Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

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

I guarantee you the term misogyny is used more often than feminazi here

Misogyny/ misogynist is not a “technical term “. It’s a specific concept the generally meant hatred of women. It was co-opted by some women to take a broader meaning of any sexism or prejudice they felt existed

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1979009

Like all easy wins however it’s begun to somewhat backfire as the term misandry has no also begun to be co-opted to casual speech. Both of the current usages are political terms. When these harsher terms are used directly against an opponent (instead of a more general charge of sexism) they are often intended to demonize them or shame them into compliance. Frankly it’s a nasty term, intended to be hateful, a much nastier direct insult in its origin than the term “slut” that seems to vex so many people.

By the way, I’m pretty sure I never claimed using the term slut was ok- for either party. Show me my post if you disagree.

ArthurDayne

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.

I wouldn't agree that they did nothing wrong in a murky moral sense. In my own humble opinion, they were being a*seholes. I maintain however that such behaviour in one's private life should not in-and-of-itself be considered indicative of a person's character, probity to continue with their job, or their general world view.

I think it's fair to say that -- as no criminal wrongdoing has been found after trial and testimony -- they have paid for their behaviour in the court of the public eye. There are lots of Irish men (and women --- and anyone who thinks that many women don't often talk in visceral, graphic, objectifying and dirty ways about sex, men, penises etc are utterly deluded) who have spoken and will continue to speak in the same way as those guys did and will never be made to answer for it to anyone -- let alone the entire country.

Mrsmum

goz83 wrote: »

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.

"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 twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.

Yeah_Right

Augeo wrote: »

Has something come into the public domain about this?

Not sure what you're asking.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

"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 twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.

I never said he calls all women sluts. I know well he doesn't. It's a derogatory term for his ons partner. But what is he in his own mind after a ons.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

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

The sooner we have the debate about the residue of shame about sex and the body on this country the sooner we will mature.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

"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 twisted nothing. Above is what he said. My question still remains. Why is she a slut and what is he after a ons.

So it's you who is misreading the post. The poster (like I already said) was not talking about himself calling women sluts and made no reference to his own mother. He was talking about the men who sent the messages (PJ & Co).

Do you think women don't talk smack about men and other women? Are all women angels? Here's an interesting site where women post interesting stories. Would make PJ & Co look like boy scouts.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

So if the girl he is having sex with can be called a slut, it's only fair to ask what he calls himself.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I never said he calls all women sluts. I know well he doesn't. It's a derogatory term for his ons partner. But what is he in his own mind after a ons.

It sort of reads that way from how you posted it tbf.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

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?

I think it's ridiculous that to prove rape you have to prove intent to rape. You have to prove that the guy did not realise that he wasn't allowed penetrate. It means that technically, as someone here said, you can penetrate someone when they're sleeping and it's a reasonable defense to say "I thought they'd be ok with it". It's really only rape if they say no and keep going.
That's messed up.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The sooner we have the debate about the residue of shame about sex and the body on this country the sooner we will mature.

Shame - Could it be I wonder that deep in the back of men's minds they think free sex is shameful. (Free sex being sex without commitment,) So they have to place that shame on the woman by labelling her a slut and degrading her as much as they possible can with their friends. A scapegoat type of thing for their own feelings of shame. What do you think Francie.

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

You're some sad case. My posts are dim? Compared to your "witty" movie titles?
Staying up until after 1 in the morning posting on boards. Sorry I had to go to bed because I have work today.
Shaken by the cut and thrust of debate? Didn't realise you were Jeremy Paxman.

You're some sad case
You're not allowed abuse posters on boards like this.

We had a light interlude when you left the debate last night.

Staying up until after 1 in the morning posting on boards. Sorry I had to go to bed because I have work today.

You work, aren't you marvellous. Look, people work different hours in different jobs. Also some people get by on less sleep than others.

Yes it seems you can't handle debate, you're in a tissy anytime you're challenged.

