Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that it removes the behavior of the woman from the equation. Her choices. Her perception of the events before, during, and after the experience. Her responsibility for what occurs.

I don't believe it does.

We engage in thousands of interactions every day, which on the face of it require consent from both sides, and many of which involve little interaction beyonds nods and signals and gestures. Letting someone pull out of a side road. Buying something in a shop. Getting off the bus.

None of these have clearly defined rules, but as social animals we're pretty good at reading context and non-explicit communication. But sometimes we do get it wrong, we end up pulling out of the side road when we shouldn't have, we end up standing with our money in our hand because the cashier isn't ready to take it, we end up getting off a stop late because we didn't press the bell and assumed the driver would know.

This doesn't mean we should "avoid" these interactions. But when it comes to the less mundane activities, such as approaching a potential romantic interest, changing lanes on a motorway, operating heavy machinery, there needs to be less room for assumption. Every party has a role to play to make sure things are safe, but if the other party isn't playing their role, then you stop what you're doing. Someone else cannot be responsible for your actions any more than you can for theirs. So if they're leaving room for doubt, you stop and walk away.

The fact is that women need to make their interest known in very real terms, but that's not going to happen in most cases.

Women will have to adapt their approach, like men are having to.
And the ones who don't are going to find themselves really confused as to why their coy, aloof and game-playing tactics leave them lonely, while their more direct and blunt friends have a number of good relationships.

I feel that people who go on about "consent forms" and the level of explicit discussion that needs to take place, do not have a firm grasp on how to determine if you're reasonably sure about someone else's intent. You don't have to be absolutely certain. You don't need things signed on the dotted line or a video recording of the other person saying, "I do".

I do understand the fear aspect here; the impact that an accusation can have on a man's life. But the level of fear has to be weighed up against the reality. The woman approached in a bar is not looking around for some guy she can accuse of an assault, any more than the guy is approaching her thinking about whether he'll be able to rape her.

So long as both people are respectful of the other and their state of inebriation, there's minimal "peril".

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I think this is the problem right here! The men here want to control everything, women standing up for themselves doesn't sit well with them.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The problem with that logic is that it removes the behavior of the woman from the equation. Her choices. Her perception of the events before, during, and after the experience. Her responsibility for what occurs.

On the basis of your logic, any intimacy with a woman is fraught with peril, and therefore should be avoided. The guys who assume that the woman is interested, accepting, and willing for the intimacy to occur, are likely to be the guys that women are complaining about regarding harassment, or sexual assault. And the "nice guys" who don't want to hurt or offend a woman will be encouraged not to be with women.

The fact is that women need to make their interest known in very real terms, but that's not going to happen in most cases. Otherwise, there really is no chance of being secure in thinking your "partner" is willing and will remain willing after the fact. So... your advice is that we all just stop dating, or entering into relationships?

Not really. Take HCs comments for instance. He seems to be saying that previously you would keep going after an initial no whereas now you can’t. I’ll leave it open whether he’s saying this is a bad thing a good thing or a neutral thing.

So he didn’t say you can’t approach a woman. He’s saying if he says no, nowadays you’re expected to withdraw.

In that case the woman has signalled her interest “in real terms”. She’s signalled that she has no interest.

The guys on this thread trying to portray modern dating as impossibly complex just seem to be unable to accept basic signals like NO.

LLMMLL

Mokuba wrote: »

This is pretty ironic and hilarious. Because the specific example you gave has been given as a metoo story.

What you write about in your second paragraph is exactly what is happening. Trivial, nothing situations are being slapped with #metoo, when clearly there has been no wrongdoing. That is what the likes of Liam Neeson was saying on the Late Late show and what Cavill is saying here. An unwanted advance, an unwelcome glance, an accidental touch - metoo. And what Cavill is saying can ring true, it's safer to avoid all interaction than risk the wrath of someone hoping to be the next hashtag case.

The movement was fine at the outset and now it has descended into utter farce. Women going to social media getting men trialed in the eye of the public with automatic assumption of guilt.

Luckily, I don't think people in the real world take too much notice.

