Betty Boop.

recovering conservative · Wed Jul 16, 2014 3:59 am

FourPart;1460038 wrote: I think everyone understands the meaning behind the phrase, and probably pretty much agrees with the underlying intent. It all comes down to a simple error in phrasing. I don't believe anyone was intentionally accusing anyone else of being a paedophile.

Furthermore, although the term "Sexual Predator" may not be technically restricted to children, it must be accepted that this is the generally accepted meaning, in the same way that "Rape" is not restricted to Male attacks on Women - it can happen the other way round. It's just accepted that way (not that I'm accusing anyone here either - just an possible example of misinterpreting something).

Let's calm down, everyone, and accept that it was simply an incorrect term to describe an action where the actual meaning, taken in the context of everything else, was self evident.

FWIW, it seems that most of this drama has occurred prior to you joining, and while I was on a long hiatus. That's why I refrain from commenting specifically on the back and forth. Although I believe there should be firm policies against sexual harassment...I've quit the last two forums I was on mainly because of a turn towards misogynistic ramblings from some new members that were never adequately dealt with by mods and admin. I don't know where this is coming from...maybe it's Youtube or reddit or some other internet platforms that will provide a community for even the worse kinds of thinking and behaviour. But, it seems to be a problem all over the web.

Afterthought: a woman can't rape a man! That's just plain impossible. Maybe sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault are possibilities; but whenever subjects dealing with domestic violence come up, the exception shouldn't be allowed to prove a rule. Most of the problem starts from higher testosterone levels...men using violence and the threat of violence (that can be just as bad also), and if they are encouraged by a misogynistic culture...then we all have a problem!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:50 am

recovering conservative;1460060 wrote: Afterthought: a woman can't rape a man! That's just plain impossible. Maybe sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault are possibilities; but whenever subjects dealing with domestic violence come up, the exception shouldn't be allowed to prove a rule. Most of the problem starts from higher testosterone levels...men using violence and the threat of violence (that can be just as bad also), and if they are encouraged by a misogynistic culture...then we all have a problem!
I beg to differ:

Rape by gender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:06 am

Týr;1460059 wrote: Ah.

They were insisting, that's all.

Don't tell I, tell Ee.

Well, Bryn, as far as I am concerned this situation is going nowhere and slowly. I believe hell will freeze over before we get apologies for the unnecessary rudeness and sarcasm aimed at Peter, from Mr. Spot, Tyr, FG or even John ! He certainly won't budge from his stand over links and definitions. Why should he ? He is Tyr when all's said and done !

Yes the thread has run it's course and I personally agree that nothing will be gained from dragging it any further. Not sure how Peter feels about it though. :-3

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:12 am

G#Gill;1460064 wrote: He is Tyr when all's said and done !
The wording you need there is "He's right".

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:21 am

Týr;1460065 wrote: The wording you need there is "He's right".

That is what you would say, of course. I will leave it to readers' interpretation.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:12 am

G#Gill;1460064 wrote: Well, Bryn, as far as I am concerned this situation is going nowhere and slowly. I believe hell will freeze over before we get apologies for the unnecessary rudeness and sarcasm aimed at Peter, from Mr. Spot, Tyr, FG or even John ! He certainly won't budge from his stand over links and definitions. Why should he ? He is Tyr when all's said and done !

Yes the thread has run it's course and I personally agree that nothing will be gained from dragging it any further. Not sure how Peter feels about it though. :-3

Gill, believe me, it would take heaven and earth to wind me up or upset me, it's the medication you know :wah:

There is no point in continuing this only to say that i asked quite clearly from Tyr for a link for a definition of online sexual predator that differed from the six i have now provided. I under no circumstances was asking for links of Jones's past threads and to insist i did is quite wrong. I have no desire to see Jones's past threads and i doubt anyone else does either, besides, what would it prove other than ramming a point home? I'm sure should we take the time to search, we could all drag up threads from the past where members have behaved appallingly. Jones may be guilty of sexual harassment on this forum, i don't know but for some he has behaved impeccably and i just happen to believe that other members should be left to form their own opinions of him, that's all.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:06 am

High Threshold;1460042 wrote: We've decided to take the train to Kristianstad today. It's been rather warm these last days though it looks as though it might rain a bit today. Oh well, never mind – we'll be spending it in a museum. Our Henrik loves museums and Olga always packs a lovely basket lunch, with a thermos of coffee. Mmmmmm! Now, if I can only rouse everyone from their sleep ¦.........

