Girls beating up boys

[Plymouthsupporter]

Has any girl on here ever beat up a boy?

Frau

Asaman was not actually trying to enter into negotiations with the op over how much he would pay for her to stamp on his balls.

I can see there have been some mind-bending misunderstandings here but I how that clears it up a bit.

I don't think anyone else on the thread realised that asaman's post would be taken like that, hence the confusion.

Sanity I assume she has off board stuff to do. Not that unusual.

I'm defending her as she wrote the exact same post I'd have written if she hadn't got there first tbh. So think chances are we have similar thought processes on what that phrase means.

Frau, I must say that this is a really interesting derail, and far more interesting than the OP's lacklustre attempt to wind us up.

It is interesting because you've raised an excellent point which is: in order to fight back at the patriarchy we often use the language of the patriarchy.

When I was younger my standard response to creepy harrassers was "you couldn't afford it" or I would look them up and down and give a snooty "as if!" Now, nothing is further from my worldview than the idea that women should be the gatekeepers to sex (as you've also pointed out) or the idea that I would judge a potential partner down for his unattractiveness, so why did I respond in that way?

The answer is that it is the only way they understand. Imagine if I had engaged with said creepy harrasser about why he felt "entitled" to say such things to women on the street, why he didn't think women had the same "right" as men to walk in public unharrassed, and used the language of feminism to fight back? He would have been to say the least and the truth is back then I didn't have the language to properly articulate such thoughts.

Because when you are girls brought up in the patriarchy you only have the language of the patriarchy to fight back. Until you find feminism but then of course creepy harrasser guys wouldn't know what that was if it bit them on the arse!

Thanks for such an interesting derail and I hope that made sense.

Frau She didn't say, "you can't afford me coz it's BDSSM", she said "you can't afford me". It's only you that's made it about that.

You think if it had been a different subject she'd have said "oh go ahead, as long as it isn't BDSM then spunk all over me baby"?

Also it's a learning point Frau that when you get girls day this to men who approach them on the street, it does not mean that the girls are prostitutes.

Additionally it's a learning point for me as I had literally no idea that anyone, and especially other women, would take it that way. We've got a long struggle ahead in protecting children if this is the case.

What exactly are you trying to infer about me, Seven?

messy That's a good point about language. I have known a few women who've been approached by flashers and have pulled the line about not being able to see the penis as it's so small. It's not an exactly progressive response, but it is in their language.

Thank you Messy for finding something interesting in the derail. It's very true.

Asaman is a woman.

Her post was at 0122 - she may not have logged on yet this morning, or she may not be in a UK time zone!

That's not true, Bella. AsAMan described an act popularly portrayed as a BDSM act, then said "You can't afford it." This implied that BDSM was "more expensive" than other sex acts.

I have never thought about this before today, but I am not so closed minded as to think there is no more to learn.

Agree, messy.

It's also an interesting derail because Frau's response to the comment reminds me so much of people's (especially men's) responses to a sexist joke being picked up on in the seventies. Ie, 'I didn't mean anything by it, I didn't mean it like that, It wasn't about you, Stop being so over sensitive'

Of course Frau knows that the posters wasn't referring to her directly, of course Frau understands that the poster wasn't actually entering into negotiations. I suspect that she even knows that it was nothing personal.

But perhaps it helps to understand her post to realise that there have been a lot of thread about Dom stereotypes lately and that she is just a bit fed up of them. The straw that broke the camel's back.

From this thread, and another about this topic earlier in the week, I've really stopped to think.

Yes, I understand there are all sorts of reasons why AsAMan may not have come back onto the thread. I just don't understand why so many posters are so sure of what she meant, and feel entitled to speak for her.

Yes, Wildlings. I also made the point about "Cancha take a joke?" earlier.

Sanity Like I say, she wrote almost word for word what I would have written had she not got there first.

So if I had got there first and it was now my post being cited as being offensive here's my thought process.

First part
"Is this like a fetish thing OP? Do you want me to put on some heels and step on your balls?"
Calling out the OP foir having a sex based motivation for posting.

Second part is two fold
"Because I doubt you have that kind of money"
Because no money in the world would make me consent to any form of sex act with you.

"Because that's not what we do here."
Because it's the wrong place for that kind of post.

I'd have pointed out the heels and balls thing to amke it clear what kind of motivation I thought the OP had, it's actually fairly redundant given the first sentence, but it's just a clarification.

Thanks. I think that's why becoming feminist can be a bit isolating because the new language you've acquired is not mainstream nor does it give itself to short pithy retorts. I can't imagine the amount of eye rolling I would have to endure if I brought up even the word "patriarchy" over Sunday roast!

"I just don't understand why so many posters are so sure of what she meant, and feel entitled to speak for her."

Because her post was exactly what I would have written.

I think Frau has made a very valid point.

As for other people's intentions, all you can really say is I took it this way, but you will have to verify with the poster.

It seems a bit daft to me to say you can't be offended by something mentioned on a thread before you turned up because it clearly wasn't aimed at you? Of course you can.

"But perhaps it helps to understand her post to realise that there have been a lot of thread about Dom stereotypes lately and that she is just a bit fed up of them. The straw that broke the camel's back."

Oh ok, I've only just joined so hadn't seen any other threads about it. Sorry Frau, didn't realise.

Personally I would never respond to a perv "you can't afford me"

I think it's useful to be able to consider whether our 'standard' responses to things are problematic and what lies behind them. I'll admit that I have never liked 'you couldn't afford it mate' with or without links to BDSSM because to me it implies the commodification of sex and/or women's bodies - the implication being if there was enough money involved, either purely transactional or in the context of a relationship, then it'd be fine.

To be its not a million miles from saying 'Sure, I'm for sale, but I'm bloody expensive'. Which I find difficult, though appreciate it isn't the sentiment a lot of people mean when they say it. Would be interesting to know how sexist hits 'hear' it - ie its effectiveness as a comeback.

Harold I think that's because of the heavy use of "I" in Frau's initial reaction.

Sanity I did clarify that I wasn't privy to Asaman's thoughts.

But I think I can safely say that no one here would negatively judge Frau for what she does in the privacy of her own home and which is based on mutual happy consent. Well I can't safely say that! But I'm assuming!

messy, I always find "Fuck off!" (as suggested by FrauHelga up thread) to be quite succinct, and generally understood by men and women, alike.

Bella, perhaps you need to consider who may be reading your comments, then, and that they might upset people not on the thread, yet.

You see so often someone using a disablist term to agree with other posters, who then respond that they agree with the sentiment, but can't condone the disablist language.

Just because you have always said something doesn't mean you can't revise it, if you now have further information that what you say may be offensive.

"This implied that BDSM was "more expensive" than other sex acts."

Hmm. I think if OP had been "have you ever given a hand job behind the bike sheds" the "you can't afford that" response would've been the same.

Slightly off topic, but if sex acts are being paid for, isn't BDSM more expensive than "vanilla"?

Shall I start a thread on patriarchal put downs to see if we can find alternatives?

in my case it's because it's what teenage girls say to creepy men who proposition them on the street. I probably said it myself when I was a girl. The meaning to me is very clear and always had been and was to the men it was said to.

I am really shocked that this comment can be interpreted as opening negotiations hence my comment about Rotherham. The girls there and in other cases got referred to as child prostitutes when they were abused children. I had no idea that a comment so obviously meaning fuck off not in a million years could be taken as opening negotiations and I suppose for me that's a shock and something to think on in terms of attitudes towards teenage girls.