ChatterBank0 min ago
This Guy Should Take Up Golf, I Am Sure He Would Get Round In 18.
108 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A-H
I have to ask myself what two erstwhile young Mother Teresa's are doing hanging around a swanky expensive nightclub where the bubbly runs into 3 figures.18 and 24 years.??? Surely not good time girls. Perhaps you think they were handing out copies of The Watchtower to a filthy rich Arab and then accompanying this aged roue back to his premises in order to ensure he got home safely. How sweet and VIRTUOUS of them. You really do confirm my views of you and the real world.
I have to ask myself what two erstwhile young Mother Teresa's are doing hanging around a swanky expensive nightclub where the bubbly runs into 3 figures.18 and 24 years.??? Surely not good time girls. Perhaps you think they were handing out copies of The Watchtower to a filthy rich Arab and then accompanying this aged roue back to his premises in order to ensure he got home safely. How sweet and VIRTUOUS of them. You really do confirm my views of you and the real world.
retrocop - //A-H
I have to ask myself what two erstwhile young Mother Teresa's are doing hanging around a swanky expensive nightclub where the bubbly runs into 3 figures.18 and 24 years.??? Surely not good time girls. Perhaps you think they were handing out copies of The Watchtower to a filthy rich Arab and then accompanying this aged roue back to his premises in order to ensure he got home safely. How sweet and VIRTUOUS of them. You really do confirm my views of you and the real world. //
It's easy to sneer at the idea that these women did not deserve to be mistreated by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And in doing so, you assist in perpetuating the notion that this is somehow acceptable because they ladies 'knew what they were doing', and 'knew the risks'.
My view is simple - there should not be 'risks' to accompanying a man back to a hotel room. There should not be an automatic assumption on both sides that sexual activity is a given, and an understood end to the evening. A woman should have the right to decide not to co-operate with a man expecting sex, and if he forces her, the cultural attitude - which you display - that she should have 'known what was happening' simply condones and excuses sexual assault.
I think that is wrong and I refuse to go along with the 'they knew what they were doing ...' argument because it excuses exploitation and sexual assault.
As for you confirming 'your views of me and the real world' - your rather tall assumption that your view of my attitudes on anything matters the slightest, is once again seriously misplaced.
You think I am naive, I think you are a misogynist - I am happy enough to be thought of thus - are you?
I expect my view of you to matter as much as yours does to me - but I don't judge you unless you judge me first.
I have to ask myself what two erstwhile young Mother Teresa's are doing hanging around a swanky expensive nightclub where the bubbly runs into 3 figures.18 and 24 years.??? Surely not good time girls. Perhaps you think they were handing out copies of The Watchtower to a filthy rich Arab and then accompanying this aged roue back to his premises in order to ensure he got home safely. How sweet and VIRTUOUS of them. You really do confirm my views of you and the real world. //
It's easy to sneer at the idea that these women did not deserve to be mistreated by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And in doing so, you assist in perpetuating the notion that this is somehow acceptable because they ladies 'knew what they were doing', and 'knew the risks'.
My view is simple - there should not be 'risks' to accompanying a man back to a hotel room. There should not be an automatic assumption on both sides that sexual activity is a given, and an understood end to the evening. A woman should have the right to decide not to co-operate with a man expecting sex, and if he forces her, the cultural attitude - which you display - that she should have 'known what was happening' simply condones and excuses sexual assault.
I think that is wrong and I refuse to go along with the 'they knew what they were doing ...' argument because it excuses exploitation and sexual assault.
As for you confirming 'your views of me and the real world' - your rather tall assumption that your view of my attitudes on anything matters the slightest, is once again seriously misplaced.
You think I am naive, I think you are a misogynist - I am happy enough to be thought of thus - are you?
I expect my view of you to matter as much as yours does to me - but I don't judge you unless you judge me first.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, idealism is wonderful - but wholly unrealistic. I don't believe these girls were so naïve as to assume an invitation to this man's room was proffered out of innocent friendship - and I don't believe the man's excuse either. //
It has nothing to do with 'idealism', or what the two young ladies may or may not have anticipated on arrival at the hotel room.
This is to do with society's attitudes to sexual assault.
The current cultural attitude that a woman going to a man's room should 'expect sex to take place' is unacceptable.
If the woman goes willingly, and concensual sex takes place, then there is no problem.
If however, the woman changes her mind, and she is assaulted or raped, and society's view is that she 'knew what she was going for ...', then society agrees that the woman got what she deserved, and the man has carte blanche to override her objections and take the sexual activity to which he is seen as entitled, simply by her being there in the room.
I cannot believe that anyone in a civilised society believes that this is a correct viewpoint for society to take, and the notion that my view is naïve or fanciful simply allows this attitude to perpetuate.
As I have stated previously - I think a woman has a right to deny sex at any time she wishes, and the notion that she has put herself in the way of violent sexual assault simply because she enters a room with a man late at night denigrates both men as a gender, and a woman's right to decide what happens to her.
As long as people simply raise their eyebrows and shrug at the 'naivety' of my viewpoint, then women will continue to be raped in hotel rooms because society has decided that they 'deserved' it.
