If I read the expression “have hate sex with” one more time, I am going to bust out with a barrage of profanity that would get me barred from 4chan. Hate fuck. They said they wanted to HATE FUCK some women. Yes, it is a shocking, hateful, violent term. It is also WHAT THEY SAID. It was an expression of violence uttered by hateful people and we bloody well need to be shocked by it. Who benefits from making what they said seem less shocking than it actually was? Who is the sugarcoating for? If people are to be held accountable for their words then let them be held accountable for the words they actually used. Those words were hate fuck. —I want to sign my real name but the Coast won’t let me.
This article appears in Jan 8-14, 2015.
Ummmm… pretty sure you may sign your real name… post it in a comment!
Some people were shocked while others weren’t surprised.
I think what was shocking for those who weren’t surprised was the fact that those who were shocked think that wanting to have hate sex with someone is a crime.
Posting here is mostly a redundant strategy so may I suggest the more effective lynch mob?
You sound like a prude. The term doesn’t have to be hateful. Context matters.
HAVING HATE SEX WITH= HATE FUCK=RAPE
“Who benefits from making what they said seem less shocking than it actually was?”
Well, I benefit for one. In effect, to want to have “hate sex” with someone is semantically equivalent to want to “hate fuck” someone which, in its turn, is semantically equivalent to wanting to “rape” someone. But someone who wants to rape someone, with the possible exception of Bill Cosby, is wanting to commit a crime. It is illegal. The pseudonyms “having hate sex with” or “hate fuck” change nothing. Neither for that matter, and contra SirMeowaLot, does “context.”
There is the further biological question as to whether the female is capable of even wanting to have hate sex, to hate fuck someone. In the same way that they are incapable of raping someone in its strictly biological sense, I would argue not.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
OB, I have had this same discussion with people of all sorts lately. First, I have to emphatically state that the dal 13 behaviour was deplorable. Period. But well within their rights to express and as such have committed no Crime as per the Human Rights act, or the Criminal Code of Canada because of the wording for each regarding what ACTUALLY is a hate crime or hate propaganda, note there is no such thing as HATE speech within the criminal code or the Human Rights Act. Further, since Section 13 was repealed from the Human Rights act, people are free to express their opinions on the internet unless it violates Hate propaganda. Here is a little definition of this :Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda. “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319. This also covers the incitement of violence against an entire group of people..be it women, male, religious denomination, sexual preference etc. this wasnt the case. it was directed at a few women, not an entire group, despite your feelings to the contrary.
so a little edcuation on our laws would go really well before you express your opinions based on your own feelings of how the law is applied. Sexual harassment is not part of the criminal code of canada either, unless it specifically has to do with stalking…but it is covered by the government in the Human Rights act which includes the responsibility of every entity (business, school etc) to have a way to resolve any such incidents with utmost respect to privacy for both grieved party and the party accused of committing the grievance at the lowest possible level at first, with provisions to take it to higher actions at any time. Until the act and the law is changed to cover your personal beliefs of what the law SHOULD be…you cant just say someone committed a crime because you feel it should be a crime.
Banned from 4Chan?! IMPOSSIBRU!
Jesus Christ. That was a hell of a long comment to refute something that nobody said, Cuja12. NOwhere in the bitch is there any suggestion that anybody should be charged with a crime. Of course no crime was committed. If it was a crime to be an asshole on the internet the streets would be empty. No one -NO ONE – is calling for the Dal 13 to be thrown in prison, ok, can we just get some clarity on that? What people are saying -most people anyway, certainly everybody I know – is that they should not be allowed to be dentists. They chose to pursue a career in a profession whose members are held to a higher standard of ethics than the general public, and they failed to live up to that standard. Dentistry licensing boards in at least three provinces agree. Let them be accountants, or biologists, or engineers. Not medical professionals.
You might not want to be hate fucked, but as I’ve mentioned before, some people do. Consensual hate-fucking is a thing. Hate fucking doesn’t imply rape in many peoples minds.
Lets try something, think of the worst thing you’ve ever said about someone, the worst joke that you made, now imagine what people would think of you if they heard you say only that. What would the world think of you then?
I’m also astonished that I haven’t seen the term “anit-dentite” thrown around more in relation to this.
Heh, heh – “Sadists with newer magazines” >: )
so I want 200 pounds to be considered slim on a 5’4 woman, but so what if that’s how I want it defined. thusly if some group now wants ‘hate-fuck’ to be defined as a lark in the sheets doesn’t make it so.
