Fitness instructor posts rant about sexual harassment

[–]Bestoftherest222 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Yes I post countless pictures online of myself nearly nude and in provocative positions

I think you're seeing what you want to see there. Of the 4 photos on the "Images" section of her website 2 are her showing off her arm and shoulder muscles; 1 is her in a press-up position and 1 is an upper-body shot of her looking at the camera wearing a normal sports bra/top.

Bear in mind that she's a fitness instructor. Sure in some circumstances women might dress in a similar amount of clothing to show off and to attract attention, but those clothes are just her work uniform, it's standard gym-wear for women and performance wear for female athletes. Moreover her body is her way of selling her business, she looks fit and strong and part of selling her business is essentially to say "You can be fit and strong like me". That's exactly what a male personal trainer would do by showing off his physique.

What I think comes over (and in similar articles) is women's confusion at why anyone would think that the kind of interaction she is describing is positive for anyone involved. Woman exercising in the park is approached my random man who immediately starts describing what he'd like to do to her. Honestly, how is that likely to play out? Who benefits from that interaction? Not her, obviously. What's the benefit for him, since he's likely to be rebuffed, does he simply enjoy sharing his sexual thoughts with strangers?

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Hi! It's me — we have been happily sparing elsewhere in this conversation. Nice to hear from you again.

It's instagram. Selfies are about 90% of it for most people.

One minute you are claiming she only has few pixs on her website ("Of the 4 photos on the "Images" section of her website 2 are her showing off her arm and shoulder muscles..."); next minute you are trying to defend the hundreds and hundreds of pixs on her Instagram.

Instagram is stuffed full of girls and women posting hot pixs of themselves in various stages of undress. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not kid ourselves why they do it eh?

Again none of this is relevant. It's her blog and she's talking about being approached in public.

As I posted elsewhere — from the mouth of a leading feminist! LOL:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/20/feminista-who-urged-an-end-to-wolf-whistles-now-moans-shes-too-old-to-get-them/

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

One minute you are claiming she only has few pixs on her website ("Of the 4 photos on the "Images" section of her website 2 are her showing off her arm and shoulder muscles..."); next minute you are trying to defend the hundreds and hundreds of pixs on her Instagram.

Why would the quantity of pictures need defending particularly? I wasn't saying that she'd only ever posted 4 pictures online; I was using them as a sample to illustrate that they're mostly fitness oriented. Lots of people post lots of pictures of themselves for various reasons. Wanting attention for a business-oriented social media page is not the same as inviting sexual comments on the street from strangers.

Instagram is stuffed full of girls and women posting hot pixs of themselves in various stages of undress. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not kid ourselves why they do it eh?

Various reasons I should imagine, but I think that this one is doing so because she's a fitness instructor whose revenue stream is improved by showing that she's fit.

We're going round in circles here and I'm just making the same rebuttals because you're making the same points. I've already responded to the Jessica Valenti article. So I won't bother posting again unless you have something genuinely new to add.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Why would the quantity of pictures need defending particularly?

Well, you were using the "evidence" that there were just a few pixs on her blog as proof she was not an "attention-whore" (your words, not mine); and yet here she is on Instagram posting 100's of pixs.

So I guess the 100's of Instagram posts need defending now eh?

I've already responded to the Jessica Valenti article.

Indeed, but your reasoning was weak indeed. It's such a crushing example of crazy feminist nutcase "logic"; it's impossible not to just guffaw with laugher at how pathetic Ms. Valenti is.

This "fitness" instructor (is she really that?) is deluded. She is clearly extremely focused on her body image; makes silly excuses as to why she just "has" to wear tight, revealing, skimpy gym gear everywhere; and then starts whining when a few (pathetic) men start trying to chat her up.

And she has been studying hard to pass her "How to be a good feminist victim" exams. She spouts all the usual buzzwords & phrases:

"... I have been a victim"

"...my safe zone."

"...men should respect me"

"...I feel the most empowered."

"...the glares and by the entitlement."

"We deserve to feel sexy in our own skin without feeling like we're here to bait you."

"We deserve to be judged on our merits, not our outfits"

"What do we deserve? More."

This comment on the article says it all:

"Hey, I'm a silly, narcissistic twat. My life is so easy, I need to manufacture a grievance that gives me the attention that I crave around how attractive I am. I'm a silly shit-for-brains-twat who wants to run around almost naked and then turn into a sanctimonious shrew for getting the attention I crave. I have major mental issues, so I post sexy pics of myself on my website but am angry that I'm being sexually objectified while I'm displaying myself in sexy outfits and poses. Because I'm a shallow, vacuous twat, I want to feel important by stamping my feet and making silly demands. This makes me feel smart and sophisticated and I love all the positive attention I get from other silly twats who cheer me on with "you go, girl." I'm just a dumb cunt. Stay tuned for more sexy pics of me to jerk-off to."

People — both men and women — suffer in our society. Really suffer. They are knifed, shot, strangled, raped, robbed, assaulted and murdered. The live in poverty. They suffer great injustices at the hands of the government and the courts. And people around the world are starving, have no healthcare, dying in wars and are imprisoned by evil dictators.

And in many parts of the world, women are forced to wear bags over their heads and submit totally to the rule of men.

But let's not worry about that eh? Oh no, let's get wet over some silly female bleating that men are "glaring" at her; even though she wishes, oh so strongly, that she'd really like to wear some baggy clothes, but sadly, that's just not possible.

Pass the sick bag.

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, you were using the "evidence" that there were just a few pixs on her blog as proof she was not an "attention-whore" (your words, not mine);

No, I was using the nature of the pictures to indicate that she is drawing attention to her fitness, not her tits and ass.

and yet here she is on Instagram posting 100's of pixs. So I guess the 100's of Instagram posts need defending now eh?

Not really, it's part of her business. Wanting attention for her instagram page is not the same as inviting sexual comments from strangers on the street (I'm getting really tired of writing that).

The rest of your post is just crap. If you're not prepared to take her word that it makes her uncomfortable and think that she's just a dumb cunt then you've nailed your colours to the mast in terms of the level of argument you're presenting. Thanks for the chat anyway.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Translation: it hit the spot and I can't find an arguement against it.

I'm not sure why I'd need an argument since what your saying doesn't qualify as an argument to be countered. I've already rebutted what points you have made and the rest is just crude abuse (crap).

Translation: I must "Believe the Victim" regardless of the evidence right in front of my eyes.

So you don't believe that she has experienced what she claims and that it makes her uncomfortable and/or fearful? I guess there's nothing I can do on that front other than point out that you've not provided any coherent reason for your dismissal. You've totally failed to address my point that posting things on her professional website is not the same as inviting sexual comments from strangers on the street, despite the fact that I've now written that several times.

The bits you've added about false rape claims and the greater privations of other women are just ways for you to justify not taking her at her word. Why you're not prepared to do so I can only speculate, but I'm getting the impression that your reasons aren't exactly sound, since there's no other reason to bring these "points" into the thread.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thanks for the chat anyway.

Oh you're back? You missed me eh? 😎

I'm not sure why I'd need an argument... and the rest is just crude abuse (crap).

Translation (again): it hit the spot and I can't find an arguement against it.

So you don't believe that she has experienced what she claims and that it makes her uncomfortable and/or fearful?

Nope. I think it's all an act to play the "victim" and draw attention to herself. It's a well-recognised psychological condition in people with weak self-identity.

Do those events she describes actually happen? Yes, it's possible. But she may be making some of them up; and she does not list any interactions from attractive men & women that made her feel good; and if all the interactions stopped (including even the "bad" ones) she would start to get upset, just like the daft feminist Ms Valenti.

It's just self-evident, that for a young, attractive girl to dress-up in skimpy, tight gym clothing, and then wander around posing sexually in the streets, parks and gyms, and then complain she is a "victim" in a long, moaning blog post, because occasionally a man pays her some unwelcome attention, is evidence of her being bit nutty.

Exhibit A

You've totally failed to address my point that posting things on her professional website is not the same as inviting sexual comments from strangers on the street,

I'm not "complaining" about her posting hot pixs of herself on her "professional" (LOL!) website. She can do that all day as long as I care —I'm sure lots of guys & girls masturbate to them, and she knows that; so what? Who cares? Go right ahead — her and 10 million other girls showing-off their attractive young bodies.

The "point" is, that her endless postings on her Instagram account clearly shows she has a very high dose of narcissism to say the least; and that she has no problem shall we say, in enjoying exhibiting her tight, youthful, fertile body to all and sundry in public. Great, go right ahead. It's a free country. She's hot. It's should be obligatory for young girls to show off their bodies in public 😜

Do you really think she does not enjoy all the men (and women) looking at her in public as she does her "stretching" in the park?