Name dropping solicitor relatives you just conversed with, asking people were they at AIL matches recently as 'the grass roots' are the only people who count. Your posts are what we have to represent you, and they're an anachronism from another age.

NAGDEFI

tritium wrote: »

Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best?

I thought he was the devil incarnate still?

Clearly I didn’t get the memo......

I said for me. He was asked to attend court. For me an admirable man. I'm not part of any of these online # campaigns.

NAGDEFI

tritium wrote: »

19 isn’t?

You may have missed some of the debate last night we were referring to Olding and Jackson.

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

I guarantee you the term misogyny is used more often than feminazi here

Misogyny/ misogynist is not a “technical term “. It’s a specific concept the generally meant hatred of women. It was co-opted by some women to take a broader meaning of any sexism or prejudice they felt existed

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1979009

Like all easy wins however it’s begun to somewhat backfire as the term misandry has no also begun to be co-opted to casual speech. Both of the current usages are political terms. When these harsher terms are used directly against an opponent (instead of a more general charge of sexism) they are often intended to demonize them or shame them into compliance. Frankly it’s a nasty term, intended to be hateful, a much nastier direct insult in its origin than the term “slut” that seems to vex so many people.

That is some fascinating mental arithmetic. Mysogny like misandry are technical terms, it doesn't matter what you think but they are used in research papers as fairly clearly defined terms. I'm not even going to argue any more because anything write will be answered with your own description that has nothing to do with linguistics but with what you feel. Just to inform you how to read dictionaries.

Slut has two uses: derogatory and dated.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slut

Mysogny is only described as (mass) noun and it's meaning explained. It is a neutral term.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misogyny

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Shame - Could it be I wonder that deep in the back of men's minds they think free sex is shameful. (Free sex being sex without commitment,) So they have to place that shame on the woman by labelling her a slut and degrading her as much as they possible can with their friends. A scapegoat type of thing for their own feelings of shame. What do you think Francie.

I was referring to attitudes to the sex lives of others and how some in Ireland think they have some sort of higher moral control on them. Like the RC church assumed.
These lads will play on the continent with barely a comment passed.

goz83

Grayson wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that to prove rape you have to prove intent to rape. You have to prove that the guy did not realise that he wasn't allowed penetrate. It means that technically, as someone here said, you can penetrate someone when they're sleeping and it's a reasonable defense to say "I thought they'd be ok with it". It's really only rape if they say no and keep going.
That's messed up.

Hyperbole. A sleeping person cannot consent and there isn't much room to negotiate that at all. Established relationships may be different, but still it is a technical fact that a sleeping person cannot give consent.

Here's some help if you're not clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

And then on the more complicated point of proving consent where a problem arises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX6va9glqgA

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Seriously even the poster who made the allegation originally has apologised at this stage for their inappropriateness. You really need to just cop on at this point

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

I’m clearly referring to the poster held at the rally that said exactly that. Since you’ve been reading this thread from the beginning you are well aware of that

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.

Honestly that’s a pathetic response. I could count on one hand too the number of posters who have directly attacked the woman, does that make it fine so. Nothing to see here?

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

I’ll refer you to the contribution of hill16bhoy at this point, ably backed, thanked and supported by a number of other posters. I believe the most fun bit of the last thread was post #7183, where they accused a bunch of poster of being ‘rape culture deniers’

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.

Wow, you really can do blinkers can’t you. “Slut” “slutty” no way, that’s verboten. Tell someone they’re a misogynist or a rapist, not a bother

Seriously, pathetic

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was referring to attitudes to the sex lives of others and how some in Ireland think they have some sort of higher moral control on them. Like the RC church assumed.
These lads will play on the continent with barely a comment passed.

They might be well advised to keep it respectful with the local filles.

Yeah_Right

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.

Well I considered myself a legend. Obviously. I would never refer to myself as a "top shagger". It sounds so very Inbetweeners. I would have called myself a stud or a ladies man.



The above is a joke. I didn't refer to myself in those terms.

