Kyle wrote: You also know if this had been aimed at women to use on men most of these people wouldn't have said a thing.
skybird137 wrote:If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging', he wouldn't apply this gag to her face, he'd save time and money by applying his fist instead.
If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging' and thought this gag was appropriate, he is probably a violent scumbag who will apply his fist instead.
Vakira wrote:It is quite misogynistic plus is enforces a man's belief that if his partner says anything he doesn't want to hear, she's basically just talking crap.
If I had a boyfriend and he bought one for me, I'd be kind of hurt, because it's like "You just need to shut up and look nice"
If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging' and thought this gag was appropriate, he is probably a violent scumbag who will apply his fist instead.
skybird137 wrote:A lot of scolds bridles had spikes that could inflict damage on the tongue and inflict pain in that manner.
Used a lot of the time on women suspected of witchcraft, and guess what happened to them all too often.
sarobah wrote:Kyle wrote: You also know if this had been aimed at women to use on men most of these people wouldn't have said a thing.
Do we really know this, or are you just making it up?skybird137 wrote:If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging', he wouldn't apply this gag to her face, he'd save time and money by applying his fist instead.
I suggest what you mean is...If any man wanted to keep his other quiet to stop her 'nagging' and thought this gag was appropriate, he is probably a violent scumbag who will apply his fist instead.Vakira wrote:It is quite misogynistic plus is enforces a man's belief that if his partner says anything he doesn't want to hear, she's basically just talking crap.
If I had a boyfriend and he bought one for me, I'd be kind of hurt, because it's like "You just need to shut up and look nice"
You have this exactly right.
What the “you can’t take a joke” crowd are missing is that this “anti-nag gag” implies non-consensual bondage. I don’t expect members of this forum to condone that in any shape or form. If you do, you do not belong here.
[Edited in response to skybird137's comment, below.]
As Skybird said above, no one is going to use this to shut someone up. If they're really going to do that, it's going to be done another way.
Attacked by someone you just agreed with, for agreeing with them, you see something new every day...
All that stuff about pretending domestic violence doesn't exist, I have no idea how to respond to, because I have no earthly idea where you drug that out from.
If they're really going to do that
skybird137 wrote:Attacked by someone you just agreed with, for agreeing with them, you see something new every day...
Agree with me? I wasn't condoning the item, I am against it. You have ignored everything else that I have said and tried to pretend that I am on your side.
I am not on your side.All that stuff about pretending domestic violence doesn't exist, I have no idea how to respond to, because I have no earthly idea where you drug that out from.If they're really going to do that
Putting the 'if' in is like saying it might not happen, and pretending it's not happening.
So I'm ignoring things you've said, but you're clearly adding things to what I've said to try to make your own point.
skybird137 wrote:So I'm ignoring things you've said, but you're clearly adding things to what I've said to try to make your own point.
No, I just extrapolated the inference when you said "If they're really going to do that."
Now, if you had made the point clear that "if" meant "when" and that you are clearly against such actions or anything that can in anyway be seen to condone such behaviour then I would stand corrected. ~That hasn't happened though.
If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop. Not only because I didn't remotely say anything close to that effect, but because it also makes your own attacks on me about misreading you look very strange and hypocritical in nature.
skybird137 wrote:If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop. Not only because I didn't remotely say anything close to that effect, but because it also makes your own attacks on me about misreading you look very strange and hypocritical in nature.
The last post wasn't trying to insinuate anything.In fact, I was giving you a chance to clearly state your position.
You seemed to have taken the long way around to suggest that it is "when" and not "if".If you are seriously trying to insinuate I said anything about domestic violence not existing, you need to stop. Just stop.
Kyle wrote:I feel like I should apologize to Putasockinit2 for helping to contribute to the major derailing of this thread for discussing it this long, especially since nothing came out of it.