# Ignorance is all around us



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I read on another forum how it's women who dress provocatively that cause sexual harassment, assault, and rape. It wasn't just men spewing this excrement, it's women too and I just don't understand the ignorance. These are "salt of the earth" supposedly good people... After reading, I did get the impression from some that certain women "get what they deserve." Sick.

Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are about power, period. It's always (*and only*) the fault of the harasser, the assaulter, and the rapist, period. The woman at the Golden Globes, even those members of Time's Up, can wear anything they chose as long as it doesn't violate the laws of that area. It isn't inviting any type of reaction, it's their choice, their decision, and their right to wear anything they want. Just as it is the right of all women to be out after dark, wear what they want, get drunk, and not be harassed, assaulted, or raped. It's not hard to understand if one realizes that women have rights, and are equal to men in all ways.

Why would someone actually come out and say that men aren't capable of being decent human beings and control themselves? This type of ignorance does good men a great disservice.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

There's also some decent women that can't help but to beat the dead horse. How many times can you argue the same topic ?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think it is important to accept that not all people are mature and intelligent. Not all have good impulse control. 

Do you want to dress like a lady of the evening and gamble that every person who sees you while you are out on the town is capable of controlling impulses?

Dressing trashy sends signals. You can rail against that concept, but human behavior isn’t determined by what you think ought to be. 

There is a reason there are dress codes for jobs, the military, doctors, etc. Clothing sends a message. The message goes out to everyone. 

Accept it or don’t.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think it is important to accept that not all people are mature and intelligent. Not all have good impulse control.
> 
> Do you want to dress like a lady of the evening and gamble that every person who sees you while you are out on the town is capable of controlling impulses?
> 
> ...


No, I want people to understand that it is not fault of the person that is harassed, assaulted, and/or raped- it is the fault of the harasser, assaulter, and/or rapist. Period. So you too buy into the concept that men can't control themselves? Consider that most women that are interested in other women don't harass, assault, and rape. Why do you think that is?

This particular group was talking about the Golden Globes, in your opinion are the gowns/dresses acceptable for that venue? How about a local gala, is it OK to wear something that is more toward "lady of the evening"? Isn't "trashy" subjective? How much skin is just too much?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I didn’t watch the Show. 

Please reread my post. It is pretty clear.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I didn’t watch the Show.
> 
> Please reread my post. It is pretty clear.


What a cop out, you didn't have to watch the 2018 Golden Globes to know what type of gowns/dresses are worn.

I know exactly what you said, and I was giving you the opportunity to reflect on the ignorance of your post about women and their rights, but apparently you're still making excuses for men who can't (or won't) control their impulses.

It's sad when women won't support other women in something as basic as a human right.

ETA: It's even worse, you were a teacher weren't you? SMH


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I didn’t call you ignorant for having a different view of reality.

Your view is that all humans should behave well. They don’t, and they won’t. Ignore that at your peril. 

You are missing my point because you have a flag to wave.

Enjoy your day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think it is important to accept that not all people are mature and intelligent. Not all have good impulse control.
> 
> Do you want to dress like a lady of the evening and gamble that every person who sees you while you are out on the town is capable of controlling impulses?
> 
> ...


Trashy is an opinion that varies by culture and person. A Muslim in a full burka who's ankles get shown in a wind could be trashy to someone. A Mormon with her arms totally uncovered could be trashy to some Mormons. It is a ridiculous way to measure who might get assaulted.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I didn’t call you ignorant for having a different view of reality.
> 
> Your view is that all humans should behave well. They don’t, and they won’t. Ignore that at your peril.
> 
> ...


I didn't call you ignorant, please reread my post. ETA: There is no need to apologize for accusing me, people get upset when their justification of something heinous is called out.

I didn't miss anything, you made your opinion loud and clear.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I didn’t say that it determines who gets assaulted. LOL.

You are 100% right that the culture determines what is appropriate clothing. It also depends on the occasion.

In my speech classes, I taught that you dress appropriately for job interviews. Wearing a tank top and Daisy Dukes won’t get you hired at a bank.

You can argue what you think how humans should behave. You can twist my words to mean something else in your head.

If you throw bait in the water, don’t expect to be able to pick which fish takes the bait.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Round 4.....ding ding


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I didn’t say that it determins who gets assaulted. LOL.
> 
> You are 100% right that the culture determines what is appropriate clothing. It also depends on the occasion.
> 
> ...



"Do you want to dress like a lady of the evening and gamble that every person who sees you while you are out on the town is capable of controlling impulses?"

You implied that how you dress can be part of what happens to you. Right there for all to read.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> "Do you want to dress like a lady of the evening and gamble that every person who sees you while you are out on the town is capable of controlling impulses?"
> 
> You implied that how you dress can be part of what happens to you. Right there for all to read.


There's little leeway in interpreting that statement.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

*











I believe I saw that thread. Here is a pic of one of the women they were yammering about. *


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> *
> View attachment 64112
> 
> 
> ...


Oh My! Her collarbones!! Trash, utter and complete trash. :eyeroll:


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Of course I said that how you dress determines (in part) what happens to you. I even gave the job interview example. 

I understand that you didn't* say* that I was ignorant. You called my statement ignorant. Ignorant means lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular. By calling my statement ignorant, you implied that I was. Debating the detail here. LOL If you would calm down for a minute and look at what I said instead of knee-jerking, you would see that I am simply trying to point out that 100% of humanity is not going to behave well. 

*Denying* that a certain percentage of the population has poor impulse control is ignorant. Literally.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I didn’t say that it determins who gets assaulted. LOL.
> 
> You are 100% right that the culture determines what is appropriate clothing. It also depends on the occasion.
> 
> ...


Like yourself, I've been taught that a certain attire is appropriate for certain jobs but that only extends to professional attire. 

You may not get a job in a bank if you interview wearing yoga pants or shorts, but it is acceptable to wear them in our off hours. 

We may attend a work related evening function and while we still may not be welcome in yoga pants or shorts, evening attire is a bit more revealing that a power suit.

Regardless of a woman's attire, sexual assault is seldom about physical attraction and if it were, 80 year old women would not be raped in their homes. 

This thread focuses on the attire of women attending the Golden Globe awards, which I also didn't watch but there is also no way of knowing what the women who claim they were sexually assaulted were wearing at the time of the incident. Some are quick to assume these women were 'flaunting the goods' but perhaps they were wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

Angelina Jolie is one of the women who's spoken out about her encounter with Harvy Weinstein and she's not someone known to dress overly provocatively. Her daytime attire generally consists of conservative dresses with long sleeves or dress pants, blazer and shirt, none of which is overly provacative. Her evening attire never seems overly relealing to me either. 

Emma Watson has spoken out about the sexual misconduct she's encoutered since she first started working on Harry Potter movies as a youngster. Neither her evening attire, daytime attire seems like she's flaunting much and her age at the time suggests something far more sinister than 'selling her stuff.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Of course I said that how you dress determines (in part) what happens to you. I even gave the job interview example.
> 
> I understand that you didn't* say* that I was ignorant. You called my statement ignorant. Ignorant means lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular. By calling my statement ignorant, you implied that I was. Debating the detail here. LOL If you would calm down for a minute and look at what I said instead of knee-jerking, you would see that I am simply trying to point out that 100% of humanity is not going to behave well.
> 
> *Denying* that a certain percentage of the population has poor impulse control is ignorant. Literally.