I was called a slut. By my mates, by the girls I slept with and by people who were trying to insult me. Didn't bother me. I was also called a manwhore. My nickname through a lot of this time alluded to me being promiscuous. All was all in good humour. I was clear with the girls that I was only interested in ONS or being FBs. If they were cool with that then great. When I did have relationships, I was very open and honest about my history right from the beginning.

I 100% guarantee that I have used vulgar and derogatory terms to describe females. Very, very rarely would they have been said in anger or with hatred or malice. I also absolutely 100% guarantee that have been called some pretty horrible things by women (and men) and sometimes it has been with hatred and malice. And sometimes I have deserved. But they're words so I got over it pretty quickly.

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that to prove rape you have to prove intent to rape. You have to prove that the guy did not realise that he wasn't allowed penetrate. It means that technically, as someone here said, you can penetrate someone when they're sleeping and it's a reasonable defense to say "I thought they'd be ok with it". It's really only rape if they say no and keep going.
That's messed up.

You clearly have not read or understood the law here

You clearly have not read or understood the explanation of posters such as ArthurDayne earlier in thread

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Shame - Could it be I wonder that deep in the back of men's minds they think free sex is shameful. (Free sex being sex without commitment,) So they have to place that shame on the woman by labelling her a slut and degrading her as much as they possible can with their friends. A scapegoat type of thing for their own feelings of shame. What do you think Francie.

Mrsmum, I have called girls sluts in my life and probably will do again. I say it in jest. But I am a passionate believer, not only in basic gender equality, but also in female sexual liberation. I strongly believe that women have had their sense of sexuality unfairly suppressed for centuries, and have been made to feel more ashamed of their sense of sexuality than men have.

Is this hypocrisy on my part? I don't think it is. Because there is a massive difference between someone who calls a girl a 'slut' because he thinks that female sexuality or sexual promiscuity is something to be suppressed, and those who care so little about what a girl does in her sex life that the term 'slut' becomes so meaningless that they use it as a joke. Think of the term 'queer' and how it can be used as a nasty insult, but yet is also adopted as a term of pride now by many in the homosexual community and indeed is used as an edgy jibe in banter between friends, both heterosexual and homosexual.

There are girls I know, even close friends, who I call a slut for a laugh. They call me all kinds of stuff. We laugh. It's a bit of fun. Sure, these things are always context-sensitive and I don't just go around hurling insults at people who I don't think will understand that it's meant in jest.

So -- I put this to you -- from reading the above and my admission that I use the term 'slut' and will use it again, and will probably brag to my mates about some future sexual encounters (however infrequent they may be), do you honestly believe that I am a misogynist?

NAGDEFI

Mrsmum wrote: »

They might be well advised to keep it respectful with the local filles.

I can't get how people want to bring the RC into this debate at all costs Mrsmum:)

A rape case involving males who went to Methodist College Belfast.. The mind boggles.. It's akin to blaming them for Climate Change.

They have been involved in a lot of wrongs but bringing them into this case at every opportunity is pure desperation.

NAGDEFI

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, I have called girls sluts in my life and probably will do again. I say it in jest. But I am a passionate believer, not only in basic gender equality, but also in female sexual liberation. I strongly believe that women have had their sense of sexuality unfairly suppressed for centuries, and have been made to feel more ashamed of their sense of sexuality than men have.

Is this hypocrisy on my part? I don't think it is. Because there is a massive difference between someone who calls a girl a 'slut' because he thinks that female sexuality or sexual promiscuity is something to be suppressed, and those who care so little about what a girl does in her sex life that the term 'slut' becomes so meaningless that they use it as a joke. Think of the term 'queer' and how it can be used as a nasty insult, but yet is also adopted as a term of pride now by many in the homosexual community and indeed is used as an edgy jibe in banter between friends, both heterosexual and homosexual.

There are girls I know, even close friends, who I call a slut for a laugh. They call me all kinds of stuff. We laugh. It's a bit of fun. Sure, these things are always context-sensitive and I don't just go around hurling insults at people who I don't think will understand that it's meant in jest.

