Feminist Insanity: Curfew for Men to Protect Women

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWTozDs7Uw

https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-curfew-for-men-what-a-great-idea-20180709-p4zqev.html

So some Sexist Feminists. Believe the way to tackle sexism and abuse against women. Is to enforce Sexism against Men and through Guilt by association.

wow

Now apply her thinking based on the global Islamic terrorism.

Would she advocate a curfew on Muslims as well?

Fuck me some people are STUPID the guy in the Clip is 100% certified brain dead dickhead.
did he not understand this is satire? What sort of Moron would think that Feminists are really suggesting this, Who could be so Dumb? only a Militant Right Wing Wanker could even possible be so deluded.

it was in response to the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon, a Comedian, as she walked home after a Gig (literally the Parallel situation presented in the Satirical Article), She being mourned by other female comedians (and society in general)
https://www.theage.com.au/melbourne-news/melbourne-comedians-pay-tribute-to-universally-loved-eurydice-dixon-20180614-p4zlhi.html

This is Why Didge's world View is so Warped he takes the words of a guys that Can't Comprehend satire as gospel because it was posted to YouTube

fuck me the world is full of Idiots

Well I often think that a lot of dry and subtle humour is lost on people. I often wrote things and because I don’t stick a laughing emoji at the end, people think I’m serious.

Happens to me all the time.

veya_victaous wrote:Fuck me some people are STUPID the guy in the Clip is 100% certified brain dead dickhead.
did he not understand this is satire?  What sort of Moron would think that Feminists are really suggesting this, Who could be so Dumb? only a Militant Right Wing Wanker could even possible be so deluded.

it was in response to the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon, a Comedian, as she walked home after a Gig (literally the Parallel situation presented in the Satirical Article), She being mourned by other female comedians (and society in general)
https://www.theage.com.au/melbourne-news/melbourne-comedians-pay-tribute-to-universally-loved-eurydice-dixon-20180614-p4zlhi.html

Show the forum how they are connected?

Not you trying to connect them?

So I do not see how you think this is satire or connected

The story only went on about a letter about women walking alone at night

So you claiming they are connected does not cut it

eddie Reilly wrote:Well I often think that a lot of dry and subtle humour is lost on people. I often wrote things and because I don’t stick a laughing emoji at the end, people think I’m serious.

Happens to me all the time.

Yet this was posted as opinion, not satire by the newspaper

No where does she claim its satire

So its very possible this is actually the views of this feminist

The person who wrote this is not a comedian, but a TV critic

Hey ho.

IT WAS NATIONAL FUCKING NEWS!!!!
Part of NATIONAL Debate of Women's safety in response to a Horrific Rape and Murder
as it says in the article that Dingus Dickhead failed to read

Adding her bit to the debate – and in response to the suggestion from yet another letter-writer that women shouldn’t walk alone at night – Ms Lamont came up with perhaps the most practical and efficient solution yet. A curfew on men. Genius.

As if it isn't obviously by the "genius" bit that it is in jest, you'd have to be an Anti Social Loser to not get that.

there was even a Sicko like you that defaced the memorial to the victim because he wanted to 'Attack Feminism". Real men need to do something about Anti-women's safety Advocates like You
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/07/05/00/59/eurydice-dixon-memorial-vandalised-andrew-nolch-attack-on-feminism

Here's an Account of the Response from Police that Caused the OP article to be Written (Which is so fucking obviously Satirical that only a brain dead twat would suggest it was serious and only and EVEN DUMBER than brain dead twat would believe them)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-15/why-women-are-sick-of-being-told-to-steer-clear-of-violent-men/9874742

In the wake of yet another tragic — but, importantly, not unavoidable — loss of a woman's life, police predictably advised people to "stay safe" by engaging in a range of "protective" strategies.
The social media response was swift, with the police comments quickly denounced as yet another example of the ways in which we deflect the blame for men's violence back onto women.
So why do we keep telling women to "stay safe", and why is it such a problem?