Do you think she hates it when a man jogs past her and then turns around to look at her ass?

Do you think that she never sees a hot guy down the gym, or on the street, and wishes he would come and demonstrate his "entitlement" to her by daring to open his mouth and attempting to get her to agree to allow him to put his penis inside her vaginal canal for a quick spot of sexual intercourse and (possible) reproduction?

Of course, as we have seen from the "Be Attractive; Don't be Unattractive" video; if the guy is fit and hot (and maybe just stepped-out of his new Porsche) then the vile "harassment" is welcome.

Be handsome, Be attractive, Don't be unattractive

But if the guy is black or latino and/or from a poor neighbourhood, then she is "belittled" and needs to call the PC police

Do you honestly not think that a large part of her whole "performance" is precisely because she wants to "bait" (her word) a high-value mating partner? Paging Mr Charles Darwin, paging Mr Charles Darwin...

So you claim that: "...posting things on her professional website is not the same as inviting sexual comments from strangers on the street"

But that's to claim that we cannot deduce and make reasonable theories about why someone behaves in the way they do. The postings on her "professional" (LOL, again) website and Instagram, show us precisely that she wishes to be admired and desired for her physical aspects (there are many 100% objectifying headless pixs of her); and to claim that somehow she wants men to magically turn their sexual desire for her on-and-off, subject to her unknowable whims, is just daffy.

The bits you've added about false rape claims and the greater privations of other women are just ways for you to justify not taking her at her word.

Nope. I don't "take her at her word" because I have enough experience of life to see that humans are wonderful, complex, contradictory, divergent and silly creatures. Females, males and intersex — all of us. I will look at the whole picture of someone to come to conclusions about their behaviours and motivations. And I'm afraid, that over the years, I pay less and less attention to people's "words" and far more to their actions.

Just to believe people blindly is folly in the extreme. Take a look at this rape accusation — would you have just "believed" this women and "taken her at her word" and ignored the CCTV evidence?

The non-existent "rape" was on CCTV; but this man was still prosecuted

The sad truth is, that the female actress who made this evil false-rape allegation is just one step further down the rabbit-hole than Ms Erin Bailey.

[–]SimCity8000 -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]unpicked-username 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

As usual, girl gets a few douchebags being douchebags towards her when trying to pick her up. Immediately declares that all men are the problem rather than realising it's just a few douchebags that are making her miserable.

You know what I do if people try to pick on me now or try anything? I don't get upset or flip out, I simply observe, 9 times out of 10 when you're being picked on as a lone target and very often these douchebags anyone encounters only ever hang out in one group or by themselves and are very much in the minority. They go after people they think are weak and vulnerable.

I'm willing to bet she lives in a shitty area or works out in a shitty area. As Christina Hoff Sommers observed when that idiot girl in New York or wherever tried to paint men as sexual harassers Christina noted that she was walking through predominantly working class areas. It's down to the upbringing men have and lifestyle as opposed to whether they have a penis or not but as usual these idiots refuse to make the distinction.

[–]Aprilisse4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]civilsaint 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

On the one hand, I see how this would be annoying. I would be annoyed if I was working out and people made me take off my headphones to flirt with me.

On the other hand, it is completely naive to think that dress doesn't invite attention. If you don't want people to comment on your looks, why wear makeup? Why expose your stomach?

I agree that women shouldn't have to do this in a perfect world, but there are the few jerks that interfere with this ideal.

But it's not just women. When I lived in England, I didn't have a car, so I biked 20+ miles a day, and my ass looked great. There were certain pants that I would wear out that I knew I would get cat calls from women and even my ass slapped or grabbed maybe 5 times a night at the club.

When I wore those pants, I expected it to happen. If I felt more reclusive that night, I would wear other pants. It wasn't really that difficult. I would've never thought to complain about it, because I knew it was a compliment, and a sort of 'first world problem' that many wish they had.

This is also solved by choosing other places to exercise. The last city I lived in had path with so many people exercising that you didn't have time to look at all the nice butts. If you absolutely need to wear skimpy clothes, go to a place like that. Again, another easy solution.

[–]SimCity8000 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aprilisse 9 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

You don't see people who dress flamboyantly or with tattoos, body piercings, rainbow colored hair as 'inviting attention'? Have you ever talked to these people? I'm pretty sure they get comments all of the time about their appearance, sometimes quite negative, and yes, by choosing to appear that way they invite people to comment. It's a consequence of standing out from the crowd, and since they are choosing to do so with their appearance, they need to learn to deal with it.

Attractive people get attention because they too stand out from the crowd. The more attractive your body is, the more the kind of clothes you wear (or don't) affect people. Kim Kardashian wearing a bikini tends to have a different effect than if Ellen Degeneres does.

Can you really tell me if a guy decides to wear work out clothes like this (and looking the way he does), he should be free from female comments about his body? https://framedcouture.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/pietro-boselli-by-daniel-jaems-for-attitude-magazine-10.jpg

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aprilisse 9 years ago [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of women who do like to get attention and will specifically wear outfits like that to invite attention. Hence men will have no idea which women want that kind of attention and which do not. But hey, how about starting a clothes company that says "Don't pay attention to me!!!" so that those women can make it clear.

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aprilisse 9 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

That would imply women tend to make the first move, which they don't. A lot of women prefer to act uncaring to see if the guy is interested in her, therefore making him make the first move.

And doesn't eye contact and a smile from the girl predicate on the man having at least stared at her first? Isn't staring part of the creepy behavior list? Who are women to say 'Thou shalt not look upon me or speak to me unless I first indicate that it is ok.' Can you possibly imagine how it might feel as a woman if men had this social policy about us?

Here's what the wonderful Karen Straughan said about this in an interview:

Greg Scorzo: What if we could modify that rebuttal like this: “If the woman wears something that arouses the man in public, the man has to go into default mode. Default mode is the assumption that the woman wants to be seen asexually. It’s only if the woman tells the man that she wants to be seen by him in a sexual light that he can then express his sexual attraction to her. So as a man, you start off assuming the woman doesn’t want to be objectified, wait until you get a signal from the woman that she does, and then you can tell her she looks hot.” Is that modification still problematic for you?

Karen Straughan: Yes. That’s like saying men should avert their eyes from their social betters. In any sexual encounter that happens in public, somebody has to make the first move. What that paradigm suggests is it should never be the man who makes the first real gesture that is an indication of sexual interest. He must wait until the woman tells him, “I’m interested in you.” However, if expressing sexual interest in someone without their consent is harrassment, then the woman saying, “I’m interested in you” is also guilty of harrassment. But that’s if we’re consistent.

Greg Scorzo: So if we’re consistent, no one can make the first move.

Karen Straughan: Yes and we aren’t consistent. Women can make the first move but only because we’ve defined harrassment differently for men and for women.

We have an attitude that requires that men shall not speak until they are spoken to by women. It’s like women are socially superior to men. That’s what all this kind of thinking amounts to. A woman can give a definite signal of sexual interest that a man can reciprocate while its simultaneously not ok for a man to give a signal of sexual interest that a woman can reciprocate. Men are not allowed to show any interest whatsoever while women are allowed free reign to show whatever interest they want in men.

http://www.cultureontheoffensive.com/gender-politics-on-the-offensive-karen-straughan-part-3/

[–]Aprilisse2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aprilisse 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I'll await the blog post next year about how men need to stop making eye contact with women when they are working out, or just on the street, or in general.

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aprilisse2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aprilisse 9 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Actually that's not a social rule, because the majority of people think someone commenting on them, particularly in a positive way, isn't a big deal.

Welcome to the world of post sexual revolution where people do indeed think that sex is something everyone wants frequently and possibly with strangers, and complimenting people in a sexual way is a part of that. With many guys (cough: guys less attractive than the woman), it's not so effective, but I really don't think you can tell me that you would be offended if your male celebrity crush told you in passing "you have the finest body I've ever seen."

Truth be told, I as a woman do not see it as a big deal at all to tell a guy I find attractive in passing, "I like your body". I tell a woman I like her outfit when she wears clothes or accessories that I would want for myself. People speak up when they think a person would enjoy hearing what they have to say. In some communities, men complimenting a woman sexually is seen as positive by the women in that community, hence it is effective. In an increasingly sexual culture, where actual relationships are dying and DTF and FWB are more the norm, why would it be surprising when people just want to jump straight to the sexual proposal?

[–]flimflam_machine -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Actually that's not a social rule, because the majority of people think someone commenting on them, particularly in a positive way, isn't a big deal.

I agree "don't positively comment on someone" is not a social rule, but that's not what I said. The social rule that I described was "don't immediately make sexual comments to strangers" i.e., don't make a sexual proposition your opening gambit.