So -- I put this to you -- from reading the above and my admission that I use the term 'slut' and will use it again, and will probably brag to my mates about some future sexual encounters (however infrequent they may be), do you honestly believe that I am a misogynist?

Hi Arthur. I meant to say to you yesterday you are a reasoned debater. Apologies we may have gotten off to a bad start through misunderstanding.

For me the term slut in itself isn't so bad. I just feel the overall context of comments like Gilroy's 'any sluts fked', it being used with spit roast, top shaggers. It was the big picture of all the language for me.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

They might be well advised to keep it respectful with the local filles.

'Fillies' ? You compared women to horses.
My God, where is that placard?

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I can't get how people want to bring the RC into this debate at all costs Mrsmum:)

A rape case involving males who went to Methodist College Belfast.. The mind boggles.. It's akin to blaming them for Climate Change.

They have been involved in a lot of wrongs but bringing them into this case at every opportunity is pure desperation.

The attitude to/ reaction to a consensual 3some is what I was talking about.

It's there in in the post I made.

monkeybutter

Augeo wrote: »

Has something come into the public domain about this?

Yes, Yeah_Right has never had a threesome

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

Wow, you really can do blinkers can’t you. “Slut” “slutty” no way, that’s verboten. Tell someone they’re a misogynist or a rapist, not a bother

Seriously, pathetic

You really don't understand how language works. Slut is defined as degrading word. Rape or mysogny are not. For example labelling someone who raped rapist is factual and slur only when used against someone who didn't rape. Mysogny is the same although people might not exactly agree what hatred of women is.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Well I considered myself a legend. Obviously. I would never refer to myself as a "top shagger". It sounds so very Inbetweeners. I would have called myself a stud or a ladies man.



The above is a joke. I didn't refer to myself in those terms.

I was called a slut. By my mates, by the girls I slept with and by people who were trying to insult me. Didn't bother me. I was also called a manwhore. My nickname through a lot of this time alluded to me being promiscuous. All was all in good humour. I was clear with the girls that I was only interested in ONS or being FBs. If they were cool with that then great. When I did have relationships, I was very open and honest about my history right from the beginning.

I 100% guarantee that I have used vulgar and derogatory terms to describe females. Very, very rarely would they have been said in anger or with hatred or malice. I also absolutely 100% guarantee that have been called some pretty horrible things by women (and men) and sometimes it has been with hatred and malice. And sometimes I have deserved. But they're words so I got over it pretty quickly.

You could write the above exactly about me, word for word.

I reckon you could take the messages out of that whats app group, reverse the genders and have Samantha from Sex and the City say them and people would find it hilarious.

In the context of a sexual assault the meanness of those messages is massively amplified but viewed in isolation they are just embarrassing for the men in question.

AudreyHepburn

The thing that amazes me most about this case is how naive a lot people seem to be about the way in which men and women talk about the opposite sex amongst one another particularly when they are young.

Yes the text messages were a bit unsavory but if you really believe that no other group of young men, or young women for that matter , before or since have ever spoken about members of the opposite sex, particularly those they’ve slept with, like that then you need a serious reality check.

And yes women do talk dirty about men - take it from a woman who has been involved in such conversations over the years.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

You really don't understand how language works. Slut is defined as degrading word. Rape or mysogny are not. For example labelling someone who raped rapist is factual and slur only when used against someone who didn't rape. Mysogny is the same although people might not exactly agree what hatred of women is.

What slang word for a promiscuous woman is acceptable?
Do you want the concept of a promiscuous woman or man ended?

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The attitude to/ reaction to a consensual 3some is what I was talking about.

It's there in in the post I made.

But no Christian group approves of threesomes. Why is it only the RC that you mention?

Especially as Belfast is home to many Christian denominations, where the case took place.