And a fuck tonne more Because literally all you had to do was google ANY of the names in the article
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/australia/eurydice-dixon-murder-why-women-are-enraged-by-stay-safe-advice-ng-b88867475z

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44491670
'Right to walk home alone'
Ms Dixon's death has also renewed a more general discussion in Australia about violence against women.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/19/eurydice-dixon-death-male-rage-australia-women-men-attitudes
But her death has become something else: a flashpoint for an intense, often angry conversation about violence against women in Australia, and how it is men – not women – who need to change.

HUGE FUCKING NATIONAL CONVERSATION across all media for a Month!!!!

And it is A TV Critic Commenting on a Letter to the Editor that got National Coverage for it Obvious and Insightful SATIRE

here is another male Comedian commenting on the same Letter from Gretel Lamont (just a regular person)

Advice worth heeding

Gretel Lamont (Letters, 9/7) says that if women cannot go out alone at night, men also should not go out at night.
When I go out at night, I know that there are two things that the bad guys want from me – my wallet and my smartphone. I can always leave them at home and thus avoid losing them. But the thing the bad guys want from women cannot be left at home.

I have the right to cross at a zebra crossing but I am careful in exercising this right because I do not assume that a motorist will stop for me. If I exercise my society-given right of using a zebra crossing, whatever be the circumstances, I may be crippled or even dead.

There have always been bad people out there and there always will be, no matter what we want to believe about how things should be. Women want to exercise the right given by society to dress however they wish, go out whenever they want, etc, but if they encounter the bad guy on the way, who ends up as the loser?

When the police advise me not to leave my laptop in my car while shopping, instead of accusing them of victim blaming, I heed their advice, because I do not want to lose my laptop.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/a-study-in-contrasts-reallife-struggle-puts-world-cup-in-its-place-20180709-h12gfd.html

Fuck me who would of thought that as we always say Didge's Militant Left is a Complete Make Believe Strawman some Right Wing Loser made up to attack some progressive idea they find threatening to their Fragile ego and self worth.

eddie Reilly wrote:Well I often think that a lot of dry and subtle humour is lost on people. I often wrote things and because I don’t stick a laughing emoji at the end, people think I’m serious.

Happens to me all the time.

That happens to me all the time. Sometimes I feel I have to use an emoji just to get across a cryptic point.

Prophylactic feminism...what a concept!  We have  prophylactic circumcision and prophylactic mastectomies...why not?

The war between the sexes is given to such excesses.  The op is right that reversing the pendulum is commonly one way to combat extremism, but nowhere is the reversal so extreme or the proposal less serious than in feminism.  

When I was working on my doctorate, my dissertation adviser, Sebastian De Grazia,  took an interest in the feminist movement...which was ascendant at the time. He called it Sexual Politics.  It was his conclusion that the proposals were extreme because they weren't meant seriously...but were ultimately part of erotic play between the sexes.  Eroticism, he argued, stimulated self-empowerment in females, and a product of such high adrenaline/dopamine instincts was extreme proposals such as this.  He argued that it was just role reversal, a common game in sex play.

Yes I agree that men should be confined to the home after a certain time.
Perhaps they could be allowed 60 minutes after their work time finishes.
This would give them enough time to travel home and wave their wives, mothers, girlfriends off for a night on the town untroubled by pesky men who want to ravish them uncontrollably.

I reckon we should just listen to biology....

women have smaller feet than men for a reason

so they can stand closer to the sink!!!!!!!!!!

After all the dreadful treatment of women by men over the centuries and continuing to this day in many countries, I can certainly see the logic in male curfews. In fact it could be a good thing for men to experience what women have had to put up with for those thousands of years - won't happen of course, we are no where near equality and not since men  truly understood their part in reproduction and realised they needed to protect their sexual prowess, goods, chattels money and status by being able to verify their offspring through protecting (for protecting read enslaving) their women anyway they could.
As for the erotism theory that can only be true in an egalitarian or female controlled society, otherwise women don't have the choice.

veya_victaous wrote:IT WAS NATIONAL FUCKING NEWS!!!!
Part of NATIONAL Debate of Women's safety in response to a Horrific Rape and Murder
as it says in the article that Dingus Dickhead failed to read

Again that is you making a connection based off you idiocy

She never stated it was satire

It was an opinion peice

In other words you are covering for this feminist nazi;s sexism

Again back up your evidence this was satire?