I didn't imply anything, your statement was (and is) ignorant to the fact that women are not to blame for being sexually harassed, assaulted, or raped. Your attempted justification proves the point completely. 

LOL. I have never denied that part of the population has poor impulse control, in fact, that the basis of everything I've said so far. 

Again, it's sad when women won't support other women in something as basic as a human right.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

So, in your opinion, did Johnny Carson cross the line with Dolly Parton? When he said, on national TV, "I'd give a year's earnings to have a peek"?

Just askin'....


geo


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Round 4.....ding ding


Team Alice - 4
Team IP - 0


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh My! Her collarbones!! Trash, utter and complete trash. :eyeroll:


You said you watched the show, so you know there was a lot more skin showing than the above picture. But that isn't your point.

Pedestrians have the RIGHT of way. If they step out in traffic, it is the driver's fault. There is a video of pedestrians, obsessed with their phones, stepping out into traffic and being struck by cars, trucks and busses. I watched it and thought, " What stupid people, they can't win against a vehicle. What ever happened to looking both ways, etc.? But when I showed the clip to a couple of college guys, liberals if that matters, and they were disgusted by the awful drivers. Yes! They blame the drivers because pedestrians have the right of way.

All people have the right to dress and act as they wish without fear of being propositioned, fondled or raped. Sometimes, this is where I think IP and I separate, we send visual messages that increase our chances for proposition, touching or rape. There have been studies on hair styles. It was found that female joggers with swaying pony tails are more often targets for assault. Clearly, mostly naked women attract men and will draw more propositions, unwanted touching and rape. Does this mean all men are pigs? Does this mean the women, "asked" to be raped? No and no.

To imagine that women are powerless in all this is insulting to most women. Beauty and sexual attractiveness go hand in hand. Men will and have killed to win favor from a beautiful woman. That is power. Sometimes power is money and influence. There is no law against being too rich or too influential. Just as there is no restriction on too much beauty or intelligence.

When a woman enters an industry closely tied to beauty and wealth, everyone knows what the coin of the realm is. Trades made on the casting couch often are lop sided. The man may expend millions making her a star, but her beauty isn't diminished a bit. In that hotbed of sexual depravity, often times even her honor and integrity remains intact.

But to climb off the casting couch, bask in fame and wealth for several decades and then garner sympathy for the abuse they suffered is, to me, disingenuous.

I'd like to offer a few suggestions: Don't step out into traffic. Don't wear your hair in pony tails while jogging in dangerous neighborhoods or after dark. Don't come to a casting interview in a short dress and no underwear. Don't go to a man's hotel room to do drugs unless you accept that you might not remember everything the next morning.

Women are often driven to attract men any way they can and men are attracted to women with an obvious urge to copulate. But no one has the right to touch you or any other person.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cabin Fever said:


> Team Alice - 4
> Team IP - 0


Yet you've contributed absolutely zero to the conversation. :Laugh out loud:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

geo in mi said:


> So, in your opinion, did Johnny Carson cross the line with Dolly Parton? When he said, on national TV, "I'd give a year's earnings to have a peek"?
> 
> Just askin'....
> 
> ...


Nope.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Analogy: I go out at night and flash all kinds of money around at bars, restaurants, and casinos. I can barely stuff all the Franklins into my pockets, so some are flapping in the breeze as I walk by. Now, I go outside in the dark of night. I get assaulted and robbed.

It is the right of all people to be out after dark, flash their money around, and not be harassed, assaulted, or robbed. It's not hard to understand if one realizes that all people have rights, and are equal in all ways.

99% of the population would have left me alone, it's that 1% I have to protect myself from no matter what my rights are. Yeah, that 1% should know better, but they don't. So, I chose to protect myself by not exposing my assets.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> Analogy: I go out at night and flash all kinds of money around at bars, restaurants, and casinos. I can barely stuff all the Franklins into my pockets, so some are flapping in the breeze as I walk by. Now, I go outside in the dark of night. I get assaulted and robbed.
> 
> It is the right of all people to be out after dark, flash their money around, and not be harassed, assaulted, or robbed. It's not hard to understand if one realizes that all people have rights, and are equal in all ways.
> 
> 99% of the population would have left me alone, it's that 1% I have to protect myself from no matter what my rights are. Yeah, that 1% should know better, but they don't. So, I chose to protect myself by not exposing my assets.


No one has the right to steal or assault others. Your analogy fails if that was your point.

My story is that I am flashing money and even dropping some. Someone picks it up and hands it back to me.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

geo in mi said:


> So, in your opinion, did Johnny Carson cross the line with Dolly Parton? When he said, on national TV, "I'd give a year's earnings to have a peek"?
> 
> Just askin'....
> 
> ...


"It costs a lot of money to look this cheap". 
Dolly Parton

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dolly_parton_446782


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> You said you watched the show, so you know there was a lot more skin showing than the above picture. But that isn't your point.
> 
> Pedestrians have the RIGHT of way. If they step out in traffic, it is the driver's fault. There is a video of pedestrians, obsessed with their phones, stepping out into traffic and being struck by cars, trucks and busses. I watched it and thought, " What stupid people, they can't win against a vehicle. What ever happened to looking both ways, etc.? But when I showed the clip to a couple of college guys, liberals if that matters, and they were disgusted by the awful drivers. Yes! They blame the drivers because pedestrians have the right of way.
> 
> ...


I didn't watch the show, what I said was that I saw a thread full of ignorance on another forum.

We do agree that no one has the right to touch another without permission, but what person looks like, is dressed in, smells like, hairstyle, etc. should have nothing to do with it.

Do you think that the majority of sexual harassment, and/or rape occurs under scenarios such as "Don't wear your hair in pony tails while jogging in dangerous neighborhoods or after dark. Don't come to a casting interview in a short dress and no underwear. Don't go to a man's hotel room to do drugs unless you accept that you might not remember everything the next morning", it doesn't. Most women know not to do those things, they should be able to because men should be able to control their impulses, but they can't because many men (and women as well) don't understand basic human rights.

Why do you think there is much less sexual harassment, assault, and rape with women who are attracted to other women? It's the same scenario (sex, dress, hair, smell, etc.) but not nearly so prevalent. What is your opinion?


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote I.P.>
I didn't watch the show, what I said was that I saw a thread full of ignorance on another forum.
<Quote 

Hummm, and here I thought is was bad form to discuss another forum?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hunter63 said:


> "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap".
> Dolly Parton
> 
> Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dolly_parton_446782


I'll betcha Dolly understands completely "#MeToo" and Time's Up.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I see two entirely different points being argued, the matter of principle and the matter of practical reality, and I find myself agreeing with both sides here so far as it is parallel with the notion that I have a right to be able to leave for the weekend with my doors standing wide open and return to find everything exactly as I left it. In reality, that is not a good gamble and you can rest assured that those doors will be locked when I leave the house. Burglars have a really good chance of getting shot if I catch them, and I feel the same way about those who would violate women. I just don't expect principle to motivate acceptable behavior from people who are inherently unprincipled and consider it wise to proactively discourage unacceptable behavior.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hunter63 said:


> Quote I.P.>
> I didn't watch the show, what I said was that I saw a thread full of ignorance on another forum.
> <Quote
> 
> Hummm, and here I thought is was bad form to discuss another forum?