Yeah_Right

monkeybutter wrote: »

Yes, Yeah_Right has never had a threesome

Excuse me!! Yes I have! Hundreds of them. Because I'm a top shagger

NAGDEFI

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Excuse me!! Yes I have! Hundreds of them. Because I'm a top shagger

Which member of the Ulster rugby squad have we here;)

Grayson

tritium wrote: »

Seriously even the poster who made the allegation originally has apologised at this stage for their inappropriateness. You really need to just cop on at this point

I’m clearly referring to the poster held at the rally that said exactly that. Since you’ve been reading this thread from the beginning you are well aware of that


Honestly that’s a pathetic response. I could count on one hand too the number of posters who have directly attacked the woman, does that make it fine so. Nothing to see here?


I’ll refer you to the contribution of hill16bhoy at this point, ably backed, thanked and supported by a number of other posters. I believe the most fun bit of the last thread was post #7183, where they accused a bunch of poster of being ‘rape culture deniers’


Wow, you really can do blinkers can’t you. “Slut” “slutty” no way, that’s verboten. Tell someone they’re a misogynist or a rapist, not a bother

Seriously, pathetic

I said that misogynist is used in context. It's not a bad word unless it's used to describe someone who's not a misogynist. Show me a place here where someone has used it in appropriately.

And how are you clearly referring to a poster at a rally. You never mentioned a rally. Should i assume that you are referring to rallys in any post where they're not mentioned. Try to be clear because this murkiness is confusing.

As for the poster apologising. that occured after they had said the rapey stuff. Where someone called them a rapist occured after, not before the rapey stuff. Plus I'm not the person who brought it up. I was replying to a post the mentioned it. Plus it doesn't excuse the rapey stuff. THis is the way the thread is going at the moment

Someone mentions that a poster was called a rapist.
I reply to the post and say why they were called a rapist.
You tell me to stop bringing up the rapist stuff.

jm08

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.

Am I right in thinking you are a kiwi? Anyway, with regard to your comment about Ireland being very conservative, what was all that about Aaron Smyth (All Blacks scrum half and one of the best players in the world), and his having consensual sex with someone he knew in a disabled toilet in an airport?

Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand had something to say about it not being up to AB standards, saying he let himself, his family, his team mates and his country down. His team mates actually suspended him for a test match, saying his behaviour was 'not of All Black standard'.

This article is worth a read on the incident and the reaction to it in New Zealand.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/06/aaron-smith-new-zealand-apology-disabled-toilet-female-friend

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

You could write the above exactly about me, word for word.

I reckon you could take the messages out of that whats app group, reverse the genders and have Samantha from Sex and the City say them and people would find it hilarious.

In the context of a sexual assault the meanness of those messages is massively amplified but viewed in isolation they are just embarrassing for the men in question.

Not sure how old you are Venjur but I consider myself lucky to have grown up in a time before social media and everyone owning a camera phone. The conversation like what the Ulster lads had on Whatsap had be done face to face at training, on your lunch break or in the pub. No evidence for anyone to get fired over.

I reckon the female versions of these sort of conversations tend to be more graphic than the male ones. In my experience, women go into detail! Size, texture, taste, smell, technique, everything gets discussed.

kirving

Grayson wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that to prove rape you have to prove intent to rape.

To prove murder, you have to prove intent to kill. This is why manslaughter also exits. The intent of a defendant is surely an integral part of the criminal justice process, no? Or is all killing, always murder?

Grayson wrote: »

You have to prove that the guy did not realise that he wasn't allowed penetrate.

If I don't want to get into a fight, but I get into a boxing ring, with another boxer, touch gloves and the bell rings, how does the other guy realize he's not supposed to hit me?

I'm not saying getting into bed should equal sex, what I am saying is that the circumstances leading up to an action will be understood by reasonable people to be important in determining a defendants intentions.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

But no Christian group approves of threesomes. Why is it only the RC that you mention?

Especially as Belfast is home to many Christian denominations, where the case took place.