Anyone care to come along or meet us there? :driving:

I WISH! Heck, Yes! I love museums, too, little Henrik!

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:17 am

Peter Lake;1460068 wrote: Gill, believe me, it would take heaven and earth to wind me up or upset me, it's the medication you know :wah:

There is no point in continuing this only to say that i asked quite clearly from Tyr for a link for a definition of online sexual predator that differed from the six i have now provided. I under no circumstances was asking for links of Jones's past threads and to insist i did is quite wrong. I have no desire to see Jones's past threads and i doubt anyone else does either, besides, what would it prove other than ramming a point home? I'm sure should we take the time to search, we could all drag up threads from the past where members have behaved appallingly. Jones may be guilty of sexual harassment on this forum, i don't know but for some he has behaved impeccably and i just happen to believe that other members should be left to form their own opinions of him, that's all.

Well I suppose it was my fault that Tyr brought it up about the historical posts/threads of Jj's because I requested that he proved that what he said about Jj was correct. But quite honestly written posts just don't prove a thing - they could just be make believe, just words, so it's doubtful anyway that finding and displaying Jj's iffy historical posts would prove a sausage ! I think it would be a fruitless exercise and a waste of peoples' time. I reckon there is no way that Tyr can prove that what he says about Jj is true, so it would be a good idea to just leave it all alone. I'm sure people can make their own minds up about Jj, well those members who have had dealings with him over the years, anyway.

Whether you are medicated or not, Peter, you were verbally attacked and rest assured that what Tyr said to you and the way in which he said it is down in black and white on the open board for all to see and to make a decision about the author of those rather insulting and uncalled for remarks, and in contrast, the civilised manner with which you replied to him !

Post by **Peter Lake** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:31 am

G#Gill;1460072 wrote: Well I suppose it was my fault that Tyr brought it up about the historical posts/threads of Jj's because I requested that he proved that what he said about Jj was correct. But quite honestly written posts just don't prove a thing - they could just be make believe, just words, so it's doubtful anyway that finding and displaying Jj's iffy historical posts would prove a sausage ! I think it would be a fruitless exercise and a waste of peoples' time. I reckon there is no way that Tyr can prove that what he says about Jj is true, so it would be a good idea to just leave it all alone. I'm sure people can make their own minds up about Jj, well those members who have had dealings with him over the years, anyway.

Whether you are medicated or not, Peter, you were verbally attacked and rest assured that what Tyr said to you and the way in which he said it is down in black and white on the open board for all to see and to make a decision about the author of those rather insulting and uncalled for remarks, and in contrast, the civilised manner with which you replied to him !

Insulting and uncalled for remarks are water off a ducks back with me Gill. Come on ! I'm married to Oscar for goodness sake. :wah:

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:24 am

Peter Lake;1460073 wrote: Insulting and uncalled for remarks are water off a ducks back with me Gill. Come on ! I'm married to Oscar for goodness sake. :wah:

That's funny! :yh_rotfl

Good answer.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:01 am

Peter Lake;1460073 wrote: Insulting and uncalled for remarks are water off a ducks back with me Gill. Come on ! I'm married to Oscar for goodness sake. :wah:

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Yep, that says it all !

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:50 am

Týr;1460053 wrote: Good lord man, I'm five hours from the nearest airport! To get there I would definitely start from somewhere else!

Well, we've been already and back home again so it's too late.

Bryn Mawr;1460058 wrote: Enough! It happened and it is in the Garden for those that wish to to find.

I do not want it resurrecting and being brought into the limelight again.

Thank Christ!

recovering conservative;1460060 wrote: Afterthought: a woman can't rape a man! That's just plain impossible.

You're dead wrong there mate and with any luck someone else will explain it to you before I do.

AnneBoleyn;1460071 wrote: I WISH! Heck, Yes! I love museums, too, little Henrik!

