Imagine spending your life obsessing over gay people, only for psychology studies to suggest the call might be coming from inside the house.
Hatred has always said more about the hater than the people they’re targeting.
Feels like one of the worst Pride Months for homophobia in years in the UK. Our rights are increasingly under scrutiny, yet some people still seem more obsessed with gay people than gay people are.
Henry E. Adams - 1996 Homophobia Study, clock it.
🚨PSA: This week’s podcast is going to be an early one! Covering Monday to Thursday’s trips to Coronation Street, Episode #742 will go live at 9pm tonight! 🚨
We’ve gone from prosecution, to conviction, to what you think is the more important stage. It’s the same thing you were doing yesterday, moving the goalposts instead of responding to what was actually said. We have different views and that’s fine.
I’m leaving it there because it’s boring. You keep arguing with points nobody’s made.
Have a cracking day! ☀️and again I’ll leave you to have the last word.
In their wildest dreams did Corrie imagine that this storyline would lead to people arguing about whether the law regarding strangulation should be more lenient? You know, so we can have more Betsys in hospital? What an absolute disaster.
Trigger Warning ‼️
Here is the head honcho of the manosphere, one of the “influencers”who has helped glorify the strangulation of women during sex. Listen to how he speaks about women, how normal it sounds to him, and the chilling way he describes it.
Some people are asking why consensual strangulation is being compared to abuse. If that’s genuinely confusing, it’s worth asking why we’ve become so desensitised to violence in the first place.
If today’s storyline has proved anything, it’s that some people are far more interested in whether Becky Swain is on her way back than the conversation the story is actually trying to have.
Just a few weeks ago an account was telling me they’d all “moved the fuck on.” Now it’s suddenly fine if Becky comes back because it brings “closure”. 😂
It tells me they don’t actually care about Betsy’s story or the message it sends. They care about protecting certain characters because, heaven forbid, anyone has an opinion that isn’t overwhelmingly positive. It’s about controlling the narrative so their favourites don’t come under scrutiny.
And if you’re wondering why people get so passionate about these stories being told properly, it’s because there is a responsibility to tell them safely, accurately and with the seriousness they deserve. We’ve had Becky, Theo and now this. These aren’t just fictional plots. They reflect real issues affecting real people every single day.
We were previously told around the time of the wedding “soaps are incredibly powerful mediums.” Exactly. That’s why getting these stories right matters. If soaps are powerful enough to influence public understanding, then they carry a responsibility to portray subjects like abuse, coercion and sexual violence with care and accuracy. This isn’t “just a soap” when the issue being depicted has life changing and, in some cases, fatal consequences.
Dylan has been written as manipulative over the last two episodes, yet some people seem more interested in policing other people’s opinions than discussing the issue the storyline raises.
It’s exhausting trying to make your point to people who refuse to think critically because they’re blinded by parasocial relationships with fictional characters.
It’s shocking.
🚨EXPOSING Andrew Tate's Alleged Decade-Long Pattern of Strangling Women
At least 10 women, from 2012 to 2025, across the UK, Romania, and the United States, have gone to police alleging the same specific conduct: that Andrew Tate strangled them.
Including the UK's additional reported allegations that Andrew Tate choked women.
Many of these alleged incidents are said to have occurred during sex. Some women allege they were choked until they lost consciousness, only to wake up and find Andrew Tate was still having sex with them while they were unconscious.
Several women allegedly suffered similar injuries, including:
-Burst blood vessels in their eyes
-Concussions
-Other injuries allegedly consistent with strangulation
One of the alleged victims in Romania was 15 years old. Their relationship allegedly began in 2020, when Andrew Tate was in his mid-30s. She testified:
"When we had sex, Andrew was often aggressive with me, in the sense that he beat me with a belt, choked me. It happened that once he choked me until I fainted, circumstances in which he woke me up by slapping me in the face."
She also said:
"You take her so young, you fool her and make her your slave? Fuck you... And, anyway, think about it, bro, when I was little, I had sex with him. God, he put his dick in my ass and I was telling him, stop, bro. He choked me, fuck, when I was little."
Evidence cited includes:
-Alleged victim testimony
-Medical certificates
-Photographs documenting injuries
-Messages and voice notes allegedly sent by Andrew Tate to one complainant that prosecutors allege are incriminating
The allegations predate Andrew Tate's rise to global fame and span more than a decade. They come from women in multiple countries who, did not know one another, and in some cases did not even speak the same language, yet describe strikingly similar allegations.
It's important to note that this is only examining allegations that Andrew Tate strangled women. It does not account for the separate allegations of rape, human trafficking, and other offences.
@squrtinggleek@ConversationStr Then we’re clearly not reading the same replies, because I’ve spent a portion of my day reading people confidently explaining why the law somehow doesn’t apply in this situation. You can have the last word anyway, I’m off to bed👍🏻
@squrtinggleek@ConversationStr You’re arguing against a point I haven’t made. I’ve never said people can’t disagree with the law. I’ve said people can’t rewrite it because they don’t like it. Big difference.
That’s not how the law works. The fact they didn’t intend serious harm doesn’t mean the act stops being legally relevant once serious harm occurs. If someone suffers a stroke or dies as a result, the law doesn’t simply say, “Well, they didn’t mean it.” That’s precisely why offences like manslaughter exist.
I completely agree. What frustrates me even more, though, is that people just bat you down because they don’t agree with your perspective.
I don’t personally relate to this storyline, but I did relate to Swarla. Just look at the way people spoke to anyone who had a different opinion because of their obsession. It’s embarrassing.
I was a HUGE Swarla fan because of what that representation meant to me as a queer woman and to my family. It was genuinely something special. But whether people like it or not, Becky tarnished them. That’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it. People don’t have to agree but they also don’t need to bite peoples heads off.
The difference is I don’t care about trying to impress actors or getting approval from them. I was just grateful for what the actors bring to the screen, because the representation matters. People should be able to say a storyline no longer works for them without being treated like they’ve committed some sort of crime.
It stopped being consensual the moment she had her FIRST stroke.
The law is obviously not clear enough in this matter.
If an act is only consensual depending on an outcome entirely out of your control, it should no longer be considered consensual.
Schrödinger’s consent.
He caused her stroke and you can’t consent to physical harm. It’s absolutely his fault and he should be in prison. 💁🏻♀️❤️
Team Lauren.
Trigger warning. ‼️
Has anyone else read this? I’m genuinely horrified. https://t.co/80NzZbtT0U
Women whose lives were cut short, or who suffered devastating injuries, while violence was explained away as “rough sex”.
It honestly makes me wonder how we’ve reached a point where violence has become so normalised that it’s defended as consent. If this doesn’t make you think twice about sticking to vanilla, I don’t know what will. 🍦
I’m not judging what consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors. But I do think it’s fair to ask difficult questions.
Regardless of whether someone says they consented or not, if the outcome is life changing injuries or death, how have we reached a point where that’s even part of the conversation? Where should the line be drawn?
Whether you agree with me or not, I think this is worth reading.
I completely agree with your last paragraph especially, Keti. Whatever the intentions, I don’t think this should ever be normalised or presented as mainstream. The risk is too high, and too many people will copy what they see without fully understanding the potential consequences💔
@ConversationStr Nor am I. It’s hard to stay open-minded when it feels like expressing a different view is met with hostility. But I do think it’s important that we stand together, as you said. This isn’t normal, and we shouldn’t be afraid to say that.