If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I guess its both. Cowardly for not encaging oin conversation but bold for risking a slap, a beating and a police visit/possible charges.
I am not admiring it. Just saying I could never do it.
Hell I can barely talk to random girls in clubs and pubs so I wouldn;t do that.
Mind you, the odd times I have got a dance with a girl, there was some wandering hands :hyper:
they seemed to be ok with it though, I didn't go too extreme
All this waffle about it being down to "lad culture" and so on. Bollocks. Men do it because it sometimes works. It's fucking ludicrous to suggest anything else.
And if the person in question has read the "signals" wrong and thinks they have got consent when they haven't?
I agree, as it happens. I just think it's madness to make it an offence. Theres just too many variables and it's too subjective. As for it being "sexual abuse", that's horseshit too. "Oh no someone has touched my leg! (who I didn't like) Now I must have been sexually abused!!"
And I've been forcibly stripped down by a bunch of women on a hen night just prior to shagging the "bride to be" in a nightclub toilet. Should they all go on the sex offenders register too?
Bollocks. No harm, no foul.
I see what you mean klintock. Pretty shocking your story there. I think women are just as capable as men as being out of line and sexually assaulting people. Can't belive the bride to be shagged you though. I never belived in that idea that 1 final fling b4 marriage was ok. To be honest, a woman that could do that worries me.
Yes I know and you're normal. I pity you!
That was Kermit. I agree, they are nobs.
I'd tell you to take everything everyone says with a massive pinch of salt. (Yes, Blagsta, even Marx!) That would include women who have suffered no physical harm claiming "assault". Especially when you are about to chuck
someone in the same boat as paedophiles and rapists.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html
http://www.billoblog.com/billoblog/?p=134
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:bqVd-JTHorMJ:www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/14%2520Hall%252009-01.pdf+woman+withdraw+rape+accusation+&hl=en
Try google, there are plenty more. It's hardly breaking news that people make stuff up to get out of difficulties or for other reasons, surely to fuck?
Look, I got links from two forensic phsychiatrists, a professor of law and a forensic pathologist.
Are you really suggesting that 100% of all claims of sexual abuse are accurate? You are really thinking that the scenario I mentioned couldn't ever happen? Do fuck off.
I'd love for some proof of that kind of bollocks. Logically, false reporting for sexual crime has to be much higher than for any other crime. Think about it.
Let's have some links for your position then, while we are on the subject.
Unless you genuinely think 94% of all allegations of rape are "false", yeah?
The statistical basis for these claims please with a nice link would be good.
I doubt it. It doesn't logically follow. False reporting will remain constant for all crimes, however rape isn't reported as often as it should be because of various factors which you will already know.
Those factors do not apply to those making claims up. Shame, feelings of loss, annihilation of self esteem and all the horrible rest of it will simply not apply to those inventing cases of rape. So false reporting is probably close to it's maximum already, while genuine rape isn't anything like reported enough. This will give extra weight to false reporting statistically.
Regardless, to say that having your arse pinched by some dickhead who has misread the situation is comparable to being raped is madness. Annoying, maybe, frustrating, maybe, intimidating, maybe. Worth locking someone up for or destroying their life over? Don't think so.......
I didn't thinkt hy came across as degrading smut. I mean encourgaing of the lads drinking culture yes, but ther was plenty of submissions by women in letters and artciles and coverage and I really don't thinkt he women saw it that way.
I mean its not high brow publication by any means, in fact a good proportion of the mags are advertisements but I don't see it as any kind of morally reprehenisble literaure that has any effect on society.
not like anyone complains that much. I mean binge drinking is derided in the press and yet we are filled with images and advice to go drinking.
go figure.
Some women are happy to do it, and enjoy it- such as Skive's sister who likes making pots of money from getting her funbags out for the lads- but that doesn't mean all are. Or that those who think it degrading smut should have their opinions banned.
It is degrading smut- it degrades women, it degrades men, and it degrades the whole sexual experience. I honestly can't believe that people don't think that's a problem.
There's no such thing as a harmless joke. I don't think FHM are on a cynical trip to subjugate women, but that is a direct and inevitable result of their actions.
I don't want to see FHM banned, but I do want to see it wrapped up in cellophane on the top shelf along with all the other mucky mags.
There, there.
What a load of tosh. (Again)
All or most of the changes in "soceity" over the last few decades have come from men or women?
"If you really want to understand what a woman really thinks, which by the way is a dangerous thing to do, look at her, don't listen to her."
Oscar Wilde.
Even the most cursory glance at women's behaviour reveals that the political guff that's spewed out and how they behave simply do not match in the slightest degree.