It wasn't too bad either. They have a ..... er ...... don't know what to call it. You're inside what looks like a boiler room with a couple of benches. The door closes and locks you inside. There is a mock window in front of you. The whole thing begins to shake and shiver. A film begins in the "window" ....... you're looking out, so to speak. You're lifting from a helicopter platform and flying over the city of Kristianstad. Then you "crash" (land?) in the river. Now you're travelling in a speed-boat on the river itself. It stops, you sink. Now you're inside a submarine. Indigenous river-fish swim past you, one is rather large and swipes your sub with its tail - the bench you're sitting on gets a real jolt! It was fun!

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:19 am

High Threshold;1460081 wrote: Well, we've been already and back home again so it's too late.

Thank Christ!

You're dead wrong there mate and with any luck someone else will explain it to you before I do.

It wasn't too bad either. They have a ..... er ...... don't know what to call it. You're inside what looks like a boiler room with a couple of benches. The door closes and locks you inside. There is a mock window in front of you. The whole thing begins to shake and shiver. A film begins in the "window" ....... you're looking out, so to speak. You're lifting from a helicopter platform and flying over the city of Kristianstad. Then you "crash" (land?) in the river. Now you're travelling in a speed-boat on the river itself. It stops, you sink. Now you're inside a submarine. Indigenous river-fish swim past you, one is rather large and swipes your sub with its tail - the bench you're sitting on gets a real jolt! It was fun!

Simulator ?? sounds fun, I'd like a go!

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:24 am

That sounds really great fun, HT. Glad you all seemed to enjoy your day ! :driving::-6 :yh_bigsmi :yh_wink

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:39 am

Betty Boop;1460082 wrote: Simulator ?? sounds fun, I'd like a go!

When are you coming across then?

G#Gill;1460083 wrote: That sounds really great fun, HT. Glad you all seemed to enjoy your day ! :driving::-6 :yh_bigsmi :yh_wink

Thanks, Gill! And not a drop of rain either!

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:44 am

High Threshold;1460085 wrote: When are you coming across then?

Well, I am actually trying to find a cheap break for me and my daughter right now :wah:

lastminute.com don't work out as cheap as you think it is going to be in the end!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:58 am

Betty Boop;1460086 wrote: Well, I am actually trying to find a cheap break for me and my daughter right now :wah:

lastminute.com don't work out as cheap as you think it is going to be in the end!

We often take "last minute". The trick is to utilize the last 59 seconds of it checking out the internet for evaluations, prices, transport, etc. Last minute is like a papaer sack: you get as much out of it as you put into it.

recovering conservative · Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:12 pm

FourPart;1460063 wrote: I beg to differ:

Rape by gender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, this could take off on a tangent!

First, a word of warning: Don't automatically trust the veracity of every entry in Wikipedia, without going to a few of their linked source materials, and getting an idea how well their sources provide evidence for the claims in the article...or in this case the subheading: Rape of males by females. Because Wikipedia is open source edited, there are many articles put up that become difficult to re-edit or remove afterwards, if they are being promoted by special interests bearing an agenda! This can be the case on many issues, from climate change to modern medicine issues to hot political issues (the long-running Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a prime example of cyberwar between opposing groups of would be editors). And when it comes to gender research and women's rights issues, I don't know what the hell is going on with a lot of younger men these days, but there seem to be too many in the cyber universe who have gone beyond the patronizing male chauvinism of my past, to open hostility towards women, and a desire to attack or shift blame on women...so called "men's rights" movements etc..

I first started to notice that this was a problem online, when I looked up video by a psychologist on her concerns regarding the advertising and marketing industries and their role in contributing to eating disorders and body image issues with young girls. When I looked at the comment string with the video, it was saturated with mildly to virulently hostile responses from anonymous commenters calling themselves "men's rights advocates." I soon discovered that there were a lot of these so called MRA's or MRM's all over the internet on every attempted discussion of women's issues and feminism etc....many issues that I would not otherwise have been looking for. But, these guys were! The skewing towards misogyny compared to anything that can be labeled as misandry, really came into light with that #yesallwomen controversy a little while back. The volume and vitriol of misogyny, that went all the way to death threats against the blogger who started the twitter hashtag, show us that even in cyberworld, the tendency for men to act on aggression and try to dominate or shut down women or feminists online, are a clear display of what we can expect if men have no sense of moral values or self discipline. If we are returning to some of the savagery of times past, the violence...including threats and intimidation come mostly from our side, not from the vast majority of women.