So a significant number of women are posting about men approaching them in bars and withdrawing politely after being rebuffed?

Examples please.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

General consensus. If a woman posts that she got talking to HC in a bar and he asked for her number then withdrew swiftly when she declined nobody would bat an eyelid.

It SEEMS you are saying any women can post any random experience, slap #metoo on it, and gain universal support. That’s not how it works.

Universal support, no... but support from those who sympathise with her, yes... which could easily be in the high numbers. And that's with her telling what happened exactly as it did. What if she's had a few drinks and doesn't remember what happened clearly?

I do wonder about this General consensus though.... how is that actually determined? Oh, you'll probably say it should be obvious... but isn't just the people with the loudest and most persistent voices? And it's also subject to change depending on the mood/attitude of the people involved... (since men aren't going to be involved in that decision, who tells the men when it's changed?)

I have zero interest in drawing you a roadmap of how a men’s metoo movement should be started, and that’s not a deflection.

Ok. No problem. (I mentioned the deflection since you suggested there was more to it than your previous followup answer)

7aubzxk43m2sni

LLMMLL wrote: »

Jaysus.

George Hook was not accused of sexual harrassment.

PJ was accused of rape. The complainant testified she said no. Whether you believe her or not is irrelevant. PJ wasn’t prosecuted under some new crazy law about rape where the woman decides after she was raped while seemingly enjoying it at the time.

There’s no indication the AAs career has been ruined.

Who mentioned rape or sexual harassment? The question was

"Have we seen any celebrities find themselves in any real trouble; legally, personally or professionally; after a trial by social media?"

Which, clearly, we have.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Universal support, no... but support from those who sympathise with her, yes... which could easily be in the high numbers. And that's with her telling what happened exactly as it did. What if she's had a few drinks and doesn't remember what happened clearly?

You know, as someone who has ever invited people to an event on Facebook will tell you - online support is no support at all.

I don't disagree with you; in such a scenario there are lots of people who will blindly like and retweet stuff without considering its veracity.

But in terms of actual support? People who will talk to her and console her and make a big deal out of it? Family and friends, at most.

One poster here keeps bringing up Aziz Ansari, and he's even an extreme example of just a weird date. It's actually a perfect example of how easily online support dissolves away when it turns out that nothing wrong actually happened. Once that woman's story gained any traction online, the holes appeared and most people saw it for what it was. By the time it got to larger media, it had already turned into a discussion about what is actually appropriate to accuse people of rather than being an allegation of Ansari.

Likewise the allegation against George Takei turned out to be a nothingburger.

The support initially can be high, but it's incredibly fickle and disappears when the story turns out to be vapour.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I don't believe it does.

We engage in thousands of interactions every day, which on the face of it require consent from both sides, and many of which involve little interaction beyonds nods and signals and gestures. Letting someone pull out of a side road. Buying something in a shop. Getting off the bus.

None of these have clearly defined rules, but as social animals we're pretty good at reading context and non-explicit communication. But sometimes we do get it wrong, we end up pulling out of the side road when we shouldn't have, we end up standing with our money in our hand because the cashier isn't ready to take it, we end up getting off a stop late because we didn't press the bell and assumed the driver would know.

This doesn't mean we should "avoid" these interactions. But when it comes to the less mundane activities, such as approaching a potential romantic interest, changing lanes on a motorway, operating heavy machinery, there needs to be less room for assumption. Every party has a role to play to make sure things are safe, but if the other party isn't playing their role, then you stop what you're doing. Someone else cannot be responsible for your actions any more than you can for theirs. So if they're leaving room for doubt, you stop and walk away.

All your examples are common enough... and I would have agreed with you had the perceptions about dating or intimate interactions hadn't changed over the last decade or so. But the fact is that this area has changed, and your examples are light-years away from it. Your examples about driving are even worse, because we have rule-sets which clearly decide what should happen in each situation, and a fairly clear idea of who is responsible should an error occur.

None of your examples, have the male being taken in for questioning or being arrested due to the claim of a female. There is no rule book for romantic/intimate interactions between people.... so perhaps think of the above and use an example that actually relates to this topic area?

