Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

tritium

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Well if he had a young child to be fed it might knock some of the urge to be with the best mate every minute of the day.

I'm making the point 22 is old enough to have cop on.

19 isn’t?

tritium

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

You mean two players who allegedly had a consensual threesome after a night out?

That has to be what you mean because what you’re suggesting there would be very close to libelous.

As I recall it came out because tthe young lady in that case was on Facebook boasting about her exploits. I’m sure that must make her a misandrist with terrible attitudes to men.....

flatty

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

Did he support them though? He never made any comment on this, and what happened with those guys did not result in a court case. That's the difference-those two didn't end up in court accused of a crime. Despite the acquittal, too many questions have emerged since then-and the Whatsapp messages amongst other things left many people with questions.

How you can compare the Magdalene Laundries to a court case I find bizarre. In fact, in 'ye olden days' it was the girl at the center of the case who would have ended up in the Laundries-not the two guys.

In fact, many rape victims (not that I'm alleging the woman at the center of the case was or was not raped) would have been sent there-as they were seen to be 'leading the men on'.

Men had their own problems-but 'Magdalene Laundries', for the most part, wasn't one of them.

Institutions like the magdalene laundries, or the boys home in letterfrack, were facilitated by a public mindset of public shame and humiliation of those guilty of no crime, and those denouncing the victims loudest had plenty of skeletons in the closet. The mindset of shrill finger pointing is little different.
The general tone of many has been that these young men, innocent in the eyes of the law, should not be allowed to play for Ireland as they disrespected women.
Two currently hugely lauded international players the same people have no problem with.
One, bizarrely was then dropped for having the temerity to move.
Anyhow, as you were.

Lucy8080

If those who are protesting about an alleged "victim" in this case want to take a real stand, go fund a civil suit!

My suspicion is that in a civil case the alleged "victim" will be exposed to a lot of other "alleged " stuff, that could not be presented in court.

The price of such will be the rugby lads out of the game for another year or two, and a lot more exposure of the complainant.

I've seen well signed petitions asking for the I.R.F.U. to investigate the behaviour of two defendand's who aren't even under contract to the I.R.F.U.

I've seen folks ,after the acquittal,refer to "rapists" in relations to P.J. and S.O. (that calmed down a lot when they were made aware of the consequences).

I've seen folks paint a picture of "blood" and "upset" without ever balancing the argument around the possibilities of where the "blood" and "upset" stemmed from. Or, the time-line of the "upset" and when different folks, who acknowledged upset, became aware of it.

I've seen people who try to draw attention to the evidence/verdict, being called "rape apologists".

All online, a lot supporting protest.

All with dwindling numbers as they come to consciousness of the difference between what they think they know, and the facts.

Then there is the "poll" that says 2/3rds don't want to see these "acquitted men" back in the jersey.

Did that poll ask those folks, who were canvassed, to explain their understanding of the case? Did they correct any misunderstandings? I doubt it.

The texts seem to be a big thing here.

The "worst text"(apparently), was sent by a guy who wasn't up in court on any charges.or in the house on the night.

Olding's (22yr old, possibly the youngest ) text was in response to a question,silliness (maybe) to impress older peers.

Jackson only wrote one (seemingly offensive) text,but again,in response to a conversation he didn't start. I was under impression that we stay out of people's sex/private lives .None of our business, ask an s.j.w.

Deconstruct the case/evidence, and there are holes everywhere in the claimants case.

Then we have the Bank of Ireland/sponsorship in the moral mix. Jesus Wept.

How many folks have been thrown out of their homes ,or ended up 6 feet under the last decade because of the Banks .How many ordinary staff in those banks,on ordinary wages, have been working their asses off to clear the mess created?

How many of those staff (in B.O.I.) have been doing the same jobs that others on higher pay grades have been doing, to clear the mess, but have seen no reward in their pay packet?

Barristers /Bankers, Sports stars/celebrities/ mother Theresa's of the V.I.P. lounge, twitter mobs,protesters.......These, ladies and gentlemen...are our sons and daughters!

Maybe ,there's a lesson in all of this that will help us ,somehow.

Telpis!

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

19 isn’t?

I actually think 19 is quite young, I have a 16 year old son so I know the scene at that age and it's fairly petty stuff. (Always the odd one having sex at 14 but in general.) At 18 I would imagine they start playing grown up games so imo a 19 year old could be fairly inexperienced and I think that girl showed every bit of her inexperience BUT a 24 year old, male or female is well out of the blocks. PJ had five long years on her so if she is old, he is ancient and well past the juvenile stage.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

I actually think 19 is quite young, I have a 16 year old son so I know the scene at that age and it's fairly petty stuff. (Always the odd one having sex at 14 but in general.) At 18 I would imagine they start playing grown up games so imo a 19 year old could be fairly inexperienced and I think that girl showed every bit of her inexperience BUT a 24 year old, male or female is well out of the blocks. PJ had five long years on her so if she is old, he is ancient and well past the juvenile stage.

