HRS, please let me make this clear:

I know you haven't called me an ilk. I called you 'of an ilk' because the phrase is neutral.

When you say things like "now we have an “ilk” thrown in as well" you imply that the term is insulting.

Unless you can explain some meanring I'm unaware of ILK ISN'T AN INSULT!

Phew. I don't like to use caps, but you really don't seem to be hearing, and the situation is in dire need of clarity.

Why have you been referring to ilk as if you've been insulted, if you can't come up with a term.

To reiterate, all I said was that I disagreed with the way you and your "ilk" (i.e. people of a similar nature, in this case, arguing on behalf of men) were approaching this issue.

So, to clarify again, what the hell is this 'ilk' meaning you're so damn concerned about? When did I say you called me an ilk? You can't call people a singular ilk.

If there is an insulting meaning here then I'd like to know what it is lest I inadvertently use it, but your repeated inability to define why it could possibly be insulting leaves me to conclude that you're playing some obtuse definition game aimed at either painting yourself as a victim of insults or trying to play an even more obtuse game of apologetics where you can have your opponents back down on certain points.
This back down has not occurred.

Again, if I'm wrong, kindly clarify what it is that is insulting about this term.

TLTR

This argument is starting to look like something Lewis Carroll would have written - except I'm fairly sure HRS has no idea of who Lewis Carroll was. Each time the word gets repeated I have these insane pictures in my mind of fantastical creatures thundering down hillsides shrieking their fearsome war-cries "An Ilk!. An Ilk!"

Look, you are wasting your angst here, mate. Don't you remember other threads where the dreaded Black Eye Theory was propounded for instance? Both a nursing sister and I went into lurid gynycological details of why it didn't stand up, abused women went into details, frustrated posters ripped out the tattered threads of pseudo-logic, stomped them into the ground, and shot the remains down in flames. Yet here it is again, arisen from its ashes in all its pristine ill-perceived glory - seemingly untouched by batteries of logic, explanation, argument, ridicule or shame.

Same thing is going to happen to the whole ilk thing. Resort to a dictionary having seemingly never occurred as a way of resolving misunderstanding, the word is firmly, illogically and irrevocably positioned as the direst of insults and so it will remain for evermore. I see someone else has used it on another thread - there'll probably be a gallop over there and a demand that the vile perpetrator retract it immediately too.

But lets give it one more shot.

HRS - PLEASE DEFINE THE WORD "ILK".

Dear Turnrightthenleft and Rommany,

I think the term ilk”, is just a dismissive term that is applied to someone, but you would probably know a lot more about it than I would.

But I do know that I have spent countless hours with countless males in a number of countries, and the only physical injury received, was when one broke my finger by accidentally standing on it in a football scrum.

How many times have you been abused by a male, and why?

Romany I might be in trouble then - I liked it so much I used it at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1289#22909
and to matters worse I adminit that "I don't use the Scottish clansman meaning".

The shame of it all

Now for my comment on the topic (not addressed to Romany)

Of course all this stuff about "Ilk's" is far more important than kids feeling pressure to perform sexual acts in circumstances that devalue either themselves or the person the sexual act is performed with. Far more important than child sexual abuse. Far more important
than the issues parents face dealing with childrens curiosity and need to learn about sex and sexuality whilst parents try to avoid sexualising children. Far more important than sexual assault or any of those other trivial issues which have risen out of the original article.

It is really worth continuing with to the exclusion of other matters.
(that last rant was tongue in cheek for anybody who missed it).

R0bert

Robert,
I tend to think that there are posters who have a very great preoccupation or desire for calling someone an ilk.

In the area of child sex abuse, I think there is very little in overall % terms.

In QLD, the number of child sex abuse cases were only 5% of the total cases of child abuse, but the other 95% is rarely spoken about.

The amount of sex abuse of girls would definitely not be 1 in 3, as girls school marks and school attendance is not declining.

However there would be far too much underage sex occurring, and many young people would not be emotionally or physically old enough to be having sex at the age where it is now apparently occurring.

However I attribute this primarily to the media, and in particular to women’s media, that attempts to sell girls more products, and they are attempting to do this by incorporating sex into the marketing.

Everything is “hot” new movie passes, or “sexy” new summer fashions etc, and this creates a compulsion to be having sex at a younger and younger age. Peer group pressure from other girls was also found to be a major factor in underage sex in the US.

This is not incorporated into boy’s media, because boy’s don’t have any media, and even programs such as “Big Brother” had a primarily girl audience, and the producers knew it.