Women will have to adapt their approach, like men are having to.

Who says? Society has shifted to considering women to be victims and no longer to be held responsible for what happens to them. Their choices, behavior, etc can no longer be held as important in deciding what happened, because that would be victim-blaming....

So, no... Women won't need to change because all responsibility rests with the male.

And the ones who don't are going to find themselves really confused as to why their coy, aloof and game-playing tactics leave them lonely, while their more direct and blunt friends have a number of good relationships.

More likely that women will receive a greater proportion of attention from the Aholes, and drunks, further encouraging the belief that it's not a minority of males who behave that way... since the nice guys won't be making their approaches (due to your logic).

I feel that people who go on about "consent forms" and the level of explicit discussion that needs to take place, do not have a firm grasp on how to determine if you're reasonably sure about someone else's intent.

Whereas I wonder at the logic that says that consent is given in a noticeable manner in most situations, and that body language is a perfectly acceptable form of communication. Body language is notoriously inaccurate due to differences in cultural perceptions and depending on the environment they're in.

You don't have to be absolutely certain. You don't need things signed on the dotted line or a video recording of the other person saying, "I do".

Sure you do. Why? Because we're talking about offenses which are increasingly becoming more serious as time goes by. In spite of what Dontmatter suggests, this society of ours does not condone or tolerate rape, or other related offenses. Once labeled with such an accusation, your reputation is likely to be ruined, and that story will follow you wherever you go.

The reason why it's so important though is that consent can be withdrawn at any time. There's already been threads here on boards where the majority of female posters were outraged at the suggest that a woman wouldn't be able to remove consent before, during or after any intimate behavior. That's why consent is such an issue. Any gray area regarding consent will lead to more men being brought up on charges.

I do understand the fear aspect here; the impact that an accusation can have on a man's life. But the level of fear has to be weighed up against the reality. The woman approached in a bar is not looking around for some guy she can accuse of an assault, any more than the guy is approaching her thinking about whether he'll be able to rape her.

So long as both people are respectful of the other and their state of inebriation, there's minimal "peril".

20 years ago cases like this were essentially non-existent. They weren't noted at all. In the last year there have been a few noted in the papers, and probably quite a few more which weren't reported in the media. The point is that while it's probably rare, it's happening more often. As society and the law give women more attention about these issues, it stands to reason that such cases will increase in frequency. Especially when the areas of what is consent or abuse remain so vague.

professore

Deleted User wrote: »

20 years ago cases like this were essentially non-existent. They weren't noted at all. In the last year there have been a few noted in the papers, and probably quite a few more which weren't reported in the media. The point is that while it's probably rare, it's happening more often. As society and the law give women more attention about these issues, it stands to reason that such cases will increase in frequency. Especially when the areas of what is consent or abuse remain so vague.

It's purposefully vague. All this stuff about you should know when a woman is not interested is a load of nonsense. Unless we get to the stage where you go up to a woman, say "want to ****?" and then it's a yes or a no. This will no doubt suit some men perfectly. However some of us like a bit of flirting and banter and talking an initally disinterested woman around. So many successful marriages started like that in the past with the woman initially rejecting the man. HC is making the argument that this won't happen anymore.

I see men dividing into two groups : one group that are happy with going and having sex with lots of women in this direct manner and the other group - perhaps the less social ones - who are disillusioned with women and steer clear of them altogether - since they know that's what any woman who they think about having a long term relationship has done in the past. Plus they will be the well educated ones with good jobs who have something to lose from a false accusation. I am surprised no-one has made a film about the logical conclusion of this, it would make a great film.

Women who actually want some romance and flirting will have to decide between "want sum fuk" and a house full of cats.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

All your examples are common enough... and I would have agreed with you had the perceptions about dating or intimate interactions hadn't changed over the last decade or so. But the fact is that this area has changed, and your examples are light-years away from it. Your examples about driving are even worse, because we have rule-sets which clearly decide what should happen in each situation, and a fairly clear idea of who is responsible should an error occur.

