what's up with all these sex scandals?

[DieselDaisy]

Stop arguing and listen to this,

 

[action]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Stop arguing and listen to this,

 

as much of a Queen fan as i am, i'll let this one pass me by.

a horrible piece of music. a little spot in an incredibly back catalogue.

i do love the video for being a post 86 "stage" performance

[Ace Nova]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What has talking to a woman got to do with sexual harassment? Only people who don't know the difference would be worried about this slippery slope.

Oh I know...that's the point.  It's getting so bad now that soon almost anything could be regarded as harassment...even someone just hitting on someone else at a bar or a night club. 

[Ace Nova]

2 hours ago, Tori72 said:

I really don't get why you think you were not being passive aggressive? You must be kidding me. I was explaining from a woman's pov what sexism feels like. And I said that every woman I know experienced it.

What do you do? You come up with a reply telling me of a girl who told you she got scared of someone but then nothing happened. What does it even have to do with what I said? I had to be assuming you wanted to take the piss of my post, right? Sexism is not about being frightend without a reason as maybe this girl was. Sexism happens every day, how else do you explain yourself that every woman experiences it? How do you explain yourself the high number of rapes.

Ah yes, some of you guys here choose to not believe the statistics or anything that has been inestigated.

Most of the posters here even don't believe the statistics that every 5th women has been raped. That is just devestating. The numbers are very similar in my country too, by the way. You simply choose to not believe! I honestly can't get over that attitude. Some posters here made wild speculations on why women would do such a thing. Even though there are also well known examinations and the fact is that only 2 or 3 % of rape reports are fake. That leaves you with a fast 98% of true reports. You seem to not understand how misogynist it is to not believe someone when she - or he - has been raped. And you probably don't care.

So in a thread like this I posted what I posted and talked quite earnestly and get an answer to ridicule what I said. Yeah right, I just don't owe you anything in explanation why I think this is passive aggressive. Here I gave it to you anyway because I'm nice. You're welcome.

 

Every 5th woman has not been raped.  It was debunked here.  Some odd ball group came up with that number and included women that felt they were "harassed" and morning after regrets by college kids. 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

50 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

He was literally saying that they aren't the same. But that sensationalist thinking may lead to it be considered as such.

I have seen nothing of that sensationalist thinking. Nowhere have I read anyone argue that men shouldn't be allowed to talk to women unless they have a written permission first. I find the idea absurd and an attempt at derailing a serious topic. This is not about men not being allowed to talk to women, which KK says he fears will be the outcome, but men not being allowed to objectify and demean women. 

[Tori72]

7 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Every 5th woman has not been raped.  It was debunked here.  Some odd ball group came up with that number and included women that felt they were "harassed" and morning after regrets by college kids. 

 

You're horribly wrong, man.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

 

 

Just a short google research for you. The information is all there. 

 

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Oh I know...that's the point.  It's getting so bad now that soon almost anything could be regarded as harassment...even someone just hitting on someone else at a bar or a night club. 

But is it really or is this just a red herring you throw into the discussion? Has anyone actually been sentenced for just talking to a woman? I don't think so, so why bring it up now? As far as I have read, everybody who is getting flak for harassing women now in the media has actually used their position of power to exert control over women and force them to do something they didn't want to do, or has gone after minors. So we are talking about sexual harassment and pedophiles, what on earth has any of this got to do with merely talking to women? Maybe I have missed something?

To me, what you did, and what I see many male chauvinists do (and I don't think you are, you have probably just seen a bit too much Fox News again), is that they feel the seat is burning under them so they try to make this into something it isn't: Society trying to prevent them from normal interactions with women. But it isn't. It actually is about society trying to make them behave without objectifying, degrading, abusing, and forcing women to do things they won't. Privileged men who are used to getting what they want and treat women as things. Men in power who take what they want because they have learned that they can. Men with limited social abilities so they catcall and demean, rather than talk with respect. That's what this discussion is about. Not men having to send formal inquiries to women before engaging them in discussions.

[Nicklord]

14 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Well, there's a police report from the time so I assume something did happen. I don't know though.

I'm a big fan of Louis CK so that's more difficult to believe/disappointing.