Come off it, ancient? There're both old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Also if you really think you 16 = petty stuff, I'd suggest getting a hold of your son's mobile and browsing history. Head.. in.. sand

Yeah_Right

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The victim's name?

What victim?

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

Come off it, ancient? There're both old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Also if you really think you 16 = petty stuff, I'd suggest getting a hold of your son's mobile and browsing history. Head.. in.. sand

Well if all boys from 16 years old are as bad as you claim then it's imperative the behaviour of four lads isn't encouraged. I don't want to live in a society where women are dehumanized and despised. This thread is a perfect example how women who raise their head and complain are treated. They are dismissed, called names, laughed at and so on... And you wonder why there is strong reaction to the whole trial.

CommandoJack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The victim's name?

What victim?

yeah, people are STILL being libellous numpties.
Mods should just do a blanket FindAndReplace and stick "alleged" in front of every instance of "rape", "rapist", "victim" etc across the whole site at this rate.

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

Come off it, ancient? There're both old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Also if you really think you 16 = petty stuff, I'd suggest getting a hold of your son's mobile and browsing history. Head.. in.. sand

How dare you. You know nothing of my son and his friends.

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

Well if all boys from 16 years old are as bad as you claim then it's imperative the behaviour of four lads isn't encouraged. I don't want to live in a society where women are dehumanized and despised. This thread is a perfect example how women who raise their head and complain are treated. They are dismissed, called names, laughed at and so on... And you wonder why there is strong reaction to the whole trial.

I have to say, the leap and twist here from my post is actually quite impressive.

What on earth are you on about with regard to "as bad as I claim"? I mean that boys and girls of 16 are doing more than just 'petty stuff', i.e. sex.

I said the poster would be surprised by what she found on her son's mobile in that regard, but maybe he isn't the average teen/is a saint.

What on earth has that got to do with being dehumanised or despised?!
Who is being dismissed? Have I called anyone names?

I said both the complainant and the accused were old enough to make decisions.

How you thought that your response was proportionate to any of that, is mind boggling.

Please read my posts a little more carefully before going off on one.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

How dare you. You know nothing of my son and his friends.

Oh wind your neck in. Are you seriously going to tell me you know to what degree your sons friends are sexually active, or what's on their mobiles..?!

Never mind your son's friends, do you really think he's going to be keeping you up to date on his activities in that regard?!

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

I actually think 19 is quite young, I have a 16 year old son so I know the scene at that age and it's fairly petty stuff. (Always the odd one having sex at 14 but in general.) At 18 I would imagine they start playing grown up games so imo a 19 year old could be fairly inexperienced and I think that girl showed every bit of her inexperience BUT a 24 year old, male or female is well out of the blocks. PJ had five long years on her so if she is old, he is ancient and well past the juvenile stage.

We all know that there are immature 19 year olds as well as mature 19 year olds. The same goes for 24 year olds. And it's often splurted that women mature more quickly than men. 19 to 24 in any case is not a big gap at all. Women tend to go for older guys in my experience as they consider guys their own age to be immature.

Maybe the complainant thought she was landing herself a famous boyfriend? Maybe that's why she was upset afterwards? Comparing your 16 year old son to a 19 year old is a stark contrast. At 19, they are legally allowed to go out and party and they have moved beyond the school uniform stage, so it's not an apt comparison. One of my sons is going on 15 and I wouldn't be making any comparisons between him and some 19 year old who got drunk and went home to a celeb after party.

Mrsmum

Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

What on earth has that got to do with being dehumanised or despised?!
Who is being dismissed? Have I called anyone names?

Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.

Yeah_Right

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this opinion but here goes.

I think the guys did nothing wrong. They went out got drunk, picked up some girls, had a one night stand (that escalated into a threesome) and then bragged and talked **** about it the next day with their mates. I have been involved in similar situations 100s of times through my teens, my twenties and into my thirties. Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! It's not about disrespecting women or hating women. It's making light of the whole incident. They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the mentality that well.