None of your examples, have the male being taken in for questioning or being arrested due to the claim of a female. There is no rule book for romantic/intimate interactions between people.... so perhaps think of the above and use an example that actually relates to this topic area?

Right, so you're not really getting my point there; it being that we often don't require explicit communication to know the intent of another party. We can interact during our everyday life without having to spell it out, and interacting with the opposite sex is no different. A man chatting up a woman is not going to end up in court on a whim.

Who says? Society has shifted to considering women to be victims and no longer to be held responsible for what happens to them. Their choices, behavior, etc can no longer be held as important in deciding what happened, because that would be victim-blaming....

So, no... Women won't need to change because all responsibility rests with the male.

Yeah, that's complete rubbish. Society has simply started moving towards properly recognising that one person cannot be held responsible for the actions of another. A woman cannot be be held responsible for the actions of the rapist who rapes her. That shouldn't be amazing stuff, but it is. "What about personal responsibility?!".

More likely that women will receive a greater proportion of attention from the Aholes, and drunks, further encouraging the belief that it's not a minority of males who behave that way... since the nice guys won't be making their approaches (due to your logic).

What part of "my logic" says that nobody can approach anyone else? Is opening a conversation with "Hi", too daunting a task? Surely if he's such a "nice guy", then he'll be capable of introducing himself and then walking away if rebuked.

The reason why it's so important though is that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Right, exactly the same as any other consensual interaction. This is not new or counter-intuitive.

20 years ago cases like this were essentially non-existent. They weren't noted at all. In the last year there have been a few noted in the papers, and probably quite a few more which weren't reported in the media. The point is that while it's probably rare, it's being spoken about more often

FYP.

An increase in cases or reports does not mean an increase in incidents. In fact, incidents can be decreasing while reports and convictions increase.

Wibbs

Shoot me down in flames for being cynical, but this whole Henry Cavill thing smells to me like some agency PR to keep his name in the public mind(and to bat away the Gay rumours) and it went a little awry. Only a little as here we are talking about him.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Shoot me down in flames for being cynical, but this whole Henry Cavill thing smells to me like some agency PR to keep his name in the public mind(and to bat away the Gay rumours) and it went a little awry. Only a little as here we are talking about him.

Yeah to be honest I don’t think any women are at risk from HC.

givyjoe

Wibbs wrote: »

Shoot me down in flames for being cynical, but this whole Henry Cavill thing smells to me like some agency PR to keep his name in the public mind(and to bat away the Gay rumours) and it went a little awry. Only a little as here we are talking about him.

Giving him and his agent etc way too much credit! He's a bit of a habit for making foolish, sometimes borderline braindead comments.

JupiterKid

Cavill would have little to worry about. He's a hot hunk and nearly all straight women wouldn't shun his advances so long as they werent too "grabby".

Now a guy with a face like Steve Buscemi or Shane MacGowan's - well, God help him if he approached a lot of women.

Unless he was very rich.:pac:

Seems a lot of women are doing the grabbing and groping these days from what I hear.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Universal support, no... but support from those who sympathise with her, yes... which could easily be in the high numbers. And that's with her telling what happened exactly as it did. What if she's had a few drinks and doesn't remember what happened clearly?

If a woman claims online that a random man came up, asked for her number, and then Politely withdrew after being rebuffed, it doesn’t seem likely that she’s misremembering due to alcohol. What do you think the alcohol would have caused her to misremember? The man didn’t exist? He never asked for her number? The withdrawal was nasty rather than polite? He didn’t actually withdraw but persisted?

As for “high” numbers that’s subjective. I could post homophobic stuff on twitter and get support from people who sympathise with my views. Some might even characterise this as a “high” number. I’m sure you’d be at pains to say that Ireland is not homophobic and the majority do not share the extreme view.

I’d say the same about metoo. I’ve seen zero examples of women complaining that a man asked for her number in a bar and withdrew politely upon being rebuffed. Maybe there’s a few out there but is an extreme minority.