Why is it hard to belive for Louis CK? The thing he did is so in line with his persona it's almost like it's one of his bits

Edited November 22, 2017 by Nicklord

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

Why is it hard to belive for Louis CK? The thing he did is so in line with his persona it's almost like it's one of his bits

I dunno, I have always thought Louis CK was a kind man who wouldn't abuse anyone.

[Nicklord]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I dunno, I have always thought Louis CK was a kind man who wouldn't abuse anyone.

But that's the thing, he didn't abuse anyone. He was/is a dirty pervert who asked people to watch him masturbate.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

But that's the thing, he didn't abuse anyone. He was/is a dirty pervert who asked people to watch him masturbate.

To use one's power over women to make them do things they don't want to do, I suppose can be called a form of abuse? But let's not get into semantics here. What he did was wrong. 

[SoulMonster]

Here it is in Louis CK's own words:

At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

Hopefully he isn't just saying what he things people want to hear, but has actually wised up. And hopefully others who don't really understand why what he did was wrong, will also come to the same revelation, before they do something they will end up regretting.

[Ace Nova]

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have seen nothing of that sensationalist thinking. Nowhere have I read anyone argue that men shouldn't be allowed to talk to women unless they have a written permission first. I find the idea absurd and an attempt at derailing a serious topic. This is not about men not being allowed to talk to women, which KK says he fears will be the outcome, but men not being allowed to objectify and demean women. 

I said that's the direction it's potentially  headed and it was (hopefully) an exaggeration and slight sarcasm.  No one is derailing anything.  If you can't handle a different opinion (with slight sarcasm)  then maybe it's  time you stop posting on international  forums and just go hang out with some of your socialist Norwegian buddies with similar views and sense of humor as yours.  

You attack just about everything I say here and half the time you don't even understand what I'm saying.  For someone who is apparently intelligent, you come across as angry and bitter...and you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. 

 

[Ace Nova]

51 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But is it really or is this just a red herring you throw into the discussion? Has anyone actually been sentenced for just talking to a woman? I don't think so, so why bring it up now? As far as I have read, everybody who is getting flak for harassing women now in the media has actually used their position of power to exert control over women and force them to do something they didn't want to do, or has gone after minors. So we are talking about sexual harassment and pedophiles, what on earth has any of this got to do with merely talking to women? Maybe I have missed something?

To me, what you did, and what I see many male chauvinists do (and I don't think you are, you have probably just seen a bit too much Fox News again), is that they feel the seat is burning under them so they try to make this into something it isn't: Society trying to prevent them from normal interactions with women. But it isn't. It actually is about society trying to make them behave without objectifying, degrading, abusing, and forcing women to do things they won't. Privileged men who are used to getting what they want and treat women as things. Men in power who take what they want because they have learned that they can. Men with limited social abilities so they catcall and demean, rather than talk with respect. That's what this discussion is about. Not men having to send formal inquiries to women before engaging them in discussions.

It was an exaggeration man. Slight sarcasm.  Just to point out the direction it's potentially headed.  And to show that some women are buying into victimization syndrome...when they should be doing the opposite and empowering themselves.  That's all.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I said that's the direction it's potentially  headed and

No, making it unacceptable to sexually harass women is not heading in the direction of making it impossible for men to talk to women. These are two clearly different things. If you think otherwise then I think you are doing it wrong. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

 And to show that some women are buying into victimization syndrome...

Sure, there will always be someone exploiting the change in the direction of the wind. But we will only be distracted by such attempts -- and derailed from the more important discussion about sexual harassment -- if we give it attention.

[Ace Nova]

3 hours ago, Tori72 said:

You're horribly wrong, man.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

 

 

Just a short google research for you. The information is all there. 

 

No, (fortunately) you are wrong. This is from the site you posted:

 

"As of 1998, an estimated 17.7 million American women had been victims of attempted or completed rape."

 

For starters, 17.7 million women is not 1 out of 5....closer to 1 out of 10.

Secondly...attempted rape is a broad term and could even mean a strong sexual advance by someone.  So when they include "attempted rape" in those numbers, it's not rape...sorry.

That was from the sources you posted.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Kasanova King

[soon]

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.  

[KiraMPD]

Maybe this discussion would be a tad more helpful if people on both sides of the argument defined what defines sexual harassment to them?

To me it is when an individual repeatedly displayed behavior of a sexual nature designed to intimidated, degraded or humiliated (despite being clearly told to cut it out) and thus creates a hostile environment. 