Welcome to the world of post sexual revolution where people do indeed think that sex is something everyone wants frequently and possibly with strangers, and complimenting people in a sexual way is a part of that.

And that's fine, but there are specific forums for that. If you want to have sex with strangers head to Tinder/Grindr. The assertion made in this blog post (and the thousands of similar posts) is that the street/park/workplace/gym in the middle of an everyday activity is not one of those forums. That's not to say that you can't end up having sex with someone who you meet there, but you can't simply approach a stranger there and say "Nice ass! Wanna fuck?!"

Speculatively I'd also add that the failure of people to appreciate this distinction could be a reason why some women expand the definition of harrassment to include behaviour that might not be quite so offensive. Perhaps to them it's worth losing some positive interactions to get rid of the really obviously negative ones.

I really don't think you can tell me that you would be offended if your male celebrity crush told you in passing "you have the finest body I've ever seen."

We'll I'd initially assume that he's lying because I'd be really surprised if Chris Pratt would go gay for me.

[+]Aprilisse 9 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Most people don't group the street/park/gym with the workplace. The workplace has specific rules about sexual interaction and flirting between people. Most places specifically discourage workplace relationships. As a society we agree that going to work isn't a choice nor is it a place for regular social interactions. Largely, work is supposed to be about work, hence you'll be punished if your break chatting with friends goes on for too long or you're dressed inappropriately. Everywhere else, but particularly the street/park/gym, are places where people choose to be, and frequently as a way to interact with other people. Most people would not agree that at a gym, you should just work out; in the street, you should just walk; at the park you should just... picnic?

you can't simply approach a stranger there and say "Nice ass! Wanna fuck?!"

Yes, you can do exactly that because they are free public spaces. If certain gyms want to start a policy against flirting, that's perfectly fine, I'm sure they could draw in a lot of customers. But some cultures really do have this frank approach as a standard way for men and women to interact. It's no one's business to tell them that they shouldn't.

Sorry, I still think the vast majority of women would respond positively to Ryan Reynolds coming up to them and starting out with , "I would really, really like to fuck you."

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Most people don't group the street/park/gym with the workplace. The workplace has specific rules about sexual interaction and flirting between people. Most places specifically discourage workplace relationships. As a society we agree that going to work isn't a choice nor is it a place for regular social interactions.

True, workplaces have additional rules on top of normal social mores.

Everywhere else, but particularly the street/park/gym, are places where people choose to be, and frequently as a way to interact with other people.

True, and people should be able to interact, but that doesn't make the case for explicit sexual comments to strangers being acceptable.

you can't simply approach a stranger there and say "Nice ass! Wanna fuck?!"

Yes, you can do exactly that because they are free public spaces.

Apologies, allow me to clarify. You shouldn't. Nobody benefits and it makes the vast majority of people feel uncomfortable, especially if their initial rebuffal is not respected.

But some cultures really do have this frank approach as a standard way for men and women to interact. It's no one's business to tell them that they shouldn't.

Is Boston (in the park in the middle of the day) one of those places? I don't think so, but even if it is then Erin Bailey is well within her rights to say that she thinks it's wrong.

Sorry, I still think the vast majority of women would respond positively to Ryan Reynolds coming up to them and starting out with , "I would really, really like to fuck you."

Maybe. I understand this argument: essentially you're saying that the content of the interaction is fine, it just the quality of the interlocutors that creates or negates the problem, therefore it should be fine for everyone. But I think the actual take-home is that attractive people can get away with shitty behaviour. That doesn't mean that the behaviour is not shitty, it just means that women have double standards (just as I'm sure men would in a similar situation). What I don't accept is that those double standards are any reason for us to normalise shitty, anti-social behaviour (two wrongs and all that). Ask yourself two questions:

Do you think she'd rather Ryan Reynolds approached her with "I would really, really like to fuck you." or "Hey, you're smashing those pull-ups. I'm Ryan, can I take you for a drink after we're both finished working out?" and saved the talk about fucking for later?
Do you think that she finds the current situation of receiving uninvited, sexually explicit propositions from strangers on a daily basis acceptable because, one day, one of those strangers might be Ryan Reynolds?

[–]Aprilisse2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"You shouldn't. Nobody benefits and it makes the vast majority of people feel uncomfortable, especially if their initial rebuffal is not respected."

I'm sorry to tell you this but you do not speak for the whole of humanity. People have always been sexual with each other, it is our most basic interaction and drive in life. It happened in strict Victorian times therefore it will certainly happen in a post sexual revolution world. You don't get to have sexual freedom with Victorian rules about speaking about it.

But I think the actual take-home is that attractive people can get away with shitty behaviour.

Yes and no. Yes, attractive people can get away with any kind of behavior because they simply need to present themselves to be successful. On the other hand, this again comes down to whether making a sexual comment is always an example of 'shitty behavior'. Most women and men will see it as a positive to be complimented on their sexual attractiveness by a very attractive person. Again, this would come from a deep evolutionary reaction that a mate of high status wants to mate with you which means biological success. A mate of lower attractiveness using the same approach is seen as proof that you're not as sexually attractive as you want, and for women it's particularly seen as a threat because mating with a male of lesser gene quality, and thereby getting pregnant, is a waste of her health, time, and investment. Yes, these are very old instincts and in a world of more reliable birth control they don't necessarily apply anymore, but you're not going to have much of a change in biology within the space of 56 years.

Do you think she'd rather Ryan Reynolds approached her with "I would really, really like to fuck you." or "Hey, you're smashing those pull-ups. I'm Ryan, can I take you for a drink after we're both finished working out?" and saved the talk about fucking for later?

Well let's see, in one he's offering the possibility of a relationship (as well I'm assuming to pay for her drink, which should really be a no-no in gender equality btw). Being as he's Ryan Reynolds and a famous millionaire super star, of course she would prefer to have a relationship with him, but she'll gladly take a one night stand as well (again, mainly because he's got the right biological genes she's looking for- good looks as well as financial success).

The thing is, there are people who are completely okay with having just sex with strangers and with the rise of Tinder/Grinder as well as just friends with benefit situations, it's going to become more normalized because it's clearly how relationships are happening now.

[–]flimflam_machine0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll TL;DR this post: nothing that you've written justifies the specific behaviour of making uninvited sexual comments/propositions to strangers in a publoic place i.e., catcalling.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you do not speak for the whole of humanity. People have always been sexual with each other, it is our most basic interaction and drive in life. It happened in strict Victorian times therefore it will certainly happen in a post sexual revolution world. You don't get to have sexual freedom with Victorian rules about speaking about it.

I haven't written anything that indicates that I promote "Victorian rules" about sex, so I don't know where you got that from. As far as I'm concerned, if it's happening between consenting adults, you can do what you want with who you want. I think we should be able to speak much more freely about sex, but I don't think that anyone should be personally involved in a sexual interaction or conversation (beyond sex education) if they don't want to be, and that's what catcalling does. People should continue to be sexual with each other, just not with strangers on the street.

this again comes down to whether making a sexual comment is always an example of 'shitty behavior'. Most women and men will see it as a positive to be complimented on their sexual attractiveness by a very attractive person.

Ok, so the shittyness of a behaviour depends on whether it is performed by an attractive person? That seems to run contrary to your initial argument which implied that the behaviour was definitively not shitty in any situation because it was ok when performed by an attractive person. I thought you were making an argument for consistency, but I'm not sure what your view on this actually is now.

A mate of lower attractiveness using the same approach is seen as proof that you're not as sexually attractive as you want, and for women it's particularly seen as a threat because mating with a male of lesser gene quality, and thereby getting pregnant, is a waste of her health, time, and investment.

I agree that there the evolutionary drives behind mate-choice may be different for men and women, although I think that our more recently evolved neocortex and social pressures take the edge off those quite considerably. I don't agree with your reasoning though, if you are attractive (assume that we accept for a moment the notion of some unioversal measure of attractiveness) you will attract everyone, both attractive and unattractive. What may offend you is the effrontery of a less attractive person approach you, but it doesn't imply that you are less attractive.

in one he's offering the possibility of a relationship

Maybe, or it could just be a drink and a fuck. The point is that his first approach is not overtly sexual. The sexual stuff can proceed later.

Being as he's Ryan Reynolds and a famous millionaire super star, of course she would prefer to have a relationship with him, but she'll gladly take a one night stand as well

That's not an answer to my question. The post in the OP makes a request for a different dynamic between male and female strangers. You rebutted that by saying that she'd be ok with an attractive, famous stranger Ryan Reynolds propositioning her. I said, that as may be, but that would just be making the best of a bad situation (catcalling). Which approach do you think she would prefer, a sexual or non-sexual approach? And would she prefer world with catcalling on the off chance that Ryan Reynolds will one day catcall her or a world without catcalling. You haven't answered those questions.

