Jump to content
action

what's up with all these sex scandals?

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

  "Unwelcomed" or "Inappropriate" or "coercion" means it needs to be that.  Meaning it needs to happen...then the person must let the other person know it was unwelcomed or Inappropriate.  

No, some things are OBVIOUSLY unwelcome and inappropriate without anyone having to state it explicitly first. Or are you saying it is okay to enter a bar, see a woman for the first time, slide up to her and put your hand on her thigh? To throw sexual insults at random people walking past? Show your dick to girls in a park?

Most people learn what is appropriate and what is not and behave accordingly. There will of course be situations where people take a chance and where situations and contexts are misunderstood. There are all kinds of nuances to this, some being unfortunate mistakes, some falling into what are illegal acts. From boys in love attempting an, unfortunately, unwelcomed kiss at a party to the Weinsteins who abuse their position to get sexual favors from women.

But saying that you can say and do anything to a girl, as long as you don't sexually attack her, unless she has already, somehow, stated she won't like it, gives people WAY too much power and sets down rules that abusers and harassers will be quick to exploit. The overriding rule is that you treat people kindly -- and that means that you don't say or act in ways where there is a chance they are objectified or demeaned, unless you are very certain it will be welcomed. If you follow this rule there will be few problems, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, some things are OBVIOUSLY unwelcome and inappropriate without anyone having to state it explicitly first. Or are you saying it is okay to enter a bar, see a woman for the first time, slide up to her and put your hand on her thigh? To throw sexual insults at random people walking past? Show your dick to girls in a park?

Most people learn what is appropriate and what is not and behave accordingly. There will of course be situations where people take a chance and where situations and contexts are misunderstood. There are all kinds of nuances to this, some being unfortunate mistakes, some falling into what are illegal acts. From boys in love attempting an, unfortunately, unwelcomed kiss at a party to the Weinsteins who abuse their position to get sexual favors from women.

But saying that you can say and do anything to a girl, as long as you don't sexually attack her, unless she has already, somehow, stated she won't like it, gives people WAY too much power and sets down rules that abusers and harassers will be quick to exploit. The overriding rule is that you treat people kindly -- and that means that you don't say or act in ways where there is a chance they are objectified or demeaned, unless you are very certain it will be welcomed. If you follow this rule there will be few problems, really.

Not sure what you don't understand about my post.  Harassment involves words and some actions that are not physically sexual in nature.  Your examples show what could be considered assault....putting your hand on someone could be considered assault....like putting your hand on a woman's leg without knowing her or even saying a word to her.  Again, that's not sexual harassment that is assault. (Not necessarily sexual assault...but just assault.)

Showing your dick to girls in a park could be all kinds of charges, especially if they are under age.  Indecent exposure, indecent exposure to a minor, etc.  All much worse than harassment.  

So once again you are sensationalizing sexual harassment and linking it to things much worse.  By now, at least 2 to 3 people have tried to explain to you what sexual harassment is but you keep referring to much worse crimes in your examples.  So stop with your drama already and stay on topic.  

YES, harassment is something that is repeated to be considered harassment.

Sexual assault, indecent exposure and assault do not have to be repeated to be considered those things but we are not talking about those things... and I'm  pretty sure the only reason you keep going back to that is your relentless stubbornness of not ever wanting to admit you were proven wrong or that you don't understand what something is.

 

 

 

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kasanova King said:

Not sure what you don't understand about my post.  Harassment involves words and some actions that are not physically sexual in nature.  Your examples show what could be considered assault....putting your hand on someone could be considered assault....like putting your hand on a woman's leg without knowing her or even saying a word to her.  Again, that's not sexual harassment that is assault. (Not necessarily sexual assault...but just assault.)

Assault implies violence, or an intent to cause harm. So I disagree with your definition that putting your hand on someone's leg is a sexual assault. Ironically enough, it is also one type of sexual harassment visualized on the wikipedia page I linked to. That page also defines sexual harassment to include sexual assault and sexual abuse. But again, this is just semantics. It is not like you are going to be able to make an unacceptable behaviour okay by defining it away.

Here's another example for you: How about going up to the young, shy intern at work and, in others presence, telling her how great tits she's got and that you'd like to get to fondle them on the next work party? Is that also an assault in your opinion and hence not sexual harassment? Or is it okay because it was the first time and she hadn't preemptivelly stated that kind of behaviour would hurt her? 

