Call me traditional but

I’m a very laissez faire, broadminded sort of guy but tonight there are two selfish plonkers holed up somewhere while two spouses and six kids try and work out what has happened to their worlds.

I honestly don’t care what Hancock or this slapper do in private, but to cause this hurt to innocent people is despicable IMO.

it’s also a bit alarming that he got away with killing thousands but was brought down by a snog :roll_eyes:

Questions about Hancock’s lover’s job remain as couple to move in together | Matt Hancock | The Guardian

1 Like

I have to say John your language with regard to the woman is not so much ‘traditional’ as downright sexist - you describe her (in another thread) as his ‘bit of fluff’ and here as ‘this slapper’ - I get that you disapprove of both her and Hancock - and you’ve also (probably accurately) called him all sorts of names - but these sexualised terms applied only to her jar a bit.

At least if they’re moving in together it might be true love rather than a fling. It happens.

5 Likes

Hate to say it Geof, but I’m inclined to agree with John about the woman - if not the choice of language. I have little sympathy for women who get entangled with married men. They know exactly what they are getting into. They are getting themselves involved with a man who is a liar - either to the wife, or to them and probably both. They themselves have a singular lack of integrity if they think it is ok to screw around with someone else’s husband - even if the man is coming up with all the usual excuses about living in a loveless marriage. In my view, they are each as bad as the other - and the spouses quite frankly are better off without them - even if it doesn’t feel like that at the moment.

7 Likes

After a couple of months in a bedsit in Croydon (I can say this as I’ve done it😱) without a job, money or more likely power , we’ll see if its “true” love or not.

1 Like

I’m afraid I agree with @Geof_Cox about the language and the situation of course. Yes they were both playing around in an inadvisable (to say the very least) manner but the were both betraying their spouses, so to call one by his name and the other a “slapper” shows a certain bias, does it not? Still, if that’s what people think, it’s what people think :thinking:

3 Likes

Purely in terms of the affair I have little sympathy with either of them - it takes two to tango and both were married.

Do I have a lot of sympathy with the spouses - yes, but hard to know how much without understanding the marriages themselves and clearly we’re not privy to that.

It’s the kids I really feel sorry for.

9 Likes

Quite - for all we know they could be playing away themselves but of course it’s none of our business. I am certainly not in a position to judge other peoples’ sexual situations …

1 Like

Geof, don’t for a moment think I disapprove of her anymore than I do Hancock, just I struggle to think of the male equivalent of “slapper” and “bit of fluff”. Neither gigolo nor toy boy seems correct, perhaps spiv, or ponce? I dunno. I have called him a lying bastard which is certainly accurate, but if you can advise me of any other appropriate words I’ll happily amend my two posts :slightly_smiling_face:

Often, there really aren’t any male equivalents John - that’s the point - the terms reflect a history of harsher judgement of women. ‘Bit of fluff’ implies inconsequential, and wouldn’t generally be applied to a man in a relationships context; ‘slapper’ implies the proverbial ‘loose woman’ - similar terms applied to men are not nearly so derogatory (eg. ‘he’s a bit of a lad’, or just ‘casanova’), or relatively recondite (‘lothario’).

6 Likes

Indeed they are all adults and adult relationships are complicated.

As I said it’s the kids who didn’t ask for any of this - my parents split just as I went to Uni (years later it transpired my mother had had an affair) and even at the relatively mature age of 18 it had a negative effect on my that lasted many years.

1 Like

Exactly my point Geof :slightly_smiling_face: How can one be criticised for not using a term that doesn’t exist? Because the male equivalent doesn’t exist, should one refrain from using a term to describe a female, no matter how accurate?

Complex stuff :wink:

1 Like

I’ve no doubt Paul. It is all horribly messy. There are six kids wondering today where Mum or Dad has gone, just because two blithering idiots had to cavort on CCTV. The whole thing about private lives IMO is that they should be private. Not in the bloody office. If I had behaved like that (snogging in the office) in my old firm, my feet wouldn’t have touched the ground.

If the use of the terms implies a sexist view of women - for example it allocates more blame on the woman when the man might be equally or more culpable, or perpetuates a stereotype such as women-as-morally-weak - which I think your phrasing ‘I honestly don’t care what Hancock or this slapper do in private’ does imply - then yes, I would refrain from using the term.
But maybe that’s because I have lots of strong women in my life who would soon ‘slap’ me down
for such language!
(Don’t take it too seriously John - I know you’re a good man - it’s probably just a generational thing.)
(Not that I’m that much younger than you, but I do have a younger wife, and daughters still in their 20s - and of course rather ‘woke’ friends…)

1 Like

Of course, but they are less (or not even - up to now at least) in the public eye (and/or the Public purse). Not an excuse for them of course if they are so inclined, but what the eye doesn’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve over :wink:

Geof, my wife is 11 years younger than me and I’m embarrassingly proud if my daughter :blush:. The idea that either of them (or any woman for that matter) could be discriminated against on the basis of gender drives me mad. My wife and I worked at the same firm for twenty-five years and we were just discussing recently how we never, ever, saw gender based discrimination there, something that we are both proud of.

I know you’re only joshing but don’t you think that rather than not using an (IMO) accurate and descriptive term we should create a male equivalent. Say, for example, fluffeur and fluffeuse or slappeur and slappeuse?

It used to be brazen hussy but there isn’t a male equivalent AFAIK (other than total wanker, perhaps).

1 Like

wanker fit’s either gender
Whoooosh… I’ll get my :coat:

Brazen hussy would have been my Mum’s description of her alright :slightly_smiling_face:

more my Gran’s turn of phrase John :grinning:

Not sure if generational or an Aussie thing but I’d quite happily use the term ‘male slapper’ or ‘male tart’. My son uses a word in French - I’ll find out what it is when he gets home.

2 Likes