And, I suspect they are at work even right here in what appears to be on the surface, a non-confrontational, open-minded approach:

If I had the time or the inclination, I would be spending at least some of my free time trying to become a Wiki editor myself, because right here in this subheading, we have the first link to a NY Times article, as an example of misleading the reader! The NY Times piece dealing rape of males, mostly deals with rape by predatory men, not women! This alone, should set off alarm bells! Because, most people only read headlines or listen to soundbites; and how many people are skeptical enough like myself, to even look up one of the links provided in the article? Likely, not too many....which is why there is so much misinformation floating around on so many issues today!

But, back to my point, including the subheading, here's the opening line of that piece:

Rape of males by females

A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman; had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration; or had been made to receive oral sex.[24]

So, what do I find when I open the link that is supposed to support that opening statement...a Times article mostly dealing with male predators of teenage boys and adult men.

The article in the Times actually says this about male rape:

While most experts agree women are raped far more often than men, 1.4 percent of men in a recent national survey said they had been raped at some point. The study, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that when rape was defined as oral or anal penetration, one in 71 men said they had been raped or had been the target of attempted rape, usually by a man they knew. (The study did not include men in prison.)

Usually a woman? That statement alone opening the subheading, tells me that the writer is engaged in outright fraud and misrepresentation!

The actual CDC referenced article is hyperlinked in that Times article from this NY Times piece: Nearly 1 in 5 Women in U.S. Survey Say They Have Been Sexually Assaulted

And in that earlier times article..which shows by the numbers the obvious: rape and sexual assault are much greater problems for women than men...the stated "1 in 21 men (4.8%)" claim is not actually in the CDC reference...but instead it says: and one in 71 men — between 1 percent and 2 percent — have been raped, many when they were younger than 11.

So, what do I have to gain after wasting valuable time fact-checking Wikipedia again? Aside from discovering that one of their articles fraudulently switches the number of women claiming to have experienced rape to a claim that one in five men have been raped! I'm back to don't trust Wikipedia without checking a few sources first.

I should point out that the main reason why I was reluctant to open up this aspect of gender issues, is because I knew I would be stuck having to make a speech to explain my views and how I got here!

When it comes to whether there has been inappropriate conduct on this Forum, I'm not sure, because I see to many claims and contradictions...often back to back. But, since the issue sexual harassment has become a growing issue at my workplace, rather than diminishing....as we expected when more women were hired...I have noticed that what appears to be a joke or an innocent comment by a guy around my age/ is not taken as innocent by the female it has been directed towards! And that should be the guideline when you are dealing with the opposite sex in the workplace or in public or any public forum: you do not get to be judge or arbiter of whether or not your conduct is appropriate! If you find that your "innocent" comments are causing offense, maybe it's time to take a gut-check and ask whether you are betraying a little contempt or at least condescension in your attitudes towards women. Do you consider their ideas or opinions on an equal basis as an opinion coming from a man? Or are you still harbouring some sense of male superiority deep inside.

I have to admit that when women first started working in blue collar trades, doing jobs like mine, at some subjective level, I was feeling like it diminished the importance of my work! That's where our higher reasoning abilities have to be brought in. Because if we just follow our gut instincts, we will keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over again. And I'll cut the speechifying here, so I don't find myself writing more stuff down.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:21 pm

recovering conservative;1460091 wrote: Well, this could take off on a tangent!.

Indeed, it can .... and already has.

The real point here is the one you made:

recovering conservative;1460091 wrote: a woman can't rape a man! That's just plain impossible.

Disgussing the percent of men who have been raped by women is overkill against your original statment.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:30 pm

HT: "It wasn't too bad either. They have a ..... er ...... don't know what to call it. You're inside what looks like a boiler room with a couple of benches. The door closes and locks you inside. There is a mock window in front of you. The whole thing begins to shake and shiver. A film begins in the "window" ....... you're looking out, so to speak. You're lifting from a helicopter platform and flying over the city of Kristianstad. Then you "crash" (land?) in the river. Now you're travelling in a speed-boat on the river itself. It stops, you sink. Now you're inside a submarine. Indigenous river-fish swim past you, one is rather large and swipes your sub with its tail - the bench you're sitting on gets a real jolt! It was fun!"

