Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]

[past caring]

So fuck off out of it.

Blagsta could have said, "You think Leeds is a nice place to live...", but no, he chose to sling prostitution out there in order to put Eds down, using her history to invalidate anything she has to say. Those who took the glib cunt up on his nasty little ways weren't doing it to defend Edie, we all know she can handle herself, more having the tossrag up on the general cuntishness of his debating style and the irony of using it in this particular thread.

No - he used what she said in a discussion about prostitution, specifically in respect of whether it was "normal" for blokes to use prostitutes/pay for sex. She very specifically argued that point. That doesn't really have a great deal to do with her history (someone who had never worked could have argued the same point).

 

[Pickman's model]

Quite. Blagsta's nasty ways have a habit of being found out and his inability to fess up and move oft derails. Such is life.

alright, i was trying to dance around it - but the shitty bit's got quite a bit to do with you and your posts since three.

 

[Edie]

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.

 

[past caring]

And what context in this thread justified him making that post? Because I have looked and I still can't find any point it is making other than a snide putdown which suggests that anything she has to say is worthless.

I've quoted the post and invited Blagsta to explain what he meant by it. If he wants to, he can.

He's already done so - that different individuals have different conceptions of what normaility is. Precisely what was being discussed on this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've quoted the post and invited Blagsta to explain what he meant by it. If he wants to, he can.

change the record, it's been bloody answered

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.

Was great to see you and will be great to see you back. Take care.

 

[Pickman's model]

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.

taters have a good one

 

[5t3IIa]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of each case, it *is* beef because it concerns historic conversations, observations and interpretations.

Basically, it would be impossible to understand who is right and who is wrong without a long understanding of the patricipants.

It is *not* beef and I'll come back to why when I'm not posting from my phone.

 

[past caring]

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.

FFS - how long's he been gone?

The missus went travelling for a year and she was glad to see me when she returned and everything, but I was back to being sat in my skivvies and posting shit at one in the morning within the fortnight.

 

[ymu]

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.

I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.

If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.

Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.

If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.

Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.

this sounds to me to be a cross between saying edie doesn't know what she's on about and detective-boy's famous 'cunts collective' redux.

 

[ymu]

That's because you have piss poor reading comprehension. I've mentioned it before. Try a bit harder.

 

[love detective]

i don't think blagsta owes anyone an explanation - it seemed fairly clear to me what his point was and that wasn't a personal attack but a general point

as this thread is in UK Politics and I don't really read much outside of politics maybe there is something i've missed/not aware off that goes on there, but based on what has been said here I can't understand why he's getting so much grief

 

[Pickman's model]

That's because you have piss poor reading comprehension. I've mentioned it before. Try a bit harder.

no, it's because you say 'i don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point scoring' and then damn edie when you say 'if you're ok with blagsta's explanation, that's fine' but immediately say that it isn't good enough for you: giving the impression that you know oh so much better than her. and as for the 'cunts collective', it's from your claim that 'it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again'. it's not my reading comprehension, it's what you post.

 

[revol68]

pretty much my take on it too.

 

[kabbes]

Edie, I have to admit that I am disappoint that you have repeatedly taken the time to address the bunfight but haven't offered one word about the thoughtful and sincere responses to you about structural oppression.


Still, stay well until we see you next.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.

If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.

Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.

could you point out where i am allegedly misunderstanding you?

 

[revol68]

I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.

If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.

Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.

sorry but if this argument is whether sex work is exploitative, well it is, it's not patronising to say that regardless of what particular individuals think about their relationship to it.

reducing arguments to a level of "well you are oppressing me by saying i'm exploited and I don't think I'm exploited" is rather pathetic, whether it's to do with working in ASDA, a restaurant or prostitution.

 

[Edie]

kabbes how the fuck CAN I say anything about oppression. I said my piece. I acknowledged that ymu made some good points (as did you fwiw). But if I say fuck all now it'll sound wrong. I think there is still a lot of sexism. But oppression infers fear to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[frogwoman]

@ blagsta - fair enough

 

[kabbes]

kabbes how the fuck CAN I say anything about oppression. I said my piece. I acknowledged that ymu made some good points (as did you fwiw). But if I say fuck all now it'll sound wrong. I think there is still a lot of sexism. But oppression infers fear to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

How can oppression imply fear if it is so endemic that many people don't even realise it is there, and even collude with their own oppression as a consequence?

