“jewely read the last ten posts, you will find it was not me who used racism in reference to this thread.”

Couldn’t find it, was it me Belly?

“I did report on another thread and compared it with this one, wanting to highlight my view claims are often made without substance.”

Okay.

“Well forever an Aussie I will not say we are not racist, some are. Want to compare NZ?No not worth it.
Wrong direction serves no purpose but if anyone wanted to make a case, like yours about racism he/she could do it.”

Sweet bro.

“Still amused that some think no woman in the world could be wrong in matters of sex.”

I thought I called this particular woman stupid very early on in the thread? Okay she was most likely wrong, I have known lots of females that get it very very wrong to their own detriment.

As a female I will say it loud and clear for you; A Woman Could Be Wrong In Matters Of Sex.

I'm sorry my lateral thinking was a bit much for some.

1.Caveat emptor in the sense it was clearly meant was that the dog eat dog no responsibility principal seems to be widely support here is exactly what got the footy boys into this mess. Note I also said ' yes we are our sisters keepers' . How hard is it for you to understand the basic principal/purpose of society is for group protection. therefore Logic/ethics/ dictate that that for every advantage there is an equal responsibility.

2.History shows that a society intent on internecine activities like abuses of accepted mores (see peed pants example) will fall.

3.If a topic of public behaviour is subject to such sensationalising then by definition it IS outside the accepted norm.

4.Which referendum was that that specifically “ a referendum in favour of footy boys behaviour being legally sanctioned?”

5.The example of 11 yo V footy boys was on the principal of uneven power. To claim that the 19 yo had the same power as a group of footy boys up to 12 years older (shades of my example of the GM 40 over V 19yo secretaries) the principal was 'predatory behaviour'.

6.We (footy boys included) are responsible for their actions.

7.Mitigation claims like mob rule,homo erotica, genes are furphy's. See traffic fine example

In principal argument a 18 yo male neighbour with mates decides to get get blotto get onto his roof and throw eggs/ bottles and abuse your wife and daughter because he doesn't like them the women are terrified. Police need to catch them and wont act.

You come home do you
1. Claim its high spirits , their drunk, in their genes or there's plenty worse going on?
Or
2.Knowing negotiation pointless. Go next door prepared to rearrange a few teeth (anger natural response) ?
Or
3.Use your upper brain to handle the matter in a more socially acceptable way?
Careful this maybe a tricky question.

examinator I like your posts, your intent and you.
But we have to differ sometimes.
I would love a world like the one you talk of, it has never existed never ever will.
Self interest is the name of the game, in sexual matters too.
Yes we know or should, of pack rape in this country.
In the 1960,s 70,s 80,s and last few years.
Surely none of us are not appalled by every case?
And a near hatred of women was shown in every case,,, no no not racist white Australians carried out most of the acts, hateful acts.
But here we talk about what for some is normal sexual activeity, totally different.
Some have mixed the two issues.
Some are blackening men based on their rules for sex.
Some are blind to real life sex, we are driven to re produce, its in our very bones our every thought.
A woman can be a huntress, how can any one think only wen hunt for partner after partner?
Some men are so driven they can not settle with one woman.
Some women judge themselves by the quality even qanity, of partners they have.
This girl, adult by age 19, hunted she bragged before and after, she bragged mate.
No way she is the only groupie to change her mind, no way the only one ever to be ashamed of what she once did.
My world the real one, wants people to think of others but examinator it is like yours , populated by real people, the good the bad and the ugly

Examinator, I'll address your post point by point

"the dog eat dog no responsibility principal seems to be widely support here"

Precisely the opposite! I and several others have pointed out inuumerable times that we believe the woman shares the responsibility and is hence not a "victim". There are a few of the less rational posters who want all the responsibility to land on the men and for women to be absolved regardless of their own contribution, but I'd hardly call it "wide support".

"the basic principal/purpose of society is for group protection"

Yes and society provided that protection in the form of laws that seem to have operated as intended. The protection afforded by those laws was weakened by the actions of 4 Corners and the subsequent media-grrrls scrum.

"internecine activities like abuses of accepted mores"

An accepted more is merely a current cultural artifact and may or may not form any part of a coherent social structure and the end of such mores may ot may not be destructive. For example, it was once an "accepted more" that women were "the weaker sex"...

"If a topic of public behaviour is subject to such sensationalising then by definition it IS outside the accepted norm. "

Well, in this case there were at least two "accepted norms": the one being promoted by the Wowsers and the one being promoted by Libertarians. It was the wowsers who found it sensational, while the rest thought it was a witchhunt. Once, a witchhunt was "outside the accepted norm" and the pursuit of a scapegoat was known as a "kangaroo court". Some parts of society seem to have changed. Is that "internecine"?

[cont]

"Which referendum was that that specifically “ a referendum in favour of footy boys behaviour being legally sanctioned?” "

There was no crime committed, therefore the behaviour is legally-sanctioned. Why would you think a referendum is needed?

"To claim that the 19 yo had the same power as a group of footy boys up to 12 years older"

Is to recognise that women hold all the cards when it comes to consensual sexual activities. I'm 46, do you really think I could compel a young woman of 19 (or an old bat of 46, for that matter) to have sex with me against her will without breaking the law? I don't.

"We (footy boys included) are responsible for their actions."

But not 19 year old root-rats, eh? We're responsible for their actions too, are we?

"Mitigation claims like mob rule,homo erotica, genes are furphy's"

I agree. There was no crime, hence no mitigation is possible.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of your hypothetical is. Let's imagine your 18yo neighbour is female, do you think your response would be different? Do you think the wife and kids would be less "terrified"? Why? what if she and her mates were doing it because they just don't like you, personallly, rather that "women"?

Each of your claims is the product of your prejudiced view that women are somehow "better" than men while, at the same time, far less capable of making their own decisions. That's fine, you're a product of an outdated "cultural norm" and the associated "accepted mores" that society has abandoned as it has developed, largely at the behest of generations of Feminists.

"All females should protect all females." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2767#63528

And that lies at the heart of much of the problem in this and other gender issues. For some it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it's about sisterhood. It's blatent sexism.

Jewely has made a number of broad negative statements about men in groups and recently about white Australian's based on the values of those she choose's to associate with (and her intepretation of those values). Few seem to have had an issue with those derogatory statements. Apparently it makes sense to hang out with bikies and then judge all groups of men based on the mores of bikies. For that matter not all bikies behave as do those Jewely has chosen to spend time with.

Gender wars will continue while some continue to think a person's gender is more important than truth or fairness. Gender violence will continue while some appear to condone violence based on gender. "and boy did he learn about name calling" - no mention here about the daughter learning about violence.

R0bert