'I saw you f***ing grab at her boob': Moment heavy metal singer launches furious tirade against a spectator for groping a woman during his concert

Architects frontman Sam Carter stopped the show at the Lowlands Festival in the Netherlands to berate the culprit with a furious rant.

He said: 'So I've been going over in my f***ing mind about whether I should say something or not about what I saw in that last song. And do you know what? I'm going to f***ing say it.'

'I saw a girl - a woman - crowdsurfing over here, and I'm not going to f***ing point the piece of s*** out who did it, but I saw you f***ing grab at her boob, I saw it and it's f***ing disgusting and there is no f***ing place for that s***.'
'It is not your f***ing body, it is NOT your f***ing body, and you do not f***ing grab at someone. Not at my f***ing show.'

'So if you feel like doing that again, walk out there, f*** off and don't come back.
'Let's keep this going, let's keep this a f***ing safe place for everybody, and let's have a f***ing good time.'
The organisation SafeGigs4Women wrote on Twitter: 'We've had a flurry of activity overnight thanks to Architects thanks so much for what you did. We need more bands to do the same'.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4805822/I-saw-f-ing-grab-boob.html

Well, good for him.

The abuser must've felt so embarrassed. How dare he do that.

Great for the singer to address this. Well done!

magica wrote:The abuser must've felt so embarrassed. How dare he do that.

Great for the singer to address this. Well done!

He refrained from pointing him out, as the crowd would probably have lynched him. I bet someone had brown underpants.

Lol I bet his arms were pinned to his side after that. Serves the perv right.

It is totally unacceptable that a man can think he has the right to touch a woman in this way. He was probably drunk, or perhaps egged on by his mates, or most likely just a cheeky bastard who thought he could get away with it. I think a woman has an equal right to slap a man right across the chops good and hard for such an affront.

Equally, some women don't do the rest of womanhood any favours by acting like ladettes or sluts in public places. I'll never forget that documentary about Ibiza where this ghastly woman stood on the main thoroughfare with her skirt up, sans knickers, inviting passing men to finger her vagina. She was a manager at Sainsbury's and lost her job because of that. It was disgusting.

HoratioTarr wrote:Equally, some women don't do the rest of womanhood any favours by acting like ladettes or sluts in public places.   I'll never forget that documentary about Ibiza where this ghastly woman stood on the main thoroughfare with her skirt up, sans knickers,  inviting passing men to finger her vagina.   She was a manager at Sainsbury's and lost her job because of that.   It was disgusting.

Wow, its the defense for men argument.

What the man did was wrong, full stop.

Whether a woman wants to have a thousand men have sex with her and then says no to one, that means no. Neither would it mean a man can touch her when she does not want them to

Do you fucking understand that?

You may think a person is disgusting for doing something you disprove of, but saying this does not do women any favours, is saying women ask for this.

That is just as abhorrent to think so, as that is how some sad fuckwit men think

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Equally, some women don't do the rest of womanhood any favours by acting like ladettes or sluts in public places.   I'll never forget that documentary about Ibiza where this ghastly woman stood on the main thoroughfare with her skirt up, sans knickers,  inviting passing men to finger her vagina.   She was a manager at Sainsbury's and lost her job because of that.   It was disgusting.

Wow, its the defense for men argument.

What the man did was wrong, full stop.

Whether a woman wants to have a thousand men have sex with her and then says no to one, that means no. Neither would it mean a man can touch her when she does not want them to

Do you fucking understand that?

You may think a person is disgusting for doing something you disprove of, but saying this does not do women any favours, is saying women ask for this.

That is just as abhorrent to think so, as that is how some sad fuckwit men think

what is wrong with you? HT already said it was totally wrong and the woman would've been in her rights to have smacked him one in the chops....

i agree with her on what she said. that vile skanky bint HT was referring to definitely does NOT do women any favours whatsoever. no way, it's gross

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wow, its the defense for men argument.

What the man did was wrong, full stop.

Whether a woman wants to have a thousand men have sex with her and then says no to one, that means no. Neither would it mean a man can touch her when she does not want them to

Do you fucking understand that?

You may think a person is disgusting for doing something you disprove of, but saying this does not do women any favours, is saying women ask for this.

That is just as abhorrent to think so, as that is how some sad fuckwit men think

what is wrong with you?  HT already said it was totally wrong and the woman would've been in her rights to have smacked him one in the chops....

i agree with her on what she said.  that vile skanky bint HT was referring to definitely does NOT do women any favours whatsoever.  no way, it's gross

And you make a poor piss poor apologist argument for men also who think they can do as they please to women.

So you think by your reasoning that if that woman she refereed to was raped, she brought it on herself or did herself no favours?

What the fuck is wrong with you gelico?

How the fuck can you defend such a view?

It does not matter whether someone is slutty or wants many men, the minute she says no, its means no.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is gross by the way?

Who made you Mary Poppins?

Get a grip Gelico, you know what you are saying is horse shit

You may not like how some women act, but Horatio made out that this was a cause to why men think they can grope women.

That is inherently wrong to think, because its the same mindset of the man that does this thinking all women are slutty and want them.

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:

what is wrong with you?  HT already said it was totally wrong and the woman would've been in her rights to have smacked him one in the chops....

i agree with her on what she said.  that vile skanky bint HT was referring to definitely does NOT do women any favours whatsoever.  no way, it's gross

And you make a poor piss poor apologist argument for men also who think they can do as they please to women.

So you think by your reasoning that if that woman she refereed to was raped, she brought it on herself or did herself no favours?

What the fuck is wrong with you gelico?

How the fuck can you defend such a view?

It does not matter whether someone is slutty or wants many men, the minute she says no, its means no.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is gross by the way?

Who made you Mary Poppins?

Get a grip Gelico, you know what you are saying is horse shit

You may not like how some women act, but Horatio made out that this was a cause to why men think they can grope women.

