Home Politics & Debate
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.

The lads mags

1181920212224»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    If no-one complains there's no offence, silly.

    It's all about reasonableness- if a girl grabs your hands, it could be said that she consented, but if you walk up to a girl and grab both her arse cheeks, and she complains, then you're gonna get done.

    It was part D that I was interested in though...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was part D that I was interested in though...

    Yeah, I know.

    It's a "reasonable man" test, normally- what would a "reasonable man" do in those circumstances? If she's screaming "grab my arse, you fucker" then of course that's consent; if she's just stood at a gig watching the band its not.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with this law, it should be upheld more really. If a girl's interested she'll let you know, if she's not then what on earth are you doing grabbing her arse?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:

    I don't think there's anything wrong with this law, it should be upheld more really. If a girl's interested she'll let you know, if she's not then what on earth are you doing grabbing her arse?

    A question which only needs one word for an answer: Drunkenness

    Something people could avoid of course, but British culture doesn't exactly encourage that

    On the subject of lads mags, I don't think they're evil (what does that mean anyway?), I just don't find them impressive. They teach the readers to be idiots, and they teach women to be idiots as well. I might read them for a laugh, but I wouldn't take them seriously
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Women's POV on this thread continues to be ignored, except when Turlough, Klintock and Walkindude pop in to say that they are wrong to feel threatened when they are indecently assaulted in pubs and clubs.

    Oh God you couldn't imagine the amount of psychological pain I went through after a fat ginger touched me up, I was uber shocked nad hurt :yeees:

    You make a good point, if a man gropes a girl and she likes it and they get on then winner, if he gropes a girl and she doesn't like it, then she's entitled to slap him on the face. Seems like a logical solution to the problem eh, that way both people are hurt the same way!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All that proves turlough is that you haven't taken in anything thats been said on this thread. I thought you were a bit brighter than this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A question which only needs one word for an answer: Drunkenness

    Being drunk is no defence.

    I'd like to see more men get done for indecent assault after groping up women in pubs, clubs and gigs. They wouldn't do it again.

    Turlough still misses the point. Perhaps I should refer him back to what my wife said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd like to see more men get done for indecent assault after groping up women in pubs, clubs and gigs. They wouldn't do it again.

    I'd like to see fewer of them get lucky. They'd soon stop.

    Could you explain to me how being kidnapped, imprisoned and having your life ruined by being put on the sex offenders register is in any way proportional to a squeeze on the arse?

    Why are you so in favour of the use of violence anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why are you in favour of violence against women klintock?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What violence, Blagsta?

    If you are going to say that having your arse squeezed is violent you are a fucking loon.

    Even if you are (nutter) how is the response from the sociopaths who claim to represent you anything like proportional?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    I'd like to see fewer of them get lucky. They'd soon stop.

    Yep, women who go to clubs are asking to be groped, yeah?
    Could you explain to me how being kidnapped, imprisoned and having your life ruined by being put on the sex offenders register is in any way proportional to a squeeze on the arse?

    It's called punishment. It will teach disgusting pigs to keep their grubby hands to themselves.
    Why are you so in favour of the use of violence anyway?

    I'm not the one saying that sexual violence is OK as "some women" don't mind it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, women who go to clubs are asking to be groped, yeah?

    Not at all. What the fuck are you on about?
    It's called punishment. It will teach disgusting pigs to keep their grubby hands to themselves.

    So if say someone pats me on the arse (who I don't like) I am justified in kidnapping him, ruining his reputation and can kick his teeth in? Oh no, I have to get men in costumes to do it for me. Then it's ok. :rolleyes:

    Quick question - will it work? No. You'll just injure many people who really don't deserve it. (As per for anything the "state" does)
    I'm not the one saying that sexual violence is OK as "some women" don't mind it.

    Oh dear. That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying it's not sexual violence in the first place. It's horrible (sometimes) annoying (sometimes) etc etc.

