RabbleRouser2k

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Wrong there.

George Hook for one tried to explain how women can keep themselves safe and lost his job for it.

Face it dude, you're on the wrong side here - LON and her ilk are destroying men's lives daily and rarely getting called out on their crap.

Well, he got moved to weekends, after a 'suspension' for want of a better word. That Dil woman (if I have her name right) lost her job to Hook, mainly because she played the victim, and refused to work. So Hook came off easy, an the usual braying 'believe/ protect women etc' were punished. I actually think that incident blew up in their faces, tbqh.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s the old school view of rape alright. Where rape involves a sycophant who intentionally rapes without empathy. That’s one of the problems alright and I must thank you for summarising it do succinctly.

Tell Paddy Jackson that rape and consent are clear cut issues that don’t need to be explained or discussed with children. I bet you anything he would disagree with you.

Generally speaking, rape is without empathy. There's no consideration for the other individual. Even a 'ooh-better make sure she doesn't hit her head there' shows more empathy for someone than a rapist will.

You mean the guy who was found not guilty?
Can we be sure that that wasn't 'regret' rather than rape? I mean, we have a witness who said it wasn't rape.

The guys were completely unlikable-but so are alot of people. But are they rapists?

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not necessarily at all. You teach drivers to drive safely to avoid drivers hitting pedestrians through negligence, accident, or lack of due care. We also teach pedestrians how to stay safe. It doesn’t take intention to hit a pedestrian nor does it take intention to commit a rape.

Working with one group doesn’t assume the worst of the other group. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Accidental rape WTF?!?

"Sorry officer, it was an accident. I didn't intend to rape her. My penis has a mind of its own."

Chortle chortle chortle. It happens. Not the cartoonish way you portrayed obviously. Misunderstandings about consent happen now regularly than you’d think. It’s actually a fairly important thing for the man who’s involved in the misunderstanding because his reputation and freedom are in jeopardy.

You make you little joke to deflect from the seriousness. I actually think it’s an important isssue for both men and women

Tell you what you could do. Ignore or ridicule the issue and then when it goes wrong, cry victim on behalf of all men as happped earlier in the thread. That way you get to have your cake and eat it. Whatever happens, don’t support serious discussion. That might help sort out the issue and you’d lose your victimhood.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a difference between teaching consent classes (which I'm fully in support of) and teaching "boys not to rape"

Delighted to hear you’re so enlightened. You want to hear the squeals in the men’s forum when the idea of discussing consent was brought up. It sounded like a pork scratchings factory. Lol.

Phrase it whatever way you like. Discussion of consent with young people In particular is actually very interesting and important.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Delighted to hear you’re so enlightened. You want to hear the squeals in the men’s forum when the idea of discussing consent was brought up. It sounded like a pork scratchings factory. Lol.

Phrase it whatever way you like. Discussion of consent with young people In particular is actually very interesting and important.

The issue is imho with the classes the way its going to be taught, if its telling women to be careful, be aware of surroundings, look after mates, consequences of lying/false claims and fellas no means no, stay away from those who're blitzed out of their mind and the consequences, fine...but if its going to be a feminist political agenda, where its men are evil and all potential rapists, women are the victims, have the power and can change their mind that's where I have the issue with,, id be very vary of who'd teach this as well, wouldn't want a religious windbag or a 3rd wave feminist teaching it

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Delighted to hear you’re so enlightened. You want to hear the squeals in the men’s forum when the idea of discussing consent was brought up. It sounded like a pork scratchings factory. Lol.

Phrase it whatever way you like. Discussion of consent with young people In particular is actually very interesting and important.

Phrase it whatever way I like? LON stated "we need to teach our young boys not to rape". This is what we are arguing about. That's needlessly inflammatory and insulting.

Signore Fancy Pants

Whoa whoa whoa!!!!

Hold on a minute now, don't rape? Is that what she said, "don't rape"?

Is she sure? What a dope.

<sarcasm alert>

El_Duderino 09

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

The issue is imho with the classes the way its going to be taught, if its telling women to be careful, be aware of surroundings, look after mates, consequences of lying/false claims and fellas no means no, stay away from those who're blitzed out of their mind and the consequences, fine...but if its going to be a feminist political agenda, where its men are evil and all potential rapists, women are the victims, have the power and can change their mind that's where I have the issue with,, id be very vary of who'd teach this as well, wouldn't want a religious windbag or a 3rd wave feminist teaching it

It’ll be designed by the people who care about the content. The clownish response above about your Micky having a mind of its own is the kind of response ive come to expect unfortunately. But feminists care about this type of thing so it would almost certainly be designed by feminists. Simply because they take it seriously as an issue.

