Vince McMahon may actually be done this time [Trigger warning: Sexual Assault]

[BomberPat]

12 hours ago, IANdrewDiceClay said:

Been a fan of Kevin Nash for years. Even in the years it was clear there was little value in him. But I saw someone I really dont like watching that clip the other day. Like a desperate man who knows so much, trying to cover it up just so he can still have his legends deal. So fuck him. 

That's the thing - Kevin Nash is likely a millionaire, could coast on royalties from video game appearances and nWo merch alone, and won't ever wrestle again. If he's too scared to criticise Vince, even after the stories are public knowledge, what hope do we have of anyone who actually works there, or is in his inner circle, doing anything?

Of course the alternative is that it's not about protecting his buddy Triple H or downplaying what Vince did, but that wrestling has been so deep in this shit for so long that Kevin genuinely doesn't see what the problem is.

[King Coconut]

31 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

wrestling has been so deep in this shit for so long that Kevin genuinely doesn't see what the problem is.

Or doesn't really want anybody digging any deeper into this sort of thing, thank you very much.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I'm not for a second excusing what Nash said, but I don't think there's necessarily a deeper reason for his views. I don't think it has to be that he's protecting his mate or is worried about himself. I just think there's a sub-section of a certain generation of men who have never been able to develop their views on consent.

To them, consent is a binary with no nuance, and even if a hyper powerful man like Vince uses his power (whether with explicit threats of firing someone, or implicitly with gifts or promotions) to induce someone into sex, the fact that person may have begrudgingly said yes, or simply felt they had to play along, in the moment means its an open and shut case.

The problem is they'll surround themselves with people who think the same, and never get challenged on it. 

Edited February 11 by d-d-d-dAz

[Loki]

3 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

. I just think there's a sub-section of a certain generation of men who have never been able to develop their views on consent

As long as she doesn’t say no, you’re in there.

 That was certainly the attitude when I was a teenager.  The way boys talked about it, it was like a game - you had “moves” or whatever designed to get a girl into the sack.  There’s never been a more pertinent comedy skit than the “because of the implication” skit  from Always Sunny..  That’s what it was like.

 Looking back, one particularly distressing thing was the obvious attempts to get girls drunk/stoned enough that their defences were down.  This was definitely a part of the party culture when I was in my late teens.

I have a memory feel particularly… guilty about, I guess, of a friend of mine closing his bedroom door in my face at a party because I was checking on a girl who was passed out in there because she’d drunk too much.  I should have intervened but I was 17.

 If I’m honest I doubt it’s changed much.

 But grown men acting like that is even more gross.  

[Hannibal Scorch]

On 2/11/2024 at 2:55 PM, Loki said:

 I should have intervened but I was 17.

Just out of curiosity, what is the right age you should intervene?

I’m joking of course because I’ve known children be more brave in tough situations than you. 
 

I’ll preempt your response, I regret things I did at 17, but none of them were like that. 

Edited February 12 by Hannibal Scorch

[DavidB6937]

15 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Just out of curiosity, what is the right age you should intervene?

I’m joking of course because I’ve known children be more brave in tough situations than you. 
 

I’ll preempt your response, I regret things I did at 17, but none of them were like that. 

Come on now. He's obviously not saying he was the "wrong" age to intervene. I don't think it's unfair to say we were all a lot more immature when we were younger. Hindsight is a great thing when you're older or after a situation like that. Don't think you need to be insulting people for things they did or didn't do when they were younger. Especially when they wish they would've done things better.

[Hannibal Scorch]

5 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Come on now. He's obviously not saying he was the "wrong" age to intervene. I don't think it's unfair to say we were all a lot more immature when we were younger. Hindsight is a great thing when you're older or after a situation like that. Don't think you need to be insulting people for things they did or didn't do when they were younger. Especially when they wish they would've done things better.

Bloody hell numbers, I know you love replying to every post I make but, Jesus.

Also he felt a bit guilty, (he guesses), about a situation. That reads different to wishes he would have done things better in my eyes…

[Loki]

@Hannibal Scorch I feel that if you think this thread is a place to score points off other posters, you've picked the wrong moment.  Really pathetic.

[Hannibal Scorch]

.

Edited February 12 by Hannibal Scorch

[SuperBacon]

On 2/11/2024 at 2:55 PM, Loki said:

Looking back, one particularly distressing thing was the obvious attempts to get girls drunk/stoned enough that their defences were down.  This was definitely a part of the party culture when I was in my late teens.

It absolutely was, but we were all trying to get drunk/stoned. I can't specifically think of a time when we were trying to get the girls more drunk/stoned than we were. Not suggesting that's what you were doing of course.