Why don't you report it, rather than use this passive aggressive post?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

IndyDave said:


> I see two entirely different points being argued, the matter of principle and the matter of practical reality, and I find myself agreeing with both sides here so far as it is parallel with the notion that I have a right to be able to leave for the weekend with my doors standing wide open and return to find everything exactly as I left it. In reality, that is not a good gamble and you can rest assured that those doors will be locked when I leave the house. Burglars have a really good chance of getting shot if I catch them, and I feel the same way about those who would violate women. I just don't expect principle to motivate acceptable behavior from people who are inherently unprincipled and consider it wise to proactively discourage unacceptable behavior.


Trashy clothes( that is subjective) and a big can of pepper spray. I get to wear what I want and you get punished for your bad behavior. ( Not you literally)


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Because ..... freedom to express himself without being harassed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> I see two entirely different points being argued, the matter of principle and the matter of practical reality, and I find myself agreeing with both sides here so far as it is parallel with the notion that I have a right to be able to leave for the weekend with my doors standing wide open and return to find everything exactly as I left it. In reality, that is not a good gamble and you can rest assured that those doors will be locked when I leave the house. Burglars have a really good chance of getting shot if I catch them, and I feel the same way about those who would violate women. I just don't expect principle to motivate acceptable behavior from people who are inherently unprincipled and consider it wise to proactively discourage unacceptable behavior.


Exactly. What I strive to do is educate people that it's not acceptable any longer. It's painfully obvious that many people (men and women) will justify sexual harassment, assault, and rape IF they think the women is "asking for it." The bottom line is that no one "asks for it" regardless of how they are dressed, smell, hairstyle, drunk, out at night, etc. the fault lies with the harasser, assaulter, rapist only.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Because ..... freedom to express himself without being harassed.


Is this post in response to anyone or anything in particular?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Using women's choice of clothing as a possible reason for them being assaulted is misogynistic. Just another way to put women down because you disagree with their life choices. I could be wearing my smelliest ugliest sweats and still be assaulted.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Using women's choice of clothing as a possible reason for them being assaulted is misogynistic. Just another way to put women down because you disagree with their life choices. I could be wearing my smelliest ugliest sweats and still be assaulted.


Absolutely. The entire "she asked for it" brigade is misogynistic, and ignorant.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

This is really a tough one, isn't it? No woman is ever "asking" for it". And blaming a woman for being assaulted is just plain ignorance.

I think I am a fairly normal male with the usual tendencies and when I see a woman dressed in reavealling clothing, my usual first repsonse is "why is she doing that". I really feel no urges or anything. But if I am with my wife I usy=ually will make a snarky comment.

I think the bottom line is no woman should be harrasesed or asaulted ever, under any pretense.

As far as the Johnny Carson joke goes-I am guessing those two were friends and that is part of their joking.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Using women's choice of clothing as a possible reason for them being assaulted is misogynistic. Just another way to put women down because you disagree with their life choices. I could be wearing my smelliest ugliest sweats and still be assaulted.


You have opened the door into one of those issues which pains me greatly, specifically the condemnation which comes from people who should be among the last to condemn anyone. People who should understand that they themselves are not perfect and have either been or wish to have been what they condemn. People who have given up a lifestyle in order to adopt and new and arguably morally superior lifestyle, but in reality miss the old lifestyle (indicative that they want the respectability of the new lifestyle but don't really like having to live it) will be among the first to condemn. In many regards it comes down to trying to make one's self taller by cutting others off at the knees. They also fail to consider that if they were what they were supposed to be, people would want to be more like them rather than feeling browbeaten by them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

IndyDave said:


> You have opened the door into one of those issues which pains me greatly, specifically the condemnation which comes from people who should be among the last to condemn anyone. People who should understand that they themselves are not perfect and have either been or wish to have been what they condemn. People who have given up a lifestyle in order to adopt and new and arguably morally superior lifestyle, but in reality miss the old lifestyle (indicative that they want the respectability of the new lifestyle but don't really like having to live it) will be among the first to condemn. In many regards it comes down to trying to make one's self taller by cutting others off at the knees. They also fail to consider that if they were what they were supposed to be, people would want to be more like them rather than feeling browbeaten by them.


Were you trying to castigate me by doing what you may be accusing me of?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Were you trying to castigate me by doing what you may be accusing me of?


No, just acknowledging that you made a comment which reminded me of something I find troubling. No more accusation here than there would have been had you reminded me I have to have my taxes done by 4/15 when I really don't like having to bother with it.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. What I strive to do is educate people that it's not acceptable any longer. It's painfully obvious that many people (men and women) will justify sexual harassment, assault, and rape IF they think the women is "asking for it." The bottom line is that no one "asks for it" regardless of how they are dressed, smell, hairstyle, drunk, out at night, etc. the fault lies with the harasser, assaulter, rapist only.


I agree with this 100%. It may be stupid (or ignorant) of the women to dress any way she chooses, I would never justify someone's criminal action (sexual harassment, assault, or rape) based on the women's poor choices.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cabin Fever said:


> I agree with this 100%. It may be stupid (or ignorant) of the women to dress any way she chooses, I would never justify someone's criminal action (sexual harassment, assault, or rape) based on the women's poor choices.


Just men's faulty impulses? I understand what you're saying completely.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

keenataz said:


> ....I think the bottom line is no woman should be harrasesed or asaulted ever, under any pretense....


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this statement.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Everyone has to understand that evil lurks around every corner trying to find those that he can devour. Evil does not follow rules, morals, mores, and could give a flip about human rights. We have to guard ourselves from evil by shielding ourselves with a cloak of armor.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Maybe the French are smarter than we are on this issue...



> _*"Instead of helping women, this frenzy to send these (male chauvinist) 'pigs' to the abattoir actually helps the enemies of sexual liberty -- religious extremists and the worst sort of reactionaries," the collective of women who signed the letter said.
> *_
> *"As women we do not recognise ourselves in this feminism, which beyond denouncing the abuse of power, takes on a hatred of men and of sexuality." *


The rest of the article:

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180109/ca...es-puritanism-following-weinstein-allegations


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I found this clip thought provoking , if not hilarious.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't watch the show, what I said was that I saw a thread full of ignorance on another forum.
> 
> We do agree that no one has the right to touch another without permission, but what person looks like, is dressed in, smells like, hairstyle, etc. should have nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...





First, thank you for the civilized reply.

I only caught bits and pieces of it, but the news did show plunging necklines and side slits up to their panties.

I think most women want to be desired. They want to attract. Exposed body parts increases their sexual attractiveness.

Perhaps the billion dollar industries that women support to look sexual, smell nice, are meant to attract who? Men. Right? (no, don’t go there. We have enough to discuss without adding your other pet topic) Are these efforts to attract men sexual in nature? Yes. Exposing or nearly exposing you lady parts, providing easy access to these areas attracts most men? But you chafe at the thought that a man might see that as a non-verbal encouragement to access these parts so prominently displayed?

We can agree that sticking your boobs in a man’s face doesn’t give him permission to touch them. But when she does, just like stepping into traffic, reality overtakes rights.

The span of what constitutes sexual harassment is broad. You could walk over to my desk and place your hand on my shoulder a thousand times, but if I did that to you at your desk, that’s unwanted touching.

