TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Staring can land you in prison as police crackdown on 'unhealthy sexual behaviour'

rbrockway

May 1, 2022
291 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/staring-on-tube-unhealthy-sexual-behaviour/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Staring can land you in prison as police crackdown on 'unhealthy sexual behaviour'
Author

rbrockway

Upvotes 291
Comments 54
Date May 1, 2022 5:58 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ug5gcs/staring_can_land_you_in_prison_as_police/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/staring-can-land-you-in-prison-as-police-crackdown.1115956
https://theredarchive.com/post/1115956
Top posts by rbrockway

Unprovoked 'one punch' attacks are now subject to harsh penalties in Australia unless the perpetrator is a woman in which case she gets off with a small fine as usual.

3441 upvotes
February 3, 2019
/r/MensRights

Women treat each other worse at work then men treat women or women treat men.

3035 upvotes
February 24, 2018
/r/MensRights

Woman burned 13-year-old boy's genitals with hot tongs for refusing sex

2919 upvotes
November 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Woman committing sexual assault at “Women’s March” identified and arrested

2765 upvotes
February 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Boys left to fail at school because attempts to help them earn wrath of feminists, says ex-Ucas chief

2614 upvotes
January 28, 2019
/r/MensRights

School proposes punishing boys by taking away part of their recess on International Women's Day

2488 upvotes
May 17, 2019
/r/MensRights

United Nations research finally admits that 94% of children held in bondage around the world are boys.

2424 upvotes
November 23, 2019
/r/MensRights

Women-only STEM college programs under attack for male discrimination

2130 upvotes
August 22, 2019
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 113 points114 points115 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

of course the same punishment will be given to women if they stare at a man.

[–]Mother-Key582 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When I can teach my cat how to speak Pig Latin Japanese.

[–]KickedSharf798 33 points34 points35 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Multiplied by the specified victim mans height in meters

[–]Legion681 58 points59 points60 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Now looking at someone is a crime in England.

And somehow British police is also able to judge the intent a person has when they are looking at someone. They read minds too, I guess.

I can‘t fathom how they think that all this is even remotely normal. Wtf, England?!?!?

[–]_Xuixien_ 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Isn’t Britain where 2 men broke into a home and tried to kill someone’s mom with a knife, but her 14 year old son managed to get the knife and stabbed one of the intruders and the son got life in prison?

[–]Legion681 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don‘t know, but I wouldn‘t put it past them.

[–]resavr_bot 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A relevant comment in this thread was deleted. You can read it below.


The only thing different between the UK and other countries is that the laws to prosecute men for things like this are present in the UK and not in other countries.

If this happened in the US, you'd find that the response would be much the same in the UK, except with some more political baggage and talk of the 2nd amendment mixed in. [Continued...]


The username of the original author has been hidden for their own privacy. If you are the original author of this comment and want it removed, please [Send this PM]

[+]throwaway202108211 points 4 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

This law is clearly gendered

In a statement released at the start of the anti-harassment campaign, TfL said: "Sexual harassment is a form of violence, most often directed against women and girls in public places.
"The safety of women and girls is an absolute priority for TfL and this new campaign is one element of TfL's work to ensure everyone can travel with confidence.
"The campaign aims to challenge the normalisation and dismissal of this behaviour as "something that happens" to women and girls on public transport and in other public spaces, making it clear that it is never acceptable and that the strongest possible action will always be taken."

We can now brush aside claims that it isn't.

The second claim will be that even if the law exists, it's not like men are falsely accused of looking at a woman without reasonable concern.

That is also false.

[–]neolib-cowboy 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How is sexual harassment a form of violence? The Dictionary defines 'violence' as:

the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

Therefore, sexual harassement cannot be violence.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The "definition" of violence is now entirely gendered. Men don't experience it and if they do they deserve it. Upsetting a woman's feelings, however, requires violence be done to the nearest male regardless of guilt.

[–]WilliamFoss2008 85 points86 points87 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ask yourself: will they apply this policy to straight women?

If the answer is “no”, then it’s systematic discrimination and violence (yes, they are weaponizing state-sponsored violence).

[–]63daddy 62 points63 points64 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The policy is so ambiguous and subjective there’s no way to prove bias.

Interviewer. So this man and woman each claim the other was staring at them. Why did you determine he is guilty under the law, but she is not?

Police: Well, his gaze was staring and his had sexual intent. Her gaze was not staring and did not have sexual intent.

Interviewer: How do you know their intent?

Police: We are police. We know. Besides, the woman clearly stated his staring was driven by sexual thoughts.