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, KiraMPD said:

Maybe this discussion would be a tad more helpful if people on both sides of the argument defined what defines sexual harassment to them?

To me it is when an individual repeatedly displayed behavior of a sexual nature designed to intimidated, degraded or humiliated (despite being clearly told to cut it out) and thus creates a hostile environment. 

Why could it not be just the ones?  Its still harassment innit, just not prolonged harassment.  I'm not arguing your point necessarily, just interesting to see folks perspective, especially since you're a chick...uh bird...uh woman...uh lady

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Sure, there will always be someone exploiting the change in the direction of the wind. But we will only be distracted by such attempts -- and derailed from the more important discussion about sexual harassment -- if we give it attention.

Did you know that for it to have to be considered harassment (by most establishments) it has to be an unwanted advance, the person needs to tell the other person to stop and it has to happen more than once?

I've seen some quotes such as " It took me 20 years to realize what happened in that one situation back then was harassment". It's quotes like this that are troublesome.   For starters, people will feel uncomfortable and their "gut/conscious" will tell them something is wrong when they are being harassed.  It doesn't take 20 years and sensationalism to realize you were harrassed...sorry. if you were ok with it back then and for the past 20 years...it means you most likely weren't harrassed.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, KiraMPD said:

Maybe this discussion would be a tad more helpful if people on both sides of the argument defined what defines sexual harassment to them?

To me it is when an individual repeatedly displayed behavior of a sexual nature designed to intimidated, degraded or humiliated (despite being clearly told to cut it out) and thus creates a hostile environment. 

I also don't think it has to be repeated. Grabbing someone by the pussy is sexual harassment from the first time it happens.

And consent doesn't work in those cases where people in positions of power ask for consent and where it is understood that a 'no' will have severe repercussions. That's how Weinstein worked. If he even asked for consent it was understood more as a threat, you either go along or you can wave your career away. That is abuse of power and you put people in terrible positions they shouldn't be put in. It might not strictly speaking be 'harassment', though.

Consent also, of course, doesn't fit when people grope sleeping girls on helicopter tours, to use a current example, but I am sure that was not what you meant.

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I also don't think it has to be repeated. Grabbing someone by the pussy is sexual harassment from the first time it happens.

 

Wrong. 

In assuming you're referring to what Trump said.  His full quote was something like "I like to kiss women and then grab them by the pussy".

Meaning that if he's kissing a woman and it's consensual then he "grabs" them and it's also consensual, then it's not harassment.

I'm not saying what Trump did was or was not harassment because we don't know the facts.  I'm saying your statement that grabbing someone by the pussy the first time is always harrasment...because it's not if it's consensual.

Also, I don't think you understand what sexual harassment is.  If someone just randomly grabs a woman by the "pussy", and it's not consensual, that is not harrassment....that's full blown sexual assault. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Wrong. 

In assuming you're referring to what Trump said.  His full quote was something like "I like to kiss women and then grab them by the pussy".

Meaning that if he's kissing a woman and it's consensual then he "grabs" them and it's also consensual, then it's not harassment.

I'm not saying what Trump did was or was not harassment because we don't know the facts.  I'm saying your statement that grabbing someone by the pussy the first time is always harrasment...because it's not if it's consensual.

Also, I don't think you understand what sexual harassment is.  If someone just randomly grabs a woman by the pussy, and it's not consensual, that is not harrassment....that's full blown sexual assault. 

Obviously I was not talking about when it is with consent  

As I said, I won't go into semantics here. If you do something that is wrong, it is wrong from the first time. 

[KiraMPD]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Why could it not be just the ones?  Its still harassment innit, just not prolonged harassment. 

When I say "repeatedly" it doesn't mean that it has to be at sepperate occasions. For example; if someone comes up to you and starts making lewd/teasing remarks but you're not into it - so you ignore it and hope they take a hint. They continue to do it, then you might think "okay, they think they're being real funny" - so you confront them and make it clear that this is not on, cut it out. If they still presist then they're being an asshole and the situation slides into harassment territory. 

I feel like some benefit of doubt should be given as there are too many idiots about that mouthoff without a second thought.

 

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

especially since you're a chick...uh bird...uh woman...uh lady

Sir, that is sexist!