    Pehaps my willingness to take responsibility for my own feelings and actions has blinded me to the fact that most people don't. "He touched me, that makes me feel bad" kind of magical thinking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe its because you seem incapable of empathising with others or thinking in the abstract that you think its OK klintock.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Pehaps my willingness to take responsibility for my own feelings and actions has blinded me to the fact that most people don't.

    :lol:

    Again, I refer you to what my wife has said on the matter.

    Perhaps she should magically start liking it, to pander to men, yeah?

    Empathy really is an abstract concept to you, which would explain a lot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe its because you seem incapable of empathising with others or thinking in the abstract that you think its OK klintock.

    Perhaps your inability to think about things in concrete terms and over emotionalism have lead you to a wrong conclusion.

    I never said it was ok, either. It's a long way from agreeing that something isn't that pleasant to agreeing on the totally out of proportion response you and Kermit want to endorse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps she should magically start liking it, to pander to men, yeah?

    Again, this is a problem in communication between us. If you touch me, and then stop, the touch is no longer there. I can no longer feel it. For most of you, that touch follows you around somehow. "Bad things" have happened to you, now they have stopped, move on.

    Btw, that can be done if you know how. You can like anything if you know how you work.
    Empathy really is an abstract concept to you, which would explain a lot.

    You have no idea how much empathy I have. You're thinking with your emotions though, which is something I always endeavour to avoid. the more emotioanl the topic, the more you should leave emotion out of it, tbh. I wouldn't be very good at my job if every time someone told me about their terrrible past I let them induce their problem in me, would I?
    what i don't understand is how, as someone who seems so concerned with the ways in which the state violates individuals' rights to non-interference, you can justify one individual violating another's right to be left alone and right to bodily integrity.

    I never said it was ok. It's the massive and pointless knee-jerk response that gets my goat. Yes you have the right to bodily integrity, so show me the damage caused by a pat on the arse. If I punch you in the face and break your nose then I have violated your rights. If I just reach out and touch it, while you might not like it much it really doesn't do you any harm.

    Tell me to fuck off, swat my hand away and case closed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't break your bones then you're not harmed according to Klintock.

    This is a man who thinks it OK to drive like a lunatic so long as you don't hit anyone, mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so does that mean i only have a right to bodily integrity insofar as you may not draw blood or break bones?

    No, as I said, you are well within your rights to use as little force as possible to stop people touching you. As far as I am concerned, "punishment" only comes in once there is some damage occuring. Although I don't believe in punishment for one second, I believe in recompense.
    but as long as no visible harm has been done, you can touch my body and i have to tolerate that?

    No, but as long as no physical harm has occured, you have no right to kidnap, imprison or otherwise be violent (other than needed in the moment to stop the touching). That being the case, you have no right to employ others on your behalf to do those things.

    I touch you on the arse (because I have read some "signals" wrong pissed up) you glass me. Who's done the most harm?
    and even a minimal state that only has the functions of protecting individuals' rights and preventing force would be justified in punishing you for it.

    In proportion to what has actually occured. If you had "mental damage", could prove it and needed therapy or couldn't work, then the guy could pay you for the therapy or supplement your livelihood until you could. Quite why Kermit and the rest want to pay for the gropers food and board, clothes and guards is beyond me totally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't break your bones then you're not harmed according to Klintock.

    Problems in the mind recquire solutions in the mind. Tbh, I would love to see the time coding on you lot, you are all over the fucking place. Things that might happen in the future are felt like they are happening now, things from the past are like recent events for you.

    A touch can mean anything, the touchee decides what. Who's responsible for that decision?

    There's only one reality, Kermit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poor klintock, people must be so confusing for you :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poor klintock, people must be so confusing for you :(

    Not really. I make my living by understanding them better than most. :)

    Poor Blagsta, trapped in a world of myths and lies. :crying:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    All that proves turlough is that you haven't taken in anything thats been said on this thread. I thought you were a bit brighter than this.

    I'm not being entirely serious blag, this thread has just gone in numerous circles it's not worth posting anything serious anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.