Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[ahinton]

I think that talking about love has become a taboo subject. If every two people in a partnership were able able to discuss and agree what love means to them, we could probably reduce criminality in relationships virtually to zero.

That may indeed be true but, for it to manifest itself in practice, no two adults, "consenting" or otherwise, would ever consider the prospect of sexual relations of any kind between them without that as a prerequisite, which is hardly the case with the kind of situation under discussion here.

[Anna]

I think that talking about love has become a taboo subject. If every two people in a partnership were able able to discuss and agree what love means to them, we could probably reduce criminality in relationships virtually to zero.

Rose tinted specs Lat. Although I see ahinton has already replied to you. In these situations we are not talking about a loving relationship, merely sex as a commodity to be traded, with no meaning to either party but, both parties have to comply with the rules, as laid down by law. The law is a bit woolly in some respects though as, of course, the law is made by men.
And that is probably all I will say on this thread having seen the phrases 'neo-fascist feminism' and 'feminist dogma' being bandied too much for my liking. As for some American's would be president beliefs about the female body - I am rendered speechless.

[Lateralthinking1]

That may indeed be true but, for it to manifest itself in practice, no two adults, "consenting" or otherwise, would ever consider the prospect of sexual relations of any kind between them without that as a prerequisite, which is hardly the case with the kind of situation under discussion here.

Yes but it is a ludicrous way to live life. The gap between "no" and "an inability to accept or comprehend no" shouldn't need to be bridged by section 36, clause 8, paragraph 2 of the "What People Do in Bed in Iceland Act 1964". It should be bridged by love.

People can get into bed for more than a nap with three others a week when 32 or 41. They can do it even at 72 or 81. That is up to them. They are being very naive, or hopeful, if they don't anticipate the scope for problems will increase, be that in physical health, emotional health or having to air the linen to a worldwide audience. They have little time to talk to, or know, each other.

Others might be married for 50 years and never have that conversation either but that varies from situation to situation. Many - most? - would see the former as not at all liberated. But the irony is that those who are most liberated are generally in exactly the same position. They might physically be in the modern age and be able to talk about sexual behaviour better than an agony aunt or uncle. In terms of the crucial, broader emotional conversation they are often as silent with each other as the Victorians.

[Lateralthinking1]

Rose tinted specs Lat. Although I see ahinton has already replied to you. In these situations we are not talking about a loving relationship, merely sex as a commodity to be traded, with no meaning to either party but, both parties have to comply with the rules, as laid down by law. The law is a bit woolly in some respects though as, of course, the law is made by men.
And that is probably all I will say on this thread having seen the phrases 'neo-fascist feminism' and 'feminist dogma' being bandied too much for my liking. As for some American's would be president beliefs about the female body - I am rendered speechless.

I do accept that in the Assange case, sex might be a commodity to be traded. It is lazily convenient for him. In the case of his partners, it would be easy to see ambition as involved but we don't know that for sure. Two, if not all three, are broadly political and certainly influential. It is ironic that they should feel they can improve the majority of other peoples' lives.

Arguably, relationship problems are frequently the manifestation of other problems. Problems that are not necessarily perceived in society as being problems. This is about individuals having a sense of reality about their lives. There is a lot of living for today in the behaviour of these people. Most people under a certain age think that living for today is being very real.

I would like to see lifetime studies as a compulsory subject in schools. People would be asked to think about their lives into middle age and old age. Finance, health, housing, attainment, achievement and much else would be considered, not as dogma but more in terms of options for lifelong support. Being a lifelong teenager and pretending away mortality is not the answer.

We should have a situation in which there are no groups of young adults, middle aged adults and old adults because everyone would see themselves as being all those things at a young age. The fact is that the young just haven't got there yet. This, I think, would make a very big difference to the way people organised their lives. If nothing else, they would be tidier.

[amateur51]

As for poor old amsey, would somebody please tell him that, alas, there are not many hills to flee to on the Cheshire Plain!

Did I say or even imply that you'd reach said hills quickly? No I did not

So kindly don't put words into my mouth

[amateur51]

No she must not.

And the law (thankfully) now recognises this.

[amateur51]

I don't see how agreeing to sleep with someone gives them an automatic right to unrestricted and unquestioning sex. It's like arguing that if women dress in a certain way they're 'asking for it'.

Galloway is a nasty piece of work, and I hope his constituents turf him out at the next election. Taken together with Akin's ghastly gaffes and Assange's hollow pleas for 'justice' - but not for his female accusers - this makes for a deeply depressing snapshot of some people's antediluvian attitudes towards women.

I think we should include scotty 'feminist dogma' celt here too.

But then he is under the sway of the Vatican dogma which is far more abstruse

[Dave2002]

I think we should include scotty 'feminist dogma' celt here too.

I always wondered - with that that avatar of his.

[ahinton]

Rose tinted specs Lat. Although I see ahinton has already replied to you. In these situations we are not talking about a loving relationship, merely sex as a commodity to be traded, with no meaning to either party but, both parties have to comply with the rules, as laid down by law. The law is a bit woolly in some respects though as, of course, the law is made by men.
And that is probably all I will say on this thread having seen the phrases 'neo-fascist feminism' and 'feminist dogma' being bandied too much for my liking. As for some American's would be president beliefs about the female body - I am rendered speechless.

Agreed - but there's no need for reticence on the matter on your part just because someone's had the poor taste to mention "'neo-fascist feminism' and 'feminist dogma'"; just ignore it for the irrelevance that it is! And we do not wish to witness you being "rendered speechless" here! Maybe you could respond in the Welsh...

