How friendly is "Too Friendly" Catcalling on the s
I haven't said anything on this topic so far because I agree at the same time with the first point made by Ananda and with most of what Sgt. has been saying.
How do I tie both ends together? Well, the basic assumption here that women, men, dogs and bees have to make is that nowadays, in every society but with stronger expression in Western, "modern" countries, there are crazies for every taste so every measure of comfort, vanity and joy - which is good - should be well pondered versus safety - which is paramount.
That said, remember when a danish newspaper desk was bombed because some cartoonist drew Muhammad in the wrong fashion, that is, he drew Muhammad - period? Yielding to sensitivities and taking such offense that reaction comes across the physical barrier is, in short, lunacy. So it's a two way road, exactly.
How do I tie both ends together? Well, the basic assumption here that women, men, dogs and bees have to make is that nowadays, in every society but with stronger expression in Western, "modern" countries, there are crazies for every taste so every measure of comfort, vanity and joy - which is good - should be well pondered versus safety - which is paramount.
That said, remember when a danish newspaper desk was bombed because some cartoonist drew Muhammad in the wrong fashion, that is, he drew Muhammad - period? Yielding to sensitivities and taking such offense that reaction comes across the physical barrier is, in short, lunacy. So it's a two way road, exactly.
Ardet nec Consumitur.
Sgt.,
The video says nothing more than "this is an example of what this woman experienced in 10 hours." Those catcalls clearly occured. Therefore, they cannot be "crying wolf".
Morning,
It was a French Magazine:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/euro ... ement.html
I'm not seeing the relationship between the bombing of a French Magazine by people who completely misunderstand the idea of free speech and a video attempting to, by example, get people to refrain from catcalls voluntarily.
The video says nothing more than "this is an example of what this woman experienced in 10 hours." Those catcalls clearly occured. Therefore, they cannot be "crying wolf".
Morning,
It was a French Magazine:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/euro ... ement.html
I'm not seeing the relationship between the bombing of a French Magazine by people who completely misunderstand the idea of free speech and a video attempting to, by example, get people to refrain from catcalls voluntarily.
"Futility is the defining characteristic of life. Pain is proof of existence" - Thomas Covenant
That's alright, I'll provide a pictorial example.I'm not seeing the relationship between the bombing of a French Magazine by people who completely misunderstand the idea of free speech and a video attempting to, by example, get people to refrain from catcalls voluntarily.
Getting people to refrain from catcalls because they may offend a subset within a subset is tantamount to a friend of mine forbidding his eldest daughter, Astrid, to climb a tree in front of her youngest sibling, Britta, because the latter is not as adept as the former at physical prowess and often complains to her mother of post-traumatic stress at seeing her sister outperform.
True case.
Climbing a tree is the catcall. Putting a leash on a child because another child is a pampered brat is the bombing.
Ardet nec Consumitur.
There are no rights worthy of protection other than those of life, property and speech. And all three can be assured by the individual without having the State as anything more than a mediator. So no, none among catcalling, stalking, offense at being catcalled and defense from stalking are acquired rights that should merit institutional protection.SerScot wrote:Morning,
Wow, is that a stretch. Are you suggesting catcalling and stalking are rights worthy of protection?
Having said this, where on earth did you read that suggestion in my posts?
Ardet nec Consumitur.
Morning,
Do you know what an "Assualt" is? It's differnet from "Battery".
Back up. You're saying that "Stalking" somone is not something the State should have the power to take action against. What the two guys who followed the woman in the video did was just fine an dandy?Morning wrote:There are no rights worthy of protection other than those of life, property and speech. And all three can be assured by the individual without having the State as anything more than a mediator. So no, none among catcalling, stalking, offense at being catcalled and defense from stalking are acquired rights that should merit institutional protection.SerScot wrote:Morning,
Wow, is that a stretch. Are you suggesting catcalling and stalking are rights worthy of protection?
Having said this, where on earth did you read that suggestion in my posts?
Do you know what an "Assualt" is? It's differnet from "Battery".
"Futility is the defining characteristic of life. Pain is proof of existence" - Thomas Covenant
I am saying that the first responsibility to evaluate and if needed, act upon a threat of stalking should befall the alleged victim. But I only said this because you introduced the matter of "rights" claiming you could read it in *my* posts.
Until you clarify where exactly it was that I wrote anything about rights, the discussion is stale.
Until you clarify where exactly it was that I wrote anything about rights, the discussion is stale.
Ardet nec Consumitur.
-
Orlion
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 6666
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
- Location: Getting there...
- Been thanked: 1 time
Objection! SerScot is leading Morning.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville
I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!
"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville
I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!
"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
One simple distinction.
I pick up and drink a glass of wine. It's an action. I bought the wine, poured and drank it. It is not my right to do so. I am not entitled to a glass of fine red wine if I cannot acquire or be given one by my own means. My glass of red wine is not a right that must be ensured by anyone other than myself. That's typical of taxpayer money spenders who think the world thrives on goodwill and make-believe.
As to the second point... to me, the fewer laws, the better. One day you say that stalking is illegal. The following week, someone comes and redefines stalking to be what was known before as, say, catcalling. And a month later, everyone slipped down the slope that the nerdiest, most nitpicking wimp that happens to take the Seat of Power has defined.
I pick up and drink a glass of wine. It's an action. I bought the wine, poured and drank it. It is not my right to do so. I am not entitled to a glass of fine red wine if I cannot acquire or be given one by my own means. My glass of red wine is not a right that must be ensured by anyone other than myself. That's typical of taxpayer money spenders who think the world thrives on goodwill and make-believe.
As to the second point... to me, the fewer laws, the better. One day you say that stalking is illegal. The following week, someone comes and redefines stalking to be what was known before as, say, catcalling. And a month later, everyone slipped down the slope that the nerdiest, most nitpicking wimp that happens to take the Seat of Power has defined.
Last edited by Morning on Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ardet nec Consumitur.
Cail, your Velma has cleavage. I was referring to frumpy, demure Velma. Ya know, bulky, misshapen sweater hiding those double D's, pleated skirt concealing curvy hips, and even calves hidden by knee socks. A voluptuous body rendered less attractive by choice of clothing.
Ser Scot, seriously?! No one deserves rape. Even if they make unwise choices such as dressing slutty, going to a frat party, and getting out of control drunk.
There are lots of men in the world who will "catcall" at anything. And any guy who tries to say he thinks about anything more frequently than sex is absolutely full of shit.
Most people don't understand scale of 1 to 10. On a bell curve, 68% of people are between a 3.75 and a 6.25. So a 6 to 7 is pretty good- not smoking hot, but not bad either.
Like I said, I didn't watch the whole thing. No need. So there was a "stalker" type guy? 10 hours of street walking in NYC? Desirable female body in clothes that reveal her figure? I'm surprised there weren't more.
You can't score if you don't shoot. Too bad some guys are creeps. But high fives to the guys who have the confidence to try to talk to lots of women. Putting it out there and trying to attract female attention- that's what gets them laid.
Ser Scot, seriously?! No one deserves rape. Even if they make unwise choices such as dressing slutty, going to a frat party, and getting out of control drunk.
There are lots of men in the world who will "catcall" at anything. And any guy who tries to say he thinks about anything more frequently than sex is absolutely full of shit.
Most people don't understand scale of 1 to 10. On a bell curve, 68% of people are between a 3.75 and a 6.25. So a 6 to 7 is pretty good- not smoking hot, but not bad either.
Like I said, I didn't watch the whole thing. No need. So there was a "stalker" type guy? 10 hours of street walking in NYC? Desirable female body in clothes that reveal her figure? I'm surprised there weren't more.
You can't score if you don't shoot. Too bad some guys are creeps. But high fives to the guys who have the confidence to try to talk to lots of women. Putting it out there and trying to attract female attention- that's what gets them laid.
Never underestimate the power of denial. - Ricky Fitts
-
sgt.null
- Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
- Posts: 47250
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
- Location: Brazoria, Texas
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
I didn't understand that the woman was holding back the video with all of the awful harassment that she suffered. maybe she will release that video sometime soon?SerScot wrote:Sgt.,
The video says nothing more than "this is an example of what this woman experienced in 10 hours." Those catcalls clearly occured. Therefore, they cannot be "crying wolf".
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
-
Frostheart Grueburn
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:47 pm
- Location: Gianthome
Pyhä Perkele.Ananda wrote:Wow... that is a nice example of unfiltered crap we all think, I guess.Harbinger wrote:OK, so I did not watch the whole thing. I didn't have to.
WTF?!