Vintage wrote:After all the dreadful treatment of women by men over the centuries and continuing to this day in many countries, I can certainly see the logic in male curfews. In fact it could be a good thing for men to experience what women have had to put up with for those thousands of years - won't happen of course, we are no where near equality and not since men  truly understood their part in reproduction and realised they needed to protect their sexual prowess, goods, chattels money and status by being able to verify their offspring through protecting (for protecting read enslaving) their women anyway they could.
As for the erotism theory that can only be true in an egalitarian or female controlled society, otherwise women don't have the choice.

So can you also see the logic in female infanticide?

Shall we have a curfew on women with children?

Seriously i can do this all day on such idiocy

Not only that, how and why is that going to stop any rape and murder of men or women in daylight?

Its just about the must dumbest idea going

If someone is going to want to rape or murder someone, the time of day is not going to make a damn bit of difference is it?

Why do dumbwits think you can combat sexism, with sexism and forced sexism?

Lord Foul wrote:I reckon we should just listen to biology....

women have smaller feet than men for a reason

so they can stand closer to the sink!!!!!!!!!!

Biology doesn't always get it right, men have bigger ears than women, but that doesn't mean they listen.

I said Dumbwit, I can see why some may want revenge of this sort I didn't say I agree with it or that it was a good idea.Open your mind and understand for a change, you are so closed to explanations of why something may be or why people may want it to be. While life is not black and white, its certainly not a logical professorial debate.

Vintage wrote:I said Dumbwit, I can see why some may want revenge of this sort I didn't say I agree with it or that it was a good idea.Open your mind and understand for a change, you are so closed to explanations of why something may be or why people may want it to be. While life is not black and white, its certainly not a logical professorial debate.

You can see why some do?

How or why can anyone see or why anyone could see why some would want this?

Its not even a closed explanation, as such an explanation and such stupidity could be applied to any label.

Hence the reasons xenophobes like you can see such a reason why such mind numbingling hateful people could?

Is the same hate that is found against women, is being applied here against men

So you can understand hate?

I guess to live hate is to understand such hate

Such hate should be condemned, not understood

Do you understand that dumbwit?

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I reckon we should just listen to biology....

women have smaller feet than men for a reason

so they can stand closer to the sink!!!!!!!!!!

Biology doesn't always get it right, men have bigger ears than women, but that doesn't mean they listen.

And women do?

Their mind set is based emotionally, so how are they then listening rationally?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
Biology doesn't always get it right, men have bigger ears than women, but that doesn't mean they listen.

And women do?

Their mind set is based emotionally, so how are they then listening rationally?

Yes women do listen more carefully Didge, it's just one of those little differences where women are found to be superior than the menfolk.
Others include womens ability to multi task and find lost keys without ransacking every drawer in the house.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


And women do?

Their mind set is based emotionally, so how are they then listening rationally?

Yes women do listen more carefully Didge, it's just one of those little differences where women are found to be superior than the menfolk.
Others include womens ability to multi task and find lost keys without ransacking every drawer in the house.

Sexism at its best

There is no actual differnce, you just made a subjective argument and poor steroetype, hence why I took the piss in my previous reply on listening.

If women listen best, then only councilors would only be women, why is this not the case?

because you have bought into bullshit

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
Yes women do listen more carefully Didge, it's just one of those little differences where women are found to be superior than the menfolk.
Others include womens ability to multi task and find lost keys without ransacking every drawer in the house.

Sexism at its best

There is no actual differnce, you just made a subjective argument and poor steroetype, hence why I took the piss in my previous reply on listening.

