Magaluf Girl: Feminist prudery

The hypocrisy of the Feminist Sacred Babble was brought to a new level recently in the UK over a scandal that became known as the “Magaluf girl.” 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 woman giving “head” to some two dozen men at a night club in Magaluf went viral. The hypocritical and positively misandric 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 woman was held to the ground while a group of men put their penises in her mouth.

That view is manifestly untrue. It is clear from the video is that the woman is moving freely about the bar, she is encouraging the young men to “get it out,” and is using her own hands to put the penises in her 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 boys, 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 woman 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 men, the night club’s management, the tour operator, the Spanish police and the woman’s parents. In fact anyone but the woman.

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 woman and blame the men. Zissman says that the woman should be given some slack.

“Who cares,” says the media celebrity. She had made a bad choice. Yes, her body, her choice. But, and you knew there was a “but” coming, she does think the men involved should be named and shamed for their actions. Even more so, she 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 women by their body parts is objectification. Judging men 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 daughter.

Lennard also makes the political personal for Zissman:

“It’s like ok love how about I buy YOUR daughter a ticket to that event in a few years time?!”

Irrespective of how you cut it, however, both are only concerned for the woman. Apparently, Zissman sees it this way:

You can look at it two ways; she’s young, dumb, drunk and made mistakes, or she’s an 18-year-old WOMAN [emphasis hers] who has every right to do what she wants with her 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 she was drunk she was incapable of consent.

But, simultaneously the “Fox” chooses a second avenue of escape from personal culpability for the damsel. Harping back to the bullying angle, she claims that, “surrounded by that mob”, the woman 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 woman in Magaluf had drunk, I don’t know how alcohol effects her as we’re all different. However, I do know (because every story is the same) that she was drunk.

Yes, why let a lack of information stop her 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 she loves, which now the whole world is watching and is vilified by the press and public for being drunk, female and enjoying herself, despite feeling herself that she has done nothing wrong – nor should she.

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 men 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 she got to penis number five, her mouth was an unhygienic place for a man to put his 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 Girl: Consent and Sexuality,” included a link to this tidbit:

This woman claims she can give blowjobs that are so good, they’re fatal

“This woman” goes by the name of Auntie Angel (so you know she’s genuine). She claims that men have literally gone to heaven as a result of women learning her special techniques. Did anyone ask if any of these men consented being killed?

No.

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 woman have been a man. Now, I am assuming here that this hypothetical man would have been giving “head” to 24 hypothetical women. In each instance, the speculation was that the hypothetical man would become a hero, a “legend.”

But consider the how the press had blamed the men who were drinking at the same venue as the woman. It is my guess that the same bigots would have been calling the hypothetical man a serial rapist before too long.

Another peculiar twist was that the Mirror reported that the Magaluf girl thought that she would get a holiday as a prize for her antics, rather than the bottle of booze that she did win. The allusion being that not only had she been “bullied” and “raped,” but also cheated.

Perhaps the outraged puritans could show their sisterly solidarity and pass the hat for the Magaluf girl to get a holiday somewhere else.

Lesbos, perhaps.