I do wonder about this General consensus though.... how is that actually determined? Oh, you'll probably say it should be obvious... but isn't just the people with the loudest and most persistent voices? And it's also subject to change depending on the mood/attitude of the people involved... (since men aren't going to be involved in that decision, who tells the men when it's changed?)

You’re never going to get your rule book on which every woman agrees klaz. You’re going to have to accept that there are some grey areas in sexual politics/dating. Just like everyone else who engages in dating/flirting has to.

But even given the grey areas it is pretty obvious when there’s a general consensus. For example, grabbing someone’s tit in a nightclub. Bad. General consensus.

An example where there isn’t a general consensus would be your method of approaching women in public. Some women will find it creepy. Others don’t seem to mind. You’re going to have to deal with those risks yourself. As I’m sure you always have done.

So what happens if you approach a woman who thinks it’s creepy. At worst she will go on Twitter and say she was approached in the bookstore in a creepy manner. Some people will agree with her. Others will think “oh I wouldn’t mind an approach in a bookstore”. You won’t be named. You most likely won’t even be aware that there was a tweet.

HC seems to imply there’s grey areas around ignoring an initial no. And it’s not true. There’s a general consensus about ignoring an Initial no.

Here’s two examples from my personal experience. Feel free to discount them as subjective if you want to:

1. Guys sees girl. Asks her out. She says no. Happens to start moving in the same friend circles as girl. Gets to know her through friends. Gets on well with her. Flirts with her every time he sees her. She reciprocated flirting . Asks her out again. I’ve seen this happen numerous times. I’ve never heard a girl claiming to be harrassed from that situation. I’ve never seen a metoo post that complains about that situation.

2. (Which happened just a month ago). Guy approaches girl politely. Girl politely rebuffs. Wherever girl goes in pub with her friends, within a few minutes guy is there standing beside her. Not doing anything creepy enough to be called out on. Just drinking his pint looking around. No matter where girl goes guy ends up standing right beside her. Eventually guy leans in “I’m actually a nice guy you know”. At which point girl tells him to leave her alone. Guy gets angry telling girl about how rude she is and how he was just being friendly. This is the kind of thing I hear women complain about. This is the kind of thing that is posted in metoo.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

(Which happened just a month ago). Guy approaches girl politely. Girl politely rebuffs. Wherever girl goes in pub with her friends, within a few minutes guy is there standing beside her. Not doing anything creepy enough to be called out on. Just drinking his pint looking around. No matter where girl goes guy ends up standing right beside her. Eventually guy leans in “I’m actually a nice guy you know”. At which point girl tells him to leave her alone. Guy gets angry telling girl about how rude she is and how he was just being friendly. This is the kind of thing I hear women complain about. This is the kind of thing that is posted in metoo.

That's terrible and all but what do you expect us to do about it ?

Do you think that guy is going to change his behaviour because of the metoo movement ?

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

That's terrible and all but what do you expect us to do about it ?

Do you think that guy is going to change his behaviour because of the metoo movement ?

Yeah I think he might

Venom

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah I think he might

More chance of you not buying a ticket and still winning the lotto.


The example in question if true is obviously someone with zero social skills and possibly mental issues, so the idea of they ever grasping that their behaviour is way out of order is so unlikely as to be astronomical.

LLMMLL

Venom wrote: »

More chance of you not buying a ticket and still winning the lotto.


The example in question if true is obviously someone with zero social skills and possibly mental issues, so the idea of they ever grasping that their behaviour is way out of order is so unlikely as to be astronomical.

Well then there’s a huge number of people out there with mental issues because that’s not an even slightly uncommon experience among my friends.

DONTMATTER

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well then there’s a huge number of people out there with mental issues because that’s not an even slightly uncommon experience among my friends.

These guys here don't have a clue. You all don't know how common sleazy behaviour is, you don't know how much hassle women go through, nearly every woman has at least one disgusting or creepy story, for many it's a regular occurance.
Open your ears, women through the metoo campaign are informing you of their experiences, stop doubting them, stop questioning them, stop minimising the effect their experiences have, fight with them, not against them!

