Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think women who are intimidated are femenist or hate women. If their partner don't come to a conclusion for too

long, then something is not right. She or them may think are wasting their time I would say the world Macho

that only guys can do what they want but women no. The woman has only read the topics, and does it, they don't have time for intimidating the public, this is unnecessary. becouse Women who truly love their partners are faithfull, loyal, and more

why the would choose to do something else unless love is not there anymore. Most people when they have bad experience

are worry about their relashionships and probably they don't get married again.

Some women like to get to know their partners first before being committed again to a new partner or have sex and that means not interested in money but loyalty, and love.

Two things together can bring happiness becouse if you have a lot of in commom sharing interests, qualities, etc then for sure they can work together and succeed.

If not what is the point being together for too long. Instead of that I would campaign for freedom to achieve goals.

You can do it alone or in group everything in life is posible. Why ! No

Eh? What?


"the definition of feminism has recently broadened somewhat and can now include celebrating the misogynist male invention of "slut""


"...the male invention of slut"


"...the male invention of slut"


I think we can agree that means that she thinks 'males' 'invented' the word 'slut' can't we? What other meaning could that sentence possibly have?


I didn't mention any personal views, just that anyone with a prediliction for making crap up isn't worth listening to.


And whilst I don't disagree with the madonna/whore concept in principle, it doesn't take away from the fact that it is women who predominantly use the word slut, they use it against other women, and consequently are more than likely to have a hand in the generation and consolidation of the term.


I genuinely cannot understand how any other interpretation could be drawn, unless women were quite happy to ignore all the evidence when laying responsibility for all evils incorrectly at the feet of the opposite gender.

Incidentally whilst the madonna/whore concept highlights (somewhat disparagingly) the vicissitudes of men in their approach to women, women aren't exactly consistent in their approach to men.


Hunter one minute, farmer the next; psychotherapist today and chest thumping pounding paramour tomorrow.

Hi !Huguenot

about you topic; hunter one minute,hunter two minutes, farmer here farmer there. M, M,

I will have a read the whole campaign again as I am going in circles.

Just to mention if someone wants to go to Clayton Rd behind the Rye

doesn't exits, and I call a few numbers they don't exist either or they

are wrong numbers. 6 moths 3hours 5 minutes and 2 seconds.

Haha, yes Hughie, to be fair, I can see how you ask the question. I actually read it as the concept of slut, which probably says more about me than it does about you.


And you're right again, women want all kinds of things from a man. But I'm yet to meet a woman who actually thinks less of a man because he deigned to sleep with her.

DonkyOne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


More information found in some libraries not so much about sex but other things that can help

to clarify the full history. So many around you need to find out which library would have the

book you are looking for.

In one of the Guardian comment areas there was a rather amusing tale.


I was well dressed that day as a friend (who was in the trade) got me in for free to an expensive club when on a trip to London. Inside I was mobbed by 6 young women. I was so shocked by the attention (I have a form that only a mother could love) that I asked my friend why they were doing this. He said: "Because they think you are a City worker".


It's always nice to find out that women and men can be equally shallow.

In terms of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy etc etc - Annabel Chong engaged in her high profile gang-bang (251 acts with about 70 men in 10 hours) for the express purpose of challenging the notion that a woman did not have the right to be sexually voracious without being roundly condemned. Ironically, as would be predicted by Hugeonot's earlier posts, many of the most vicious attacks and condemnations of 'sluttery' came from women not from men who seemed to be much more blasse and accepting about it.


The reaction from many women, frankly, was as if Chong had just debased the currency.

Damian, I think there was widespread concern among women that the stunt was in fact a grotesque film of self-harm that had come on the back of earlier sexual abuse. There were serious concerns about the state her mental health. The lack of precautions taken (no use of condoms / sexual health testing of the participants) and her comment that she likes to be treated like a piece of meat, and talking about the pain involved are probably pretty instrumental in women's not taking a positive view of this as some affirmative piece of empowerment theatre. It blatantly wasn't.


And of course the men were blase, 251 of them fucked her. But would any of those men have married or made her their girlfriend subsequently? There's the dichotomy.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course they wouldn't, she's obviously a bloody

> loon.


Well yes. Evidentemente. My point was precisely that, though it didn't stop the men having sex with her.


Personally I prefer to have sex with people I actually like.

Well I guess there's a Darwinian imperative that inclines ladies to pursue quality over quantity, and men to pursue quantity over quality.


Annabel Chong's story was a very sad one - having left the relatively low crime and somewhat conservative environs of Singapore she travelled to London to study. The combination of newfound freedoms, a degree of teenage rebellion and an inappropriately trusting personality (for London anyway) left her gang-raped in an alley and dumped in a rubbish cupboard.


I don't think most people wanted to know about that regarding 251. In context this was a tragic reflection of someone who's lost their footing and is probably trying to work out what it's all about.


However, I agree with some of the posters that it was mostly women who abused her for it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...