We agree that rape is rape. I don’t know if guys treat “no” like firetrucks treat stop lights. I understand that no is no. But in my experiences, verbal communication is limited and if there are no stop signs, forward progress continues. I have had sexual relations with many women and while a few may have verbalized the affirmative, there was no signed contract or verbal permission given. It seems that if there is remorse, the woman has the right to believed 100%, no matter if the confession is a year later or 40 years later. The only resolution would be a major change in female behavior, a requirement of signed confession of her intentions that night. But even then, I support her right to revoke that contract at any moment.

You want the right to attract without the cat calls or wolf whistles that signal the effectiveness of your costume.

I have, of course, no direct knowledge of the mating rituals of lesbians, so I don’t know what they whisper in each other’s ears. Men do tend to act and interact physically, while women tend to act and interact emotionally. For men, a completed transaction is the goal. For women, being heard and recognized and valued doesn’t need a solution or an ending.

Why do you think that the average lesbian relationship is shorter than an average heterosexual relationship? What commonly creates that instability?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Or maybe it is as simple as it pays to advertise?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cabin Fever said:


> Everyone has to understand that evil lurks around every corner trying to find those that he can devour. Evil does not follow rules, morals, mores, and could give a flip about human rights. We have to guard ourselves from evil by shielding ourselves with a cloak of armor.


Women have known this for centuries, it's time to stop justifying some people's opinion that it's OK if the woman is "asking for it."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> First, thank you for the civilized reply.
> 
> I only caught bits and pieces of it, but the news did show plunging necklines and side slits up to their panties.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you think you're correct, but you don't take into account that most sexual harassment, assault, and rape occurs when a woman is dressed in jeans, a business suit, etc. I'm 55, I still get cat called and harassed, and I can assure you that I don't wear provocative clothing. 

My point is if lesbians (for the most part) can control their impulse to sexually harass, assault, and rape other women, why can't men? I know that all men don't rape, harass, or assault but many will harass/cat call or even grope because they think it's their right and they have the power to do so.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Women have known this for centuries, it's time to stop justifying some people'sbopinion that it's OK if the woman is "asking for it."


 I would never justify it as being okay. I would say the woman is clueless, tho.

You know, driver's in Minnesota (and maybe everywhere else) are supposed to stop if someone is standing/walking in the crosswalk. I am not going to use the crosswalk if I see a semi-truck come barreling down the street. "Hey, I have a right to be in the this crosswalk and the law says he has to stop. Therefore, I am safe!" That, is what I mean by clueless.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> I don't believe that Irish Pixie does much of anything for the purpose of stirring the pot. There are a number of topics on which she has strong feelings and it not inclined to deviate from the principles in which she believes. I may not agree with all of those beliefs, but I have no question in my mind regarding her sincerity. In this case, I would point out that if we take the argument that any of the items on the list constitute 'asking for it', then we have succeeded at becoming no better than ISIS.


Thank you. I don't back down which seems to thoroughly upset some posters, I wonder why?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> I would never justify it as being okay. I would say the woman is clueless, tho.
> 
> You know, driver's in Minnesota (and maybe everywhere else) are supposed to stop if someone is standing/walking in the crosswalk. I am not going to use the crosswalk if I see a semi-truck come barreling down the street. "Hey, I have a right to be in the this crosswalk and the law says he has to stop. Therefore, I am safe!" That, is what I mean by clueless.


There is a big difference between someone accidentally hitting you and someone assaulting you or raping you because of what you are wearing. One is done with purpose. Clothing will not change that action is just gives the guilty an excuse to the rest of those to denigrate a women for her clothing choices.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Much of this argument is built upon sand. I don't think anybody has advocated sexual harassment, but to try to build an argument for sexual harassment awareness while silmultaneously wearing very little clothing, just does not resonate with the hoi polloi, common sense Americans of the flyover country.

Like I used to tell my kids...There are instances where you can stand on principles and be "dead" right. While the principle of their argument may be sound, they turn right around and torch it by wearing an outfit that screams "fondle me".

And can't the sexual harassment movement find better spokespersons than Hollywood? This stuff is not new in the entertainment industry...As Sir Ian said of working back in the 1960's, “The director of the theatre I was working at showed me some photographs he got from women who were wanting jobs,” he said. “Some of them had at the bottom of their photograph ‘DRR’ — directors’ rights respected. In other words, if you give me a job, you can have sex with me.” 

Maybe Hollywood can eradicate it, but I have my doubts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Didn’t stir the pot, pointed out the truth. Thanks though.


That is an opinion just like it was an opinion that Pixie is stirring the pot. Your welcome.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Much of this argument is built upon sand. I don't think anybody has advocated sexual harassment, but to try to build an argument for sexual harassment awareness while silmultaneously wearing very little clothing, just does not resonate with the hoi polloi, common sense Americans of the flyover country.
> 
> Like I used to tell my kids...There are instances where you can stand on principles and be "dead" right. While the principle of their argument may be sound, they turn right around and torch it by wearing an outfit that screams "fondle me".
> 
> ...


What's new is that women are fighting back and naming their harassers, assaulters, and rapists in Hollywood. Men no longer have the power to end a woman's career, and are being removed from their positions of power. And Time's Up is going to help the average woman do the same thing.

Men have a choice, if they continue to harass, assault, and rape they will be outed, humiliated, and removed from their position. It's a good thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Or maybe it is as simple as it pays to advertise?


What is wrong with advertising? Finding a romantic partner is always a good thing. Getting assaulted in any way should not be the result because an attractive person dresses to attract a mate.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> There is a big difference between someone accidentally hitting you and someone assaulting you or raping you because of what you are wearing. One is done with purpose. Clothing will not change that action is just gives the guilty an excuse the rest of those to denigrate a women for her clothing choices.


Not so fast....
At one time, perhaps prior to 1960, I'm assuming men were often allowed to tell women graphic detail of what perverted sex act they intended on the hapless female. Squeeze a but cheek, tweak Second Base, all in good fun. I missed it.
A came of age in the peak of the sexual revolution, Just Do It and Do it in the Road were popular songs and activities. No one had sex with those that just said no. We simply moved on to those that didn't say no. The bra burning women's liberation empowered women. An unwanted sexual whisper or a bit of unwelcome fondling, resulted in a sound slap across the face. Only crazy people raped. Seemed to me women were equals.
Then, maybe in the 1980s, these terms were modified. Asking a gal if she wanted to go to bed with you was sexual harassment. Words became crimes. Looking at cleavage is non-verbal sexual harassment. It isn't that the action is a crime, unless she decides it is a crime. Sometimes it is flattering, sometimes it is unwanted sexual harassment.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Some of us just like a lively discussion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Not so fast....
> At one time, perhaps prior to 1960, I'm assuming men were often allowed to tell women graphic detail of what perverted sex act they intended on the hapless female. Squeeze a but cheek, tweak Second Base, all in good fun. I missed it.
> A came of age in the peak of the sexual revolution, Just Do It and Do it in the Road were popular songs and activities. No one had sex with those that just said no. We simply moved on to those that didn't say no. The bra burning women's liberation empowered women. An unwanted sexual whisper or a bit of unwelcome fondling, resulted in a sound slap across the face. Only crazy people raped. Seemed to me women were equals.
> Then, maybe in the 1980s, these terms were modified. Asking a gal if she wanted to go to bed with you was sexual harassment. Words became crimes. Looking at cleavage is non-verbal sexual harassment. It isn't that the action is a crime, unless she decides it is a crime. Sometimes it is flattering, sometimes it is unwanted sexual harassment.


Are you saying that no one was raped or assaulted during the sexual revelation? Can't even bother with the rest of the post if you believe that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> No, an opinion would be something I believe, a fact would be something with concrete evidence, there is concrete evidence. Same topic 3-4 times....pot stirring. Much obliged.


It is a fact that the topic has been discussed in other forms before. The pot stirring is your opinion on why it was posted. See how that goes.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> It is a fact that the topic has been discussed in other forms before. The pot stirring is your opinion on why it was posted. See how that goes.


Yes ma’am, right away! It didn’t go far, it’s the same song and dance still.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> There is a big difference between someone accidentally hitting you and someone assaulting you or raping you because of what you are wearing. One is done with purpose. Clothing will not change that action is just gives the guilty an excuse to the rest of those to denigrate a women for her clothing choices.


You've totally missed my point. My point is whether it is illegally being raped or illegally being hit in a crosswalk, the person being hurt could have made a choice that would have possibly lowered the risk of him/her being hurt. I'll always denigrate a choice when it involves throwing caution to the wind.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cabin Fever said:


> Everyone has to understand that evil lurks around every corner trying to find those that he can devour. Evil does not follow rules, morals, mores, and could give a flip about human rights. We have to guard ourselves from evil by shielding ourselves with a cloak of armor.


I'm much more inclined to agree with your belief that evil people exist than to blame women for their attire. 

The realtor in Calgary who was recently sexually assaulted while wearing slacks and a turtleneck sweater, the woman in her 80's who was sexually assaulted in her home and the 15 year old girl that was dragged from a bus stop who's attacker had to remove her nowboots, parka, snowpants, jeans and heavy hoodie, seem to evidence your point. 

I bought groceries while I was in town yesterday and left the dog in the truck with fresh chicken and pork and it seems to me that if she can control her impulse to dine, the average, not evil man look at a woman showing a bit of skin and do much the same. 

Jolly has posted several pictures of the actress in the red dress and I'm quite confident that if he and most other men, were in the same room with her, they would also conduct themselves as gentlemen because all men are not sexual predators. 

The issue of sexual misconduct seems to bring out the worst in people because there is a tendency to believe that sexual misconduct and predation is a sexual issue when it really isn't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> You've totally missed my point. My point is whether it is illegally being raped or illegally being hit in a crosswalk, the person being hurt could have made a choice that would have possibly lowered the risk of him/her being hurt. I'll always denigrate a choice when it involves throwing caution to the wind.


How can what you wear lower the risk when women are raped in a multitude of different kinds of clothing? When old and young are raped? Trashy is subjective. I could be hit by a vehicle while sitting in my front room. When is clothing ever a choice that a women can make to stop an assault? I never wear what some would call trashy and I have been assaulted. No not the same thing at all.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm much more inclined to agree with your belief that evil people exist than to blame women for their attire.
> 
> The realtor in Calgary who was recently sexually assaulted while wearing slacks and a turtleneck sweater, the woman in her 80's who was sexually assaulted in her home and the 15 year old girl that was dragged from a bus stop who's attacker had to remove her nowboots, parka, snowpants, jeans and heavy hoodie, seem to evidence your point.
> 
> ...


I coudn;t agree more. But I thought this thread was about women's attire and the influence it may or may not have on sexual abuse. What was the point of this thread?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Let's go back to the woman in the red dress....If a man said something to her of a somewhat indecent nature, would it be viewed in the same light, if she were a bit more modestly attired? They do make fetching gowns that aren't quite that revealing, as evidenced already in this thread.

While I would certainly agree an immodest red dress is no cause to grope or rape a woman, doesn't such attire run the risk of generating comments that could be viewed as sexual harassment in another context?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Let's go back to the woman in the red dress....If a man said something to her of a somewhat indecent nature, would it be viewed in the same light, if she were a bit more modestly attired? They do make fetching gowns that aren't quite that revealing, as evidenced already in this thread.
> 
> While I would certainly agree an immodest red dress is no cause to grope or rape a woman, doesn't such attire run the risk of generating comments that could be viewed as sexual harassment in another context?[/QUOTE


The same women could be covered head to toe and still risk an indecent comment. Is she supposed to dress a different way for every person who can't control what they say?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

painterswife said:


> .


It seems that something is missing here.

Edit: Now that I have been gone for a couple of hours and returned, your text has appeared!


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> The same women could be covered head to toe and still risk an indecent comment. Is she supposed to dress a different way for every person who can't control what they say?


I used to tell people that one can't plan for everything, but you should plan for what probably will be.

The woman dressed to advertise, and advertise she did. I've seen more clothes on a street walker.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I used to tell people that one can't plan for everything, but you should plan for what probably will be.
> 
> The woman dressed to advertise, and advertise she did. I've seen more clothes on a street walker.


No women is advertising to be raped. With that logic any women wearing anything or nothing is advertising to be raped. So very, very wrong.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> No women is advertising to be raped. With that logic any women wearing anything or nothing is advertising to be raped. So very, very wrong.


Let me make sure I understand...In your opinion, there is no difference between an inappropriate comment made by a man about this woman's breasts (You have magnificent breasts.) and raping her?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Revealing clothing, and provocative females titillate. It does not justify assault.

Men assault woman because they are animals, some animals are better trained than others. Animals sometimes react viscerally at the sight of prey. Women must be on guard. Women must be careful.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I've seen more clothes on a street walker.


I’m sure you have.

So do you believe that a woman nursing an infant in public is advertising to be raped?
How about a woman in a bathing suit? like say, contestants in a miss America pageant in their bikinis?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Let me make sure I understand...In your opinion, there is no difference between an inappropriate comment made by a man about this woman's breasts (You have magnificent breasts.) and raping her?


I don't believe I said that. I did say that what a women is wearing does not make or prevent someone from doing either thing.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’m sure you have.
> 
> So do you believe that a woman nursing an infant I public is advertising to be raped?
> How about a woman in a bathing suit?


Again, as I asked PW, is there a difference between sexual harassment and rape?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Again, as I asked PW, is there a difference between sexual harassment and rape?


Don’t answer a question by asking one.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

oneraddad said:


> There's also some decent women that can't help but to beat the dead horse. How many times can you argue the same topic ?


I'm reminded if Ron White. Something about something being "fo eva". I'm guessing this hoss will be beaten just about that long too!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Let me make sure I understand...In your opinion, there is no difference between an inappropriate comment made by a man about this woman's breasts (You have magnificent breasts.) and raping her?


That's an inappropriate comment? Sounds like a heartfelt compliment to me!


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Don’t answer a question by asking one.


Here's where we started:


> The woman at the Golden Globes, even those members of Time's Up, can wear anything they chose as long as it doesn't violate the laws of that area. It isn't inviting any type of reaction, it's their choice, their decision, and their right to wear anything they want. Just as it is the right of all women to be out after dark, wear what they want, get drunk, and not be harassed, assaulted, or raped.


This is about in the middle:



> But I thought this thread was about women's attire and the influence it may or may not have on sexual abuse. What was the point of this thread?


I find there is a lot of difference between where women draw the lines sexual harassment, sexual abuse and rape, with rape being the easiest line drawn. I also think that in particular, sexual harassment can be promulgated by inappropriate attire, especially when that attire is in the extreme. I.E., dress a good looking gal in a thong bikini and walk her past a bunch of NYC construction workers. I'm guessing both of us would agree an incident of cat-calling would not surprise either one of us or the woman so attired. Dressing that way is not breaking any laws that I know of, but it does invite reaction.