Interviewer:. Why did you determine his gaze at her constitutes staring but her gaze at him did not?

Police: Because our training allows us to tell the difference.

Interviewer: Even though you personally didn’t witness the incident?

Police. Yes. Besides, more men are convicted of sexual harassment, therefore we know the man was the guilty one, so he’s arrested.

Interviewer: isn’t that circular reasoning and a self fulfilling prophecy?

Police: Next question.

Interviewer: It seems to me that there is no objective measure for what constitutes staring or how sexual intent is determined. Isn’t this prone to biased determinations?

Police: Determining what constitutes staring and sexual intent may be totally subjective but our determination is unbiased because, well, we say so. This interview is over.

[–]Whitified 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The more ambiguous a law, the more it benefits feminists

[–]Honorful 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Knew from the title it would be the UK

[–]BoTheJoV3 25 points26 points27 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I imagine a blind person will be sent to prison for this soon. The onion has become reality

[–]la_1099 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All men should be required to wear a blindfold out in public. There is too much risk an accidental staring can occur.

[–]UnconventionalXY 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Instead there will be accidental injuries and deaths versus offended subjective feelings.

This is no different than the UK call for a knee jerk night time curfew on men after Sarah Everard was raped and killed.

Women are responsible for their own subjective feelings, not objective physical harm. It's not the role of the justice system to ensure womens comfort through deterrence of normal activity by punishment.

I'm just waiting for women to object to anyone monitoring them via security cameras and then complaining when their safety suffers as if they didn't realise the consequence.

This action by women should result in consequence, else it will just continue and expand in scope as they feel more emboldened to unreasonably attack men over their own subjective feelings.

[–]63daddy 43 points44 points45 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

How long do I have to look at someone for it to be considered staring? Can short, glances be added together to constitute staring? If the continued looking is in the context of a conversation does it count as staring? If someone looks at another person to see if that person is staring, aren’t they then guilty of staring? If I say I identify as gay, doesn’t that mean that staring at a woman must be non sexual?

So many unanswered definitions…..

[–]OctaviaPinfold 25 points26 points27 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In one of the articles a woman claimed she "felt" a man's eyes on herself, so probably it doesn't matter, just like getting consent from women doesn't matter since even feminist lawyers argue they should be able to revoke it after the fact.

[–]delocalelectron 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

...after the fact???? Facts do not compute in oestrogenic brain circuitry.

[–]Banned_On_Facebook 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Facts are sexist!

[–]EngineeringDry6717 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're too smart to be part of this clown world.. GTFO now you alien!!

[–]neolib-cowboy 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter. You will have to pay a lawyer to figure that out in court. Good luck buddy! Fuck men! /s

[–]McFeely_Smackup 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Now from the country that brought you George Orwell's dystopian fiction, we present... George Orwell's dystopian reality

[–]ijustdontcare74 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Eyes down gentlemen.....no more interaction with ANY woman, unless they need something from us that is.

This is what they want, us permanently afraid and weak. Personally I will have nothing to do with women at all (yes I'm MGTOW). It might sound extreme, but so is this law, which could end my career, freedom and relationships. If a woman was on fire, I wouldn't piss on her to put it out. Sorry but you reap what you sow women. Good luck defending yourselves from here on out.

[–]Mother-Key582 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why the hell aren’t huge droves of men protesting this bullshit? How the fuck is it fair for a blind man to get arrested for “staring?” I just … I don’t understand. Even proof from a doctor isn’t enough? This shit needs to stop now. But nooooo. All the good looking white knights and simps most certainly aren’t helping because all they care about is getting laid and they are just extremely fucked up in the head. Like whoever actually approved of this “law.” If I lived in London, I would’ve already packed up and moved.

[–]Punder_man 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And in typical fashion you can bet that the moment a man comes forward to report a woman 'staring' at him he will be told that 'women are the true victims' or 'she was probably looking out the window and not actually staring at you' or any other excuse to protect a woman's right to accuse men of a crime but not hold women to the same standard.

Note to self.. the UK is spiraling down into a shit hole.. as such I have removed it from my list of places to travel to..

[–]Elderberrywino 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can imagine them saying how could you tell she was staring at you without looking at her? they will take your admission of looking as evidence

[–]rabel111 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So be warned. In a crowded subway or bus or que, where there is nothing else to see but walls of bodies, it's no longer enough to look at women above the neck line. Now it's necessary to avert your eyes completely! The narcissists leading the blind.

[+]SioBibblethe3rd1 points 4 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Guys guys guys. Just identify as a female when the cops show up. Problem solved.