And I am referring to here - southern Ireland which has had a past filled with shame about sex and an authoritarian institution which took onto itself the right to control what went on in people's sex lives and bedrooms.

Want to hazard a guess what institution was the primary leader of that?

Yeah_Right

jm08 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking you are a kiwi? Anyway, with regard to your comment about Ireland being very conservative, what was all that about Aaron Smyth (All Blacks scrum half and one of the best players in the world), and his having consensual sex with someone he knew in a disabled toilet in an airport?

Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand had something to say about it not being up to AB standards, saying he let himself, his family, his team mates and his country down. His team mates actually suspended him for a test match, saying his behaviour was 'not of All Black standard'.

This article is worth a read on the incident and the reaction to it in New Zealand.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/06/aaron-smith-new-zealand-apology-disabled-toilet-female-friend

Correct. I am a kiwi. Smith's problem was she wasn't his long term girlfriend and he was actually in his All Blacks uniform. The team was flying out. So he was at work. The team decided to suspend him for 2 games I think and he was sent home. Obviously he had to try to salvage his relationship (which he did) and his head wouldn't have been in the right place to play Argentina and South Africa.

He served his suspension and was back with ABs on the end of year tour and all last year. Sex scandal forgotten. It was done and dusted pretty quickly. As for the PM commenting, I think a journalist asked him to comment so he did. He didn't call for him to be fired or organise a protest outside Eden Park about it.

NAGDEFI

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The thing that amazes me most about this case is how naive a lot people seem to be about the way in which men and women talk about the opposite sex amongst one another particularly when they are young.

Yes the text messages were a bit unsavory but if you really believe that no other group of young men, or young women for that matter , before or since have ever spoken about members of the opposite sex, particularly those they’ve slept with, like that then you need a serious reality check.

And yes women do talk dirty about men - take it from a woman who has been involved in such conversations over the years.

It doesn't make it right though Audrey. It was acceptable to call homosexuals queer and fag*ot not so long ago.. times change.

AudreyHepburn

NAGDEFI wrote: »

It doesn't make it right though Audrey. It was acceptable to call homosexuals queer and fag*ot not so long ago.. times change.

I didn’t say it was right. But it’s not a crime either and they don’t deserve to have their lives ruined over it.

Like I said they are neither the first nor the last to send those types of messages.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What slang word for a promiscuous woman is acceptable?
Do you want the concept of a promiscuous woman or man ended?

No I don't want it ended. I don't want people to call a woman slut just because she sleeps with someone. You are going on so much about RC morality but it's you who judges women who have sex and thinks it's acceptable to label them with degrading terms.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

It doesn't make it right though Audrey. It was acceptable to call homosexuals queer and fag*ot not so long ago.. times change.

So if he had texted 'Love Belfast Promiscuous Young Women' with the pic that would be fine?

meeeeh

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn’t say it was right. But it’s not a crime either and they don’t deserve to have their lives ruined over it.

Why are their lives ruined? In ten years time or so they won't be playing rugby anyway, is their life going to be ruined then?

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

You really don't understand how language works. Slut is defined as degrading word. Rape or mysogny are not. For example labelling someone who raped rapist is factual and slur only when used against someone who didn't rape. Mysogny is the same although people might not exactly agree what hatred of women is.

Yes that’s precisely the point. That term has been used as a slur throughout this thread

Same for the other term

jm08

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Correct. I am a kiwi. Smith's problem was she wasn't his long term girlfriend and he was actually in his All Blacks uniform. The team was flying out. So he was at work. The team decided to suspend him for 2 games I think and he was sent home. Obviously he had to try to salvage his relationship (which he did) and his head wouldn't have been in the right place to play Argentina and South Africa.

He served his suspension and was back with ABs on the end of year tour and all last year. Sex scandal forgotten. It was done and dusted pretty quickly. As for the PM commenting, I think a journalist asked him to comment so he did. He didn't call for him to be fired or organise a protest outside Eden Park about it.