The thing is, there are people who are completely okay with having just sex with strangers and with the rise of Tinder/Grinder as well as just friends with benefit situations,

They are, and that's cool, but there are specific forums for setting up those kind of encounters. People can choose to frequent them or not to go near them. If you promote the street as a location for the initiation of such encounters then nobody will ever be able to get away from them and that's an option that people should have, even in the most sexually liberated society. A bit like a secular society for which people have said "Freedom from religion means freedom from religion", in a sexually liberated society there should be no template for one's sexuality and so one should be free from sexuality if one wishes.

[–]civilsaint 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I found it funny that in the article she specifically says "Don't ask me what I was wearing" because she knows it's relevant. She even describes what she wears then disallows any comment on it. How come men don't go running shirtless and in tiny figure-hugging shorts if it's so comfortable? Because it invites attention. If you must wear compression clothes (as many do) how come most men choose to wear full length leggings and t-shirts not tiny little straps over their chests that show off their sweet abs? Only those recognised as vain posers wear less conservative clothes.

I think, really though, this oversimplifies a slightly more complicated issue. The dynamic in dating is that men are generally expected to make the first move. If you don't, women won't approach you. Even if you as an individual female do not subscribe to that dynamic, almost all men know that the vast majority of the time they need to take the initiative. This means that not only do men sometimes make clumsy or offensive attempts at flirting (because not all men have the same level of social skill) but also women habitually sexualise themselves in order to avoid being overlooked. If you're relying on someone else to make the first move you can't run the risk of being ignored. This means choosing skimpy, figure-hugging clothes, 9 times out of 10 without even noticing why you're doing it (then being surprised when it works). That's also why so many women wear make-up. It's not for you, if it was then men would do it too or women would do it when nobody else was around. It's so you can attract others.

The sexual harassment thing is an issue of inequality but it's more nuanced than a lot of people care to admit. No, it's not all men's responsibility to anticipate your feelings before they even know you. Likewise it's not your responsibility to have to put up with fumbling and offensive attempts at seduction. So what should we do about it? Firstly women need to stop relentlessly sexualising themselves and take some responsibility for their own behaviour. You sexualise yourselves then complain when others follow suit. Until you admit that the problem will remain. Secondly the dynamic needs to change, men shouldn't be always expected to make the first move. If we are then you will inevitably find that those with poor social skills make poor decisions. If women were more comfortable with approaching men then we wouldn't have as much pressure causing some of us to act like dicks. Do some of us act like dicks? Yes. Moaning about it like men are all evil because some are clumsy isn't actually going to do anything about it, though, is it?

[–]Uncletime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

My question is if they're so comfortable for her why don't men wear the same clothes?

I didn't attempt to speak for her so simmer down on your mansplaining rhetoric. Exposing your body attracts attention, whether you intend it or not. Perhaps invite was the wrong word but skintight or revealing clothes are most definitely a subconscious cue for others to look at your body. Should people be obvious, crass and offensive about it? No. I explicitly stated that it sucks that men behave like that sometimes and went on to explain why I think that is. If you're not prepared to respond to the actual points I made don't bother commenting at all... Much less responding with a petty, unhelpful assumption about my views towards women. How does anything I've said suggest I don't respect them? How is anything I said fucked up? What have I misunderstood?

Don't be sorry. Make a valid point or remain silent.

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Well, you're wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying now so let's calm down a bit and actually use your brain. Going to the beach is very different to going to the gym. Most men don't run shirtless or wear a bikini to lift weights, you know that. I'm talking about generalities not individual examples and women wear more revealing clothes in general with the express aim (whether they realise that's what they're doing or not) of attracting attention.

If you'd actually bothered to read what I said instead of being a reactionary idiot you'd have noticed that I explicitly and repeatedly said that it's not ok for men to harass someone because of what they wear. I said that men are used to having to make the first move and since not all men are prince charming some will overstep their bounds or misjudge situations. That doesn't make it ok but whining that men are problematic with no clear solution doesn't actually solve anything. It just tars us all with the same brush of predatory rapists. Christ, I've been sexually harassed by women in lots of different situations and I know plenty of others who have too... Are all women predators as well? No. Some are shitty people or just dumb.

If you actually want it to stop you have to have a clear and detailed understanding of why it's happening in the first place. You obviously don't because you're unwilling to hear any dissenting opinion and make unfounded claims that I'm sexist and hate women because I think women routinely sexualise themselves? How can you possibly disagree with that when most of you spend 15-30 minutes out of every single day painting your face to make it more attractive, or going out on a Saturday night with your tits half out? I'm not saying you do it specifically but women as a whole reinforce objectification by objectifying themselves. I do not believe it is ok to objectify someone just for dressing in a revealing way but I question whether you really want it to stop if you're so ignorant of fundamental aspects of human behaviour.

I know that might sound like victim blaming to you but if someone kept leaving their door unlocked and wondering why they get robbed would you not recommend that they lock their door? If I don't want people to look at or talk to me I make that very clear with my body language and my dress. I will dress conservatively, stick my headphones in and look pissed off. If I want to look approachable I do the opposite. Do I still get harassed? Occasionally, yes. Funnily enough, far more frequently when I'm in a dangerous neighbourhood, drunk or acting in a way that attracts attention. It's sensible to discourage those things if you're finding you're getting a lot of unwanted attention. Stop seeking attention, intentionally or not. Do I blame someone if they get harassed? No. It's still not their fault. In an ideal world nobody would rob, murder or rape anyone but this isn't an ideal world yet. Until it is, lock your doors, don't get fucking plastered or wear skimpy clothes in a rough neighbourhood and don't antagonise the wrong people. Sensible advice. You're still a victim and the other person is to blame but... Yeah maybe you could've taken more precautions and you will next time.

If women as a whole would like their value to be more than about just looks (which I absolutely agree is right) then stop spending so much time on your looks. All of you. Stop habitually painting your faces or wearing clothes which emphasis your tits or your ass. Men don't do it and we're not objectified half as much. You can't possibly pretend the two are completely unrelated, surely?

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about generalities not individual examples and women wear more revealing clothes in general with the express aim (whether they realise that's what they're doing or not) of attracting attention.

I think making claims about other people's motivations is not productive because it can just be thrown straight back. How about the feminist line that "Men catcall women because they have the ingrained belief, from toxic Patriarchal norms, that they have the right to have all women's bodies." Lots of unprovables in there too. More pedantically, I'm not sure something can be an "express aim" if the person doesn't realise they're doing it.

I'm not saying you do it specifically but women as a whole reinforce objectification by objectifying themselves. I do not believe it is ok to objectify someone just for dressing in a revealing way

I don't think it's reasonable to expect those women who don't want to be objectified to have to wait for all other women to change their behaviour.

If women as a whole would like their value to be more than about just looks (which I absolutely agree is right) then stop spending so much time on your looks. All of you.

And I'm sure this will be on the agenda for WomCon 2017 when all 3.5 Billion women in the world to agree how they should act. The problem with this kind of argument is that it treats any group as a monolith that wants the same thing and can shift its collective behaviour on a whim. You may as well say to men "If you want to stop being feared as rapey creeps, stop catcalling women. All of you." I'd also add that women can pay a social price for not spending time on their looks, in the same way that men can pay a price for not being typically masculine. Social change has to happen due to all parts of society changing so that the demands we place on each other (e.g., to wear makeup or be manly) fade along with our willingness to adhere to them. It's unrealistic to expect any group to simply instantaneously defy all expectations. Conversely, it's not unrealistic to emphasise the wishes of an individual to be treated a certain way despite the stereotypical actions of (what others perceive to be) their group.

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Of course it can be thrown straight back but that's not how you argue a point. I could easily just go "That's a massively different example and irrelevant to the discussion". Motivations can be interpreted from behaviour, whether you like it or not. If I pick up a stick and start swinging it at grass you can assume I'm maybe pretending it's a weapon. If almost all women wear make-up and figure-hugging clothes you can deduce something from that in tandem with their approach to dating. It's obvious and it's seen all over the animal kingdom. Very few men catcall. It's a false equivalence and I won't bother labouring that point more than I already have because they're clearly too different to draw a comparison.

Fair enough, it's pedantic but point taken. You understood what I meant.