[+]throwaway202108211 points 4 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Even if you are joking, that loophole to plead innocence has already been tied shut.

You would simply be accused of pretending to be a woman in order to get away with harassing women.

To add to that, there is a lot of moral panic about transwomen and accusations of transwomen (or even men that declare they are confused about their gender identity) preying on biological women in the UK (much like there is starting to be among the right wing in the US). It wouldn't work.

[–]ThaRedHoodie 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking at someone is now illegal. Neat.

[–]rbrockway[S] 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Detective Inspector Sarah White, who leads British Transport Police's sexual offences team, said her officers are receiving daily reports of people committing sexual offences including staring."

Repeat that sentence two or three times.

[–]the2xstandard 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Officer he was staring at me.

No I wasn't.

Believe all women.

Amber Heard.

[–]HesperianDragon 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look down

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxwJo9S-w3e0K3OLYISUGKm-OKRcSBzsy8

[–]StingRayFins 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Staring of a "sexual nature" could be anything... Wtf

Imagine having a flare or itch and staring past someone but they think you're staring at them sexually and bam you're a criminal.

Seriously we're becoming degenerates as a species.

[–]delocalelectron 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marty Feldman would have been screwed, then.

[–]Sinnaatraa 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

England is a pepega country im sorry, but at this point I think its funny😂 we measure things with rocks, we have a holiday about a man trying to burn down a building, our teeth starts falling out when we turn 30, dentist? Does Britain even have those? Ok im done yeah England is pretty fucked tbh with the woke culture and all that.

[–]EngineeringDry6717 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

UK guys.. wear sunglasses!!!!!

[–]delocalelectron 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So.... is 'healthy' sexual behaviour for men all about knowing our place, and exhibiting due deference in public..?

[–]delocalelectron 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

IMHO, it's more of an affront for male retinas to be assaulted each morning with hundreds of images of what can only be described as the female equivalent of 'Fat Bastard' from the Austin Powers movies... each and every one of them with the attitude of "Ah'm dead sexy!", and where the beauty filters on their phones must really struggle. An occupational hazard of using Transport for London.

[–]KickedSharf798 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If its my body my decision why can't I decide who I stare at I don't get the logic

[–]nanan00 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can we just pre-emptively nuke Europe to try to help save Humanity?

[–]Dry-Pianist1853 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eroupe invaded the world, got bored, then decided to invade themselves.

[–]CDewfus 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Ugh, why won't men look at me anymore?"

[+]fl0w3rg1rl31 points 4 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

tbh if ur staring at someone to the point where there visibly uncomfortable and in distress it’s probably a good time to stop and if u wish to continue knowing ur making someone uncomfortable that’s where the problem lies

[–]ijustdontcare74 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So what about the old karen bitch who stares you down because you won't give up your seat on a bus? Should she be arrested for making me feel "uncomfortable" because I won't bow down to her demands for my seat?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Making someone uncomfortable is a crime ?

[–]Punder_man 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And whom is it that decides that someone was 'starting'
What if i'm on a bus and I am looking out the window but a woman turns around, happens to be in my line of sight and assumes that i'm 'staring' at her?

Or do you believe that men should keep their eye's cast to the floor and not meet the gaze of their betters (women)?
How many times have I sat on a train and zoned out looking out the window opposite me in a trance / meditation?

And now if I do I run the risk of being arrested for 'staring'

Finally, when did we make laws on the basis of the feelings / comfort of women?
Will men be able to report women for 'staring'? (I suspect not)
I thought the point of equality was to repeal and remove gender based discrimination.. not increase it.

[+]DirtyPartyMan -21 points-20 points-19 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

In Singapore it’s 3 seconds. Has been for decades. No one has an issue. It’s simply unfortunate some individuals lack the awareness to control themselves

[–]Staartdier 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If an individual lacks the awareness to control themselves (maybe due to autism) should their behavior be criminalized?

[–]DirtyPartyMan 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s when sensitivity and awareness comes in.

Elderly wear medical bracelets for emergency professionals for quick identification.

I wonder if those with diagnosed Autism (or anything more severe on the spectrum) wouldn’t mind wearing a similar identifier?

As for my downvotes….I don’t care. Just tells me 19 morons clicked before thinking.

[–]PabloNovelGuy 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think I must be a terrible criminal in their view. And I would have stared again, and I will stare again, I don't care about the opinions of people who act like devils would be expected to act.

[–]nacho-chonky 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The UK is becoming an authoritarian little island, to bad people in my country fetishize how the UK functions so we are also being authoritarian

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter