@Carl: It just goes to prove how many idiots there are in this country; at this point in time there are 21% certified idiots and 7% probable idiots.

@Johnny Bellew: The air must be nice and fresh atop that morally superior high horse Johnny. Does it get tiresome looking down on everyone though? Must be difficult on family and friends to live up to those standards.

@Stephen Adam: I am no saint, Stephen.

@Johnny Bellew: just morally superior.

@Thomas Maher: No.

@Carl: Anyone who said Yes not only had issues but an awful lot of Tissues!

@Carl: It’s a hard one !

@Carl:
Back in the day the Christian Brothers didn’t want to talk about sex. If your mother saw JR kissing Sue Ellen she’d turn off the Telly and bless herself.
You’re only hope was a mate getting his hands on a seedy magazine from one of them UK petrol stations. They were worth their weight in gold.

@Carl: You should get your sex education from the local priest. they are experts on sex.

@Tweed Cap: Me mammy was very fond of sweeping the floor in front of the telly for some reason around the time that a man or woman got within three foot of each other. l still wonder how I got here at all.

@Carl: *tissues . There I fixed it for you.

@Patabake Kennedy: Pat, It might have been the postman and her neurotic traits with the brush was a sign of repressed guilt, or maybe the floor just needed some extra attention around the TV. ?

@Charles Williams: Well as you mention that, i do have a yearning for a drop of milk every now and again.

@Charles Williams: The postman was also our milkman.

@Johnny Bellew: then why make such a dickish comment ?.. Are you saying you never look at porn ?

@Carl: Playboy issues lol.

@Georgio Zizek: porn, like any product is usually aimed at a specific audience. So porn that is appealing to straight men will not enlighten them about women, which is necessary in real relationships. The fault lies with education, which should give information on all aspects of human sexuality and relationships. Young people getting sex ed from porn may have totally unrealistic expectations from themselves and their partners.

@Georgio Zizek: The positions in porn are designed to show off everything, not be pleasurable. No woman has ever requested two willies up her ass and another in her ear and mouth in a non-porn setting.

@Mark Carroll: And the plumber/IT help/pizza delivery never arrives that quickly in real life either.

@Harry Whitehead: arrives or comes?

@WinstonSmith: you’ve not been to the right parties pal.

@John Hayes: I prefer to stay away from Rugby events.

@WinstonSmith: That was below the belt

@Mark Carroll: That’s fattist …..

Of course there’s lots of different categories of porn, including amateur porn for instance. It seems everyone is focused on the outlandish high-production stuff.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin:
Careful now.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: four men were falsely accused of rape, have had their names dragged through the dirt and lost their jobs despite a not guilty verdict, the media is now running a coordinated campaign to undermine the verdict and further victimise the four men.

@Danny Tagert:
Exactly. Akin to running a campaign against terrorism using the Guildford 4 as an example of how not to behave.

@Gene Dexter: I don’t remember the Guilford Four apologising for their behaviour and acknowledging that their behaviour was unbecoming of their position. If we’re going to cherry pick our interpretations of not guilty, OJ Simpson sure paid a lot in damages for the murder of his ex wife after being found “not guilty”. John Terry served a fairly hefty match ban for a racist act, despite being found not guilty. A failure of the courts to prove guilt doesn’t mean innocence and where the burden of proof is shifted, punishment often follows.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: What has OJ got to do with anything?

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: They didn’t apologise for what they were accused of. They apologised for the content of their messages. They are innocent of all crimes unless you have other information?

@Dessie: OJ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. He subsequently lost a civil suit related to his wife’s death and lost 30 million dollars after he was found to be “responsible” for his wife’s death. Being found not guilty doesn’t make you innocent.

@Pat Bateman: as above, not being found guilty doesn’t make you innocent. You do know if they are innocent just like I don’t know if they’re guilty, but we do know that they’re behaviour was sufficiently poor for their club to terminate their contracts. I agree with that as a course of action. Others don’t. In future, we should probably all agree that teaching kids and adults to be mature enough to understand consent can at least be one positive to come out of this entire mess.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: …you don’t know if they are innocent*…

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: I was speaking from a legal point of view, they are innocent. Unfortunately they fell victim to the high profile nature of the trial. If that’s Joe Soap working in his local londis, and those messages are read out, he wouldn’t lose his job. Messages from the complainant were read out but I imagine she’s still in her job. The power the sponsors have over Ulster and IRFU was what lost them their jobs.