If you wanted to design a course on how dreadful feminists are, then you’d have no problem recruiting men from boards. But something important like consent wouldn’t get many men excited, taking the ones who whinge about these issues as nausium as a sample.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Phrase it whatever way I like? LON stated "we need to teach our young boys not to rape". This is what we are arguing about. That's needlessly inflammatory and insulting.

Yeah phrase it whatever way you like. Maybe you’re going to allow LON to have free reign on the course content, all to herself. I didn’t think you’d take her so seriously to allow her to have that much power. I probably wouldn’t appoint any one person to design the course content tbh.

I think discussing consent is a great idea.

RabbleRouser2k

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’ll be designed by the people who care about the content. The clownish response above about your Micky having a mind of its own is the kind of response ive come to expect unfortunately. But feminists care about this type of thing so it would almost certainly be designed by feminists. Simply because they take it seriously as an issue.

If you wanted to design a course on how dreadful feminists are, then you’d have no problem recruiting men from boards. But something important like consent wouldn’t get many men excited, taking the ones who whinge about these issues as nausium as a sample.

I'd have intriguing questions about consent classes-personally I think it could be woven into sex education within secondary schools.
But I would want an equal delivery of these classes-as in instruct boys and girls that consent is a two way street, that it's down to clear consent indicators.

Let them ask questions as much as possible, let them be informed, give em 'scenarios' that allow them see how outcomes can vary. But be realistic, show that there are verbal and non verbal cues, and a clear 'stop' vs a flirty 'stahp'.

But teach them that it's a two way street-consent is like everything, it has to be clearly given. Whether you're a man or a woman, it has to be clear.

What I don't want to see is LON's 'you're a rapist cos you're male'. When she made appearances at secondary schools, the teachers and many female students called her out on her bias and 'male blaming'.

Atoms for Peace

What is this Louise O'Neill ye speak of? To have amased a thread of this magnitude, did she cure cancer or something.

RabbleRouser2k

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

What is this Louise O'Neill ye speak of? To have amased a thread of this magnitude, did she cure cancer or something.

Nope, Louise is the disease, common sense is the cure.

Pug160

Consent classes sound like a dreadful idea. It's a very basic principle that doesn't require a slot in the school curriculum. I would actually be more in favour of assertiveness classes for both sexes if anything. But in all honestly, these things should be instilled in young people by their parents and family circle first and foremost.

RabbleRouser2k

Pug160 wrote: »

Consent classes sound like a dreadful idea. It's a very basic principle that doesn't require a slot in the school curriculum. I would actually be more in favour of assertiveness classes for both sexes if anything. But in all honestly, these things should be instilled in young people by their parents and family circle first and foremost.

Agreed-but unfortunately, considering schools have to teach sex ed, I imagine there's a reason for it.
I personally think it should be woven into sex. Ed. Since it is part and parcel.

Pug160

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Agreed-but unfortunately, considering schools have to teach sex ed, I imagine there's a reason for it.
I personally think it should be woven into sex. Ed. Since it is part and parcel.

I just see disaster written all over it, although I hope I'm wrong. I'm guessing it would be a somewhat embarrassing experience for some teachers' as well, especially as most of them will be women. To me it just sounds like it would be rather unpleasant and degrading for all involved.

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

I can only assume they're referring to a situation where the rapist isn't aware the other party doesn't consent, similar to the Paddy Jackson case.

Or gives consent, but later regrets doing so, or forgets that they did so, and in the cold light of day presumes that they wouldnt have.

RabbleRouser2k

Pug160 wrote: »

I just see disaster written all over it, although I hope I'm wrong. I'm guessing it would be a somewhat embarrassing experience for some teachers' as well, especially as most of them will be women. To me it just sounds like it would be rather unpleasant and degrading for all involved.

Sex education was embarrassing and degrading for all involved, tbh. At least it was when I went through it. Consent classes won't be much different.

Some times you had the young teachers, who were straight outta training, having to teach it-and the one I had, in my class, was 'waiting' for marriage-as in 'no sex before marriage'. (I knew her brother, so it must have been embarassing for him. ). Tbf to her, she stated it was 'what she believed was right for her', rather than saying it was right for everyone.

Pug160

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sex education was embarrassing and degrading for all involved, tbh. At least it was when I went through it. Consent classes won't be much different.

Some times you had the young teachers, who were straight outta training, having to teach it-and the one I had, in my class, was 'waiting' for marriage-as in 'no sex before marriage'. (I knew her brother, so it must have been embarassing for him. ). Tbf to her, she stated it was 'what she believed was right for her', rather than saying it was right for everyone.

