Since we’re just throwing out wild ass theories about what the poster meant, theories in no way rooted in the reality that is the actual colloquial phrase they were clearly referencing, I’m going to go with: they actually meant to wear undies because sand is highly erotic when applied directly to what is commonly called ‘the taint.’ Sandboxes are usually for children, so clearly he was suggesting she’s aroused by kids. . . what a sick fuck she is.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I have never heard of ‘sand in your vagina’ before. Urban dictionary says it means letting little things bother you. I’m pretty damn sure that if I had a vagina and got sand in it I wouldn’t consider it to be a little thing. So how did it turn out to mean that?
I’ve always heard the full saying to be something along the lines of: “Get the sand out of your vagina before you make a pearl.” Implying you’re clenched so tight down there, etc etc.
The same goes for women who get called “sluts.” Whatever that term even means, if you know you’re not one of them then why take offense?
It can even go as far as if someone says something incredibly stupid. If you know they’re wrong, it shouldn’t infuriate you.
I just got this. :smack:
On this specific point, none of the leftwing commentary on Margaret Thatcher’s demise that I saw was sexist or for that matter dismissive. Most people were just thankful she was dead. A public figure, not, to the best of anyone’s knowledge a poster on these boards, who is perceived to have caused an immense amount of pain and suffering while serving as British PM. What has that got to do with people making misogynistic comments to other posters here on the board?
I mean you could argue, I suppose, that some of the ire attached to MT was that because she was a woman but even if you make that argument and make it well, it doesn’t really have any bearing on how you treat other posters here.
I used to post here but I got sick of the misogyny so I took my sandy vagina and went home. Just popping back in because I have a question. In that thread, more than one poster said that sometimes ‘no’ means ‘maybe,’ and a woman’s expressed consent is not relevant in your decision to have sex with her.
How does this not constitute material that ‘encourages activity that is illegal in the U.S’? I don’t know how y’all define ‘rape’ in your various jurisdictions, but in mine, “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question” is required for it to be legal.
MOL’s thread was equal parts “addressing a real issue” and a smackdown of sarcastic humor. That any posters would find others playing fast and loose with the jokes related to that thread as offensive is just lame.
The only real problem with that thread is the few actual misogynists responding. The rest of the guys were playing out the string and MOL was playing right along with it. Because, you know…she’s funny and badass like that.
That was my concern. Mods here have trotted out the “illegal activity; do NOT post about this again” with discussions of exchanging the return and to address on an envelope in order to avoid using a stamp. But the real life admissions of what a court would label sexual assault come across as instructions on how to coerce sex from an unwilling woman.
If you are so outraged then why were you an active participant in that thread with all the helicopter dick jokes and whatnot?
Let me just add my voice to the chorus of people who don’t post here as often as they used to because of the rampant sexism. If it’s not the losers who get aroused by threads about bras and gynecological issues and don’t have the social skills to keep their thoughts to themselves, or the losers whose sexual frustration makes them angry at women for thwarting their God-given right to fuck anyone they want and so they derail any thread about women’s issues with “What about the men?”, or the losers who turn any thread about personal experiences rape or sexual harassment into an intellectual debate to be won with their mad logic skills, it’s the men (and women) whose sexism and misogyny is entrenched and subtle and makes them do appalling shit like post in a thread about a gang-raped 11-year-old girl, “I’m not victim-blaming, but…” and then victim-blame and dig in their heels and victim-blame harder when people try to enlighten them into the 21st century.
This board isn’t as bad as reddit, but I’m damning with faint praise.
There’s a big difference between jokes about somebody’s body and jokes about your body.
True, but if you’re going to play the moral superiority card on this issue shouldn’t you not be engaging in that type of behavior at all?
What? They’re different things.
I tell jokes about dogs. I don’t tell jokes about faggots. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Or to choose a more accessible example: I might joke about my mom. You might joke about your mom. But I wouldn’t, unless I knew you very well, tell a joke about your mom, and I wouldn’t stand for you (a relative stranger) telling a joke about my mom. They’re all jokes, but some are fine and others are out of bounds.
No, it doesn’t.
Posters were wondering why “calm down” would inspire negative reactions to “the women”. I explained that being spoken to in a patronizing tone can make one angry.