If women listen best, then only councilors would only be women, why is this not the case?

because you have bought into bullshit

You are not the only one capable of taking the piss Didge....lighten up a bit.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sexism at its best

There is no actual differnce, you just made a subjective argument and poor steroetype, hence why I took the piss in my previous reply on listening.

If women listen best, then only councilors would only be women, why is this not the case?

because you have bought into bullshit

You are not the only one capable of taking the piss Didge....lighten up a bit.

Really????????

Nice try, but I am not buying when you bought into my bait love

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
You are not the only one capable of taking the piss Didge....lighten up a bit.

Really????????

Nice try, but I am not buying when you bought into my bait love

Yeah really. If you managed to take your head out of your arse long enough you would have seen my first reply was tongue in cheek to LF who had also posted in fun.
My second reply to you was....winding you up, so it's you dear Didge  who fell for the bait.

Now it' bedtime, so I will wish you night night and sweet dreams.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really????????

Nice try, but I am not buying when you bought into my bait love

Yeah really. If you managed to take your head out of your arse long enough you would have seen my first reply was tongue in cheek to LF who had also posted in fun.
My second reply to you was....winding you up, so it's you dear Didge  who fell for the bait.

Now it' bedtime, so I will wish you night night and sweet dreams.

You never wound me up, hence why you have run away

I baited you and you were a rat in a trap making idiotic claims on women on better listeners

I wish you would listen better, as you certainly dont make a good example of this petal

I wish you wind down after being baited, try a cold shower.  

Night

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
Yeah really. If you managed to take your head out of your arse long enough you would have seen my first reply was tongue in cheek to LF who had also posted in fun.
My second reply to you was....winding you up, so it's you dear Didge  who fell for the bait.

Now it' bedtime, so I will wish you night night and sweet dreams.

You never wound me up, hence why you have run away

I baited you and you were a rat in a trap making idiotic claims on women on better listeners

I wish you would listen better, as you certainly dont make a good example of this petal

I wish you wind down after being baited, try a cold shower.  

Night

Run away?
I went to bed and left you to it.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


You never wound me up, hence why you have run away

I baited you and you were a rat in a trap making idiotic claims on women on better listeners

I wish you would listen better, as you certainly dont make a good example of this petal

I wish you wind down after being baited, try a cold shower.  

Night

Run away?  
I went to bed and left you to it.

lol, you run away and still are by avoiding the points....

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Run away?  
I went to bed and left you to it.

lol, you run away and still are by avoiding the points....

Nope....you prefer to think my posts were serious when they were obvious to anyone (if they bothered to read them properly) that they were made tongue in cheek.

Why would I want men to have curfews anyway? Who would drive me to where I need to be, pay for food and drinks. hold my coat or lend me theirs if it's chilly???
Honestly Didge, you haven't thought this through at all have you?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


lol, you run away and still are by avoiding the points....

Nope....you prefer to think my posts were serious when they were obvious to anyone (if they bothered to read them properly) that they were made tongue in cheek.

Why would I want men to have curfews anyway? Who would drive me to where I need to be, pay for food and drinks. hold my coat or lend me theirs if it's chilly???
Honestly Didge, you haven't thought this through at all have you?

Of course I believe you Syl lol

Pay for food and drinks??

Dont you equally pay?

Have you thought this through?

Think about paying?

I know Syl you have been joking, but this always reminds me years ago. When in Thailand with a mate of mine. When you joked about men paying for women.

We were sitting down in a group of travelling mates. There was a couple of English women with us and they turned their noses up and made snide remarks because my mate turned up with this stunning Thai lady on his arm. She was of course a hooker.

They said it was disgusting that men paid for sex to his face. I will never forget what he said back and he stunned them into silence.

He asked them, whether when they liked someone they wanted to date. Whether they believed that men should pay on the first and proceeding dates.

They said and believed that men should pay for women, when dating them.

So he then asked them, until when?