It sounds like something some teachers' might make up as well to avoid further embarrassment, especially if they're asked any personal questions.

RabbleRouser2k

Pug160 wrote: »

It sounds like something some teachers' might make up as well to avoid further embarrassment, especially if they're asked any personal questions.

Oh, I completely understand that. But I knew her, her brother went to school with mine, and she wasn't gonna lie about that. (Nobody asked her about the 'sex before marriage thing', she brought it up. She was pretty honest about stuff, tbh. Most teachers were.)

The school I went to, pretty much everyone knew everything about the teachers-for example one's marriage broke up, and she started dating another teacher.
Another two were dating. One was serially pregnant-like she would go away on maternity leave, barely be back a month or two, and then be pregnant again.

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Chortle chortle chortle. It happens. Not the cartoonish way you portrayed obviously. Misunderstandings about consent happen now regularly than you’d think. It’s actually a fairly important thing for the man who’s involved in the misunderstanding because his reputation and freedom are in jeopardy.

You make you little joke to deflect from the seriousness. I actually think it’s an important isssue for both men and women

Tell you what you could do. Ignore or ridicule the issue and then when it goes wrong, cry victim on behalf of all men as happped earlier in the thread. That way you get to have your cake and eat it. Whatever happens, don’t support serious discussion. That might help sort out the issue and you’d lose your victimhood.

I agree it's a serious issue so hearing a prominent feminist say that boys need to be taught not to rape is bull****. Then her fans say rape can be accidental. Wtf! Of course I'll ridicule those statements because they're stupid. Treat it seriously. Teach boys and girls about consent. Don't claim males need to be taught not to rape. That's like saying they need to be taught that murder is bad.

El_Duderino 09

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I'd have intriguing questions about consent classes-personally I think it could be woven into sex education within secondary schools.
But I would want an equal delivery of these classes-as in instruct boys and girls that consent is a two way street, that it's down to clear consent indicators.

Let them ask questions as much as possible, let them be informed, give em 'scenarios' that allow them see how outcomes can vary. But be realistic, show that there are verbal and non verbal cues, and a clear 'stop' vs a flirty 'stahp'.

But teach them that it's a two way street-consent is like everything, it has to be clearly given. Whether you're a man or a woman, it has to be clear.

What I don't want to see is LON's 'you're a rapist cos you're male'. When she made appearances at secondary schools, the teachers and many female students called her out on her bias and 'male blaming'.

How humble of you to declare your questions intriguing.

Of course the discussion should include the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

I think you’d be inclined to disadvantage your male peers by telling them it’s fine to ignore an ‘ah stahp’. Try explaining to a judge that the woman didn’t say stop, she said more of an ‘ah stahp’. So it’s clearly not rape, your honour.

With the respect I feel is due to you, I don’t think you’re the person to tutor men or women on the finer points of consent with that attitude. I think you’d be doing them a disservice tbh.

Peter Denham

Can we have classes on how to not murder people while we're at it? Ted Bundy might have benefited from someone telling him murder is wrong.

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I agree it's a serious issue so hearing a prominent feminist say that boys need to be taught not to rape is bull****. Then her fans say rape can be accidental. Wtf! Of course I'll ridicule those statements because they're stupid. Treat it seriously. Teach boys and girls about consent. Don't claim males need to be taught not to rape. That's like saying they need to be taught that murder is bad.

Murder is your example. You don’t think people are charged with unlawful killing without intending it? How blissfully naive you must be.

People would be much better served if they were taught their rights and responsibilities around self defence. Likewise with consent.

But some people are blinded by their dislike of people who wake the issue of consent seriously that they need to be cajoled to have a discussion about consent.

A reliably thanked post is one that says ‘don’t rape and anyone, simply’

But the reality is so much more nuanced than that. And the feminists take that nuance seriously so obviously they have the monopoly on the conversation because they actually engage in the chat without belittling it.

El_Duderino 09

Peter Denham wrote: »

Can we have classes on how to not murder people while we're at it? Ted Bundy might have benefited from someone telling him murder is wrong.

Ted bunny definitely wouldn’t have benefited from it. He was a psychopath. If all people convicted of murder were psychopaths then you’d face a great point. Alas, reality.

You can imagine young lads going through porn hub going "oh, she's definitely consenting.."

RabbleRouser2k

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ted bunny definitely wouldn’t have benefited from it. He was a psychopath. If all people convicted of murder were psychopaths then you’d face a great point. Alas, reality.

Who's Ted bunny? Is this a storybook teaching kids about not being murderers? The big book of 'don't murder' for children?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How humble of you to declare your questions intriguing.