That is inherently wrong to think, because its the same mindset of the man that does this thinking all women are slutty and want them.

standing with your skirt up and no knickers inviting random passing men to finger you may well cause a man to think they can grope her,,,,can't imagine why

if you don't want to be treated as a filthy slut then don't behave as one, simples

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:


And you make a poor piss poor apologist argument for men also who think they can do as they please to women.

So you think by your reasoning that if that woman she refereed to was raped, she brought it on herself or did herself no favours?

What the fuck is wrong with you gelico?

How the fuck can you defend such a view?

It does not matter whether someone is slutty or wants many men, the minute she says no, its means no.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is gross by the way?

Who made you Mary Poppins?

Get a grip Gelico, you know what you are saying is horse shit

You may not like how some women act, but Horatio made out that this was a cause to why men think they can grope women.

That is inherently wrong to think, because its the same mindset of the man that does this thinking all women are slutty and want them.

standing with your skirt up and no knickers inviting random passing men to finger you may well cause a man to think they can grope her,,,,can't imagine why

if you don't want to be treated as a filthy slut then don't behave as one, simples

So does that mean if she says no, they can touch her if she does not like him?

Yes or No?

Does that mean because of her, that makes it okay for men to think they can think they can touch any female?

You just made rape okay

You do realise that, as lifting up your skirt and allowing some men to touch you does not mean all men can

What next, I will be told, women have asked for it because they have dressed according to the Mary Poppins brigade, Slutty.

Fucking appalled at the attitude on this.

The minute you start to take away the blame from where it lies, at the abuser, you insult the victims.

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:


standing with your skirt up and no knickers inviting random passing men to finger you may well cause a man to think they can grope her,,,,can't imagine why

if you don't want to be treated as a filthy slut then don't behave as one, simples

So does that mean if she says no, they can touch her if she does not like him?

Yes or No?

Does that mean because of her, that makes it okay for men to think they can think they can touch any female?

You just made rape okay

You do realise that, as lifting up your skirt and allowing some men to touch you does not mean all men can

I never said that at all and NO I did not just fucking make rape okay

You need to watch what you're fucking saying, you self righteous prick

end of

i'm off now

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So does that mean if she says no, they can touch her if she does not like him?

Yes or No?

Does that mean because of her, that makes it okay for men to think they can think they can touch any female?

You just made rape okay

You do realise that, as lifting up your skirt and allowing some men to touch you does not mean all men can

I never said that at all and NO I did not just fucking make rape okay

You need to watch what you're fucking saying, you self righteous prick

end of

i'm off now

Yes you did, because you just justified by saying said women do woman no favours, thus giving cause for men to do so

No I will not watch what I say, when you are bang out of order. What you going to do, whinge and moan?

Who gives a fuck, as i cannot stand it when people excuse men thinking they can do as they please based off either how women dress or act. The pair of you should be ashamed of yourselves, because you like to think you hold some pathetic higher moral card

Like i said

What next? Will I be told, women have asked for it because they have dressed according to the Mary Poppins brigade, Slutty.

Fucking appalled at the attitude on this.

The minute you start to take away the blame from where it lies, at the abuser, you insult the victims.

Another thread ruined by the pea brained troll Thorin

veya_victaous wrote:Another thread ruined by the pea brained troll Thorin  

Ah yet more childish insults from the puny boy

So do you agree with their views on woman doing women no favours in how they act sometimes, on a debate when women are sexuality assaulted at concerts?

I mean can you imagine someone saying that when debating about grooming gangs in the UK?

Obviously, nobody should be grabbing boobs at a concert, but how does one crowd surf without anyone touching you? Why do people crowd surf anyway - do they ask people to pick them up and pass them round?

HoratioTarr wrote:Equally, some women don't do the rest of womanhood any favours by acting like ladettes or sluts in public places.   I'll never forget that documentary about Ibiza where this ghastly woman stood on the main thoroughfare with her skirt up, sans knickers,  inviting passing men to finger her vagina.   She was a manager at Sainsbury's and lost her job because of that.   It was disgusting.

That's interesting. What you do outside of work can and does have an impact at work these days. What a stupid thing to do.

veya_victaous wrote:Another thread ruined by the pea brained troll Thorin  

It has a pattern, and is fucking tedious.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Equally, some women don't do the rest of womanhood any favours by acting like ladettes or sluts in public places.   I'll never forget that documentary about Ibiza where this ghastly woman stood on the main thoroughfare with her skirt up, sans knickers,  inviting passing men to finger her vagina.   She was a manager at Sainsbury's and lost her job because of that.   It was disgusting.

That's interesting. What you do outside of work can and does have an impact at work these days. What a stupid thing to do.

It was truly horrible, and what was worse, all the men clamouring to do it. God knows what her family must have thought after viewing it. If that was my daughter/girlfriend/relative I'd be appalled.

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So does that mean if she says no, they can touch her if she does not like him?

Yes or No?

Does that mean because of her, that makes it okay for men to think they can think they can touch any female?

You just made rape okay

You do realise that, as lifting up your skirt and allowing some men to touch you does not mean all men can

I never said that at all and NO I did not just fucking make rape okay

You need to watch what you're fucking saying, you self righteous prick

end of

i'm off now

Thorin gets his jollies via arguments and goading. When his argument is particularly vacuous, he resorts to twisting your words and meaning. But you've already sussed this.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Another thread ruined by the pea brained troll Thorin  

It has a pattern, and is fucking tedious.

It?

Wow, again I ask the question.
Why on a thread about where a woman is sexually groped, do you then invoke the view of where a woman is sexually open? Then saying these woman don;t do any favours for the rest of womanhood. In other words casting blame onto them. To insinuate as to why some men think its acceptable to think they can abuse women. Failing to grasp men think this, because they think they are in control of women full stop and can do as they please. If a woman wishes to hump the entire US armed forces, that is her choice and still would never give reason for then a imbecile like you to then turn this on them. As if they some how play a part in how and why some men come to think they can abuse any woman.