Calhoun

DONTMATTER wrote: »

These guys here don't have a clue. You all don't know how common sleazy behaviour is, you don't know how much hassle women go through, nearly every woman has at least one disgusting or creepy story, for many it's a regular occurance.
Open your ears, women through the metoo campaign are informing you of their experiences, stop doubting them, stop questioning them, stop minimising the effect their experiences have, fight with them, not against them!

How much of the stuff do you get? What other orders will you have us follow mein Fuhrer

DONTMATTER

Calhoun wrote: »

How much of the stuff do you get? What other orders will you have us follow mein Fuhrer

So you want to fight against women, fair enough, at least you're honest.

One eyed Jack

DONTMATTER wrote: »

These guys here don't have a clue. You all don't know how common sleazy behaviour is, you don't know how much hassle women go through, nearly every woman has at least one disgusting or creepy story, for many it's a regular occurance.
Open your ears, women through the metoo campaign are informing you of their experiences, stop doubting them, stop questioning them, stop minimising the effect their experiences have, fight with them, not against them!

I know how common you claim sleazy behavior is, which is a very different thing entirely from how common it actually is. I don't owe complete strangers anything, and certainly I don't owe them trust they haven't earned. I'm not fighting against those women that claim they have experienced sleazy behavior, but in order to fight with them, and in order to see justice done - evidence, rather than scaremongering would be a good start. Until then, I'm all ears, but without evidence there's nothing can be done.

How about you stop fighting against guys saying they don't have a clue, when you aren't willing to present any actual evidence to support your claims. I don't believe for a minute that you know for certain that every woman has at least one creepy or disgusting story, and those sorts of exaggerated claims don't help your argument. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to listen to that sort of nonsense.

py2006

If I meet a woman in the real world that are likeminded to the couple posters here I (and i have met a couple) would avoid like the plague.

At best they are headwreckers and at worst they are looking for any stupid little reason to make a dubious accusation.

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know how common you claim sleazy behavior is, which is a very different thing entirely from how common it actually is. I don't owe complete strangers anything, and certainly I don't owe them trust they haven't earned. I'm not fighting against those women that claim they have experienced sleazy behavior, but in order to fight with them, and in order to see justice done - evidence, rather than scaremongering would be a good start. Until then, I'm all ears, but without evidence there's nothing can be done.

How about you stop fighting against guys saying they don't have a clue, when you aren't willing to present any actual evidence to support your claims. I don't believe for a minute that you know for certain that every woman has at least one creepy or disgusting story, and those sorts of exaggerated claims don't help your argument. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to listen to that sort of nonsense.

Alright, you think these women are all liars. You're entitled to your view. I'm just hoping the metoo campaign will at least educate some men on the reality. There's obviously no hope in educating some.

DONTMATTER

py2006 wrote: »

If I meet a woman in the real world (and i have met a couple) that are likeminded to the couple posters here I would avoid like the plague.

At best they are headwreckers and at worst they are looking for any stupid little reason to make a dubious accusation.

Honestly, I'd advise any women to avoid male posters on this thread. Some very worrying posts.

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

So you want to fight against women

"So what you're saying is.."

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Open your ears, women through the metoo campaign are informing you of their experiences, stop doubting them, stop questioning them, stop minimising the effect their experiences have, fight with them, not against them!

Can't take everything at face value. You simply can't. To do so is naive.

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Honestly, I'd advise any women to avoid male posters on this thread. Some very worrying posts.

If they're anything like you, I'd happily oblige. There you go again with your sexist rubbish. All male posters on this thread are worrying ie dangerous. Deluded.

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I'd advise any women to avoid male posters on this thread. Some very worrying posts.

What are you suggesting ?

At least have the balls to say what you mean..

DONTMATTER

Rennaws wrote: »

"So what you're saying is.."

Can't you read?

DONTMATTER

Omackeral wrote: »

Can't take everything at face value. You simply can't. To do so is naive.

We can take it that thousands upon thousands of women are not lying. Surely that has to be accepted?