@Pat Bateman: I’ll make one final attempt. From a legal point of view, they were NOT found innocent. They weren’t shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There’s a grey area between innocent and not guilty that is filled with ambiguity. As for the girl and your “concern”, one would hope that someone gets to keep their job despite feeling they were a victim of sexual assault… What cost the lads their jobs was their behaviour and their actions. If someone close to me behaved the way they did after a girl left their gaffe in tears, I’d disown them too and I don’t even have sponsors to apply pressure on me.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin:
“they were NOT found innocent. They weren’t shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There’s a grey area between innocent and not guilty that is filled with ambiguity.”

That is pure hogwash. You fundamentally misunderstand how the justice system works. You walk into court with a presumption of innocence and a jury then decides if you are guilty or not guilty of those charges, there is no verdict of “innocent”, if the accused is found not guilty they walk out of court as innocent as the day they walked into it.

@Danny Tagert: OJ Simpson… John Terry… R Kelly… All innocent right? Despite the first paying 30million in damages for his wife’s death and writing a book about how “he’d have killed his wife”. The second and third were literally caught on video committing their offenses. But the burden of proof for beyond reasonable doubt couldn’t be met. Luckily, as I now understand it, my eyes were lying to me and they are in fact innocent men. /S Now that’s hogwash.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: Hi Ciaran, the law gives the accused the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise. That is a fact. They were not proven to be guilty of anything, therefore the presumption of innocence remains. That is also a fact. The men didn’t lose their jobs for having sex, it was the messages sent in the WhatsApp group that caused it. If engaging in a threesome is what caused them to have their contracts revoked, then the same should apply to the complainant. If sending derogatory messages about women is what they lost their job for, why shouldn’t the woman receive the same treatment. They suffered because of their high profile job and the power sponsors have.

@Pat Bateman: … Seriously? The messages where she’s scared or the ones where she’s angry? If you believe what you’ve written and genuinely feel that in all this, she is at fault for some or any of this, I think you need help. I don’t know you, or what stage of life you’re at, but know this, I hope you have nothing but daughters if you have/ever have kids. I can only hope that changes your mindset.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: No, the messages where she described the other girls as ‘slutty’. I never said she’s at fault for it. Nobody is at fault for consensual sex. I’m just showing how your initial comment was incorrect. They apologised for their derogatory language and lost their jobs over it. The complainant used derogatory language and didn’t. Why not, because her job isn’t high profile. Simple as. Plenty of people say things in private conversations that they wouldn’t want made public, but unfortunately for the gentlemen in question, their conversations were made public due to an unproven accusations.

@Pat Bateman: my initial comment about the apologies was “I don’t remember the Guilford four apologising that their behaviour was unbecoming of their position”. You’ve invented me saying something else in your head and argued away with that. It’s my firm belief that the girl involved did not consent to what took place that night and while she may not have found justice in the courts, her act of courage has had a profound impact on this island. Thousands of fellas, fine lads, up for the bantz are now aware that a girl not screaming No doesn’t mean she is consenting to something and as a result thousands of women will hopegully be spared the presumptions of louts. The “gentlemen” as you call them will have lots of “private conversations” in future where they make sure a girl is consenting.

@Ciarán Ó Fallúin: The Guildford Four didn’t have any derogatory WhatsApp messages to apologise for, that’s the only reason the ulster gentlemen had to apologise. I believe the only independent witness in the trial who confirmed that the girl was fine when she entered the room, would suggest that it was embarrassment of being seen in such a position that made her upset. She’d only called the other girls ‘slutty’ an hour earlier and now she was after being caught having a threesome. I can only imagine the mortification. But we’ll agree to disagree.

@pc_comments: This is going to be an unpopular comment. But women are just as bad as men when it comes to wrong expectations men and boys.

@Paul Robinson: hahaha