Its as dumb as when some people have stupidly stated. That because how they have dressed is asking for trouble. Or because they have been drinking, they need to share some blame for being raped.

Like I said, your first post was brilliant, your second was born from sheer ignorance and a elitist crap view point on how you stupidly think women should behave sexually. In other words, you wish to impose how women can have sexual relations and not be sexually liberated.

You are not the standard to say what is right on sexual liberty.
Hence your view on a thread where women are abused, (maybe unintentionally, the jury is out on that) to then claim that some women you cast as sluts, do not do womanhood any favours. Again based on some Victorian moral compass you have. Is thus claiming they share some blame for why this happens.

Hence why I acted rightly with anger at your stuidity

HoratioTarr wrote:

gelico wrote:

I never said that at all and NO I did not just fucking make rape okay

You need to watch what you're fucking saying, you self righteous prick

end of

i'm off now

Thorin gets his jollies via arguments and goading.   When his argument is particularly vacuous, he resorts to twisting your words and meaning.   But you've already sussed this.

So wrong again, it shows more than anything when shown and taken to task as i have done so of you here. You resort to pathetic unfounded claims.

I have known Gelico far longer than you. She will be annoyed at my replies, but we have fought many times and actually respect her loads. She just fails to see how poor your remark was.

So there was no goading, as I argued my points, it seems, you look to gang up again, because you feel insecure here. As why reach out to both gelico and Veya here?

I also would like to point out another point.

Why did that woman lose her job as a manager at Sainsbury?

What crime did she commit?

I mean what is this now, the moral police in action?

Something that has been wrong from time immemorial, where religions have set the standards on sexuality?

I mean it was this kind of thinking that saw people stoned to death for adultery and homosexuality.

What people do in their own time sexually between consenting partners is their own business. Not that of the Moral Police brigade. You may well not like this, mainly as you have been brought up in a country, where sexual liberation has been stifled. Go to places like South America and people are far more sexually liberated.

It was such poor absolute morals, that have seen countless people be executed and still today, based off some bullshit moral standard people created themselves over a standard on sexuality itself. You may not like people being sexually open, but that does not mean they give cause then to have then some men think, all women want them to sleep with them, as some men think they can. I mean do any of you even realise couples cannot even hold hands and kiss publicly in certain places around the world? That then cannot even show any affection towards each other? Its born off this same bullshit moral standard, but set at a much harsher level.

You are actually making the problem far worse by unintentionally giving excuses to abusers. The point some here fail to grasp. You look at the abuser to the cause. Not look to castigate some women as a means to why some men are complete wankers.

Well, I've slept on it and here's my view harsh though it may seem, especially coming from a woman (or something that vaguely resembles one).

mrs trash from sainsburys got sacked for, i should imagine, bad publicity. it been all over t'internet, and didn't HT say it was highlighted on TV?. she brings disrepute on the company

if mrs trash from sainsburys had been videoed attending a BNP rally and doing bad mouthing islam it would have been the same i expect. most companies will expect their employees - especially managers - to know that in work or out of work they are still the face of the company they work for.

as for mrs trash herself,,,,

if she had stood on that corner and had sex with 10 men in a row and the 11th stepped up and she decided she was tired now and had enough and wanted another drink and said no and then he decided ''fuck it, tough shit, i'm going in anyway'',,,,,THAT would make him a rapist. forcing someone to have sex against their will is rape and is bad and wrong and cannot be justified and we all know that.

that being said,,,,did that woman do herself any favours in that situation? no, imo. would i have a speck of sympathy for her? no i would not.

fact is, if you advertise yourself as garbage you are likely to get treated as garbage.

maybe if she had the slightest ounce of self respect she would still be in her job and not thought of as a disgusting, cheap slag, who any decent bloke would avoid like the plague anyway

but of course, she is entitled to do anything she wants

girl power and all that

HoratioTarr wrote:

gelico wrote:

I never said that at all and NO I did not just fucking make rape okay

You need to watch what you're fucking saying, you self righteous prick

end of

i'm off now

Thorin gets his jollies via arguments and goading.   When his argument is particularly vacuous, he resorts to twisting your words and meaning.   But you've already sussed this.

Thanks, but I'm well aware of didge's methods,,,,,we go back donkeys years on forums. We've had some real humdingers over time, seriously,,,,,wild squawking and feathers flying in all directions

it's cool though

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin gets his jollies via arguments and goading.   When his argument is particularly vacuous, he resorts to twisting your words and meaning.   But you've already sussed this.

So wrong again, it shows more than anything when shown and taken to task as i have done so of you here. You resort to pathetic unfounded claims.

I have known Gelico far longer than you. She will be annoyed at my replies, but we have fought many times and actually respect her loads. She just fails to see how poor your remark was.

So there was no goading, as I argued my points, it seems, you look to gang up again, because you feel insecure here. As why reach out to both gelico and Veya here?

And I'm sure your dad is bigger than my dad blah blah.

You've been banned more times than most on here for doing exactly what you're doing now. You simply cannot see another's viewpoint without calling them names or being derogatory. It IS a pattern. It IS tedious.

I get that you want to debate, but you simply cannot stop yourself from going into argument mode and pissing people off. And you'll reply to this in your usual way, and it's fucking boring. Now, I think I've said my bit to you and I'm not going to engage with you further today.

gelico wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin gets his jollies via arguments and goading.   When his argument is particularly vacuous, he resorts to twisting your words and meaning.   But you've already sussed this.