How did Little Threshold enjoy it? Did he have as much fun as you? Here's a joke you can tell Little Threshold?

Q: Who's bigger? Mr. Bigger or Mr. Bigger's son?

A: Mr. Bigger's Son, 'cos he's a Little Bigger!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:38 pm

AnneBoleyn;1460097 wrote: Here's a joke you can tell little Henrik:

Q: Who's bigger? Mr. Bigger or Mr. Bigger's son?

A: Mr. Bigger's Son, 'cos he's a Little Bigger!

Uhhhhh, he doesn't understand English.

AnneBoleyn;1460097 wrote: How did Little Threshold enjoy it?

You mean Low Threshold, don't you? :wah:

Oh yes! He liked it so much we had to turn round and do it again!

recovering conservative · Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:41 pm

High Threshold;1460095 wrote: Indeed, it can .... and already has.

The real point here is the one you made:

Disgussing the percent of men who have been raped by women is overkill against your original statment.

I don't accept the premise that a woman can force a man to engage in intercourse with her against his will. Claims are made in linked material that men can be forced to maintain erection..but I don't buy it...it's a disputed claim! But, I was taking it at face value, since there are a few notable cases of older women sexually interfering with young males they become fixated on. If you allow the category shift not mentioned in the Wiki article of rape being ALL forms of uninvited sexual activity, the numbers of men claiming rape is still a fraudulent claim in that Wiki article! They took the numbers of women claiming rape and inserted it into the number of men making the claim!

That is outright fraud, and the fact that it is still in Wikiland, is further evidence that women are not as active and vocal in cyberworld as men are!

Since, as far as I am aware, no one is claiming rape or sexual assault at FG, my main point is that if you have been accused of harassment or inappropriate sexual comments, you don't get to decide whether your own comments are/or are not offensive!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:46 pm

High Threshold;1460099 wrote: Uhhhhh, he doesn't understand English.

You mean Low Threshold, don't you? :wah:

Oh yes! He liked it so much we had to turn round and do it again!

Then translate it!

Low was my first choice of word, but I wanted a synonym when I realized in English "low" can have a bad connotation, like "Why you low-down crook you!" and "Feeling Low today" and "You're lower than snake spit!"

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:20 pm

recovering conservative;1460100 wrote: I don't accept the premise that a woman can force a man to engage in intercourse with her against his will. Claims are made in linked material that men can be forced to maintain erection ..but I don't buy it.

"Intercourse"? "Erection"? Who said anything about that? You are introducing new words and new notions into this discussion. We are talking about "rape". I am not going to bother looking it up because I am going to bed now, so if you want to look it up yourself and beat me over the head with it, in case I am wrong, then OK, you got me. Rape is an act of forced penetration, as I assume part of the definition to be. Men ARE raped in prison, are they not, without the victim sporting an erection, yes? That would include sodomy by broomstick I do believe. I wiil have to wait until tomorrow morning to see your reply ..... good night! :yh_sleep

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:01 pm

Put quite simply, whatever the statistics, I know from personal experience that it IS possible.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:59 pm

Why am I not surprised? That's a story I'd love to hear.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:57 pm

FourPart;1460110 wrote: Put quite simply, whatever the statistics, I know from personal experience that it IS possible.

Agreed. Statisics have nothing to do with it. We're discussing the possibility and feasability of the act. Once we reach the subject of statistics the point has already been proven.

recovering conservative · Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:08 am

High Threshold;1460105 wrote: "Intercourse"? "Erection"? Who said anything about that? You are introducing new words and new notions into this discussion. We are talking about "rape".
NO, we are talking about women raping men....God knows why! But that was the point I was responding to.

I thought the topic of discussion was sexual harassment actually. But, if the topic is men getting raped by women and any other examples of men being abused by women for that matter...it's one more dog bites man story! As a group, the female half of the population has a lot more to fear when it comes to violence and sexual violence from men/ than any worries that some men might have of any reverse examples. These oddball stories, and possible scenarios shouldn't be used to diminish a very serious topic, since as crime rates have been in general decline, in many place, rape and sexual assault (of women) are on the increase.