If women are going to argue this extreme, they are going to lose a lot of the effectiveness of their message. 

Lastly, I like the Socratic Method. I used it a lot while teaching.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's an inappropriate comment? Sounds like a heartfelt compliment to me!


Looking at the dress, it might have been taken as one.

But, aye, there lies the rub, eh, matey?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Looking at the dress, it might have been taken as one.
> 
> But, aye, there lies the rub, eh, matey?


I've no control over how anyone perceives a compliment, that's up to them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I read on another forum how it's women who dress provocatively that cause sexual harassment, assault, and rape. It wasn't just men spewing this excrement, it's women too and I just don't understand the ignorance. These are "salt of the earth" supposedly good people... After reading, I did get the impression from some that certain women "get what they deserve." Sick.
> 
> Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are about power, period. It's always (*and only*) the fault of the harasser, the assaulter, and the rapist, period. The woman at the Golden Globes, even those members of Time's Up, can wear anything they chose as long as it doesn't violate the laws of that area. It isn't inviting any type of reaction, it's their choice, their decision, and their right to wear anything they want. Just as it is the right of all women to be out after dark, wear what they want, get drunk, and not be harassed, assaulted, or raped. It's not hard to understand if one realizes that women have rights, and are equal to men in all ways.
> 
> Why would someone actually come out and say that men aren't capable of being decent human beings and control themselves? This type of ignorance does good men a great disservice.


I agree. I think we all need to be talking about better ways to have sexual relations. When everyone is honest and open with each other, there's much less room for harm to occur. This should even be done amongst youth, i.e. youth should be free to express themselves sexually, in manners that they see fit, without fear of prudish intrusion by overbearing, moralizing adults.

Hopefully this is all done in a productive and healthy manner, of course, but in my experience so far, Missouri was far, far more likely to hoard pedophiles than out here on the supposedly immoral west coast.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

So are you saying the youth should not be protected from the pedophiles? I'm confused??


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So are you saying the youth should not be protected from the pedophiles? I'm confused??


No, I'm saying minors should be allowed to sexually experiment with one another.

They should also have easy access to adults who can help guide them through these decisions. Such conversations were impossible for me in my area, because the only answers I'd get would be "NO, BAD BOY." Hell, my church even told me masturbation was wrong. Hahaha.

School sex education programs need to be better in America. To the best of my knowledge, a lot of them are terrible and mostly just make everything awkward and stifle debate. In Berlin, Germany for instance, it's perfectly common for minors to be able to talk about anything.

That sounds weird, until you think about it. Where do pedophiles hide? In the dark. If you send all sexual practices to the dark... guess what? You just fed the pedophiles. Allowing everything to be out in the open benefits everyone.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I agree. I think we all need to be talking about better ways to have sexual relations. When everyone is honest and open with each other, there's much less room for harm to occur. This should even be done amongst youth, i.e. youth should be free to express themselves sexually, in manners that they see fit, without fear of prudish intrusion by overbearing, moralizing adults.
> 
> Hopefully this is all done in a productive and healthy manner, of course, but in my experience so far, Missouri was far, far more likely to hoard pedophiles than out here on the supposedly immoral west coast.


So much for experiences, that crap is everywhere.

http://katu.com/archive/thousands-o...compliance-kept-off-public-database-in-oregon


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> So much for experiences, that crap is everywhere.


Yeah, experiences are over this country, but I'd say for the most part they tend to not be practiced in an open and ethically honest manner. Regrettably, I think men still often view women as sex objects, and women still tend to view men as pigs who just want to bang. There's no happy medium, and as a result everyone's going a bit batty.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Well this discussion just took an interesting twist. Started as a discussion on how women should be able to expose vast areas of their bodies without anyone visualizing them as sex objects, unless she wants them to and no man can speak suggestive comments without permission.
Men are accused of being "off the leash" so to speak and this will no longer be tolerated. Hands and words off and sex without a contract might, decades later, be rape. No talk of the little boys that are sexually abused, we are talking about the rape of female movie stars and their black dress protest.

Now we get a left coaster that wants teens to explore their sexuality and "No, no, no." is so Brady Bunch. Get the guys started early, that'll surely mix well while campus society has girls believing men can rape them with their eyes. Excuse me, I'm getting a tub of popcorn.......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Again, as I asked PW, is there a difference between sexual harassment and rape?


Please answer Lisa's question, "So do you believe that a woman nursing an infant in public is advertising to be raped?
How about a woman in a bathing suit? like say, contestants in a miss America pageant in their bikinis?" I'll add how about women on the beach in bathing suits, asking to be raped?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Well this discussion just took an interesting twist. Started as a discussion on how women should be able to expose vast areas of their bodies without anyone visualizing them as sex objects, unless she wants them to and no man can speak suggestive comments without permission.
> Men are accused of being "off the leash" so to speak and this will no longer be tolerated. Hands and words off and sex without a contract might, decades later, be rape. No talk of the little boys that are sexually abused, we are talking about the rape of female movie stars and their black dress protest.


That was quite a twist, how's that fiction writing coming for you?



haypoint said:


> Now we get a left coaster that wants teens to explore their sexuality and "No, no, no." is so Brady Bunch. Get the guys started early, that'll surely mix well while campus society has girls believing men can rape them with their eyes. Excuse me, I'm getting a tub of popcorn.......


Not what I said. The reason we have that type of culture on college campuses is precisely because people don't know how to discuss sex, sexual relations, and have fair and open communication about it. 

Basically, out here, the left practices what the right preaches but doesn't do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Well this discussion just took an interesting twist. Started as a discussion on how women should be able to expose vast areas of their bodies without anyone visualizing them as sex objects, unless she wants them to and no man can speak suggestive comments without permission.
> Men are accused of being "off the leash" so to speak and this will no longer be tolerated. Hands and words off and sex without a contract might, decades later, be rape. No talk of the little boys that are sexually abused, we are talking about the rape of female movie stars and their black dress protest.
> 
> Now we get a left coaster that wants teens to explore their sexuality and "No, no, no." is so Brady Bunch. Get the guys started early, that'll surely mix well while campus society has girls believing men can rape them with their eyes. Excuse me, I'm getting a tub of popcorn.......


Well, it's come full circle, women have power (and rights) if you (collective of course) do something that can be considered sexual harassment, assault, or rape you'll be punished for it. Prior to fairly recently women just had to take it, we don't any longer. As long as you (again collective) don't harass, assault, or rape anyone you're fine and dandy, or if the statute of limitations has ran out it will be a public humiliation punishment rather than jail time. 

I fully support men/boys that were violated as well, this discussion was about about the ignorance spewed on thread on another forum.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Let's go back to the woman in the red dress....If a man said something to her of a somewhat indecent nature, would it be viewed in the same light, if she were a bit more modestly attired? They do make fetching gowns that aren't quite that revealing, as evidenced already in this thread.
> 
> While I would certainly agree an immodest red dress is no cause to grope or rape a woman, doesn't such attire run the risk of generating comments that could be viewed as sexual harassment in another context?