They said, men should be gentleman and always pay for women when out.

He then asked, at what point would you want to have sex with them, being as you want to date them. One said 3-5 weeks, the other 2 months.

He said wow, so you went out with them, under the pre-text, you hoped you would eventually have sex together?

They agreed.

He then said, so basically. You got this potential boyfriend. To pay for you to go out multiple times. With the view of being together and enjoying later sex together. From a period of 3 weeks to two months?

They said yes.

He then said and stunned them. So basically. You are moaning at me paying ten dollars for a stunning woman to have sex with me and you make men pay close to, or if not more. A thousand pounds and even then. They may never have sex with you? Does that not make you a hooker or a high class escort?

They were speechlesss, because a girl thinking a man should pay on the first or any dates, does not respect that person. As the moment a woman demands that a man has to pay for her time. She is stating this relationship is not equal and it comes at a cost. Just like a hooker.

When women buy into the old fashion and quite sexist belief that men should always pay (not saying you do Syl and know you were joking), then they might as well be seen as extentions, of a sexist past. Where they basically think their time comes at a price.

After their faces dropped. He told them, that maybe they should rethink, how they are in fact sexist towards men. As he said he respected the fact the woman he was with, does this for a living and does not lie doing so. She needs the money and has more respect for her, than he would for either of them

Even if this were a serious suggestion it would never work

all the men would immediately identify as women and just fuck off out

Your friend had a point if the women admitted they expected to be paid for and eventually they would reward with sex....if that's what they said.

I certainly don't go along with the train of thought that if a woman allows a man to pay for her night out (or several of them) she should have sex with him, the two things are not connected.

I also hate women who expect a man to spend his dosh whilst she keeps hers in her purse, why?

I have been married 40 plus years, but before then when I went out with a man it was custom for him to offer to pay....and they always did offer.
In return I always offered to pay half, in fact that's what I preferred to do, I like fair play.
Once you are committed in a relationship obviously the way you organise your money is between the pair of you, but money should never be a bargaining tool for sex, unless, as you say, a person is in that line of business.

Syl wrote:Your friend had a point if the women admitted they expected to be paid for and eventually they would reward with sex....if that's what they said.

I certainly don't go along with the train of thought that if a woman allows a man to pay for her night out (or several of them) she should have sex with him, the two things are not connected.

I also hate women who expect a man to spend his dosh whilst she keeps hers in her purse, why?

I have been married 40 plus years, but before then when I went out with a man it was custom for him to offer to pay....and they always did offer.
In return I always offered to pay half, in fact that's what I preferred to do, I like fair play.
Once you are committed in a relationship obviously the way you organise your money is between the pair of you, but money should never be a bargaining tool for sex, unless, as you say, a person is in that line of business.

Sorry, but how are they not connected?

Custom to pay?

You mean like its the custum for a woman not to be unaccompanied by a male?

Where on earth do you think this sexist concepts come from?

Seriously?

For him to need to pay, is why people still live in the dark ages

As the view he should pay is born from a view of men or women in control. Not one of equality

So before then, you were brought up into a lie and sexist lie at that, where men should pay. As the moment you expect someone else to pay, its not love, but a view to a contract. The moment women expect men to pay is not love but a view to pay for their time.

gelico wrote:


Even if this were a serious suggestion it would never work

all the men would immediately identify as women and just fuck off out

Now you are getting the picture and how can you then you police something where then men can and would then identify as women?

Syl wrote:Your friend had a point if the women admitted they expected to be paid for and eventually they would reward with sex....if that's what they said.

I certainly don't go along with the train of thought that if a woman allows a man to pay for her night out (or several of them) she should have sex with him, the two things are not connected.

I also hate women who expect a man to spend his dosh whilst she keeps hers in her purse, why?