She is not hot. She is a 6 to a 7. She is not fat and that is the main thing she has going for her. Her clothes are so tight they accentuate her body. She could easily dress like Velma from Scooby Doo and elicit a "Velma" response. But come on, she is wearing "come fuck me" pants and basically the same shirt.
Men are going to react to that. Would I hit it? Well, yeah- I'd probably taste it. But seriously, what outcome do you expect when you exhibit your body and it is even moderately desirable?!
IT'S ONLY HARASSMENT WHEN THEY ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO YOU. IF THEY LIKE THE WAY YOU LOOK IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
IF YOU DON"T WANT MEN "catcalling" AT YOU, DRESS LIKE VELMA- I promise that it will reduce the unwanted male attention.
Her pants are not come fuck me pants, by the way. Not sure where you live, but those are normal pants. And her top is not a sack, but a cut top and totally normal. You'd think every woman in sweden was a whore if you think that was a come fuck me outfit.
Also, I find the whole 'I'd fuck her' and 'she's a 6 to a 7' funny. What makes you think she would fuck you? What makes you think she doesn't find you to be a 2 or a 3?
I sincerely hope this person's not being serious. Last time I looked (lunch break) about every young woman wore such trousers hereabouts. Too cold for T-shirts now, but since when did that even border on "come fuck me"? In the seventeenth century?
Such attitudes force women into burkas in other parts of the world, when men deem that it's the ladies' fault they cannot control their dicks.
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19629
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Trust me, Harb is serious.Frostheart Grueburn wrote:Pyhä Perkele.Ananda wrote:Wow... that is a nice example of unfiltered crap we all think, I guess.Harbinger wrote:OK, so I did not watch the whole thing. I didn't have to.
WTF?!
She is not hot. She is a 6 to a 7. She is not fat and that is the main thing she has going for her. Her clothes are so tight they accentuate her body. She could easily dress like Velma from Scooby Doo and elicit a "Velma" response. But come on, she is wearing "come fuck me" pants and basically the same shirt.
Men are going to react to that. Would I hit it? Well, yeah- I'd probably taste it. But seriously, what outcome do you expect when you exhibit your body and it is even moderately desirable?!
IT'S ONLY HARASSMENT WHEN THEY ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO YOU. IF THEY LIKE THE WAY YOU LOOK IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
IF YOU DON"T WANT MEN "catcalling" AT YOU, DRESS LIKE VELMA- I promise that it will reduce the unwanted male attention.
Her pants are not come fuck me pants, by the way. Not sure where you live, but those are normal pants. And her top is not a sack, but a cut top and totally normal. You'd think every woman in sweden was a whore if you think that was a come fuck me outfit.
Also, I find the whole 'I'd fuck her' and 'she's a 6 to a 7' funny. What makes you think she would fuck you? What makes you think she doesn't find you to be a 2 or a 3?
I sincerely hope this person's not being serious. Last time I looked (lunch break) about every young woman wore such trousers hereabouts. Too cold for T-shirts now, but since when did that even border on "come fuck me"? In the seventeenth century?
Such attitudes force women into burkas in other parts of the world, when men deem that it's the ladies' fault they cannot control their dicks.
I don't entirely agree with his points, and I certainly wouldn't say that it's her fault she got catcalled (a few times), but you can't deny that when a woman buys a pair of jeans, one of the first thing she does is turn around and see how her ass looks in them. There is only one reason to do this: she knows people are going to be looking at her ass. And she wants it to look good. Right? Otherwise, she'd put on a dress or skirt and not worry about it. So it's a little disingenuous to wear clothing that you know is going to reveal your ass and then complain when your clothing draws attention to it. Tight jeans aren't comfortable. Sweat pants and pajamas are comfortable. Women wear tight jeans for how they look, not for comfort.
In our modern, progressive time, it's a little late to suggest that women don't want to look sexy, and don't spend much of their time with this being the primary thought as they pick out clothes and makeup, not to mention all the time they go through putting it on in the morning. Hey, guys do it, too. But then they don't go out and make videos about how women paid attention to them after they went to all the trouble to attract their attention.
Women want to look pretty. Women spend a lot of time and energy trying to look pretty. This girl had make up on, and she'd obviously put some thought into her hair. If that wasn't so that people she encountered would think she is pretty, then why? And if she wants people to think she looks pretty, what's wrong with guys letting her know that she achieved her goal? What's the point, here?
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.