Thanks, but I'm well aware of didge's methods,,,,,we go back donkeys years on forums.  We've had some real humdingers over time, seriously,,,,,wild squawking and feathers flying in all directions

it's cool though

Sounds like me and Ragga and Syl. Ah, happy days

gelico wrote:

Well, I've slept on it and here's my view harsh though it may seem, especially coming from a woman (or something that vaguely resembles one).

mrs trash from sainsburys got sacked for, i should imagine, bad publicity.  it been all over t'internet, and didn't HT say it was highlighted on TV?.  she brings disrepute on the company

Thorin wrote: So yet again my point, the moral Police standard. As again this is what is the problem, as what she does privately is here business. Now there was a time people were sacked because it became known they were homosexual. Are you thus saying the business is right here or pandering to stupid poor moral principles?

if mrs trash from sainsburys had been videoed attending a BNP rally and doing bad mouthing islam it would have been the same i expect.  most companies will expect their employees - especially managers - to know that in work or out of work they are still the face of the company they work for.

Thorin wrote: Again that would be wrong also. What people believe is there buisness if within the law.
To sack someone, because they hold poor beliefs, would thus open the door to countless people being sacked by your reasoning. I mean half of Muslims think homosexuals should be criminalized in this country. Do you think they should be sacked for hold this poor prejudiced belief?

as for mrs trash herself,,,,

if she had stood on that corner and had sex with 10 men in a row and the 11th stepped up and she decided she was tired now and had enough and wanted another drink and said no and then he decided ''fuck it, tough shit, i'm going in anyway'',,,,,THAT would make him a rapist.  forcing someone to have sex against their will is rape and is bad and wrong and cannot be justified and we all know that.

Thorin wrote: Well done you are starting to grasp the point but I see you still refer to her as Mrs trash?
Why because she is far more sexually liberated than you?
So lets ask where you get this view from Gelico, that someone sexually liberated is trash to you?
You do realise again you are emphatically making men think women are trash, based off sexual liberation?This is how woman and homosexuals have been persecuted, by people like you think because of their sexual preferences, they should be classed as trash.
How do you feel about the fact you are being no better here?

that being said,,,,did that woman do herself any favours in that situation? no, imo.  would i have a speck of sympathy for her?  no i would not.  

Thorin wrote: So why do you have no sympathy?
I mean its like saying someone who disproves of homosexuality, would have no sympathy over a homosexual being thrown off a roof top by ISIS. In other words, you have criminalized her actions, based off no more than some piss poor moral standard you have

fact is, if you advertise yourself as garbage you are likely to get treated as garbage.

Thorin wrote: Whcih goes back to my other points. In places around the world where women are treated like doormats, with little escape and forced into marriage. The finding love elsewhere and have adultery.
They are then treated like garbage, by many within that society
You just made yourself the same, only that you are slightly more liberated than other religious moralists

maybe if she had the slightest ounce of self respect she would still be in her job and not thought of as a disgusting, cheap slag, who any decent bloke would avoid like the plague anyway

Thorin wrote: Ah yet more drivel. How is being sexually liberated not having any respect?
Since when was enjoying sexual pleasure not self respect?
Again we see nothing more than the moral police deciding what is respectful, because people openly enjoy sex with many people and are happy to do this outdoors, as all animals have done for years

but of course, she is entitled to do anything she wants

girl power and all that

You are entitled to hold daft poor moral beliefs, but you stand yourself exactly alongside others that do the same, who criminalize them

Think about that

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So wrong again, it shows more than anything when shown and taken to task as i have done so of you here. You resort to pathetic unfounded claims.

I have known Gelico far longer than you. She will be annoyed at my replies, but we have fought many times and actually respect her loads. She just fails to see how poor your remark was.

So there was no goading, as I argued my points, it seems, you look to gang up again, because you feel insecure here. As why reach out to both gelico and Veya here?

And I'm sure your dad is bigger than my dad  blah blah.

You've been banned more times than most on here for doing exactly what you're doing now.    You simply cannot see another's viewpoint without calling them names or being derogatory.   It IS a pattern.  It IS tedious.

I get that you want to debate, but you simply cannot stop yourself from going into argument mode and pissing people off.    And you'll reply to this in your usual way, and it's  fucking boring.   Now, I think I've said my bit to you and I'm not going to engage with you further today.

So again more misdirection, going of that I have been banned more times by Veya than anyone else

Yes he dislikes me

What has that got to do with the points I have called you out on?

You see this is what you do, when you do not like me being critical of piss poor views you make.

It shows you cannot handle it and look to again misdirect.

So Veya has banned me loads, mainly as he tries to silence me.

Thor why don't you just accept others point of you is different to yours.

Just a thought ..... not criticism

magica wrote:Thor why don't you just accept others point of you is different to yours.

Just a thought ..... not criticism

Why should i accept poor points of views Magica?

That is me then surrendering to a view I see as wrong

I certainly understand they have said point of views, but what would be the point of me being critical of them, if I accepted them?

I will take on board what they say and again have huge respect for gelico, but all people are doing here is setting some fake moral standard on sexual liberation.

Look at the laguage used, that a person who likes sex, is called trash.

As I say in places around the world many women are forced into loveless marriages. I once argued it would be wrong to have adultery and had my arse chewed sideways on this by a certain mod on here. Who showed to me my moral conceptions, were based upon something society had made me think was wrong. Not whether something was wrong. As he showed that many of these women are stuck and risk their lives in order to find love. It shows i saw that what I thought, was poor to say the least and it is because I did listen to what he said. I also weigh up everything and how even there I admitted to being wrong and changed my stance. I guess it was the catholic upbringing I had that made me wrongly think that way. Now I see different, because I actually do take on board what people say.

 Of course people should split up if they no longer love each other and want to be with someone else, but in many places in the world. Women cannot do this in fear for their own lives.

