Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The disgraced corrupt racist liar thread:British PM edition

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MsD
    replied
    Not just work situations; common in relationships that aren’t even seen as abusive.

    Especially true in cases where a woman is dependent on a man for the roof over her head or support for her children, but also where a woman is young, unassertive, naive or emotionally needy (in love, even).

    It’s been 10 years since I looked at research on the subject, but unwanted pregnancies were often due to women being unable to persuade partners to wear condoms. I’ve also been a girl and a young woman, and in common with many, have been raped, and had pressure put on me to have sex without protection. A generation of men, it seems, were raised to believe that women should be on the Pill and sexually available at all times if they expected any degree of fidelity (or even a relationship) and they needn’t trouble themselves to use condoms or make sure she hadn’t been sick/forgotten to take it.

    The men here are all mature, and I’m sure are all responsible and have never put any pressure (including *wheedling*, using emotional blackmail or “come on baby”) on a woman to have sex with them, have never sulked, withheld tenderness or hinted they’d go elsewhere if they didn’t get their way. Stats and qualitative research used to tell a different story about all those other men over there, I hope it’s changed.

    Where do all these unwanted pregnancies come from?

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    I agree. Women can be blackmailed into sex and abortions, and the greater the difference in power, the greater the potential for blackmail (such as 'say yes to me or lose your job', in a scenario where there are no other jobs paying a living wage to switch to). I should make clear, however, in response to Chris J, that I don't see a Weinstein connection.
    Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 31-05-2021, 10:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • MsD
    replied
    There’s been a great deal of public debate and discussion about the notion of *consent*, which would not be necessary if women had equality or true agency regarding sex and fertility.

    It applies also to gay men or MWHSWM but unwanted pregnancies aren’t generally a feature there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    So what is your point then ChrisJ and why mention my comments in the same sentence as Harvey Weinstein?
    Last edited by Tactical Genius; 31-05-2021, 09:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post

    Are you trying to imply what I am saying is supporting as serial rapist?
    No.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisJ View Post

    Hereafter to be known as the Weinstein Defence.
    Are you trying to imply what I am saying is supporting as serial rapist?

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan Gardner
    replied
    Northern Ireland's male footballers won their first game of his premiership yesterday. I've asked wee Pete (a fellow SW1 Papist) to pass on congratulations

    Leave a comment:


  • MsD
    replied
    My comments were aimed at Johnson's and the Church's hypocrisy - quite clearly, I thought.

    Of course women have agency, but we do not yet have equality. If we did, men in Johnson's position would have vasectomies, and women wouldn't have to take responsibility, nor use contraception (which can fail, and which can damage their health), nor would women need to carefully consider whether they could afford to raise a child without the support of a partner.

    (His second wife's cancer might be something to do with his shagging around without a condom, too. Who knows. It's Boris Johnson we're talking about so I don't feel the need to show empathy *towards him* on that score.)
    Last edited by MsD; 31-05-2021, 00:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nefertiti2
    replied
    Few women I know would put up with this

    https://twitter.com/fascinatorfun/status/1399069887033716739?s=20

    Leave a comment:


  • Balderdasha
    replied
    It's a questionable turn off phrase but I slightly see TG's point. As far as I'm aware, no-one has accused Johnson of rape (inappropriate touching / harassment yes, but not rape), so the women he has been involved with do have to be given a certain amount of agency, there is access to effective contraception, whether or not he's willing to use a condom, etc. He shouldn't have been putting pressure on anyone to have an abortion, and it might be hard to go against the will of a man with that level of power, but again, in this country, there shouldn't be actual forced abortions. It's a fine line. He's clearly an unmitigated arsehole, and I personally can't understand why anyone would want to go near him with a six foot pole. But, on the other hand, you shouldn't be blaming women for their male partner's atrocious behaviour.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
    Women also have control to sexual access to their bodies.
    Hereafter to be known as the Weinstein Defence.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Spousal privileges can be somewhat complicated, are not universal, and differ by jurisdiction where they do exist, but the basic principle is that one spouse cannot be compelled to testify as to the substance of confidential communications with the other. That does not prevent them doing so voluntarily, though the old common law rule in England (before 1853) actually held that wives were incompetent to testify against their husbands.

    The Wiki is decent

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Is a wife not exempt from giving evidence against their husband?

    I wonder why they got married?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guy Profumo
    replied
    Apparently some "despicable Labour MPs" are criticising the fact the aforementioned serial divorcee was allowed to marry in a church run by <redacted on the advice of my internal editor>

    (I've no idea who, when, or where)

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by MsD View Post
    Johnson’s shitty record with women (and seeming reluctance to wear a condom) includes pushing at least one side-chick to have abortions.
    Women have the ultimate decision as to whether a child is being brought into the world.
    Women also have control to sexual access to their bodies.

    Any man who attempts to force the above will be breaking the law and will risk prison or at the very least the tarnishing of his reputation.
    These women all knew the kind of guy they were shacking up with, he's been one of the most famous (or infamous) people in the UK so these women probably knew of him well before he knew of them.

    Furthermore, why on earth is the "side-chick" getting pregnant?

    Leave a comment:


  • MsD
    replied
    Johnson’s shitty record with women (and seeming reluctance to wear a condom) includes pushing at least one side-chick to have abortions.

    I’m strongly pro-choice, and/but the Catholic Church’s firm stance on abortion is still driving women all over the world (especially the Philippines) to suicide, infanticide, or to death due to backstreet abortion. And there were all those years when their babies were stolen by nuns to be sold or disposed of.

    Maybe he made a sincere confession, eh.

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    The Catholic Church doesn't recognise any of his previous marriages.

    It is people who have previously married in the Church and want another go that they have a problem with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Ah, ok, my bad.

    It's a bit optimistic to expect moralistic behaviour from the Catholic church.

    At every juncture of human history in the last 1500 years, they have proved themselves to be a bunch of C*nts with a level of unmatched consistency.

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    I don't have a problem with that part of it, but I had always understood that the Catholic Church did. Seems not. Or at least they seem not to, in the case of the rich and powerful

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
    It's the catholic church too, right? Marrying the oft-divorced, multiple children by many women, proven liar, "let the bodies pile on the streets", Prime Minister?

    That seems reasonable
    Hey, less of that bruv.

    Leave a comment:


  • Benjm
    replied
    Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
    It's the catholic church too, right?
    Yes. The Anglicans are tied up with arranging for the former Post Office CEO to be resettled in Paraguay.

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    I know. He got that news faster than Laura Kuenssberg, if you can imagine that

    Leave a comment:


  • Benjm
    replied
    I had believed him to be a gifted satirist rather than OTF's inside man at No. 10!

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    In the meantime, our own wingco wrote this for the Daily Mash,, ooh 3 whole days ago https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...box=1622100668

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    It's the catholic church too, right? Marrying the oft-divorced, multiple children by many women, proven liar, "let the bodies pile on the streets", Prime Minister?

    That seems reasonable

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X