I am not going to bother looking it up because I am going to bed now, so if you want to look it up yourself and beat me over the head with it, in case I am wrong, then OK, you got me. Rape is an act of forced penetration, as I assume part of the definition to be.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration initiated against one or more individuals without the consent of those individuals

By the standard definition it is possible for a woman to rape a man with some sort of blunt object. But, what I am saying is impossible is a previous claim that women can force men to have erections and engage in intercourse with them....or maybe that's what they tell their wives after being caught in bed with another woman!

Men ARE raped in prison, are they not, without the victim sporting an erection, yes? That would include sodomy by broomstick I do believe. I wiil have to wait until tomorrow morning to see your reply ..... good night! :yh_sleep

And, my point regarding a fraudulent Wikipedia entry on the subject, was that the majority of rape or sexual assault against men is not caused by women...the claim made in the Wiki entry. The actual evidence in the linked articles clearly stated that the greatest hazard is sexual assault by other men/not women! And the CDC numbers weren't even including any investigations of the prison rape phenomena!

recovering conservative · Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:17 am

High Threshold;1460125 wrote: Agreed. Statisics have nothing to do with it. We're discussing the possibility and feasability of the act.
Why?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:51 am

recovering conservative;1460130 wrote: Why?

Because all indications show that woman CAN rape men, despite your statment to the contrary.

recovering conservative · Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:11 am

High Threshold;1460131 wrote: Because all indications show that woman CAN rape men, despite your statment to the contrary.
Which is the more serious public safety issue: men raping women or women raping men?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:44 am

recovering conservative;1460133 wrote: Which is the more serious public safety issue: men raping women or women raping men?

Are you being serious?

Post by **Peter Lake** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:07 am

G#Gill;1460080 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Yep, that says it all !

I had the police call at our home last night just wanting to know if we'd witnessed the fracas outside our house. Upon leaving the female officer said, by the way, tell your wife she doesn't have to be quite so rude. Rude? That's one way of describing her interjection but not what i'd call it.:wah:

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:18 am

Peter Lake;1460137 wrote: I had the police call at our home last night just wanting to know if we'd witnessed the fracas outside our house. Upon leaving the female officer said, by the way, tell your wife she doesn't have to be quite so rude. Rude? That's one way of describing her interjection but not what i'd call it.:wah:
Sounds like a case of "Does He Take Sugar?"

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:08 am

Peter Lake;1460137 wrote: I had the police call at our home last night just wanting to know if we'd witnessed the fracas outside our house. Upon leaving the female officer said, by the way, tell your wife she doesn't have to be quite so rude. Rude? That's one way of describing her interjection but not what i'd call it.:wah:

Oh yes I do... she deserved all she got.

It's late at night and there's a knock on the door.

I open the front door with a can of paint In one hand and a paint brush In the other.

Seeing the police officer there, I guessed It was about some Incident earlier but had nothing to do with us.

I say to her ' This Is a really bad time' meaning obviously I had wet paint everywhere and It was late at night. I'm also In my PJ's.

I expected her to say something along the lines of ' sorry to bother you and I won't take much of your time'

No, she says ' why? What's going on In there'

Excuse me?

What's going on In there?

What you mean In the privicy of my own home?

You said It was a bad time so what's going on?

Derrrr and my eyes go to the paint can and brush. You're never going to make detective are you?

Well we need to speak to the man who witnessed a fight earlier

I'll see If he wants to speak to you.

Can I come In?

No

I don't like your attitude

And yours stinks

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:35 am

Oscar Namechange;1460150 wrote: Oh yes I do... she deserved all she got.

It's late at night and there's a knock on the door.

I open the front door with a can of paint In one hand and a paint brush In the other.

Seeing the police officer there, I guessed It was about some Incident earlier but had nothing to do with us.

I say to her ' This Is a really bad time' meaning obviously I had wet paint everywhere and It was late at night. I'm also In my PJ's.

I expected her to say something along the lines of ' sorry to bother you and I won't take much of your time'

No, she says ' why? What's going on In there'

Excuse me?

What's going on In there?

What you mean In the privicy of my own home?

You said It was a bad time so what's going on?

Derrrr and my eyes go to the paint can and brush. You're never going to make detective are you?

Well we need to speak to the man who witnessed a fight earlier

I'll see If he wants to speak to you.

Can I come In?