I think it is. You can't blame another group without expecting your own group to compromise, especially when your group is engaging in these behaviours more frequently. There is almost no recognition of women's role in perpetuating this behaviour. Men are rapists, according to them, and men need to be educated and change. Not several men, mind you. Not just the individuals who catcall but all men must be treated like rapists and molesters because a small minority of individuals do it. Shall we treat all women as murderers because some smother their children? Is that fair? Should all women be told not to smother their child or should everyone be better educated about post natal depression and mental health in general? My argument is one of subtleties and that's why I'm getting these unfavourable reactions. You can't boil it down to "Oh this happens so here's the easy solution:"... There isn't one. Some men will always catcall just as some women do. The vast majority understand that it is wrong. If you change the courtship dynamic a lot of this would go away because men would have little pressure forcing them to approach women. If women collectively encouraged each other to stop sexualising themselves it would reinforce the idea that they are not just sex toys but people with feelings. But that isn't going to happen because it's too hard. It requires women to admit that they have encouraged it and they need to change some things about how they interact. They have to face rejection, competition on an uneven playing field, they have to experience what we do and they don't want to.

But that sort of thing is said about men and it's infuriating. More so because the vast majority of men understand that. The vast majority of women are ignorant of their own motivations. They lie to themselves and say they wear make-up to feel good. Ok, why does it make you feel good? Why, specifically, do you only wear it when you're in public or around individuals you'd like to impress? Why do you emphasise your cleavage on nights out or how slim your waist is? Of course women pay a social price, purely for the reasons I have already stated. Lots of men don't like make-up because it's deceitful. Others don't like it because they think women should be able to feel comfortable with how they really look. Who is pressuring women, then? Other women, mostly. Of course some pressure is external and I can see the frustration, I really can. But if you focus on that and only that you fail to recognise the larger picture; that women could take control of this situation more readily by accepting their own roles and not blaming a tiny minority of men for their situation.

Of course that's unrealistic. Nobody knows what her wishes are until she posts them on her blog. Does every stranger she meets already know her preferences and how she likes to be treated? Have people been developing telepathy while I've been sleeping? Are all men suddenly social experts. No. There will always be mistakes. Yes they are more frequently made by men and I think the sole reasons are the dynamic in dating and the constant sexualisation of women by both genders. Approaching someone, regardless of how clumsy it is, is better than being outright ignored. Making yourself look as sexy as possible will make other people think about fucking you, whether they want to or not. Stop encouraging that if you don't like people wanting to fuck you.

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

If I pick up a stick and start swinging it at grass you can assume I'm maybe pretending it's a weapon. If almost all women wear make-up and figure-hugging clothes you can deduce something from that in tandem with their approach to dating. It's obvious and it's seen all over the animal kingdom.

Too many generalisations and no evidence that these activities aren't subject to socialisation. Also what is not obvious is why the behaviour of animals provides any template for how we should act.

Very few men catcall.

Apparently enough men catcall to make some women's lives a bit of a pain in the arse. Shall we agree on "too many men catcall".

I think it is. You can't blame another group without expecting your own group to compromise, especially when your group is engaging in these behaviours more frequently.

I think you can blame individuals in another group. I think this article is quite good at not spreading the blame too widely. That doesn't change the fact that our behaviour towards an individual can't be justified by saying, "but their group does this", because for the most part they, as an individual, may deviate from their group and are powerless to change the behaviour of the millions/billions of other members of their group.

Men are rapists, according to them, and men need to be educated and change. Not several men, mind you. Not just the individuals who catcall but all men must be treated like rapists and molesters because a small minority of individuals do it. Shall we treat all women as murderers because some smother their children?

No but, according to you, we should assume that all women are open to uninvited explicit sexual advances from total strangers because some other women sometimes dress to get attention.

My argument is one of subtleties and that's why I'm getting these unfavourable reactions. You can't boil it down to "Oh this happens so here's the easy solution:"... There isn't one. Some men will always catcall just as some women do. The vast majority understand that it is wrong. If you change the courtship dynamic a lot of this would go away because men would have little pressure forcing them to approach women.

I'm failing to see the subtlety. It seems like a fairly straightforward situation: catcalling is not courtship, approach other people like human beings initially, even if you do want to fuck them, keep the explicit sexual approaches off the street and in other dedicated forums where people are actually inviting them.

If women collectively encouraged each other to stop sexualising themselves it would reinforce the idea that they are not just sex toys but people with feelings. But that isn't going to happen because it's too hard. It requires women to admit that they have encouraged it...

The vast majority of women are ignorant of their own motivations.

The appalling little cock-teases! We know what they really want ;) eh, eh, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

They lie to themselves and say they wear make-up to feel good. Ok, why does it make you feel good? Why, specifically, do you only wear it when you're in public or around individuals you'd like to impress? Why do you emphasise your cleavage on nights out or how slim your waist is?

The answer is probably partly evolutionary and partly social, but that's beside the point. You're talking about women wearing revealing clothing on nights out, but the issue is of a woman being catcalled in the middle of a day in an ordinary public space while doing nothing to invite such behaviour. It's like saying that if I happened to put on boxing gloves in the park random stranger can come and punch me in the face.

Of course that's unrealistic. Nobody knows what her wishes are until she posts them on her blog. Does every stranger she meets already know her preferences and how she likes to be treated?

No, but "don't make explicit sexual approaches to random strangers in contexts that are not explicitly about dating e.g., Tinder/Grindr, is a good rule of thumb to apply to all women as far as I can tell.

Are all men suddenly social experts. No. There will always be mistakes. Yes they are more frequently made by men and I think the sole reasons are the dynamic in dating and the constant sexualisation of women by both genders. Approaching someone, regardless of how clumsy it is, is better than being outright ignored. Making yourself look as sexy as possible will make other people think about fucking you, whether they want to or not. Stop encouraging that if you don't like people wanting to fuck you.

Again we're back to the problem of holding an individual responsible for the actions of the group. Let me give an analogy: I like to cycle. Drivers are constantly justifying appalling, inhuman attitudes towards the safety of cyclists by say "You lot all run red lights! If you want to be safe, stay off the road." This is infuriating bullshit for several reasons: firstly, running a red light is no justification for endangering someone's life but also, more relevantly, as a law-abiding cyclist I have no ability to improve the behaviour of other cyclists, it's not my fucking responsibility, and I shouldn't suffer for their actions. Your anger at them should not be my problem.

Look, I agree with you about the dating dynamic, as do most people across the whole of the gender debate. Most feminists would also agree that "passive femininity" is a problem and that anyone should be able and willing to approach someone that they find attractive. I think there's also an interesting hypothetical to be discussed as to whether people's aversion to catcalling is because they fear sexual assault, if there was vastly less sexual assault and catcalling interactions went as follows:

"Hey, nice ass. Wanna fuck."

"No thanks bud, not interested."

"No problem, have a great day!"

would women still object? However, I think it's not reasonable to expect the entire socio-sexual dynamic to change before we deal with catcalling. The MRM, for its faults, is quite good at taking problems head on in an atheoretical way e.g., "I don't care whether sentencing disparities are due to an ingrained patriarchal norm that increases men's agency and decreases women's, I just want it to fucking stop." I think this is a similar situation where we can just say this behaviour should stop because it's not beneficial for anyyone. Seriously, who loses out if it stops tomorrow? Other social rules aren't hard to understand (don't piss in the street), why is this one (don't make uninvited sexual advances to strangers in the street) misunderstood by so many people?

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Never said they were due to evolution only and wouldn't make the argument that that's how we should behave. I don't agree with that position.

No we won't agree on that. I don't think too many men catcall. I think relatively few men do it relatively frequently. The question is why?

I have repeatedly explicitly said that I don't think that is the case. Stop misrepresenting my position.

Almost all men know to do that. Those who don't do it will continue because they find it successful or don't care that it makes people feel uncomfortable. Again... I have been approached sexually by strangers, harassed and molested. Does that mean all women need to fundamentally change their behaviour or that some women are just idiots? Just because you fail to see the subtlety doesn't mean it isn't there. There are plenty of things women could do to reduce this problem but they aren't willing to. It's much easier to change your own behaviour than that of someone else.

Don't be an idiot. I didn't say all women want dick 100% of the time.

Yes, it is. And my question is why is she being catcalled in the first place. Maybe if we ask why and legitimately attempt to solve the problem it will be more effective than going "It needs to stop".

And what about the more ambiguous situations? How long until nobody speaks to each other anymore for fear of being called a rapist just for saying hello? You might laugh but people are already doing that.