All you see here is how many of you have been brought up on a certain sexual standard. We saw the same for years with how homosexuality was perceived. It has rightfully changed for the better. Now you may disagree with people being sexually liberated and exhibitionists. That does not make them trash or have no self respect.

Its only a standard some people create to then make themselves feel justified in basically criminalizing their sexual liberty.

All I would like to see is Horatio understand how, even if she did not intentionally mean it, that her views. Based on an article where  woman was sexually abused. To then go off how she perceives some women sexually liberated. To her do no favours to womanhood, based off some invented moral standard, who she classes as sluts. Actually provides men who abuse with an excuse. As, where women can then call and think other women are sluts. All they then do is empower sexist men to think all women are sluts and want to sleep with them. This is the failing some people fail to grasp on this. As they provide ammunition to then make sexual abusive men believe they are right to view women this way.

Its the same with racism, without the social constrict of separate races, then racism, would have no bases to even exist.

Thorin wrote:

magica wrote:Thor why don't you just accept others point of you is different to yours.

Just a thought ..... not criticism

Look at the laguage used, that a person who likes sex, is called trash.

Now you may disagree with people being sexually liberated and exhibitionists. That does not make them trash or have no self respect.

Its only a standard some people create to then make themselves feel justified in basically criminalizing their sexual liberty.

you're skewing the argument here, didge. as you well know i'm hardly a prude - this isn't about 'liking sex'. it's about having a bit of self respect. she was on a street corner with no knickers on, her skirt held up, offering her fanny to all and sundry who happened by.

for you to call that merely liberation implies that you would be more than happy for your own wife/mother/daughter to stand on your own street corner doing exactly the same thing

seriously? you would like that?

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Look at the laguage used, that a person who likes sex, is called trash.

Now you may disagree with people being sexually liberated and exhibitionists. That does not make them trash or have no self respect.

Its only a standard some people create to then make themselves feel justified in basically criminalizing their sexual liberty.

you're skewing the argument here, didge.    as you well know i'm hardly a prude - this  isn't about 'liking sex'.  it's about having a bit of self respect.  she was on a street corner with no knickers on, her skirt held up, offering her fanny to all and sundry who happened by.

for you to call that merely liberation implies that you would be more than happy for your own wife/mother/daughter to stand on your own street corner doing exactly the same thing

seriously?  you would like that?

I know you are not a prude Gelico, but you have some really poor views morally here, based on sexual liberation.

I mean what does it matter to you, whether people have sex with countless multiple partners and where some are exhibitionists?

You then claim self respect, based on what exactly? That you do not like the fact she gets turned on by wanting multiple men to want her?

If any family member did this, that would be there choice. What right would I have to then condemn them?

Do you want to play the Honour card here?

Seriously?

If all 3 sisters of mine wanted to hump all uk males on the street corner, so be it.

The reality is nobody calls a man a slut for doing the same constantly.

For some dumb reason people tend to call them a stud

Do you see how these piss poor views form?

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:

you're skewing the argument here, didge.    as you well know i'm hardly a prude - this  isn't about 'liking sex'.  it's about having a bit of self respect.  she was on a street corner with no knickers on, her skirt held up, offering her fanny to all and sundry who happened by.

for you to call that merely liberation implies that you would be more than happy for your own wife/mother/daughter to stand on your own street corner doing exactly the same thing

seriously?  you would like that?

I know you are not a prude Gelico, but you have some really poor views morally here, based on sexual liberation.

I mean what does it matter to you, whether people have sex with countless multiple partners and where some are exhibitionists?

it doesn't matter in the slightest to me whatsoever, i never said it did. i have my own standards, let others have theirs,,,


You then claim self respect, based on what exactly? That you do not like the fact she gets turned on by wanting multiple men to want her?

no, tbf that thought would probably turn me on too,,,,it's the random, multiple, PUBLIC sex that i claim is - not morally wrong - just somewhat repugnant to me. the thought of having dicks that have been God knows where,,,,,that's the lack of self respect i'm talking about,,,,,still each to their own and all

If any family member did this, that would be there choice. What right would I have to then condemn them?


i didn't say condemn,,,,i said would you be happy about it? i mean genuinely happy?

Do you want to play the Honour card here?

curious that you should use that term, didge,,, the islamic jihadi rape squads see western girls exactly as trash and for very much reasons like that. their mindset is ''if you're gonna put it about then i'm having some, whether you want me too or not''. i'm not suggesting girls should always be very girly and modest and keep their ankles covered and all but that is where their mindset comes from. considering some of the behaviour of some western girls even speaking from a viewpoint of my own (freedom loving, liberated, independant woman) i can understand it. it doesn't JUSTIFY it any way shape or form, but i can understand it

Seriously?

If all 3 sister of mine wanted hump all uk makes on the street corner, so be it.

I didn't actually mention your sisters but,,,,, your wife???and your daughters?? you would rejoice in the fact that they are so liberated, would you?

gelico wrote:it doesn't matter in the slightest to me whatsoever, i never said it did.  i have my own standards, let others have theirs,,,

Thorin wrote:Then why are you arguing on a standard people die over? Honour and respect?

no, tbf that thought would probably turn me on too,,,,it's the random, multiple, PUBLIC sex that i claim is - not morally wrong - just somewhat repugnant to me.  the thought of having dicks that have been God knows where,,,,,that's the lack of self respect i'm talking about,,,,,still each to their own and all

Thorin wrote:Well most women never concern themselves after the fact they take their partners mouth or sexual parts with orally, which which they piss through. What then is one dick compared to many? As many will certainly take on a partner, no matter if they have had multiple previous partners. Are you saying now that only the best relationship is with a virgin?

i didn't say condemn,,,,i said would you be happy about it?  i mean genuinely happy?

Thorin wrote:But happy enough to call her Mrs Trash

curious that you should use that term, didge,,,  the islamic jihadi rape squads see western girls exactly as trash and for very much reasons like that.  their mindset is ''if you're gonna put it about then i'm having some, whether you want me too or not''.  i'm not suggesting girls should always be very girly and modest and keep their ankles covered and all but that is where their mindset comes from.  considering some of the behaviour of some western girls even speaking from a viewpoint of my own (freedom loving, liberated, independant woman)  i can understand it.  it doesn't JUSTIFY it any way shape or form, but i can understand it

Thorin wrote:They do indeed Gelico see them as trash and it does not come from the mindset you claim it comes from. It comes from a cultural view women are seen as property/chattel and worse within Islam, non Muslims as sexual slaves. Hence where something is religiously believed, then someone thinks what they are doing is acceptable. They think it is ordained by their God. I mean for you to say, that because some women like to sleep around, this is the reason there is grooming gangs. Shows you have no comprehension behind how and why these men think they can sexually exploit and abuse girls. I mean there you go again about how a girl should be modest. The fact is these abusers could care less about modesty, when they also abuse within their own community. Showing it has nothing to do with sleeping around. It has everything to do with a cultural, religious aspect, formed around control.

I didn't actually mention your sisters but,,,,, your wife???and your daughters??  you would rejoice in the fact that they are so liberated, would you?

If my wife wanted to do this, as some couples are happy to do. That would be their choice would it not. If they are not happy with this, then they would split up.
As to my daughters doing this. Is that not their choice also?
I do not believe in honour killings Gelico, which is formed from the very view you are arguing over. Respect.
Something you have set a standard on, respect itself, and that is inherently a dangerous think to do.
When it comes to sexual liberation.

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:it doesn't matter in the slightest to me whatsoever, i never said it did.  i have my own standards, let others have theirs,,,

no, tbf that thought would probably turn me on too,,,,it's the random, multiple, PUBLIC sex that i claim is - not morally wrong - just somewhat repugnant to me.  the thought of having dicks that have been God knows where,,,,,that's the lack of self respect i'm talking about,,,,,still each to their own and all



i didn't say condemn,,,,i said would you be happy about it?  i mean genuinely happy?


curious that you should use that term, didge,,,  the islamic jihadi rape squads see western girls exactly as trash and for very much reasons like that.  their mindset is ''if you're gonna put it about then i'm having some, whether you want me too or not''.  i'm not suggesting girls should always be very girly and modest and keep their ankles covered and all but that is where their mindset comes from.  considering some of the behaviour of some western girls even speaking from a viewpoint of my own (freedom loving, liberated, independant woman)  i can understand it.  it doesn't JUSTIFY it any way shape or form, but i can understand it



I didn't actually mention your sisters but,,,,, your wife???and your daughters??  you would rejoice in the fact that they are so liberated, would you?

If my wife wanted to do this, as some couples are happy to do. That would be their choice would it not. If they are not happy with this, then they would split up.
As to my daughters doing this. Is that not their choice also?
I do not believe in honour killings Gelico, which is formed from the very view you are arguing over. Respect.
Something you have set a standard on, respect itself, and that is inherently a dangerous think to do.
When it comes to sexual liberation.

so that's what i'm specifically asking you,,,,if your wife decided to hang out on the street corner each night with her fanny out and her skirt up in public offering it out to any random passer by,,,,,you would be happy that she is so liberated? tell me honestly, you would?

also, you constantly bring religious laws into it,,,forget the religious aspect of it,,, we need to be mighty grateful that we live in a country that does not seek to research what Abraham or Moses or Jesus might have said or done everytime they want to bring in a new law for something and certainly not anything mohammed said or did.

self respect has many different forms. what about the huge rise in STDs? you saying that is just being liberated?

now there is apparantly a 'super gonorrhea' for which there is no cure.

why on earth it's called 'super' is somewhat beyond me to be honest. surely ''untreatable gonorrhea'' would be more appropriate. it makes it sound like a must have.

HEY! GREAT NEWS FOR GONORRHEA LOVERS!! NOW THERE'S A NEW SUPER GONORRHEA WHICH COMES WITH A LIFETIME GUARANTEE,,,,YES! A LIFETIME GUARANTEE!!! DON'T MISS OUT ON THIS,,,BE THE FIRST IN YOUR STREET TO CONTRACT SUPER GONORRHEA!! GET DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL BROTHEL FAST,,,,,ALTERNATIVELY, CONTACT YOUR NEAREST EX SAINSBURYS MANAGER,,,,,NO CONDOMS REQUIRED,,,,FUCK FREE FUCK FAST FUCK NOW!!

Yaay!!

Just a wee thought,,,,,anyhoos back to your wife, didge. you would be quite happy with that behaviour?

it seems to me that your desperate attempts to try to make ''anything goes'' into some kind of liberation concept is really your way of still rebelling against your childhood catholic upbringing.

i think it's kinda sad in a way

anyhoos early day closing so i have to leave now. i may pick this back up later. there may be more comments then

ciao

gelico wrote:
so that's what i'm specifically asking you,,,,if your wife decided to hang out on the street corner each night with her fanny out and her skirt up in public offering it out to any random passer by,,,,,you would be happy that she is so liberated?  tell me honestly, you would?

Thorin wrote: Yes, as I am sexually liberated. I do not believe in jealousy. Its only things like jealousy that cause pain and problems. Do you see how much easier that relationship is without such negativity? You do realise that is how such honour crimes happen, based on an invented view of what they see as respect?
Take your time to think on that one

also, you constantly bring religious laws into it,,,forget the religious aspect of it,,, we need to be mighty grateful that we live in a country that does not seek to research what Abraham or Moses or Jesus might have said or done everytime they want to bring in a new law for something and certainly not anything mohammed said or did.  

Thorin wrote: Actually, your moral standards are a byproduct of Christianity within this country. That is the foundation that they were formed from. If you go back to pagan times, women already had rights in Celtic times. It was Christianity that stop all of this and not off any teachings Jesus made. Only that of Paul. What people follow today is not Christianity, but Pauline Christianity. He hated women and Christianity that we see today, is formed from his sexist views.

self respect has many different forms.  what about the huge rise in STDs?  you saying that is just being liberated?

Thorin wrote: So are you saying homosexuals or heterosexuals who contract HIV, now have no respect?
Again what is this respect you speak of. Is thus smoking and drinking disrespectful as you can die from this?

now there is apparantly a 'super gonorrhea' for which there is no cure.

Thorin wrote: Indeed there is. So what that means is people have to people more sensible using protection.
Do you see how that is a poor argument, when you went off respect to now possible diseases.
So based on your morals ban this, are you going to ban smoking and drinking?

why on earth it's called 'super' is somewhat beyond me to be honest.  surely ''untreatable gonorrhea'' would be more appropriate.  it makes it sound like a must have.

Thorin wrote: Death is untreatable, does that mean we should never enjoy life Gelico? Is that how you want to go through life? In fear of what you might get illness wise?
Seriously, lock yourself up in a padded room away from mankind with that thinking

HEY!  GREAT NEWS FOR GONORRHEA LOVERS!!  NOW THERE'S A NEW SUPER GONORRHEA WHICH COMES WITH A LIFETIME GUARANTEE,,,,YES! A LIFETIME GUARANTEE!!!  DON'T MISS OUT ON THIS,,,BE THE FIRST IN YOUR STREET TO CONTRACT SUPER GONORRHEA!!  GET DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL BROTHEL FAST,,,,,ALTERNATIVELY, CONTACT YOUR NEAREST EX SAINSBURYS MANAGER,,,,,NO CONDOMS REQUIRED,,,,FUCK FREE FUCK FAST FUCK NOW!!

Yaay!!

Thorin wrote: You now sound like those idiots that once stigmatized people for HIV

Just a wee thought,,,,,anyhoos back to your wife, didge.  you would be quite happy with that behaviour?

Thorin wrote: Yes, as I am sexually liberated. I do not believe in jealousy. Its only things like jealousy that cause pain and problems. Do you see how much easier that relationship is without such negativity?

it seems to me that your desperate attempts to try to make ''anything goes'' into some kind of liberation concept is really your way of still rebelling against your childhood catholic upbringing.

Thorin wrote: Rebelling?

Are you applying a view that Catholic morality is thus right then Gelico?
I onced viewed homosexuality as wrong, because of that belief.
Then I saw how it was all bullshit
It certainly was liberating, as I no longer hated
Maybe you can tel me how you think I am still rebelling on now accepting people who are homosexual?

i think it's kinda sad in a way

anyhoos early day closing so i have to leave now.  i may pick this back up later.  there may be more comments then

ciao

Yeah, its a shame really that throughout you have avoided countless of my questions and points.

Where I have answered all yours

You are so on the back foot gelico, it may be needed that a drill is used to get it out

Catch you later

Anyway, this has been a great debate Gelico, but will have to catch up later.

All the best

HoratioTarr wrote:Well, good for him.

Absolutely. Well done for speaking out in such unequivocal terms too.

Raggamuffin wrote:Obviously, nobody should be grabbing boobs at a concert, but how does one crowd surf without anyone touching you? Why do people crowd surf anyway - do they ask people to pick them up and pass them round?

You raise a damn good point, Raggs.

Here's another: WTF is so special about Taylor Swift's precious ass, or this girl's golden tit, that we have to automatically deify them? These sexist allegations are just the latest pc.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Obviously, nobody should be grabbing boobs at a concert, but how does one crowd surf without anyone touching you? Why do people crowd surf anyway - do they ask people to pick them up and pass them round?

You raise a damn good point, Raggs.

Here's another: WTF is so special about Taylor Swift's precious ass, or this girl's golden tit, that we have to automatically deify them?  These sexist allegations are just the latest pc.  

You think it's ok to touch a strange woman's breasts without her permission? As a man, would you stand by and let a man do that to a woman, or would you actually say something and speak out? I know, as a woman, I would.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You raise a damn good point, Raggs.

Here's another: WTF is so special about Taylor Swift's precious ass, or this girl's golden tit, that we have to automatically deify them?  These sexist allegations are just the latest pc.  

You think it's ok to touch a strange woman's breasts without her permission?   As a man, would you stand by and let a man do that to a woman, or would you actually say something and speak out?   I know, as a woman, I would.  

The more relevant comparison for the point is, would we care if it was a man's breast?  And athletes pat each other on the ass all the time.  It is only sexism that makes a woman's assets so precious.  Perhaps if we didn't objectify women so much, we could give them credit for being normal, intelligent and pleasant human beings, instead of only idealizing their tits and ass.

But it's only my opinion...I'd like to hear some justification for why we fuss so much over female tits and ass.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You think it's ok to touch a strange woman's breasts without her permission?   As a man, would you stand by and let a man do that to a woman, or would you actually say something and speak out?   I know, as a woman, I would.  

The more relevant comparison for the point is, would we care if it was a man's breast?  And athletes pat each other on the ass all the time.  It is only sexism that makes a woman's assets so precious.  Perhaps if we didn't objectify women so much, we could give them credit for being normal, intelligent and pleasant human beings, instead of only idealizing their tits and ass.

But it's only my opinion...I'd like to hear some justification for why we fuss so much over female tits and ass.

Perhaps you do have to be a woman to truly appreciate and understand the difference between a pat on the bottom and someone squeezing your breasts for self gratification. Trust me, it's horrible and you know the difference. It would more likely be likened to someone coming up to you and grabbing your balls and having a good grope.

I'm not sure why you think this is trivial. Whether you like it or not, breasts are, and always have been, and always will be, symbols of sexuality and objects of fascination to men. Ask any woman who's had a mastectomy if she thinks those lost breasts don't matter or why the fuss because they've gone. Ask any woman if she thinks it's ok for a man to grab her there and cop a good feel. How would you feel if someone did that your missus? I bet you'd hit the fucking roof.

Nobody has the right to grope or maul anyone.

It's my bet that most women on this forum have suffered some kind of sexual disrespect over their lifetime, be it being groped, flashed at, derogatory sexist comments, etc. It isn't trivial. It's horrible and unnecessary and disrespectful.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You think it's ok to touch a strange woman's breasts without her permission?   As a man, would you stand by and let a man do that to a woman, or would you actually say something and speak out?   I know, as a woman, I would.  

The more relevant comparison for the point is, would we care if it was a man's breast?  And athletes pat each other on the ass all the time.  It is only sexism that makes a woman's assets so precious.  Perhaps if we didn't objectify women so much, we could give them credit for being normal, intelligent and pleasant human beings, instead of only idealizing their tits and ass.

But it's only my opinion...I'd like to hear some justification for why we fuss so much over female tits and ass.

You dont have to fuss over a womans tits or ass....you just dont touch them uninvited.
Anyone who does should face consequences.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The more relevant comparison for the point is, would we care if it was a man's breast?  And athletes pat each other on the ass all the time.  It is only sexism that makes a woman's assets so precious.  Perhaps if we didn't objectify women so much, we could give them credit for being normal, intelligent and pleasant human beings, instead of only idealizing their tits and ass.

But it's only my opinion...I'd like to hear some justification for why we fuss so much over female tits and ass.

Perhaps you do have to be a woman to truly appreciate and understand the difference between a pat on the bottom and someone squeezing your breasts for self gratification.    Trust me, it's horrible and you know the difference.   It would more likely be likened to someone coming up to you and grabbing your balls and having a good grope.    

I'm not sure why you think this is trivial.   Whether you like it or not, breasts are, and always have been, and always will be, symbols of sexuality and objects of fascination to men.   Ask any woman who's had a mastectomy if she thinks those lost breasts don't matter or why the fuss because they've gone.   Ask any woman if she thinks it's ok for a man to grab her there and cop a good feel.   How would you feel if someone did that your missus?   I bet you'd hit the fucking roof.  

Nobody has the right to grope or maul anyone.  

It's my bet that most women on this forum have suffered some kind of sexual disrespect over their lifetime, be it being groped, flashed at, derogatory sexist comments, etc.    It isn't trivial.   It's horrible and unnecessary and disrespectful.

Good post HT.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Perhaps you do have to be a woman to truly appreciate and understand the difference between a pat on the bottom and someone squeezing your breasts for self gratification.    Trust me, it's horrible and you know the difference.   It would more likely be likened to someone coming up to you and grabbing your balls and having a good grope.    

I'm not sure why you think this is trivial.   Whether you like it or not, breasts are, and always have been, and always will be, symbols of sexuality and objects of fascination to men.   Ask any woman who's had a mastectomy if she thinks those lost breasts don't matter or why the fuss because they've gone.   Ask any woman if she thinks it's ok for a man to grab her there and cop a good feel.   How would you feel if someone did that your missus?   I bet you'd hit the fucking roof.  

Nobody has the right to grope or maul anyone.  

It's my bet that most women on this forum have suffered some kind of sexual disrespect over their lifetime, be it being groped, flashed at, derogatory sexist comments, etc.    It isn't trivial.   It's horrible and unnecessary and disrespectful.

Good post HT.

Yes, you make a good argument, HT.  But a lot of the argument is based upon societal presumptions...which in turn are based upon roles and expectations, that are the same source of objectification of women generally.  

You say:

HT wrote:Ask any woman if she thinks it's ok for a man to grab her there and cop a good feel.

Again, if I were to ask "any woman", odds are she would be under the influence of the same presumptions and expectations.  Maybe the answer is that such roles and expectations are more real than we think...and women's liberation that denies it, is all a bunch of BS.

Actually, I have had my arse grabbed, and it might have caused a right cross had it not happened in a gay bar where the owner (straight) was a client of mine (lol...also straight).  Lol.  My client owned a chain of bars and restaurants, and the biggest money maker was the gay bar (go figure).  Once we met and had a drink at the bar, where it happened.  Mostly, it was funny...but I didn't feel vulnerable, and I can understand that it (vulnerability) can make a big difference.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Good post HT.

Yes, you make a good argument, HT.  But a lot of the argument is based upon societal presumptions...which in turn are based upon roles and expectations, that are the same source of objectification of women generally.  

You say:

HT wrote:Ask any woman if she thinks it's ok for a man to grab her there and cop a good feel.

Again, if I were to ask "any woman", odds are she would be under the influence of the same presumptions and expectations.  Maybe the answer is that such roles and expectations are more real than we think...and women's liberation that denies it, is all a bunch of BS.

Actually, I have had my arse grabbed, and it might have caused a right cross had it not happened in a gay bar where the owner (straight) was a client of mine (lol...also straight).  Lol.  My client owned a chain of bars and restaurants, and the biggest money maker was the gay bar (go figure).  Once we met and had a drink at the bar, where it happened.  Mostly, it was funny...but I didn't feel vulnerable, and I can understand that it (vulnerability) can make a big difference.

I'm not sure whether men feel differently about being 'felt up' by women.   They might feel more outrage at being touched up by a gay man.    Clearly, you didn't feel threatened.   But women often do as we're more vulnerable for obvious reasons.   Also, it's a lot to do with respect, or the lack of it.   I'm not sure what you mean by expectations and presumptions.    It's black and white. Where does women's lib say it's ok for a woman to be groped?  That's not equality.  That's abuse.