This entire post is **** shaming Blanca Blanco (yes, she even has a name!) because she wore a gown that you don't approve of. There is nothing wrong with that gown, and it was appropriate for the venue in which it was worn.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I will play devil's advocate as well. I think radical feminism has gone too far, to the point of making men feel outright alienated, and feeling like they can't live up to many women's expectations of them, thus causing them to become depressed. There's an article on it somewhere, can't find it, but they also talked about how most suicides are being committed by males right now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yeah, experiences are over this country, but I'd say for the most part they tend to not be practiced in an open and ethically honest manner. Regrettably, I think men still often view women as sex objects, and women still tend to view men as pigs who just want to bang. There's no happy medium, and as a result everyone's going a bit batty.


You make it sound like its a bad thing. It's just human nature. Men are lust filled creatures, women protest outwardly, but most find one they like just the same. My dear ol grampa always told me the war between the sexes will never be won..... Something about too durn much fraternization with the enemy! This "war" has been going on for centuries, millennia even.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It's worth mentioning that personal attacks will not be tolerated.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I will play devil's advocate as well. I think radical feminism has gone too far, to the point of making men feel outright alienated, and feeling like they can't live up to many women's expectations of them, thus causing them to become depressed. There's an article on it somewhere, can't find it, but they also talked about how most suicides are being committed by males right now.


I don't think it's radical to be treated equally. 

And the mental health problem in this country is at crisis level, it has little to do with women's expectations of men and their becoming depressed, in my opinion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> It's worth mentioning that personal attacks will not be tolerated.


That is what this whole thread is about.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, I'm saying minors should be allowed to sexually experiment with one another


They are, and do on a very regular basis. At least we did when I was a wee lad. I spent a good amount of time "out behind the barn" with various neighbor girls and cousins.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You make it sound like its a bad thing. It's just human nature. Men are lust filled creatures, women protest outwardly, but most find one they like just the same. My dear ol grampa always told me the war between the sexes will never be won..... Something about too durn much fraternization with the enemy! This "war" has been going on for centuries, millennia even.


I'd say both sexes are just as capable of sexual expression, though men tend to be more sexually active. Masturbation is a great way to stave off emotions when they're not wanted. (So poo-pooey to the religions that bar masturbation. Recipe for disaster there.)



wr said:


> It's worth mentioning that personal attacks will not be tolerated.


I should be able to refrain from that. If not just let me know. I've nothing to prove here.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> They are, and do on a very regular basis. At least we did when I was a wee lad. I spent a good amount of time "out behind the barn" with various neighbor girls and cousins.


Somehow I doubt if you folks were actually learning effective methods of interaction. A bunch of kids just talking about stuff is a recipe for disaster, because an echo chamber of bad ideas can be created. But, as long as everything was respectful, and people learned how to get along with each other, that'd be great! But some reason I'm imagining a bunch of horny boys trying to seduce the girls in every way possible.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> To whom were you speaking? I started the thread. I'm tough, I don't lie and spin, and I'm certainly not cheap.
> 
> So passive aggressive posts are what fixers do? Huh. OK.


I was speaking to wr. Isn't this thread about women being attacked? This whole thread is about personal attacks on women. Chill, it ain't all about you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I was speaking to wr. Isn't this thread about women being attacked? Tis whole thread is about personal attacks on women. Chill, it ain't all about you,


None of this is about me, it's about about a society that denigrates women because of their perceived moral code, or simply because they have the power. Times they are achangin'. You don't understand that do you?

I misspoke and edited my post "to whom were you referring", is that more easily understood?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They are, and do on a very regular basis. At least we did when I was a wee lad. I spent a good amount of time "out behind the barn" with various neighbor girls and cousins.


Hey, Irish Pixie, what do you make of that attitude? Play with the neighborhoods girls will surely lead to respectful equality as they grow up?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I was speaking to wr. Isn't this thread about women being attacked? This whole thread is about personal attacks on women.* Chill, it ain't all about you.*


oh man, "chill" ain't even close! That was just plain cold!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd say both sexes are just as capable of sexual expression, though men tend to be more sexually active. Masturbation is a great way to stave off emotions when they're not wanted. (So poo-pooey to the religions that bar masturbation. Recipe for disaster there.)


Great get those boys feeling open about their carrot cuffing. They are such an advantage over you back in the day. Plenty of Porn videos as close as their phones. Really get their narcissistic sexual pleasures on and establish that connection to females. Such progress.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Hey, Irish Pixie, what do you make of that attitude? Play with the neighborhoods girls will surely lead to respectful equality as they grow up?


That respectful play worked out well for us. We learned a lot, one of the biggies was that girls and boys ain't prezacalutey "equal".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

krackin said:


> Play stupid games....
> win stupid prizes.


What are you indicating are "stupid games" can you explain?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> oh, I've already commented on that one, just interested in your take on this nonsense.


Which nonsense would that be? I asked if you were impaired because the post is bizarre...

Maybe this will help: "An important lesson for all children: "A boy and a girl run around on the grass at the park. The boy tackles the girl. The girl laughs. She gets up and runs away. She loves to run. He chases, she turns and they grab each other, tumble and land in a pile, giggling. After a few minutes, he tackles her again and she lands a bit hard. She is bigger and physical, but he more than holds his own in roughhousing. She pauses for a second. Then she laughs again; she’s still having fun.

Dad gets his attention, and says, “If she’s not having fun, you have to stop.”"

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/if-shes-not-having-fun-you-have-to-stop/


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

I not nice to fight in front of the kids....the neighbors are watching.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> None of this is about me, it's about about a society that denigrates women because of their perceived moral code, or simply because they have the power. Times they are achangin'. You don't understand that do you?
> 
> I misspoke and edited my post "to whom were you referring", is that more easily understood?


I was referring to the subject of the post.

Wouldn't the denigration stem from a lack of moral code, instead of "because of their perceived moral code"? Not sure who they are.

Times are not changing. Men will always attack woman. Woman will always be a target for men. Men will always be more physically powerful than women.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> What are you indicating are "stupid games" can you explain?


No, I can't, I'm too busy trying to be a victim too. There ISN'T an edge for a straight white elderly tax payin' citizen self employed male small farmer. Don't P&M to me until you wear my boots.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please answer Lisa's question, "So do you believe that a woman nursing an infant in public is advertising to be raped?
> How about a woman in a bathing suit? like say, contestants in a miss America pageant in their bikinis?" I'll add how about women on the beach in bathing suits, asking to be raped?


Why answer it? Are we to be reduced to arguing about a comedy of the absurd?

The problem I find with your argument is that it rests on absolutes and the goalposts are not fixed. Are we all in agreement that rape is wrong? Are we all in agreement that sexual abuse is wrong? Is sexual harassment wrong?

If the answer to all is yes, the next step is to define what each one is. As I said, rape is pretty easy, but it's not a slam dunk. A coed goes to a frat party, gets drunk out of her mind and engages in consensual sex at the time. She wakes up the next morning with a young man she does not know and it's obvious in her hung-over state she has engaged in sex. Good people can disagree whether the sexual encounter was rape, or not.

What constitutes sexual abuse? Again, most of us can agree, but there are examples where some people would disagree, even people of good character.

The hardest one is sexual harassment. Yeah, some guy patting a gal at the workplace on the fanny is pretty easy...But what if she's been rubbing her chest on him all morning, while checking out work on his computer? What about the woman in the red dress getting a cat call on the red carpet from an onlooker?

Life is not a vacuum. People dress provocatively because they want the attention. If they do so, I'm not sure they have the right to complain when they get what they want. And I think that in this particular red dress case, to die on the sexual harassment hill that states that no woman is responsible for unwanted attention, no matter how scantily or inappropriately dressed is to undermine the entire argument, including the instances where sexual harassment is actually occurring.