It is your responsibility, unfortunately. You belong to that group, start affecting change within that group. If you meet another cyclist who runs red lights, tell them not to. If enough safe cyclists took responsibility for their group, the group would behave more safely. Things would definitely start to change if enough women who hated this situation said "Look, I'm not wearing make-up anymore because I think it devalues our stance on sexualisation. We can't ask others not to treat us like sex objects when we're doing this every day with the intent of making ourselves nicer to look at. I would like it if you joined me but I'm doing it either way." Too many people are quick to abandon responsibility for their own group. Not to mention the fact that your argument falls flat on its face when the vast majority of men know 1) not to catcall and 2) to discourage it in others. By your logic we shouldn't bother because what can we do to improve our group?

So, again... Why in your hypothetical is the initiator a man? Maybe the anger at rejection is not an artefact of latent inclination towards sexual assault but frustration at being rejected over and over again? Obviously we know most rape victims are assaulted by someone they already know so the risk of someone doing it on the street is pretty low. Maybe the fear is unfounded. Maybe if women approached men more, maybe if there was less pressure on men to take the initiative, less chance of rejection, the situation would be far less hostile?

The whole dynamic changing would solve the problem. That is the solution. Men know not to rape. We aren't children. You argument is "Don't tell us to stop. More of us encourage this behaviour than in your group. You stop!", "I can't do anything to change my group, you change people in your group!". Your own rebuttal of my argument defeats yours as well.

If men can change themselves to stop catcalling, women can change themselves to alter the dating dynamic. Women won't change... So why should men? Your side has the complaint after all... Why don't you increase your own agency by admitting your role in the situation and leading by example?

[–]flimflam_machine1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, it is. And my question is why is she being catcalled in the first place.

Because some men (and a smaller proportion of women) think it's ok to make uninvited sexual comments to other people. The probability of those comments goes up for scantily clad people but can be directed at pretty much anyone. I agree that the current dating dynamic of men having to be active exacerbates this but I think catcalling is usually more about men making themselves feel big than expecting any actual positive outcome.

And what about the more ambiguous situations? How long until nobody speaks to each other anymore for fear of being called a rapist just for saying hello? You might laugh but people are already doing that.

As before, I'd speculate that the definition is being expanded in part because of people's failure to recognise the obviously unacceptable situations as such. From my perspective the list of things that are not under threat from stopping catcalling include:

Saying hello to strangers with a view to dating/fucking them later
Making sexually explicit comments to your partner
Making sexually explicit comments to strangers in appropriate contexts

The only thing that I think should be proscribed is the very specific intersection on the Venn diagram of making (i) sexual comments; (ii) that are uninvited; (iii) to strangers; (iv) on the street or other similar public spaces. That is a very specific situation that's not hard to learn.

It is your responsibility, unfortunately...By your logic we shouldn't bother because what can we do to improve our group?

No, it's really not; however, I think you've misunderstood my point. Even if jumping a red light were a justification for endangering someone's life (which it's not), the fact that another cyclist i.e., not me, has jumped a red light would not justify a driver endangering my life. The fact that we happen to be using the same mode of transport is irrelevant. Is that clear enough? Person A performing act X does not justify person B acting towards person C on the basis that C is somehow responsible for X or has themselves performed X by proxy, regardless of any similarity between persons A and C.

It is true that advocacy is more likely to be effective if it comes from within a group, however, that doesn't make each member of the group answerable for the actions of other members of the group, or even most of the group, especially when the group is as large and heterogeneous as "cyclists" or "women".

Why in your hypothetical is the initiator a man? Maybe the anger at rejection is not an artefact of latent inclination towards sexual assault but frustration at being rejected over and over again?

Because the example given in the OP's articles are men. I never suggested that there is a latent inclination toward rape. I meant exactly what I said: that it's interesting to consider whether women would still object to catcalling in societies in which they had less fear (justified or not) of sexual assault. Reducing sexual assault and the fear of it might be part of a solution in creating a society where we can be more direct about our sexual desires without causing concern or offence. Again, I agree that a more balanced pattern of initiation might also help.

You argument is "Don't tell us to stop. More of us encourage this behaviour than in your group. You stop!", "I can't do anything to change my group, you change people in your group!". Your own rebuttal of my argument defeats yours as well.

I'm a bit confused at what you think my argument is here. You may be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm a woman. My rebuttal of your argument is perfectly sound because you are misrepresenting the argument put in the blog that the OP linked to. She (Erin Bailey) is not, as far as I can tell, putting the onus on men (in the general sense) to stop catcalling or to somehow stop the small percentage of men who do from doing so i.e., she is not saying "you change people in your group". She is just saying that she thinks she deserves to be able to exercise in athletic wear without having strangers make uninvited sexual comments to her in public.

You say "the vast majority of men know 1) not to catcall and 2) to discourage it in others" but you've dedicated several thousand words to explain why the responsibility for a long term solution is in the hands of women, without making clear that you do discourage catcalling, which you yourself accept is aberrant behaviour i.e., you can condemn it without condemning all men. Instead you are painting it as some sort of inevitable outcome of the current "dating dynamic" and are putting the responsibility on individual women to somehow change the behaviour of 3.5 billion other women, if they want to stop men catcalling, rather than just saying let's stop the small percentage of men that do it.

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Y'no... I believe we're at an impasse here. I would address your last post directly but a lot of it will be repeating myself and a lot of it will be addressing logical flaws in your argument. I don't really think you'll respond well to that so I'm not going to do it.

Perhaps I've been antagonistic or incompetent in explaining my argument. Perhaps you've misunderstood me or are unwilling to listen. Perhaps it's some combination of the above. I'm not interested in assigning blame.

You cannot and will never be able to eradicate catcalling. Not at this point in our cultural evolution. For the same reason you cannot stop thieves, murderers, rapists, fraudsters and so on. Some do not believe their behaviour is wrong, some don't care that it is. The reason for that is the gulf in the difference between their life experience and yours. That small minority of men will not stop until you have a deeper understanding of the issue and change the dynamics of society. I believe I have something to contribute to that understanding and I believe I have an answer that will go some way to at least reducing it and promoting more equality. Do I believe I know everything and that I am beyond question? No, of course not.

I believe that women are treated as sexual objects in part because they treat themselves that way. I do not condone that treatment and actively discourage it when appropriate. I believe if women did not treat themselves that way they would feel they had more agency and value beyond being pieces of meat. I believe they would still be catcalled and harassed even if that was not the case but I think it would happen less. I think a large reason for this is because men are forced into the position of instigating almost all sexual interactions (at least initially). Sometimes it's clumsiness or ineptitude, sometimes it is to intimidate (as you say, I agree). I'm not going to ask you why that is because I believe I know why. People threaten others when they know they have nothing to gain to feel powerful. To make them feel big, as you say. Do men have any power in the dating world? Very little. While they are the primary instigators their advances mean nothing if the woman isn't interested. Men have to put their cards on the table face up and try to play a hand against a woman whose cards are hidden. Do I believe that is an excuse for poor behaviour? No. But there is a reason for their poor behaviour. Frustration, rejection, anger and inadequate ability to cope with those feelings. I think if the playing field were more balanced it would go a long way to reducing these behaviours, it would give women yet more power and agency, it would give them an insight into what men have to deal with and it would allow people to empathise with each other better.

[–]flimflam_machine1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Y'no... I believe we're at an impasse here. I would address your last post directly but a lot of it will be repeating myself and a lot of it will be addressing logical flaws in your argument. I don't really think you'll respond well to that so I'm not going to do it.

It's possible but, if only for the sake of improving future discussions, please do ahead with highlighting any logical inconsistencies in my post. I've been doing the same with your post.

I think it's worth noting, however, that I think we agree on quite a lot. For example, I think we agree that the general causes of catcalling are the over-sexualisation of women, which is perpetuated by men and women, and the current active-male-passive-female dating dynamic. More proximate causes are the inability of some people to understand appropriate social boundaries and the sense of validation, and peer-endorsement, that some people get from catcalling.

In discussions around this issue you quite often hear feminists saying "not all women are feminists" i.e., not all women will act towards the best interests of women as a group. Women are just as capable as everyone else of committing that fault whereby each individual acts in their own self interest but in doing so, creates a situation where everyone's situation is made worse overall and they are no more abled than any other group to change their own overall group dynamic.

So, where we seem to disagree is what are the most productive steps to address this issue. Although reducing sexualisation of women and changing the dating dynamic might well be effective long term solutions I don't think they're as tractable in the short term as addressing the proximate causes that I mentioned above. Drink-driving is an example where a specific behaviour has been radically reduced in recent years, but I don't think it's because the culture of driving has fundamentally changed overall; it's because we made the social unacceptability of that specific behaviour much clearer.