If thinking that no woman deserves to be raped, whatever the time and place is 'naïve' - then I am delighted to be so.
It has nothing to do with 'idealism', or what the two young ladies may or may not have anticipated on arrival at the hotel room.
This is to do with society's attitudes to sexual assault.
The current cultural attitude that a woman going to a man's room should 'expect sex to take place' is unacceptable.
If the woman goes willingly, and concensual sex takes place, then there is no problem.
If however, the woman changes her mind, and she is assaulted or raped, and society's view is that she 'knew what she was going for ...', then society agrees that the woman got what she deserved, and the man has carte blanche to override her objections and take the sexual activity to which he is seen as entitled, simply by her being there in the room.
I cannot believe that anyone in a civilised society believes that this is a correct viewpoint for society to take, and the notion that my view is naïve or fanciful simply allows this attitude to perpetuate.
As I have stated previously - I think a woman has a right to deny sex at any time she wishes, and the notion that she has put herself in the way of violent sexual assault simply because she enters a room with a man late at night denigrates both men as a gender, and a woman's right to decide what happens to her.
As long as people simply raise their eyebrows and shrug at the 'naivety' of my viewpoint, then women will continue to be raped in hotel rooms because society has decided that they 'deserved' it.
If thinking that no woman deserves to be raped, whatever the time and place is 'naïve' - then I am delighted to be so.
It might be unrealistic now, but the way to drive forward change is to encourage more idealism. It has worked before in the past, it will do so again here given time.
We shouldn't tolerate the idea that going round to someone's house is in itself consent to any and all sexual activity. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that if a woman goes around to a house with more than one man living there, then consenting to sex with one man equates to consenting to sex with all of the men present. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that having sex at one point in the evening implies consent later on. And so on and so forth. Nothing's going to change if we accept these attitudes, and tut at the women involved for being naive -- or, alternatively, for being the exact opposite.
In this case, two women went around to the man's house and -- according to the complainant -- only one of those women actually consented to sex. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that the other woman also automatically consented to sex by being present at the same time.
Yes it's idealism. No it's not totally realistic. So what? If it is idealism then it's something we should strive to achieve, no?
We shouldn't tolerate the idea that going round to someone's house is in itself consent to any and all sexual activity. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that if a woman goes around to a house with more than one man living there, then consenting to sex with one man equates to consenting to sex with all of the men present. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that having sex at one point in the evening implies consent later on. And so on and so forth. Nothing's going to change if we accept these attitudes, and tut at the women involved for being naive -- or, alternatively, for being the exact opposite.
In this case, two women went around to the man's house and -- according to the complainant -- only one of those women actually consented to sex. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that the other woman also automatically consented to sex by being present at the same time.
Yes it's idealism. No it's not totally realistic. So what? If it is idealism then it's something we should strive to achieve, no?
Jim - we have cross-posted, but I am pleased to see that you agree entirely with me on this view.
Society changes if the majority of people wish that change - and simply shrugging and accepting changes nothing. Society is made up of individuals, and as individuals, it is time to stop denigrating women for simply going about their lives, and having to submit to some arbitrary rule that decides that a certain set of circumstances means they are willing to accept being raped. That is not how a civilised society operates.
Instead of taking the view that a woman should not be in a man's hotel room without expecting sex to take place - consensual if agreed, violent if not, why not take the view that a man should respect a woman's right to say yes or no to sex, and then he should abide by that response, because that is how thinking mature adult men behave towards women.
Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Society changes if the majority of people wish that change - and simply shrugging and accepting changes nothing. Society is made up of individuals, and as individuals, it is time to stop denigrating women for simply going about their lives, and having to submit to some arbitrary rule that decides that a certain set of circumstances means they are willing to accept being raped. That is not how a civilised society operates.
Instead of taking the view that a woman should not be in a man's hotel room without expecting sex to take place - consensual if agreed, violent if not, why not take the view that a man should respect a woman's right to say yes or no to sex, and then he should abide by that response, because that is how thinking mature adult men behave towards women.
Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Jim
// only one of those women actually consented to sex. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that the other woman also automatically consented to sex by being present at the same time. //
if money passed hands - I think this is enough for a charge of 'keeping a disorderly house' or er brothel keeping to you and me
as YMF said - interesting to know the back story - but I daresay she wont kiss-and-tell ....
// only one of those women actually consented to sex. We shouldn't tolerate the idea that the other woman also automatically consented to sex by being present at the same time. //
if money passed hands - I think this is enough for a charge of 'keeping a disorderly house' or er brothel keeping to you and me
as YMF said - interesting to know the back story - but I daresay she wont kiss-and-tell ....
// just 30 mins to come to a unanimous not guilty verdict.
That suggests to me that the case against the man was very weak!//
my own record is 8 mins - er no I was supporting someone accused of indecent assault. The lawyers changed places - the judge screamed "NEXT !", and the juggernaut rolled on to dispense more justice to some other poor punter. WhenI wrote to the DPP - one Alison Saunders she replied that the sustem is meant to work like that ....