It was consensual sex. If kiwis are so liberated, surely his partner would not have minded? Why would the ABs worry about whether he had sex in a disabled toilet if it was consensual (and private)?

The New Zealand Prime Minister had rather a lot to say including comments about the ABs being role models. Why do you refer to it as a sex scandal. It was between two consenting adults. What is scandalous about that? Surely in a liberated country like you claim NZ is, that wouldn't be an issue?

“He’ll have to reflect on that and I’m sure the New Zealand Rugby Football Union will have to reflect on that. All that I would say as a general rule in defence of the All Blacks, they have been for the most part very good role models for the last 10 or 20 years, under both Richie McCaw’s leadership and now more recently under Kieran Read.
“They do a lot to try and prove to young New Zealanders that they’re the sort of people to look up to, but that’s why I think Aaron will feel pretty disappointed in himself.
“I think the rugby union, coming off the back of a couple of other pretty poor PR issues in recent times, will want to make sure they send a strong message to the All Blacks that they have a high level of expectation in their behaviour. And Aaron clearly didn’t meet it.
“I suspect he’ll be sitting back, reflecting on the fact he’s let himself down, he’s let the team down. He’s an integral part of the All Blacks so he won’t want to be sitting on the sidelines, and frankly, he’s embarrassed himself a bit. So I’d say he’d be [a] pretty disappointed young man.”

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Not sure how old you are Venjur but I consider myself lucky to have grown up in a time before social media and everyone owning a camera phone. The conversation like what the Ulster lads had on Whatsap had be done face to face at training, on your lunch break or in the pub. No evidence for anyone to get fired over.

I reckon the female versions of these sort of conversations tend to be more graphic than the male ones. In my experience, women go into detail! Size, texture, taste, smell, technique, everything gets discussed.

I reckon I'm probably similar age to yourself. I was never reckless so I think if smart phones had been around back in my day I'd have been more cautious but for sure I left myself WIDE open to embarrassment on plenty of occasions with my antics.

If McIlroy is guilty of exposure then I'm lucky not to have a criminal record to be honest. Nudity albeit of a humorous and non sexual nature was fairly common at the end of nights out and it certainly wasn't restricted to just the blokes in my company.

I agree with your comments about conservatism. I don't think were a conservative country at all and my experience within my age bracket would lead me to believe that people are extremely open minded about sex. But as you rightly pointed out, we aren't great at talking about it.

Audrey Hepburn had it right above though, the outrage and indignation about the comments is way over the top. Men and women up and down the country engage in similar without for one second being misogynist or misandrist in their common interactions.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if he had texted 'Love Belfast Promiscuous Young Women' with the pic that would be fine?

Why not just love Belfast women. Did they even sleep with him? So why is their sexual activity relevant?

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't want it ended. I don't want people to call a woman slut just because she sleeps with someone. You are going on so much about RC morality but it's you who judges women who have sex and thinks it's acceptable to label them with degrading terms.

So I cant be descriptive of a group of women or a single woman?
That is the logic here, 'you cannot say anything derogatory about anyone lest their entire gender take offence'.

That sounds ridiculous because it is.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

It was consensual sex. If kiwis are so liberated, surely his partner would not have minded? Why would the ABs worry about whether he had sex in a disabled toilet if it was consensual (and private)?

The New Zealand Prime Minister had rather a lot to say including comments about the ABs being role models. Why do you refer to it as a sex scandal. It was between two consenting adults. What is scandalous about that? Surely in a liberated country like you claim NZ is, that wouldn't be an issue?

Honestly, this is a really poorly thought out post.

The guy cheated on his partner, while on all black duty, in a toilet. I am as open minded as they come and I think that's awful behaviour. Being open minded about sex and being liberal doesn't mean that suddenly a guy cheating on his partner is fine?

If he had sex with his partner in a toilet whilst on all black duty I wouldn't care nearly as much, though I can appreciate why he maybe should have been a bit less public about it.

Either way, getting ready to play a big game is not the time to be messing your headspace by destroying your relationship.