We also differ on the role of the group vs. individual. This worries me partly because of the personally-invested analogy that I gave above; it always worries me to see the faults of a group being used to justify poor behaviour towards an individual. It also affects how we deal with this specific example. I've read a few a this type of article and this is one of the more reasonable ones, and yet a huge number of comments here are essentially criticising her for even raising the issue. If we want to take an effective approach to this problem and the interlinked problems for men then I think we at least need to do more than immediately put the problem back onto the shoulders of the women who raise it.

More broadly, I'd be interested in your opinion on why this was even posted on this board. Why is this a men's rights issue? I can't see that there's any particular right that's being enfringed here and what most commenters seem to be defending is the "right" of men to perform socially unacceptable behaviour (yay for the cause!) backed up with a vastly less pleasant and less nuanced version of what you're saying e.g., "Sure she complains, but look at the little slut. I know what she really wants." We can do better than this.

[–]pacmatt271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I meant more that I didn't think you would agree with me. I figured it wouldn't be productive anymore.

I suppose it's popped up again in this post though so I'll have another crack. You argue that we should let people who catcall know that it is wrong. The problem is, almost all men know catcalling is wrong. Those who do it don't generally care that it's wrong. Also, there's no way of knowing off-hand who catcalls, so when women ask for this behaviour to stop they address all men and say "Could you please do something about this?". We respond with "We all know that except for a few dickheads." and it sorta reaches a stalemate.

I guess an important part of this is that we are expected to change the behaviours of those within our group when it is going to be impossible for us to do that. It's like asking all of humanity to take responsibility for all thieves and stop them. It simply won't happen. Everyone knows it isn't acceptable and they do it anyway.

When I shift the responsibility to women I'm saying "Right, I know catcalling is rubbish but a lot of you guys do this other thing which doesn't help. You're much more motivated to change this dynamic than those men are so why don't you just try this and see whether it helps? I think it'd be much more achievable for several women to create a movement which snowballs than it would be for men to stop individual catcallers." Saying some women will act in their own self-interest is a cop out because that's exactly what these men who catcall are doing. I know lots of women who have dramatically reduced how much make-up they wear when I explained the effects it can have on self-esteem and perception by others. I wasn't dominating or instructive. I just spoke about what I know from my degree in psychology. If I can do it why can't other women who are arguably better placed to convince their peers?

I think the main problem with your argument, whether you admit it or not, is that the onus for change is placed solely on men to stop a tiny subset of men. While unrealistic, it's also foiled by your own disagreement with my position. I know this particular woman wasn't asking for that and maybe you haven't used the words directly but what else is the plan? We already know it's socially unacceptable. The only additional thing you can do is further reduce the reward from other men (but what if we're not rewarding them already?). I hope you can see that while both situations have minor differences both involve asking group X to encourage/discourage behaviour Y to solve a problem. I just believe you'll make more headway with women than you will with men because the proposed solution for men is already in place and has failed.

Unfortunately, with regards to the group/individual behaviour bit... That is a fundamental part of human behaviour. It's an issue of group heuristics. If you can separate people into groups you can predict their behaviour more easily. You may not be a dangerous cyclist but many are, so cars have to anticipate that. If your life is at risk because of other cyclicsts' behaviour then surely you will personally benefit from telling them to stop being so reckless. Of course you can tell the other car drivers to stop but as long as people are still cycling dangerously, people will try to anticipate that. Neither direction is explicitly wrong but let's be honest, the cars wouldn't be doing that if the cyclists weren't dangerous. They will continue to do it as long as cyclists are dangerous because they don't know whether you are a safe cyclist or a dangerous one. All they know is that a lot of cyclists are dangerous. What is the root cause? The cyclists. Who is responsible? The cyclists. Are you at risk without being responsible for the danger? Yes. If you care about your own life you are responsible for taking any and all steps to protect it. Even ones you don't particularly like the idea of.

Tbh I don't know why it was. I thought it was kinda lame but the attitudes in the comments are what interested me. I believe there are a lot of subtle double-standards between men and women which are (clearly \<sup>)</sup> difficult to nail down. A lot of them seem to amount to laziness, selfishness and a lack of personal responsibility. Unfortunately they're also quite nuanced so you have arguments like this and many others.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd be interested in your opinion on why this was even posted on this board. Why is this a men's rights issue?

Reminder to self: "When you're next feeling a bit bored, hop over to /r/Feminism and post, as a guy, that you are querying why the females are discussing a particular topic there."

You wouldn't last 10 seconds before you were banned, and they would lynch you first. But hey, we don't do this here, and your contributions are thoughtful and interesting. Thanks.

Why is this a men's rights issue?

To answer the question: Because it shows deep insight into the way her mind is working (or not, as the case maybe). How delusional she is, and how confused about basic human sexuality and evolution. She's also swallowed a load of SJW talking points hook-line-and-sinker. She has become a professional "victim".

You and I have discussed all this elsewhere on this thread at length; not that we necessarily agree.

Erin Bailey's mentality (she writes the blog this post is about) is just one step away from behaving like the crazy SJW in this video — Zarna Joshi:

http://bluelivesmatter.blue/zarna-joshi-police-sexually-harassed/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRC-NXk4Q8

This women is accusing a man of sexual abuse because he said something funny when SHE approached HIM!

Needless to say, this nutter has taken the video down from her FB page and is trying to get it scrubbed from the internet.

So it's vitally important that men learn about this behaviour. In most western countries now, especially the UK, this mad evil women Zarna Joshi, only needs to go to the police and make a complaint of sexual assault or rape. Instantly, he would be arrested, and every media outlet would be banned, on pain of imprisonment, from ever mentioning her name as the accuser.

[–]flimflam_machine1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion but I will take a moment to explain why.

You are committing the same error that some feminists commit, which is to prioritise the context provided by your preferred model to such an extent that you simply fail to accept someone else's experience which runs contrary to that model; while simultaneously using the person's report of their experience to support said model via a heroic level of confirmation bias or straightforward mental gymnastics.

I lose interest in discussing men's issues with feminists when they say "Sure men say that they just want female companionship, but Patriarchy Theory tells me that what they're really displaying is just awful male privilege and entitlement!" Likewise I'm not interested in discussing this with you when you say "Sure she says that she doesn't like strangers making sexual remarks to her, but evo-psych and her [totally unremarkable] instagram account tell me that she really loves the attention from high-status men and is just playing the victim." I'm not discounting the role of evolution nor socialisation, but I don't have a particular drive to discuss things with people who are wholly invested at one extreme end of that spectrum.

Both sides of this debate have real issues with failing to simply accept that an experience that they don't have is actually a problem: for men, it really does suck never to get much validation of your attractiveness; for women, it really does suck to daily be bombarded with uninvited sexual comments from strangers. If we can't, even initially, accept another person's report of their experience then we're not engaging with the problem, we're just dismissing it.

I also think that all your talk of false-rape allegations and professional victim SJWs (which definitely are a thing in a minority of cases) is just an attempt to chuck every possible bugbear you have into the mix to muddy the waters and, again, to further reinforce your belief in your model regardless of the details of this specific case. I've got no interest in discussing this huge swathe of items (and by proxy the validity of evo-psych vs. socialisation) with you either, not because I necessarily disagree with you on every point, but because you've made your position pretty clear, it's not a position I find convincing or productive in terms of actually addressing any of these issues, and your comments strongly give the impression that you're not really open to changing your opinion.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry for the late reply. I was attending the annual meeting of my "Cis, White, Male, Hetero, Capitalist, Patriarchy" local chapter. You know how it is — we were busy gloating over our "male privilege" and pumping-up our "toxic masculinity". Hard work I can tell you!

Anyway, many thanks for your final [promise this time?😉] message. I see you took 413 words to tell me you're not interested in talking to me anymore. And yes, I put it in a word count app on the web.

I confess I'm not sure what you were really saying in much of it — too many big words and academic gobbledygook! Last time I had a "model" I was 11 years old and constructing a plastic kit of a Jumbo Jet. Were you alluding to that somehow?

Anyway, here is your reading homework. I fear I am perhaps not the only one that needs to "re-evaluate" my "model":

Obedient American Husbands Inspire Homicidal Ideation in Wives

Why do all my friends want to murder their husbands?

And this one really hits the spot! Explains what women really want in a man:

I love (and hate) dating Russian men

Thanks — It's been emotional

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sasha_ 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saintmyname 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchVileRespawned 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JerfFoo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchVileRespawned 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JerfFoo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchVileRespawned 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JerfFoo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aprilisse2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's like a woman who puts on make up in a conventionally attractive way, dresses in a conventionally sexy way, yet claims it's all "for herself". If you do that in a non-conventional way, say putting make-up on like a Van Gogh painting and wearing a dress like a balloon, I'll readily believe that's all "for you". But if you're following conventional ways to look attractive, you are inherently trying to look attractive according to prescribed notions of attractiveness.

