Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (Thread title edited by MNHQ)

https://mobile.twitter.com/HJJoyceEcon/status/1151841293749895168

Try this https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1151643541946261504.html Bingle

Can someone link to today's unroll thread please? I can't find it.

Many thanks.

@ShagMeRiggins will you post your LibDemFriend's response? Be interesting

I can't help but wonder if this obviously mentally unwell person would be doing better now if they hadn't been so encouraged/enabled by this unsound ideology.

Perhaps, but would almost certainly still have paedophilic leanings, Cookie.

DanaPhoenix wasn’t referring to your references. I did try, but couldn’t find those.

Funnily enough, I’ve been invited to a dinner party this weekend at my neighbour’s, he happens to be our local Lib Dem representative. Lovely family and great neighbours, but I do plan to query him on the topic of his party’s stance on TRA and GRC reforms to gauge how aware he is of what’s happening not only here, but abroad.

The timing of the JV case is like a gift.

Yaniv also asked the waxers if they were comfortable waxing genitalia that had a Tampax inserted (mentioned in the court proceedings). Given that they have male genitalia this would be in his anus.

Yes, unfortunately I caught that in the Twitter reporting. The ketchupsicles thing, I presumed.

Thing is, I don’t know, or know of, any female who would schedule a Brazilian wax when she knew she’d be menstruating. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s really not on. (Pun intended.)

Long read but worth it

breaking-news.ca/cant-take-no-for-an-answer-jonathan-yaniv-files-16-human-rights-complaints-against-women-who-dont-want-to-wax-his-balls/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Kiwi farms archive everything If anyone is in doubt about the sources.

If the ban was lifted I could use a word that's appeared on the farms, and which I hope escapes into the wild: Y - - - very. It would be very useful for describing this type of ultra self-centered, creepy, bullying behavior.

I can't help but wonder if this obviously mentally unwell person would be doing better now if they hadn't been so encouraged/enabled by this unsound ideology.

Oh ok thanks Datun

Do you mean the screen shots I referenced but didn't post? Because they were on the actual twitter feed of the persons I referenced. Of course could have disappeared now - not uncommon for that to happen.

Miranda Yardley explores a lot of the sources ShagMeRiggins.

I believe, originally, the girl to whom they were addressed put them on Twitter

mirandayardley.com/en/jonathan-yaniv-is-a-predator/

Yaniv also asked the waxers if they were comfortable waxing genitalia that had a Tampax inserted (mentioned in the court proceedings). Given that they have male genitalia this would be in his anus.

Does anyone know the source of those screen shots?

The way the presumably female responder in that text is enabling JY is telling isn't it? As a general point, we, as women, really are taught to make male bodied people feel comfortable aren't we? At the expense of ourselves, even children. That tacit presumption from that woman, that the children would just deal with a male body in a private space like that - even children don't count if a grown male-bodied person has needs.

If memory serves it doesn't take long for them to realise the perviness and back track but not before a lot of affirming and ego stroking has gone on. I bet they felt like they needed a wash after that.

Whipping out your bare cock in front of 10-12 year old girls is called Indecent Exposure, it’s illegal, and is punishable by up to 24 months in jail. That should be the only issue.

One of the very first comments on here that really made me see the issue was someone saying this ideology renders the crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure completely obsolete.

I don't think anyone actually thought that victim of the crime would be the one regarded as having an 'issue'.

That might be complicated if MNHQ were to lift the ban, because the use of initials have actually allowed us to express some very strong opinions.

Probably not a popular opinion, but I think they are probably playing it smart. At least for this existing thread, which could in all likelihood end up resembling Swiss cheese.

From Datun’s screen shot, which I’d read before but never noticed this tidy piece of re-framing the reality of the situation:

”Like even though I have a dick unfortunately 😕...I can be fully out there and change with them? Like, I don’t want them to give me any issues or things.” (Emphasis mine.)

Whipping out your bare cock in front of 10-12 year old girls is called Indecent Exposure, it’s illegal, and is punishable by up to 24 months in jail. That should be the only issue.

Again, forcing females by law to share changing rooms with male-bodied people is just another example of a state sanctioned sexual offence, much like legally requiring women to handle male genitalia.

If the publication ban has been lifted, are MNHQ able to change the title of the thread to include the full name?

Redshoeblueshoe
Furry nappies

Ok not sure I can post screenshots of either person referenced in my previous post. Because will be naming them. Walking on eggshells here. You can see twitter accounts without being on twitter. Check out both tweets that commence with the statement "I am not a man".

It's lovely when kindred spirits find each other.

Is that a furry person ?

So, what can we say differently now the ban has been lifted? Can we add the extra letters to J.......Y.......?

What I found very interesting,I'm going to have to search for it, but JY has basically put out a tweet that is almost word for word of another tweet put out by a certain Lib Dem member.

Here is JY confirming his genital configuration.

Nice little earner isn't it, take a swathe of people to court, settle for a couple of thousand in each instance to retract the complaint and move on to the next. JY is clearly thoroughly enjoying the drama and being the centre of attention regardless, the narcissism is strong.

On a more serious note JY does seem really quite unwell, so many outright untruths, logical inconsistencies, childish assertions, and histrionics in that room. It's not a conversation with a rational, well person. And the parent is either an enabler or of a similar disposition. It's a farce and makes a mockery of the Tribunal system.