I have been married 40 plus years, but before then when I went out with a man it was custom for him to offer to pay....and they always did offer.
In return I always offered to pay half, in fact that's what I preferred to do, I like fair play.
Once you are committed in a relationship obviously the way you organise your money is between the pair of you, but money should never be a bargaining tool for sex, unless, as you say, a person is in that line of business.

absolutely syl.

i always offered to pay my half. I get to keep my independence and i don't like feeling beholden to anyone. That being said most blokes wanted to pay anyway. That's ok as long as there's no quid quo pro misunderstanding

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:Your friend had a point if the women admitted they expected to be paid for and eventually they would reward with sex....if that's what they said.

I certainly don't go along with the train of thought that if a woman allows a man to pay for her night out (or several of them) she should have sex with him, the two things are not connected.

I also hate women who expect a man to spend his dosh whilst she keeps hers in her purse, why?

I have been married 40 plus years, but before then when I went out with a man it was custom for him to offer to pay....and they always did offer.
In return I always offered to pay half, in fact that's what I preferred to do, I like fair play.
Once you are committed in a relationship obviously the way you organise your money is between the pair of you, but money should never be a bargaining tool for sex, unless, as you say, a person is in that line of business.

absolutely syl.

i always offered to pay my half.  I get to keep my independence and i don't like feeling beholden to anyone.  That being said most blokes wanted to pay anyway.  That's ok as long as there's no quid quo pro misunderstanding

There you go, your independence and not to be beholden to anyone

You say most blokes wanted to pay?

Why?

Because a society had bought them up to make them feel they should?

How thankful, are we now, we have broken such warped Taboo's?

It is okay when someone else pays, based on them wanting to and not any view of their gender.

The reality is sadly that some women  believe men should pay. Which in reality makes them disrespectful to any man.

As how can any woman believe a man should pay?

As it buys into an old sexist belief.

To have equality means respecting the person you are with.

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:


absolutely syl.

i always offered to pay my half.  I get to keep my independence and i don't like feeling beholden to anyone.  That being said most blokes wanted to pay anyway.  That's ok as long as there's no quid quo pro misunderstanding

You say most blokes wanted to pay?

Why?

i never bothered to ask

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


You say most blokes wanted to pay?

Why?

i never bothered to ask

ha ha

okay gelico, I literally, have no answer to that.

You got me, ha ha

Syl wrote:Your friend had a point if the women admitted they expected to be paid for and eventually they would reward with sex....if that's what they said.

I certainly don't go along with the train of thought that if a woman allows a man to pay for her night out (or several of them) she should have sex with him, the two things are not connected.

I also hate women who expect a man to spend his dosh whilst she keeps hers in her purse, why?

I have been married 40 plus years, but before then when I went out with a man it was custom for him to offer to pay....and they always did offer.
In return I always offered to pay half, in fact that's what I preferred to do, I like fair play.
Once you are committed in a relationship obviously the way you organise your money is between the pair of you, but money should never be a bargaining tool for sex, unless, as you say, a person is in that line of business.

If a bloke is stupid enough to think that he'll get his leg over for a few meals and drinks, he's not worth going out with. Not all women jump into the sack with a bloke because he thinks paying for everything makes him a gentleman. You get into bed with someone because you want to, not because they've chucked money at you. Like Syl, I don't expect a man to pay for everything, it's not fair.

Of course there will always be the type of women who do jump into bed for a Big Mac with extra fries...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Your friend had a point if the women admitted they expected to be paid for and eventually they would reward with sex....if that's what they said.

I certainly don't go along with the train of thought that if a woman allows a man to pay for her night out (or several of them) she should have sex with him, the two things are not connected.

I also hate women who expect a man to spend his dosh whilst she keeps hers in her purse, why?

I have been married 40 plus years, but before then when I went out with a man it was custom for him to offer to pay....and they always did offer.
In return I always offered to pay half, in fact that's what I preferred to do, I like fair play.
Once you are committed in a relationship obviously the way you organise your money is between the pair of you, but money should never be a bargaining tool for sex, unless, as you say, a person is in that line of business.