DONTMATTER

Omackeral wrote: »

If they're anything like you, I'd happily oblige. There you go again with your sexist rubbish. All male posters on this thread are worrying ie dangerous. Deluded.

Some.

Sweetemotion

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We can take it that thousands upon thousands of women are not lying. Surely that has to be accepted?

So what you're saying is...

Pac1Man

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We can take it that thousands upon thousands of women are not lying. Surely that has to be accepted?

What were they wearing at the time though?

Calhoun

DONTMATTER wrote: »

So you want to fight against women, fair enough, at least you're honest.

I never said that i asked an honest question on the abuse you personally get as you seem to know allot about it.

Also as you are a victim and we should do as you say unquestionably i am wondering what orders you have for us.

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We can take it that thousands upon thousands of women are not lying. Surely that has to be accepted?

Yep I don't doubt loads have had sh*tty experiences. You don't just get automatic belief in this world though because unfortunately there are scumbag psycho bitches who make stuff up for various reasons. That's why due process is a thing. That's why juries are a thing.

DONTMATTER

Rennaws wrote: »

What are you suggesting ?

At least have the balls to say what you mean..

I'm saying I'd advise women to avoid men on this thread, read what I post!

DONTMATTER

Sweetemotion wrote: »

So what you're saying is...

Is reading a problem amongst posters here?

Sweetemotion

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Is reading a problem amongst posters here?

So what you're saying is...

DONTMATTER

Calhoun wrote: »

I never said that i asked an honest question on the abuse you personally get as you seem to know allot about it.

Also as you are a victim and we should do as you say unquestionably i am wondering what orders you have for us.

Just stop doubting women and stand up against rapists and sex pests, not so difficult is it?

givyjoe

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Is reading a problem amongst posters here?

If there was any doubt before that you were midland missus reincarnated..

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

There you go again with your sexist rubbish. All male posters on this thread are worrying ie dangerous. Deluded.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

some.

Yeah, you just said male posters. It's there in black and white. You said;

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Honestly, I'd advise any women to avoid male posters on this thread. Some very worrying posts.

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Can't you read?

I think the true meaning of that post may have gone over your head..

And yes I can read..

You seem to be getting a little irked..

DONTMATTER

Omackeral wrote: »

Yep I don't doubt loads have had sh*tty experiences. You don't just get automatic belief in this world though because unfortunately there are scumbag psycho bitches who make stuff up for various reasons. That's why due process is a thing. That's why juries are a thing.

Yes but not all the stories were about stuff that would go to court. And they weren't all lying. Maybe you believe some women are liars, this still leaves thousands of stories, thousands of women affected by this stuff. Let's support them.

One eyed Jack

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Alright, you think these women are all liars. You're entitled to your view. I'm just hoping the metoo campaign will at least educate some men on the reality. There's obviously no hope in educating some.

That's... not my view though?

As far as I can see the metoo campaign certainly has achieved it's aims of validating a certain class of professional whinger. It hasn't had any effect on people's daily lives other than anyone I know personally regarding it with contempt and ridicule.

If you want to effect real change and educate people, it starts a lot closer to home than twitter. It starts with yourself. Educating other people requires a bit more effort than simply telling them they don't have a clue, and they should listen and believe what they're told without question.

That isn't an attempt to educate anyone, it's an attempt to indoctrinate people with your own ideology, and that's what people disagree with, because it doesn't square with their reality.

DONTMATTER

Sweetemotion wrote: »

So what you're saying is...

Welcome to my ignore list.

Calhoun

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Just stop doubting women and stand up against rapists and sex pests, not so difficult is it?

How else may i defend the honor of these women? should we track these sex pests down? how about mandatory re-education programs for all young males when they reach puberty?

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I'm saying I'd advise women to avoid men on this thread, read what I post!

Wait, I thought it was some? Hang on, let me underline it like you did when getting upset. Some. Your, admittedly very thin, veil has slipped. You're nothing but an out and out sexist. Basically, you're kinda what you profess to hate.

DONTMATTER

givyjoe wrote: »

If there was any doubt before that you were midland missus reincarnated..

Who is that?