You're still conflating personal, one-on-one oppression with structural, impersonal, systemic oppression.

 

[ymu]

no, it's because you say 'i don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point scoring' and then damn edie when you say 'if you're ok with blagsta's explanation, that's fine' but immediately say that it isn't good enough for you: giving the impression that you know oh so much better than her. and as for the 'cunts collective', it's from your claim that 'it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again'. it's not my reading comprehension, it's what you post.

Yeah, as I said, piss poor reading comprehension.

 

[past caring]

kabbes how the fuck CAN I say anything about oppression. I said my piece. I acknowledged that ymu made some good points (as did you fwiw). But if I say fuck all now it'll sound wrong. I think there is still a lot of sexism. But oppression infers fear to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

But what sort of fear? Fear doesn't have to be physical/fear of violence - it can be fear for your job security, fear of being judged on factors (your sex, how you look) that have nothing to do with your capacity to perform a particular role (there is of course, much more to oppression than simple fear, but that'll do for now).

 

[trashpony]

Collating? Conflating, surely?

 

[kabbes]

Collating? Conflating, surely?

Don't know what you mean

 

[ymu]

could you point out where i am allegedly misunderstanding you?

You really that slow?

The first line is me pointing out that Edie does not need to apologise for reading his post in that way.

The second line is acknowledging that she has every right to forgive him, but his failure to simply apologise on the thread instead of repeated self-justifying means that I think it's reasonable to ask him to provide an explanation for that post on the thread.

The final paragraph is pointing out the irony. This started because Edie objected to being told she was oppressed and this led to a discussion about internalisation of oppression. Yet when a bloke makes a comment that several posters interpreted as oppressive, they're simply wrong because he's not like that. Women internalise oppression but men don't internalise oppressiveness? I'd love to see a thread on that ...

 

[ymu]

But what sort of fear? Fear doesn't have to be physical/fear of violence - it can be fear for your job security, fear of being judged on factors (your sex, how you look) that have nothing to do with your capacity to perform a particular role (there is of course, much more to oppression than simple fear, but that'll do for now).

Fear of some arsehole having a cheap dig about your views on prostitution should you dare to contribute to a thread on rape and sexual oppression, perhaps?

 

[revol68]

You really that slow?

The first line is me pointing out that Edie does not need to apologise for reading his post in that way.

The second line is acknowledging that she has every right to forgive him, but his failure to simply apologise on the thread instead of repeated self-justifying means that I think it's reasonable to ask him to provide an explanation for that post on the thread.

The final paragraph is pointing out the irony. This started because Edie objected to being told she was oppressed and this led to a discussion about internalisation of oppression. Yet when a bloke makes a comment that several posters interpreted as oppressive, they're simply wrong because he's not like that. Women internalise oppression but men don't internalise oppressiveness? I'd love to see a thread on that ...

relativist crap I'm afraid.

How on earth is it oppressive to say someone is oppressed/exploited even if the individual doesn't think they are?

The irony being that a man who lives off the exploitation of sex workers would not be oppressive by agreeing with a woman who says she doesn't feel exploited or oppressed but a man who argues it is exploitative is actually the oppressor?

The stupidity of such relativist identity politics crap should be all too obvious in such a situation.

If people want to think that I oppress women and the working class in general for arguing that sex work and work in general is exploitative, regardless of what particular workers believe, they can go for it.

 

[Edie]

But what sort of fear? Fear doesn't have to be physical/fear of violence - it can be fear for your job security, fear of being judged on factors (your sex, how you look) that have nothing to do with your capacity to perform a particular role (there is of course, much more to oppression than simple fear, but that'll do for now).

I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.

 

[trashpony]

I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.

I wonder if women ever mention it. I suspect not