It went on to equate being angry with being “irrational and out of control”. I countered that being appropriately angry and expressing it is neither irrational or out of control.
I was commenting on nothing specific in that original thread, since it was about talking in broad brush generalizations. So your comment wasn’t relevant since I wasn’t addressing that thread you brought up.
That’s what makes this donnybrook a bit hard to take seriously: in those threads, the female posters—who seemed to easily outnumber the males who were the objects of their scorn—are certainly giving at least as well as they’re getting. This thread smacks of kids who willfully engage in a playground brawl and then come crying to the teacher that the other kids were being mean.
And courtesy of posters like Diosa, who appears congenitally incapable of responding to anything without using absurd exaggerations and tired sarcasm (even in this thread), there’s no chance of fruitful debate to begin with.
Thanks for articulating that better than I managed.
I am serious. But your response here couldn’t possibly be.
To your first point, and I use that term rather loosely: playing the ignorance card because there is no “standard” as to what is misogynistic is pretty sad.
Misogyny is something that denigrates women. This is not the same as insulting one person who happens to be a woman- it is something which attacks women as a whole, or belittles them, or unfairly stereotypes them, or insults women on the basis of being a woman.
There doesn’t need to be a written constitution which specifically delineates every possible sexist and misogynistic comment.
Things that are factual events are not misogynistic. People are misogynistic. Posting about something that happened is not the same as posting misogynist commentary or insults. However, commending insulting or denigrating behavior toward all women that happened in such a story is misogynistic.
This is such kindergarten crap. Why this needs explaining is a testament to the fact that some parents didn’t teach their children anything at all.
There is no reason to “challenge” a troll. You simply warn, infract, and then ban the troll. Trolling is not the same as having a conversation, and no amount of “aggressively challenging” will affect the behavior in a positive way, it will only feed the troll.
Hey, remember this thread? Textbook example of passive-aggressive “intellectual” sexist trolling.
IIRC, these discussions always lead to some cringe-inducing whining along the lines of “Well, why can’t MY body be the center of attention for once? It’s hypocrisy! Won’t you please ask for photos of my package?”
A troll can be outnumbered and still be a troll. What does this have to do with anything?
As for willfully engaging in a “playground brawl”, that is not the same thing as insulting trolls who weren’t welcome in the first place. If a person is posting about a health issue, and another person comes in and tells her to take the sand out of her vagina, or makes other sexist comments, and then the women respond to the troll with insults, that doesn’t mean they were equally at fault and there is no blame to be assessed. Willful implies they went around looking to insult men, instead of have a conversation about a health issue.
If a person started a thread about how men all have small dicks and can’t keep it up for more than two minutes, then it might be fair to go open season on that one. If a woman is talking about being raped, or having a health issue, then it’s pure and simple trolling and threadshitting to pop in and make sexist insults.
This type of blaming the victim is astonishing to me. It’s as illogical and irrational as people who blame rape victims for being raped because, let’s say, a strap from their thong was visible. Therefore “she was asking for it”. Yeah, dressing a certain way means you can just violently rape them and it becomes okay somehow.
When I read posts like this, I have to wonder- does this mean any time a woman posts about a health issue, or the issue of rape, or any issue at all, that is the same thing as an invitation to tell her she’s a menstruating bitch with sand in her vagina, and she just needs to find a man to insert his penis into her and that will make everything all better? And then, if someone objects to the obvious trolling and threadshitting, simply defend the troll by saying that the women in the thread were asking for it, and they insulted the troll in response, therefore the troll is blameless?
But above all else, I consider this to be an issue of manhood itself. What kind of a pathetic man behaves this way toward women anyway? Why should someone even have to explain what misogyny is? Isn’t the definition easy enough to google? Why should we even need to be having this discussion? Is the defense of this kind of behavior a plea of ignorance? I had no idea I was being a sexist jerk? Really?
Far worse than people complaining to the moderators when a troll insults them, is when the troll complains to the moderators that they got insulted back, and therefore, that gives them a right to troll people. That takes a particularly shriveled sack.
Let’s say one’s parents did a thoroughly shitty job raising a person, and they have no sense of honor or respect towards women whatsoever. Does that mean the entitled prick should get to threadshit and troll people on this board?
I’d vote no on that if I had a say in the matter. But since this is not a democracy, the site owners can run it however they wish.