No

I don't like your attitude

And yours stinks

I wouldn't have blamed you if you'd told her, "Wait and I'll see if my husband wants to talk to you" and then closed the door in her nose.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:49 am

Was the paint blood red ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:00 am

Shoulda handed her the paint and brush and asked to carry on while you went to get him.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:15 am

Bruv;1460153 wrote: Was the paint blood red ?

:wah: just imagine!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:18 am

theia;1460155 wrote: :wah: just imagine!! Actually, It's a rather fetching silver/grey

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:19 am

LarsMac;1460154 wrote: Shoulda handed her the paint and brush and asked to carry on while you went to get him. Hindsight's wonderful... just wish I'd said ' Are you here about the body? now.

recovering conservative · Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:53 am

High Threshold;1460134 wrote: Are you being serious?

I'm getting the impression that what may be possible, is being advanced to diminish a very serious issue.

I've noticed elsewhere online, that whenever subjects of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and even issues like the links between modern advertising and marketing causing eating disorders in young girls...even preteens, there is a flood of responses along the lines of 'it happens to men too!' The effect is to dull social awareness of a problem, and that's probably intended in a lot cases....I hope that is not the intent behind examples - real or hypothetical, of female-on-male sexual assault.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:05 am

recovering conservative;1460158 wrote: I'm getting the impression that what may be possible, is being advanced to diminish a very serious issue.

.... responses along the lines of 'it happens to men too!' The effect is to dull social awareness of a problem ....

Oh please. Do you think it imprudent to mention that gypsies and the mentally-challenged were sent to the gas chambers during the Holocaust for fear of diminishing the issue of the plight of the Jews? Or that discussing the Arab's legitimate gripe against the U.S. will diminish sympathy afforded the survivors of 9/11 ..... or that indeed, Moslems and non-Americans also perished on that day?

recovering conservative · Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:23 am

High Threshold;1460169 wrote: Oh please. Do you think it imprudent to mention that gypsies and the mentally-challenged were sent to the gas chambers during the Holocaust for fear of diminishing the issue of the plight of the Jews? Or that discussing the Arab's legitimate gripe against the U.S. will diminish sympathy afforded the survivors of 9/11 ..... or that indeed, Moslems and non-Americans also perished on that day?

No, but the "it happens to men too" quickly overruns a lot of discussions online on sexual harassment and gendered violence. If the discussion of Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communist Party members, and others who were sent to death camps because of their identity, they should be added to the discussion, BUT they should not overwhelm the discussion, as happens all over Youtube, reddit and others when MRA trolls start sending out the alert and deluge the comment threads with off topic issues of their own.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:48 am

recovering conservative;1460172 wrote: No, but the "it happens to men too" quickly overruns a lot of discussions online on sexual harassment and gendered violence. If the discussion of Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communist Party members, and others who were sent to death camps because of their identity, they should be added to the discussion, BUT they should not overwhelm the discussion, as happens all over Youtube, reddit and others when MRA trolls start sending out the alert and deluge the comment threads with off topic issues of their own.

You mean a bit like is happening here, now ? Oops

:yh_giggle

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:56 am

recovering conservative;1460172 wrote: ..... "it happens to men too" ....

What do you mean "too". I was under the impression that rape victims were exclusively men. Is that NOT true? :-3

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:50 pm

High Threshold;1460179 wrote: What do you mean "too". I was under the impression that rape victims were exclusively men. Is that NOT true? :-3

Mmmmmmm. Wishful thinking.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1460198 wrote: Mmmmmmm. Wishful thinking.

:wah::wah::wah:

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:36 pm

Oscar Namechange;1460156 wrote: Actually, It's a rather fetching silver/grey

Just like those streaks coming through in your hair?

Who told you it was .....fetching?

I like his style.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:50 pm

Oscar Namechange;1460157 wrote: Hindsight's wonderful... just wish I'd said ' Are you here about the body? now.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl You just had an "in the car the day after" moment ! (when you think of a brilliant retort 24 hours too late ! :wah: ) Gawd Oscar, I wish you had said that at the time, and I had been a fly on the wall !!!! You don't improve with age do you Mrs ! :wah:

My son has just prompted me that it's called "Carriage Wit" :yh_rotfl (stuff you think of saying when you're on your way home after the event ! That happens to me quite often :rolleyes: :wah: )