I think the issue is Ireland (and I'm including NI in this instance) is very conservative and prudish when it comes to sex. My view is obviously coloured by the fact that I am from a country with a far more liberal view on sex and talking about sex. Irish people get embarrassed or shocked quite easily over conversations about sex in mixed company. Other nationalities don't. (This is my experience and no I haven't done a study to back it up)

Some people might argue that these guys are role models. Yes they're sporting role models. Parents need to make sure their kids have a variety of role models to inspire them and not just blindly follow one or two. Speaking of role models, could Una Mullaly (sp?), Louise O'Neill and Ruth Coppinger be considered role models for girls and young women in Ireland? Look at what they have been saying recently. Would you want your daughters talking/behaving like that?

I think BBDBB said it well. They've been punished enough. Unfortunately I think they will end up having to move overseas. Probably to France but I would love to see them head to NZ or Australia.

My final point in this rambling post. The most disgusting thing to come out of this is that Jackson doesn't appear to wash his bedding that often. He's regularly bringing women (and his mates) into his bed, he needs to change his sheets more often. Gross.

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh wind your neck in. Are you seriously going to tell me you know to what degree your sons friends are sexually active, or what's on their mobiles..?!

Never mind your son's friends, do you really think he's going to be keeping you up to date on his activities in that regard?!

I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.

meeeeh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS.

Ah that is ok then as long as they don't call their mother or sister a slut it's fine.

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.

Are you really saying that’s the double standard you’re seeing here?

To be clear I was the first poster to really raise that at 19 she was also old enough to be responsible. That was in response to a large number of posters on the one hand playing the “ poor little girl, she was only nonnneetteeennn” life be and in the same breath excoriating the four young men as “ they’re men now they should be grown up”

There’s a double standard here alright when it comes to expected responsibility, just not the one you’re seeing.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

......... Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! ...................

Has something come into the public domain about this?

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.

Thank you for proving my point regarding your head being in the sand.

What on earth do you know about the sexual activity of your son's 16 year old friends?! Why on earth would they tell you anything relating to it?!

Mrsmum

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this opinion but here goes.

I think the guys did nothing wrong. They went out got drunk, picked up some girls, had a one night stand (that escalated into a threesome) and then bragged and talked **** about it the next day with their mates. I have been involved in similar situations 100s of times through my teens, my twenties and into my thirties. Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! It's not about disrespecting women or hating women. It's making light of the whole incident. They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the mentality that well.

I think the issue is Ireland (and I'm including NI in this instance) is very conservative and prudish when it comes to sex. My view is obviously coloured by the fact that I am from a country with a far more liberal view on sex and talking about sex. Irish people get embarrassed or shocked quite easily over conversations about sex in mixed company. Other nationalities don't. (This is my experience and no I haven't done a study to back it up)

Some people might argue that these guys are role models. Yes they're sporting role models. Parents need to make sure their kids have a variety of role models to inspire them and not just blindly follow one or two. Speaking of role models, could Una Mullaly (sp?), Louise O'Neill and Ruth Coppinger be considered role models for girls and young women in Ireland? Look at what they have been saying recently. Would you want your daughters talking/behaving like that?

I think BBDBB said it well. They've been punished enough. Unfortunately I think they will end up having to move overseas. Probably to France but I would love to see them head to NZ or Australia.

My final point in this rambling post. The most disgusting thing to come out of this is that Jackson doesn't appear to wash his bedding that often. He's regularly bringing women (and his mates) into his bed, he needs to change his sheets more often. Gross.

So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?

Grayson

Lucy8080 wrote: »

If those who are protesting about an alleged "victim" in this case want to take a real stand, go fund a civil suit!

My suspicion is that in a civil case the alleged "victim" will be exposed to a lot of other "alleged " stuff, that could not be presented in court.

What exactly are your suspicions and why do you think anyone would put themselves through what she did.

Personally I think they raped her. I think they got of because the jury were directed to only find them guilty if they were certain that the defendants knew they were raping her. Which is ridiculous.

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.

Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying about


Rambling Rape culture accusations
Misogynist
Rape apologist
One poster being called a rapist
MenRTrash posters being condoned
Crude words by one gender being ignored
The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread


If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

Are you really saying that’s the double standard you’re seeing here?

To be clear I was the first poster to really raise that at 19 she was also old enough to be responsible. That was in response to a large number of posters on the one hand playing the “ poor little girl, she was only nonnneetteeennn” life be and in the same breath excoriating the four young men as “ they’re men now they should be grown up”

There’s a double standard here alright when it comes to expected responsibility, just not the one you’re seeing.

I think it works both way to be fair but the fact remains if anyone is defending them because of their age, they should have a look at her age.

irishproduce

What's this now about Craig Gilroy text?
Now the case is over, what did his text say?

Edit - ignore, I found it. Poor choice of words from CG

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think it works both way to be fair but the fact remains if anyone is defending them because of their age, they should have a look at her age.

But surely the reverse is also appropriate. Anyone saying they’re men and should be more mature must apply the same standard of maturity to the lady

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point regarding your head being in the sand.

What on earth do you know about the sexual activity of your son's 16 year old friends?! Why on earth would they tell you anything relating to it?!

Another inane comment.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

What exactly are your suspicions and why do you think anyone would put themselves through what she did.

Personally I think they raped her. I think they got of because the jury were directed to only find them guilty if they were certain that the defendants knew they were raping her. Which is ridiculous.

My my, you do realise that is the standard by which all criminal cases are decided? i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you think it's ridiculous that the jury shouldn't convict the men if they weren't certain that the men were guilty of the crimes they were charged with?!

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

But surely the reverse is also appropriate. Anyone saying they’re men and should be more mature must apply the same standard of maturity to the lady

Age is fact. Maturity less so. In general a 24 year old man or woman you would imagine would have grown up a bit in terms of maturity from when they were 19. Clearly not in all cases.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Another inane comment.

It's simply really, can you please explain how or why seem to think you know what your son's friends are getting up to sexually?

Your belief perfectly demonstrates your naivety on the matter.

Where do you think all of the underage pregnancies come from? Immaculate conception?!

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.

The double standards are on both sides then. I maintain that age is not the rigid barrier reflecting maturity in many, many cases. Dare I say my 14 year old son acts more maturely than my 41 year old Brother!

If you reckon that most 16 year olds haven't had sex, you are in quite a bubble. Your son may be of the sort who is not in a rush to have sex and I commend teens with such a mentality because the peer pressure to lose ones virginity is always present. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the majority of 16 year olds are virgins. Some have sex younger and some have sex older, but most will have had sex before they hit 17.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.

Why is that his problem? That comment is nonsense.

Mrsmum wrote: »

So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?

Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.

If you don't know if I've used those words, then please don't quote me making reference to the above.

facehugger99

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think the guys did nothing wrong.

Thankfully, it's not a view shared by the vast majority.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Age is fact. Maturity less so. In general a 24 year old man or woman you would imagine hope would have grown up a bit in terms of maturity from when they were 19. Clearly not in all cases.

Fixed that bit. There's also the fact that alcohol in general makes most people a bit less mature than they might otherwise be perceived.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Thankfully, it's not a view shared by the vast majority.

By moral standards, they definitely got a lot wrong. By legal standards, no.

Mrsmum

"Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.[/QUOTE]

Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying abou

Rambling Rape culture accusations
Misogynist
Rape apologist
One poster being called a rapist
MenRTrash posters being condoned
Crude words by one gender being ignored
The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread


If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?

I don't agree with most of them but they were not used in every second post, I haven't even seen most of them but it's hard to miss all the feminazi nonsense. As for msyoginist it's a technical term and very good description of some attitudes. You are telling me using slut is ok but using completely neutral descriptive word is not?!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

upandcumming

Mrsmum wrote: »

So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?

Precious secrets.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

"Why would he have to consider himself either? Maybe he is just someone who enjoyed lots of sex with many different people over the years. At what point do people start branding others as sluts/legends? Is it based on the number of sexual encounters over a period of time, or based on the amount of time someone waits before having sex. Overused terms with no real meaning.

Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.[/QUOTE]

I believe the term currently is fc.uk boy. It's a term I see used on many dating profiles, e.g. no fc.uk boys need apply. I wonder, does that = misandry if slut = misogyny?

Grayson

tritium wrote: »

Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying about


Rambling Rape culture accusations
Misogynist
Rape apologist
One poster being called a rapist
MenRTrash posters being condoned
Crude words by one gender being ignored
The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread


If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?

The poster who who was called a rapist did say some pretty rapey ideas. Unless you agree thgat yiu can penetrate someone whilst they're asleep and it's not rape unti they wake up.

Show me one post where someone said men are trash. One single post.

You're complaining because one poster tlked about the mens ooks. How many thousands of posts are ther. Grow up. You're grasping for straws if that's something you're complaining about.

Rambling rape culture accusations? Post out where that is. Or is that just some buzz word you're using.

Personally I think misogynist can be used in a thread like this. It's a thread about rape and there have been some things said that are anti women Like for example penetrating them in their sleep isn't rape. In the court case there was all that talk about middle class girls. The simple use of the word misogynist doesn't mean anything, it's all in context. Unless the word itself is verboten now.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

If you don't know if I've used those words, then please don't quote me making reference to the above.

