Jump to content
Barry Fish

General News Discussion

Recommended Posts

Just now, zahidf said:

Again, are you saying what she specifically said was unclear? because they seem very clear to me.

So if you think he was deliberately ignoring these obvious signals. Why do you think he stopped when she said I don't want to have sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lost said:

So if you think he was deliberately ignoring these obvious signals. Why do you think he stopped when she said I don't want to have sex?

Because thats rape and he isnt a rapist.

He kept to the line. As i said above, he was after consent, not caring if it was reluctant consent after badgering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zahidf said:

Because thats rape and he isnt a rapist.

He kept to the line. As i said above, he was after consent, not caring if it was reluctant consent after badgering

How do you quantify reluctant consent?  I really don't see what is wrong with a simple no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its more a presumption that the woman isnt lying (which used to be the perception and still is too an extent)

 

I dont think that should be replaced by the presumption that the man is lying.  A presumption of innocence means that some guilty people get off, however I think the opposite is more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lost said:

How do you quantify reluctant consent?  I really don't see what is wrong with a simple no

They are many reasons why women would give reluctant consent to sex and not want to just say no. Are you genuinely confused?

Edited by zahidf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

They are many reasons why women would give reluctant consent to sex and not want to just say no. Are you genuinely confused?

No I'm saying there maybe millions of potential signs of reluctant consent. i'm sure I've given them off lots of times to women. I'm too tired, i'm drunk etc..  I'm saying its un-quantifiable so we should be teaching women to say no or if that's not good enough stay in the house and don't get in a position where you may have sex.

Edited by lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

They are many reasons why women would give reluctant consent to sex and not want to just say no. Are you genuinely confused?

(obviously, I'm excluding threats from the below)

There's a party, one person wants to go, the other doesn't. 1st talks 2nd into going.  

Ultimately, it's *only* that 2nd person's choice, and the 'reluctance' is meaningless against the consent.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lost said:

we should be teaching women to say no or if that's not good enough stay in the house and don't get in a position where you may have sex.

Or teaching men that nothing less than an enthusiastic yes will do, or if that’s not good enough stay in the house and don’t get in a position where you may have sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bunique said:

Or teaching men that nothing less than an enthusiastic yes will do, or if that’s not good enough stay in the house and don’t get in a position where you may have sex?

again how do you quantify enthusiasm? 

and the second piece was tongue in cheek as I said its what the religious bods are saying and the feminists are happy to play along with. 

Edited by lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(obviously, I'm excluding threats from the below)

There's a party, one person wants to go, the other doesn't. 1st talks 2nd into going.  

Ultimately, it's *only* that 2nd person's choice, and the 'reluctance' is meaningless against the consent.

Legally yes. No one is saying Aziz is a rapist

Its all about if he is a creep and hypocrite: is it socially acceptable to angle for ANY consent or should it be enthusiastic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I dont think that should be replaced by the presumption that the man is lying.  A presumption of innocence means that some guilty people get off, however I think the opposite is more dangerous.

I dont think it has overall: its just that the accusations made are being taken seriously now, more than it used to be 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its all about if he is a creep and hypocrite: 

I've already said he's a hypocrite which I think is brilliant and I hope his career is over from a personal point of view. The claw thing is weird but could be formed from past experiences, I've been shocked by the amount of women asking to be choked and such in the past.

I think people are objecting to a movement originally being about rape spreading out to these sorts of examples and not enough differentiation being given regarding accusations. This has resulted in consequences for the accused that far outweigh the accusations made. 

If we take Louis CK. I believe he liked knocking one out in front of women. In this case he did always ask for consent and wouldn't proceed until given a yes. The accusation is the women were saying yes when they wanted to say no because he was a more experienced comedian and they were worried regarding offending him.

Now I'd say he's a perv but I don't see how having his career erased and his new movie pulled from release is a equivalent punishment for what he did.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zahidf said:

if he is a creep

sounds like he is.

Just as the woman sounds like someone too naive to be allowed out on her own.

Cos I reckon that for all the while the not-getting creep has his dick out, there's more than one set of visual indicators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it isn't solely a criticism of metoo. It generally happens with any witch hunt where it spirals out of control,  generally goes too far and results in things like the labour MP who killed himself because he wasn't allowed to hear what the accusations were and so couldn't defend himself. I was just pointing out the religious people are loving it as they have been making the same arguments regarding women for centuries.

Edited by lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lost said:

I've already said he's a hypocrite which I think is brilliant and I hope his career is over from a personal point of view. The claw thing is weird but could be formed from past experiences, I've been shocked by the amount of women asking to be choked and such in the past.