Of course the discussion should include the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

I think you’d be inclined to disadvantage your male peers by telling them it’s fine to ignore an ‘ah stahp’. Try explaining to a judge that the woman didn’t say stop, she said more of an ‘ah stahp’. So it’s clearly not rape, your honour.

With the respect I feel is due to you, I don’t think you’re the person to tutor men or women on the finer points of consent with that attitude. I think you’d be doing them a disservice tbh.

I know, right? Super humble of me to be intrigued by myself. Proud of myself.

We're agreed on that-the rights and responsibilities I mean.

I'm not saying 'ignore it'-I'm saying know flirting vs a firm 'stop'. Even if someone says 'stahp'...and you stop, maybe it's important to acknowledge that you needed clearer consent. After that point, you took my post way into territory that required such a leap in logic, I had to reread your post multiple times to understand it.
A rapist won't ever consider the other person-it's the whole deal of what makes a rapist, a rapist.

I can't possibly tutor anyone on consent-I mean, there's no curriculum, so how am I gonna teach that?

But then again, you're just itching for a fight, so I won't be playing along anymore. g'nite.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

You can imagine young lads going through porn hub going "oh, she's definitely consenting.."

I suppose it actually needs to be said that porn is acting. But unwittingly you’ve touched on an interesting point about the influence of porn.

I don’t suppose you realised the importance of the point but I thank you for bringing it up.

El_Duderino 09

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ted bunny definitely wouldn’t have benefited from it. He was a psychopath. If all people convicted of murder were psychopaths then you’d face a great point. Alas, reality.

Who's Ted bunny? Is this a storybook teaching kids about not being murderers? The big book of 'don't murder' for children?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How humble of you to declare your questions intriguing.

Of course the discussion should include the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

I think you’d be inclined to disadvantage your male peers by telling them it’s fine to ignore an ‘ah stahp’. Try explaining to a judge that the woman didn’t say stop, she said more of an ‘ah stahp’. So it’s clearly not rape, your honour.

With the respect I feel is due to you, I don’t think you’re the person to tutor men or women on the finer points of consent with that attitude. I think you’d be doing them a disservice tbh.

I know, right? Super humble of me to be intrigued by myself. Proud of myself.

We're agreed on that-the rights and responsibilities I mean.

I'm not saying 'ignore it'-I'm saying know flirting vs a firm 'stop'. Even if someone says 'stahp'...and you stop, maybe it's important to acknowledge that you needed clearer consent. After that point, you took my post way into territory that required such a leap in logic, I had to reread your post multiple times to understand it.
A rapist won't ever consider the other person-it's the whole deal of what makes a rapist, a rapist.

I can't possibly tutor anyone on consent-I mean, there's no curriculum, so how am I gonna teach that?

But then again, you're just itching for a fight, so I won't be playing along anymore. g'nite.

G’night.

But got that it’s worth. I consider this a serious topic so I take a t more seriously than the clown with the ‘my Micky had a mind of its own’ comment.

Oh no. You were making a clear distinction between ‘stop’ and ‘ah Stahp’. I don’t think such a distinction is easily made in law so you’d be doing men a serious disservice be trying to draw the distinction you thought was so obvious.

Like I said, with the respect that’s due, I don’t think you’re approach strikes the right balance between rights and responsibilities. Especially considering how flippant you are about it. But that’s what I’ve come to expect from posters who whinge about this stuff continuously, unfortunately. The least interested in actually discussing the topic.

Peter Denham

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ted bunny definitely wouldn’t have benefited from it. He was a psychopath. If all people convicted of murder were psychopaths then you’d face a great point. Alas, reality.

Well, I would argue that most people that commit murder are aware that it's wrong but do it anyway. Which would render any kind of childhood education useless, as bad people will do bad things even though they are aware it's wrong. Alas, reality.

You also mentioned Paddy Jackson may have benefited from these classes, he concealed his attitude towards women very well from public but for his texts became part of the trial, why would he conceal this side of him if he thought it was perfectly normal behaviour?

El_Duderino 09

Peter Denham wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ted bunny definitely wouldn’t have benefited from it. He was a psychopath. If all people convicted of murder were psychopaths then you’d face a great point. Alas, reality.

Well, I would argue that most people that commit murder are aware that it's wrong but do it anyway. Which would render any kind of childhood education useless, as bad people will do bad things even though they are aware it's wrong. Alas, reality.

How clever of you.

I remember a bloke in the next town up for me who punched a guy who hit his head on a kerb and died. He went to prison.

Explain the nuances to that guy in prison. I’m sure he’d love to hear about how trivial it all is.

But I bet he actually would have loved to have knows about what could get you into trouble with the law before he killed someone by accident.