If a bloke is stupid enough to think that he'll get his leg over for a few meals and drinks, he's not worth going out with.  Not all women jump into the sack with a bloke because he thinks paying for everything makes him a gentleman.   You get into bed with someone because you want to, not because they've chucked money at you.  Like Syl, I don't expect a man to pay for everything, it's not fair.  

Of course there will always be the type of women who do jump into bed for a Big Mac with extra fries...

Okay, so why even go out with a bloke, if not that girl wants to get her end away?

I imagine you never did

The point is this and on equality and you being the judge that you are treat women baseds on who they sleeep with

Seriously?

Its not based on your prudish view point

I mean are you going tell me if Ben slept with Eddie on the first night, she is to you a slut?

Of course not. hence your prejudice

So how about you fuck off and stop judging other based on your backwards and quite sad principles?

Well here is the point of call

Do you care about Eddie and Ben?

I do and thir happiness is more important than mine.

Go figure

will eddie allow ben to go out after hours,,,,,

or will she do a kathy bates number on him

break his ankles and force him to change the ending of their book



or just keep him chained up in the basement for her pleasure

or maybe just tell him to ''go fuck himself''

or insist she goes out with him

or just say yeah, bye dear

I mean the possibilities are endless

gelico wrote:

will eddie allow ben to go out after hours,,,,,

or will she do a kathy bates number on him

break his ankles and force him to change the ending of their book



or just keep him chained up in the basement for her pleasure

or maybe just tell him to ''go fuck himself''

or insist she goes out with him

or just say yeah, bye dear

I mean the possibilities are endless

Or will he be sane?

i mean the possibilities are coming from you feminist nazi's

The possibilities are endless with you feminist Nazio'sw

Well, that didn't take too long for this thread to become incomprehensible and to go down the pan did it?

Vintage wrote:Well, that didn't take too long for this thread to become incomprehensible and to go down the pan did it?

Oh noooooo

Ity never went down the pan, it never went the way you wanted it to
Seriously????

How did it go wrong?

People not peope robotic in agreement with you?
I mean seriosuly, if you cannot take views you do not like

Then fuck off

Seriously

If you want to be tooo timid and not have people challenge your views

Fuck off

Simple

I would rather you stop being a wet fish and actually challenge my views, but you cannot can you Vintage

You would rather piss and whinge

So piss and moan you old boring bat, because that is what you are, when you piss and moan

Can someone explain what this claimed female only ability 'multitasking' is please...?


And can this special ability be obtained by a man... if say, he puts on a wig and a dress and calls himself 'Susan'...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Can someone explain what this claimed female only ability 'multitasking' is please...?


And can this special ability be obtained by a man... if say, he puts on a wig and a dress and calls himself 'Susan'...?

I would have thought, that was your normal Friday night mate???

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Can someone explain what this claimed female only ability 'multitasking' is please...?


And can this special ability be obtained by a man... if say, he puts on a wig and a dress and calls himself 'Susan'...?

I would have thought, that was your normal Friday night mate???

hahahha excellent

Anyway the point of this insightful satire for those smart enough to see it (which at least some of the ladies here did)
was that a lot of men (myself included) could not even imagine taking the level of precaution that women do to 'stay safe' already, and still they can risk rape and murder just going out for a night out. So the suggestion (by police chief) for women to take EXTRA precautions to 'stay safe' is pretty ludicrous.

But short of the satirical suggestions no one has a real good answer of how to fix it. 

veya_victaous wrote:Anyway the point of this insightful satire for those smart enough to see it (which at least some of the ladies here did)
was that a lot of men (myself included) could not even imagine taking the level of precaution that women do to 'stay safe' already, and still they can risk rape and murder just going out for a night out. So the suggestion (by police chief) for women to take EXTRA precautions to 'stay safe' is pretty ludicrous.

But short of the satirical suggestions no one has a real good answer of how to fix it. 

There is a good answer

How about we fuck off out of there, all those illegal twats, called Australians

Give the land back to the indegeneous.
I think we should send you illegal white people to Greenland