‘being held accountable’ however does NOT imply crime, criminal acts, lynch worthy etc etc.
free speech means you can speak with no fear of imprisonment from the law of the land. the government. you have the freedom to criticize your government, its policies. you can criticize religion, society. you can trumpet your views. you cannot be charged with any crime for that. it does not mean free from repercussions of other sorts. if you stand on your desk at work and say your boss is a dick head every day, you will not be imprisoned by the law of the land. you probably will get fired though. if you are a teacher and tell your class that god doesn’t exist – that it is all evolution, you cannot be charged and imprisoned, but you will get fired (in certain counties down south).
if the men of DDS 2015 didn’t want to be held accountable to the code of conduct they agreed to when choosing their calling, they should have called their fb site something else. there’s no criminal code violation in what they did, but there will be (or should be) repercussions from their governing body.
assholes will be assholes, but these folks actually thought it would be acceptable to say what said, behave as they behaved, post as they posted.
this was NOT private thoughts, locker room chat or man-cave buffoonery. they claimed their school, their year and themselves and in effect, said this is who we are. oi vay.
Some valid points Molly Re: Free Speech etc.
I do take issue with your point regarding the name of the group. So if all of this still happened, but the name of the group was “Bag of Dicks”, everything would be ok? Just seems like you’re trying to find a line to draw to put them on the “expel” side.
And how isn’t this private? It wasn’t a public group, the only way we are able to see any of it is because someone took screen shots of the posts. Only those 13 men had access to the group. If this was a university sports team talking in locker room where a tape recorder was planted, would you still say the same thing? Sure you can call them stupid for expecting privacy, in a private online group, but it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t private.
My bet, one or two won’t be able to get licensed (the worst of the posters. probably the guy that showed no remorse), some have to do some sensitivity training, and some will have no repercussions.
Women will always have the last say, even when they’re wrong. What’s important is that they have their say so Life can continue on in a forward direction. Men have learned that women don’t like this type of thought; women have learned that this is not a crime.
Now, let’s start on Jack and Frosty… bastards! Let’s lynch those bastards with heated rope! Women: these are male figures… exciting!
by using the name of their university plus class, they were representing Dal. you cannot do that and expect to have the university just roll over. its their name, reputation, ethics involved.
and yes, if you read past posts by me it would never have become an issue if they have named their fb site ‘bag of dicks’. there are lots of those sites around. what’s one more?
and, again reading past posts I stated there should be university discipline to the admin of the site, to the poster of the hate-fuck poll that named female classmates and that the rest of the pack should just be ashamed of themselves. expulsion? who knows. I don’t know the details of their code of conduct (which I have stated previously) but if the provincial licensing boards are in a futz about this, then its pretty obvious they have trespassed all over them.
woooo aren’t I an hysterical feminazi eh? someone who hates men and has no clue what they are like. me and my lynching rope.
doesn’t anyone read threads anymore? shut up molly, of course they don’t. here’s a rant, it really picks my butt when someone jumps into a 50 comment posting and actually says ‘I haven’t read the article or the comments but blah blah blah’.
Hing Frogg , perhaps that is why this was told to me when i was young
I remember being taught when i was really little
Rule number 1 – Your mother is always right (so is your Nana, aunts etc etc etc)
Rule number 2- Even when what Mum , Nana or your Aunts tell you is “bat shit crazy ” …. refer to rule number 1 .
This will make your life much easier, simply forget whatever they say as soon as you’re out of their sight, so have fun & be careful . (as told to me by My dad, & granddad, Uncle’s in my family)
~;-p
both you boys go to your rooms right now. I will call you when dinner is ready
I think there are two sides to the concept of ‘hate fucking’ and I think it depends on what side you initially look at it.
I’ve always been of the mindset that ‘hate fucking’ is two people having hot, rough, messy, wild CONSENSUAL sex who don’t like each other, while others equate it to rape.
I think to each their own, and I also think you have to look at the context as to the individual understanding of the concept, because not all of us are into strictly vanilla sex.
RSVP
Good dog Molly (12:13PM; 1255PM) – HEAR! HEAR!
However, it is interesting to see how this bitch got side-tracked from a distinction relating to the meaning of words or expressions – “having the sex” to “hate fucking” to “rape”- to the Dal dental students’ fb page and from there on out to the nature of legitimate freedom of speech. But the bitch was never about this.