That suggests to me that the case against the man was very weak!//
my own record is 8 mins - er no I was supporting someone accused of indecent assault. The lawyers changed places - the judge screamed "NEXT !", and the juggernaut rolled on to dispense more justice to some other poor punter. WhenI wrote to the DPP - one Alison Saunders she replied that the sustem is meant to work like that ....
Eddie, // ... it says the jury took just 30 mins to come to a unanimous not guilty verdict.
That suggests to me that the case against the man was very weak! //
Certainly there wasn't enough evidence to push a conviction. Without being party to the jury's discussions I can't say of course why they reached the verdict they did but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a case of "well look folks it's just he said this and she said that and while his explanation sounds like total bilge we can't convict based on that", and so a not guilty verdict was returned. Sadly, this is the inevitable outcome of another case in many hundreds, if not thousands, of others where a woman claims to have been raped but outside her claim there is very little supporting evidence.
It's hard to see how to address this issue of low conviction rates in rape cases that doesn't also break other important legal principles. Better investigation, more and better-quality evidence? And, in the meantime, whenever one case rolls into the court, a harrowing series of court sessions where the complainant must recount a harrowing experience and undergo sometimes fairly aggressive cross-examination only for the jury to throw the case out within a couple of hours -- it encourages society at large to distrust women claiming to be rape victims, and can also discourage future rape victims from coming forward.
It's far from an ideal situation. The best way to change it is to work as hard as possible to change the attitudes that lead to the cases in the first place.
That suggests to me that the case against the man was very weak! //
Certainly there wasn't enough evidence to push a conviction. Without being party to the jury's discussions I can't say of course why they reached the verdict they did but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a case of "well look folks it's just he said this and she said that and while his explanation sounds like total bilge we can't convict based on that", and so a not guilty verdict was returned. Sadly, this is the inevitable outcome of another case in many hundreds, if not thousands, of others where a woman claims to have been raped but outside her claim there is very little supporting evidence.
It's hard to see how to address this issue of low conviction rates in rape cases that doesn't also break other important legal principles. Better investigation, more and better-quality evidence? And, in the meantime, whenever one case rolls into the court, a harrowing series of court sessions where the complainant must recount a harrowing experience and undergo sometimes fairly aggressive cross-examination only for the jury to throw the case out within a couple of hours -- it encourages society at large to distrust women claiming to be rape victims, and can also discourage future rape victims from coming forward.
It's far from an ideal situation. The best way to change it is to work as hard as possible to change the attitudes that lead to the cases in the first place.
link here
http://
More detail than in the 'Wail'
http://
More detail than in the 'Wail'
andy-hughes, //Instead of taking the view that a woman should not be in a man's hotel room without expecting sex to take place…//
I'm not sure anyone has said that exactly, but it stands to reason that if this man spent the evening in a club with these girls, buying them drinks, and then invited them to his room, it was likely that his intentions were not entirely honourable. As unsavoury as that might be, it's a fact of life.
I'm not sure anyone has said that exactly, but it stands to reason that if this man spent the evening in a club with these girls, buying them drinks, and then invited them to his room, it was likely that his intentions were not entirely honourable. As unsavoury as that might be, it's a fact of life.
A-H
I can assure you I am no misogynist. Have you ever seen a large group of trollops standing around the Victoria Sporting Club, Homer Street, W.2 on an
evening every day. These teenage Lolita's are dressed to kill. They just hover on the pavement near the door waiting for a Limo to stop at the kerb with preferably an Arab inside.No word is spoken the Arab just nods at a girl and she follows into the casino. Those girls are invariably seen again in the interview room of Paddington or Marylebone police station. Mascara running down their faces and a black eye or two.Still they get to keep the newly acquired Gold Rolex watch. Of course the Arab claims Diplomatic Immunity and is rushed back to Saudi until the next time.That is the risk of the games these girls play. I have seen it many times. Have you?
I can assure you I am no misogynist. Have you ever seen a large group of trollops standing around the Victoria Sporting Club, Homer Street, W.2 on an
evening every day. These teenage Lolita's are dressed to kill. They just hover on the pavement near the door waiting for a Limo to stop at the kerb with preferably an Arab inside.No word is spoken the Arab just nods at a girl and she follows into the casino. Those girls are invariably seen again in the interview room of Paddington or Marylebone police station. Mascara running down their faces and a black eye or two.Still they get to keep the newly acquired Gold Rolex watch. Of course the Arab claims Diplomatic Immunity and is rushed back to Saudi until the next time.That is the risk of the games these girls play. I have seen it many times. Have you?
douglas - //Lawks, lumme and luvaduck, it's come to a pretty pass I must say when a gal can't accept an invite to a gent's lodgings to have deficiencies in her English and arithmetic education corrected.
Etching viewing is also to be positively encouraged//
Making light of a case where sexual assault is involved is the sort of approach that allows these scenes to replicate themselves.
Maybe it's not a subject for your witticisms.
Etching viewing is also to be positively encouraged//
Making light of a case where sexual assault is involved is the sort of approach that allows these scenes to replicate themselves.
Maybe it's not a subject for your witticisms.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Will She Be Staying In A Hotel With...
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.