The hypocrisy of the Masculist Sacred Babble was brought to a new level recently in the UK over a scandal that became known as the “Magaluf boy.” The hysteria and moral panic raised by this is worth a closer look.
The Spanish resort town of Magaluf, on the island Mallorca, has had a reputation of a party town for decades. Each year, young adults from Britain, Ireland, Scandanavia and other European countries head there for sand, sun, booze and sex. So much so that it has the nickname “Shagaluf.”
The result is often not pretty as youth and booze can sometimes lead to teenage brawls. Mostly, however, it leads to vomit and stupidity.
Last year a video of a young man giving “head” to some two dozen women at a night club in Magaluf went viral. The hypocritical and positively misogynic treatment that this has been given by the British press, including the Mirror, Huffington Post and The Independent, among others, has been astounding.
I’ve included a link to the actual video below. For the hard of thinking, this video is not safe for work. I didn’t include video for titillation, but if you read anything from the UK’s Mirror, Huffington Post UK, or The Independent, you would think that the man was held to the ground while a group of women put their penises in his mouth.
That view is manifestly untrue. It is clear from the video is that the man is moving freely about the bar, he is encouraging the young women to “get it out,” and is using his own hands to put the penises in his mouth.
If you didn’t want to check out the video, or want further proof, consider the view of Geordie Shore (a UK TV Soap) star Jay Gardner, who was at the event in question:
The lass seemed to be loving it and so did the girls, that’s what it’s like in Magaluf, it’s wild, anything and everything goes.
But, the “Fleet Street Fox” of the Mirror claims the young man was “bullied into having sex with a drunken mob,” and had then been “called a slut all over the internet.”
Yet, a Google search will find a different story. Like the intrepid “Fox,” journalists were tripping over themselves, the facts and logic to blame the young women, the night club’s management, the tour operator, the Spanish police and the man’s parents. In fact anyone but the man.
Now of course you were wondering what Louisa Zissman and Jasmine Lennard have to say about it.
No, I’ve never heard of them either. Apparently they had been on reality TV shows, so of course they are experts on just about anything that will get them a few inches (of a newspaper column).
These two geniuses, however, have found a way to squabble over how to remove all responsibility from the man and blame the women. Zissman says that the man should be given some slack.
“Who cares,” says the media celebrity. He had made a bad choice. Yes, his body, his choice. But, and you knew there was a “but” coming, he does think the women involved should be named and shamed for their actions. Even more so, he believes they should be mocked for not being hung like horses.
Although after seeing the size of some of those worms, I did wonder if a few of the receivers were pre-pubescent.
Of course, judging men by their body parts is objectification. Judging women by the size of their penises, on the other hand, is journalism.
Lennard, however, is outraged at Zissman’s lack of outrage. Apparently Lennard felt strongly enough to tweet:
Saying “Who cares” – Umm ANY good parent. EVERY good parent would care. I care and it’s not my son.
Lennard also makes the political personal for Zissman:
“It’s like ok love how about I buy YOUR son a ticket to that event in a few years time?!”
Irrespective of how you cut it, however, both are only concerned for the man. Apparently, Zissman sees it this way:
You can look at it two ways; he’s young, dumb, drunk and made mistakes, or he’s an 18-year-old MAN [emphasis his] who has every right to do what he wants with his body
But the “drunk”, of course, brings up the ever present spectre of consent and therefore rape. The “Fleet Street Fox” takes the rape angle a little bit further.
If he was drunk he was incapable of consent.
But, simultaneously the “Fox” chooses a second avenue of escape from personal culpability for the squire. Harping back to the bullying angle, he claims that, “surrounded by that mob”, the man became terrified.
And I’d do whatever it took to get out in one piece, which is precisely why many victims of sexual assault and rape don’t start a fight, and why their abusers claim they wanted it.
Drunk? Bullied? Or both?
Sarah somebody, last name not supplied, in Huffington Post UK applies a more scientific approach to the matter.
I have no idea how much the man in Magaluf had drunk, I don’t know how alcohol effects him as we’re all different. However, I do know (because every story is the same) that he was drunk.
Yes, why let a lack of information stop him from forming an opinion. Sarah then goes on, like Zissman, to give us a choice in how we should view the affair:
Best case scenario: sexual exhibitionist, has an amazing time doing what he loves, which now the whole world is watching and is vilified by the press and public for being drunk, male and enjoying himself, despite feeling himself that he has done nothing wrong – nor should he.
Worst case scenario: victim of a serious sexual assault is dragged through the press and attacked by the public for being the victim of a serious sexual assault which now the whole world is watching.
In all of this the 24 women were roundly condemned by all concerned. Although they were at the same bar, drinking the same alcohol, and being encouraged by the same DJ and others to “get it out,” they apparently do not deserve the same empathy.
There was no concern that, by the time he got to penis number five, his mouth was an unhygienic place for a woman to put her penis. There was little concern that their penises, as well as some of their faces, were on display as “the world” watched.
Zissman aside, there is also little commentary on the fact that most, if not all, of the penises were flaccid, i.e. not erect. Therefore, the sexual pleasure they got from the experience was minimal.
Extraordinarily, the Huffington Post UK, which gave us Sarah noname’s diatribe on “Magaluf Boy: Consent and Sexuality,” included a link to this tidbit:
This man claims he can give blowjobs that are so good, they’re fatal
“This man” goes by the name of Auntie Angel (so you know he’s genuine). He claims that women have literally gone to heaven as a result of men learning his special techniques. Did anyone ask if any of these women consented being killed?
From there, Vice gave me another link to a bunch environmentalists who were making porno films and using the proceeds for the environmental campaigns. Part of their videos saw them going to strangers in the street and asking them to participate.
No cries of outrage there.
And, as I said, all this was linked to by the puritanical Huffington Post.
One of the interesting aspects to the outrage was that there were repeated references as to how it would be different had the Magaluf man have been a woman. Now, I am assuming here that this hypothetical woman would have been giving “head” to 24 hypothetical men. In each instance, the speculation was that the hypothetical woman would become a heroine, a “legend.”
But consider the how the press had blamed the women who were drinking at the same venue as the man. It is my guess that the same bigots would have been calling the hypothetical woman a serial rapist before too long.
Another peculiar twist was that the Mirror reported that the Magaluf boy thought that he would get a holiday as a prize for his antics, rather than the bottle of booze that he did win. The allusion being that not only had he been “bullied” and “raped,” but also cheated.
Perhaps the outraged puritans could show their brotherly solidarity and pass the hat for the Magaluf boy to get a holiday somewhere else.