As I pointed out (9:04AM) the bitch was about semantics, ie, about the distinctions between
the meaning of words and phrases in language. I attempted to make the case for the synonymous meaning of the three phrases in question. No one, as far as I could see, overturned my argument or, for that matter, even addressed it.
A tutorial will held after school on sticking to the point. Bring paper and pens. Class dismissed.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
RSVP
BreakfastSandwich (3:25PM)
Congratulations. You are the first, excepting myself of course, to address the content of the bitch itself. However, in my view which rests upon the objective meaning of words and phrases, you are mistaken.
While it may be the case that in some quarters “hate fucking” refers to two people who don’t like each other having hot, wild, rough consensual sex, the word “hate” rules out the first part of the definition – they don’t like each other – while the phrase “hate fucking” itself rules out the second part – by definition it cannot be consensual in any meaningful sense of the word.
It might be an idea to avoid how you “initially look at it” and reflect rationally on what the words actually mean. In any case, it was nice talking.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
no argument from me that people use the term differently.
consensual ‘hate-fucking’ of course requires both parties to be enthusiastic with mutual hatred.
chacun a son gout
when one party claims ‘I want to hate-fuck her’ (about a co-worker, fellow student, movie star) it’s different though, isn’t it? there is no prior relationship between the two. no give and take. no mutuality. no tango.
I keep coming back to the choice of words. hate-fuck. not plain old fuck. or any other of the terms at hand. this was a choice that indicated preference.
and again, with all the bliss available from mutual sex, why are they choosing this? but that’s a societal thing, not just these sad sacks.
mm, I live to digress.
So it seems.
Well, we can still post from our rooms-you didn’t take our phones…
The level of hysteria is what ruins any opportunity for anyone to have any form of intelligent discussion, let alone debate. Feminists, fymynysts, feminazis, etc (male, female, intersexed {did ya’ see the pics of di-phallic dude?} or otherwise) have jumped onto the batshit crazy train and made this case into a farce.
There is no way in hell that the underlying causes will be addressed. It’s either off with their heads or boiled in oil. The men have been gagged for fear their lifeless corpses will be torn apart by vultures and their sperm used to create more man-hating feminazis.
Even I can’t put away the sarcasm in order to have reasonable discussion around the issues; why, when I’ll just be hated for having a penis and a male persona?
This and the case involving that other girl could have started an interesting discussion and lead to social (attitudinal) change but someone didn’t like the way the pie was being cooked and attempted to microwave it instead. Now we have a shitty, uncooked pie to deal with.
Please, allow the men to do the cooking; you just stay there until we need you… maybe try knitting?!
but of course! remember, men who cook are chefs. women who cook are, well, women
“when one party claims ‘I want to hate-fuck her’ (about a co-worker, fellow student, movie star) it’s different though, isn’t it? there is no prior relationship between the two. no give and take. no mutuality. no tango.”
I agree.
It’s just a case of one side stating they want to ‘hate fuck’ someone who has not expressed the desire to ‘hate fuck’ the other party back.
And that brings me to another point (which may or may not be related to this) – let’s say you consent to having sex with someone… how do you really know if they wouldn’t just rape you if you didn’t provide that consent. Like, for example a hook up and/or one night stand situation. How does one really know if they are actually consenting to having sex with a rapist?
Not quite true, Molly.
Some women who cook, we are pleased to call “Mom”♥
the hand that rocks the ladle rules the world ivan.
pk, I would say anytime you decide to have sex with a person you don’t know well you could be in danger. of all sorts of things. they could beat you up, take your money, leave the toilet seat up, leave a poop in the bowl, decide your roomie is cuter, eat all your food, stalk the shit out of you afterwards, or bloody cling to you like a barnacle for months afterwards.
(always my experience that last part, since I usually cooked them breakfast after their laborious night)
you just never know. I had good radar I guess, because I am still alive and never had a dodgy experience that I couldn’t escape by one means or another. but there are mr goodbars out there. and ms bunny boilers too.
the nice guys vastly outnumber the dodgy ones but you have to have a bit of common sense and know why you choose the ones you do. what your own motivations are, the unconscious workings of your selection process.
Given that there is no consensus as to what the term “hate fuck” means, it would seem that OB is correct to suggest that we attribute to the gentlemen only those words that they actually used. If you are of the opinion that the term refers to consensual sex between people who dislike each other, why would you object to that term being attributed to the gentlemen who did nothing wrong in using it? If you are of the opinion that “hate fuck” is a euphemism for rape, why would you shy away from calling a spade a spade? If I may take OB’s argument a step further, it seems the only people who benefit from the sugarcoating are those who know quite well that a wrong was done, and for some reason would like to shield the gentlemen from the full repercussions of their own words.
hay, i have my red seal^^
I want to hate-fuck myself.
BTW, that term should be hyphenated to be grammatically correct.
The term is being challenged as there is no set definition of it, resulting in people offering their own. What’s becoming clear is that the term hate-fuck and rape are not congruent. Further, the hysteria being created is doing absolutely nothing to equate them.
Now, stop this nonsense and wipe your tears. You can always move to the States where you can carry a gun and shoot at whomever you wish because they have a different opinion than yours.
Must say, I am enjoying this board!
i think i saw someone do that on reddit, mr. hing
4chan? isn’t that site filled with a bunch of angry loser atheists who are into cosplay and emo music?
IRRATIONALITY AT WORK
RSVP
Gooddog Molly (01/12, 5:35PM)
“The nice guys vastly outnumber the dodgy ones but you have to have a bit of common sense and know why you choose the ones you do. what your own motivations are. the unconscious workings of your selection process.”
This is a classic statement of irrationality at work or, put differently, the flight or reason in the face of an incoherent intuition. What, for example do you mean by “common sense”? Does it have a meaning or is it only something you intuit, something unique to you which defies coherent explication?
Further, what can the word “know” possibly mean here? Traditionally, to know something meant to be in possession of justified true belief. But how would you justify your choice of the guys you do? You may believe they are nice but your belief might be mistaken. Beyond post-choice behaviour, how would you ever know
Further still, if your selection process is the result of some unspecified “unconscious workings” how can you coherently claim that there is any such “selection process” at all. Intuition is not the basis of a selection but only of a self-validating process.
Intuition, unlike reason, is simply a self-endorsing mechanism which validates one’s whims. That is all. It is not subject to reflection. It just “feels right.” It is jst a “gut reaction.” If intuition were subject to reflection then it would not be intuition but rather reason. But it is not. However, you are not alone. Irrationality such as yours is at large in the land, particularly in the Kingdom of Bitch.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
RSVP
Hing Frogg (8:00PM)
“What’s becoming clear is that the term hate-fuck and rape are not congruent.”
But if there is no set definition of hate-fuck and people are offering their own, how can you coherently claim that it is becoming clear that the term hate-fuck and rape are not congruent? On what grounds do then make the claim? (Don’t say that you have “intuited” the lack of congruence. See my reply to Gooddog Molly above.)
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
RE: SA
It goes both ways, how about all those rape signs at the protests. Those signs were misrepresenting their words too. And it seems the only people who benefit from calling it rape are those that seek expulsion. The same people who try and box up a whole school with #DalhousieHatesWomen and #rapistslie (which is true, but not applicable).
We just can’t print Hate-Fuck in newspapers, or say it on the radio, that’s the only reason for this Bitch. So with everyone twisting words, I support the spirit of this bitch, minus some additional wording thrown in there.
MORE IRRATIONALITY
RSVP
Take a Step Back (01/13, 9:26AM)
“It goes both ways how about all those rape signs at the protests. Those signs were misrepresenting their words too.”
Any chance of demonstrating just how all those rape signs were misrepresenting their words too, whatever that might mean? Or was it just your intuition telling you so?
And who, or what is “SA”?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
SA = Stercus Accidit, who posted above.
How is that irrational? They didn’t rape anyone, so calling them rapists is inaccurate. Just like saying they had a poll on who to make hate-love to is inaccurate. Not too difficult to connect those dots, take your time though.
Agreed, TaSB. However, it might be considered reasonable to hold reputable news sources to a higher standard of accuracy than pitchfork wielding protesters. Accuracy in reporting should take precedence over protecting some delicate sensibilities from the nasty F-word.
from mm ( Further still, if your selection process is the result of some unspecified “unconscious workings” how can you coherently claim that there is any such “selection process” at all. Intuition is not the basis of a selection but only of a self-validating process.
Intuition, unlike reason, is simply a self-endorsing mechanism which validates one’s whims. That is all. It is not subject to reflection. It just “feels right.” It is jst a “gut reaction.” If intuition were subject to reflection then it would not be intuition but rather reason.)
this interests me.
I said ‘I appear to have good radar’ since I am still alive. it doesn’t mean I was infallible, since I did have to escape on a few (very few) occasions. if I were infallible, I would never have been in danger.
I think that intuition could be a series of rapid fire reasonings based on past experience, intelligent processing of non-verbal and verbal cues. it could happen so quickly that we call it intuition. when confronted by a predator do we have any indication of the danger? I believe so. and sorry, mm, I probably will not be able to offer you a good, rational argument of how and why. (to your standards) but perhaps someone else will be satisfied. this is how I live my life.
that frisson up the spine, dryness of mouth, automatic shrinking from the person we are facing. alerts us to avoid this person, or if already in danger, how best to escape it. with some people you submit, and others you must fight.
I have recommended a book here before. the gift of fear by gavin de becker.
when I said ‘know yourself’ what I mean is to understand as best you can, why you make the choices you do. do you believe long hair on men a sign of gentleness? do you mistrust short hair on men? how much space do you allow as personal space, and how do you feel when someone crosses into it? do you believe affluent means ethical? or the reverse automatically? do you mistrust other skin colours?
thousands of little biases we have. for example, – I would be more likely to be ‘fooled’ by a bad man if he were my age group, with long hair, slender, wearing jeans, eyeglasses and of a casual posture. I have a bias of my generation that such a male would be kind, not harmful and safe to be alone with. (and as it turns out, I do have a friend with those physical characteristics who exemplifies the best of maleness)
I know my own biases and have to take them into account when encountering someone.
when one is dating, it’s important. lol, also the reason I do not drink in public. absolute best way to quell your inner watchdog. I acknowledge the possibility of being chopped up and distributed to various tips. but…. when I arranged to stay in someone’s villa on a tropical island online in the days when online was new, and co-workers were aghast that I could be chopped up and fed to the sharks, I was not taking the risks they thought I was. I knew what my judgement was based on – they didn’t. I am no fool.
THE TACIT-FOCAL PROCESS OF COMPREHENSION
RSVP
Gooddog Molly (12:02PM)
A very interesting comment Gooddog. I see that you have given issue considerable attention. When I contrasted reason with intuition I was not making any claim that reason is infallible. In fact, I don’t even know what infallible reason might mean if, indeed, it means anything at all. However, your reference to verbal and non-verbal clues gives a start to what reasoning does involve.
As a mater of fact my PhD thesis was based on the thought of the philosopher Michael Polanyi – “The Tacit Dimension is a good, short introduction to his thought – so what is Polanyi’s concept of thought. His thought is based on the bi-focal structure of consciousness itself. When you read these words, for example, you do not focus directly on the word itself but rather you rely tacitly on the word while directing your focal attention to the meaning of the word. Polanyi would say, we attend FROM the word TO its meaning. All consciousness has this bi-focal character. It is vectorial and irreversible. The from-to process of comprehension is dynamic, not static. It is irreversible in the sense that to focus directly on the word, like the concert pianist focusing on the position of his fingers on the keyboard instead of the music does not enhance his performance but rather DESTROYS it, so focusing on the word does not enhance comprehension but rather destroys it as well. ALL understanding for Polanyi features this from-to structure. Tacit understanding, however, must not be confused with the unconscious or the subconscious. We are aware of such understanding but only tacitly. A wholly explicit or focal awareness, conceived independently of its tacit roots, is a fiction. It does not exist.
The structure of tacit-focal awareness is found in all our acts of comprehension. My thesis applied that structure to the act of teaching. When one teaches something to somebody, one’s tacit awareness is directed from the subject matter while one’s focal awareness to the mind of the student in order to comprehend the degree of her comprehension of that subject matter. It is the same with Bitch. While reading the words of the bitch or the comments, one attends FROM them TO the mind of the bitcher or commenter. It is on that basis that one’s own comments are directed.
I hope this has clarified what I meant by “reason,” by what I called “rationality.” It is not a mechanical process – far from it – but not is not simply an intuitive process either. It is a vectorial, irreversible tacit-focal process.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Oh my, what a delicious supper 🙂
I made a rack of braised ribs, with a totally awesome risotto.
I’m such a good cook, and I didn’t have to take 6 years of Home-Ec to be one.
What’s for dessert, Hugo?
Dessert =)
One of my guilty pleasures…
http://www.scotsburn.com/Product/IceCrm/DB…
hoofprints!
After-dinner cigs are the best greulogy for DBC.
“Fisting” – Lesbianese for Hate Fuck.
http://www.ma3comic.com/strips-ma3/goodie-…
^^ straight male expert on lesbian sexual behaviour.
sorry bub, you are way out in the weeds.
^^ – Says the child rape denier