I think people are objecting to a movement originally being about rape spreading out to these sorts of examples and not enough differentiation being given regarding accusations. This has resulted in consequences for the accused that far outweigh the accusations made. 

If we take Louis CK. I believe he liked knocking one out in front of women. In this case he did always ask for consent and wouldn't proceed until given a yes. The accusation is the women were saying yes when they wanted to say no because he was a more experienced comedian and they were worried regarding offending him.

Now I'd say he's a perv but I don't see how having his career erased and his new movie pulled from release is a equivalent punishment for what he did.

 

 

Louis Ck was doing it to junior colleagues who he could fire. His agent made  threats to ruin careers to cover it up. Saying he asked first is no defence.

He also put it in his tv show and movies. So not REALLY remorseful. He deserves to have his career ruined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Louis Ck was doing it to junior colleagues who he could fire. His agent made  threats to ruin careers to cover it up. Saying he asked first is no defence.

He also put it in his tv show and movies. So not REALLY remorseful. He deserves to have his career ruined

But isn't that for people to decide if they want to continue to pay to see him? Even people who have actually been convicted of something are allowed to work when they get out of prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lost said:

But isn't that for people to decide if they want to continue to pay to see him? Even people who have actually been convicted of something are allowed to work when they get out of prison.

In the entertainment industry? Like rolf harris and glitter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

In the entertainment industry? Like rolf harris and glitter?

Well thanks for proving my point about metoo when your happy to compare Luis CK to those two examples. Those two people will be on the sex offenders register when they come out so no they can't work with children in the entertainment industry as they did before.

Edited by lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

In the entertainment industry? Like rolf harris and glitter?

don't worry, i'm pretty sure you had a recent-ish entertainment spend that helped top up a paedo's bank account. :P

I happen to know of something where a convicted  paedo happened to cash in big on something entertainment ... because he's been clever with name changes so no one makes the link (can't reveal who/what, would be in big shit if I did).

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lost said:

Well thanks for proving my point about metoo when your happy to compare Luis CK to those two examples. Those two people will be on the sex offenders register when they come out so no they can't work with children in the entertainment industry as they did before.

Networks wont fund his stuff because they feel his behaviour will reflect badly on them.  He has no right to a career.

Who do you think is unfairly depriving him of it?

 

Also, its fair to say Women dont regard his behaviour as 'minor'

Edited by zahidf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Networks wont fund his stuff because they feel his behaviour will reflect badly on them.  He has no right to a career.

Who do you think is unfairly depriving him of it?

As I said his finished film has been pulled (its been leaked and its pretty good)

Obviously networks can make their own choice but there are people who are pissed with holywoods hypocrisy or believe in the concept of being found guilty in a court of law. I can see it damaging them in the long term especially with the move to new media distribution technologies via the internet. The shouty internet types are only a fraction of the general population.

Edited by lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lost said:

As I said his finished film has been pulled (its been leaked and its pretty good)

Obviously networks can make their own choice but there are people who are pissed with holywoods hypocrisy or believe in the concept of being found guilty in a court of law. I can see it damaging them in the long term especially with the move to new media distribution technologies via the internet. The shouty internet types are only a fraction of the general population.

Louis ck admitted it.

You mean no one will release 'I love you daddy', Louis CKs film about a relationship between a 60 year old and a 17 year old, after he admitted to sexual misconduct?

What on earth do you expect? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Louis ck admitted it.

You mean no one will release 'I love you daddy', Louis CKs film about a relationship between a 60 year old and a 17 year old, after he admitted to sexual misconduct?

What on earth do you expect? 

They don't have a sexual relationship and I wouldn't expect someone like john malkovich to have signed up if it wasn't tongue in cheek. Its exploring a fathers anxiety when his daughter grows up. Its saying its the fathers worst nightmare but it doesn't actually happen and is doing the opposite of condoning it.

In other news guido is reporting the TERF's are next to be purged from the labour party:

 

Edited by lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lost said:

They don't have a sexual relationship and I wouldn't expect someone like john malkovich to have signed up if it wasn't tongue in cheek. Its exploring a fathers anxiety when his daughter grows up.

In other news guido is reporting the TERF's are next to be purged from the labour party:

 

HITLIST?

And the TERFS of course have no such list of transgender activists? Or have put donations to anti-trans organisations in the name of transgender activists to embarass them?

 

Nice to see Guido continuing to single out the young person and make her the face of the movement as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...