Another logical extension of the absolutism argument, is the law of unintended consequences. If you actually achieve the end result of what you seek, we'll be reduced to signed consent before sexual relations even between man and wife, along with a renewed age of Puritanism, as whatever overtures a man makes toward a woman can always be construed by somebody, somewhere, as improper and best not done.

But people are people, men are men and women are women. While I'm sure the current situation will bring about some changes, I don't see any major shifts in the age-old battle of the sexes. We're sitting here discussing a first-world problem, and what type of resources we wish to throw at it, when lots of people across the globe have much bigger things to worry about. One push of the button by Rocket Man and all this angst and worry would disappear in a flash.

Perspective is always good.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you impaired in any way?


Nope, my mom had me tested.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I was referring to the subject of the post.
> 
> Wouldn't the denigration stem from a lack of moral code, instead of "because of their perceived moral code"? Not sure who they are.
> 
> Times are not changing. Men will always attack woman. Woman will always be a target for men. Men will always be more physically powerful than women.


The times are changing due to now powerful women coming forward and outing sexual predators in Hollywood, this has empowered women all over the country to come forward. The politicians are now dropping like flies to try to mitigate their own sexual harassment, assault, and rape- this will change the direction the country is heading. The times are definitely achangin'. Will it completely stop rape? No, and it won't completely stop harassment and assault either, but it's a start. 

I'm not playing the nitpick game with you, but feel free to play by yourself.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> None of this is about me, it's about about a society that denigrates women because of their perceived moral code, or simply because they have the power. Times they are achangin'. You don't understand that do you?
> 
> I misspoke and edited my post "to whom were you referring", is that more easily understood?


So all the playboy, penthouse, and other porn star girls were forced into that career? Or maybe did they choose it? Because a few famous people sexually assaulted people does not reflect an entire culture. Go to a Muslim country and try to change the way the females get treated there, put your efforts to good use instead of just talking and not doing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nothing new. Same as it ever was. You get all "empowered" when the casting couch turns into a hashtag.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Why answer it? Are we to be reduced to arguing about a comedy of the absurd?
> 
> The problem I find with your argument is that it rests on absolutes and the goalposts are not fixed. Are we all in agreement that rape is wrong? Are we all in agreement that sexual abuse is wrong? Is sexual harassment wrong?
> 
> ...


:snip the grandiosity: The absurdity is the **** shaming of a woman in a gown that she clearly chosen to wear and is suitable for the venue. Actually, it's the **** shaming of every woman that you commented on in your ignorance filled thread on the other forum. 

It's pretty easy, don't say anything to, or about, a woman that you wouldn't want said to you by a man in prison. I stole that, but it just works. Don't touch a woman that you're not related to or intimate with, at all, without permission and you can't go wrong. It's not rocket science. 

One push of the button by "Mine's Bigger" Trump and it's the same thing. Correct?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I was referring to the subject of the post.
> 
> Wouldn't the denigration stem from a lack of moral code, instead of "because of their perceived moral code"? Not sure who they are.
> 
> Times are not changing. Men will always attack woman. Woman will always be a target for men. Men will always be more physically powerful than women.


You forgot one important detail.... "And women will continue to let those men chase them until the lady catches him." Which is what she wanted all along!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> So all the playboy, penthouse, and other porn star girls were forced into that career? Or maybe did they choose it? Because a few famous people sexually assaulted people does not reflect an entire culture. Go to a Muslim country and try to change the way the females get treated there, put your efforts to good use instead of just talking and not doing.


Nope. If they chose to do any type of porn or be a sex worker, I have no problem with it. Choice. Consent. Do you understand? 

We don't live in a Muslim country, why must you to divert attention to something else?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

You think none of the women who posed for Playboy, etc., passed the casting couch on the way??


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cabin Fever said:


> I coudn;t agree more. But I thought this thread was about women's attire and the influence it may or may not have on sexual abuse. What was the point of this thread?


I didn't think I had indicated otherwise. I believe I indicated that I feel those who are abusers, will abuse, regardless of attire and those who aren't abusive won't abuse in spite of attire.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Ok I know several Amish Women that wear long Dresses, Head Coverings, don't shave and Bare Foot. Very nice women and to some Men would be a turn on.

Ok just today I had a woman give me a hug and say Dang you clean up good! If a man was to see a woman and give her a hug and say Dang you look good! How would this be different?

I had a woman one time brag how she had consensual sex with a Guy, Then had him put in Prison for Rape. This same woman would dress seductive, cornered me in her Kitchen wanting to have sex. I turned her down because she was upset she made my life harder than any woman had.

Don't tell me women know who has the power and it is not with their minds. 

big rockpile


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Nothing new. Same as it ever was. You get all "empowered" when the casting couch turns into a hashtag.


Nope, the empowerment is watching sexual predators drop like flies, and run scared. The empowerment is watching men that considered themselves so powerful they could do anything be removed from their positions of power. 

Just an observation but the majority of the politicians "resigning" over the fear of or actual allegations of sexual abuse are of what party? It's a good thing all the way around, although I completely understand why you wouldn't think so.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

big rockpile said:


> Ok I know several Amish Women that wear long Dresses, Head Coverings, don't shave and Bare Foot. Very nice women and to some Men would be a turn on.
> 
> Ok just today I had a woman give me a hug and say Dang you clean up good! If a man was to see a woman and give her a hug and say Dang you look good! How would this be different?
> 
> big rockpile


The man would not feel threatened, or offended, or assaulted, or,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> I didn't think I had indicated otherwise. I believe I indicated that I feel those who are abusers, will abuse, regardless of attire and those who aren't abusive won't abuse in spite of attire.


That goes without saying....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, the empowerment is watching sexual predators drop like flies, and run scared. The empowerment is watching men that considered themselves so powerful they could do anything be removed from their positions of power.
> 
> Just an observation but the majority of the politicians "resigning" over the fear of or actual allegations of sexual abuse are of what party? It's a good thing all the way around, although *I completely understand why you wouldn't think so.*


Care to share? Because so far your record is perfect for not understanding.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Care to share? Because so far your record is perfect for not understanding.


Nope, just an observation. Nothing to add on my post?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nope, you know what I was going to say. Why bother?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I was referring to the subject of the post.
> 
> Wouldn't the denigration stem from a lack of moral code, instead of "because of their perceived moral code"? Not sure who they are.
> 
> Times are not changing. Men will always attack woman. Woman will always be a target for men. Men will always be more physically powerful than women.


As an aside, something your post reminded me of...A few years ago I was reading about an illustration a famous martial arts instructor used in a self defense class for women. After several classes, the instructor told the women the best self defense mechanism they had, was not to get in a bad situation in the first place.

He told the group of women to agree on who they thought had learned the techniques best and who could put up the best fight. He then introduced them to an average size male he had recruited for his demonstration. The guy was not trained in fighting. He put the guy in some light padding, enough so that it would simulate a guy who was enraged or high and put him between the woman and the door. At the command, she tried to get away and the guy tried to pin her to the floor, with instructions not to punch her. Her instructions were to do anything she could to get out of the room.

She never made the door.

Now, back to our weekly scheduled thread about sexual harassment....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Nope, you know what I was going to say. Why bother?


That's your choice, isn't it? Choice is a good thing...


----------