Here's my take on it, it is sexual harassment. And it is wrong, from the first time it happens.  But it doesn't matter what we call it. It is still wrong. It hurts people. It can destroy people. We all know, or should know, what behaviours are acceptable and not. It is part of social living. No one has to go around and constantly reaffirm they don't want to be demeaned and objectified. It is on the rest of us to behave appropriately. And if there is room for confusion and misunderstandings, to tread very carefully.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Assault implies violence, or an intent to cause harm. So I disagree with your definition that putting your hand on someone's leg is a sexual assault. Ironically enough, it is also one type of sexual harassment visualized on the wikipedia page I linked to. That page also defines sexual harassment to include sexual assault and sexual abuse. But again, this is just semantics. It is not like you are going to be able to make an unacceptable behaviour okay by defining it away.

Here's another example for you: How about going up to the young, shy intern at work and, in others presence, telling her how great tits she's got and that you'd like to get to fondle them on the next work party? Is that also an assault in your opinion and hence not sexual harassment? Or is it okay because it was the first time and she hadn't preemptivelly stated that kind of behaviour would hurt her? 

Here's my take on it, it is sexual harassment. And it is wrong, from the first time it happens.  But it doesn't matter what we call it. It is still wrong. It hurts people. It can destroy people. We all know, or should know, what behaviours are acceptable and not. It is part of social living. No one has to go around and constantly reaffirm they don't want to be demeaned and objectified. It is on the rest of us to behave appropriately. And if there is room for confusion and misunderstandings, to tread very carefully.

 

I didn't say the hand on the leg example was sexual assault...I said it could be considered just assault.  Assault doesn't have to be overly violent....it can be viewed as a threat or an attack by a person to be considered assault...and yes putting your hand on a random stranger's lap, especially in some areas, could be considered threatening.. .good chance you would get slapped.  And if you were to get slapped, the woman would (most cases) still be in the legal sense "defending herself" from your assault ...so she probably wouldn't get in trouble for retaliating. 

As for your example, it's certainly a slimy thing to do and it could go against company policies but in the legal sense it wouldn't be sexual harassment until she rebuked his advances (and he did it again)  and/or she was fired/penalized (or something similar) for not accepting his advances.

 

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I didn't say the hand on the leg example was sexual assault...I said it could be considered just assault.  Assault doesn't have to be overly violent....it can be viewed as a threat or an attack by a person to be considered assault...and yes putting your hand on a random stranger's lap, especially in some areas, could be considered threatening.. .good chance you would get slapped.  And if you were to get slapped, the woman would (most cases) still be in the legal sense "defending herself" from your assault ...so she probably wouldn't get in trouble for retaliating. 

As for your example, it's certainly a slimy thing to do and it could go against company policies but in the legal sense it wouldn't be sexual harassment until she rebuked his advances (and he did it again)  and/or she was fired/penalized (or something similar) for not accepting his advances.

 

We obviously have different opinions on what constitutes 'sexual harassment'. But again, it doesn't really matter as long as we agree that all the examples stated are wrong and that we always try to act with kindness. Then we won't end up being the office perverts, the bar creepos, the Weinsteins, the CK Louises, or the Roy Moores of this world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

We obviously have different opinions on what constitutes 'sexual harassment'. But again, it doesn't really matter as long as we agree that all the examples stated are wrong and that we always try to act with kindness. Then we won't end up being the office perverts, the bar creepos, the Weinsteins, the CK Louises, or the Roy Moores of this world. 

That goes without saying.  I've been a high level director in the past and I've always treated associates, especially female associates with respect....even to the point that I would refrain from saying jokes around them if I thought they could be considered offensive.  I've disciplined sales reps for acting out of line with female associates, etc...and for things much less than what would legally constitute sexual harassment.  I would have fired someone had they actually committed sexual harassment and I was made aware of it.   Anyone who respects their mother, sisters, aunts, female cousins and friends would never intentionally sexually harass women. 

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Pishy said that fucking a consenting 18yrld is the same thing as Sylvester Stallone taking advantage of and intimidating a 16yrld with his buddy. I disagreed. So then @classicrawker stumbled in, no doubt drunk or high, claiming that by disagreeing with that I was somehow condoning what Sylvester Stallone had done. The mind boggles, it really does. Fuck you, dude. He doesn't even have the decency to apologise. Pathetic.

I asked @Tori72 to explain what she meant by patriarchy and she told me that me doing so was passive aggressive and that she didn't owe me anything. Okaaaaaay? And @soon pats her on the back for this lol.

Now @SoulMonster is implying KK(and anyone who agrees with him) is probably akin to the predatory scum we've been discussing, just because he dares question this sensationalist line of 'thinking'.

They've given me the impression that they do not care at all about the feelings of those they are communicating with. That they don't care at all about critical thinking skills. That this miserable, very serious topic, is just a means for them to blunder about indulging themselves.