Not all of the law is made by men, though - and I'm not so sure in any case that the law is so much at fault as much as are those who deliberately seek to misunderstand it.

[ahinton]

I think we should include scotty 'feminist dogma' celt here too.

But then he is under the sway of the Vatican dogma which is far more abstruse

It surprises as much as dismays me that he thinks Vatican get away with some of what he writes here, some of the conceptions behind which are far from immaculate...

[scottycelt]

Can you explain the logic that leads you to this conclusion? because it's escaping me completely.

Whatever one's view on the matter the logic is quite simple in reaching this conclusion. A member claimed that a woman was not responsible for any sexual activity between her and a man after they both agreed to sleep together. The inescapable logic is that therefore any responsibility for this activity rests solely with the man.

Ahinton absurdly claims I can't explain my own post, and if I could I'd have done it by now. Well, I just have ... though I'm flabbergasted it was even considered necessary. Still, even the straight-talking and erudite Mr Galloway apparently had a similar experience and was asked to 'clarify' his remarks. What was really sought by those was a withdrawal and an 'apology' for him daring to speak his mind which I'm delighted to note he steadfastly resisted. Good for him.

It appears to me that, rather than not understanding my own posts on this subject, some here simply cannot bear to read them, which no doubt explains some of the more peculiar responses bearing little or no relevance to the original posts.

Okay, enough is undoubtedly enough ...

[ahinton]

Yes but it is a ludicrous way to live life.

Of course I recognise that; I merely commentged on situations that do pertain rather than those that arguably ought to do so.

The gap between "no" and "an inability to accept or comprehend no" shouldn't need to be bridged by section 36, clause 8, paragraph 2 of the "What People Do in Bed in Iceland Act 1964". It should be bridged by love.

No, but please don;t confuse matters still further here by citing Iceland when it's Sweden that we're considering here!

People can get into bed for more than a nap with three others a week when 32 or 41. They can do it even at 72 or 81. That is up to them. They are being very naive, or hopeful, if they don't anticipate the scope for problems will increase, be that in physical health, emotional health or having to air the linen to a worldwide audience. They have little time to talk to, or know, each other.

Fair comment - but this has bearings upon the kind of sexual commodification to which you alluded earlier.

Others might be married for 50 years and never have that conversation either but that varies from situation to situation. Many - most? - would see the former as not at all liberated. But the irony is that those who are most liberated are generally in exactly the same position. They might physically be in the modern age and be able to talk about sexual behaviour better than an agony aunt or uncle. In terms of the crucial, broader emotional conversation they are often as silent with each other as the Victorians.

Well, that's as maybe, but to go back to an age of the kind of inhibition that can and often did risk damage being done because no one would talk about it is hardly a great idea; in any case, there's no need for a suitable degree of such openness as and when appropriate to risk displacing the emotional substance of such conversation. If too may people were to return to undue taciturnity in such matters, where, for example, might that leave the whole business of post-rape and sexual assault counselling?

[ahinton]

Whatever one's view on the matter the logic is quite simple in reaching this conclusion. A member claimed that a woman was not responsible for any sexual activity between her and a man after they both agreed to sleep together. The inescapable logic is that therefore any responsibility for this activity rests solely with the man.

This may be "simple", but it is not logical. Please read my earlier post above about my friend and his sister which I was understandably loath to post here as it recounts a most distressing circumstance that is in any case also an unusual one but it nevertheless seves to illustrate that your "logic" is illogical beacuse your very posit is just plain wrong; what you still decline to explain about your "logical" thought process here are the grounds upon which you conclude that a man and a woman agreeing to sleep together automatically confers upon each a tacit consent to sexual activity while they're dong so; the question of "responsibility" in respect of any such sexual activity rests not upon the dormitory arrangment but upon whether the two parties consented to any for of sexual activity before any took place.

Ahinton absurdly claims I can't explain my own post, and if I could I'd have done it by now. Well, I just have

Not.

though I'm flabbergasted it was even considered necessary.

As it still is so, your gast presumably remains flabbered.

Still, even the straight-talking and erudite Mr Galloway apparently had a similar experience and was asked to 'clarify' his remarks. What was really sought by those was a withdrawal and an 'apology' for him daring to speak his mind which I'm delighted to note he steadfastly resisted. Good for him.

Striaght he may be, but he talks too much about what may or may not concern him but about which he has insufficient first-hand information about the circumstance concerned upon which to base his claims. I have no idea upon what kinds of subject Mr Galloway evidence "erudition", but they undoubtedly exclude this one!

Just as we do at least agree that we'll have to await the outcome of any trial following any prosecution following any extradition that might take place, we'll also have to await the voiting preferences of Mr Galloway's constituents next time around; in the meantime, the extent to which the name of party remians appropriate diminishes by the day.

It appears to me that, rather than not understanding my own posts on this subject, some here simply cannot bear to read them, which no doubt explains some of the more peculiar responses bearing little or no relevance to the original posts.

Oh, we can "bear" to all right; it's just that they should no go unchallenged when challenge is clearly required.

[Anna]

Perhaps all the women on here who have been assaulted may like to post about they have been sexually abused?
No, I thought not. Chapter and verse is too painful

[amateur51]

Perhaps all the women on here who have been assaulted may like to post about they have been sexually abused?
No, I thought not. Chapter and verse is too painful

I suspect that the men who've been assaulted and sexually abused would feel similarly but it's likely that there would be fewer of them, for all sorts of reasons.