I quoted you because I disagreed with your point I never implied you said that. Unless you are looking to be offended it's pretty easily to understand it's a general point about attitudes.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

[/B]I believe the term currently is fc.uk boy. It's a term I see used on many dating profiles, e.g. no fc.uk boys need apply. I wonder, does that = misandry if slut = misogyny?

a fcuk boy is a guy who fcuks around with a girls emotions.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/****boy/

In mainstream culture, a ****boy is a guy who doesn’t respect women, yet relies on them heavily. He’s a guy who’s distant, doesn’t care about other people’s time, and won’t commit. He’s self-absorbed and is never looking for anything serious relationship-wise. A ****boy could also refer to a guy who is always doing stupid things and getting into trouble.

You'll notice it's about how they treat women, not how many they sleep with.

Mrsmum

Yeah right will have to answer for himself because the real point is everytime a man calls the girl he had sex with a slut, why does he never turn the finger on himself and say if she is a slut for sleeping with me, what am I for sleeping with her. Only we have an answer for this. They call themselves top shaggers and legends. On one side you have an offensive putdown and on the other a celebratory big up.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

a fcuk boy is a guy who fcuks around with a girls emotions.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/****boy/



You'll notice it's about how they treat women, not how many they sleep with.

So what you're saying is, it's a derogatory term used to describe certain men?

*Disclaimer, I did say I believe (i.e. not sure) and there is no way I'm sticking that into google in work!:pac:

Edit: Quick mobile search for the Urban Dictionary and the first line of the definition is "@sshole who is looking for a strictly sexual relationship". I wonder what term or word might be used to describe a woman with similar intentions?!

givyjoe

meeeeh wrote: »

I quoted you because I disagreed with your point I never implied you said that. Unless you are looking to be offended it's pretty easily to understand it's a general point about attitudes.

Well it really wasn't clear at all from your post that you were not implying that I had used those words, as you went off a rant. Even perhaps using some paragraphs would help make it clear that it wasn't directed at me, quoting me and then ranting really doesn't clear anything up.

Not offended at all, merely made a simple request. Too much to ask?

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Nobody cares who is having sex with how many ever they like. He minimised the lads comments and said while he wouldn't call his mom a slut, a ons was fair game. So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.

You're twisting what was said to suit your argument. He was explaining that the lads were calling a ONS a slut...which by the way, I think is derogatory and unacceptable. He was further explaining that they wouldn't have been calling women they know, sluts.

Nowhere did the poster say that he calls women sluts or mention his mom...unless I am mis-remembering the post.

I think it's also fair to say that people don't always say what they really think and sometimes things are said because it comes across as cool, or funny, when in fact...it's just disgusting and if seen outside of the intended group, or out of context would be damning.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

So what you're saying is, it's a derogatory term used to describe certain men?

*Disclaimer, I did say I believe (i.e. not sure) and there is no way I'm sticking that into google in work!:pac:

Yes but it's used to describe them because of their actions which are bad. Just because a word is gender specific doesn't mean it's bad.

The word slut is used specifically to describe women who are sexually active and have had more than one sexual partner. And it's used in a negative way.

Fcukboy is used to describe guys who fcuk around with peoples emotions. It's used to describe guys who hurt people feelings and don't care. A fcukboy is a selfish individual.

They are not equivalent. The word fcukboy is not sexist.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

Not offended at all, merely made a simple request. Too much to ask?

Yes.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah right will have to answer for himself because the real point is everytime a man calls the girl he had sex with a slut, why does he never turn the finger on himself and say if she is a slut for sleeping with me, what am I for sleeping with her. Only we have an answer for this. They call themselves top shaggers and legends. On one side you have an offensive putdown and on the other a celebratory big up.

You appear to think that many women don't behave the same way.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Yes but it's used to describe them because of their actions which are bad. Just because a word is gender specific doesn't mean it's bad.

The word slut is used specifically to describe women who are sexually active and have had more than one sexual partner. And it's used in a negative way.

Fcukboy is used to describe guys who fcuk around with peoples emotions. It's used to describe guys who hurt people feelings and don't care. A fcukboy is a selfish individual.

They are not equivalent. The word fcukboy is not sexist.

I think you need to have a look for more complete definitions of what the term means, it's most definitely sexist AND derogatory. Or do think it's a term of endearment?:rolleyes:

Here's a definition of sexism for you... "..relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of gender"

BTW, do you have any further comments on the 'ridiculous' decision by the jury not to convict on the basis of reasonable doubt?