Apologize for what?  for stating the obvious?   I disagreed with your opinion ...if you can't deal with that you shouldn't post in an open forum

Edited by classicrawker
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, soon said:

I 'liked' a post by a women who disagreed with @Oldest Goat and he lashed out at me not once but twice for simply liking her post.  Ironically this was all part of his attempt to disprove patriarchy.  

woman*

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and if I'm proved wrong I will concede that and change my opinion, always. She wasn't just disagreeing with me, she was way off the mark so I see you liking it as fanning the flames. I lashed out at you because we're forum buddies or I thought so at least but you're throwing me under the bus lol. I'm a very sensitive young patriarch, you see? :lol:

Patriarchy still hasn't been defined btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, classicrawker said:

Apologize for what?  for stating the obvious?   I disagreed with your opinion ...if you can't deal with that you shouldn't post in an open forum

No. You randomly chimed in saying that I was condoning what Sylvester Stallone allegedly did when I had literally just been condemning it!

You're not too bright, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here was me thinking we had seen it all, and the topic has had run it's course. but noooooo. there is always that "one" person to take it to the next level

the fairy tale sleeping beauty is encouraging sexual assault, according to a worried mother, who would like to see the story removed from school lessons altogether. it would encourage her 6 year old son to kiss women without their permission.

call me a sexual predator for telling this story to my son, but as a matter of fact... no.

guess which bed time story i will tell my son this evening ;)

Edited by action
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prince looks a bit foreign? There is a Daily Mail joke in there if anyone can muster up the energy.

All I know is if this anti-sexual harassment hysteria becomes more legislative and spreads to supranational organisations like the UN or EU, the entire male populations of Spain and Italy would be locked-up and those countries' birthrates would plummet to naught.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, action said:

here was me thinking we had seen it all, and the topic has had run it's course. but noooooo. there is always that "one" person to take it to the next level

the fairy tale sleeping beauty is encouraging sexual assault, according to a worried mother, who would like to see the story removed from school lessons altogether. it would encourage her 6 year old son to kiss women without their permission.

call me a sexual predator for telling this story to my son, but as a matter of fact... no.

guess which bed time story i will tell my son this evening ;)

You sure thats not a wind up mate? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure that any hysteria is from men who fear that if they cant grope women then they are all out of ideas as to how to approach a women for sex.

Seems that having a Leader of the Free World who grabs women by the pussy has provoked a rehashing of tired old excuses to be placed on the lips of a bunch of previously oblivious men.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The prince looks a bit foreign? There is a Daily Mail joke in there if anyone can muster up the energy.

He's the leader of muslim grooming gang, corrupting white kids and teaching them about the old Muslamic custom of force, quick someone call Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

You sure thats not a wind up mate? :lol:

i'm not wound up by anything, if it wears clothes :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

alfred hitchcock.... what's in a name, eh

anyway, the facts are serious. he should get the death penalty. oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

She should have assumed the horizontal position and taken 'one for England' considering the man is an absolute genius. 

Is that how you would've responded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Matt Lauer just got canned from NBC after a sexual misconduct review.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Am I the only one that thinks that they were a little too quick to let him go? Obviously we don't know the extent of what happened, but still unless he admitted to it or unless there were witnesses it's a his word vs her word situation.... After hearing how Savanna reacted I feel like they should've suspended him and took more time to investigate...

I'm not saying we shouldn't believe the allegations, but anyone can say anything for to support their own vendetta....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liers said:

Am I the only one that thinks that they were a little too quick to let him go? Obviously we don't know the extent of what happened, but still unless he admitted to it or unless there were witnesses it's a his word vs her word situation.... After hearing how Savanna reacted I feel like they should've suspended him and took more time to investigate...

I'm not saying we shouldn't believe the allegations, but anyone can say anything for to support their own vendetta....

I just makes it seem clear that they saw irrefutable evidence that warranted his removal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying some of these women are lying, but it bothers me that people say something and automatically everyone believes them. Now it's Matt Lauer and he was fired even before a trial or any proof? What is going on?

It's going to be where some people will just say something happened just to ruin someone's life.

This shit has been going on for decades in every field that women are a part of and I'm sure it still goes on in everyday jobs that women are working in. It's not right and it does need  to change.

Parents need to show each other respect and teach their kids both girls and boys that respecting someone's rights as a person is very very important.

I doubt this will change anything for some people, but maybe some people will now think twice about disrespecting someone else's feelings and think before they say anything or act wrong towards another person.

Unfortunately, some parents are not teaching their kids these important rules.

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 6:04 PM, Oldest Goat said:

 

Oh yeah, He purposely did some horrible scenes in both The Birds and Marnie just to punish Tippi. No one said or did anything back then to help her. I'm sure if Alfred was alive today, he'd be punished for his shit too. And his wife didn't do anything to help these women either. She's guilty too.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×