The woman in the article wears tight booty shorts for "physical comfort" (and women tend to wear short shorts whenever they want as well). Why is it then that men, even on the hottest days, tend to wear loose shorts down to their knees? Their legs are hairier, they have far more reason to want some air circulation going on. But women don't find men attractive wearing tight booty shorts, so they don't wear them. Likewise, women inherently know that by wearing short shorts, it is seen as attractive and socially acceptable therefore they desire to wear them. Women wearing loose knee length shorts is not seen as attractive so they don't want to wear them.

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

This hot chick plasters semi-naked pixs of her young hot body in tight spandex all over her blog, and then starts moaning because the odd man here or there makes a stupid remark.

That looks like one-handed typing to me; you're just seeing what you want to see. She posts pictures of herself working out and in fitness clothes on her blog because she's a fitness instructor. She's allowed to be proud of her body because improving it, and helping others to do the same, is her trade. In any case, she's complaining about comments made by people in real life, what does her blog have to do with it? Even if she were a porn star and created content for the explicit purpose of sexually arousing people she should still be able to get on with her everyday life without having to deal with unsolicited explicit sexual remarks from total strangers.

Same old story — what would she do if she saw Orlando Bloom in her local LA gym one day? And then saw him again the next day? Do you think she would put on some extra-skimpy and extra-lurid outfit in the hope that he would be there on day 3 as well? You bet.

Really? Do you have any reason for saying that, other than AWALT?

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

As I posted below — from the mouth of a leading feminist! LOL

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/20/feminista-who-urged-an-end-to-wolf-whistles-now-moans-shes-too-old-to-get-them/

Read the original Jessica Valenti article (that's not something I thought I'd ever say, because I'm really not a fan of her). The headline is "Men rarely catcall me any more. I hate that our culture makes me miss it" i.e., I do miss it but I miss it because "you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men". You can disagree with her, but her argument is more nuanced than you're giving it credit for.

Be handsome, Be attractive, Don't be unattractive

Riiiiiiight. So, because people are more attracted to attractive people, you're standing by your assertion that she'd change into her skimpiest outift and flutter her eyelashes just to get the attention of a celebrity, because there are no possible factors (existing relationship, pride, not being appallingly shallow, not giving a shit what other people think) that could possibly prevent that.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

her argument is more nuanced than you're giving it credit for.

She's more batty then you're giving her credit for you mean 😀

"...I hate that our culture makes me miss it"

Breaking News: Mr Charles Darwin is pleased to announce his "Theory of Evolution". Mesmerising presentation starts at 7pm sharp at the Royal Society, Carlton House Terrace, London. Tickets: 1 shilling and sixpence.

there are no possible factors (existing relationship, pride, not being appallingly shallow, not giving a shit what other people think) that could possibly prevent that.

What is wrong with wanting to dump your existing relationship and upgrade to a more attractive partner? Why is it shallow to be attracted to an attractive person? What has being attracted to an attractive person got to do with being worried what other people think?

Answers on a postcard please. Winner receives a free anal-bleaching at their local branch of Bottoms-R-Us™

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"...I hate that our culture makes me miss it"

Breaking News: Mr Charles Darwin is pleased to announce his discovery of "Evolution". Mesmerising presentation starts at 7pm sharp at the Royal Society, Carlton House Terrace, London. Tickets: 1 shilling and sixpence.

"Everything is down to evo-psych" isn't any more convincing than the feminist line of "everything is down to culture".

What is wrong with wanting to dump your existing relationship and upgrade to a more attractive partner?

All other things being equal, nothing. But that doesn't mean that everyone (or even all women) are constantly looking to do so.

Why is it shallow to be attracted to an attractive person?

It's not, but flaunting your body at them just to get their attention, when it's very likely that nothing will come of it is seen as very shallow by many people. She might feel it is shallow and her pride would prevent her from doing so just for the sake of getting their attention.

What has being attracted to an attractive person got to do with being worried what other people think?

I'm attracted to some celebrities, but I wouldn't start flexing if I met them, because I'm in a good relationship and I don't give a shit what they think. They're just a person and there are other people whose opinion of me I value more highly.

Answers on a postcard please. Winner receives an free anal-bleaching at their local branch of Bottoms-R-Us™

I'll pass thanks (I prefer Ass Depot).

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"Everything is down to evo-psych" isn't any more convincing than the feminist line of "everything is down to culture"

Not a product of evolution, honest guv. It's all "culture" that made me wear this dress

And that's just male of the species!

All other things being equal, nothing. But that doesn't mean that everyone (or even all women) are constantly looking to do so.

Maybe not, but why not go prepared just in case? 😇

And we all want to feel attractive, even if we are not up for a shag.

Women wear sexy, revealing, body-hugging sports gear because they want men (or women) to stare at their bodies and find them attractive. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...) Any other "reason" they give is just them deluding themselves and being very silly indeed.

flaunting your body at them just to get their attention

Oooooooh!!! "Flaunting" eh?

It's that naughty bird again!

I'm attracted to some celebrities

Why? What is specifically about their fame or "celebrity" status that makes you find them attractive?

Confess all please!

I prefer Ass Depot

Ass Depot don't use the patented stainless steel Buttock-Spreader™ grips that Bottoms-R-Us™ have at all their locations. Result? Uneven bleaching and those hard to reach bits just never get white.

Stick with Bottoms-R-Us™ and you won't go wrong. I have a 20% off discount voucher I can email you. 🤑

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not a product of evolution, honest guv. It's all "culture" that made me wear this dress

And that's just male of the species!

The females are surprisingly boring. As I understand it such displays are along the lines of "I can have this ridiculous, unwieldy tail and still survive", I'm not sure there is a human equivalent. We seem quite capable of spotting each other's sexual characteristics without such exaggeration.

And we all want to feel attractive, even if we are not up for a shag.

Sure, but we don't always need other people to comment. Sometimes we just know we look good.

Women wear sexy, revealing, body-hugging sports gear because they want men (or women) to stare at their bodies and find them attractive. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...) Any other "reason" they give is just them deluding themselves and being very silly indeed.

I don't think you're really open to counter-argument here. If you're going down the route of "all women are attention-whores and I know what they really want in their silly little heads" then we're not really in logical argument territory.

Why? What is specifically about their fame or "celebrity" status that makes you find them attractive?

Nothing about their celebrity specifically. Sometimes they're just physically attractive, sometimes they're obviously talented, although that's not exclusive to celebrities. You've not really come any closer to supporting your assertion that the woman in question will instantly flip into attention-seeking eyelash fluttering mode if an attractive celebrity hoves into view.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

"I can have this ridiculous, unwieldy tail and still survive"

Sounds like me when I drop my trousers... so that's why I have such a big one! 😜😜😜😜 [Sorry... just had to. You know what us guys are like!].

don't always need other people to comment

Sure. Not always. But sometimes eh? (And only the Attractive, Not Un-Attractive ones of course).

"all women are attention-whores and I know what they really want in their silly little heads"

Who? Little ol' me? Attention-whore? Oooooh... no, no, no.

F--k Me! I just tried to scroll to the end of that — but it's never ending. Really, how many pictures do you have to post on the internet of yourself posing in skimpy tight gym clothing, before you really are classified as an "attention-whore"?

Nothing about their celebrity specifically

Sure. Women have never evolved to be attracted to powerful, popular, wealthy, successful males. Women never use the popularity of males with other women in order to quickly assess them as a possible mate.

Celebrity Pranks

[A few tickets still available I'm told for that fun talk by Mr C. Darwin Esq.]

[–]flimflam_machine -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"I can have this ridiculous, unwieldy tail and still survive"

Sounds like me when I drop my trousers... so that's why I have such a big one! 😜😜😜😜 [Sorry... just had to. You know what us guys are like!].

If you're saying you're a pea-cock, you may want to think about phrasing.

As for the rest of your post it's just "AWALT". Fair enough, I think that evolution plays a role in our behaviour. I don't think it's the be all and end all. I don't think you're really providing anything other than anecdata that will only support the views people who already share your view. I disagree, and I'll simply add that our respect for each other, and for ourselves, as something more than dumb animals should drive us to listen what other humans actually say they want and to hold ourselves to a sufficient standard of behaviour to respect their wishes, whether you believe that you know better or not.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pria_Pus1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PalestinianBanker1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GlobalTrekker -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Fitness instructor posts rant about sexual harassment
Author	ACGlasier
Upvotes	0
Comments	93
Date	August 21, 2016 7:22 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4ywktl/fitness_instructor_posts_rant_about_sexual/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/fitness-instructor-posts-rant-about-sexual.943240 https://theredarchive.com/post/943240

Comments