I genuinely think one of the most important films to address this is Superbad (bear with me) Seth gets shitfaced and just assumes that Jules is too and tries to get off with her. It's what we assumed, that everyone was off their face, when some people weren't, as that was very much the culture. And especially British culture where getting drunk in a local park in your early teens is a rite of passage.

It's worrying to think I now have a child the age that I was doing bong hits and chokers on school nights and drinking whole bottles of Aftershock on a Friday and blacking out. Ugh.

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, SuperBacon said:

It's worrying to think I now have a child

It really is. 

[Loki]

1 minute ago, SuperBacon said:

It absolutely was, but we were all trying to get drunk/stoned. I can't specifically think of a time when we were trying to get the girls more drunk/stoned than we were. Not suggesting that's what you were doing of course.

Oh totally.  But again, with hindsight your average 16/17/18 year old boy has probably a higher tolerance than girls at that age, so the natural result was girls having their defences lowered.  Looking back, I think now that that booze/drugs culture certainly helped those desperate to get laid at any cost.   I've seen lads buying rounds of shots for girls at clubs, that sort of thing.  It definitely goes on.

If you go back and watch stuff from that era, like say Men Behaving Badly, you'll see really appalling behaviour being treated as fair game lads culture.

I'd like to think that society's understanding of consent has evolved since I was young but I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't really got much better.

[SuperBacon]

21 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

It really is. 

Two! But that's two therapists getting paid when they're older so that's something. 

[Carbomb]

12 hours ago, Loki said:

Oh totally.  But again, with hindsight your average 16/17/18 year old boy has probably a higher tolerance than girls at that age, so the natural result was girls having their defences lowered.  Looking back, I think now that that booze/drugs culture certainly helped those desperate to get laid at any cost.   I've seen lads buying rounds of shots for girls at clubs, that sort of thing.  It definitely goes on.

If you go back and watch stuff from that era, like say Men Behaving Badly, you'll see really appalling behaviour being treated as fair game lads culture.

I'd like to think that society's understanding of consent has evolved since I was young but I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't really got much better.

It could be reasoned that the foundations for that culture were laid long in advance in previous eras. 

One of the most troubling examples of the kind of cultural conditioning we were subjected to is stuff that occurs in old TV and film - the one that specifically comes to mind is an episode of Up, Pompeii! which was and in some episodes is one of my favourite comedies. The episode in question, though - I have to repress a shiver now: it's when Lurcio gets the night off because the rest of the household are apparently going out, but he finds out the beautiful new neighbour will be coming to see his master, the senator - so he dresses up as the senator and buys a love philtre, which will make the person who drinks it fall in love with the first person they see. But it turns out the household who went out were actually bringing back their lovers, and so a "hilarious" farce ensues. 

Growing up bombarded with messages like this from a variety of sources across the cultural landscape, to view the erosion and outright violation of someone's sexual agency as nothing more than a bit of fun at worst and a comedic mishap at best, it's not surprising that insufficient comprehension of what consent entails, both by men who breach it or women who defend said behaviour, has been so endemic.

[westlondonmist]

7 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

It could be reasoned that the foundations for that culture were laid long in advance in previous eras. 

One of the most troubling examples of the kind of cultural conditioning we were subjected to is stuff that occurs in old TV and film - the one that specifically comes to mind is an episode of Up, Pompeii! which was and in some episodes is one of my favourite comedies. The episode in question, though - I have to repress a shiver now: it's when Lurcio gets the night off because the rest of the household are apparently going out, but he finds out the beautiful new neighbour will be coming to see his master, the senator - so he dresses up as the senator and buys a love philtre, which will make the person who drinks it fall in love with the first person they see. But it turns out the household who went out were actually bringing back their lovers, and so a "hilarious" farce ensues. 

Growing up bombarded with messages like this from a variety of sources across the cultural landscape, to view the erosion and outright violation of someone's sexual agency as nothing more than a bit of fun at worst and a comedic mishap at best, it's not surprising that insufficient comprehension of what consent entails, both by men who breach it or women who defend said behaviour, has been so endemic.

Yeah, it's why the view "if it offends you don't watch" doesn't wash. It sends a very negative impression and I don't think people realise how impressionable teenagers are. I think people underestimate how much a person can be shaped by what they see on TV. An example is Revenge of the nerds, the protagonists film the neighbour sorority naked and then the main character pretends to be someone's boyfriend in the dark and has sex with her. As a kid I thought hilarious, now urgh.

The behaviour of supposed adult males at university (I went 03-06) was appalling. I watched people grope and make derogatory comments and said nothing, often laughed along. There were reports of rape of campus, the university heavily victim blamed saying the women should dress less provocative.